Perhaps Danielle Smith forgot she where she was when she told the attendees at the Pembina Climate Summit that clean electricity by 2035 was impossible and anyone who thought otherwise was a fantasist.
The Summit attendees paid $400 to $600 for the one-day event which brings together “thought leaders from industry, government, civil society groups, Indigenous Governments and rural communities to hear success stories, identify opportunities and challenges, and explore solutions related to Alberta’s clean energy future.”
They came to explore solutions, not to be told by the premier they were out to lunch.
It’s impossible
Smith sounded even sillier when she explained why it was impossible.
My gosh, she’d have to build four hydro-electric dams the size of Churchill Falls or the equivalent amount of nuclear energy in 12 years. That was impossible, she turned to the audience, wouldn’t you agree?
Not surprisingly, they didn’t agree. Instead they reminded her about solar and wind power, you know, that stuff she’s put a moratorium on for seven months.
Hah, she said (or words to that effect), what do you know that my industry experts don’t know?
By this point she’d locked on to Derek Power, CEO of PowerNetworks, a company in the renewable energy sector.
Power said he had 17 years of experience in solar rooftop installation.
Double hah! she said (or words to that effect). What if there’s no sun or wind?
Batteries, Derek Power replied.
Triple hah!! she said (or words to that effect) and launched into a speech about the high cost of industrial-scale batteries, ending her spiel by saying she refused to indulge “fantasy thinking”.
Apparently, Smith would rather wait for expensive and yet to be proven technologies like Direct Air Capture (it can be used to make vodka!) that Pathways Alliance will start to explore in 2041.
Later, Derek Power said Smith was disrespectful of the energy experts in the room and dismissive of existing renewable and energy storage technologies while promoting “novel technologies.”
He’s right.
And that’s not all she’s dismissive about.
12 years
Smith said 2035 was impossible because she refused to consider anything other than Big Oil’s expensive and novel technologies which won’t be ready to roll in 12 years.
So let’s talk about that.
Dave Kelly, the host of the Summit reminded Smith that saying something was “impossible” ran counter to the story Albertans tell themselves: that they’re “can-do” people, nothing is impossible.
He talked about Peter Lougheed’s decision to develop the oilsands in 12 years in the face of ferocious opposition from the conventional oil sector. It took more than 12 years, but Lougheed’s faith in Albertans’ “can-do” spirit resulted in the innovations we see in the sector today.
Kelly said we’re on the cusp of something remarkable, he asked Smith why she couldn’t harness Albertan’s “can-do” spirit and show Canada and the world what we can do to reduce emissions today.
Smith reply was tragic. Nope, she said, it’s 2050, period.
The only path to reducing emissions that she’ll consider is Big Oil’s Pathways Alliance path. One that relies on yet-to-be developed, novel and expensive technology that won’t be ready in time. She won’t even try to reach the 2035 target. It’s simply impossible.
Bottom line
Of course we can see what’s she’s doing.
By digging in her heels (and slapping a moratorium on solar and wind projects) Smith is giving Big Oil a free pass.
This is disrespectful and dismissive of not just the experts and academics who attended the Climate Summit.
It’s a kick in the teeth to all Albertans who would be willing to apply their drive and expertise (that famous “can-do” spirit) to making meaningful emissions reductions a reality.
Susan on the Soapbox 
Accusation is projection with her. Or, perhaps she’s just so accustomed to hearing “fantasy thinking” with regard to the pension that she’s come to like the phrase.
Jim, it’s funny how these RWNJs do this. Trump and his supporters are the same way. They accuse the rest of the electorate of the very thing they’re doing.
Right on post Susan!
Danielle and the UCP are on track for delivering what their donor class have paid for – its the same paybook and strategy Klein took regarding the provincial non-response to the Kyoto Protocols (remember them?, so cute!) – Dither, delay, twist in the wind, dig the heels in, defer.
C’mon folks, can’t expect anything else from these O&G tar-collared running UCP dogs.
I loved the picture of her finger wave hold-yer-horses-boys oil-shill ‘splainin’ to the Conference attendees. Thats a keeper for the on-coming future meme wars.
Can we get She/theUPC’s/Kanada’s Tea Party, a more Appropriate Job somewhere Cleaning Toilets?
Lee Neville: “donor class” what a perfect description. So you’ve got to ask yourself how will this ultimately play out? Is there any room left for moderate conservatives with the donor class and the TBA pushing their agendas? Will the moderate conservatives finally stand up and say “enough” or will we be left fighting for a sane Alberta while we wait for the rest of the population to wake up to what’s being done to them.
