Perhaps the time has come for the operators of traditional power sources to take a determined stand against the unrealistic daydreaming proponents of so-called environmentally friendly power sources.
The debate is crying for a taste of pragmatism.
We sincerely hope that some day soon the environmentalists who are continually braying for greenfield projects will receive a realistic slap on the cheek or a bump on the noggin to awaken their logistical senses.
As one political observer pointed out, it's easy for the environmental movement to make all these outlandish claims because "they have no skin in the game." Or if they do, it might amount to a token investment in a wind turbine or a solar panel or two, to prove their sincerity.
If - as the recent survey conducted by the environmental movement suggested - the removal of coal-fired power plants was necessary by 2020, what is the alternative proposal?
Just looking at the Saskatchewan electrical power needs alone, how would it be possible to replace over 2,000 megawatts of coal and gas-powered stations with green alternatives in six years?
Currently there are about 230 megawatts of pricey auxiliary power being supplied to Saskatchewan homes and businesses through wind and other eco-sources.
Just another eight million more wind turbines and 20 million more solar panels and they could be there. What would that cost consumers?
What would the environmental implications be with millions of windmills cutting down migratory birds by the thousands? What happens when the wind doesn't blow hard enough or blows so strongly that the wind turbines have to be shut down? Can electricity by solar panel be stored effectively? If not, what are the green people suggesting we do when the sun doesn't shine? Do we resort to mechanical cash registers and typewriters for our daily commerce and fireplaces for our residential lighting, as long as the wood or coal fueled fires don't cause additional environmental strains?
Yes, we have bordered on the absurd in this critique, but those who are suggesting that coal, oil and gas have no future in powering our world, are also expecting the rest of us to swallow some pretty absurd resolutions, too.
We believe Saskatchewan's balanced approach to providing power production is the common-sense way to go. Base load power needs to come from reliable and constantly available fuel sources, not pie-in-sky assumptions.
We believe that making our coal-fired plants 90 per cent cleaner in terms of capturing noxious gases, is the right route. Expensive but correct, and the price will decrease as more plants are outfitted with carbon dioxide capture capabilities. Even then, it's less costly than the current wind and solar outlets, that also need to play a role.
With other countries holding the key ingredients for solar panels, how can we be assured of low-cost power in the future? Solar and wind electricity already comes at a premium and there hasn't been enough done in the field of geothermal and biomass production to form an educated opinion. However, that hasn't stopped the environmental pundits. They don't appear to be fans of reality.
Yes, we should and can move toward greener practises, but the fact of the situation is that traditional fuel sources with green components, need to be part of the partnership for decades to come, and that includes the jobs that come with them. Should we pull the switch on our current power creation trades people and ask them to build solar panels with the permission of China, the country that controls that market?
We can recharge a few hundred electric cars with no additional strain on our system, but where is the electricity going to come from to plug in 400 million of them without shorting out the toaster?
