Just when you thought it was safe to go into the water again…Tom Adams and I are back with another commentary on the NB Power-QC Hydro deal. This one is an updated version of the essay we published last week in the Globe, but this one appears in today’s Saint John TJ…and it has already sparked a huge amount of comment on the TJ page. Check it out.
NB Power: Not over till it’s over
Related Posts
Canada’s free riding on NATO- Brian Lee Crowley in the Washington Times
Brian Lee CrowleyMarch 14, 2024
Canada’s secret service is fighting a hidden civil war: Brian Lee Crowley in the Telegraph
Brian Lee CrowleyMarch 14, 2024
MOU between New Brunswick and Quebec for
The sale of N.B.Power to Hydro Quebec
Page 1 of 3
Comments by Neil.G. Craik B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering
The MOU proposes that all N.B Power’s thermal power generating stations are eventually shutdown and there is even doubt about the future of the Mactaquac hydro generating station. Electrical power will be imported from Quebec from the hydro stations at James Bay and Churchill Falls which are a long way from New Brunswick raising questions about reliability and call to mind the following quotations;
§ “The most expensive electricity is no electricity.â€
§ “No power is as expensive as no power.†Dr. Homi J. Bhaba at UN Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy , Geneva 1964.
The MOU needs to be examined using Worst Case Analysis leading to the recommendation that there should be a Penalty for Failure to Supply.
Hydro Quebec
The main HQ generating plants are hydro located at James Bay and Churchill Falls which are more than 1,000 kms from the border with NB.
I n the Worst Case this electrical power supply could fail for various reasons such as:
§ The 1989 Geomagnetic Storm caused protective instrumentation to disconnect the HQ transmission lines affecting 6m consumers for 9 hours. The long distance effects included Lepreau tripping.
§ The 1998 Ice storm which caused major failures of HQ transmission lines which caused power outages in large areas of Quebec and Ontario. 3.5m were without power some for weeks.
§ The 2003 North-East blackout affected 55m consumers, but not HQ
§ In 2008 a windstorm caused outages to 100,000 HQ consumers for 3 hours.
§ Low water in the rivers supplying the Quebec hydro dams
§ Peak loading.
For this reason, HQ have the following fossil fuelled generating stations near to Montreal which is the center of load in the Province of Quebec:
§ Tracy – 600MW heavy oil fired
§ La Citiere and Becancour – total of 708 MW gas fired.
Also HQ have invested in gas turbine generators at Millbank (near Miramachi, NB) which are required to supply 200MW to HQ. This indicates that HQ has reasonable doubts about the reliability of the power at the end of their long transmission lines.
New Brunswick
The length of the transmission lines from James Bay or Churchill falls to Fredericton is 1,250 kms.
In contrast, nowhere in NB is presently more that 150 kms from a major power station.
Mactaquac
The 672MW Mactaquac hydro generating station has a special role in ensuring reliability of supply. There are 6 units each of 100 MW, one of which is always kept on spinning reserve to preserve system stability in the event of loss of generation such as a Lepreau trip. The other units can be made operational quickly. Sufficient headwater is kept in the dam to generate over 600MW for several hours. At most times of the year the headwater in the dam is limited so this 600MW is only available for long enough to enable the fossil fuel stations at Belledune and Coleson Cove to pick up the load. However during the spring run off, this 600MW can be maintained for a few weeks. This is when Lepreau regular annual shutdowns are planned resulting in high annual performance over years.
The Mactaquac powerhouse has had a problem for many years due to concrete expansion. Cuttings have been made in the concrete over the years to provide some relief, but this concrete expansion has begun to affect the internal dimension around the water turbines, which will eventually make it impossible or uneconomic to refurbish all six water turbine generators.
There is a concept for rebuilding Mactaquac by constructing a new powerhouse from the existing powerhouse, in a south direction to the existing parking overlook. This powerhouse would be just down stream from the existing dam and road. The new generators could be run in parallel with the existing generators, so there would be no loss of output. The amount of water released through this combined dam would not exceed existing limitations. The impact on salmon would not change because the salmon hatchery would continue to exist. So why does the MOU has the following words ?
para 3.1 (b) (iii) (A) “ any dismantling and make-good requirements associated with Mactaquac imposed by the Government of Canada, but only if permission to rebuild is denied by the Government of Canada………â€
Is HQ just trying to find an excuse to avoid the cost of rebuilding Mactaquac, by using their influence with the Government of Canada ? The equivalent energy would then have to be imported from Quebec along very long transmission lines.
Recommendations
(1) Mactaquac
HQ should be made responsible for rebuilding Mactaquac as a generating station with output equal to the maximum output ever achieved at Mactaquac. The detail design and construction of this new Mactaquac should be started as soon as the HQ-NBP agreement is signed (March 31, 2010) and completed to be in-service in 10 years.
(2) Penalty for Failure to Supply
If HQ does not recognize the importance of Mactaquac or the other NB thermal power stations to local electrical power continuity and is confident that such electrical supply can be reliably supplied from Quebec, then HQ should back this up with the following warranty.
HQ will pay NB for the loss of electrical supply caused by failure to supply electricity across the border for whatever reason including
§ Failures of the HQ transmission lines
§ Low water in the HQ dams
§ Power peaking in the HQ system.
The penalty paid to NB should be the outage hours x the average power per hour in the previous month x the normal cost x a factor of 10.
This factor of 10 penalty is because the most expensive electricity is no electricity.
This penalty may encourage HQ to ensure adequate backup continues to be provided by the existing NB generating stations.
N.G.Craik
20 November 2009