Susan – I think it will turn out much the same its going at present – “moderate” conservatives (aka old time Peter Lougheed type PCs) will continue to hold their noses at the ballot box and keep throwing their votes at the UCP as they are, at least for the time being, doing the bare minimum expected of a centrist Canadian conservative party.
I think those folks will reconsider only when the TBA wing becomes ascendant and begins to flex via social conservative initiatives like restricting access to abortions, charter school expansions, introducing evangelical christian fundamentalism into previous state areas etc.
Meanwhile, the folks who’ve left the PC/UCP tent are never coming back to Grandaddy Preston’s Socred-UCPs and will join the fight. All things are temporary, and this current UCP administration is not exempt from a time limit. I believe Albertans will be good sick ‘n tired of the UCP poopy pants by the time the next Provincial election rolls around.
One more thing – I’m increasingly disinterested in helping the UCP/PCs or whatever moniker they want to hang onto themselves to perfect/improve/ameliorate etc their ideological/political imperatives for the Alberta people.
Its a political creed of self-interest, indifference to community, elevation of selfishness and Big “C” cruelty.
No amount of whitewash, spackle, denial or whataboutism is going to make this god-awful Conservative pig look any better – now or in the future.
So lets focus on we are going to do and leave the Cons to their sad corner in the dustbin of history. I remember when it was just Grant Notley in the Legislature – now his party is within 5 seats of majority.
The arc of history is long and it is inevitable. I’m concentrating on that happy eventuality.
Of course Smith would dismiss and disrespect the experts, she does her own research you know and we all know someone like that. She has done her own research on smoking(apparently it is good for you), on Covid(horse de-wormer is the cure), and cancer(children are responsible for their childhood cancers). Why would we expect anything different from Smith with regards to clean electricity?
The rub is we ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait until Take Back Alberta completes it coup next week.
Jaundice Eye: you’re absolutely right. Usually I heck out the UCP convention policy resolutions before hand but I decided to sit back and wait to see what they’re going to actually pass this time. There’s only so much baloney one can put up with in one week.
Excellent review, What is really “impossible” to keep is the outdated decision making model of this premier!
Karen: well said!
Smith has proven even more ignorant than usual. The comments on her argument with Derek Power (CTV’s coverage, I think) included this link to a report on Alberta’s very first utility-scale (that means “big”) storage-battery facility.
It began operation in November 2022, and the owners won an award for their work with Alberta regulators on the engineering, technical, legal and regulatory aspects of the project. They had to invent the regulatory hoops, with AESO etc. before they could even jump through them.
https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/features/2022-cceawards-showcase-albertas-first-grid-scale-battery-energy-storage-system/
So, as usual, Danielle Smith proves she’s invincibly ignorant and cannot imagine a way forward.
Mike J Danysh: thanks for the links and the updates to these links. I’d meant to include a link to the CBC story on Derek Power. He sounds like quite a character and I’m really glad he challenged Smith at the conference. He said Smith was “too dismissive of renewable and energy-storage technologies that he has worked with for over a decade, while talking up other, more novel technologies such as small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and direct-air carbon capture.”
I loved this quote: “Talk about fantasy,” Power said. “Like, take your D&D dice out and start rolling, baby. You know what I mean?”
Here’s the link:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/pembina-alberta-climate-summit-danielle-smith-fantasy-thinking-derek-power-1.7011040?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar
Yeah, I think I like Derek Power. You might say he’s a bit too confident (he doesn’t work on utility-size storage, just home systems) but he’s got real-world experience and a real, live company of his own. That puts him about five steps above Smith on the credibility ladder.
Even better, there were guys at that meeting who DO have real-world experience with big storage batteries—and they called out Smith’s mistakes too.
Smith is way too trusting of early hype for “New & Improved Technology (patent pending).” Maybe, repeat, emphasis, MAYBE direct-air capture will become economical. Eventually. Somehow. Maybe, emphasis, MAYBE small nuclear reactors will fit a niche in the energy-generating market. But where is the working facility that passes the test of actually generating electricity? That’s the technology problem; has it been proven? The economic problem is “economies of scale.” Nuclear power plants, like coal-fired power plants, are huge because its’ cheaper per megawatt. 1000 MW is a typical size for a nuclear plant. Small reactors, say the nuclear-power experts (try the Tyee for links to SMR analyses) are too small to be economical—and the waste fuel is even harder to dispose of than bigger, conventional reactors.
(SMRs have a marketing problem, too. The rich guys like Bill Gates talk up the exciting new tech—to smooth-talk governments into paying the development costs. Let Bill Gates foot the bill. He can make his billions back selling turn-key systems to all and sundry.)
