So Danny has spoken about hydro power - this time while receiving the Modern Makers of Canada award - from the Institute on Governance.
In his speech to a crowd which included John Baird and Peter Penashue - Williams managed to confuse the Lower Churchill issue for replacement Premier Dunderdale.
While Williams commended the feds for the promise of a loan guarantee - he condemned them for being Centrist and bowing to Quebec.
Here's where it gets confusing:
Quote from Williams last night in Ottawa at the event:
"(The) east-west electricity grid is so important but Quebec is trying to block that because it is not in their best interest. But at the end of the day, it is in all our best interest because not only can we tap the hydro, we can tap the wind and other potential"
Williams speech focused on federal leadership needed to ensure smaller regions Canada are treated better.
Williams wants an east-west corridor through Quebec for hydro and wind potential - and he wants Ottawa to force the decision. He says this at the same time Dunderdale proposes to put us heavily in debt to go around Quebec. Although Williams signed the Term Sheet with Emera, Wikileaks has already exposed that even Emera thought they were possibly being used by Williams to force the Quebec issue on transmission access.
Williams left and we don't know why - particularly so soon after signing the Term Sheet and before seeing it through. Now he is basically begging for a corridor through Quebec in order to achieve proper development of hydro and wind resources in Labrador and the North generally.
Dunderdale - must be missing the point or did not get the full picture. Further the Premier does not know what she is doing with this resource deal and legacy of shame. The question is - will Williams tell us the truth on the whole situation?
The Emera deal must be stopped - there is no choice.
Read more in the Vancouver Sun
Showing posts with label wind energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wind energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Friday, February 04, 2011
PC MHA'S PLEASE READ - and Steve Kent particularly!
I just received this in my email today. Oh the irony. So Mr. Steve Kent - try to understand the issues before opening your mouth - to guide our population - into your abyss of ignorance.
The following is an excerpt from a Hydro-Quebec Release on February 01-11
Thanks to hydropower, over 98% of the electricity generated by Hydro-Québec is clean, renewable and reliable. Very few countries have the same kind of electricity generation profile. In Western Europe, for instance, close to 50% of electricity is generated using fossil fuels, including coal, and over 25% using nuclear power.
Hydropower also means that Quebeckers pay the lowest electricity rates in North America. For example, the average price billed to residential customers throughout Québec is 6.88¢/kWh (rates in effect April 1, 2010).
Of course, there are other sources of renewable energy. In fact, Hydro-Québec is helping develop a number of emerging renewable energy sources. But they will never replace hydropower, for a variety of reasons related to economics, the climate and the environment.
Here’s why:
Wind is unpredictable and intermittent, so it cannot produce a steady supply of electricity. That’s why wind energy supplements hydropower in Québec, just as it supplements nuclear power and fossil fuels elsewhere in the world.....
• The Romaine complex
The Romaine complex, being built between 2009 and 2020, continues the development of Québec’s hydropower potential. It is a cost-effective contribution to Québec’s long-term energy security.
At current borrowing rates, the cost of the Romaine project, including electricity transmission, is 6.4¢/kWh (in 2015 dollars), before water-power royalties paid to our shareholder, the Québec government. It is worth noting that the cost of borrowing to finance the project is much lower than anticipated when the environmental impact statement on the Romaine complex was filed in January 2008. At 6.4¢/kWh, Hydro-Québec covers all its costs. Any income above 6.4¢/kWh (in 2015 dollars) will thus make a positive contribution to the transfers and dividends paid to the Québec government. It should also be added that the generating stations, which will be commissioned between 2014 and 2020, will run for more than 50 years - more likely 100 years.
Hydropower is our basic energy. It’s the energy of our geography. The sites occupied by Hydro-Québec’s power line rights-of-way and reservoirs are ecosystems, and they are very much alive. Countries that have hydropower potential comparable to ours (such as Norway) continue to favor hydropower development, just as we do. It is a mission that Hydro-Québec is proud of.
