Province of Alberta coal plant closure delayed by one year

Here's last month's bill from the Edmonton area:
View attachment 192038
That is insane, down here in North Carolina USA I used 20kWh more electricity than you and paid less than half of what you did. Yes, I know it's also much cheaper in other areas of your country. Just like here in the USA other areas much more expensive. Oh darn it, I forget all the time, that you are in CA dollars but still outrageous !

Screenshot 2023-12-08 at 1.14.44 PM.png
 
I'm not sure what goes into the transmission cost math - whether it's relevant or not, I can see the plume from the Genesee plant in the distance.
Natural gas is the same price everywhere in BC except one place. The good people of Fort Nelson, who have a major gas plant down the road and wellheads up their yin yang said “ if you try charge is the same price in Fort Nelson as Victoria, we’ll simply ” Turn the valve to the right”. They got their way.
 
I figured that was part of it. I didn’t realize NG generation was so expensive thou comparatively.

I wonder if these large hydro electric projects are highly subsidized?

I visited the Site C **** construction a few times over the last couple years, it’s amazing how big of a project it is.
Site C construction site.

231587DE-75DA-4A0A-8F5D-A7C981AD6201.jpg
 
That is insane, down here in North Carolina USA I used 20kWh more electricity than you and paid less than half of what you did. Yes, I know it's also much cheaper in other areas of your country. Just like here in the USA other areas much more expensive. Oh darn it, I forget all the time, that you are in CA dollars but still outrageous !

View attachment 192066
So adjusting the charges of $238 CDN yields $174 USD and would be upped a bit for another 20 kwhr. So, a bit over 60% more. The South Carolina case is aided by the 6 nuclear reactors providing 1/3 of the power. Nice.

B75DF182-E28D-4508-867B-3F76740EE9F4.jpeg
1AF1BD18-A643-4D8D-A083-DB509A8E59D5.jpeg
 
So adjusting the charges of $238 CDN yields $174 USD and would be upped a bit for another 20 kwhr. So, a bit over 60% more. The South Carolina case is aided by the 6 nuclear reactors providing 1/3 of the power. Nice.

View attachment 192188View attachment 192189
I just recently saw in another post that I made from the nuclear regulatory commission. There is an application or an approval to add a second nuclear reactor to an existing plant.

As you know, I just recently moved here from South Carolina and we know that debacle. I was really proud that our state at the time in South Carolina was building two brand new nuclear reactors at the same time next to a third existing one unfortunately it turned into a freaking Nightmare with Westinghouse and Toshiba delays billions of wasted money in construction of completion they shut the whole project down

If it wasn’t for the cover-up by the existing utility at the time, and if they were just honest, maybe just maybe it would’ve still been built, because these delays were brought on by the actual equipment manufacturers with western house, teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and taking Toshiba down with it or something like that. It’s been a while now.
By the way, even with the abandonment of those two new plants that were being built in South Carolina currently over 50% of South Carolina power is nuclear
South Carolina truly would’ve been the gem of the country if those two plants were completed.

Some of that power would’ve been sold to Duke energy I believe in North Carolina
 
More natural gas generation is being added in Alberta. The “ coal to gas conversion “ mentioned in the third paragraph is just the conversion of a coal burning plant over to natural gas. It’s not incremental to the grid, but rather just a change in the type of fuel. The other two are incremental. The Edson plant is interesting because it’s practically in the middle of a gas field with only a very short pipeline infrastructure required.

8E88ED08-8719-41EF-B57F-64DAD4990B5D.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what goes into the transmission cost math - whether it's relevant or not, I can see the plume from the Genesee plant in the distance.
I just saw this real time table of Alberta sources for electricity. For the first I see that coal derived electricity is zero. The last holdout was Genesee. Would you mind checking for the plume at daybreak? :oops:

EFFEF652-FDC2-4FF1-8EE7-8CAF15E27757.jpeg
 
I just saw this real time table of Alberta sources for electricity. For the first I see that coal derived electricity is zero. The last holdout was Genesee. Would you mind checking for the plume at daybreak? :oops:

View attachment 206714
I haven't been following the project closely, but it could very well be that the coal to natural gas conversion is complete, or nearly complete. Some quick Googling shows the projected timeline was 2021-2024. The plume will persist - just due to a different fuel source.
 
It’s always tough getting the latest on these type of projects. They don’t want to blow their horn until everything is running smoothly. Here’s the Genesee plan. It’s possible they are currently running in the simple cycle mode, but are off coal.

4432A502-C7AC-4AEF-8972-AAAFC11665C5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top