And this is why Smith’s cupidity (and stupidity) is such a problem. She gets all starry-eyed over “big and shiny.” But show her something that’s already working, and—meh.
Like it or hate it, Alberta has to face reality some day. The world is finally trying to burn less fossil fuel. Smith and her cronies/ handlers/ masters can delay the transition here in Oilberduh. They cannot hold back the rest of the world.
Speaking of fantasy, what about CCUS on the kind of mega-industrial scale needed to measurably reduce our carbon emissions? In the computer software business, they have a term for a software package or application that has been announced — often to great fanfare — but is so far from being ready for the market there’s no projected release date: it’s called “vapourware”. Well, no pun intended, but carbon capture, utilization & sequestration is the ultimate in vapourware.
On nuclear power, does anyone here recall the time Bruce Power out of Ontario floated the idea of a nuclear power plant on the banks of the Peace River — aka the “Mighty Peace” — in northwestern Alberta? The outcry from area residents — all of them loyal conservative voters —was deafening.
jerrymacgp: thanks for the comment on CCUS and the links (they got caught in my spam filter so it took me a while to gt them up here). The point you raise about large scale CCUS is bang on. Even the much ballyhooed Pathways Alliance says that according to the IEA (a source Smith says is not credible) CCS “could” reduce CO2 emissions by one-sixth by 2050. That’s too little too late.
Here’s the link: https://pathwaysalliance.ca/foundational-project/carbon-capture-and-storage-ccs/
PS they’re not even going to start looking into SMR until 2040
Receipts:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-nuclear-power-project-discussed-at-peace-river-meetings-1.722004
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bruce-power-dropping-alberta-nuclear-plant-proposal-1.1046668
PS: who invited Smith, anyway?
Mike J Danysh: I’ve got to hand it to Dave Kelly, he did an excellent job of allowing her to tell us in her own words exactly how wrong headed she is. I thought his invocation of Peter Lougheed’s “12 years” was brilliant.
Albertans like being kicked in the teeth Susan………..we’ve got used to it over the decades of Big Oil. But for those of us tired of the lies and evasions, the tax dollars wasted on boondoggles that don’t produce (there’s been a few of them), and the massive subsidies being given now to an extinction technolgy……..there’s lots we can do.
Put solar on your rooftop.
Don’t have a rooftop? Put solar on the roof of any relatives lucky enough to have a house. We have solar…provided by the Dave Kelly who attempted to interrupt Smith’s ideologically driven rant. We know nothing of those higher electricity rates Alberta’s private providers are dishing out to Albertans…..and we charge our EV on our own micro generation.
Let’s stop being kicked to the curb by stupid people…..and step up and be the people Dave Kelly thinks we are. If everyone does something in the next few years……to capture the sun and the wind……..what Smith thinks….or thinks she thinks…won’t matter.
Let’s banish fear and laziness and join the rising chorus: HERE COMES THE SUN.
Ingamarie: this is such an uplifting comment! Great advice. Thank you!
The lies we’ve been told about solar….and EVs… in this province could fill a book Susan. The truth is quite something else.
Most Albertans don’t even know about the solar rebates the Notley government had during their years in office…in part because our party likely didn’t want to ruffle the oil soaked feathers of Big Oil. But we got an additional 5.11 kilowatts then for less than half what we paid for our first 4.2 in 2009…and now every year we make over 2000 a year for our summer production…….even with charging our Kona..
We aren’t paying those high electricity charges privatization brought most Albertans…we don’t buy gas, so save around 3000 a year there, according to our co-op records from the last year we drove a hybrid Highlander.
So every year, we save at least 5000….and the warranty on our electric battery is 10 years……without having to buy any extra warranty.
RENEWABLES SAVE MONEY….and not only can you laugh all the way to the bank, you can thumb your nose at all those bogus reasons why a clean grid is impossible and EV’s don’t work. Hard to imagine folks in the computer age being as easily gulled as some of us are in Alberta.
It truly can Suck to Be Us.
“What Smith, Nassar, and the rest of the oil and gas industry are smoking is desperation. Their industry is facing an existential crisis from the energy transition and a misinformation-laced PR campaign is part of their response to maintain the energy status quo as long as possible.
Let’s call that campaign what it really is: lies. And its propagators what they really are: liars.