Note to story: Next time we will talk about how we gave away the headwaters in Labrador (The Romaine River). Way to go Danny. But bit by bit all the Solid Gold ideas will come out. Who are the shareholders of Emera and what will they gain if this deal goes through? We will lose our future. Stop this Legacy of Shame!
The following is an excerpt from a Hydro-Quebec Release on February 01-11
Thanks to hydropower, over 98% of the electricity generated by Hydro-Québec is clean, renewable and reliable. Very few countries have the same kind of electricity generation profile. In Western Europe, for instance, close to 50% of electricity is generated using fossil fuels, including coal, and over 25% using nuclear power.
Hydropower also means that Quebeckers pay the lowest electricity rates in North America. For example, the average price billed to residential customers throughout Québec is 6.88¢/kWh (rates in effect April 1, 2010).
Of course, there are other sources of renewable energy. In fact, Hydro-Québec is helping develop a number of emerging renewable energy sources. But they will never replace hydropower, for a variety of reasons related to economics, the climate and the environment.
Here’s why:
Wind is unpredictable and intermittent, so it cannot produce a steady supply of electricity. That’s why wind energy supplements hydropower in Québec, just as it supplements nuclear power and fossil fuels elsewhere in the world.....
• The Romaine complex
The Romaine complex, being built between 2009 and 2020, continues the development of Québec’s hydropower potential. It is a cost-effective contribution to Québec’s long-term energy security.
At current borrowing rates, the cost of the Romaine project, including electricity transmission, is 6.4¢/kWh (in 2015 dollars), before water-power royalties paid to our shareholder, the Québec government. It is worth noting that the cost of borrowing to finance the project is much lower than anticipated when the environmental impact statement on the Romaine complex was filed in January 2008. At 6.4¢/kWh, Hydro-Québec covers all its costs. Any income above 6.4¢/kWh (in 2015 dollars) will thus make a positive contribution to the transfers and dividends paid to the Québec government. It should also be added that the generating stations, which will be commissioned between 2014 and 2020, will run for more than 50 years - more likely 100 years.
Hydropower is our basic energy. It’s the energy of our geography. The sites occupied by Hydro-Québec’s power line rights-of-way and reservoirs are ecosystems, and they are very much alive. Countries that have hydropower potential comparable to ours (such as Norway) continue to favor hydropower development, just as we do. It is a mission that Hydro-Québec is proud of.
Note to story: Next time we will talk about how we gave away the headwaters in Labrador (The Romaine River). Way to go Danny. But bit by bit all the Solid Gold ideas will come out. Who are the shareholders of Emera and what will they gain if this deal goes through? We will lose our future. Stop this Legacy of Shame!
Monday, September 24, 2007
Windy future for Energy Policy
As much as all of us get annoyed from time to time with our power bill - at least we have get a bit of it back through our ownership of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
Danny Williams - Gerry Reid - and Lorraine Michael appear to be uninterested in the latest energy projects in the province - wind.
The last great announcement by the Premier was a wind project - owned in part by the Government of Italy - with a power contract that has not been made public. We know we are paying for it - and lately all of the political parties are jumping on board claiming that the Holyrood fiasco might disappear or be substantially reduced by wind energy.
Of course none of them seem to care that piecemeal privatization of generation is occurring with potential "windfall" profits going to support education and health in Italy. We are consumers - however - should be worried about something more.
The Energy Plan mentioned our electrical grid and its inability - without upgrade - to handle much more input into the grid of wind supplements.
Have a look at some statements made by Eric Rosenbloom - Science Editor in Vermont.
In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity.
The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially.
In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.
Germany -- from Der Spiegel
"Windmühlen-Wahn: Von umweltfreundlicher Energie zur subventionierten Landschaftszerstörung"
( The madness about wind turbines: from the dream of environmentally friendly energy to highly subsidized destruction of the countryside )
Christopher Dutton, the CEO of Green Mountain Power, a partner in the Searsburg wind farm in Vermont and an advocate of alternative energy sources, has said (in an interview with Montpelier's The Bridge) that there is no way that wind power can replace more traditional sources, that its value is only as a supplemental source that has no impact on the base load supply. "By its very nature, it's unreliable," says Jay Morrison, senior regulatory counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
FPL Energy says it requires 40 acres per installed megawatt, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says 60 acres is likely. Facilities worldwide generally use 30-70 acres per megawatt, i.e., about 120-280 acres for every megawatt of likely average output (25% capacity factor).
