Sorry for posting to this rather old blog post. It seemed like the natural place to start a conversation on this important topic.

I think your questions are appropriate – cost and risks – although I’m not entirely convinced that there are two question; there may be only one, where costs and risks are two aspects of the “consequences” of our electricity generation choices.

Considering cost, it’s very hard to compare plants that are heavy on construction costs, like nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, with plants that are heavy on fuel costs, coal and gas. For new plant construction costs to be minimum, we would build gas turbine plants. But costs can reasonably be extended to expected future costs, and a charge for carbon dioxide emission cannot be very far away. So clearly a composite view of costs is essential. Under this view nuclear is not particularly expensive, even including reasonable provision for regulation, waste handling and decommissioning costs.

The question of subsidies is often raised. I see on the Internet much misunderstanding about the level of US subsidies, including allegations that US plants do not carrry insurance (false) or that the government carries all liability (false), or that the government carries regulatory costs (false). I am not as up-to-date on Canadian regulation, to my chagrin. There also seems to be a touch of double standard in the subsidies which are usually available to wind and solar, which are quietly ignored during discussions of any nuclear subsidies. If we are willing as a society to encourage the growth of low-carbon electricity then we should do so correctly.

Natural gas cogeneration is not a close competitor of nuclear in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. Not at all. Cogeneration, because of the need to remove heat in a way that is not optimum for the electricity generation process, can even be worse than the same fuel used more efficiently for electricity. The reference document I would recommend for greenhouse emissions in general arises from the EU ExternE study, http://www.externe.info/expolwp6.pdf and Table 6 gives the relative grennhouse scores for different technologies. CANDU does not figure but even nuclear power with enrichment (which of course CANDU does not need) is second only to hydro power for low greenhouse gases.

I’d be interested to know who the experts are that give such a wide-ranging view of the health risks of nuclear, and I hope that these are not the generic “there’s risk in everything” type statements. Certainly regulation is in place to address these issues. I would recall that a major sources of deaths in construction are falls; and many proposals I have seen talk about solar panels on roofs ignore this risk completely (although not many have the chutzpah to suggest such a scheme for Alberta anyway, given snow coverage)

I think we should move to prefer electricity, if possible, over other fuels, precisely because it is an energy mode that can be sourced from such a variety of generation options, and it amazingly flexible in the uses to which it can be put. So I disagree that we should be specifically reducing electricity use, although we shold definitely look to build more energy efficiency into the Albertan infrastructure, probably through the use of building codes and more government-aided retrofitting.

The major issue with a plan that any deep reliance on wind and solar is that they are not continuous on-demand sources. They are what I call “opportunistic” power – you get them sometimes but without regard to when the demand is present. A proportion of electricity supply, maybe 20-30%, from such soruces is tolerable, but more becomes a big drain on the electrical grid, and would require extensive rapid-response backup, which would typically be gas turbines, especially for wind, or where possible hydro. While I’d support more wind and solar, despite the higher costs of such facilities, the displacement of the coal baseload supply falls naturally to a continuous generator like nuclear power.

Looking forward to your thoughts on the matter

regards
Jon Wharf

I’m sure that you are aware that Norway was allowed (due to their thriving oil & gas industry) an exemption under Kyoto that set their limit at 1% above 1990 levels, while Canada negotiated a limit of 6% below 1990 levels. Furthermore, in 2007 Norway’s actual emissions were 11% higher than 1990. The only way that they will meet their obligations, (and the government’s own target of 10% below 1990 emissions) is to participate in CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) credits. In other words, they will buy their way into compliance without actually making any cuts to their own emissions. But I’m sure that you knew this already.

Irony or Just Ironic?

Dear Mr Swann

Perhaps you or some of your fellow bloggers (if that is the right term) can help me with something. What is the diiference between “that’s irony’ vs. “that’s ironic”.

While talking with my daughter today (who has been living in Quebec the past few years and loving it)…. I asked her what was in the news there . .

She told me the big scandal was all about a 25% drop in their pension funds value (about 40 billion or so lost… she wasn’t sure) when similar funds only lost an average of 18% (28 billion or so if 40 billion is correct). Because it was more than the average loss in similar funds the people were up in arms, wanting answers, accountability, “whose responsible”.

She asked about here at home and the only thing that came to mind was our billion dollar deficit in the news and that I had heard somewhere it really wasn’t a deficit just a shortfall or something like that I wasn’t sure. I never feel I get to hear the whole truth about anything in the news. At any rate no one was up in arms about anything here that I know of and maybe we are too rich and prosperous.

She then suggested it might rather be our “conservative culture” here in contrast to Quebec’s culture being more left wing and socialistic.

Upon further reflection some differences between Quebec and Alberta have come to mind and I don’t know if it is Irony? or Just Ironic.

1. We have no equivalent to QPP here….. We could never lose that kind of money in the first place because our “conservative” government has never saved that kind of cash in it’s life. I believe that the pension contributions from all government employees have been going into the general revenue pot and pension cheques coming out.

