1. While Denmark has provided admirable leadership in wind development they are only able to go above 20% because they can trade with other countries , some using fuel based sources. Germany’s grid is already suffering from the difficulty of managing too much irregular power. And if we had European electricity rates Bowater and Newpage would have gone under years ago.
2. Surely the issue is Greenhouse gases , not renewability.
3.You are right that predictions are always inaccurate. That is why we should not be making such a major commitment when it is not at all clear that we need it.
4. Even with process declining solar is an absurd idea for Nova Scotia. On the other hand tidal has huge potential if (when) a commercially viable technology is developed.
5. This is not nickel and diming. Having higher than necessary electricity prices is a job killer in rural Nova Scotia, the place where we most need them.
Muskrat Falls – Think About the Future
Thus far the debate over Muskrat Falls has been rather narrow and over-fixated on the short-term. In addition to thinking about the uncertain per kilowatt-hour cost projections, it is important to think about creating an electricity infrastructure that is resilient and adaptive in the face of ongoing change and uncertainty.
Look at a map and you will see that Nova Scotia is at the end of the transmission line, with only one, very small, connection to New Brunswick. The “fixed link” with Newfoundland will give Nova Scotia two connections. With that comes the opportunity to negotiate future prices and contracts with multiple sellers, giving Nova Scotia greater consumer power.
The added transmission can also help make Nova Scotia’s grid more reliable. The connection to hydroelectric resources could complement Nova Scotia’s domestic renewable energy industry. Unlike coal, nuclear, and gas a hydroelectric generating station can be turned on and off within seconds, and could act as a twin for renewable energy resources that vary with the wind/tide/sun.
In addition, we should exercise caution in placing too much faith in supply/demand forecasts (see Bill Black, Aug 1st, 2012). The only certainty is that these forecasts will be wrong. It will take until, at least, 2017 to build this project. The relevant question is really if the project will make sense in the context of the challenges Nova Scotia will be facing in 2017 or 2020. At this time will Nova Scotia be pleased to have access to a renewable, flexible source of energy with more import/export capability? Will we want to use the hydro resource and trading capability to complement the development of electric vehicles, wind, tidal and solar energy? Or perhaps energy efficiency, smart grid and alternative energy storage technologies will be more attractive?
In 2020 will some folks still be questioning a 40% renewable electricity target, or is the world going to wake up to the reality that climate change is a real problem and that a transition to 100% renewable electricity systems (with electrification of transport) is necessary by mid-century? Denmark has already passed legislation to get to 100% renewable by 2050. Our long-term electricity planning should be considering a 100% renewable or zero-carbon scenario by 2050, and finding out if and how Muskrat Falls plays a role in this future.
There certainly are potential pitfalls and many good questions that still need to be asked concerning the Muskrat Falls project. However, nickel and diming the project and failing to consider the challenges we will face in the coming decades is not the way to manage long-term infrastructure decisions in the context of complexity, uncertainty, volatile fuel costs and climate change.
You certainly hit the nail on the head with your observation that the real reason for increases to power cost is the renewable energy requirement. I don’t think that the reading public really understands the difference between Emera and Nova Scotia Power. The capital cost of supplying 170 Mw of power seems extremely high and is probably approaching the cost/Mw for a nuclear plant. It now appears that the transmission lines are being sized for 500 Mw so a good portion of the power will be sold west of Nova Scotia. On windy days, probably even a portion of the 170 Mw. This deal seems to be really about helping Emera grow with renewable energy used as an excuse. Emera is of course a public company without much connection to Nova Scotia other than ownership of Nova Scotia Power. My background is Project Engineering and Project Management at Stora Enso. I retired from the mill one month after NewPage took over. During my time at the mill the Biomass project was studied many times and was never found to be economically feasible. When Sable Gas first became available we did a conversion to natural gas on the boiler that will be used for biomass. It was never used very much because the price of gas escalated shortly after the installation. It is a different situation now with low gas prices and is no doubt cheaper than biomass. There has also been representation that waste wood will be used for the boiler. It would appear that the definition of waste wood is anything that can’t be used to make paper because there is pretty good looking hardwood being cut and stockpiled. Spruce is preferred to make paper. I can’t help thinking that the drive to build the biomass plant was a way to subsidize the NewPage plant. The cost of fuel would go to NewPage with a mark up no doubt. NSP paid 80 million for a 1973 era boiler. The 80 million disappeared never to be heard about again. Anyway, my compliments on a fine article. It just makes me mad to see what is going on in the background, the cost of which will no doubt be dumped on ratepayers in the province.
Bill wrote “The continuing rise in electricity prices in Nova Scotia, while other jurisdictions are enjoying reductions, hurts both the budgets of families and the competitiveness of employers.”
Where are these jurisdictions that are enjoying reductions? I checked residential rates in St. John’s, Halifax,Moncton, PEI, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver, from 2007 to April 2012. All these jurisdictions have seen increases, albeit Montreal’s increase was negligible (no surprise).