Alberta needs to wake up to reality and the place to start is for the Premier to stop lying about the IEA and its oil and gas forecasts.”
https://energi.media/markham-on-energy/dear-premier-smith-stop-lying-about-the-iea/
https://nitter.net/politicalham/status/1718684872372621696#m
Valerie, thanks for the link. Hislop calls it like it is: Smith lied about the IEA being “ideological.” As usual, Smith was projecting her own motives and tactics on others. (Funny, how some people assume others use the tactics they’d like to use, if they could get away with it.)
Hislop says, “Smith is a little bit right [about IEA projections], but mostly wrong.” Smith is wrong in assuming the IEA was too optimistic in its projections. Restated: the IEA was not optimistic about renewable-energy growth, it’s been consistently pessimistic. Despite lukewarm or absent government support (e.g. in Alberta) for wind and solar—especially utility-size installations that generate megawatts—renewable generation and EV popularity have consistently exceeded IEA projections. Read that again; renewables and EVs have consistently exceeded IEA estimates worldwide.
Smith said people “gotta live in the real world, not on computer models.” But Smith isn’t living in the real world. She’s living in the past, when oil was king and Alberta was richest of the rich. Now she’s desperately hoping the past will save her from the future.
Smith is wrong. But she’s gonna wreck this province trying to make it true.
Well if we let her Mike it’s our own fault and it will continue to ‘suck to be us’. I’ve been saying that for awhile now:
We’re the people so darn advantaged, we’re getting ready to cut the noses off our children………to spare the small change that’s still in our pockets.
Dum, dummer and dumbest. But we heart oil and gas do we not?
Valerie: thanks for these links. Markham Hislop is doing an incredible job of communicating the issues. I note that Smith, et al are now trying to discredit a credible source of information (ironic that this is coming from the “do your own research” crowd, apparently they love people doing their own research unless it contradicts their own unfounded views). Discrediting the experts is a classic authoritarian tactic. It was just a matter of time before they moved on to the IEA.
If I had known that the a meeting with our dear Premier could be so much fun I may have tried to scare up the steep price of attendance.
One thinks of watching Smith’s beloved oil patch fail to have any workable solution by 2050 and being able to gleefully say, “we told you so”. Trouble is the amount of damage that will probably happen if we sit back and watch them fail.
If I had known that the a meeting with our dear Premier could be so much fun I may have tried to scare up the steep price of attendance.
One thinks of watching Smith’s beloved oil patch fail to have any workable solution by 2050 and being able to gleefully say, “we told you so”. But, sadly, a great deal of damage will probably happen if we sit back and watch them fail.
So we need to muster the “git ‘er done” spirit of the cliches and get to work. The most urgent task on the agenda is un-electing Smith and the UCP.
reynoldreimer: I agree with you 100% the most urgent task on the agenda is un-electing Sith and the UCP. I expect the urgency of that task to increase ten-fold after the TBA finishes taking over the UCP board and is even more empowered to impose its regressive agenda on Smith and the UCP.
I am going to the Stampede Grounds on the weekend to protest the UCP and all its ridiculousness – it’s their AGM. Come and join a group of us.
Unfortunately we Albertans are paying the wages, via the institution of the Province of Alberta, of the mouthpiece of her actual employer, the TBA or whatever group TBA might be fronting. I think it might be a mistake to focus attention on Ms Smith Goes to Edmonton. I think we need to focus on her actual employer and what motivates that entity to direct her as it does. So what’s the purpose of Smith branded decisions and actions? Whom benefits from these “government” actions? Are those the benefits the majority of Albertans have actually expressly desired?
Incidentally, how can anyone square the notion that “governments” are bad with the notion this government with its administrative capacity removed or disabled is good for everyday Albertans? I mean, it seems the Smith regime is determined to do nothing to further the interests of everyday Albertans. When did commitment to do nothing become desirable?
Lord, I wish the Smith train-wreck WOULD “do nothing.” It’s the stupid things they’re threatening to do that frighten me.
This discussion of “DO NOTHING” versus “DO SOMETHING BAD” brings to mind one of my biggest fears about federal politics, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada. The Trudeau Liberal government has been heavily criticized for its inability to move important issue files along in a timely fashion — with a few notable exceptions, such as many of the pandemic response measures.
As you may recall, they first took office with a majority in 2015, there was much talk about “deliverology”. But delivering on their lofty progressive rhetoric has been spotty at best. The current “confidence & supply” agreement with Jagmeet Singh’s NDP has pushed them on some files, but it still seems to take forever before we see legislation on their commitments.
What worries me about this is that voters are growing increasingly tired of Justin Trudeau’s act and are likely to shift their votes away from the Liberals and towards the Conservatives. This shift is approaching the magnitude that could lead to a CPC majority, and what we might see emerge is a more competent government when it comes to delivering on their bad policies than the Trudeau government has been in delivering on their acceptable ones.
