A nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan...

A nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan is an "amazing opportunity"

There are 22 comments on the www.canada.com story from Nov 28, 2008, titled A nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan is an "amazing opportunity". In it, www.canada.com reports that:

The construction of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan is an "amazing opportunity" to advance Saskatchewan's economic growth, said the CEO of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.canada.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Zainab

Saskatoon, Canada

#1 Jun 17, 2009
Like people,
why do some npeople want nuclear power plants here. like seriously whats wrong with the electricity we already have? huh? somebody answer me!

Since: Aug 07

London, UK

#2 Jun 19, 2009
What's wrong with your electricity, that more than 80% is generated from fossil fuels, mostly coal.
Asim Khan

Ottawa, Canada

#3 Jul 26, 2009
Hi Zainab can you tell me something about Regina.I m thinking to move in Regina from Brampton,ON
You can contact me
[email protected]
Thanks
BDV

Columbia, SC

#4 Jul 27, 2009
Ah, ha, ha, ha!

So that's why God put greed in the hearts of men!

As I said, wait until politruks realize that 1-2 billion US$ worth of lucre in each nuclear reactor!
n s p

Hull, UK

#5 Aug 10, 2009
wind power it,s free

raven
BDV

Columbia, SC

#6 Aug 14, 2009
Corvus,

No free lunches in this universe, my dear. Says so in the first and second principle of thermodynamics.

Since: Aug 07

London, UK

#7 Aug 17, 2009
Wind power is not free. Yes the wind blows freely, but you need to pay for the turbine, pay for the land the turbine is built on, pay for the infrastructure to take the electricity generated to where it is needed, whether grid or decentralized, pay for it to be operated and maintained and pay for it to be dismantled once its operating life is over.

Given wind's 20-35% availability you also need to pay for backup generation, most probably fossil-fuel power, and pay the cost of carbon from the emissions of that back-up fossil plant.
tjostemj

Underwood, MN

#8 Aug 17, 2009
Jonathan Cobb wrote:
Wind power is not free. Yes the wind blows freely, but you need to pay for the turbine, pay for the land the turbine is built on, pay for the infrastructure to take the electricity generated to where it is needed, whether grid or decentralized, pay for it to be operated and maintained and pay for it to be dismantled once its operating life is over.
Given wind's 20-35% availability you also need to pay for backup generation, most probably fossil-fuel power, and pay the cost of carbon from the emissions of that back-up fossil plant.
Excellent statement. Factor it all in and the cost/kw is greater than nuclear power.
Alien

Balgonie, Canada

#9 Aug 26, 2009
"Excellent statement. Factor it all in and the cost/kw is greater than nuclear power. "

Unless of course you factor into the nuclear power cost/kwh produced equation the cost of setting up a trust fund that will cover the cost of storing and babysitting the nuclear waste for a half life that is longer than all of mankind's written history.

Most countries don't do that though. Usually the way it works is that when the company that runs the reactor decides to (when the economics dictate), they pay out capital dividends to the shareholders, dissolve the company and leave the public the expense of decommissioning the site and dealing with the waste for the next many generations.
John

Babbitt, MN

#10 Aug 27, 2009
Alien wrote:
"Excellent statement. Factor it all in and the cost/kw is greater than nuclear power. "
Unless of course you factor into the nuclear power cost/kwh produced equation the cost of setting up a trust fund that will cover the cost of storing and babysitting the nuclear waste for a half life that is longer than all of mankind's written history.
Most countries don't do that though. Usually the way it works is that when the company that runs the reactor decides to (when the economics dictate), they pay out capital dividends to the shareholders, dissolve the company and leave the public the expense of decommissioning the site and dealing with the waste for the next many generations.
Only nuclear waste is stored and at the industries expense. The decommissioning of 19 power plants has been paid for by the industry. Who will pay for decommissioning wind turbines? One 1000 megawatt nuclear plant produces as much electricity as 2000 to 4000 wind turbines. New generation nuclear power plants are built to last 80 years. The total amount of material for an equivalent amount of energy is much greater for wind. Wind is very expensive energy. Nuclear waste is safely stored on site in casts. In the future new molten salt reactors will utilize the spent fuel for making electricity. We will not need to mine uranium or thorium for 100s of years as we consume the spent fuel asset.

I view nuclear fission power as the only affordable energy source to replace fossil fuels. We need to develop generation IV nuclear power. It can produce hydrogen at high efficiency. Hydrogen is needed for fertilizer and also for synfuels. Modern agriculture is needed to sustain our planets population. Only affordable and abundant power can sustain us. Wind and solar do not produce energy that is affordable. If we invest too much in renewables we will quickly loose our standard of living and we won't have the resources to build nuclear power.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#11 Aug 27, 2009
Alien wrote:
Unless of course you factor into the nuclear power cost/kwh produced equation the cost of setting up a trust fund that will cover the cost of storing and babysitting the nuclear waste for a half life that is longer than all of mankind's written history.
Most countries don't do that though. Usually the way it works is that when the company that runs the reactor decides to (when the economics dictate), they pay out capital dividends to the shareholders, dissolve the company and leave the public the expense of decommissioning the site and dealing with the waste for the next many generations.
Well, beats poverty and hunger.

Of course, that this problem is exaggerated by envirofascist types also helps (the future generations).
Jackson 7

Weyburn, Canada

#12 Sep 13, 2009
It is an amazing opportunity for some people. Nuclear would sure help to exploit our Saskatchewan oil sands. It just wouldn't look right with wind turbines and solar panels surrounding the leachate ponds of a tar sands operation. If you are not off the grid please get out of the way (consumer) and filler up on the way home as its likely gasoline is going to get crazy expensive.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#13 Sep 14, 2009
J7

Care to expound. What is this wouldn't look right business?