Click Here to see the area impacted per MW of power
Especially vulnerable are large birds of prey that like to fly in the same sorts of places that developers like to construct wind towers. Fog -- a common situation on mountain ridges -- aggravates the problem for all birds.
As Country Guardian, a U.K. conservation group, puts it, wind farms constitute an increase in energy supply, not a replacement. They do not reduce the costs -- environmental, economic, and political -- of other means of energy production. If wind towers do not reduce conventional power use, then their manufacture, transport, and construction only increases the use of dirty energy. The presence of "free and green" wind power may even give people license to use more energy.
and then last but not least:
Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.
Communities in Germany, Wales, and Ireland claim that even 3,000 feet away the noise is significant. Individuals around the world say they have to close their windows and turn on the air conditioner when the wind turbines are active. The noise of a wind plant in Ireland was measured in 2002 at 60 dB 1 km (3,280 ft) upwind. The subaural low-frequency noise was above 70 dB (which is 10 times as loud on the logarithmic decibel scale). A German study in 2003 found significant noise levels 1 mile away from a 2-year-old wind farm of 17 1.8-MW turbines, especially at night.
Read the whole paper here!
Danny Williams - Gerry Reid - and Lorraine Michael appear to be uninterested in the latest energy projects in the province - wind.
The last great announcement by the Premier was a wind project - owned in part by the Government of Italy - with a power contract that has not been made public. We know we are paying for it - and lately all of the political parties are jumping on board claiming that the Holyrood fiasco might disappear or be substantially reduced by wind energy.
Of course none of them seem to care that piecemeal privatization of generation is occurring with potential "windfall" profits going to support education and health in Italy. We are consumers - however - should be worried about something more.
The Energy Plan mentioned our electrical grid and its inability - without upgrade - to handle much more input into the grid of wind supplements.
Have a look at some statements made by Eric Rosenbloom - Science Editor in Vermont.
Wind power promises a clean and free source of electricity. It will reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and reduce the output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. Many governments are therefore promoting the construction of vast wind "farms," encouraging private companies with generous subsidies and regulatory support, requiring utilities to buy from them, and setting up markets for the trade of "green credits" in addition to actual energy.
A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay [click here] stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants.
In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity.
The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially.
In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.
Germany -- from Der Spiegel"Windmühlen-Wahn: Von umweltfreundlicher Energie zur subventionierten Landschaftszerstörung"
( The madness about wind turbines: from the dream of environmentally friendly energy to highly subsidized destruction of the countryside )
Christopher Dutton, the CEO of Green Mountain Power, a partner in the Searsburg wind farm in Vermont and an advocate of alternative energy sources, has said (in an interview with Montpelier's The Bridge) that there is no way that wind power can replace more traditional sources, that its value is only as a supplemental source that has no impact on the base load supply. "By its very nature, it's unreliable," says Jay Morrison, senior regulatory counsel for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
FPL Energy says it requires 40 acres per installed megawatt, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says 60 acres is likely. Facilities worldwide generally use 30-70 acres per megawatt, i.e., about 120-280 acres for every megawatt of likely average output (25% capacity factor).
Click Here to see the area impacted per MW of power
Especially vulnerable are large birds of prey that like to fly in the same sorts of places that developers like to construct wind towers. Fog -- a common situation on mountain ridges -- aggravates the problem for all birds.
As Country Guardian, a U.K. conservation group, puts it, wind farms constitute an increase in energy supply, not a replacement. They do not reduce the costs -- environmental, economic, and political -- of other means of energy production. If wind towers do not reduce conventional power use, then their manufacture, transport, and construction only increases the use of dirty energy. The presence of "free and green" wind power may even give people license to use more energy.and then last but not least:
Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.
