Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
How much money is there left, with the Feds rescuing Newfoundland from Muskrat Falls and paying a big chunk of the transmission upgrades for the Atlantic provinces? The best scenario for nuclear (outside of China) is Korean project management and technology with UAE construction costs and that's still $25B for 5.3 GW. North American costs will probably be double that in cost and take 20+ years to finish.
And what are the concessions and targets that Alberta need to make to get funding? In the same articles:
So it seems predicated on a forced shrinking of the oil and gas industry. But the European experience shows that these green energy jobs won't last, as their solar manufacturing industries were annihilated by China, its wind industries following behind and rising energy costs makes it other industries increasingly uncompetitive.
Extracting concessions with as few strings attached as possible. Would Quebec take any money if it meant that some of its most ecologically devastating hydroelectric plants were forced to shutdown and their man-made reservoirs returned to their original condition? And that it would never be able to build a major hydroelectric project like the Great Whale River, even if Quebec doesn't need it at the moment it doesn't want to give that power over.
|
What concessions? The retraining package exists. The Carbon pricing exists. We are having to deal with the external costs of pollution anyways regardless of if the money is taken or not. How does not sitting at the table benefit Alberta at all. If you don’t like Nukes push Nat Gas with CCS and get money for that to decarbonize.