NB Power’s rates are lower than NS Power’s rates, but NB Power carries a $5 billion debt. NS Power carries $2 billion. I guess in NB the approach is “let the children pay”.
Photovoltaic equipment offers opportunities for some of our electrical energy requirements they are limited. For example while they can be used to power incandescent light bulbs they cannot be used with CFL’s. For most of our modern household equipment we require an AC source. Photovoltaic eqp’t supplies DC and this necessitates expensive rectifiers. In addition PV eqp’t contains elements that are not environmentally friendly.
The definition of “renewable energy” does not include hydroelectricity. Unless this definition changes, hydro power from Muskrat Falls cannot be factored into the 40% renewable target this province is trying to achieve. Furthermore, it is a widely held myth that the New England States are hungry for power supplied by Canada. Quebec Hydro have multi-billion dollar projects on hold; projects that are slated to supply New England, as this same definition of “renewable energy” in the US, impedes their ability to receive power subsidies, meaning US ratepayers would not receive a rebate to offset the cost of their hydro power supplied by any source, let alone Canada. And as it further relates to Emera and Nalcor selling power into the US, considering US ratepayers are paying approximately $0.06/kWh, it will be cost prohibitive for US ratepayers to buy this very expensive Muskrat falls power. In fact, it will be cost prohibitive for Nova Scotians to pay these power rates when this power comes online.
Long ago ‘energy’ was just labour. In our future ‘energy’ will be more “complex”. More will be needed (if prosperity is to prevail) – so it will be relatively more expensive (as will food).
Today ‘unweildy’ utilities provide the energy which entails generation, distribution, billing, politicing, etc.
Perhaps the question that should be asked is, are these utilities going to continue to be the model, or are they going to morph into something else (such as when factory-layouts changed when electricity replaced steam)? It could well be, that these renewables, hooked up with reverse metering, could well be the ‘competition’ needed to futurize energy provision (think photovoltaic roofing materials – which could be on every home – as providing much of the energy). Will we follow or lead?
It may be helpful to the readers of the C-H if they published previous essays by yourself on this issue.
Emera,proponents of the sale of PH mill to some extent,and Nalco under stand the economic benefits to themselves but we,the ultimate payers, are left to the environmental whims of the present government who will not do or permit a complete cost/benefit assessment.or analysis.
Brendan a few belated thoughts on your article.
1. While Denmark has provided admirable leadership in wind development they are only able to go above 20% because they can trade with other countries , some using fuel based sources. Germany’s grid is already suffering from the difficulty of managing too much irregular power. And if we had European electricity rates Bowater and Newpage would have gone under years ago.
2. Surely the issue is Greenhouse gases , not renewability.
3.You are right that predictions are always inaccurate. That is why we should not be making such a major commitment when it is not at all clear that we need it.
4. Even with process declining solar is an absurd idea for Nova Scotia. On the other hand tidal has huge potential if (when) a commercially viable technology is developed.
5. This is not nickel and diming. Having higher than necessary electricity prices is a job killer in rural Nova Scotia, the place where we most need them.
Bill
Bill | August 13, 2012 |
Muskrat Falls – Think About the Future
Thus far the debate over Muskrat Falls has been rather narrow and over-fixated on the short-term. In addition to thinking about the uncertain per kilowatt-hour cost projections, it is important to think about creating an electricity infrastructure that is resilient and adaptive in the face of ongoing change and uncertainty.
Look at a map and you will see that Nova Scotia is at the end of the transmission line, with only one, very small, connection to New Brunswick. The “fixed link” with Newfoundland will give Nova Scotia two connections. With that comes the opportunity to negotiate future prices and contracts with multiple sellers, giving Nova Scotia greater consumer power.
The added transmission can also help make Nova Scotia’s grid more reliable. The connection to hydroelectric resources could complement Nova Scotia’s domestic renewable energy industry. Unlike coal, nuclear, and gas a hydroelectric generating station can be turned on and off within seconds, and could act as a twin for renewable energy resources that vary with the wind/tide/sun.
In addition, we should exercise caution in placing too much faith in supply/demand forecasts (see Bill Black, Aug 1st, 2012). The only certainty is that these forecasts will be wrong. It will take until, at least, 2017 to build this project. The relevant question is really if the project will make sense in the context of the challenges Nova Scotia will be facing in 2017 or 2020. At this time will Nova Scotia be pleased to have access to a renewable, flexible source of energy with more import/export capability? Will we want to use the hydro resource and trading capability to complement the development of electric vehicles, wind, tidal and solar energy? Or perhaps energy efficiency, smart grid and alternative energy storage technologies will be more attractive?
In 2020 will some folks still be questioning a 40% renewable electricity target, or is the world going to wake up to the reality that climate change is a real problem and that a transition to 100% renewable electricity systems (with electrification of transport) is necessary by mid-century? Denmark has already passed legislation to get to 100% renewable by 2050. Our long-term electricity planning should be considering a 100% renewable or zero-carbon scenario by 2050, and finding out if and how Muskrat Falls plays a role in this future.
