SaskPower expects need to increase energy rates so they can throw money at stuff that doesn’t work;
Research suggests Saskatchewan might be able to double the amount of wind power, he said. “If we did add that, we would go up to about eight per cent of our capacity or thereabouts from wind.”
Morons.
Click for full size
Is the head of SaskPower by any chance a relation to Maurice Strong ( yeah, that Oil-for-food in Iraaq guy at the UN) who headed up Ontario Hydro at one sorry point in our past?
Same mindset.
I bloody sinkhole we in Ontario are still trying to get out of debt.
Stay on them Kate.
Is that McMillan #1 in the foreground?
Kate, now you know ya can’t be using that oil stuff to generate power!!
I mean, it is a stable, reliable fuel that can be counted on in times of increased demand, like supper………..mmmm food……..
Anyway, we all know that it gets VERY windy every day at 1700 when most folks are flashing up the ol food creation machines.
When will we ever wake up and realize that nuclear power is efficient and SAFE. Sigh.
Erik, as soon as Joe and Jane-six-pack stops listening to the anti-nuke retards.
Check out Environment Canada’s website. I’d swear that the Liberals were the ones running the show there, not a Conservative government.
Grants, cash, more cash, grants on top of grants. These guys are just itching to shovel money out the door to anyone with the words “fleece them, I’m green” in their application.
If you ask me, if one mentioned Steve McIntyre, they’d say “Steve who?”.
ADSCAM dressed LARGE.
Pretty well summed up, Kate. Morons.
Ken (Kulak) – yeah, it’s so discouraging. Again, using my own quick stereotype, the left is ruled by emotions unadorned by facts, whereas the right is ruled by facts that can invoke emotion.
Here is a nice article about the benefits of nuclear power:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
So, a few crazy parades will deter any efforts at bringing in nuclear power, backed by the usual coterie of raging grannies, and people getting their kids to hold up parent-made signs.
In related news:
Manitoba Hydro is trying to keep secret a “70 page whistleblower report” that apparently points out they are too optimistic about many things, including interest rates, water flows, sales to the states, droughts, etc.. etc..
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/hydro-secrets-set-to-emerge-63231702.html
If Iran can develop nuclear power, what’s wrong with Saskatchewan developing wind power?
So, by my calculation, you’re already at 4% of your power coming from wind. Is that accurate? Sounds high.
This is just an opinion, but I think electricity should be produced by means, other than oil or natural gas. Coal is the most obvious, then nuclear, then a combination of wind and solar. Oil & gas should be rationed to more sensible uses, like transportation, heating, and petrochemical.
Erik, it’s worse than that when the government itself works, even if inadvertently, on behalf of the antinukes. The recent Perrins report is a perfect example.
The report claims that 84% of Saskatchewan is opposed to nuclear. How did it get that number, you ask? Well, it seems that all Perrins did was count presentations, irrespective of who or what they represented, and how many times they presented. In short, this was a process designed to show and to magnify the extent of the opposition. It was not designed to show the actual support or lack thereof in Saskatchewan, nor was it designed to illustrate the merit or lack thereof of those making complaints about nuclear power.
All the Perrins commission did was offer an open mike to the environmentalists.
http://www.usgs. gov/newsroom/ article.asp? ID=1911
I received this in a email yesterday. Take a look a the oil reserves in the US. This is mind blowing, it should shock everyone. Paying for the Saudi’s oil, WHY?
So after a few 100billion bucks get blown away,and only 1% generated wind power comes back(on a hurricane day),are they going to say that the figure is “thereabouts???
Don’t get too excited Mary, that’s about 6 months worth of oil for the US.
A drop in the bucket, when you use 20 million bpd
From the comments, apparently there’s an upside to global warming:
Wind and sunlight are only getting stronger with global warming…
MaryM, interesting article. I know nothing about oil and gas operations, but it says these reserves are “technically recoverable”. That is likely quite different than the Saudis who are fortunate with their reserves: ie they are like Jed Clampett; ya shoot at a varmint and git bubbling crude.
Again though, from any foreign country, the US gets most of its oil from Canada (12%), and one in twenty barrels burned every day in the US are from the AB>SK oilsands.
cgh – I have nothing to add to your post (again!)
Whatta bunch of idiots. When will common sense rule the brains of many on this earth?????
Google “WIND ENERGY THE CASE OF DENMARK” + “CEPOS”
Not quite the greenie-weenie panacea that Dr. Fruit Fly tells us it is.
Dp you have it pretty well nailed except that wind and solar are impracticable and dreadfully expensive.
It has to do with loading as well. Nuclear lacks flexibility but elegantly is great for base-load. Coal doesn’t respond much better and are more flexible but only by a degree. Gas turbines are flexible and like Hydro(water power) are very flexible to meet peak demand.
Wind and solar are too unreliable for base-load. And in Canada electrical energy peaks in the dark times and wind rarely is associated with extreme “brass monkey” temperatures.
The flux capacitator shows much more promise.
IF u dont like the wind concept…
GLAMIS glm.a(tsx)
Drilling in S.E. SASK as we speak.
