MUSKRAT FALLS: THE PUBLIC RIGHT TO DECIDE (PART II)

It MAY signal an interest in clean energy. Muskrat, Site C are NOT clean energy if you consider the methane we now know emanates from dam impoundments. They generate at least as much GHG's as a coal fired plant.

In addition both MF and Site C will be monuments to fiscal madness that will never compete with clean alternatives in cost alone. In both cases they proceed because the helpless ratepayer must bear the burden….in darkness. These fiscal boondoggles must end.

What studies do you have to back the statement that reservoirs produce as much GHG as coal plants? The most recent study which made the news did not make this claim.

http://www.ecowatch.com/the-hydropower-methane-bomb-no-one-wants-to-talk-about-1882106648.html

Hydropower is dirty energy, and should be regarded just like fossil fuel. And environmentalists, far from embracing it, should be battling to shut down hydropower plants and block the arrival of new ones just as vigorously as we work to close and prevent construction of dirty coal plants.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-emissions-may-swell-from-behind-dams/

Hydropower is dirty energy, and should be regarded just like fossil fuel. And environmentalists, far from embracing it, should be battling to shut down hydropower plants and block the arrival of new ones just as vigorously as we work to close and prevent construction of dirty coal plants.

At this critical moment in the planet's history, philanthropic funders that support action against climate change must fund a movement against hydropower. Unless the scientific truth about methane emissions from dams is more widely acknowledged, pura vida will never be achieved in Costa Rica or anywhere else.

The generalization that all hydropower is as dirty as fossil fuels is isn't supported by research. I'm all for decarbonizing the grid but we have to be realistic about it. Unless we drastically ramp up nuclear power, we simply don't have viable alternatives that we could use to replace coal, nat gas, and hydro power generation. At some point I hope we do.

You miss the point. The research is lacking, the mechanism is now understood.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall does it make a sound? Not in your world apparently. If a Sci Am article does not strike you as credible you have zero interest in facts.

So, encourage Beothuk and their plan to construct wind farms in St. Georges Bay, Burin, Bonavista, the istimus, etc. NS will not have surplus without grid power from Hydro Q. or maybe Fundy tidal. This should have been worked out in the 70's, when the Buchanan gov. went against acid rain threat, promoting coal.

If Quebec needs all of it's power output to meet its winter demand, where will Muscrat get the water to run it's power plant?

I don't disagree, I'm merely pointing out that purchasing power from Quebec may not be as easy and straightforward and some people think. Beothuk will likely achieve a capacity factor around 40%; I find some of the numbers they have made public, such as cost per kwh, to be dubious. Time will tell on that one.

The Churchill Falls facility will be at full output to meet peak Quebec demand. Once the water leaves the CF plant it simply flows down river to Muskrat Falls.

"If Quebec needs all of it's power output to meet its winter demand, where will Muscrat get the water to run it's power plant?"

While I absolutely agree with you re. public inquiry kit will never happen because both Liberals and NDP supported the project.

Thank you for you comment. It is disturbing to say the least, that the once proud profession has ceased to provide, consistent with its "Calling of an Engineer" ethic, valued service to the Public at large.
Would you please comment on what an estimated $500Million annual expense, alternative to Muskrat "Boondoggle" could have provided to offset the Electrical Supply/Reliability problem in Newfoundland?

In short:
1. Proceed with the 77 MW island hydro that was identified by Nfld Hydro at a capital cost of 398 million.
2 Proceed with just over 100 MW of new wind energy. This was a capital cost of about 240 million. Wind has a 43 percent capacity factor. These together is 738 million capital cost.
3. Add 2 -100 MW gas turbines (one of which we now have). These help extend the life of the existing Holyrood units and improves reliability. These cost 100 million each. So far this is 938 million.
4. Key component is not new generation, but to reduce our energy use and peak demand. So initiate a robust Energy Efficiency and Conservation PLan. This requires about 50 million per year and is funded by a 8 percent(0.9 cent per kwh) surcharge on rates, now standing at about 10 cents per kwh. This is no cost to the government or power company, except an administration charge by the power companies for the Incentive Plan to guarantee uptake for conversions.
a)This must be aimed at the cause of our perceived power needs: to meet our high winter peak caused by inefficient baseboard heating. With adoption of efficiency for the customer, the power needs no longer exist.
b) Efficient heating is achieved via either ground source, or ducted air source, or non ducted mini-split heatpumps. Mini-split heatpumps is by far the most cost effective. Annual heating energy is reduced at least 60 percent, and peak demand reduced 50 percent at -15C, and 40 percent at about -20C. A suitable olan should scale up to about 13,000 units per year.
C) Annual savings on electricity for electric heated homes is about 33 percent. This offsets any power rate increase for the capital expenditures of new generation.
d) while the potential for overall energy reductions is about 600MW, less than this is needed. 160,000 residential units with reduction for heating alone of 2kw each means 320MW reduction.
e) Efficiency with hot water, air inflitration, and basement insulation would proceed at the same time, as need be.
f) A ramp up is required for these conversions.
g) Combined these allow a rapid reduction of fuel burning at Holyrood, for either the existing units or gas turbines, and achieve our goal of 98 percent green energy.

This is not a radical concept, but being practised by most progressive power companies or forced on them with Directives from the Energy Minister.
In practise, such a plan for Demand Management and Energy Efficiency works best in other jurisdiction when the government sets up a separate Energy Efficiency Corporation. Reason: It is a conflict of interest for power companies wanting to increase revenue via selling more power while trying to reduce energy use through Efficiency. Suggest you check Efficieny Nova Scotia and the dozens of other jurisdictions who engage in meaningful energy efficiency. In 2011 year alone Nova Scotia installed 20,000 mini-split heat pumps. And our climate gives a better efficiency than Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or Maine for these! Here, without incentives we installed about 50 in 2010, and reached 1000 per year last year, for about 5000 so far after 5 years. About 3 percent of our houses now have these.