It’s a classic case of “be careful what you wish for”.
Sorry for the confusion about “do nothing”. UCP is following Thatcher/Reagan in removal of the administrative state. This might mean privatisation of all public services: specialised medical services clinics subcontracted by AHS; medical laboratory services subcontracted by AHS; roadbuilding and maintenance subcontracted by highways department; until finally we reach tax collection by subcontractors; police by subcontractors; court services by subcontractors. Finally all crown services are removed from direct delivery by crown agents.
How might this work out? Ask Brits how they’re faring with Thatcher privatised water and sewer services, where the beaches are unswimmable, the water is under boil water advisory or simply undrinkable because of chemical toxicity.
Hi Mike. Your list is frighteningly plausible, but I think you’ve overlooked a bigger problem: Smith is a separatist, and her two big moves so far are straight out of the “Free Alberta Strategy.”
Smith is acting out the fantasy scenario written by Barry Cooper, Rob Anderson and Derek From. The whole idea is to set up as much “federal” powers as possible for the Alberta government. The inevitable legal fights will, they believe, convince Albertans that we’d be better off outside Confederation.
I guess yesterday’s Throne Speech is part of the same skewed and twisted strategy. I mean, c’mon. 10 million people in Alberta? Bullet trains? Natural gas exports till the end of time??? Who wrote this crap, and why did the Lieutenant Governor agree to read it?
I was wrong to think Danielle Smith is a bonehead. There’s nothing between her ears but air.
Unfortunately is not just Britain. This Neo-Liberal era of globalization and privatization has left the whole planet in peril. Which rivers are not polluted is the correct question. Even here with a population of 4 million only , our rivers are in bad shape and soon salmon will exist in Aquariums so that kids still know what they looked like. The cod fish debacle was not enough.
Danielle will blame the cost of electricity on the unions not on her pal Ralph Klein who actually created the mess we are in right now. God knows what kind of messes this UCP is going to create. With the kind of Danielle Smith’s vision I doubt there will be anything left. They will probably add last name ENBRIDGE to every kid born in Alberta as a tax revenue.
By the way and not that it really matters to us, the victims, but Ralph was also an employee of someone other than the citizen-residents of Alberta. This has been going on for a long time.
Mikegklein: you raise a very interesting point. Lately I’ve been thinking about how Smith’s decision to put a moratorium on wind and solar runs counter to her anti-red tape, small government, go-capitalism rhetoric. When wind and solar first got started the conservative government was dead set again offering any subsidies because it was up to the market place to decide whether it was a good idea, then when it took off, the government intervened to hobble it and (no doubt) will impose all sorts of limitations to curtail its growth.
The sheer hypocrisy of the Smith government’s policies is mind boggling. And of course everyday Albertans get to pay the price.
Yep, major hypocrisy, but standard for the Cons. They like to talk about “shrinking government”, but what they really want is a government that cracks down on everyone who isn’t a rich white man, while the rich white men who are the Cons’ TRUE base reap the benefits.
Without a doubt that poor excuse for a woman is a disgrace. However, huff and puff or clutch as many pearls as you can hold but if an election were held tomorrow she would win, hands down. The only way Smith will not win the next election is if Take Back Alberta is not happy with her and she is replaced. Her replacement, of course, will be even worse than she is.
Jaundiced Eye: true, but I’m hoping her push for APP and her refusal to deploy the Sovereignty Act will unnerve enough voters who will then choose to stay at home when the next election rolls around.
This is more than tragic. It’s a huge missed opportunity for a role in sustainable energy that Alberta could be a world leader in. But alas, no. It is not to be. Smith is only a shill for the oil industry – one who was/is a lobbyist for oil and gas who stole the premier position to her advantage.
The woman is a bully and as bullies go she is one of the most ignorant. She never has a suggestion or a positive thought, she just keeps hammering away at the same useless line. The whole of Canada is on to her and no one will invest in a province that is moving in reverse. Albertans need to wake up and get rid of her.
Albertans chose her….and perhaps she is the wake up call some of us needed.
Like the Alberta Pension Scam, like the unconstitutional Sovereignty Act (I hope Smith tries to use it, I really do), this latest spasm of Otherworldly denialism is Danielle Smith at her worst. She refuses to believe oil and gas can be replaced. She refuses to admit she can’t have half the CPP. She refuse to believe Ottawa—in some cases—really CAN tell her what to do.* And who, exactly, told the AER to resuscitate the dead Grassy Meadows coal mine?
