Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Nuclear is the only real way to keep the lights on in Alberta

Published

7 minute read

GE-Hitachi small modular nuclear reactor concept

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Doug Firby

Nuclear power is the best bet for Alberta but time is running out

Alberta needs nuclear power—and fast. While much of the world, including provinces like Ontario, has spent decades building reactors, Alberta remains stuck in neutral, still debating whether the technology is even worth considering.

Affordability and Utilities Minister Nathan Neudorf recently admitted as much.

“We still have an entire legislative and regulatory framework to establish to allow for this novel—as in new—type of generation to happen within the province of Alberta,” Neudorf told the Canadian Press. And now, the province wants to take a full year to gauge public appetite for nuclear power.

Oh my God. Can we not just get on with it?

Here’s the reality. More than a century ago, the province opted for the cheapest form of electricity—coal-fired generation— because Alberta had lots of it. As environmental and health concerns mounted, the province turned to natural gas to fire its generators.

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel—cleaner than coal, but far from perfect. And while renewables like wind and solar don’t have fuel costs, their output isn’t always reliable. That’s why natural gas is still needed to fill the gaps— especially when demand peaks or the wind isn’t blowing. Because it’s often the last generator brought online when renewables fall short, it sets the market price. That’s what drives electricity costs higher—even if most of the power is coming from renewables.

And speaking of renewables, Alberta has smothered a growing industry with strict limitations on where wind and solar farms can operate. According to the Pembina Institute, since October 2023, 11 gigawatts worth of wind, solar and energy storage projects have been withdrawn from the provincial grid operator’s connection queue—more than the province’s average total power demand.

Meanwhile, electricity consumption is expected to soar. The province is chasing $100 billion in data centre investment—facilities that require massive amounts of electricity to run and cool.

So, add it up: Gas-fueled generation is not seen as a good long-term bet, wind and solar has run into a regulatory brick wall, the province’s hydro potential would be hugely expensive (and environmentally complex) to develop, the population of the province has soared past five million and growing, and with the growth in EVs and the rise of more electrical home heating and cooling, we are headed toward the “electrification of everything.”

Why are we taking a year to find out whether Albertans support nuclear power? And what happens if they say no?

Now let’s also face some facts about nuclear. It’s a highly regulated industry—and rightly so— and even then, it has had its share of safety incidents. Chernobyl. Fukushima. Three Mile Island. Because of that, it can take years to move from proposals to construction. And with regulations constantly evolving, the cost of building nuclear plants often exceeds initial estimates.

Ontario’s experience is a cautionary tale. Over two decades, as Ontario Hydro built 20 reactors, it faced repeated cost overruns, missed deadlines and declining performance. By 1999, Ontario Hydro’s debt stood at $38.1 billion. Its assets? Just $17.2 billion. The government was left with a $20.9 billion stranded debt.

Thankfully, with thoughtful execution, Alberta could avoid many of the teething problems Ontario encountered as it nurtured then-nascent nuclear technology. For one, Premier Danielle Smith is rightly seeking proposals from the private sector and will only consider establishing a Crown corporation if private proposals don’t meet the province’s needs. Private sector investment drove the explosive growth in renewables (until the province brought it to a halt with new restrictions); potentially, the same could be true for nuclear.

Alberta can also benefit from decades of global experience with nuclear power. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Among the more promising developments are SMRs—small modular reactors. These typically produce 300 megawatts or less and can be factory-built, then transported to site. Like prefabricated homes, they offer streamlined construction, better scalability and the ability to be integrated into multi-unit facilities as demand grows.

This could be especially valuable if Alberta succeeds in attracting those power-hungry data centres.

Cost isn’t the only consideration. Water use and nuclear waste transport must also be managed carefully. But there are compelling reasons to pursue nuclear—and to lift the restrictions on renewables while we’re at it. Not the least of these is its zero emissions.

Now, we need to get going. In the most optimistic forecasts, the first nuclear reactor is at least a decade away. By then, our demands for electricity will have grown substantially, barring some sort of unforeseen breakthrough in efficiency.

