|
Post by phillymike on Feb 11, 2014 12:11:47 GMT -6
We can't go far without electricity but then again, the electrical generation capacity we currently have isn't going anywhere. Making more of it without any assurance of a market to sell it to is insane. And it's not just the massive initial investment, it's the ongoing operational expense that makes this a foolish endeavor. We don't need any more capacity right now. There's no guaranteed market to sell surplus power to. Insane gamble to say the least. m. Question, if you can produce a product much cheaper then anyone else and sell it to someone for less money then they can produce it themselves, will that product sell? Spending 34 billion (that's just the projected cost) our provincial debt currently sits at 30 billion. Hydro's last project was 100% over budget. $900,000,000 = $1,800,000,000. Lots of variables in play here. Wish it was as easy as build it and they will buy, but it's not.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Feb 11, 2014 12:49:37 GMT -6
You want to roll the dice. Go for it, take the chance industry leaves the province in droves, families as well, we are already a welfare province, it's going to get worst. Let's double down!! We laugh at Glendale. We already give on average $8000.00 more a year to our province than an average family of 4 does to our neighbouring province Saskatchewan. There is a breaking point and our provincial government is bending that steel pipe, just a matter of time before it snaps. Guess what? one of the first things to disappear will be our beloved Jets. It's a risk no matter what we do, but the studies show that under most possible future scenarios (export demands, prices, etc) that building these dams is the best option. Electricity prices in this province are going to rise no matter what, because the majority of the electric system was installed back in the WWII era and it's time to be replaced. We also have to build more generation at some point and that will cost money no matter what form of generation we choose.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Feb 11, 2014 13:07:03 GMT -6
We can't go far without electricity but then again, the electrical generation capacity we currently have isn't going anywhere. Making more of it without any assurance of a market to sell it to is insane. And it's not just the massive initial investment, it's the ongoing operational expense that makes this a foolish endeavor. We don't need any more capacity right now. There's no guaranteed market to sell surplus power to. Insane gamble to say the least. m. Question, if you can produce a product much cheaper then anyone else and sell it to someone for less money then they can produce it themselves, will that product sell? One needs more information to answer that question. Case in point: every once in a while the Americans get their feathers in a ruffle because they're 'dependent on foreign energy'. So quotas get put in place, trade barriers go up, and the cheaper, more logical source gets shunted aside for a 'made at home' source. And Canada hasn't been immune to that kind of thinking. Trudeau's National Energy Plan was supposed to give Canada 'energy independence'. Of course what ended up happening was a bunch of foreigners made millions selling oil to dim-witted Canadians at what turned out to be all-time high prices. A veritable orgy of Walter Gordonism. This hydro expansion is pretty much the same thing. At least the NEP had some intellectual backing from some tall foreheads who turned out to be very wrong about the permanence of oil shortages. There is no such backing for a massive expansion of hydro generating capacity. None. m.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Feb 11, 2014 13:51:36 GMT -6
Can we in todays world and into the future go without electricity? We have a very rich resource in this province, something most provinces and states would kill for and it's here till the world is no longer. It's a major investment with scary numbers but in the long run will keep this a very rich province for many years to come and if we don't do it Quebec will. We can't go far without electricity but then again, the electrical generation capacity we currently have isn't going anywhere. Making more of it without any assurance of a market to sell it to is insane. And it's not just the massive initial investment, it's the ongoing operational expense that makes this a foolish endeavor. We don't need any more capacity right now. There's no guaranteed market to sell surplus power to. Insane gamble to say the least. m. You make it sound like Hydro hasn't been selling any surplus power though. I'm far too lazy to look up the specifics, but they've signed several long term export deals with US States in the past few years, and more are being negotiated now. In my opinion nothing could be more short sighted than to build gas-burning generation stations rather than hydro-electric dams. That's something future generations would look back on in disgust for several decades I'm willing to bet. Besides, construction costs have soared for the past 10 years. Although that sucks, what are the odds that they won't keep going up?
