|
|
|
Nukes rock, even at Elbow.
Putting the D in Debate |
05.15.08 - 3:21 am | #
|
|
We need a nuclear plant at Deif Lake, like ducks need tailing ponds.
Saskboy |
Homepage |
05.15.08 - 11:31 am | #
|
|
It's a fantastic idea...and lake dief is a perfect spot. Don't get me wrong, nuke is expensive as hell. But the demand next door in Alberta is so strong, electricity prices will only go up. I think a nuke could be profitable at dief, if anywhere.
tuco |
Homepage |
05.15.08 - 12:11 pm | #
|
|
If we are looking at a true cost-benefit analysis, why is the hydro option off the table??? Surely there are possibilities at the forks of the SK river and the Churchill...
The Jurist |
05.15.08 - 2:00 pm | #
|
|
Yeah... Doug... He's no longer at Sigma for a reason.
I'd have to say your qualms about the sample size are really uncessary. At a 95% confidence level with a interval of +/- 4%, 600 is the optimal level. Increasing the sample size with those rates would be irrelevant. I mean we're talking about informal survey here not an election.
Robert S. Porter |
Homepage |
05.15.08 - 4:13 pm | #
|
|
Hi Robert - good point about the nature of the survey.
John Murney |
Homepage |
05.15.08 - 5:50 pm | #
|
|
No way to hydro. There are too many good canoe routes through there that would get all screwed up. Go nuke!
tuco |
Homepage |
05.15.08 - 6:11 pm | #
|
|
Why is profit even in the discussion?
SaskPower has no experience at all in managing nuclear, so having them do it constitutes a risk to tax-payer monies.
Tt would be much wiser for the people of Saskatchewan to simply regulate and inspect.
Private enterprise has to be on the hook to build, manage and sell the power and I don't mean a subsidized p^3 either.
I have no problems with nuclear anywhere in Sask, I have problems with the idea that the gov't is the only potential supplier.
Cheers,
lance
lance |
Homepage |
05.15.08 - 7:26 pm | #
|
|
Ditto to what Lance said.
John Murney |
Homepage |
05.15.08 - 7:38 pm | #
|
|
This is an old debate on an age old issue. There was talk of an uranium refinery going up north of Saskatoon in the 70's, only to have it apparently quashed by the local Mennonite community.
Colin Thatcher, in his brief time in the Devine cabinet, was apparently dealing with a California consortium to build a nuclear power plant to export the surplus power to that state. Imagine what the revenues could have been if that had gotten off the ground.
Now we have come full circle again. Someday, I hope that the home province finally catches a ride on its ship when it comes in. Too many opportunities have been bypassed in Saskatchewan, a province where there is so much potential. The politician that captures the imagination of the people on this idea will gain cult status like Tommy Douglas (or Grant Devine if it falls thru the floor...lol)
I was talking to an energy executive the other day who will be speaking in Saskatoon shortly on this topic. He agrees that it's time we talked about this and capitalized on the potential that uranium and nuclear energy presents.
Steamer |
05.16.08 - 12:49 am | #
|
|
Fine to capitalize, not fine for our taxes to pay for private profits.
The Jurist |
05.16.08 - 4:48 pm | #
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan
|