- October 05, 2012 - 16:59
Mr. Collingwood couldnt have said it any better. Anybody thinking that life with Muskrat will be a mistake need to really understand what life will be without it in 2041.......
- I'm wondering if the same shenanigans are being practiced here in the construction of the proposed Muskrat Falls Project.
- October 02, 2012 - 08:18
I'm wondering if the same shenanigans are being practiced here in the construction of the proposed Muskrat Falls Project, as are alleged to be practiced in the construction industry of Quebec, with the alleged kick backs of 2 1/2 per cent going to the Mafia and 3 per cent going to the Mayor's Office ? I and, I am sure, most ever other member of the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador want Bill 29 (the Secrecy Act) revoked so that honesty and transparency can be shone upon the proposed Muskrat Falls Project
- Maurice E. Adams
- October 02, 2012 - 07:21
NOT TRUE John:------- Figure 3 is "total energy" (not electricity) consumption. Broken down, 73% of Figure 3 (see Figure 2) is for Transportation 41% (I don't think we have many electric cars John) and Industrial & Manufacturing 31%. Also, year 2020 shows almost no change in total energy use as compared to year 2009 (just the width of the line greater). Nalcor is a victim of its own success. In the past electricity use went up because electricity moved into and displaced oil as a home heating source, and will have totally displaced oil by about year 2020. So electricity use will be going down just as Muskrat Falls comes on stream.
- William Daniels
- October 01, 2012 - 17:16
Bullish? Bull something all right.
- Maurice E. Adams
- October 01, 2012 - 15:17
PROOF John? ==== Here is an excerpt from government's own Energy Efficiency Action Plan 2011:-...... “Between 1990 and 2008, the number of homes in Newfoundland and Labrador increased by 19 per cent, while the total energy consumption has declined by approximately 17 per cent.” ...... Furthermore, Nalcor says residential demand for electricity is increasing due to more and larger homes........ But as you can see from government's own Energy Efficiency Plan 2011 (Figure 6) that any increase in electricity is NOT because of more and larger homes, but because electricity has cut into and is on the verge of eliminating oil as a home heating source, and that means that at the current rate electricity use will start declining in 2018.......... 'declining' --- when Muskrat Falls needs a FIFTY (50) YEAR growth in residential demand for Muskrat Falls to be viable (see www.vision2041.com )
- John Smith
- October 01, 2012 - 20:45
But Maurice, go to the PUB site...Nalcor exhibit #103...reidential demand has increased year over year for the past ten years. It is industrial demand that has fluctuated, as mills shut down and other industry opens up. Page 5 of the EEAP fig3 shows electrical energy demand increasing by 2020...not decreasing as you assert.So are you lying again maurice...tut tut...now that's no way to win a debate, you should be ashamed of yourself. I suggest everyone google the EEAP 2011, go to page five, and look at the terajules graph.
- John Smith
- October 01, 2012 - 14:14
You see how the naysayers like Cyril debate...everything you say is wrong...but I can't say why. Yep. business as usual at the Quebec owned Tely...
- Cyril Rogers
- October 01, 2012 - 13:23
Mr. Collingwood, I appreciate that you support this project and that is your right but I feel it is not appropriate to compare it to Hibernia and the negativity surrounding that project. The one key difference is that Hibernia was, in essence, a private development that required a kick start from the federal government. As it turned out, it was indeed one of the smartest moves the feds ever made on behalf of this province. Unfortunately, this project has absolutely nothing going for it in terms of its financial viability, despite the government's attempt to hide the real numbers. As Maurice Adams so ably pointed out to you in his commentary, most of your rationale for support is erroneous at best but I would be happy to debate you in a respectful manner.
- October 01, 2012 - 09:57
Jim standford CAW mouth piece enough said
- Economist Jim Standford suggested that we wrestle back some of the wealth that we ship out of NL in the form of raw resources and low Corporate taxes. Why are we repeating the same old template?
