Sue's Blog is always harping on the importance of using hydro to attract industry. Many times I use Iceland as an example - develop hydro for industrial development.
Then the usual critic from Labrador suggests that Iceland has to use it there - as it is an island. Lucky them - too bad Labrador was continentally connected during the Upper Churchill fiasco.
Of course the important point to be made - that industry will follow superior energy supply - thus Iceland has aluminum smelters - we do not. If we placed into law that export of Lower Churchill power cannot be achieved without approval of the House of Assembly - industry may start treating Labrador as an island. They will develop industry in Labrador from Labrador based power supply.
The other issue associated with energy mega-projects is technology intelligence and expertise. Hydro-Quebec has done this for years by exporting their knowledge - while taking a piece of the action in other countries developing hydro resources. This has been a very lucrative proposition for that province and its crown owned utility and the benefits achieved did not require the export of any generation.
Now - Iceland is also utilizing this opportunity by exporting expertise in geo-thermal supply. Iceland along with Norway are taking advantage of the thirst of Americans to find new sources of energy.
Glitnir said Wednesday it's planning to invest up to $ 40 billion in geothermal energy projects in North America by 2025 as the Nordic financial group eyes growth in the business of harnessing heat from the earth to produce electricity.
The firm is readying a formal announcement of a financing deal of more than $ 10 million behind Iceland America Energy Inc., a geothermal specialist with a deal to provide energy to PG&E (PGE) through the Truckhaven project in California, Magnusson said.
Glitner - Iceland's investment bank which has paved the way in the past for fisheries financing - offshore vessel financing - and energy projects has grown to an international company with offices world-wide. The goal now - to take advantage of others renewable resources - by providing financing - while Iceland America:
Iceland America Energy, through its Icelandic shareholder Enex, brings world class technical expertise and over 70 years experience in geothermal energy to the US and Canadian market. Enex, hf, a 50% owner of IAE, is a consortium composed of every significant Icelandic entity, both public and private, which comprise its geothermal industry. In late 2004 Enex joined with three domestic companies, Geolectric Power LLC, Feanaro LLC and DLFC Lawyers to form IAE.
Here we sit - with one of the most successful(technically)hydro-projects in the world - the Upper Churchill - and another on the way with the Lower Churchill and we do none of this.
Both Quebec and Iceland use their renewable energy resources for major industrial developments and their expertise for global developments. They both also finance projects in many countries and deliver the financial bacon home.
We need new vision - a new direction - and some sense of real value of the resources we have. If a government cannot deliver these types of benefits to Labrador let the river flow.
13 comments:
Would the critic of whom you speak be a bureaucrat who works out of the Labrador Liberal Member's Office in Ottawa?
Why is he constantly working on behalf of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, instead of from where he hails Labrador? Both he and the member for whom he works should be shouting long and hard for that clean Lower Churchill Hydro Energy to be utilized to attract industry in Labrador.
His argument on Iceland being an Island is the most stupid argument that I have ever heard.
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyemonday/feature_130605.html
Seeing that you use Iceland as an excample so often Sue,i was wondering if any of your readers have seen this.
Makes for some very ,intersting topics of conversion for those in the province that have nationalist views for sure.
It is also for sale thru the DownHomer.At thier web site .
http://www.tidespoint.com/videos/hard_rock.shtml
Sue, regarding the usual critic from Labrador about the fact that Iceland has to use it there because it can't export it anywhere refers to the simple fact that regarding Labrador power - there was and is in fact a choice. And that choice was, in fact, made. It was NOT made by Labradorians, nor did they have any input, as they don't really have any input now. I also know the person you are likely referring to doesn't need my explanation. Obviously someone made the choice, on the 'Upper Churchill' to export it, as I believe we will most likely see the same sort of choice made to export the 'Lower Churchill'. For most Labradorians, it doesn't matter WHERE the resource goes, it will simply be gone - and this reflects the policies, past and present, of our Provincial government. By extension, 70 to 80 percent voter support means that, in general, the voter base agrees with it. The River, with all its other considerable potential for local use, will be gone with little or no benefit to the people who live here, and for the benefit of someone else, somewhere else - doesn't matter where. Most of our communities will be left with no energy for development, of any kind, domestic, commercial, industrial for a few bucks in the Provincial treasury which I can guarantee you, is pretty slow coming to Labrador. It's probably pretty hard to see these issues from a Labrador perspective when one is not from here. There is always lots of talk about Labrador Resources but usually none about Labradorians or what they should rightfully expect from those resources.
I point these things out, not to be attacking, or even critical, but simply to try and explain the perspective of many Labradorians and what all this means to many of them.
Lloyd
Time for that to stop - don't you think?
