The case for Westinghouse reactors, LNG, black mark and Timbits

Two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at Vogtle. Cameco photo

Saskatchewan is the battleground between the AtkinsRealis (SNC-Lavalin/former AECL) CANDU reactor and the Cameco/Brookfield-owned Westinghouse AP1000 reactor. I’d digging as deep as I can to provide context for Saskatchewan decision makers who will be making this decision. In recent weeks I had two podcasts on the CANDU. This is the first on the Westinghouse. What’s really significant here is the Westinghouse ownership is now fully Canadian companies, even though the design is American. And in November or so, Trump’s administration said they’d build 10 of them.

Pipeline Online Podcast Ep. 31: Dr. Grant Isaac, Pres. & COO of Cameco on SK buying Westinghouse reactors. There were technical difficulties which shortened our time, so we’re going to take another run at it in the near future.

Also:

This is a really good discussion on LNG:

Decouple Media: The Terrible, No Good week for LNG

Black mark on industry (I hate it when this happens):

Alberta landowners take stand over years of missed payments by delinquent oil company

It turns out Pipeline Online isn’t the only one to use a Timbit as a unit of monetary measure. Maybe they got the idea from Pipeline Online? Here’s the Canadian Press story:

What will the carbon price cost the oilsands? A Timbit per barrel, one analysis says

11 Replies to “The case for Westinghouse reactors, LNG, black mark and Timbits”

  1. You are doomed. MAY GOD HELP SASKATCHATOON and Alberta

    Ultrawoke FILTHY LIBERAL HR Marxists run these Nuke Plants.

    That CREEP Maurice Strong was a CEO of Ontario Hydro. He lives in China now if he isn’t dead.
    They have Rainbow Crosswalks, mosque rooms, and a new T SHirt day supporting something weekly. These are Toxic bullying organizations that spend millions telling you how much they aren’t a woke, toxic, bullying organizations full of sociopathic Marxists. you know…FILTHY LIBERALS

    In Ontario, Nuclear is so awesome We are still paying for the $40Billion of OPG debt on our FORDISTAN Electric bills.

    BURN YOUR OWN OIL AND COAL….or suffer the consequences

  2. Between a former SNC Lavalin and a Brookfield?
    Did I read that right?
    And Trump is in for 10?
    I guess Carney and Trump agree on some shit behind the scenes, eh?
    Oh, and this corporate/gov’t stuff smacks of fascist cosplay.
    Don’t bother to vote, and get over the Wexit pipedream.
    Have a nice day.

    1. Yes, that is correct – former SNC Lavalin or Brookfield. There’s also a French reactor in consideration, but that’s extremely unlikely.

  3. Google Saskatchewan coal reserves.
    Forget nuclear,Saskatchewan and Alberta combined do not have the population to make it economical.

    Better to burn coal for the next hundred years,than be the victims of current politics and engineering.
    Until we separate from Can Ahh Duh,nuclear is not feasible.
    Any construction under the current system will be certain of bad design,massive cost overruns and federal extortion.
    Bankrupting the province and crippling their independence..

    So its a trap.
    And the ROI is?
    How does Saskatchewan’s current government make a business case,for such an investment?
    Where is the benefit for our friends ,the Trees?
    Coal releases plantfood,long trapped in the ground.
    Save the trees!

    Nuclear benefits??
    Who stands to benefit here?

  4. As for the “Just a Tim Bit per barrel” ..
    Theft is theft.
    Every government program starts low,surrounded with lying promises that it ,the levy,will never grow and then grows for ever.
    The same lies were used to justify gasoline taxes,which now almost double our transport costs.

  5. Using Uranium as the fissionable material, is OLD technology.
    FACT: The fuel rods have to be replaced once 5% of the U235 is ‘burnt’. Yeah, 95% of the fission material, is wasted, with the rest of the fuel rod and the poisonous, long lasting radioactive daughter products. Of course, weapons grade material can then be extracted from this, including Pu239 and reprocessing more U235 through breeder reactors.
    Plutonium cores in weapons just happen to degrade, ‘naturally’. They crack, powderize and alpha decay slowly, affecting their fissionable capabilities, they have to be replaced often, hence the need for these wasteful and relatively dangerous fission reactors. If they are non-pressurized reactors, the danger of a steam explosion is reduced significantly.
    That said, reactors need to take a modern step forward, to utilizing Thorium232. It’s 4 times more abundant than Uranium. It’s cheaper to obtain. In its SALT type reactor, the Thorium fuel burns 100%, as, there is very little waste as well. Less waste means far less, dangerous, long term radioactive waste. And it’s non-pressurized, no water is used as the medium, instead, liquid salts, typically sodium. Relatively much safer than water.
    And, no weapons grade fission materials are in the waste.
    Wonder why they still use inefficient Uranium?
    Weapons. Damn shame.
    Thorium reactors should be our solution to our base load electrical needs for eons, starting asap.

Navigation