- October 01, 2012 - 09:26
There are some who, if the Muskrat Falls Project is developed and their companies are part of the development, will stand to make Millions of dollars, but it will all be on the backs of the hydro ratepayers of the province, again the rich will get richer and the middle class and the poor will get poorer. The seniors will be shafted! I will take you back to a talk that CAW Economist Jim Standford had September 21st, 2011 with Ted Blades on CBC's "On The Go" show where he advises Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they have to wrestle back some of the wealth that is produced in this province and shipped out in the form of raw natural resources and low Corporate taxes. Wealth that enriches other parts of Canada and the World. When are we going to listen to what other jurisdictions do to create wealth? We must be either stupid or corrupt? The last 3 minutes of the address below is very important. http://www.cbc.ca/onthego/episodes/2011/09/15/economics-for-everyone/
- Cold Future
- October 01, 2012 - 08:47
You only have to look at the numbers to make up your mind. The project is economically viable and will have a reasonable payback at $3 billion, is a signifiicant challenge and a hardship to the NL ratepayer at $6.2 billion (subsidy required for power sold at discount rates on the mainland) and is a significant debt builder and an economic disaster for NL at $8.5 billion (the latest numbers quoted by government). Any gamblers out there?
- October 01, 2012 - 07:22
I'm a person who hasn't made up his mind whether I am pro or con Muskrat Falls at this time. However, given that this present government has allowed Nalcor to circumvent the public tendering process and passed secrecy bills like Bill 21, the one thing I do know is that I don't trust this bunch as far as I could throw them. Without trust, I can't support the governent spending any taxpayers money, let alone several billion.
- October 01, 2012 - 08:09
Mr. Collingwood, Thank you for a expressing a rational viewpoint on the Muskrat Falls debate. You didn't fall into the trap of petty politics which seem to have overtaken this discussion. I can also remember the Hibernia debate when the media, the learned professors from MUN, and the so called experts from the great "think-tanks" on mainland Canada trashed that initiative as well. One thing I' ve learned is that it's easier to be negative than positive.
- Maurice E. Adams
- October 01, 2012 - 07:03
"We will have the benefit of a loan guarantee from the federal government" (2 years later and still no loan guarantee) -------"we can take advantage of the lowest interest rates we will likely ever see to finance this project" (rates have nowhere to go but UP) ------------- "The world is looking for clean, renewable energy" (large hydro is not accepted in the U.S. as 'renewable") ---------"We have an agreement with Nova Scotia/Emera to fund and provide a transmission line accessing markets for our surplus power" *NOT SO, Emera has 20 years in that so-called 'agreement' to 'opt in'). ------- "We can get out from under Quebec’s stranglehold on our hydro and other energy developments" (NOT SO, the under sea transmission lines are much, much TOO Small, and the U.S. market will only pay about 10% of what Muskrat Falls power costs) ------- "We have an industrial need in Labrador that is greatly dependent upon the development of our energy resources" (NOT SO, Labrador industry is also only willing to pay about 20% of what it will cost for Muskrat Falls power, and they can get all the power they need over the fence in Quebec, who has excess, for much cheaper prices) ------ "We have the opportunity to become an energy hub that attracts industry" (NOT SO, you cannot attract industry with power that costs 25-40 cents to produce and transmit).------- "We have the opportunity to build an economy that will provide growth for the province and opportunity for generations to come" (NOT SO ---- Muskrat Falls debt and operating costs alone over 50 years amounts to $14.5 billion --- all of which must be paid for on the backs of, will be a yoke around the neck, of ratepayers for our generation, for our children and grand children).----- Do we need the power? ---A RESOUNDING "NO" . See www.vision2041.com for evidence that island residential demand will have peaked by year 2018 when Muskrat Falls comes on stream, and will then fall (while, for Muskrat to be viable, island demand must equal or better Nalcor's 0.8% annual compounded growth rate not just for 10 or 20 years ---- but for 50 years.
- John Smith
- October 01, 2012 - 14:21
The loan guarantee will be there, and if it is not it doesn't matter.That is a complete lie about hydro in the US, and you cannot site any reputable source that would prove so. Emera has a three year opt out...not 20 years opt in...wrong again.If we can transmitt 300 megawatts we can transmitt 3000. just with a bigger line.There will be no debt associated with the Muskrat falls development. Oh and all the people who really know about this issue say we will need the power. you need to start coming up with proof Maurice, your mindless rants are getting so very boring.
- October 01, 2012 - 18:45
I believe Maurice E. Adams is indeed a real person not hiding behind a fack name. You however John Smith don't have the guts to give your real name. Why is that? Got something to hide?
- Sick of the shills
- October 01, 2012 - 06:42
Exporting power at a loss is not a sound reason to go into debt and take on the risk of this project, no matter how low the interest rate is. And cheap power for industry? Isn't that horse a little tired? Been there, done that. It didn't work then and it won't work now.