Yes the link to New England could be useful for exporting tidal. But how ironic would it be for us to sell power there at half the price we are paying to Nalcor?
Could the link with Muskrat Falls to NS and then onto the eastern seaboard (this is how I understand it) be more incentive to develop other power solutions like tidal? Now that the link is set up, allowing other power sources to “rent” space be a way to offset costs? I for one think NS with its potentially many diversified power sources (natural gas, wind, hydro, tidal, solar, etc.) in a small geographical space with changing weather could be a world-leading research ground for the creation and distribution of power (smart grid type technology). Further work with companies like Danielle Fong’s Lightsail Energy could be a way forward for this and this may be an instance where having the one large corp that controls distribution be an advantage. What are your thoughts?
The successful bidders in the recent wind power competition have signed 20 year contracts for a price of ~$75/MWh with a 20% of inflation escalation provision. The competition was over subscribed tenfold and there are projects ready to go in NS that would delivery long term wind power in the $75 – $85 range. This is at a time when gas prices are at a historic low of $2.18/mmBtu meaning that gas fired open cycle generators are cheap backup to firm the wind power being able to deliver power at sub $70/MWh. For the wind projects the developers are taking all of the construction risk – the ratepayer is insulated from this. Why should the NS ratepayer pay $140/MWh for power from Muskrat Falls when they can get the same power for almost half the price from NS homegrown generation. This makes no sense.
If you think they are going to sell power to New England, think again. Most states have long term deals (Vermont 35 years) with Hydro Quebec at 5 cents per Kwh. So why would they buy from NS? Not to mention if that’s what they plan on doing then the power will pass on by right to New England. How does that benefit the NS ratepayer.
Emera owns the Courtney Bay gas fired plant in Saint John, NB. It’s currently connected to the NS grid and is currently running (They have to sell the power to NB though for the first 5 years at a set cost.). My dad worked there for 35 years, then Irving hired him as a consultant at Bayside power. When he was training Emera’s workers he asked why they weren’t running their gas-fired plants when Natural gas was at a historic low? They replied, “Because it’s cheaper to burn coal than gas. Coal is at a 35 year low. We burn coal, tell em it’s expensive and make huge quarterly profits. We don’t have to disclose the price, so we don’t.”
That’s the kind of company we’re dealing with. NB power has been burning coal AND making profit at 9 cents a Kwh.
Time to wake people and start taking them to task.
Re:para 3
If the ratepayers are being asked to accept the construction cost risk,they should be rewarded proportionately to this risk–that is basic business.
To assume that risk we must be able to quantify it in order to determine a fair reward.
If Emera/Nalcor cannnot/will not quantify it then “no deal”.That is also basic business
If we elect to assume the risk on a business basis an appropriate reward would be the issuance of preferred interest bearing shares to a trust for the benefit of ratepayers.Naturally these would outrank the common shareholders,who might,before authorizing the issuance,take a closerlook at this overall proposal..Some body must do so.To date the PURB seems unable or unwilling to delve into the financial ramifications.Make the shareholders of Emera the ultimate guarantors–that is basic business.
Another contract or two won’t delay the issue
Hi Bill: Thank goodness someone is looking at and analyzing the energy needs of Nova Scotia for the immediate and longer terms. Does Emera have the interests of Nova Scotians in mind or their profits. Rather unsettling to have the “thinking” of our government revealed, or unrevealed! Ron Gregor.
Yes the link to New England could be useful for exporting tidal. But how ironic would it be for us to sell power there at half the price we are paying to Nalcor?
Bill Black | November 19, 2012 |
Could the link with Muskrat Falls to NS and then onto the eastern seaboard (this is how I understand it) be more incentive to develop other power solutions like tidal? Now that the link is set up, allowing other power sources to “rent” space be a way to offset costs? I for one think NS with its potentially many diversified power sources (natural gas, wind, hydro, tidal, solar, etc.) in a small geographical space with changing weather could be a world-leading research ground for the creation and distribution of power (smart grid type technology). Further work with companies like Danielle Fong’s Lightsail Energy could be a way forward for this and this may be an instance where having the one large corp that controls distribution be an advantage. What are your thoughts?
Brian Covert | November 19, 2012 |
The successful bidders in the recent wind power competition have signed 20 year contracts for a price of ~$75/MWh with a 20% of inflation escalation provision. The competition was over subscribed tenfold and there are projects ready to go in NS that would delivery long term wind power in the $75 – $85 range. This is at a time when gas prices are at a historic low of $2.18/mmBtu meaning that gas fired open cycle generators are cheap backup to firm the wind power being able to deliver power at sub $70/MWh. For the wind projects the developers are taking all of the construction risk – the ratepayer is insulated from this. Why should the NS ratepayer pay $140/MWh for power from Muskrat Falls when they can get the same power for almost half the price from NS homegrown generation. This makes no sense.
John Brereton | September 7, 2012 |
If you think they are going to sell power to New England, think again. Most states have long term deals (Vermont 35 years) with Hydro Quebec at 5 cents per Kwh. So why would they buy from NS? Not to mention if that’s what they plan on doing then the power will pass on by right to New England. How does that benefit the NS ratepayer.
Emera owns the Courtney Bay gas fired plant in Saint John, NB. It’s currently connected to the NS grid and is currently running (They have to sell the power to NB though for the first 5 years at a set cost.). My dad worked there for 35 years, then Irving hired him as a consultant at Bayside power. When he was training Emera’s workers he asked why they weren’t running their gas-fired plants when Natural gas was at a historic low? They replied, “Because it’s cheaper to burn coal than gas. Coal is at a 35 year low. We burn coal, tell em it’s expensive and make huge quarterly profits. We don’t have to disclose the price, so we don’t.”
That’s the kind of company we’re dealing with. NB power has been burning coal AND making profit at 9 cents a Kwh.
Time to wake people and start taking them to task.
Craig Estey | August 8, 2012 |
Re:para 3
If the ratepayers are being asked to accept the construction cost risk,they should be rewarded proportionately to this risk–that is basic business.
To assume that risk we must be able to quantify it in order to determine a fair reward.
If Emera/Nalcor cannnot/will not quantify it then “no deal”.That is also basic business
If we elect to assume the risk on a business basis an appropriate reward would be the issuance of preferred interest bearing shares to a trust for the benefit of ratepayers.Naturally these would outrank the common shareholders,who might,before authorizing the issuance,take a closerlook at this overall proposal..Some body must do so.To date the PURB seems unable or unwilling to delve into the financial ramifications.Make the shareholders of Emera the ultimate guarantors–that is basic business.
Another contract or two won’t delay the issue
Bill | August 8, 2012 |
Hi Bill: Thank goodness someone is looking at and analyzing the energy needs of Nova Scotia for the immediate and longer terms. Does Emera have the interests of Nova Scotians in mind or their profits. Rather unsettling to have the “thinking” of our government revealed, or unrevealed! Ron Gregor.
Ron Gregor | August 8, 2012 |