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Feb 11, 2014 13:59:35 GMT -6
This hydro expansion is pretty much the same thing. At least the NEP had some intellectual backing from some tall foreheads who turned out to be very wrong about the permanence of oil shortages. There is no such backing for a massive expansion of hydro generating capacity. None. m. Well I'm sorry but that statement is just silly. Tens of millions have already been spent on "independant experts", the majority of whom back Hydro's development plan. That's the biggest thing I don't understand about people calling for an independant review - Hydro is already in the middle of paying tens of millions of dollars for one as we speak! It boggles the mind when you actually hear about how much is spent on lawyers and consultants to do these independant reviews every year. At least this one makes sense since it is specifically for a big decision (to build new dams or not) but money (more than $10 Million a year) is spent every year just to debate a 1.5% vs 2% rate change. Seems ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Feb 11, 2014 14:11:33 GMT -6
This hydro expansion is pretty much the same thing. At least the NEP had some intellectual backing from some tall foreheads who turned out to be very wrong about the permanence of oil shortages. There is no such backing for a massive expansion of hydro generating capacity. None. m. Well I'm sorry but that statement is just silly. Tens of millions have already been spent on "independant experts", the majority of whom back Hydro's development plan. Link?
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Feb 11, 2014 14:30:39 GMT -6
This hydro expansion is pretty much the same thing. At least the NEP had some intellectual backing from some tall foreheads who turned out to be very wrong about the permanence of oil shortages. There is no such backing for a massive expansion of hydro generating capacity. None. m. Well I'm sorry but that statement is just silly. Tens of millions have already been spent on "independant experts", the majority of whom back Hydro's development plan. That's the biggest thing I don't understand about people calling for an independant review - Hydro is already in the middle of paying tens of millions of dollars for one as we speak! It boggles the mind when you actually hear about how much is spent on lawyers and consultants to do these independant reviews every year. At least this one makes sense since it is specifically for a big decision (to build new dams or not) but money (more than $10 Million a year) is spent every year just to debate a 1.5% vs 2% rate change. Seems ridiculous. "The majority of whom back Hydro's development plan". What? Phoney baloney. Where are these exhaustive reports backing Hydro's ill-conceived plan? The only ones that show any positivity are ones that conveniently ignore energy consumption trends, political considerations, and increasing capacity to generate south of the border. There are manifold experts who assert that this expansion is a poor gamble. None show it to be a slam dunk winner. Pretty thin gruel to back a multi-billion dollar decision. m.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Feb 11, 2014 14:34:37 GMT -6
BTW: Link: www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/what-manitoba-hydros-critics-know-222467191.html
In an Aug. 22 article in the Free Press, Manitoba Hydro president Scott Thompson defends Hydro's capital plans: "Our analysis demonstrates that continuing to develop our hydro-power resources is in the best long-term interest of Manitoba Hydro customers and the province of Manitoba."
The same article notes Hydro's vision and the NDP's vision are one and the same. They should not be.
Hydro is supposed to be an independent Crown corporation, separate from the government. Regrettably, that is not the case. The NDP has chosen to treat Hydro as an arm of government. The Hydro board and now apparently Hydro's senior management have accepted this intrusion.
Hydro writes off the opinions of critics of its capital plans by implying there can be no substitute for its own analysis. Unfortunately, this analysis does not stand up to any respectable level of scrutiny. Even an expensive media blitz has not convinced most Manitobans Hydro's planning is sound.
There has been no logical explanation by Hydro why, in its submission for the Public Utilities Board's coming review, it bases its development plan on a projected annual increase in peak capacity requirement over the next 20 years of 76 megawatts when, in the past 20 years, peak capacity requirement has increased at only 40 MW annually.
What, then, is the rationale for using an exaggerated 76 MW for annual growth in Hydro's planning?
Further, critics ask: "What is the rationale for Hydro's projections in its 2013 annual report of export revenues of $16 billion over the next 20 years and $29 billion over the next 30 years?"
Crunching these numbers reveals Hydro is projecting growth in annual export revenue averaging $800 million over the next 20 years and $1.3 billion over the 10 years beyond that.
