- January 29, 2013 - 13:20
Yea you gotta admire NL's top journalists. While our great benefactor in Ottawa was allowing foreigners to rape NL's fishing banks most of NL's journalists barely whimpered. Way to go,criticize what you can about the Muskrat Falls project and call it hard hitting journalism.
- January 29, 2013 - 15:20
Where are you coming from CASEY? Since when was a personal view on something connedcted with recognized journalists? Get real b'y.
- Cold Future
- January 29, 2013 - 12:56
The price of the power to Emera has been stated by Nalcor and government. It is free for 35 years, 225 MW initially and 170 MW later on. The subsea cable is to be made larger to take some excess power. Whether there is infrastructure to take it to market on the mainland is another matter. It would be subject to transmission wheeling tariffs. Whether Nalcor can sell it or it has to be sold by Emera may depend upon the FERC rules under Nafta. The only sure thing is that the NL ratepayer will subsidize any power sold below the cost of delivery. Quebec will likely determine the Muskrat selling price because it has to compete with their price. The John Smith idea that the water can flow over the dam is the nuttyest thing since the first O’Henry bar was made.After Muskrat is built it must generate with whatever water can be put through its turbines
- January 29, 2013 - 12:23
The Atlantica Power Market: A plan for joint action. The AIMS Atlantica Papers #1 by Gordon L. Weil We need some coverage on what is REALLY going on here. Where are the investigative reporters?
- January 29, 2013 - 10:53
Does it bother anyone that nalcor is dealing with a company that is been investigated in Quebec for corruption (snc-lavalin) is the name
- Corporate Psycho
- January 30, 2013 - 15:14
Would love to hear the answer to that question. What about Liannu and Pennecon as wel?
- January 29, 2013 - 09:10
John, are you suggesting that Hydro Quebec's numbers (i.e. the prices they charge each of their purchasers) are publicly available. If you believe that to be the case, do you believe Nalcor's figures should be similarly available?
- John Smith
- January 29, 2013 - 08:31
Why would the consultant firm ask Quebec Hydro? Would not the prudent direction be to look at the industry, look at what QH is charging various customers now, and look at what they will charge in 20 years. If they ask QH they could get any answer....they could say they will charge .0001 per KH...jsut to stymie the deal. As far as what Emera will charge for the power, it will not make any difference to us if they charge $5.00 a KWH...or give it away for free...it does not make one iota of difference. The whole idea is based on the fact that the best option for us to provide power to the proivince is to build muskrat...we will have some excess power for a few years, so we let the power flow over the dam and get nothing....untill we need it...or sell it in exchange for a cable, connectivity, the ability to sell power on the spot market at no charge...and in the end we get the cable...so what Emera does with the power matters not to us...
- Maurice E. Adams
- January 29, 2013 - 07:08
And let me also ask "where is the Nalcor report that shows how much it would cost Nalcor to enter into a power purchase agreement with Hydro Quebec instead of building the Muskrat Falls dam and generation facility?". ...... Nalcor's own documents show (even based on the old DG2 numbers) that the dam/generation plant accounts for about 75% ($26 billion) of the cost to ratepayers over 50 years. It seems however that to purchase a similar amount of power from HQ that Nalcor says we need to get us to 2041 would cost ratepayers only about $3 billion (the transmission line over 50 years would cost about $9 billion over 50 years in either case). ---- Savings to ratepayers? $26 billion. See www.vision2041.com.