Communities in Germany, Wales, and Ireland claim that even 3,000 feet away the noise is significant. Individuals around the world say they have to close their windows and turn on the air conditioner when the wind turbines are active. The noise of a wind plant in Ireland was measured in 2002 at 60 dB 1 km (3,280 ft) upwind. The subaural low-frequency noise was above 70 dB (which is 10 times as loud on the logarithmic decibel scale). A German study in 2003 found significant noise levels 1 mile away from a 2-year-old wind farm of 17 1.8-MW turbines, especially at night.
Read the whole paper here!
Monday, September 10, 2007
Questions and Answers Hebron MOU
The only thing I want Danny Williams to do respecting the Hebron MOU is release it. Then I and any others interested can get a first-hand look at the document and do our own review.
As for major resource development - I call on Gerry Reid - Lorraine Michael - and Danny Williams - to introduce legislation that would require such MOU's to be released and debated in the House of Assembly. Otherwise you are all hypocrites.
Now that Danny won't release the MOU and Gerry has gotten into a list of questions - which I say the Premier will have a list of answers to during a televised election debate (won't be pretty) - I have some questions and answers of my own.
Why in the face of obvious public support for equity ownership (risks-benefits) accepted - do Gerry Reid and the Liberal Party continue to question the policy choice?
Here's one of Gerry's questions:
My answer is - yes it is a significant investment - with significant reward potential - nothing is guaranteed. At a time when oil was below $20 a barrel the feds purchased a piece of the Hibernia action and it has paid off exponentially. Now when oil sits at almost 4 times that value - we are wondering why we should take a piece of the action. Well that thinking gets us right back into the Upper Churchill. If we had taken some of the financial risk of that investment as Quebec did - we might be sitting here now with a few hundred million a year to work with. Labrador could have a highway of gold.
What is more puzzling is that the NDP and the PC's are willing to invest in equity and the Liberals are waffling on the whole idea. Get your arse pants off the picket fence and make solid policy choices.
Yes there are risks with equity - but you still buy a home right? Anything might happen.
With the size of our stake and the associated costs - one might imagine the "risk" the companies must be taking with the other 95%. We all know the oil companies do one thing better than any other industry - make profit. They too would have to speculate what the market would deliver - and they expect to make money from the Hebron development. We will also.
Let's look at another of Reid's questions:
Well I will address this two ways. First if we take more royalties on the back end of the deal instead of in the first ten years - we have essentially accomplished our equalization objective. Harper did not remove non-renewable resource revenues from the formula - so why scoop them all up now - only to lose equalization payments? No let's be more clever - bide our time - maybe the formula will change to reflect that policy in years to come - but if we are in the country let's max equalization as is done in Quebec.
Secondly if the profits of the equity are funneled into the new Energy Corporation and invested in much needed social and economic programs - we hide them from the equalization formula - thereby increasing our take again of the resources in our waters.
The Liberals had this advice in the past and ignored it. Too bad - they could have used the boost in public popularity and increased our benefits. Notwithstanding all of this in order to be a Norsk Hydro or a Hydro-Quebec we have to be players - and under past Liberal policy we were not. I only wish the Premier had done the same with wind - because in that you find Danny's weakness - inconsistency. That should have been further obvious when he did not release the MOU.
Over the next few days I will respond to Gerry's questions - and give you my take. Meanwhile Danny release the MOU. I have my own theory on where the oil companies made the gains and it's not with Hebron.
As for major resource development - I call on Gerry Reid - Lorraine Michael - and Danny Williams - to introduce legislation that would require such MOU's to be released and debated in the House of Assembly. Otherwise you are all hypocrites.
Now that Danny won't release the MOU and Gerry has gotten into a list of questions - which I say the Premier will have a list of answers to during a televised election debate (won't be pretty) - I have some questions and answers of my own.
Why in the face of obvious public support for equity ownership (risks-benefits) accepted - do Gerry Reid and the Liberal Party continue to question the policy choice?
Here's one of Gerry's questions:
How long will it take for government to recover its up-front investment?
An estimated $600 million is a lot of money to put forward in up-front costs without any immediate return on investment. How long will it take to recover this investment before any real money flows into the province's coffers?
