Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's not that there are not challenges in Alberta that have to be been solved. I've brought up winter green energy storage issues before, and that we'd need to build baseload to handle that. The issues is that everything is a war with her, she blatantly lies about what the feds propose, and she has zero interest finding solutions that don't fit her narrow world-view.


Is Steven Guilbeault also awful? Yes, he is. But let’s face it, these goals are just that. Goals, targets, etc. Why not see how far we can get, and take the federal money that will help? Why kill a booming modern industry? I'll tell you this much, O&G jobs are not coming back, and as someone in the industry(not sure how much longer, given the trajectory) I'd really love it if there was some help for me to transition my career, but the ideological premier will have none of that.

I know it’s your reflexive tendency to attempt to rub the rough edges off of every Liberal action and policy position regardless of merit, but what’s being communicated by Ottawa is LEGISLATION, not ‘goals, targets, etc.’

And if recent history is any indicator of future behaviour, the Trudeau governments action will be to consult the minimal amount possible, as a cynical public relations exercise, then start formulating penalties that they will unilaterally impose for non-compliance when the legislation is enacted. It’s patently obvious they made a decision, and know the delusional, but oh so righteous, path they’ll take.

[Fuzz]

https://nitter.net/pug_mahone81/stat...966884200448#m


Blake Shaffer lays out the issues with the GoC plan, and offers a couple options for how to proceed. One is Smith's current plan of lashing out like a toddler who had her milk taken away, and the other what I'd expect a government to actually do. You know, come to the table like adults.


https://nitter.net/BrettDolter/statu...785095475200#m


This is a good thread that gets into the details as well, from Sask's perspective.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://nitter.net/pug_mahone81/stat...966884200448#m


Blake Shaffer lays out the issues with the GoC plan, and offers a couple options for how to proceed. One is Smith's current plan of lashing out like a toddler who had her milk taken away, and the other what I'd expect a government to actually do. You know, come to the table like adults.


https://nitter.net/BrettDolter/statu...785095475200#m


This is a good thread that gets into the details as well, from Sask's perspective.

Riiiight, not once is history has Smith (or any other Alberta premier) been provoked by a Prime Minster, or Cabinet Member …


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

What is your point? Do you find the premier's reaction reasonable, or extreme? Would Alberta be better joining the conversation, or acting like a toddler?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

And if recent history is any indicator of future behaviour, the Trudeau governments action will be to consult the minimal amount possible, as a cynical public relations exercise, then start formulating penalties that they will unilaterally impose for non-compliance when the legislation is enacted. It’s patently obvious they made a decision, and know the delusional, but oh so righteous, path they’ll take.

Is the Alberta government mad that the feds are stealing their operating procedure?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Is the Alberta government mad that the feds are stealing their operating procedure?

I think Smith was pretty clear in the press conference she wanted reliable back up in place to these renewables when they are not renewing.

[calf]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

Where is Alberta getting hydro and tidal from?

You can see the various plants & what they're generating at any point in time here: http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet


This site is also pretty cool - you can look up historical generation, and if you click into the individual plans, they have a brief description of who owns it, the type of plant, etc.: https://www.dispatcho.app/assets/hydro


No tidal energy though.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What is your point? Do you find the premier's reaction reasonable, or extreme? Would Alberta be better joining the conversation, or acting like a toddler?

Are you implying that the Federal Government negotiate in good faith with Alberta on energy policy? Yes or No?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

Are you implying that the Federal Government negotiate in good faith with Alberta on energy policy? Yes or No?

Yes. Do you have evidence they wouldn't?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes. Do you have evidence they wouldn't?

Ok, I think this concludes any reasonable debate on the matter.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

It really begs the question then, why our Federal policy makers are so fussed about this tiny 6% of the problem. Which can’t even be measured in global terms. Before you reply, remember, this is the same Minister of the Environment/Industry/Finance, who thinks we can transition from fossil fuels to renewables with no role for nuclear.

Where is Alberta getting hydro and tidal from?

The federal government has never said there would be no role for nuclear. So that is just a flat out lie. They literally just spent a billion dollars on a SMR.

[edslunch]

I’d like to hear what Alberta CAN do by 2035. And 2040, 2045, 2050. Just saying 2050 sounds like kicking the can.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I’d like to hear what Alberta CAN do by 2035. And 2040, 2045, 2050. Just saying 2050 sounds like kicking the can.

In 2030 they will announce they can do it by 2070. When climate change is not real you do not have to do anything.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The federal government has never said there would be no role for nuclear. So that is just a flat out lie. They literally just spent a billion dollars on a SMR.

Pretty brave calling people liars. Check your comprehension. It is the position of the Minster of the Environment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bill Bumface]

The premier of BC has come out and said nuclear energy is a no-go in BC. People are getting far less tolerant of the downsides of large hydro projects.

