Kudos for your column in today’s Herald.
The last two paragraphs sum it all up and rephrase your earlier question that it all should start with “how much power do we need and when do we need it?
I am amazed that all the talk of Nova Scotia importing gas in order to pressurize and export it doesn’t seem to include the idea of using some of it for power generation. That’s for another day. Keep up the Muskrat questions.
That is a rather sipmlistic argument JW. Nalcor has already stated that the cost to transmit the power to Soldiers Pond will be more than 16 cents and that price was derived from blending it with power from cheaper sources ( Baie D’espoir for example). Obviously you didn’t include transmission costs in your reply. Furthermore, did you include in your calculations the huge chunk of free power going to Nova Scotia? Even using your figure of 7.5 cents, that is more than the 2.8 cents market value at the US border and more than the 4 cents that Alderon claims it will pay for power to their mine. So we pay twice-for the price of the project and to subsidize mining companies.
Excellent article; it should also be kept in mind that where time-of-day power rates with smart power meters have been introduced, peak-period demand is typically lowered by 30 – 35 percent, allowing a significant reduction to capacity (and rate base). And , consumers are empowered to control their own power bills while significantly reducing their environmental footprints.
Obviously, Emera will not opt for simple options like this since they are not in the interest of Emera shareholders.
As a graduate of Dalhousie School of Public Administration, former Policy Development and Policy Analyst with NS Gov’t and a small business owner. I usually can ferret out the subterfuge of these political “great deals”. This one has caused me some struggle. I just wanted to thank you for giving the straight goods on the Muskrat Falls Project for the people of Nova Scotia. The information has been coming out in drips and bits of half truths that can rarely be connected, unless you have been keeping a written list. Even then it is very difficult to connect the items.
I would very much like to see a similar overview of the straight goods on a potential with Hydro Quebec. The day to day life of most people Nova Scotia is hectic and trying to keep abreast of what politicians are offering is impossible. There is not enough good information to make decisions.
A big thank you once again and please keep giving us the breakdowns. They are heart warming to read.
Nalcor has carefully steered around ever presenting an explanation for how they will deliver Winter energy from Muskrat. The Winter flow rate of the Churchill River will drop the output of the dam to about 300 MW — about enough to replace oil-fired generation on the Island of Newfoundland but nothing for NS. Piecing together the scraps that have leaked from Nalcor, it seems that the plan is to store excess Spring output from Muskrat in the reservoir at Upper Churchill and then repossess that stored energy in Winter. Whenever Nalcor comments on how this plan will work, they point to NL’s Water Management Agreement as if it answers all the questions. But the WMA doesn’t overrule HQ’s contractual rights. Nalcor can’t take winter energy away from Upper Churchill without severely harming HQ. HQ is in court right now clearing up the fog that Nalcor has created to cloak its production plan for Muskrat Madness.
The real purpose of Muskrat Madness, from the beginning, may have been to try to break the 1969 Upper Churchill contract and to foment conflict between NL and Quebec — a sure route to political power in NL. If this thesis is borne out by future developments, then the decision of the NS NDP to hitch their wagon to a project designed diminish Canada’s national unity will taint that party’s history. The NS NDP’s comments about why the province can’t depend on HQ supports the thesis that the Muskrat scheme is some kind of anti-Quebec ploy. The NDP’s comments about the evils of HQ would be perplexing to New England power consumers who have long benefited from HQ.
Promoting renewable energy has become one of the strategies for grabbing political power across many provincial jurisdictions in Canada. This strategy has been successful politically because the interest of ratepayers is so weakly represented.
Nothing Emera has told us about this project makes any real sense until you consider that they will make a 9.6% return on their investment regardless of the profitability of the deal. That’s something like $150-million per year profit – guaranteed. Emera would build a subsea cable to Sable Island if they could be guaranteed a 9.6% return on the cost of the project. Their costs are guaranteed by the rate payers and the profit is guaranteed by the stupid guaranteed return on equity.
Dexter was so desperate for something good to report that he endorsed this deal. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that Newfoundland needs power on the island and with the supply of nickel they have in northern Labrador, they will need the excess power when they build a smelter. Jobs in Newfoundland is the real objective.
Even if Emera and the Newfoundland government have to play a little fast and loose with the truth to achieve their ends, what’s a little lie that only screws non-Newfoundlanders and guarantees profits to a bloated monopoly.
Would not the most recent discovery of a “massive” oil field(s) of the coast of NL diminish the possibility of any surplus power?
I would think that NL would insist that all processing and ancillary development from the field be done in NL and refineries and chemical plants demand much cheap power.
Premier Dunderdale does not appear to be the type to throw that development to the wind and the wind won’t supply the power needed in any event.
Kudos for your column in today’s Herald.
The last two paragraphs sum it all up and rephrase your earlier question that it all should start with “how much power do we need and when do we need it?
I am amazed that all the talk of Nova Scotia importing gas in order to pressurize and export it doesn’t seem to include the idea of using some of it for power generation. That’s for another day. Keep up the Muskrat questions.