My answer is - yes it is a significant investment - with significant reward potential - nothing is guaranteed. At a time when oil was below $20 a barrel the feds purchased a piece of the Hibernia action and it has paid off exponentially. Now when oil sits at almost 4 times that value - we are wondering why we should take a piece of the action. Well that thinking gets us right back into the Upper Churchill. If we had taken some of the financial risk of that investment as Quebec did - we might be sitting here now with a few hundred million a year to work with. Labrador could have a highway of gold.
What is more puzzling is that the NDP and the PC's are willing to invest in equity and the Liberals are waffling on the whole idea. Get your arse pants off the picket fence and make solid policy choices.
Yes there are risks with equity - but you still buy a home right? Anything might happen.
With the size of our stake and the associated costs - one might imagine the "risk" the companies must be taking with the other 95%. We all know the oil companies do one thing better than any other industry - make profit. They too would have to speculate what the market would deliver - and they expect to make money from the Hebron development. We will also.
Let's look at another of Reid's questions:
How much money has been left on the table by compromising on the royalty regime and allowing a one percent payment until payout?
If the generic royalty regime with an increasing royalty rate from 1% to 7.5% until payout is applied, similar to White Rose, hundreds of millions of extra dollars will flow into the province=s coffers in the early years of production. What impact will your compromise have on the amount of money that could have flowed into provincial coffers in the first ten years of production?
Well I will address this two ways. First if we take more royalties on the back end of the deal instead of in the first ten years - we have essentially accomplished our equalization objective. Harper did not remove non-renewable resource revenues from the formula - so why scoop them all up now - only to lose equalization payments? No let's be more clever - bide our time - maybe the formula will change to reflect that policy in years to come - but if we are in the country let's max equalization as is done in Quebec.
Secondly if the profits of the equity are funneled into the new Energy Corporation and invested in much needed social and economic programs - we hide them from the equalization formula - thereby increasing our take again of the resources in our waters.
The Liberals had this advice in the past and ignored it. Too bad - they could have used the boost in public popularity and increased our benefits. Notwithstanding all of this in order to be a Norsk Hydro or a Hydro-Quebec we have to be players - and under past Liberal policy we were not. I only wish the Premier had done the same with wind - because in that you find Danny's weakness - inconsistency. That should have been further obvious when he did not release the MOU.
Over the next few days I will respond to Gerry's questions - and give you my take. Meanwhile Danny release the MOU. I have my own theory on where the oil companies made the gains and it's not with Hebron.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The Premier's Energetic Little Blue Book
As we await our long overdue Energy Plan - I wonder if it will reflect the commitments made in the last Blue Book?
Let's have a peek - shall we?
Let's take this one - attract private sector investment to resource developments and manufacturing industries...Those industries - still waiting - still waiting...
Implement? You have not even released it yet. Now this one would mean that Lower Churchill would be used for Province-wide economic development...Where is that development??? Why are we counting on export first???
So far that is somewhat intact - except we are privatizing our generation - and instead of profiting from it ourselves - we will pay people like say - the Italian Government. Better stop those giveaways of our wind-power Premier.
If this is true - you will not export the power - Ontario does not need more industry - we do - and maximum benefits for the province does not necessarily mean maximum profits.
First of all let me remind you that you stated there would be no further dealings with Quebec unless resolve was found on the Upper Churchill - and real long-term benefits means industry from resources right???
What have we done to accomplish this? Maybe Kevin O'Brien Minister of Business or Trevor Taylor Minister of Industry or Kathy Dunderdale Minister of Natural Resources and/or even the Premier - real Minister of everything can show is how they have promoted industrial development for Labrador or the Island using Lower Churchill Power.
That is the only thing we see you working on Premier - now please tell us why the "best team" cannot come up with one industrial customer for the best energy in the world - hydro - and particularly with the Lower Churchill - one of the best remaining projects in Canada!!
Now Premier you can start living up to your promises...
Let's have a peek - shall we?