Why isn't Alberta putting up a bunch of nuke plants in the swaths of barren wasteland we have and throwing some transmission lines across the border?

[Faust]

Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-...done-about-it/



MIT Study Lays Bare Why Nuclear Costs Keep Rising:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...ts-keep-rising



New-build nuclear must face down industry's costly past:

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintel...-past-72854285

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The premier of BC has come out and said nuclear energy is a no-go in BC. People are getting far less tolerant of the downsides of large hydro projects.

Why isn't Alberta putting up a bunch of nuke plants in the swaths of barren wasteland we have and throwing some transmission lines across the border?

From the Energy Transitions thread:

Some sobering reading on the future of SMR nuclear by a fairly knowledgeable person. She was Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and has had fellowships at places like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard

[B]The end of Oppenheimer’s nuclear energy dream: Modular reactors supported by ideology alone[b]

With large nuclear power plants struggling to compete in a deregulated marketplace against renewables and natural gas, small modular reactors (SMRs) offer the promise to save the nuclear energy option.

In the past few years, investors, national governments, and the media have paid significant attention to small modular nuclear reactors as the solution to traditional nuclear energy’s cost and long build times and renewable’s space and aesthetic drawbacks, but behind the hype there is very little concrete technology to justify it.

Recent construction experience in the US and Europe does not herald success for SMR new builds. The two French-design evolutionary power reactor (EPR) builds have been far over budget and schedule.

The EPR in Finland was originally supposed to cost €3 billion and open in 2009. It finally began producing electricity in 2023 at a cost of €11 billion.

There is a similar story in France, where the EPR at Flamanville was set to begin operation in 2012 at a cost of €3.5 billion. Instead, it is still under construction and costs have ballooned to €12.4 billion.

And Europe is the rule, not the exception. US – based Westinghouse’s AP-1000, a robust design with passive safety features has suffered similarly.

With all these potential drawbacks and delays, why would anyone invest in an SMR company? I put a similar question to Ray Rothrock, a venture capitalist, at a meeting of a committee of the National Academy of Engineering that was studying the potential of these new reactors (and of which I was a member).

If these reactors won’t be commercially available for a decade or more, how do investors make money?

His response? “Even before they sell [energy], they go public and that’s how early investors make money…it fits the model – the company hasn’t made money, but the investors have made money.” He goes on to say that going public opens the door to much more money that is needed

https://reneweconomy-com-au.cdn.ampp...ogy-alone/amp/




Basically, Alberta is a deregulated market so anyone is free to build one, but no one will because it's too expensive

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

The premier of BC has come out and said nuclear energy is a no-go in BC. People are getting far less tolerant of the downsides of large hydro projects.

Why isn't Alberta putting up a bunch of nuke plants in the swaths of barren wasteland we have and throwing some transmission lines across the border?

Generation type aside (nukes or whatever) the cost building those transmission lines is enormous. When possible it makes sense to build the generation source near the market it is intended to serve. Not that long ago Alberta was going to build a new coal fired plan at Wabamun, but Calgary was the primary market. The cost to build a new transmission line was in the billions IIRC so that got shut down pretty quick.

Sometimes we do not always shave a choice of where to build generation capacity but in the case of nuclear it probably makes sense to build it near the areas it is intended to serve. From a cost perspective.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

The federal government has never said there would be no role for nuclear. So that is just a flat out lie. They literally just spent a billion dollars on a SMR.

After taking an hour or so to reflect on this post, it struck me how normalized this behaviour has become, particularly in this thread. On any given day, anyone of a dozen or so of CP’s ‘Perennial Posters’ will show up, level an unprovoked ad hominem’, usually at Yoho, and think nothing of it. The mods never sanction anyone and the discourse continues corrode. Current state: a left-wing (cloaked in progressivism, in good measure) fire hose of invective. It’s a joke really. This place is very far removed from the CP of Cowperson and peak Troutman. But, carry on. Did you know that Andrew Scheer is personally pro-life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

After taking an hour or so to reflect on this post, it struck me how normalized this behaviour has become, particularly in this thread. On any given day, anyone of a dozen or so of CP’s ‘Perennial Posters’ will show up, level an unprovoked ad hominem’, usually at Yoho, and think nothing of it. The mods never sanction anyone and the discourse continues corrode. Current state: a left-wing (cloaked in progressivism, in good measure) fire hose of invective. It’s a joke really. This place is very far removed from the CP of Cowperson and peak Troutman. But, carry on. Did you know that Andrew Scheer is personally pro-life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, but you'll have to excuse my eye rolls. You post using purposefully inflammatory descriptions then feign damage to your dignity when you get the expected response on an internet message board.

I know it’s your reflexive tendency to attempt to rub the rough edges off of every Liberal action and policy position regardless of merit...