Since: Aug 07

London, UK

#14 Sep 14, 2009
We have a page dealing with tar sands. It is more that you can't get the process heat needed from wind turbines - and I'm guessing even some kind of massive solar collector wouldn't provide the reliable supplies of process heat necessary.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf116_processh...
Jackson 7

Weyburn, Canada

#15 Sep 14, 2009
BDV "Care to expound. What is this wouldn't look right business?"

Tongue firmly in cheek. I think I will dispense with the sly comments. They never seem to come off right in text.

Is it likely nuclear will actually get the okay in Saskatchewan? I would give nuclear a 1 in 50 chance with the current Provincial economics going strong. I would certainly increase the odds of development if the provincial economy took a serious nose dive. The wild card in my opinion is the tar sands development. If oil prices remain strong enough there would be increased pressure to develop nuclear in the north. Nuclear power for tar sands development is not a new idea and its growing in popularity as it solves one of the big hurdles for nuclear development....."not in my backyard". It would be counter intuitive in my opinion from a climate change point of view, as we would be developing nuclear, a so called clean technology, to allow for increased burning of fossil fuels. Some would argue that the tar sands will be developed and we should use nuclear to lessen the carbon footprint. Realistically where are we heading?
Jackson 7

Weyburn, Canada

#16 Sep 15, 2009
Early indications of the new report summarizing townhall meetings where nuclear in Saskatchewan was discussed are icy cold and worse than most expected. Not only did the people of Sask. stonewall the chance for nuclear power projects in the near future but they actually indicated the 30 year industry of mining uranium in Sask. is not wanted. Will this kill nuclear in Saskatchewan? Pro-nuclear has their work cut out for them. Who is responsible for educating the people of Saskatchewan on all matters nuclear? Will the government respect the direction provided by the people?
Alien

Balgonie, Canada

#17 Sep 16, 2009
Challenge to any of the pro-nuclear commenters - name one jurisdiction in North America that allows nuclear waste to be shipped to them for permanent storage.

Some of you claim that it can be "recycled" and used as fuel for a nuclear reactor, so I would guess that people must be bidding serious dollars to buy nuclear waste ? Therefore, name one company or country paying to acquire nuclear waste from a power plant.

PS to John - windmills can be recyled like any other used equipment - decommissioning a windturbine does not involve radioactivity - cleanup of the site and long term storage of the toxic byproducts just don't exist. Also John, name one nuclear power plant in Canada (this topic is about a plant proposed by Bruce Power in Saskatchewan, Canada) that didn't saddle the public with billions in long term liabilities at the end of its life-cycle (decommissioning) To be fair, I will give an example one that did stick the taxpayers - Ontario Hydro.
Alien

Balgonie, Canada

#18 Sep 16, 2009
"Well, beats poverty and hunger." (BDV)

What a ridiculous comment. I can not know you intent so can not properly judge whether you are actually simple or you meant to be misleading.

Saskatchewan is not facing poverty and hunger.

Are you suggesting that building the plant proposed by Bruce Power in Saskatchewn will cause poverty in Saskatchewn ? That the cost over-runs that ALWAYS happen with nukes would be enough to create poverty in what is currently the strongest economy in North America ?

Good reason not to build. Thanks for bringing that up.

Challenge for anyone pro-nuclear - name one (1) grid scale nuclear power plant that was built within the last 50 years and came in on time and on budget, anywhere in the world.

Ok - just name 1 that came in on budget (but not on time).

Ok - just name 1 that came in on time (even though over budget).

None ?

However, if a plant is built, while it will not create poverty, it will likely cost the taxpayers considerably
BDV

Decatur, GA

#19 Sep 17, 2009
Overruns or not, Romania, Bulgaria, and Lithuania are still proceeding with building new nuclear powerplants. Ukraine, site of the Chernobyl disaster still plans to double its nuclear energy production by 2030.

Nuclear Power. Still beats hunger and poverty.
Alien

Balgonie, Canada

#20 Sep 17, 2009
Nuclear power plants create poverty - they don't beat poverty.

So Romania, Bulgaria and Lithuania are proceeding to build nuclear power plants and they have hunger and poverty. Do you think this is a cause and effect relationship ?

You also realize that if any significant proportion of the world converted their energy use to nuclear power, uranium would run out very quickly right ?

And actually BDV, there are many nuclear plants that would pay to get rid of their radioactive waste - how much would you like to store in the house where you live - it would beat poverty and hunger right ?

Nuclear power - not directly related to hunger and poverty.

The cost of a nuclear power plant invested in productive capacity instead of nuclear power - beats poverty and hunger.

Anyone who has the billions it takes to build a nuclear power plant is facing imminent poverty.

Still hard to judge whether or not you are actually stupid or if you are dishonest and trying to obscure the truth by throwing out red herrings. So, BDV, you tell me - are you actually stupid or are you dishonest ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Nuclear Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Illinois Doesn't Value Exelon's Nuclear Power -... 21 hr warrengraham 2
News The hollow promise of renewable energy Sun Solarman 3
News The Latest: Land officials OK closing nuclear s... Jul 21 warrengraham 2
News Sheen in Lake Ontario identified as oil from nu... Jun 27 sounds safe eh 2
News Russia's nuclear nightmare flows down radioacti... Jun 27 RUSSIA in DECLINE 4
News Nuclear waste burial report (May '15) Jun 27 warrengraham 3
News Nuclear waste, anyone? Feds look to willing states Jun 26 warrengraham 1
More from around the web