SaskPower Says Bigger Is Better, Even Losses? #PowerToGrow

As a followup to the Star Phoenix’s article on the hugely expensive, and (public) money losing CCS plant at Estevan, comes word of further cost overruns. The overruns, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, would have been sufficient to buy Regina its Stadium II, outright, fix its pension shortfall, or replace its Waste Water Treatment Plant.

SaskPower has apparently been misleading people by saying we need coal for “baseload” power, when Saskatchewan’s abundant wind source, coupled with Manitoba’s hydro, could safely provide a reliable power supply to homes, schools, etc.

And it appears that viable, cleaner, lower-cost solutions are readily available. According to a recent New York Times article, the cost of utility scale wind energy is now as low at 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour (without subsidies), well under the price for conventional coal, let alone CCS.

Emissions-free wind energy could have generated the same amount of electricity as the coalfired Boundary CCS power plant at a fraction of the cost.

SaskPower argues that wind can’t replace baseload coal because electrical generation from wind is intermittent. But numerous studies have found that installing substantial amounts of variable wind energy does not require additional backup capacity.

All types of power generation require backup, even coal. All utilities, including SaskPower, have substantial backup supply. New wind capacity would rely on the backup provided by existing “idle capacity,” which in the case of SaskPower is about 40 per cent.

Most authorities agree that incorporating at least 25 per cent variable power sources like wind or solar is feasible right now, and many jurisdictions are doing just that.

But SaskPower seems committed to a fading 20th-century paradigm of large-scale generation using fossil fuels. The 21st century paradigm being adopted by progressive utilities involves a shift toward conservation, efficiency and multiple sources of renewable energy, often provided by private industry, and in some cases by thousands of small co-operatives and community investors.

In the 21st century model, the utility becomes more the manager of power supply, demand and transmission. This emerging model – which in some ways resembles the Internet – is more nimble and resilient than a traditional utility.

CCS is an attempt to keep the old model alive.

Premier Wall owes Saskatchewan at least $1,500,000,000 in renewable energy investment after gifting billions of dollars to Cenovus for oil development through CCS. It’s time to stop letting money blow through our fingers, and stop burning coal like we’re from the 19th Century.

2 responses to “SaskPower Says Bigger Is Better, Even Losses? #PowerToGrow

  1. We also must look at the wellhead of the climate crisis pipe, not just the tailpipe- the emissions. In this case we are burning 30% more coal so that Cenovus can use the captured liquified carbon dioxide to push out more oil from their old oil field. This NEW oil will then be burned….producing more…CO2. Kind of an expensive, insane machine we are paying for now. Lest we forget…the International Energy Agency informs us that we must leave two thirds of PRESENT fossil deposits in the ground in order to prevent IRREVERSIBLE climate change. Hello??

  2. “The SCW analysis shows that had SaskPower chosen to retire the coal unit it converted to CCS for $1.467 billion (the cost to date) and installed wind turbines instead at a cost of $430 million, it would have saved SaskPower ratepayers – and Saskatchewan and Canadian taxpayers, who subsidized the project – more than $1 billion.

    So why did SaskPower take the most costly approach?

    According to SCW, the most likely explanation is that the CCS approach was a political decision. It captures large amounts of carbon dioxide, which is then pumped into the Weyburn oilfields to enhance oil recovery. As detailed in the cash-flow analysis, while the taxpayer is on the hook for $1 billion, the subsidized CO2 is being sold to the Alberta energy company Cenovus, which stands to make more than a $1 billion in profit from the arrangement over 30 years.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s