The reality is annual extra-provincial revenue peaked at $827 million in 2006 and has decreased consistently each year since then. Hydro's annual report admits that, for the year ended on March 31, 2013, it had declined precipitously to $353 million. To use Hydro's current overstated export revenue projections is to ignore the trends and the underlying causes for those trends.
The problem with Hydro's projections is they have not been adjusted realistically since the market crash of 2008 and the discovery in the U.S. (and Canada) of new ways to access previously difficult-to-extract natural gas, a competitor to hydroelectricity in Hydro's U.S. energy market.
There is really no basis to selectively choose, as Hydro frequently does, short-term recoveries in the price of natural gas in what is always a volatile market and to write off the longer-term trend of decreased prices for natural gas and decreasing export revenue from hydroelectricity.
Hydro's development plan is also unrealistic because its projects fit a pattern of exceeding cost estimates. The Wuskwatim generating facility and associated transmission line was approved at a cost of $900 million. It was completed last year at $1.8 billion.
Wuskwatim, trumpeted by both Hydro and the NDP as a groundbreaker because a First Nation community holds an option for a 33 per cent equity position in the facility, is losing more than $100 million a year.
Hydro is now re-negotiating its agreement with the Nisichawayasikh Cree Nation because the original agreement, predicated on a sharing of profits, no longer makes sense. Wuskwatim will be a losing proposition for at least the next 20 years. The cost of the re-negotiated agreement has still not been reflected in Hydro's development plan.
There are many other reasons to question the basis for Hydro's development plan but these few examples illustrate why critics ask questions and doubt Hydro's claims about the soundness of its plan.
The critics know more than Hydro is willing to admit publicly. They know now, for example, Bipole III, which the minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro insisted as recently as two years ago would not cost Manitobans one cent, will have to be paid for by Manitoba ratepayers beginning in 2017 when it comes into service.
On reflection, most Manitobans know that, in a paradoxical sort of way, the minister was right. It won't cost us one cent, it will cost a lot more.
Garland Laliberte is dean emeritus of the faculty of engineering, University of Manitoba, and vice-president of the Bipole III Coalition.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition September 5, 2013 A13
m.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Feb 11, 2014 14:45:30 GMT -6
In direct response to the link Deuce reported (Link: www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/Value-of-Manitoba-Hydros-forecasts-is-in-the-numbers-241637651.html ) Value of Manitoba Hydro’s forecasts is in the numbers By: Scott Thomson
Garland Laliberte unjustifiably dismisses the 5,000 pages of evidence and analysis filed in support of Hydro’s development plan as "projections based on assumptions."
To support his view (The worth of paper written on, Jan. 4) that Hydro’s load-growth forecasts are "exaggerated," Laliberte selectively compares load growth over the past 10 years with load growth forecast for the next 20 years. He fails to mention the past decade saw a serious economic downturn and loss of a major customer. A more careful comparison of our load forecast shows that growth forecast for the next 20 years (1.5 per cent annually) is actually less than the rate of growth experienced over the past 20 years (1.6 per cent annually).
Laliberte also challenges the forecast population growth that helps drive demand for electricity. True, there is no guarantee Manitoba’s population will continue to grow at rates experienced in recent years, but understand, Hydro’s population forecast is derived from a consensus of a number of independent forecasts.
On the basis of a single U.S. media report, Laliberte concludes our forecast annual increase in per capita residential use is "unsupportable." The trend of declining home residential-electricity use has been considered in our forecasts. Manitoba consumers are turning to energy-efficient housing and appliances, in large part, due to our Power Smart conservation initiatives.
There are, however, big differences at play in Manitoba resulting in load growth. In Manitoba, 36 per cent of dwellings heat with electricity, and that number is growing. Outside Winnipeg, a high proportion of new homes are being constructed with electric furnaces. Each of these homes uses 2.5 times as much electricity as a natural gas-heated home. In addition, 49 per cent of dwellings in Manitoba use electricity to heat water. Most new homes have electric water heaters and some existing dwellings are changing from natural gas to electricity, causing a 30 per cent increase in use of electricity. Together, the increase in electricity use will drive average household use up 0.3 per cent annually. This increase in electricity consumption is occurring even though Hydro promotes natural gas use where it is available.
