In May of 2012 Tom Marshall (Minister of Finance) called Open Line - on that day hosted by Pete Soucy.
During the course of that discussion - which was about prescription drug costs - he waded into Muskrat Falls and their reasoning for it.
For a couple of reasons - I purchased a text copy of that call - and now it will serve as good reminder for us all.
TOM MARSHALL: So we're putting money in to ensure that our seniors,
the people on the 65 plus program are protected and of course the big
one of all is going to be Muskrat where we're trying to regulate
electricity costs. So, and we'll continue with you know, with things
like that to ensure that people on fixed incomes and lower income people are protected.
In this response to a drug program related question - he began to wander into Muskrat Falls. You can see he is addressing seniors and protecting them from higher cost electricity?
TOM
MARSHALL: Well you go to remember that Muskrat Falls is for us. It's
for the people of the province. Muskrat Falls does not exist primarily.
The reason for Muskrat Falls is not to export power, that's why Churchill Falls, the Upper Churchill
came into existence. You know, it was done by a profit seeking
corporation and their objective was to make money. Muskrat Falls is for
the people of the province, it's being done by Nalcor which is owned by
the people and it's being done to provide electricity - to meet the
electricity needs of the people of the province primarily. We're going
to need power here on the island, we also want to shut down Holyrood
because that's the most expensive power we have that goes into the grid.
And you know, at peak production they're burning 18,000 barrels a day.
When they started, I think a barrel of oil was $3. Now it is $103.
So - and our experts tells that the price of oil is going to continue to
rise and Holyrood produces electricity by burning thousands of barrels
of oil. So that's what's been driving up peoples electricity costs.
That's why Newfoundland & Labrador Hydro has gone looking for rate
increases, it's all because of - or mainly because of the increases in
the price of oil. So we need more power and we need to get off
Holyrood. In addition, Labrador is going to need a lot of power.
There's all these mining companies that want to open up mines in
Labrador you know, in the iron ore.
I hope you read each and every word of his next response. Try and get your head around this fiction from just 5 years ago.
Then he adds:
TOM MARSHALL: And uranium -they're going to need a lot of power. So
when we first talked about doing Muskrat, the idea is that the extra
power we'd say, well rather than let the water flow down to the sea, we
can at least take that extra power, that surplus to our needs and
through this maritime link that Nova Scotia is going to build, at least
we can sell that extra power, that surplus power to the US market or NB
or NS or PEI. But now what we think is that won't happen for very long
because ultimately the power is going to be needed in Labrador.
I truly hope the people of Labrador are reviewing this.
There is no doubt I had an interest in this and could not believe the words I was hearing.
I was not the only one who wanted a copy of this that day. You'll probably be surprised when you find out - given the current day affairs.
Showing posts with label holyrood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label holyrood. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Somewhere Over the Budget
"Somewhere Over The Budget" "What a Wasted World"
a Newfoundland and Labrador Lament
I hear babies cry and I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more than we'll know
And I think to myself
What do they think of their world
Someday I'll wish upon a star,
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above the Holyrood chimney top
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget way up high
And the dream that you dare to, what oh what did they do?
a Newfoundland and Labrador Lament
Somewhere over the budget
Way up high
And the dreams that you dreamed of
now will go Bye Bye
Somewhere over the budget
Way up high
And the dreams that you dreamed of
now will go Bye Bye
Somewhere over the budget
Blue backbenchers fly
And the dreams that you dreamed of
Dreams really don't come true ooh oh
Someday I'll wish upon a star
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above Holyrood chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget backbenchers fly
And the dream that you dare to,
Oh why, oh why can't I?
Well I see trees of debt and red ink too,
I'll watch them saddle me and you
And I think to myself
What a wasted world
Well I see skies of blue
And I see clouds of blue
And the light during the day
I like the dark
And I think to myself
What a darknl world
The colors of the Muskrat so clear in the sky
Are also on the faces of people passing by
I see friends clasping hands
Saying, "What did they do?"
They're really saying, oh we're screwed.
And the dreams that you dreamed of
Dreams really don't come true ooh oh
Someday I'll wish upon a star
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above Holyrood chimney tops
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget backbenchers fly
And the dream that you dare to,
Oh why, oh why can't I?
Well I see trees of debt and red ink too,
I'll watch them saddle me and you
And I think to myself
What a wasted world
Well I see skies of blue
And I see clouds of blue
And the light during the day
I like the dark
And I think to myself
What a darknl world
The colors of the Muskrat so clear in the sky
Are also on the faces of people passing by
I see friends clasping hands
Saying, "What did they do?"
They're really saying, oh we're screwed.
I hear babies cry and I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more than we'll know
And I think to myself
What do they think of their world
Someday I'll wish upon a star,
Wake up where the Tories are far behind me
Where trouble melts like Muskrat drops
High above the Holyrood chimney top
That's where you'll find me
Oh, somewhere over the budget way up high
And the dream that you dare to, what oh what did they do?
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Let's get Simple on Muskrat
Show me how we are going to need the increase in power projected for the Island.
Show me.
By all means - all PC supporters welcomed to explain - especially MHA's.