You don’t have to love nuclear power. You just have to recognize the truth: Alberta needs to prepare for it now.

Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country. 

Alberta

Federal budget: It’s not easy being green

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Canada’s climate rethink signals shift from green idealism to pragmatic prosperity.

Bill Gates raised some eyebrows last week – and probably the blood pressure of climate activists – when he published a memo calling for a “strategic pivot” on climate change.

In his memo, the Microsoft founder, whose philanthropy and impact investments have focused heavily on fighting climate change, argues that, while global warming is still a long-term threat to humanity, it’s not the only one.

There are other, more urgent challenges, like poverty and disease, that also need attention, he argues, and that the solution to climate change is technology and innovation, not unaffordable and unachievable near-term net zero policies.

“Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world,” he writes.

Gates’ memo is timely, given that world leaders are currently gathered in Brazil for the COP30 climate summit. Canada may not be the only country reconsidering things like energy policy and near-term net zero targets, if only because they are unrealistic and unaffordable.

It could give some cover for Canadian COP30 delegates, who will be at Brazil summit at a time when Prime Minister Mark Carney is renegotiating his predecessor’s platinum climate action plan for a silver one – a plan that contains fewer carbon taxes and more fossil fuels.

It is telling that Carney is not at COP30 this week, but rather holding a summit with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

The federal budget handed down last week contains kernels of the Carney government’s new Climate Competitiveness Strategy. It places greater emphasis on industrial strategy, investment, energy and resource development, including critical minerals mining and LNG.

Despite his Davos credentials, Carney is clearly alive to the fact it’s a different ballgame now. Canada cannot afford a hyper-focus on net zero and the green economy. It’s going to need some high octane fuel – oil, natural gas and mining – to prime Canada’s stuttering economic engine.

The prosperity promised from the green economy has not quite lived up to its billing, as a recent Fraser Institute study reveals.

Spending and tax incentives totaling $150 billion over a decade by Ottawa, B.C, Ontario, Alberta and Quebec created a meagre 68,000 jobs, the report found.

“It’s simply not big enough to make a huge difference to the overall performance of the economy,” said Jock Finlayson, chief economist for the Independent Contractors and Business Association and co-author of the report.

“If they want to turn around what I would describe as a moribund Canadian economy…they’re not going to be successful if they focus on these clean, green industries because they’re just not big enough.”

There are tentative moves in the federal budget and Climate Competitiveness Strategy to recalibrate Canada’s climate action policies, though the strategy is still very much in draft form.

Carney’s budget acknowledges that the world has changed, thanks to deglobalization and trade strife with the U.S.

“Industrial policy, once seen as secondary to market forces, is returning to the forefront,” the budget states.

Last week’s budget signals a shift from regulations towards more investment-based measures.

These measures aim to “catalyse” $500 billion in investment over five years through “strengthened industrial carbon pricing, a streamlined regulatory environment and aggressive tax incentives.”

There is, as-yet, no commitment to improve the investment landscape for Alberta’s oil industry with the three reforms that Alberta has called for: scrapping Bill C-69, a looming oil and gas emissions cap and a West Coast oil tanker moratorium, which is needed if Alberta is to get a new oil pipeline to the West Coast.

“I do think, if the Carney government is serious about Canada’s role, potentially, as an global energy superpower, and trying to increase our exports of all types of energy to offshore markets, they’re going to have to revisit those three policy files,” Finlayson said.

Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said she thinks the emissions cap at least will be scrapped.

“The markets don’t lie,” she said, pointing to a post-budget boost to major Canadian energy stocks. “The energy index got a boost. The markets liked it. I don’t think the markets think there is going to be an emissions cap.”

Some key measures in the budget for unlocking investments in energy, mining and decarbonization include:

  • incentives to leverage $1 trillion in investment over the next five years in nuclear and wind power, energy storage and grid infrastructure;
  • an expansion of critical minerals eligible for a 30% clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit;
  • $2 billion over five years to accelerate critical mineral production;
  • tax credits for turquoise hydrogen (i.e. hydrogen made from natural gas through methane pyrolysis); and
  • an extension of an investment tax credit for carbon capture utilization and storage through to 2035.