Smith won’t stop until she’s forced to stop. Of course not! She already “knows,” in her heart (I don’t believe she uses her brain) that she’s right. 43 months till the next provincial election. God, I hope Alberta will still be recognizable then.
*I truly believe we need to rewrite the Constitution again. That Smith, Jason Kenney, Scott Moe and Doug Ford can tie national plans in knots for months shows the provinces have too MUCH power, not too little.
I really think its mostly bluff……..but it wouldn’t hurt to write to Trudeau, Singh and other opposition leaders and tell them how upset we are. I like my CPP…and where have you ever heard of a party leaving an organization or association and asking for everything it contributed as a member to be retroactively restored???
It’s the brain fart of a bully…….but she might get away with it, given how gawdawful scared of our own shadows so many Albertans of progressive tendency have become over the years of Conservative one party rule.
We need to make more than a little noise.
Susan: Thanks for sharing another great blog. It seems that Danielle Smith and the UCP are intent on going backwards, where is no progress in doing so. She mocks technology for clean energy, which has been present for quite some time, and wants to continue with things that will have a worse affect on the environment. Wind power was in Alberta for 30 years, because the government of the day, the Alberta PCs, had realized there was potential for it. Jim Prentice, who happened to be the final Alberta PC premier, wanted to further pursue more wind and solar power options for Alberta. He said that coal fired power generation facilities had to go out, because they were quite polluting. Jim Prentice already made that clear 15 years ago, for Canada, when he held the portfolio of the Environment Minister in the CPC, as he also knew that coal fired power plants were damaging to the environment. In 2015, we had a provincial election. The political parties all had said that polluting coal fired power plants had to go, and that green energy, in some form or another, was the only way forward. Another kicker, and blatant lie is with the UCP’s costly ad campaigns, that are devoid of the truth, where the UCP blames the federal Liberals for soaring power prices in Alberta, and impending winter blackouts, with their net zero clean energy policies. Danielle Smith and the UCP are absent minded as to what happened. Ralph Klein got this big mess started, with electricity deregulation. So far, the cost of this has surpassed the $30 billion price tag. When electricity deregulation was thrust upon us, without our say, in 1995, Ralph Klein made a ridiculous claim that power prices would go down. His cabinet minister, Steve West, also made a similar claim. The power prices in Alberta, which used to be among the lowest in North America, became the highest, and instantly. Ralph Klein conceded that power prices in Alberta would never go down, and he had to skim off surplus money to give to Albertans to help cushion the impact of electricityderegulation. Another folly of Ralph Klein’s was the $10 billion Power Purchase Agreements mistake, where power company executives, and the power companies themselves, were making very large profits, at the expense of the power consumers in Alberta. Murray Smith, another one of Ralph Klein’s cabinet ministers implemented a bill which made it so that newly built power transmission lines had to be paid for by the power consumers in Alberta. The purpose of these new power transmission lines was to export the power to American states. In 2010-11, TransAlta was involved with power price manipulation tactics, and were found guilty of that in 2015. They were handed down a $56 million fine, which power consumers in Alberta have to absorb on their power bills. Another major shocker for power consumers in Alberta is the UCP allowing power companies in Alberta to withold the power, increasing the cost of it so much more. The term for it is economic witholding, and it has cost Albertans an astonishing $2 billion a month, since June of 2020. Despite all this, Danielle Smith is intent on blaming the federal Liberals, Rachel Notley, and anything else for these problems. The UCP have to distract people from their own mistakes, in some way. Peter Lougheed had been a visionary. He also used his oil industry work experience from the 1950s wisely, and developed the oilsands in Alberta responsibly. Under Peter Lougheed, oil royalty rates were proper, and reckless oil development wasn’t allowed to commence, because the environmental damages could not be neglected. Counter this with Ralph Klein, and the exact opposite happened. We have a very substantial oil royalty rate, which lost us a monumental $575 billion, and are in the hole for an astonishing $260 billion, or even more, to remediate oil industry related messes, such as abandoned oil wells that litter the province. In addition, foreign owned oil companies were allowed to take pretty much everything for the oil profits, so we have basically nothing. Danielle Smith is compounding this, with R-Star, which will set us back $20 billion. Up in the northern part of Alberta, the saga of the tailings pond leaks still has to be dealt with. Hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes by the oil companies hasn’t been collected by the UCP, and who picks up the slack? Municipalities in Alberta do, with increased municipal property taxes. The UCP seem to be intent on pushing their ideology through, but Albertans aren’t coming out the winners. I’ll play some more fitting music. This is a song from The Doobie Brothers, and is from 1978. It is from the Michael McDonald era of the band, and he co-wrote this song with Kenny Loggins. The song is What A Fool Believes. Recently, the Doobie Brothers came to Edmonton, as part of their 50th anniversary tour, but I didn’t see them live. I wish I did.