Demand reduction (Negawatts) are far cheaper than building additional generation capacity and incentive programs should also include rebates for high efficiency wood stoves like Norway did. TakeCharge only pretends to care, but the conflict of interest becomes evident when demand reduction projects are denied for arbitrary reasons. All we get are trivial rebates like LED light bulbs, but not substantial things like heat pumps. I was told heat pumps were considered before MF as a potential alternatives, but now that MF is sanctioned, they don't want heat pumps. As far as they are concerned, it is all about carbon dioxide so if we are using "clean" MF power for our baseboard heat, then it is mission accomplished.

A most impressive response to the question; What was the more prudent path forward for NL (Energy) strategy? The accountability of Energy Ministers Past should be the focus, and drastically modified corrective future plans . Do you have confidence that the Government is now on the right path?
Thank you

The NL government is not on the right path (assuming it was representing the public rather than special interests). I can say this as an insider. Analysts are not allowed to express rational opinions on energy strategy and critical thinking is not something you'd mention in a job interview because it is severely frowned upon. Criticizing Nalcor will also get you into trouble since someone from Nalcor will complain to your director or higher. Professors at MUN are afraid to speak out because it could cost them tenure if they don't have it already and serious repercussions are guaranteed. Do not expect things to change from within.

Of course, pellet stoves is an option and used in many jurisdictions. My analysis suggests at current electricity rates pellet stoves offer a 30 per saving while heatpumps over 60 percent savings on heat, hence my preference for heatpumps. Many off the Avalon are using wood stoves more as the main heating source. When power rates spike, as they will , conversions will escalate rapidly. Some figures for heatpump conversions for a house averaging bills of 300 dollars per month now: Installtion paid for plus save 15,000 dollars over 15 years. If rates double, the saving is 30,000 dollars over 15 years. So there will be a mass exit from baseboard heaters. Some Europe countries ban them as a main heating source. New Brunswick planned to ban them but backed off, likewise for Ontario. Incentives to switch to efficient heating is what they are doing. Here, we (the government and power companies) love the baseboard heaters just to keep and increase power demand to justify the boondoogle. Before sanction of Muskrat I was told there were plans to step up training for the trades for heatpump installations, but this got shelved. Heatpumps became standard for most commercial buildings 30 years ago. Now they are mandatory for government buildings, large buildings using ground source. Yet the residential heat (the source of our high winter peak demand ) is being deliberately ignored.
Heatpumps were invented some 80 years ago. First minisplits in Canada were in 1992 (invented in Japan in 1983). Very suitable for residential. Installation here are the result of very favourable results and references: 65 percent hear references from family and neighbours. 5 percent from the power company. It appears many power company employees install heatpumps! But most Nflder have never heard of a heatpump. This is changing rapidly. But it destroys the economic case for Muskrat. The two are not compatible, unless there was a surging economy driving a large increase in new construction. The opposite is happening. This is a key time to acknowledge the inevitable and bring on robust customer efficiency. The public should be calling for it. Public policy, as indicated by Mr Vardy, should adopt this measure, and do it very soon. We are marching to our own drum and out of step with all other jurisdictions with this neglect. Minister Coady has given a Directive to Nalcor to cease cost of living bonuses. She says this is Prudent. Liberty cited imprudence by Nalcor(Nfld Hydro) some seventy times in their report. Liberty says to bring down peak demand. Coady should be Prudent and Bold and issue a Directive to reduce Peak Demand by 4 percent per year over the next 5 years (a 262 MW reduction or face heavy fines. Offer incentives for employees for achieving the goals. That is the way forward, and requires a stop on Muskrat.
Winston Adams

The directive should read :reduce 3 percent per year (15 percent over 5 years, equals 262MW, based on a peak of 1750 MW) But reduction do not stop after 5 years.
Winston

@Winston, heat pumps are not mandatory for new government buildings in this province. There is a heating cost/benefit study done for each new building and alternatives are presented. Sometimes the winner is geothermal, sometimes air source or air-to-water with perimeter baseboard. Every engineering firm contracted comes up with a different take on what is best especially when the try to guess at maintenance costs. What never seems to happen are passive design changes like reducing window sizes, orienting the building to face south with minimal north facing windows, using box like designs to minimize surface area or adding more insulation that building code requires. Some of these systems have been problematic, for example some ground source closed loop systems were unfortunately filled with corrosive methanol. One of the best systems I have seen is at the Geo Center. My favorite for existing homes is the multi zone mini-split. If I was to go to wood, I would consider an outdoor wood gassification boiler and use it to heat floors with hot water.

Thank you for the correction, yes the inefficient baseboard resistance heating is still used occasionally, which seems imprudent generally, but explains why it is difficult to ban them.
Your comment on passive design is a very important aspect for building efficiency and should be adopted.Also, I installed the outdoor unit of a mini-split in the attic (takes air in from the soffit and exhaust through the roof), and adds significant efficiency in the daytime from solar heat absorbed through the shingles. In the spring, the attic is often 30 degrees warmer than the outdoors.
My experience is that multi-sone mini-splits using more than 2 heads may overload the outdoor unit in cold conditions and drive the unit to inefficient operation. R2000 houses having less loads may allow more heads per single unit. Sizing for cold snap conditions is essential to prevent overload and ensure a peak demand reduction on the grid. I am sure many engineers are aware of the substantial benefits of mini-splits for our climate here. Residential housing gets little engineering analysis, but good guidelines can do wonders to aid contractors who size and install them. There is little as to guidelines for that here.
Thank for showing interest.
Winston