Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Alberta upstart pitches nuclear power

DAVID EBNER

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 5:30 PM EST 29/08/07

Unnamed firm would take 70% of power ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Righto. Liquor store owner, turned car dealership owner, now opening a nuclear power plant near you. If Alberta builds a nuclear plant it should be open to all technologies, not just Candu reactors and its management shouldn't be single sourced to someone whose previous management experience is in the retail sector!
  2. Kevin's Clone from Canada writes: Right on, get on with it. About time there is action towards this type of power. Bill G I agree with you keep things above board. Best technology and management for the money.
  3. Hound Dog from The Big Smoke, Canada writes: The mystery buyer is probably Sure Northern Energy, a sub of Shell.
    They have been looking into a solution for their oil sands operations for the past year or so.
  4. ALASTAIR JAMES BERRY from Nanaimo BC Canada, Canada writes:

    If it's "SAFE" but needs lots of water how about locating it in the N.Saskachewan valley just west of, and below the Alberta Legislature?

    You can bet they won't locate it there!!

    Just try suggesting to the M.P.s in Ottawa that Brittania bay, a few miles W. of Parliament Hill would be an ideal site for a clean safe technologically advanced atomic power plant and watch the response!

    Better burn Alberta's coal! Energy from coal is far cheaper AND SAFER than any other source of economic power at present!
  5. Terry M from Houston, United States writes:

    Nuclear is not needed in Alberta; the province is blessed with massive conventional and alternative energy sources. The two best alternative sources are geothermal and gasification. These technologies combined with sequestration are enough to power the province for hundreds of years, and they are environmentally friendly as well.

    There is just no need for nuclear.

    .
  6. foo bar from Cowtown, Canada writes: Oilsands extraction requires large amounts of natural gas. There is some speculation that there isn't enough natural gas available in Alberta to extract all the oil. Nuclear energy will supplant the usage of natural gas.

    There is enough uranium in known reserves to provide power to the world for centuries. We jibber jabber about "alternative" sources of energy. Well, here's one. It might even be better than the unicorn powder that other people suggest.
  7. Upper Canadian born and raised in Western Canada from St Albert, Canada writes: Here's a no brainer - slow down the oil sands extraction!

    Well, I guess this means that this tradesperson will be leaving the province because although I'm sure it will be protested, it will never be put to a vote or a pleb.... and corporations will do as corporations wish.

    Even though the Dominion Land Act of 1930, which transferred power from the Federal to the Provincial Goverment of Alberta, decrees that water usage is to benefit ALL CANADIANS. Me thinks someone could get into a bit of poo poo over this, because both the oil sands water extraction and now the addition of extraction of water for a nuclear plant = possibly not good for other provinces or some of the people of Alberta.

    Just sayin'.
  8. Neal Zavitz from Edmonton, Canada writes: Nuclear is safe boneheads.

    And I am glad they are supporting a Canadian engineering firm. There is no need to send our resources elsewhere.

    Waste storage is the only issue and I am sure they will just start launching it into space.

    I just don't see how this will help considering it will be completed in 2017. If there is a serious power crunch, the system will fail before this is built. And don't try to tell me solar wind will do us over until then.

    Terry, Geothermal is not a solution to the issue. The current installed capacity in the entire USA is 2800MW. This one nuclear plant would just about cover that. Also, you need fairly high temperatures for it to be effective. Even if you use a binary cycle geothermal plant, it would be located somewhere in the rockies on a hot spring requiring some long transmission cables. Even using HVDC transmission the losses would still be significant. That is ignoring the cost of building and operating such a transmission line. I just don't see it happening. Besides, Saskatchewan has so much nuclear fuel in such a handy location...
  9. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Neal Zavitz, good post.

    I agree, no need to look outside Canada for a reactor. There are times when buying inside of ones country makes sense. This is one of those times. Peace River seems a bit out of the way though. Is there an oil sands project slated for the western part of the province?

    My preference would be away from the rockies. Between Ft Mac and the SK border (near 'the river') would be my recommendation.
  10. A Big Black Dog With Two Tails from Edmonton ex St. John's, Canada writes: Alberta Energy can stand in for the dearly departed, deeply indebted Ontario Hydro as AECL's only key client and #1 sucker. The unit(s) will only cost twice as much as promised, will perform in the top decile for the first ten years but not make it into their teens before some hugely expensive midlife crisis. The owners can confab every year with the Romanians and the Argentines. And AECL will collect huge management contractor fees and be totally blameless thoughout, a real Canadion champion.
  11. Dave M from Edmonton, Canada writes: Why not build a couple of them and do away with the Bloody Tar Sands. The most enviro destroying fuel source on this planet.
  12. A Big Black Dog With Two Tails from Edmonton ex St. John's, Canada writes: Taday's other AECL item on the Bruce A restart pretty much spells out the CANDU story. A success it is not!
  13. A Big Black Dog With Two Tails from Edmonton ex St. John'sE, Canada writes: Connect this dot to the other story round these parts yesterday about a second new 500kV line south from Edmonton and it becomes pretty obvious that a lot of the energy from these units would be flowing south past the 49th.
  14. M Poland from Canada writes: Well, Black Dog, what is wrong with American cash? Anyhow, there are obvious safeguards that have to be in place for any nuclear activity to happen. [reading this, Bill G.?, or maybe even thinking about it?] It doesn't matter what Mr. Henuset has for a background, it clearly takes a lot of expertise to build and run a nuclear power plant--luckily people with that knowledge can be hired. After all, who wouldn't want to move to God's Country [tm] if they don't already live here?
  15. A Big Black Dog With Two Tails from Edmonton ex St. John'sE, Canada writes: American cash is great, but marry the miniscule probability of a serious accident with the catastrophic effect of such an accident, and the resultant risk commands a VERY LARGE amount of American cash. And we'd be able to gasify a VERY LARGE amount of coal for the $15B that AE's plant in The Peace will eventually cost.
  16. T Brown from Toronto, Canada writes: This proposed nuclear power initiative is positive in many many ways and it has to be viewed in that manner as opposed to simply being against it. There is little doubt this facility may/will be somewhat dangerous but this is no different than anything else as long as it is managed properly and one should rest assured it will be.
  17. Richard Hawrelak from Canada writes: $6.2 billion, 10 year construction period for 2,200 Megawatts? Now what stupid bank is going to put up the cash for this dandy? I want to know now so I can sell my shares? Never mind a bad mortgage scenario.

    As Bill G from Calgary states: "Righto. Liquor store owner, turned car dealership owner, now opening a nuclear power plant near you." I'd invest in his liquor stores in Alberta before I'd touch this baby.
  18. A Big Black Dog With Two Tails from Edmonton ex St. John'sE, Canada writes: This won't be financed by a bank. The Government of Canada will backstop this per the usual arrangement when AECL makes a sale.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top