tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post1984057550153977012..comments2023-10-25T07:29:40.789-02:30Comments on UNCLE GNARLEY: VISION BUILT ON DELUSION (PART II)Des Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02566013585647491614noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-11893561286188594422014-09-11T14:27:51.118-02:302014-09-11T14:27:51.118-02:30Tom... Nalcor have generated predictions of the a...Tom... Nalcor have generated predictions of the annual firm energy from Muskrat Falls with and without the WMA. They are within 5%. I take these to be true. You are right however, that there may be periods (in May) where Muskrat will be at high production due to the Spring Freshet. There may be spills due to inability to sell the power. I do not think this is a risk. the risk is that it will be sold for a very small price due to the time of the year. Then when we need to buy power it will be much more expensive, because it is in January and February. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-70085919720368259942014-09-11T12:57:44.064-02:302014-09-11T12:57:44.064-02:30Much appreciation to JM for contributing yet anoth...Much appreciation to JM for contributing yet another awesome piece of analysis, and to Uncle G for making this work available.<br /><br />My only question to JM relates to his contention that should HQ's view of the 1969 power contract prevail, this legal outcome would not materially impact the total amount of energy produced each year by Muskrat Falls. <br /><br />I am concerned that should HQ's view of the 1969 contract prevail, the result would be that the annual output of Muskrat Madness would be very significantly reduce. Here is why:<br /><br />Nalcor's water flow analysis shows that Muskrat Madness will only have sufficient water flow in normal years to reach its nameplate production rate for something like 2 months per year. This peak production will of course be during the spring freshet. At this time of year, Nalcor experiences low demand and high in-flows on the island and as a result already routinely spills water on the island. The upshot of this is that in years of normal water flow there will be little or no spring storage capacity available on the island. The transmission link with Nova Scotia is limited to 500 MW. If Nalcor can't go ahead with its scheme to store excess spring production at Upper Churchill and use a large block of UC winter production capacity now relied upon by HQ, Nalcor will have no physical alternative than to spill water somewhere in its integrated system. Nalcor could play silly games like dumping this excess water on the island so it can claim that all of Muskrat Madness's production is being used, but this doesn't change the outcome for NL consumers.<br /><br />My contention is that should HQ's litigation go against Nalcor, a large portion of the annual potential generation of Muskrat Madness will be spilled. What am I missing?Tom Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296886598518752547noreply@blogger.com