Power for Nova Scotia - April 29th 2014

Muskrat Falls is a waterfall in Labrador that is being harnessed to generate electricity for the province of Newfoundland & Labrador.  The project, managed by Nalcor Energy, is already under construction and will include a subsea cable from Labrador to Newfoundland to transmit the power.  Once up and running, the old oil fired power station at Holyrood will be shut down.  This is all good news for Newfoundland & Labrador.  The province switches from burning fossil fuel to using renewable energy in an installation that is likely to last for many years.

For Nova Scotia, the benefits are not nearly so clear.  Emera, the owners of Nova Scotia Power have a commitment from Nalcor that Nova Scotia can have 20% of the power generated from the project for the next 35 years.  Nalcor refuse to commit to increase that amount and on the project website even say that Newfoundland & Labrador will need the remaining available power in a few years anyway.  To get the power to Nova Scotia will require the installation of a subsea cable from Newfoundland to Cape Breton to connect into the Nova Scotia grid.  The cable project is estimated to cost $1.52 billion.  The total population of Nova Scotia is of the order of 920,000 souls.  The cost of the project thus represents nearly $1700 for every person in the province or approximately $5,000 per household.  If the project expenditure overruns its budget as these large projects tend to do, then this cost will likely increase.  There are other problems with this project too.  Transmitting power over long distances results in significant loss of power over the length of the line.  Losses depend on transmission voltage and distance.  For example, a 100 mile 765 kV line carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 0.5% to 1.1%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%.  The distance from Muskrat Falls to Halifax by the proposed cable route is of the order of 1300km (over 800 miles).  The losses over that length of line will be significant.

The trend in power generation and management is to move towards eliminating transmission losses altogether by generating the power where it is needed.  Smart appliances are becoming available that turn themselves off when power requirements are high and that consume extra power when there is plenty available.  A refrigerator for example can turn itself off for several hours without compromising its contents and can catch up again when more power is available.

Small scale power generation projects in Nova Scotia are not encouraged in any way.  Nova Scotia Power’s net metering arrangement is heavily biased away from consumers.  There are no grants to home owners for installing small power projects.  The net result of this discouragement is that the payback to consumers of investing in green power projects such as solar panels or wind turbines is well in excess of twenty years.  No wonder you don’t see solar panels on roofs in Nova Scotia.  Compare that situation with what happens in Europe.  Capital grants are readily available there and locally generated excess power is valued because of the savings to the power companies in both generation and transmission costs.  Typical payback times for consumers are of the order of three to five years making it much more sensible for them to invest in such projects.

So, Nova Scotia Power, here’s a proposal for you.  Don’t spend $1.52 billion (or anything at all) on a power cable from Labrador.  Instead, setup a system that gives grants to homeowners to cover 1/3^rd of the cost of installation of local power generation (subject to certain conditions of course).  Revise the net metering agreement so that payouts for excess power are more equitable and reconcile monthly not annually.

Let’s estimate that 1/10^th of the households (and businesses) in Nova Scotia take up the offer of grants over the next three years and overall reduce the total power consumption in Nova Scotia by an amount equal to that which was going to arrive from Labrador.  Total cost to Nova Scotia Power in grants and not having to invest in capital projects would be of the order of $560 million.  Total savings compared with the Muskrat Falls project are of the order of $1 billion.  Consequential benefits would include the generation of many jobs in the installation of these systems.  Instead of generating jobs in remote Labrador, these jobs would be where people actually live.  How green is that?

Bluenose II Update - September 8th 2013

The Bluenose is finally back in the water having had the original wooden rudder replaced with a steel one. This had to be done to pass a certification test (see below). So, what's wrong with the picture below? Here's a hint: The new steel rudder is much heavier than the wooden one was. That's why the Bluenose is floating three feet higher at the bow than at the stern. Will they be able to correct this problem by putting lots of ballast in the bow? Somehow I doubt it. All that ballast may make the whole ship too heavy. Yet another mistake in an embarrassing project.

Bluenose II Rebuild - A Huge embarrasment for Nova Scotians - August 3rd 2013

It's embarrassing for Lunenburg, for Nova Scotia and for the Atlantic Canada tradition of building excellent ships.

The original Bluenose, launched in 1921 was a Grand Banks fishing schooner that also raced against other fishing boats on the Atlantic coast of North America. Famously, in the final 17 years of its career, Bluenose never lost a race. The original Bluenose was eventually wrecked in the Caribbean in 1946. A replica, the Bluenose II, was launched in 1963 and for many years was a great ambassador for Lunenburg and Nova Scotia drawing many tourists and visitors to the area. Bluenose II was scrapped in 2010 due to "hulling" where the bow and stern of an old wooden boat droop below the centre. Since the Bluenose II was so successful, the authorities decided that another Bluenose needed to be built and that's when things started to go horribly wrong.

Firstly, they decided that the new vessel wouldn't be a replica at all but just a cartoon lookalike. In order to ensure the new vessel lasted a longer time than Bluenose II, it would be built from a heavy hardwood. This then required a larger hull volume in order for it to sit properly in the water. The only parts retained from Bluenose II would be the masts and spars and some of the deck furniture. Bizarrely under the circumstances it was decided not to call it Bluenose III but to retain the Bluenose II name.

Dogged by delays and budget over-runs, the current project has currently cost in excess of $16M and this is not the final total. Compare that to the cost of the Bluenose II of $300,000 which (according to the Bank of Canada inflation calculator) in 2013 prices is equivalent to no more than $2.5M! $2.5M seems to me to be a reasonable ball park figure for a vessel of this size. $16M is clearly outrageous. There have been mutterings about the misappropriation of funds but nothing has yet surfaced officially. Maybe it will once the dust has settled.

The vessel was finally launched in September of 2012 and fitting out began. On November 27th 2012 whilst sitting at the dock, a bilge pump hose was inadvertently left over the side of the vessel. With the pump turned off and no check valve in the line, water siphoned into the bilge for over an hour, flooding the vessel. The individual compartments in the vessel were supposed to be watertight which would have minimised the flooding but significant leakage occurred between all of the compartments indicating both a construction flaw and inadequate testing. To fix the problem, requires many internal fittings (and the engines) to be removed causing more delay and further expense.

The ship was launched without a rudder. The rudder anyway needed to be redesigned and built from metal instead of wood in order to pass certification. As a result of this and to fix the bulkhead problems, the vessel was hauled back onto the slipway where she still sits. This despite recent promises from project management that sea trials would begin before the end of July and that the boat will be handed over to the province in August. Instead it is quite likely that the known problems could result in the vessel being denied certification to carry passengers. It is very unlikely that any sea trials will begin before next spring, if ever.

Perhaps the best thing that can happen now would be a mysterious fire on board the vessel whilst it is out of the water. That way we can get rid of the embarrassment and recoup some of the money through insurance payouts. If then the government decide to try again to build a replica, here are a couple of pointers they might like to consider:

1. Build the hull out of fibreglass, not wood. This will make it long lasting, robust and easier and cheaper to build. Let's showcase our up to date shipbuilding skills and not wallow in past skills that have largely disappeared simply because hardly anyone wants wooden boats any more.
2. Get a professional project management team in to run the project with accountants to oversee and publicly account for the cost at every stage.

The province needs to learn from this experience and make sure that nothing like this happens again. Unfortunately, this seems an unlikely wish based on their past record.