Newfoundland and Labrador is an energy rich Province. Our energy resources provide a strong and secure base to meet our energy needs and to attract private sector investment to resource developments and manufacturing industries in the Province.
Let's take this one - attract private sector investment to resource developments and manufacturing industries...Those industries - still waiting - still waiting...
Implement an energy plan to ensure that all energy sources are used first to provide a reliable, affordable supply of power for domestic use and for Province-wide economic development, and then to take advantage of business opportunities in export markets to sell energy that is excess to our needs on terms that secure maximum benefits for the Province.
Implement? You have not even released it yet. Now this one would mean that Lower Churchill would be used for Province-wide economic development...Where is that development??? Why are we counting on export first???
Retain Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown corporation with a mandate to support the Province's economy by providing reliable, clean energy at competitive prices, and making sure that its customers receive the best possible service for their money, while retaining well-paying, quality jobs (seasonal or otherwise) in the Province, as is their mandate.
So far that is somewhat intact - except we are privatizing our generation - and instead of profiting from it ourselves - we will pay people like say - the Italian Government. Better stop those giveaways of our wind-power Premier.
A main objective of a Progressive Conservative government is to secure maximum benefits for the Province from the development of our hydroelectricity resources.
If this is true - you will not export the power - Ontario does not need more industry - we do - and maximum benefits for the province does not necessarily mean maximum profits.
In particular, further development of the hydroelectricity potential on the Churchill River system must bring real and long-term benefits to the people of the Province and make a strong contribution to the Province's economy.
First of all let me remind you that you stated there would be no further dealings with Quebec unless resolve was found on the Upper Churchill - and real long-term benefits means industry from resources right???
Promote industrial development and meet domestic energy demand in Labrador and then on the Island of Newfoundland.
What have we done to accomplish this? Maybe Kevin O'Brien Minister of Business or Trevor Taylor Minister of Industry or Kathy Dunderdale Minister of Natural Resources and/or even the Premier - real Minister of everything can show is how they have promoted industrial development for Labrador or the Island using Lower Churchill Power.
Export surplus energy at market value, and on terms that will allow for recall to meet energy demand in the Province.
That is the only thing we see you working on Premier - now please tell us why the "best team" cannot come up with one industrial customer for the best energy in the world - hydro - and particularly with the Lower Churchill - one of the best remaining projects in Canada!!
Now Premier you can start living up to your promises...
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
It's the Sophisticated Voter - that makes the Difference
When it comes to planning for the future - the people of Quebec are "all over it".
They know that "green" is the way for tomorrow and once again they have made the intelligent choices.
The Premier muses about gas generation for the Island - remember FOGO (Friends of Gas Onshore) mouthpiece - Andy Wells - Danny's new found best friend - well this gas generation is price volatile like oil - is non-renewable - and not owned by the province and is not "green".
A couple of years back Quebecers had a project on the table - which they rejected for wind and hydro choices instead. It is already paying off - as Quebec is seen nationally and globally as leading the way for Canada.
The quote above found in a story in the Montreal Gazette.
They know that "green" is the way for tomorrow and once again they have made the intelligent choices.
The Premier muses about gas generation for the Island - remember FOGO (Friends of Gas Onshore) mouthpiece - Andy Wells - Danny's new found best friend - well this gas generation is price volatile like oil - is non-renewable - and not owned by the province and is not "green".
A couple of years back Quebecers had a project on the table - which they rejected for wind and hydro choices instead. It is already paying off - as Quebec is seen nationally and globally as leading the way for Canada.
Hydro-Quebec's 2004 proposal for a Suroit gas-fired power plant at Beauharnois - Ribaux estimates it would have increased the province's emissions by three per cent - was a turning point in Quebecers' concerns about the environment. Protests over greenhouse gases led the province later that year to scrap the plan, and Hydro-Quebec has since turned to wind power. "I think the reason was because groups like Equiterre were pushing citizens," Ribaux says.
Now, Quebec has adopted what he describes as "the most progressive plan in North America to reduce emissions," a sign that the provincial government is feeling the pressure from the electorate
The quote above found in a story in the Montreal Gazette.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)