• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Winston Adams
    December 20, 2012 - 21:52

    Kennedy admits that it is possible that cheap Usa gas generated electricity may have to be admitted to enter the province if an application is made to do this. He says this is not likely to happen since the Maritime Link is only good for 500 Mw. Kennedy's rationale is not very good. 500 Mw is about the full average capacity of MF power that can get delivered to Nfld. This would mean that virtually no power might flow from labrador MF to Nfld if cheap import power becomes available. And yet their plan is that residents will have to continue to pay for that MF power, for 50 years, even if it is not used. This is the same result if the forecast demand declines. Another potential nail in the coffin. Kennedy says he can't see this cheap import power becoming available before 10 years. But already SNC engineers are proceeding with a large gas generation plant in the new Jersey area to be complete within 3 years. Kennedy's body language lacks assurance . A crack in their armour? They cannot legislate against this, he admits. They seem a little weary from the continued reasoned arguments by the oppositiion. The wise cracks and heckling by the govn MHAs has declined.But French still likes to make faces. Buffoons like this somehow think they are good orators, or feel good if there buddies laugh at the appropriate time. Robert Bond, I understand, was a statesman. We have no one of that quality.We have lots of clowns. The Ndp Leader keeps here cool, and raises good points. She stands out.

  • Winston Adams
    December 20, 2012 - 20:52

    In the House Ball says if the plan is to close the Holyrood plant , why can't we say firmly when that will happen. Two reasons: 1. At times MF will not produce enough power to both serve the Nova Scotia committiment and to fully offset Holyrood maximum capacity. 2. MHI pointed out that at times we may loose the power from Labrador , we could be without that power for a month or more. They advise additiional thermal power will be needed as backup. For these reasons there will be no date set for decommissioning Holyrood. It will be used less, but still used.

  • Tim Jamison
    December 20, 2012 - 20:05

    So this filibuster is costing, oh I dunno, probably half a million or a million dollars and it's entire point is to delay something that is going to be happening anyway because the people want it to happen, according to the seat count in the House as of the last election, you know, that election which this province's liberals and dippers made entirely about Muskrat Falls. And you guys wonder why you keep losing. Keep lying though. I love the hole you're digging for yourselves. Make it deep, boys

  • Winston Adams
    December 20, 2012 - 17:18

    In the House Joyce asks Marshall to explain his claim-- how much per kwh will the consumers to be charged to produce 115 million profit as soon as the power flows. Marshall gives no answer, but says the plant produces 824 MW , and 40 percent goes to Nfld to offset Holyrood, 20 percent to Nova Scotia and 40 percent for export to the US spot market of for Labrador mines, so some extra for Nfld. Now 40 percent for Nfld is 330 MW. 20 percent for Noba Scotia is 164 MW . 40 percent for export is 330 MW. This totals 824 MW . So what 's wrong with this? Here are some electrical facts. 824 is the maximum generating capacity of MF. While it can deliver this for a few days, the water flow there only allows for average power of about 570 MW. And because this is going long distances, it will lose 10 percent of its power in getting to Holyrood, that's 57 MW loss. That leaves only 513 MW of useful power on average-- that is 39 percent less that the promoted 824 MW. Now Kennedy often points out that Holyrood uses 18,000 barrels of oil per day. That's at full output during cold winter conditions. At that consumption Holyrood produces 490 MW. Under such conditions, when average steady water flow conditions at MF offsets this at Holyrood, there is only 23 MW left over for Nova scotia. Under short term conditions of peak supply of 824 MW, there is 741 MW available after the 10 percent transmission losses. For a short while this would allow 251 MW left over. This would allow Nova Scotia to get 164 MW with 87 MW left over. Or so it might appear. But getting to Nova Scotia and the US the 251MW can expect to lose another 10 percent in transmission. The result is just 62 MW left for export to the USA. So there it is : to fully offset Holyrood we cannot meet even the obligation to Nova Scotia under average water flow conditions. Under short term peak flow conditions Nova Scotia can get it's power share , but only 62 MW left for export, not 330 MW. Any wonder why Marshall can't answer where the profits will come from? And what happens during average flow when we need 490 MW to offset the 18,000 barrels of oil Holyrood would use? WIth only 513 MW available, Nalcor has a contract to supply Nova scotia 164 Mw .That gets priority. That leaves only 349 MW to offset Holyrood's 490 MW. That meets only 71 percent of Holyrood's needs. So 29 percent, or 5220 barrels of oil will be needed per day at Holyrood to meet this condition. so after spending 10 billion we will at times still have to burn oil, at 20 to 30 cents per kwh extra cost to meet the shortfall, since Nova scotia's contract will take priority. Or other expensive solutions willl be needed. Now this is what we can expect for 10 billion dollars. Meanwhile , as MHA Rogers points out , in the USA they are now building a 665 MW plant using gas. This cost just about 750 million. As this is built near the electrical loads the transmission losses is likely no more than just 2 percent . This allows about 652 MW of useful power. In comparison for average power delivered, Muskrat is about 17 times more expensive. Least cost for us? These are indeed Dark Ages for knowledge and proper information. Any wonder the government didn't want oppposing expert witnesses? They prefer fussy math. They keep talking about 824 MW and 330 mw export.

  • stephen
    December 20, 2012 - 17:06

    If they start talking WIND AND SOLAR,run for the hills. It is bankrupting Ontario under Dalton dingbat Mcguinty,it bankrupted California,and the Euopean union can,t get away from it fast enough.Ontario power rates are doubling in less than 5 years and now we pay for TOU or time of use its 11.cents per kilowatt during peak times,and off peak times have increased as well. For 7 billion dollars, yes 7 billion we will get windmills that won,t even produce 1 percent of Ontarios power. NEWFOUNDLANDERS DO YOUR RESEARCH ON WIND ENERGY. I KNOW I LIVE HERE ON ONTARIO. We could be buying power from Quebec for 3-5 cents a kilo of good clean energy but the liberal crooks in Ontario have found yet another scam to perpetrate on the gulliable Ontario voters,so their crony friends can get rich. Wind power is a scam.

  • Republic-of-Newfoundland
    December 20, 2012 - 15:55

    If this Mayan thing is true, seems like waste of time to spend your last two and a half days.

  • Darrell
    December 20, 2012 - 14:36

    Keep 'em in there until the cows come home. Actually, it is refreshing to see our overpaid politicians really working.

  • Winston Adams
    December 20, 2012 - 13:33

    Kennedy in the House argues that wind is no solution as the latest reports shows. But the question was posed in a way to give this result. The latest question was: Can wind offset the full capacity of holyrood?. The study then showed the need for about 1200 MW of wind ( twice the capacity of Holyrood) and a expensive back up battery system. This was uneconomic and very expensive. This result was a no brainer and a waste of money to analysize. It was a stupid question. An appropriate question should have been : What is the optimum amount of wind combined with local hydro addition and energy efficiency for the least cost isolated island option. This would be more like what Hawaii is doing. They came up with 500 MW of wind. With efficiency and small hydro we would need less than 500 MW of wind to fully offset holyrood. The question was obviously designed to get a result to favour Muskrat falls.

    • Tim Jamison
      December 20, 2012 - 20:01

      When dealing with human beings, Winston, there is no such thing as efficiency. Additionally, using wind for anything more than ten percent of a power grid's total load results in frequent brownouts and blackouts. If you wish to confirm this, just refer to Dalton McGuinty's green initiatives and the massive wind farms he created and then had to abandon because wind is unreliable and did not carry it's own weight in testing. Wind ruins provincial coffers and takes down governments, which is why I think you're pushing for it, because you want the cons out and this is what you're all about