Susan: Here is my second song pick. This is from 1972. It is from Steely Dan, who were also associated with The Doobie Brothers, because of certain band members. This is Dirty Work. Donald Fagan and Walter Becker wrote this. I also have this in my music collection.
One of my favorite bands
Thanks
Carlos
Susan: Here is my final song pick. This is from October of 1976, and was recorded live at The Forum in Los Angeles, California. It is The Eagles doing Witchy Woman. The song was written by Bernie Leadon and Don Henley. I did see The Eagles live in 2013, and they are in my music collection. Another fitting song, and also good for Halloween.
Sorry, but if we’re talking the Hotel California album and this subject in particular, I think this one works better:
Yes, full and truly captured by industry – if not already clear from Smith’s willingness to use public money to reclaim the mess left by industry!
Hey guys, remember when I said there was one battery-storage facility in Alberta? I was wrong. There are seven.
CBC’s latest report outlines Smith’s foolishly deranged views on carbon capture and renewable energy. Also featured is a list of small (20 MW) battery storage facilities, here:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-energy-storage-danielle-smith-fantasy-vs-reality-1.7012795
Smith is convinced direct-air capture and small modular reactors will save us eventually. But—true to “no crazy radar” form—Smith mistakes lab experiments for commercial processes. Check out the examples Smith cited, in the section “All of the above.”
Proven renewables technology is of no interest to Smith. It’s a threat to her friends in the oilpatch. She’s made up what she uses for a mind, and no amount of reason will change it.
Lab experiments also include SMRs (Small Modular Reactors)- a great concept, but precious little for actual physical, real world examples. Smith et al love anything pooted forth by O& G or providers aligned like Big Utility.
Yes, and worse, ANY reactor would take decades to bring on line. Imagine the permitting process, and the legal challenges. It’d make the controversy over LNG terminals and new bitumen projects look like a bunfight in the school cafeteria.
I looked up “economics of SMRs” in DuckDuckGo. There were more papers than I’d expected that imply small reactors, cooled by “light water,” are already operating. Still, I’d like to see a LOT more review by competent agencies–NOT right-wing media–before I’d bet the farm on it.
It seems some filks would have us believe that the only good solutions are dig a hole in the ground type extractive industries.
The latest news around SMR in Canada is the Ontario announcement of “study” , “licensing” and “approval” of SMR’s at Darlington. If all the regualtory ducks line up and if construction starts on time, these are estimated to be online around 2034-36.
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003248/ontario-building-more-small-modular-reactors-to-power-provinces-growth
Hardly a tactical, quick implement, get-er-done kind of technology. Certainly one in the mix though….
Given Smiths ostrichery, SMRs are a solution not even entertained by her administration now or in the decades to come.
If O&G can’t grok small scale renewable competitors, does anyone believe O & G would cozy up all friendly-like to Big Nuke? No friggin’ way!
If we were to shackled to these inexecrable UCP droids for years to come, 2030 will come and go and full-court dithers in favor of O&G would still be the order of the day.
Enough with these incompetents already!
Another consideration on SMRs that is hardly discussed is the fact that in Nuclear Industry construction no plant has ever been built either on time or on budget. In fact they are the examples of the most scandalous projects ever in history.
Some of these plants tripled the price and schedules to be completed.
Look at only this capture of a nuclear power plant in South Korea.
‘Kori-1 was shutdown in June 2017 in advance of decommissioning beginning in 2022 after its spent nuclear fuel is removed.[9] Decommissioning will take 15 years to complete and will cost an estimated KRW719.4 billion (US$639.5 million).[10]’
The decommissioning alone takes 15 years and of course the estimated cost will be 639 million dollars ( I will bet at least 2 Billion)
Somehow Danielle Smith and her gang think this is better than the ugly windmills and solar panels.
Not surprising because they seem to like the 3 thou abandoned wells and the tailing ponds, so we just add the depleted Uranium to the mix.
This is all to do with money under the table that is all that matters. We can all go to hell.
Hi friends. I’m afraid that “small modular reactors” come under the heading of “big, shiny and new,” thus guaranteeing that Smith and her fellow idiots will chase after them, damn the cost. There’s been some speculation that SMRs could replace fossil-gas boilers as the source of superheated steam for bitumen extraction by Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD). BS&N, combined with bitumen, would be very appealing to Smith. Sorry, Lee.