Jim | September 30, 2013 |
That is a rather sipmlistic argument JW. Nalcor has already stated that the cost to transmit the power to Soldiers Pond will be more than 16 cents and that price was derived from blending it with power from cheaper sources ( Baie D’espoir for example). Obviously you didn’t include transmission costs in your reply. Furthermore, did you include in your calculations the huge chunk of free power going to Nova Scotia? Even using your figure of 7.5 cents, that is more than the 2.8 cents market value at the US border and more than the 4 cents that Alderon claims it will pay for power to their mine. So we pay twice-for the price of the project and to subsidize mining companies.
Luis | December 25, 2015 |
Here is a further discussion of the operational problem that Nalcor has getting power out of Muskrat in winter: http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2012/10/13/review-of-aims-commentary-the-muskrat-falls-hydro-project-opportunities-and-risks/
Tom Adams (@tomadams | September 29, 2013 |
Excellent article; it should also be kept in mind that where time-of-day power rates with smart power meters have been introduced, peak-period demand is typically lowered by 30 – 35 percent, allowing a significant reduction to capacity (and rate base). And , consumers are empowered to control their own power bills while significantly reducing their environmental footprints.
Obviously, Emera will not opt for simple options like this since they are not in the interest of Emera shareholders.
Keep up the great work.
John | September 29, 2013 |
As a graduate of Dalhousie School of Public Administration, former Policy Development and Policy Analyst with NS Gov’t and a small business owner. I usually can ferret out the subterfuge of these political “great deals”. This one has caused me some struggle. I just wanted to thank you for giving the straight goods on the Muskrat Falls Project for the people of Nova Scotia. The information has been coming out in drips and bits of half truths that can rarely be connected, unless you have been keeping a written list. Even then it is very difficult to connect the items.
I would very much like to see a similar overview of the straight goods on a potential with Hydro Quebec. The day to day life of most people Nova Scotia is hectic and trying to keep abreast of what politicians are offering is impossible. There is not enough good information to make decisions.
A big thank you once again and please keep giving us the breakdowns. They are heart warming to read.
Diana | September 29, 2013 |
Nalcor has carefully steered around ever presenting an explanation for how they will deliver Winter energy from Muskrat. The Winter flow rate of the Churchill River will drop the output of the dam to about 300 MW — about enough to replace oil-fired generation on the Island of Newfoundland but nothing for NS. Piecing together the scraps that have leaked from Nalcor, it seems that the plan is to store excess Spring output from Muskrat in the reservoir at Upper Churchill and then repossess that stored energy in Winter. Whenever Nalcor comments on how this plan will work, they point to NL’s Water Management Agreement as if it answers all the questions. But the WMA doesn’t overrule HQ’s contractual rights. Nalcor can’t take winter energy away from Upper Churchill without severely harming HQ. HQ is in court right now clearing up the fog that Nalcor has created to cloak its production plan for Muskrat Madness.
The real purpose of Muskrat Madness, from the beginning, may have been to try to break the 1969 Upper Churchill contract and to foment conflict between NL and Quebec — a sure route to political power in NL. If this thesis is borne out by future developments, then the decision of the NS NDP to hitch their wagon to a project designed diminish Canada’s national unity will taint that party’s history. The NS NDP’s comments about why the province can’t depend on HQ supports the thesis that the Muskrat scheme is some kind of anti-Quebec ploy. The NDP’s comments about the evils of HQ would be perplexing to New England power consumers who have long benefited from HQ.
Promoting renewable energy has become one of the strategies for grabbing political power across many provincial jurisdictions in Canada. This strategy has been successful politically because the interest of ratepayers is so weakly represented.
Tom Adams (@tomadams | September 28, 2013 |
Nothing Emera has told us about this project makes any real sense until you consider that they will make a 9.6% return on their investment regardless of the profitability of the deal. That’s something like $150-million per year profit – guaranteed. Emera would build a subsea cable to Sable Island if they could be guaranteed a 9.6% return on the cost of the project. Their costs are guaranteed by the rate payers and the profit is guaranteed by the stupid guaranteed return on equity.
Dexter was so desperate for something good to report that he endorsed this deal. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that Newfoundland needs power on the island and with the supply of nickel they have in northern Labrador, they will need the excess power when they build a smelter. Jobs in Newfoundland is the real objective.
Even if Emera and the Newfoundland government have to play a little fast and loose with the truth to achieve their ends, what’s a little lie that only screws non-Newfoundlanders and guarantees profits to a bloated monopoly.
Jon Coates | September 28, 2013 |
Would not the most recent discovery of a “massive” oil field(s) of the coast of NL diminish the possibility of any surplus power?
I would think that NL would insist that all processing and ancillary development from the field be done in NL and refineries and chemical plants demand much cheap power.
Premier Dunderdale does not appear to be the type to throw that development to the wind and the wind won’t supply the power needed in any event.
Bill F | September 27, 2013 |