Quote:
Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek
Canada has the capability to be an energy superpower in Nuclear and renewables we don’t need oil and coal to fuel our energy. BC, Quebec, and Manitoba are almost entirely on a renewable energy grid. Alberta and Saskatchewan are the sunniest places in Canada so there’s huge solar potential there as well.
Saskatchewan by themselves can be an energy superpower on par with any nation in the world because of all the different types of energy that can be produced in the province.
|
People are too scared of nuclear because of Chernobyl and Fukushima. The public does not understand how safe Canadian nuclear plants are. They would be a good stop gap between carbon emitting plants and renewables.
Part of the bigger problem is there are no massive employment in those sectors when compared to gas and oil.Yes, there are jobs, but the low skilled jobs that the oil sector is known for (the ones you do not need a trade certification or a degree) does not exist in nuclear.
Another issue is that those jobs that would exist in Nuclear likely wouldn't be in Fort Mack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
I am cool with approving oil projects. At this point, they should be forced to post bonds for cleanup and wind down costs up front, so that the taxpayer doesn't get stuck with the bill when the energy transition inevitably turns most of them into stranded assets.
A 10-15 year project has a substantial amount of risk. Especially given how fast technology is progressing and how fast the cleantech industries are ramping. Taxpayers should not be forced to carry that risk in anyway, while shareholders suck up fat profits from temporarily high oil prices.
|
If they did that, there is a good chance nothing would get done. Corporate accountability is not a normal thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext
Guess we shouldn't have sold off PetroCanada after all.
|
How would it have changed today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK
This is bang on. Alberta is on track to have retired the last coal units by the end of 2023, only to be replaced with modestly better gas generators. It won't be long before the climate folks put pressure on them to move to non-emitting generation, likely long before the end of their economic life. That makes for a very different investment decision and will certainly lead to higher prices for consumers and industry in the near and medium term.
Sadly, coal use in the US has gone up 16% in the past year. As gas supply in Europe tightens due to the conflict in Ukraine, I would expect the coal use in Europe to increase year over year.
From a pure climate perspective, Energy East was the pipeline we needed with an LNG terminal in the Maritimes to get gas to Europe. That was a huge missed opportunity, especially when one considers the current state of the energy crisis in Europe.
The silver lining in all of this was the last time the world had such a severe energy shock in the 1970s, that was the impetus to get the current fleet of nukes built.
The answer to the climate question is not renewables. We need safe, reliable, cost-effective, non-emitting base load generation. That starts and ends with nuclear.
|
Were those missed opportunities, or were they smart decisions for the future of energy?