If this is true we must not believe in saving even our own government employees pension contribution money and investing it. Irony? or Just Ironic.
No one I know or work with seems to care about it so i guess its ok because we’re richer than Quebec? 40 billion? Irony or Just Ironic.

2. The Heritage Savings fund…… I’m not sure but I think that the difference between the 18% vs 25% loss in their pension fund’s value is greater than the total value of our Heritage fund. Irony? or Just Ironic. Or maybe embarrasing.

3. Resource revenues……I wonder where all of our money went over the years…. I’m sure there is a good explanation, however we have seem to have trouble managing our wealth with an eye to the future. Irony? or Just Ironic

Quebec’s scandal could never happen here, we have not been able to handle our wealth yet . Irony? or Just Ironic.,……..I should have paid more attention in English Class.

1. We have no equivalent to QPP here….. We could never lose that kind of money in the first place because our “conservative” government has never saved that kind of cash in it’s life. I believe that the pension contributions from all government employees have been going into the general revenue pot and pension cheques coming out.

If this is true we must not believe in saving even our own government employees pension contribution money and investing it. Irony? or Just Ironic.
No one I know or work with seems to care about it so i guess its ok because we’re richer than Quebec? 40 billion? Irony or Just Ironic.

2. The Heritage Savings fund…… I’m not sure but I think that the difference between the 18% vs 25% loss in their pension fund’s value is greater than the total value of our Heritage fund. Irony? or Just Ironic. Or maybe embarrasing.

3. Resource revenues……I wonder where all of our money went over the years…. I’m sure there is a good explanation, however when will we ever save for our future? Irony? or Just Ironic

There is a long road to travel before we could lose that much invested cash.

,……..I should have paid more attention in English Class.

Irony or Just Ironic?

Dear Mr Swann

Perhaps you or some of your fellow bloggers (if that is the right term) can help me with something. What is the diiference between “that’s irony’ vs. “that’s ironic”.

While talking with my daughter today (who has been living in Quebec the past few years and loving it)…. I asked her what was in the news there . .

She told me the big news was all about a 25% drop in their pension funds value (about 40 billion or so lost… she wasn’t sure) when similar funds only lost an average of 18% (28 billion or so if 40 billion is correct). Because it was more than the average loss in similar funds the people were up in arms, wanting answers, accountability, “whose responsible”.

She asked about here at home and the only thing that came to mind was our billion dollar deficit in the news and that I had heard somewhere it really wasn’t a deficit just a shortfall or something like that I wasn’t sure. I never feel I get to hear the whole truth about anything in the news. At any rate no one was up in arms about anything here that I know of and maybe we are too rich and prosperous.

She then suggested it might rather be our “conservative culture” here in contrast to Quebec’s culture being more left wing and socialistic.

Upon further reflection some differences between Quebec and Alberta have come to mind and I don’t know if it is Irony? or Just Ironic.

1. We have no equivalent to QPP here….. We could never lose that kind of money in the first place because our “conservative” government has never saved that kind of cash in it’s life. I believe that the pension contributions from all government employees have been going into the general revenue pot and pension cheques coming out.

If this is true we must not believe in saving even our own government employees pension contribution money and investing it. Irony? or Just Ironic.
No one I know or work with seems to care about it so i guess its ok because we’re richer than Quebec? 40 billion? Irony or Just Ironic.

2. The Heritage Savings fund…… I’m not sure but I think that the difference between the 18% vs 25% loss in their pension fund’s value is greater than the total value of our Heritage fund. Irony? or Just Ironic. Or maybe embarrasing.

3. Resource revenues……I wonder where all of our money went over the years…. I’m sure there is a good explanation, however when will we ever save for our future? Irony? or Just Ironic

As a fresh http://www.davidswann.ca user i only want to say hello to everyone else who uses this bbs

Personally, I don’t like the Stelmach Government or the last days of Ralph Klein. I do think Ralph did the right thing when eliminating the deficit, although maybe not with all of his specific cut backs.

My concerns lie with living in a sustainable world; have an education system that allows more people access to university and continued education. I am not in support of carbon taxes; nor do I believe in the so-called consensus by scientists on human influence on global warming. I think climate change is undeniable, but then this has been so since geological time. Geological history has taught me that we are in an interglacial period and that we are moving, although not in a straight line, to a possibly warmer climate. However, I feel that the general public is driven towards a near religious frenzy about human induced climate change and that when this hysteria ends, a serious negative reaction towards environmentalist movement will result; especially towards groups such as Green Peace.

I like to reduce our carbon footprint as part of an overall reduction of our environmental footprint which includes consumption of numerous natural resources and the associated pollution on a significant scale. My experience is that industry as a whole is interested in functioning more efficiently, after all, cost savings increases profitability so increased efficiency of the wise use of resources fits right in. On the other hand, if the economic and political environments promote an irresponsible attitude towards our resources then don’t be surprised that industry is on the side of profits.