Manitoba Hydro’s development plan is the best alternative for meeting our province’s growing energy needs. Readers are invited to visit hydro. mb.ca/development and review our plan for themselves.
Scott Thomson is the president of Manitoba Hydro
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Feb 11, 2014 14:50:49 GMT -6
Or this one: www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/gas-fired-plant-cant-meet-power-needs-235978021.html?device=mobileDear Editor,
Graham Lane continues to promote a natural-gas solution for the next generation of Manitoba's electricity supply (A sensible alternative to new dams, Dec. 11).
Perhaps the best approach would be to have Lane present his own ideas and his objections to Hydro's plans to the Public Utilities Board when they hold public hearings into the development plan early in 2014. In that public review, facts and viewpoints can be presented, challenged, debated and judgment rendered by that responsible independent body, along with its permanent advisers, eight independent expert consulting companies from across North America and five non-governmental organizations with their own experts.
In contrast to Lane's "back of the envelope" calculations of costs and benefits, Manitoba Hydro has filed over 5,000 pages of evidence and analysis that back up its development plan, with comparisons that consider a wide range of possible development plans, including all natural-gas generation, as well as combinations of gas, wind and hydro. The conclusion to this extensive analysis is that the current development plan consisting of new hydroelectric generation, with additional transmission, is the most economic long-term plan to meet the future electricity needs of Manitobans as well as being the most environmentally friendly approach.
Lane implies that building gas generation instead of hydro would eliminate all or a major part of the rate increases forecast over the next 20 years. This ignores the detailed evidence currently in front of the PUB review that an all-natural-gas-fired generation plan would result in similar rate requirements over the next 20 years and would result in 70 per cent greater rate increases in the longer term compared to the preferred hydro plan.
Lane's assertion that a 850-megawatt natural-gas-fired generation station could provide the same or greater reliability than the Bipole III transmission line is factually incorrect. Engineering studies confirm that 1,500 megawatts of natural-gas generation would be required in 2017 to achieve the same reliability and then further gas generation of 500 MW would be required by the year 2025 to meet Manitoba customer load growth.
Manitoba Hydro must take the long view with respect to the development of new supplies of electricity for Manitobans. It is through a careful and comprehensive consideration of both the short and long term that Manitoba Hydro has been able to achieve among the lowest electricity rates in North America. Manitoba Hydro is confident that the proposed hydro plan will continue that successful approach.
Lane's continued critique of Hydro's plans, without the depth of analysis and facts to support his assertions, is oversimplified and misleading. Let the public review process take place. Interested Manitobans can follow the hearings, and transcripts will be posted online, and Hydro's development plan is available at www.hydro.mb.ca.
Scott Thomson
President, Manitoba Hydro Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 16, 2013 A9At the end of the day, over 5000 pages of evidence and analysis had been filed back in December. God only knows what that's up to now. What is the point of a second review that various people are asking for?