There certainly are potential pitfalls and many good questions that still need to be asked concerning the Muskrat Falls project. However, nickel and diming the project and failing to consider the challenges we will face in the coming decades is not the way to manage long-term infrastructure decisions in the context of complexity, uncertainty, volatile fuel costs and climate change.
Brendan Haley | August 8, 2012 |
You certainly hit the nail on the head with your observation that the real reason for increases to power cost is the renewable energy requirement. I don’t think that the reading public really understands the difference between Emera and Nova Scotia Power. The capital cost of supplying 170 Mw of power seems extremely high and is probably approaching the cost/Mw for a nuclear plant. It now appears that the transmission lines are being sized for 500 Mw so a good portion of the power will be sold west of Nova Scotia. On windy days, probably even a portion of the 170 Mw. This deal seems to be really about helping Emera grow with renewable energy used as an excuse. Emera is of course a public company without much connection to Nova Scotia other than ownership of Nova Scotia Power. My background is Project Engineering and Project Management at Stora Enso. I retired from the mill one month after NewPage took over. During my time at the mill the Biomass project was studied many times and was never found to be economically feasible. When Sable Gas first became available we did a conversion to natural gas on the boiler that will be used for biomass. It was never used very much because the price of gas escalated shortly after the installation. It is a different situation now with low gas prices and is no doubt cheaper than biomass. There has also been representation that waste wood will be used for the boiler. It would appear that the definition of waste wood is anything that can’t be used to make paper because there is pretty good looking hardwood being cut and stockpiled. Spruce is preferred to make paper. I can’t help thinking that the drive to build the biomass plant was a way to subsidize the NewPage plant. The cost of fuel would go to NewPage with a mark up no doubt. NSP paid 80 million for a 1973 era boiler. The 80 million disappeared never to be heard about again. Anyway, my compliments on a fine article. It just makes me mad to see what is going on in the background, the cost of which will no doubt be dumped on ratepayers in the province.
Gordon Bryson | August 8, 2012 |
Bill wrote “The continuing rise in electricity prices in Nova Scotia, while other jurisdictions are enjoying reductions, hurts both the budgets of families and the competitiveness of employers.”
Where are these jurisdictions that are enjoying reductions? I checked residential rates in St. John’s, Halifax,Moncton, PEI, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver, from 2007 to April 2012. All these jurisdictions have seen increases, albeit Montreal’s increase was negligible (no surprise).
NB Power’s rates are lower than NS Power’s rates, but NB Power carries a $5 billion debt. NS Power carries $2 billion. I guess in NB the approach is “let the children pay”.
Peter | August 5, 2012 |
Peter the reductions are in New England. See the links at :https://newstartns.ca/2012/05/power-pays/
Bill | August 5, 2012 |
Photovoltaic equipment offers opportunities for some of our electrical energy requirements they are limited. For example while they can be used to power incandescent light bulbs they cannot be used with CFL’s. For most of our modern household equipment we require an AC source. Photovoltaic eqp’t supplies DC and this necessitates expensive rectifiers. In addition PV eqp’t contains elements that are not environmentally friendly.
Bill | August 3, 2012 |
The definition of “renewable energy” does not include hydroelectricity. Unless this definition changes, hydro power from Muskrat Falls cannot be factored into the 40% renewable target this province is trying to achieve. Furthermore, it is a widely held myth that the New England States are hungry for power supplied by Canada. Quebec Hydro have multi-billion dollar projects on hold; projects that are slated to supply New England, as this same definition of “renewable energy” in the US, impedes their ability to receive power subsidies, meaning US ratepayers would not receive a rebate to offset the cost of their hydro power supplied by any source, let alone Canada. And as it further relates to Emera and Nalcor selling power into the US, considering US ratepayers are paying approximately $0.06/kWh, it will be cost prohibitive for US ratepayers to buy this very expensive Muskrat falls power. In fact, it will be cost prohibitive for Nova Scotians to pay these power rates when this power comes online.
Charlie MacEachern | August 3, 2012 |
Long ago ‘energy’ was just labour. In our future ‘energy’ will be more “complex”. More will be needed (if prosperity is to prevail) – so it will be relatively more expensive (as will food).
Today ‘unweildy’ utilities provide the energy which entails generation, distribution, billing, politicing, etc.
Perhaps the question that should be asked is, are these utilities going to continue to be the model, or are they going to morph into something else (such as when factory-layouts changed when electricity replaced steam)? It could well be, that these renewables, hooked up with reverse metering, could well be the ‘competition’ needed to futurize energy provision (think photovoltaic roofing materials – which could be on every home – as providing much of the energy). Will we follow or lead?
gordon stanfield | August 2, 2012 |
It may be helpful to the readers of the C-H if they published previous essays by yourself on this issue.
Emera,proponents of the sale of PH mill to some extent,and Nalco under stand the economic benefits to themselves but we,the ultimate payers, are left to the environmental whims of the present government who will not do or permit a complete cost/benefit assessment.or analysis.
Bill | August 2, 2012 |