The Atlantic chapter of the Sierra Club and the Halifax-based Ecology Action Centre are calling on the provincial government to consider alternatives to the $6.2 billion Lower Churchill hydro project.
“It’s really hard to accept at face value that this is the best option on the table,” says Brennan Vogel of the EAC. “We need to see more clarity provided by government.” He adds that instead of the multi-billion-dollar Lower Churchill project, Nova Scotia should be looking at importing potentially cheaper hydro-electricity from Quebec while financing more community-based wind and solar projects here.
He says the provincial government and Nova Scotia Power seem intent on bringing in Lower Churchill power via expensive undersea transmission cables and exporting part of it to the US—a move that would boost power company profits.
“We know Nova Scotia has a monopoly electrical utility so, in the absence of competition to result in fairer prices for Nova Scotian ratepayers, we’re perhaps being left in the dark…as to what the best options on the table are for providing stable, secure, renewable electricity,” Vogel says.
Closed-door session discusses Churchill project
On Wednesday, Vogel participated in a panel discussion on the Lower Churchill project organized by a federally funded agency known as the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. The session included power company executives from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, academics from Dalhousie and Nova Scotia’s deputy minister of energy, but members of the public and the media were excluded.
Mark Parent, a former provincial environment minister, who served as panel moderator, says the discussion was held in private so that the various “stakeholders” could speak candidly about a wide range of issues including regional energy co-operation. “It was put in the context of the regional Atlantic provinces struggle to meet greenhouse gas emission targets and also to provide stable energy,” he says.
“I was the only person on that panel yesterday that was really raising a red flag and saying, ‘Well, let’s not celebrate presumptuously that the Lower Churchill project is actually the best thing for Nova Scotia without considering some of the other alternative pathways,’” Vogel says. “That’s, in my mind, an inappropriate thing to be doing.”
Dexter welcomes federal loan guarantee
Last week, Premier Dexter welcomed the announcement that the Harper government would provide a loan guarantee to help make the project happen.
“The Lower Churchill project will guarantee Nova Scotia an abundant supply of clean, green hydroelectricity for more than three decades,” Dexter said in a news release. “It will account for between eight and 10 per cent of Nova Scotia’s total power needs when it starts flowing in 2017.”
However, both the EAC and Sierra Club Atlantic question the “greenness” of a dam that will create a 59-kilometre-long reservoir while flooding 41-square-kilometres of wilderness. The flooding will release deadly methyl mercury into the water and generate methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes more to climate change than carbon dioxide. A federal environmental assessment of the project is underway but is not yet complete.
“Obviously the loan guarantee [and the premier’s] lobbying on the part of the provincial government is inappropriate in the absence of a completed environmental assessment,” Vogel says. “There are still First Nations that have not participated to the level that they should in the consultation including the Mi’kmaq here in Nova Scotia.”
This article appears in Jun 9-15, 2011.
Oh, for crissakes… STFU. The EAC would like to see us all go back to the age of the caveman. Just go away.
Bo, I don’t know if that’s what EAC wants for us or not, but in your case you’re already there. So why worry about it?
I would like to know more on how flooding land will release methyl mercury and methane gas. Where are these compounds coming from? Matter doesn’t appear (or disappear) from nothing. Bruce, if you have the details on this, please do write!
The upper Churchill project had vastly larger area of flooding. During the 70’s it became apparent there were increasing levels of mercury in fish there, especially in bottom feeders like whitefish. Further research showed there was a reaction between decaying waterlogged vegetation, and the types of rock common to Labrador, which caused mercury to leech out.
However a reality check will show this is common to all hydro projects in the Canadian Shield, including those in Quebec which is mentioned as an alternative source of hydro power. It is no different.
When the facts are analyzed, you would learn the lower Churchill involves very little land flooding – it is in a river valley. This is unlike the upper Churchill which saw large lakes swell in size and link together, resulting in many hundreds of sq km’s of flooded former forest.
One of the studies often referenced for the greenhouse gas emissions from flooding is one done on the amazon river. This cannot be translated into the case in northern Canada where the bio mass is far, far, lower than that in the north. The amazon has 200 foot high trees, while Labrador trees are typically 20 feet high and scrawny at that. It goes on like that – the bio mass in Labrador is likely 1/10th the amount of vegetation of the amazon river.
“This cannot be translated into the case in northern Canada where the bio mass is far, far, lower than that in the north.”
Sorry, I meant to write, “than that in the south”.
Power from Labrador for Newfoundland, power from Labrador for Nova Scotia, power for Labrador for New Brunswick, power from Labrador for the U.S…. Power from Labrador for everyone but Labrador. Nice deal. If you’re not in Labrador.
Power from Churchill Falls currently powers Labrador City/Wabush and Goose Bay area. I think the comment about no power for Labrador was referring to coastal regions. The challenge is to overcome the cost of building the transmission power lines to those communities. I would think it would make sense for the communities close to Goose Bay, or having industry requiring some electrical power (nickel mines?).
In the future (when we run out of oil), I’d think hydrogen production would allow an alternative fuel which could be transported to remote communities in Canada’s north now powered by diesel. A solution could be to run electrolysis plants where there is abundant H2O, and pipe out the hydrogen to a year round port.
We should also remember Gull Island is another project waiting development upstream, with 2x the power output of the currently discussed Muskrat Falls. The mega project makes sense to do because you are getting 2800MW out of it, not just the initial 800MW. Compare to constructing 1400 typical 2MW wind turbines and the costs of 4 million kg of copper used in generator windings and transformers. Hydro is much more efficient on the earth’s resources. Reference on copper use: “Materials and the Environment”, by Michael F. Ashby (Materials Engineer).
Nalcor’s plan for Gull Island is to export 100% of its power. If it ever gets built, which is about as likely as the Muskrat white elephant going ahead.
And Gull Island power is cheaper than Muskrat by a long shot.
If NL can subsidize cheap hydro power for Nova Scotians, why can’t it do so for its own citizens in Labrador?
Time for Newfoundland to stop ripping off Labrador. Stop it!