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Feb 11, 2014 15:03:20 GMT -6
That is a letter from Scott Thomson President, Manitoba Hydro Yeah, totally unbiased! lol Did Scott bring up this: Confronted by such a dramatic increase in the project cost, the CEO of Hydro rejected the estimates prepared by his own engineers and hired an outside consultant to review the estimate, hoping for a lower cost. www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/bipole-iii-4-billion-political-chicanery-177603671.htmlManitoba Hydro is an arm/branch of the government, that does what ever it want's no matter the financial risks. Think the PST hike was bull shiv, just wait!! 5,000 pages is not a lot when we are talking about a $34,000,000,000.00 project.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Feb 11, 2014 15:15:29 GMT -6
That is a letter from Scott Thomson President, Manitoba Hydro Yeah, totally unbiased! lol Did Scott bring up this: Confronted by such a dramatic increase in the project cost, the CEO of Hydro rejected the estimates prepared by his own engineers and hired an outside consultant to review the estimate, hoping for a lower cost. www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/bipole-iii-4-billion-political-chicanery-177603671.htmlManitoba Hydro is an arm/branch of the government, that does what ever it want's no matter the financial risks. Think the PST hike was bull shiv, just wait!! I understand TL Hocking was contacted about the job but they said "even we can't fudge the numbers enough to make this steamer look viable". Bonus points for members who pick up on the TL Hocking reference. m.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Feb 11, 2014 15:29:07 GMT -6
That is a letter from Scott Thomson President, Manitoba Hydro Yeah, totally unbiased! lol Did Scott bring up this: Confronted by such a dramatic increase in the project cost, the CEO of Hydro rejected the estimates prepared by his own engineers and hired an outside consultant to review the estimate, hoping for a lower cost. www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/bipole-iii-4-billion-political-chicanery-177603671.htmlManitoba Hydro is an arm/branch of the government, that does what ever it want's no matter the financial risks. Think the PST hike was bull shiv, just wait!! 5,000 pages is not a lot when we are talking about a $34,000,000,000.00 project. Never said it was unbiased, that's why I included who it was written by. But who would know more about the subject? The biggest point of the article is that the projections are all based on a consensus amongst independant forecasters. Hydro has come right out and admitted that they wanted to go a different route on Bipole 3 but were directed by the NDP to go with the western route. But I've never heard a single report of hydro favouring a generation program other than hydro dams. And yes, they're expensive but it's hard to imagine that in the long run they won't be much cheaper than having to buy natural gas to thermally generate all our power. And hell, even if that does happen at least it means we have ridiculously low home-heating costs for the next 50 years (for anyone with a gas furnace anyways).
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Feb 11, 2014 16:08:31 GMT -6
That is a letter from Scott Thomson President, Manitoba Hydro Yeah, totally unbiased! lol Did Scott bring up this: Confronted by such a dramatic increase in the project cost, the CEO of Hydro rejected the estimates prepared by his own engineers and hired an outside consultant to review the estimate, hoping for a lower cost. www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/bipole-iii-4-billion-political-chicanery-177603671.htmlManitoba Hydro is an arm/branch of the government, that does what ever it want's no matter the financial risks. Think the PST hike was bull shiv, just wait!! I understand TL Hocking was contacted about the job but they said "even we can't fudge the numbers enough to make this steamer look viable". Bonus points for members who pick up on the TL Hocking reference. m. Is Hydro's going to start charging for parking too? Heck, parking alone is worth 500 billion!!! Never mind all the concerns, let's go ahead and spend $500 billion!! We gonna charge for parking!!!
|
|
|
Post by phillymike on Feb 11, 2014 16:19:58 GMT -6
That is a letter from Scott Thomson President, Manitoba Hydro Yeah, totally unbiased! lol Did Scott bring up this: Confronted by such a dramatic increase in the project cost, the CEO of Hydro rejected the estimates prepared by his own engineers and hired an outside consultant to review the estimate, hoping for a lower cost. www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/bipole-iii-4-billion-political-chicanery-177603671.htmlManitoba Hydro is an arm/branch of the government, that does what ever it want's no matter the financial risks. Think the PST hike was bull shiv, just wait!! 5,000 pages is not a lot when we are talking about a $34,000,000,000.00 project. Never said it was unbiased, that's why I included who it was written by. But who would know more about the subject? The biggest point of the article is that the projections are all based on a consensus amongst independant forecasters. Hydro has come right out and admitted that they wanted to go a different route on Bipole 3 but were directed by the NDP to go with the western route. So the company (that produces and sells this certain product, I would consider them experts on the subject) wanted to go a different direction, was directed by the government (whom is not a expert on the subject) to go a different route. We the public are supposed to turn a blind eye and trust all these so called independent studies that now say "oh yeah, the option that we originally didn't want to go with is the best option. Luckily us experts had the government to tell us what's most economically feasible for the company. It's a sham. Show me one independent review that is done unbiased, that favours what is going on. I see lots of reports questioning this decision, with lots of people whom as far as I know have nothing to gain. My end argument is Hydro, please consider your options fairly. No legacy projects at our expense please. This IMO is destined to fail.
|
|