Show me.
By all means - all PC supporters welcomed to explain - especially MHA's.
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!
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Flawed policy on hydropower...
It was interesting today to speak directly with the Premier - and ask him - about the policy to export any power from the Lower Churchill development.
It is important for all of us to stay on top of this issue and have a say in the development.
I have been posting for over a year now on the policy of exporting Lower Churchill power. Most readers of Sue's Blog know that I support a policy which bans the export of hydro-electric power.
I will now review the conversation I had today with the Premier on CBC's Crosstalk - and hope to add more to discussion.
I began my conversation with the Premier by reminding him of statements he made when Leader of the Opposition.
The first is from the House of Assembly on March 19-2003:
and in a speech on Voisey's Bay on June 12-2002
The Premier acknowledged the statements and added "bulk - bulk - bulk" to it.
I then expressed to the Premier that I agree with his stand in sending big business the proper message when wanting to exploit our natural resources. And added that I - like him believe that if industry is given the choice - they would rather bulk our resources out rather than build infrastructure in the province. He confirmed that position.
When the Premier walked from the table on Hebron - he said here are our terms if you want this development. He was also prepared to use legislation to help force negotiations - and was only stopped because that required Ottawa's participation. (oil and gas resources offshore - technically belong to Canada).
I further suggested to the Premier that I agree with his gamble on royalties and equity and believe that oil prices will remain high and continue to increase over the mid to long-terms. I then pointed out that if we are correct - then the value of hydro-power is that much greater.
My question was:
Premiers answer:
Then I asked:
Premier's answer:
Please read the Premier's comments again and consider the following:
The Premier says we need guaranteed power sales to finance - let's agree with him - why do those power sales have to be guaranteed by export? They don't! We can get guaranteed power sales in Labrador from industry.
The Premier says he would prefer to use the power for industry here. What's the likelihood of that happening when the Premier and his "energy team" is running around the country talking about our available power to export?
Further - I can tell you the advice the Premier is getting must be weak - if he does not understand and believe that not only is Lower Churchill power competitive - it is one of the best remaining hydro developments in North America.
One must consider the Premier demanded and says he has received what he preferred for Hebron development. This despite Exxon and Chevron's multitude of oil and gas resources globally some of which are much more competitive than Hebron - therefore what's preventing our Premier in setting down the rules for hydro power?
Hydro is owned and controlled by the province - unlike the oil and gas offshore and our fishery. We can legislate and negotiate whatever terms we want for our power.
When the Premier references the spot-market - we cannot bank on those sales as they do not constitute long-term power contracts - which is what the Premier says is required to finance the project. So then we get to selling the power to Quebec - Ontario - or the Maritimes for 5 or 6 cents (4 - 5 net after marketing - and transmission costs) versus selling it to industry here for 4 to 5 cents. Compare the two potentials and understand that only one of them will employ the thousands of young graduates and skilled tradespeople on a long-term basis. Industry!
I will be commenting further over the next few posts on specific industry information. I leave you with this to think about. In my opinion the Premier should employ people who are able to deliver to him his preference - industry for Labrador - because right now the best team is not in place.
When the Premier first talks about taking 600 MW's and removing the thermal generation in Holyrood as one power contract - without first being able to provide a significant potential contract with an industry for Labrador - something is flawed with the policy - and it's best to fix that right now.
Why won't this Premier set the rules for industry relative to hydro development?
His comment on energy in Quebec and BC - is some form of admission to being inferior to these provinces in our relative potentials. We are not. The comment on wind in Quebec - no basis for it - incorrect. Yes they have wind installed - it is supplementary not additional and is not as cheap as hydro-power - that's why they continue to develop their hydro potentials.
Be back soon with more info and questions...
It is important for all of us to stay on top of this issue and have a say in the development.
I have been posting for over a year now on the policy of exporting Lower Churchill power. Most readers of Sue's Blog know that I support a policy which bans the export of hydro-electric power.
I will now review the conversation I had today with the Premier on CBC's Crosstalk - and hope to add more to discussion.
I began my conversation with the Premier by reminding him of statements he made when Leader of the Opposition.
The first is from the House of Assembly on March 19-2003:
...Iron ore is shipped to Quebec and other countries for processing. Our cheap hydro-electricity from the Churchill is sent to Quebec, where it is used as an enticement for economic development and job creation for Quebecers.
and in a speech on Voisey's Bay on June 12-2002
...I don't need to point out that that is exactly what people say about Churchill Falls and Hibernia and Terra Nova. Once the construction boom is over, that's it, the benefits and short-term jobs are gone. At some point we have to stand up and say "enough is enough". We have to stop the giveaways. We give away our fish to foreigners; our hydro-electricity to Quebec; our shrimp to PEI and Quebec; our iron ore to the United States and Quebec; and our bright energetic young people to all four corners of the world.
The Premier acknowledged the statements and added "bulk - bulk - bulk" to it.
I then expressed to the Premier that I agree with his stand in sending big business the proper message when wanting to exploit our natural resources. And added that I - like him believe that if industry is given the choice - they would rather bulk our resources out rather than build infrastructure in the province. He confirmed that position.