For example, if you can insure your facilities against lost production, loss of life, etc. and if government agencies let corporations get away with such unsafe and environmental unkind behavior, then in the name of profit, industry will. In our province, enforcement of existing laws and regulations is a joke and insurance covers the costs of accidents. This nearly forces industry to act the way they sometimes do because if company A doesn’t, company B will.

We need better enforcement and better policies. The royalty review is a prime example of poor policy. It was supposed to increase our share from oil sands. It kind of did. But it also included forced renegotiations for Suncor and Syncrude regarding existing contracts. I guess, governments don’t need to adhere to contracts. Overall, however, industry did not protest the oil side of the royalty review. But out of nowhere, came the attack on the gas industry, which already was weakened by poor economics. A draconian new system punished the gas industry in producing the most environmental friendly fossil fuel of all and drove it to Saskatchewan, B.C. and Texas. No wonder that Alberta’s CO2 output is shooting up!

Your party’s stand, during the last election, on even more rigorous royalties, left people such as me, who are in the center or possibly small c-conservatives with no political home. That is why you lost the election. I was ready to vote for the Liberal party, being sick of the Conservatives. Then you take those far left turns, you slap us in the face and then you are surprised about having another lost election.

If the Liberal Party of Alberta wishes to win an election, you will have to offer a home for us homeless middle grounders. I used to bike to work too (until I semi-retired as a geologist). I use an energy efficient furnace and live in an old house. My wife is a LEED certified engineer. So make room for us in your party; stop the green shafting and follow a holistic environmental political course – no need to change your name, just be open towards the center and act accordingly. If you’re willing to do that, I’ll even show up at your meetings. Hope this helps.

As a middle-aged mother who 6 years ago had every cent I ever earned or saved taken by corrupt government officials involved in exploitation, but survived entirely on charity by working for charities, I think people who deem themselves as “overtaxed” are either very ignorant of Revenue Canada statistics, or plain greedy.

Add to Mr Tougas’ list, non-profit organizations and their staff. One woman in Red Deer, allowed the Liberals to place a sign on her home’s front lawn and made a donation to the party, but she would not support the candidate beyond that. Her picture and name appeared in the newspaper as a PC supporter.

Another fear category: small business owners. Liberal supporters who own small businesses are afraid to let important known PC supporters know of their affiliation for fear of losing business/clients/customers!

Do we call this a democracy? I feel like I live in Nazi Germany!

R.Curran

In searching through your web site, I found this letter, which I wish to comment on.

Trust is extremely important to me. I’m sorry to have to say, my faith and my trust in the outgoing leader was severely damaged in June. I won’t go into details here.

I had the pleasure of meeting you last evening (November 12) at the Liberal Candidate’s forum in Red Deer. After listening to yourself, Mo and Dave speak and share your positions, and then after having the opportunity to speak to all of you, I have made my decision as to who I’m voting for on December 12…You!

My reasons are as follows:
1. I like your spunk and your record, politically and professionally. I’m impressed that you were willing to stand up for what you believed in, and even when the job was re offered to you, you turned it down.
2. I like the humanitarian actions you’ve taken in the world.
3. I feel at a gut level that I can trust you. I believe you would be willing to take the risk of telling the Alberta voters the truth.
4. You’ve already taken the initiative to meet with Albertans to discover what is important to them.
5. You are a very genuine and caring person.
6. You are educated and experienced and have a view, a position that few other people in Alberta have, especially in the health arena.
7. You have the ability to succinctly put your thoughts into words without being verbose.

As for your letter, I was involved with my local Liberal candidate during the 2008 campaign and had the opportunity to do a lot of door knocking. My view of the mistrust of Albertans towards the Liberal party is that few of them even know what it means to be Liberal.

I believe the Liberal Party needs to spend some time publicly responding to the concerns of Alberta voters. Not just at their doors, not one on one as they confront us, but in a forum such as this blog.

I would really like to see you use your electdavidswann blog to that purpose. Pose a few profound questions to the Liberal members who have registered to vote in the upcoming leadership election. Questions such as:

* Is Alberta ready for democracy?
* What is democracy – what does it mean to you?
* What does it mean to be a Liberal? What does it mean to you? (This would be a very informative discussion in light of the questions about changing the party’s name.)

Then enable comments on that blog and respond to the comments people leave. That’s what blogs are for…two way communication! There is still almost a month (before the vote) where you could get some really interesting and convincing discussions going.

(Blogs are not just for you to tell your readers what you’re doing! This conversation needs to be more about what concerns your potential voters and is an opportunity for you to respond in a format that isn’t possible any other way!)

Post those questions in your newsletter and invite members to the blog to comment. I think you and the other Liberals will be very surprised at what could come of that simple action.

Finally, I wish you every success in the upcoming Leadership election. I will be very disappointed if you don’t win!

R. Curran