Labrador power for Labrador development...
lp you have a choice. Say "NO - NO WAY" to the exporting of that clean Lower Churchill Hydro-electric Energy out of Labrador. You might not have had a choice back in the 1960s, basically because most of us were unaware of what really was taking place with the Upper Churchill Hydro-electric Energy project that has seen Hydro Quebec get very rich, but now we have all been apprised on the happenings on the Lower Churchill and what is about to come the chute.
Your choice lp is as plain as the nose on your face. You and others have to say "No - No way will the power be exported, it must create industry right here in Labrador". That is the only line you need to stick to and then you stick behind that line long before they come to take it away. It must not happen.
We cannot keep exporting out our resources, it must STOP since that is the primary reason we have not been able to create a meaningful economy anywhere in this province over the past 58 years. Instead of creating economies here we created them in provinces like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba.
Labradorians and Newfoundlanders are the masters over their resources and it is up to us completely whether we allow them to be developed here or developed in some other part of Canada or the World. You see our politicians must be willing to be dictated to by their electorate which is us. Let us not be afraid to stand up for our rights with regards to our resources. Politicians should not be allowed to make such decisions, it should be completely up to the electorate.
And please tune out the Globe and Mail and National post columnists, otherwise known as the National Media. Tune out the Canadian Think Tank philosopher's opinions, since they work for the Ottawa government and Central Canada. They will all descend upon us with their opinions and they will try to put up smoke screens as they always do in such instances in order to blindfold the people of this province so as to make it easier to wrestle that wonderful Hydro electric resource out of Labrador. Tune all of these agencies out and let us all stick to our desire that the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project if it goes forward, and, of course, if the people of Labrador want their precious rivers to be harvested to create hydro energy, that the energy derived from such a project MUST BE utilized to create industry in Labrador.
For anonymous -
It would appear to me you nearly left out one of the choices 'til the end - whether or not the river is to be destroyed should be included in the choices, should it not? Do you know of any studies exploring the value (economic and environmental) of the river as it is, other than destruction and export value?
Further, and maybe most relevent within the next month, it is not Labrador who will elect the next decision makers - it is you (if you live on the Island). Think about it. Does that sound familiar, in the context of so much of the Nfld/Canada public discussion? If you think that's a problem, you probably wouldn't want to be in our shoes.
Whether to further develop the river or not is certainly a challenge. Not one which I have overlooked. The economic value of the river in 100 years time - for other purposes might be exponentially greater than hydro-development.
The challenge of the rivers - is how many smaller ones or one big one - or on and on it goes.
There are other tremendous rivers in Labrador for potential - should be discussed.
Somebody should be looking at the Romaine for sure.
I love rivers! I grew up on a small river and if it were up to me, I would not want to alter my river's course, instead I would leave it in the state that nature created it. But ultimately that is for Labradorians to decide, I do not have a suggestion there other than to say that if Labradorians decide to harvest it, well then my opinion is that the energy derived should be utilized to create industry in Labrador. And, of course, that too is completely up to Labradorians.
lp I am with you and all Labradorians whichever way your heart desires. I hope and pray that the rest of your fellow Newfoundlanders are too. But, of course, you will have to express yourselves in order for our people to know that you want our voices to be heard in unison.
Ah, there we might be getting to the real core of the whole thing? Does anyone think this is a choice between one large river or many smaller ones? That's only for now. After the Grand River is part of the nostalgic past (along with all it's other possibilities, including it's own intrinsic environmental value), does anyone really believe the other rivers are safe? If so, why do they hold that belief? There is nothing in recorded history that makes me think we would then be satisfied - they all have dollar value and that will rule the decision making. Does hydro power really mean less pollution? I doubt it. It will just add to the energy produced by coal and oil etc, not replace it. Might sound dumb now, but it will be correct sometime soon. Aren't there harvestable rivers on the Island such as the Humber and Exploits? There must be some energy value to those great rivers, isn't there?
Why is he constantly working on behalf of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, instead of from where he hails Labrador?
Some examples of this would be, what, anonymous coward?
His argument on Iceland being an Island is the most stupid argument that I have ever heard.
You can't have heard too many arguments.
As usual great topics and a great debate for sure.
How would you like to run for the Labrador Party in Lake Melville?
lp - I feel you do not want your river or rivers harvested for hydro-electricity and that you would rather keep the intrinsic value that was created by nature.
lp - if that is the way you feel, please before it is too late, you and yours speak up before your river's/rivers\ beautiful flow gets/get altered forever.
You must have your voices heard before it really is too late. Rivers are not created everyday, they are a once in many thousand of years creation. The beauty that rivers hold in their natural state cannot be duplicated.
I will cry for the death of your river as well as you and yours.
No, I don't want the Grand River, or any river destroyed if there's any way to avoid it. However, we all know it's never that simple.
Let's just say as sure as I'm sitting here that I don't want it further destroyed for nothing. Again. And if there's no input from all parts of Labrador and no decent return for all Labradorians I sure as heck don't want it destroyed. We can leave it at that.
Lloyd
Post a Comment