When the Premier walked from the table on Hebron - he said here are our terms if you want this development. He was also prepared to use legislation to help force negotiations - and was only stopped because that required Ottawa's participation. (oil and gas resources offshore - technically belong to Canada).
I further suggested to the Premier that I agree with his gamble on royalties and equity and believe that oil prices will remain high and continue to increase over the mid to long-terms. I then pointed out that if we are correct - then the value of hydro-power is that much greater.
My question was:
Will you send a message to industry - big industry - that if they want to use our hydro resources in Labrador they have to come here and use it and legislate it in a way where we can no longer export power but have infrastructure here to utilize the power. And then when you send that message to industry they know what the rules of the game are - the same way you gave it to the oil companies and I assume will continue to give it to CVRD.
Premiers answer:
It's a good point Sue - you understand this project as good as anybody in the province - and you know that in order to finance a project of that magnitude you have to have some guaranteed power sales. Now some of the things we can certainly look at here for starters that give us some of that guaranteed power purchase - is the removal - of course - of the fousty emissions - for want of a better term - that are coming out of Seal Cove. So we take 600 MW's and we get to the Island - then we have 600 MW's sold on a long-term basis that will be profitable to the province because oil by 2020 - 2022 will reach a cross-over whereby that will pay for itself. The other thing is of course because this a multi-billion dollar project and the numbers have been ranging anywhere from 6 - 10 billion dollars - you've got to have the guarantees in order to secure the financing. Now I've already said though this government will stand behind its financing because we want to make sure that this project is a Newfoundland and Labrador project.....
But I can tell you one thing that we're really actively looking at is bringing industry to Labrador - cause my priority if we're going to bring any major industry to this province - that it go to Labrador first - for all the good - for all the right reasons.
Then I asked:
The question still remains - if industry knows that it has to come here to use it - and they can't pick it up in Ontario when we're finished selling it - if they know they have to come here to use it - do you believe there's value in sending industry that message on this renewable provincially owned resource?
Premier's answer:
What I can tell you - what we are doing - we're looking at - as part of a package of doing this particular project - would be getting some major industry to this province. Now we need to understand that of course that we have to be producing competitive power - Quebec because of the volumes of power that they've got because of some new wind that they are putting on now - are offering cheap power - and I know British Columbia as you also know that there's some very cheap power that's been offered to Alcan or Alcoa or one of these companies out there as well. So you know we have to be in the competitive league in order to get it - but I can tell you I would certainly prefer - as you know - and I'm sure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would - I'd certainly prefer to have that industry here - that will be our goal. If we are able to get for some of our power - if we're able to get the spot-market power prices say 14 cents that Quebec might be getting on some of our power - that is very very lucrative and if we're able to get some of that with surplus power - I wouldn't turn a blind eye to that and have to sell it for three cents at home just to bring industry in. So there's a mix there. I think you understand that as good as or better than anybody.
Please read the Premier's comments again and consider the following:
The Premier says we need guaranteed power sales to finance - let's agree with him - why do those power sales have to be guaranteed by export? They don't! We can get guaranteed power sales in Labrador from industry.
The Premier says he would prefer to use the power for industry here. What's the likelihood of that happening when the Premier and his "energy team" is running around the country talking about our available power to export?
Further - I can tell you the advice the Premier is getting must be weak - if he does not understand and believe that not only is Lower Churchill power competitive - it is one of the best remaining hydro developments in North America.
One must consider the Premier demanded and says he has received what he preferred for Hebron development. This despite Exxon and Chevron's multitude of oil and gas resources globally some of which are much more competitive than Hebron - therefore what's preventing our Premier in setting down the rules for hydro power?
Hydro is owned and controlled by the province - unlike the oil and gas offshore and our fishery. We can legislate and negotiate whatever terms we want for our power.
When the Premier references the spot-market - we cannot bank on those sales as they do not constitute long-term power contracts - which is what the Premier says is required to finance the project. So then we get to selling the power to Quebec - Ontario - or the Maritimes for 5 or 6 cents (4 - 5 net after marketing - and transmission costs) versus selling it to industry here for 4 to 5 cents. Compare the two potentials and understand that only one of them will employ the thousands of young graduates and skilled tradespeople on a long-term basis. Industry!
I will be commenting further over the next few posts on specific industry information. I leave you with this to think about. In my opinion the Premier should employ people who are able to deliver to him his preference - industry for Labrador - because right now the best team is not in place.
When the Premier first talks about taking 600 MW's and removing the thermal generation in Holyrood as one power contract - without first being able to provide a significant potential contract with an industry for Labrador - something is flawed with the policy - and it's best to fix that right now.
Why won't this Premier set the rules for industry relative to hydro development?
His comment on energy in Quebec and BC - is some form of admission to being inferior to these provinces in our relative potentials. We are not. The comment on wind in Quebec - no basis for it - incorrect. Yes they have wind installed - it is supplementary not additional and is not as cheap as hydro-power - that's why they continue to develop their hydro potentials.
Be back soon with more info and questions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)