As for cost and cleanup, the Guardian UK has many articles about the two enormous nuclear plants being built at Hinkley C (under construction, somehow) and Sizewell C (desperately seeking funding). Both are so expensive that even the Brexit Cons have decided to try SMRs instead—and there’s some excuse, according to Nils Prately:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/18/commitment-to-push-forward-with-small-nuclear-reactors-seems-sensible
Of course, when Prately opines that SMRs are “sensible,” he means compared to the Godawful expense and delays of the two big (>1000 MW) stations.
The opposite approach is illustrated by Australia’s solar-rooftop project, now in its second DECADE:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/01/how-generous-subsidies-helped-australia-to-become-a-leader-in-solar-power
The report says excessive solar generation in summer can cause problems for coal-fired power plants (poor babies). I’d rather have their problem than ours.
When I first heard the term “SMR” — small modular reactors — the image that popped into my brain was the kind of nuclear reactor used to power ships and submarines in some of the world’s biggest navies. Pull the reactor out of a US Navy, Royal Navy or French Navy nuclear boat, stick it on a concrete pad, hook it up to a steam generator, & voilà: small modular reactor.
The safety record of these power plants in NATO navies has been stellar since the USS Nautilus was launched in the 1950s. In fact, the only shipboard reactor accidents to have occurred to date have been on Soviet or Russian vessels. So there could be a role for such power units on land, provided we don’t use Russian designs. However the problems of nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning of older reactors remain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine
jerrymacgp: now this is an intriguing idea. It fits with the thinking that instead of squandering piles of money and years and years on the pretense of doing something (ie working on the so-called solutions of the future) we should be focused on improving the technologies we already have, solar, wind, nuclear, etc and making them more efficient and effective.
And of course there’s always the idea that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, perhaps we can focus on the easy wins while someone, somewhere is working on the miracle solution, which if we get the easy fixes right, we may never need to use.
Hi jerrymacgp and Susan. Re nuclear power plants for submarines, Wikipedia has an article on nuclear-sub accidents. I think it’s significant that only Soviet/ Russian subs experienced reactor leaks and other failures of the nuclear power plant—so, Jerry, you have a good point on reliability. I also came across this intriguing entry on a nuclear-powered merchant ship. The section on decommissioning is worth considering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah
There’s also this article about the British experience with a utility-scale nuclear electricity plant:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantling-sellafield-epic-task-shutting-down-decomissioned-nuclear-site
Stories like these are why I’m extremely skeptical of claims that small nuclear reactors will save us from global warming. I’ve found several “wait-a-minute” articles pointing out economic and technical (mostly fuel-disposal) problems. Maybe in the long run they’d help, but we have to start burning less stuff now.
Mike J Danysh: thanks for the additional information. Your comment about Soviet/Russian subs being less reliable than other plants was echoed in a course I took on about nuclear power production. The instructors compared the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters, pointing out that the Japanese did a much better job in constructing and running the plant, then responding to the disaster than the Russians did. There were many reasons for this, but at the end of the day, people have returned to the Fukushima Prefecture, but are still being kept out of Chernobyl (except for the Chernobyl tourists who’ve been visiting the site for a while. Not my cup of tea, but here’s the link for anyone who’s interested: https://www.chernobyl-tour.com/english/
Mike J Danysh: Batteries are one type of power storage. Capacitors are another.
😊 true, and I’m trying to imagine capacitors big enough to store the excess output from a 100 MW wind farm. I dunno, but something like the concrete grain terminals that dot the Prairies now comes to mind….
There’s also pumped-hydro, with one project in the Rockies (now stalled, I suppose); ironically, it’s planned for an abandoned open-pit coal mine. A variation is gravity-driven generation. Imagine a big iron weight on a cable. Store energy by hoisting it slowly with an electric motor. To generate electricity, just turn off the motor and let the weight reverse the rotation. Voila: instant generator. (You can also use rail cars, hauling them up tracks laid on a hill.) Both are feasible, both have been proven on a small scale, both can be implemented fairly quickly.
Neither is of any interest to Danielle “Black Gold” Smith and her cronies.
Mike J Danysh: Capacitors can be made smaller. The technology is there.
But are the capable of long-term storage? I’ve never seen discussion of capacitors as an alternative to batteries for grid-scale applications. Power conditioning, yes, but that’s a different problem.
Susan: Just by looking at this video, it’s quite easy to see how Danielle Smith is lying. What are your thoughts on this?