As for carbon taxes, the budget promises “strengthened industrial carbon pricing.”

This might suggest the government’s plan is to simply simply shift the burden for carbon pricing from the consumer entirely onto industry. If that’s the case, it could put Canadian resource industries at a disadvantage.

“How do we keep pushing up the carbon price — which means the price of energy — for these industries at a time when the United States has no carbon pricing at all?” Finlayson wonders.

Overall, Carney does seem to be moving in the right direction in terms of realigning Canada’s energy and climate policies.

“I think this version of a Liberal government is going to be more focused on investment and competitiveness and less focused around the virtue-signaling on climate change, even though Carney personally has a reputation as somebody who cares a lot about climate change,” Finlayson said.

“It’s an awkward dance for them. I think they are trying to set out a different direction relative to the Trudeau years, but they’re still trying to hold on to the Trudeau climate narrative.”

Pictured is Mark Carney at COP26 as UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. He is not at COP30 this week. UNRIC/Miranda Alexander-Webber

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Alberta

ChatGPT may explain why gap between report card grades and standardized test scores is getting bigger

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson and Max Shang

In Alberta, the gap between report card grades and test/exam scores increased sharply in 2022—the same year ChatGPT came out.

Report card grades and standardized test scores should rise and fall together, since they measure the same group of students on the same subjects. But in Alberta high schools, report card grades are rising while scores on Provincial Achievement Tests (PAT) and diploma exams are not.

Which raises the obvious question—why?

Report card grades partly reflect student performance in take-home assignments. Standardized tests and diploma exams, however, quiz students on their knowledge and skills in a supervised environment. In Alberta, the gap between report card grades and test/exam scores increased sharply in 2022—the same year ChatGPT came out. And polling shows Canadian students now rely heavily on ChatGPT (and other AI platforms).

Here’s what the data show.

In Alberta, between 2016 and 2019 (the latest year of available comparable data), the average standardized test score covering math, science, social study, biology, chemistry, physics, English and French language arts was just 64, while the report card grade 73.3—or 14.5 per cent higher. Data for 2020 and 2021 are unavailable due to COVID-19 school closures, but between 2022 and 2024, the gap widened to 20 per cent. This trend holds regardless of school type, course or whether the student was male or female. Across the board, since 2022, students in Alberta high schools are performing significantly better in report card grades than on standardized tests.

Which takes us back to AI. According to a recent KPMG poll, 73 per cent of students in Canada (high school, vocational school, college and university) said they use generative AI in their schoolwork, an increase from the previous year. And 71 per cent say their grades improved after using generative AI.

If AI is simply used to aid student research, that’s one thing. But more than two-thirds (66 per cent) of those using generative AI said that although their grades increased, they don’t think they’re learning or retaining as much knowledge. Another 48 per cent say their “critical thinking” skills have deteriorated since they started using AI.

Acquiring knowledge is the foundation of higher-order thinking and critical analysis. We’re doing students a deep disservice if we don’t ensure they expand their knowledge while in school. And if teachers award grades, which are essentially inflated by AI usage at home, they set students up for failure. It’s the academic equivalent of a ski coach looking at a beginner and saying, “You’re ready for the black diamond run.” That coach would be fired. Awarding AI-inflated grades is not fair to students who will later struggle in college, the workplace or life beyond school.

Finally, the increasing popularity of AI underscores the importance of standardized testing and diploma exams. And parents knew this even before the AI wave. A 2022 Leger poll found 95 per cent of Canadian parents with kids in K-12 schools believe it’s important to know their child’s academic performance in the core subjects by a fair and objective measure. Further, 84 per cent of parents support standardized testing, specifically, to understand how their children are doing in reading, writing and mathematics. Alberta is one of the only provinces to administer standardized testing and diploma exams every year.

Clearly, parents should oppose any attempt to reduce accountability and objective testing in Alberta schools.

Paige MacPherson

Associate Director, Education Policy, Fraser Institute

Max Shang

Economist, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X