Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Bipole III

Jon Gerrard raised the topic of the route of Bipole III. Given the municipalities, First Nations and private land owners threatening lawsuits over the west side route, the provincial government ought to go over exactly what the costs of running through the lake are.

Rosann Wowchuk is being a little disingenuous when she asks where the numbers came from on the cost savings.

Perhaps she should refer to the extremely detailed reports from John Ryan that are here. His breakdown of cost savings for hydro came in closer to $450 million.

Some in the NDP say the west is cheaper in comparison. Let's see those comparisons, please. If they are correct, then we can dismiss the very detailed analysis of John Ryan. But I am sorry if many are not prepared to take the NDP government at their word. Release the analysis.

What is with the secrecy?

Also, some claim that in addition to being cheaper that the line down the west is better suited to connecting with wind farms. I have not seen that. Could I see that report?

The only issue that really needs to be looked at is logistics and that can only be done by getting a full report on transport of submarine cable by CN Rail from the east to Gimli. CN said it could be done but it should have been a detailed analysis of the logistics involved.

Gerrard has correctly asked if the west side is the best route given the analysis of John Ryan.

I think if the NDP wishes to go on a smear and lash out angrily at those who suggest alternatives and have some research to back it up, they will find that the public reacts with the same belligerence towards them.

Release every detail that is available on why the other routes are no good and let's compare the three.

And for Pete's sake, stop boastful promises of crushing the Opposition and winning elections. It reminds me of what Gary Filmon Tories were doing just before they were defeated.

hit counter javascript

myspace hit counter


Anonymous said...

Although a submarine cable is feasible, the best option would be to trench it closer to the shoreline using robotic submersible trenchers.

A real consideration should be strategic substation along the route. Not only would this allow "tapping" for growth , it also keeps the cable lengths shorter with no splices.

There is also the factor of lifespan, but these cables are fairly robust. A plus would be the incorporation of fiber optics in the line which would allow for a distribution system to the north and a source of revenue for hydro. ( but they already have that , but cheap enough to do )

cherenkov said...

"better suited to connecting with wind farms." Did they actually say that? Somebody from the government?? That's just insulting. Maybe if there was some sort of feasible framework in place for individuals to sell power back to Hydro they could make that argument, but even then what sort of infrastructure do you need to have in place to patch the power back into a high voltage DC power line? That just wouldn't happen.

By the way, when I was talking with the guy from Wowchuck's department, he said that the lake route might be considered for bipole IV, but they can't overcome the technical challenges quickly enough for bipole III (shallow lake not suitable for cabling ships, silty lake bottom, etc..) I'm just telling you what he said. I think it's by far the best option if we can find a way to make it work.

Anonymous said...

Cheren, there is a way to do it and its cheaper than ships laying cable.

Shallow water you said, well, thats what it was designed for.

But what does a cable puller know.

John Dobbin said...

@ Nobody:

I'd like to be open the idea of exploring the possibility of a lake route whatever method makes the most sense. However, the NDP government seems to have rejected it without showing what data they had to make that decision.

@ Cherenkov:

This poster has said he is with the NDP government.


I'd like it if the information was made publicly available by Hydro or the government. It hasn't so we are left wondering if the decision has been rejected only because another party has put it forward.