- Cyril Rogers
- August 30, 2011 - 15:32
BRETT....you are not only wrong, you are dreaming in technicolor if you think our vast empty land will be filled by eager newcomers. Most of the immigrants who come here can't wait to get to a major city or leave for other reasons. Now, just to clarify that point, I am a born and bred Newfoundlander and Labradorian and there is no place I'd rather be. However, it is not for everyone. As for your argument about the need for this project, you have been listening to the spin doctors at the Confederation Building and at NALCOR for too long. I will concede that it is poosible that Muskrat FALLS IS A GOOD DEAL BUT THEY ARE SIMPLY IN TOO BIG A RUSH TO ENSHRINE DANNY'S LEGACY....and this is why the review panel criticized the project. They did not bother to investigate thoroughly the other options and are trying to ram this down our throats at whatever cost. EMERA is actually getting FREE power for 35 years. Had we sold it to them at 10 cents per kwh we would have garnered about 7 billion dollars over that time period. Let's put it this way. If we built the Emera portion and sold that same power, the capital costs plus interest would have been less than 2 billion over the same time period. Who is being fleeced here?
- September 01, 2011 - 06:45
I agree - people won't be lining up to move here. I see an issue with all the new buildings in St. John's itself as I'm not a believer that in 5 years we will see 30,000 new employees + their families (50,000 people move in to St. John's/surrounding area). So I'm not so sure what'll happen with the class B and C commercial buildings... Regardless of the provinces population we will still have to compete with the rest of the expanding world. That was my point. We have to think in terms of competing with the rest of the world, not our 500,000 people. I don't really buy the there's no market for the electricity. Ontario would pay for electricity that runs through Quebec to them, the northern US will pay for it once it's built. Why should they sign up now when it's just talk with years before approvals are completed let alone the project? Residential electricity rates are currently subsidized. You're seeing the rates become unsubsidized, that's not an increase in rates, it's a change from collecting taxes + redistribution. Why should Emera not get a discounted rate of electricity after helping fund the project? I'm not sure what the going rate of electricity is for purchase by a distributor. I'm assuming it's not the residential rate. Does Emera not have pricetag risk on their portion of the project? Is 10cents/kwh an accurate expectation on price for them to pay? Personally I think that NL should be talking to Quebec Hydro again regarding the electricity, but THAT is politically unfeasible. In the end it will at least give us a better bargaining position in 2041...
- John Smith
- August 30, 2011 - 15:27
First of all...we have no access to gas...NONE! Secondly, evryone now understands that wind must be backed up with a RELIABLE source. So, yet another fruitcake looking for a grant. Give me a break and go back to europe. Any entity looking at generating electricity today dreams of having access to a hydro project like Muskrat. Only the dupes like this guy would suggest otherwise.
- Brett is wrong
- August 30, 2011 - 13:19
Brett, the big hole in your rant is that you are assuming that a profitable market exists for the power that Muskrat Falls will produce. It doesn't. our government has been trying to secure long term customers for a decade and have come up empty. The only customer that they have secured is Emera, and that was by providing them with a promise for electricity at rates lower than what will be charged at home. So much for "no more giveaways". Unless there is a profitable market for the excess power, we are better off addressing our short term needs with smaller projects and waiting for rates to improve. We'll be in a much stronger bargaining position should that happen, and will be able to proceed with the project (possible Gull Island as well) in a manner that will benefit our province instead of taxing it.
- Cyril Rogers
- August 30, 2011 - 11:03
There are any number of alternatives that we can utilize to provide power to the Avalon Peninsula, which is essentially where the extra power is supposedly going to be needed. We can do additional upgrades to our current systems on the island, we can supplement existing capacity with wind power, we can do much more to encourage energy conservation, we can tap into the gas offshore, we can consdier a LNG plant to replace Holyrood. All of these options will cost money but can be done incrementally over a number of years. If we take the interest payments alone that will be needed to fund Muskrat Falls, we will have somewhere between 2 and 3 billion dollars to spend over the next 10 years. That kind of money can create a lot of alternatives and a lot of jobs during that period but it is definitely not as glossy as the mega-projects - is that why politicians don't want to look at these alternatives? We also need to reconsider the environmental effects of Muskrat Falls. It may be in faraway Labrador if you live on the Avalon, but it does affect the folks who live there and ultimately all of us. None of these projects, big or small, are completely harmless, but the smaller projects tend to be less damaging overall.
- August 30, 2011 - 12:05
yeah - 500 smaller projects are more efficient, less costly and less harmful than one large project? I don't believe you at all. Conservation is not an answer - the world is growing. We need things to sell to other people. Electricity is a product for possible export. NL + Lab is the size of France but has a population of 500k. Lots of unused/unpopulated land. Land that should have people on it. Cities that should be larger. St. John's has a population of 92,000. (not counting mount pearl 35k + surrounding area - avalon peninsula 220k). That's a pittance. Whole peninsula is half the size of the greater halifax area. Half the size of hamilton in ontario. How do you want to compete in the wider world? Give me a break about the rinky dink small time ideas. I'd like to hear what the environmental IMPACT is from the changes. Not the fish will blah blah, the erosion blah blah, how this actually impacts US. Does it mean we have to import more fish? What is the cost in that, what is the loss to the fishing industry, moose, farmland?? Is it just a minor change in scenery? Cost to tourism? What is the value that is "lost" vs. "gained". I don't care about someone who paid nothing and canoed on the river. It's not his river. It's the provinces river. If he wants to buy it - go ahead. Same with the views. You want to maintain your view - buy the land between what you own + what you want to look at, then buy that too.