Fred, I’ll save everyone the work. Here’s the Danish study:
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
And here’s the Spanish one:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
They’re both damning.
Sasquatch, all of your comments are bang-on, with just one small qualifier. You can do load following with CANDU reactors (not light water reactors) for short periods. It means diverting steam coming from the boilers directly into the condensers rather than going through the turbines first. It’s how Ontario was able to keep three reactors running on standby during the great August 2003 blackout. One other small technical note, you can’t blackstart a modern wind turbine. You have to have current coming into it for excitation. If the grid goes down in a system wide failure, they are useless to restart it.
“All the Perrins commission did was offer an open mike to the environmentalists.”
Exactly right! It’s amazing what a few well-organized Luddites with lots of time on their hands, shrilly presenting Chernobyl-like scenarios can accomplish.
Unfortunately, most ordinary, everyday citizens are too busy trying to keep their lives in order to pay attention to the facts.
Agree biffjr, but they are never (or rarely) presented or exposed to the facts
That other great greenie aesthetic impulse to get (other) people to reduce their electrical consumption has now been tested – and for all their fervour and obsequience, the ecochondriacs were able to reduce demand by all of … 1%.
“Weather foils Isles of Scilly energy experiment
A world-first experiment to try and reduce energy use for the day on the Isles of Scilly was foiled after a turn in the weather caused participants to use more electricity.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6269718/Weather-foils-Isles-of-Scilly-energy-experiment.html
Who would have thought that inclement weather causes people to do things like turn up the heat and turn on the lights? Who could have imagined?
You will find that all governments and businesses are using and will continue to throw around words like “eco, green, global warming/change carbon credits and environmental” because that is what the sheeple have been led to believe and that is what they want. It is just this centuries version of “lite”. You know, put 11 grams of fat in that burger instead of 12 grams and presto, a lite burger. Common sense is as common these days as a 100 watt incadescent light bulb in Europe these days.
nuclear power, better do some “googling” of tritium leaks.
I’m all for using good ol coal, rather have black lung disease in my children than three eyeballs, thanks anyway
Dalton McGuinty donesn’t care though long as he doesn’t have to purchase any chimney scrubbers with hard earned Ontario tax dollars?
400 billion for Nuke palnts, no problem who should I write the check too?
your children’s children that’s who Dalton
i should say your children’s children’s children.
three eyes is nothing new, blanks. I always suspected my mother had an extra eye in the back of her head 😉
If Sask operates like NS, it will depend on whether the Utility and Review board has drunk the AGW kool-aid.
the calgary LRT “supposedly” runs on wind power. they buy windfarm power at inflated rates. supposed to make them green. what they dont announce with much fanfare is buying the wrong kind of LRT cars and having to retrofit them all with great huge inverters added to the top of all the newer cars , tin boxes looking like something I wupped up in my garage with a set of tin snips and a hand drill. everything else all sleek and white and these things with wires all hanging out . whip that into your calculations broncodave .
Tritium leaks are really not an issue, blanks. (Is that a self-reference to the state of your mind?) There is simply very little of it produced, worldwide, and with a half-life of only 12.3 years, it will never build up to any extent in the natural environment. And tritium is a beta-emitter, and beta particles are stopped by a few inches of almost any solid. Unless ingested, tritium is essentially harmless.
Coal, on the other hand, can contain significant quantities of uranium and other heavy metals. These are released into the environment with the fly ash, although scrubbers should get most of it.
The good thing about nuclear power is that the due diligence has been done on the radiological hazards. Not so with coal, in too many cases.
“Unless ingested, tritium is essentially harmles” Well I wasn’t referring to it falling from the sky if that’s what u mean? tritium is leaking into aquifers and the great lakes.
“Coal, on the other hand,……”
That’s what scrubbers are for.
as far as cost they don’t include the cost of managing the nuclear waste when saying it’s “cheap as natural gas”
which in Ontario as I understand is going to cost around 200 billion dollars? ya, not 20 billion
no, that’s not right, I cant find the actual cost but i did find this;
‘And when it comes to generating nuclear waste, Ontario’s reactors take a back seat
to no one. Current estimates have some 38,000 tons of high level waste sitting either
in cooling pools at reactor buildings or on-site, above-ground concrete containers.
OPG projects this total to rise to 77,000 tons over the reactors’ lifetimes.’To put this in perspective, the entire United States currently has 47,000 tons of high
level nuclear waste, perhaps destined for centralized storage at the controversial
Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Yucca Mountain, coincidentally, is designed to
store 77,000 tons of high level waste
i’m all for nuclear boats, you probably haven’t seen some of the fish they catch around here.
their not right, funny colours, and large cysts where eyeballs are supposed to be,
fins in the wrong places,?
“i’m all for nuclear boats, you probably haven’t seen some of the fish they catch around here.
their not right, funny colours, and large cysts where eyeballs are supposed to be,
fins in the wrong places,?
Posted by: blanks at October 8, 2009 9:49 PM
Pics???Links??? Proof??? or just poof?