tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post2059698645410395746..comments2023-10-25T07:29:40.789-02:30Comments on UNCLE GNARLEY: THE DECEPTION OF PARITY: PREMIER'S CLAIM BUSTEDDes Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02566013585647491614noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-26587796004774002112018-08-13T11:25:54.139-02:302018-08-13T11:25:54.139-02:30Late to game here on this one but by my own math I...Late to game here on this one but by my own math I come out with the following Atlantic Province rates.<br /><br />Nova Scotia: 16.053 c/kwh<br />PEI: 16.008 c/kwh<br />New Brunswick: 12.367 c/kwh<br /><br />The average is therefore 14.809 c/kwh for the three provinces.<br /><br />These calculations assume an average customer usage of 1500 kwh/month and includes the base monthly charge of the utilities as well as the energy charge. Taxes are not included. For Nova Scotia I used the domestic service tariff rate instead of the time of use rates in order to simplify the comparison. The time of use rates do result in a lower overall rate. <br /><br />As an example, I used my own winter usage to calculate my costs if my house were located in NS. The average was 11.11 c/kwh with the time of use rates. For the fixed rate scheme, the average was 15.76 c/kwh.My personal winter usage averages 1879 kwh/month. My 2-story house is 14 years old and I added a mini-split heat pump 4 years ago which displaces most of the baseboard heating on two floors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-55557239102296296732018-08-06T08:20:37.684-02:302018-08-06T08:20:37.684-02:30I got it, 2 + 1 = 12 when applied to CF assets. Th...I got it, 2 + 1 = 12 when applied to CF assets. The new Quebec math applied retroactively to the CF deal in 2018. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-63505003008835377352018-08-05T23:56:09.542-02:302018-08-05T23:56:09.542-02:30Obviously I meant reduce debates on individuals an...Obviously I meant reduce debates on individuals and debates more on ideas...Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-43430802493468403502018-08-05T16:14:26.396-02:302018-08-05T16:14:26.396-02:30Don't be too harsh on Heracles. He brought sup...Don't be too harsh on Heracles. He brought superb insider knowledge on some critical subjects; IMO, this is invaluable. <br /><br />Now, I agree (me included) we shall reduce redundancies (+ debates on individuals rather than on ideas) so we can attract new commentators.<br /><br />I'll also improve my personnal English writing (well, and temper) so I don't appear paternalistic.<br /><br />It would also be great if everyone would adopt at least an handle name, that would improve a lot the exchange fluidity.<br /><br />RegardsEx-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-73474919263792930882018-08-04T23:13:50.156-02:302018-08-04T23:13:50.156-02:30Heracles takes the handle of the Greek Heracles, w...Heracles takes the handle of the Greek Heracles, who could do the impossible.<br /> Now yes HQ an Ox and Nalcor a frog. But DW,KD, EM, WL are all frogs, as to ego, but still in denial.Heracles too may burst as being excessive.<br />His view on energy saving via water storage is sound, but generally HPs much more efficient when running steady, less efficient and negatively impact peak load with set backs.<br />PFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-11105441400166403132018-08-04T08:26:33.975-02:302018-08-04T08:26:33.975-02:30PF - good response. You should give H31 a F-. Hi...PF - good response. You should give H31 a F-. His behaviour is mostly that of the classic internet troll exactly as the Wikipedia definition describes. For an IT pro there is no excuse. His actions are deliberate. His excessive overtures to defend Quebec and HQ are actually hurting his cause. If he is genuine but a bit lacking in self-control, he needs to tone it way down to be taken seriously. I can't imagine many here even read his comments anymore. With about 20 already in this thread alone, he is here for volume, not value.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-67532124658359640452018-08-04T01:34:39.203-02:302018-08-04T01:34:39.203-02:30Hi PF,
The up and down does increase the overall ...Hi PF,<br /><br />The up and down does increase the overall consumption, so that's why it is not the recommended formula. But you asked about peak period and this is how it could help. By taking more energy out of peak load, so to take less during peak, the effect is that peak load is indeed reduced as you asked if possible. There are hot water tanks that do similar: they let the water temperature drop a little during peak load and heat it back once peak is over. These are strategies to ease the peak load.<br /><br />About numbers, I did not gave for two reason. First is that I never heated my place using only baseboard. I always had a heat pump and my fireplace I enjoy on the coldest days. For that, I have no firm reference for the starting point. Second is when giving numbers like this, there is a higher risk of being mis-interpreted or to have the information mis-used. That's another reason why I would not have give such numbers.<br /><br />As for Anon 23:01, you still did not understood that kid story... Frog and Ox is not about being wrong or right. It is about accepting who you are, how you are, instead of trying to turn into something you are not. Not only turning in what you are not will fail, but the authentic identity of who you are will also be lost, loosing twice in the process.Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-19764976489941172182018-08-03T23:05:49.611-02:302018-08-03T23:05:49.611-02:30Seems 40 % is an F, failure, so why a D? Must have...Seems 40 % is an F, failure, so why a D? Must have felt sympathy for him on this subject. Yes, concerned I might vex him.<br />PFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-85417299321453063232018-08-03T23:01:33.779-02:302018-08-03T23:01:33.779-02:30Of course, the MUN prof who says good saving a MYT...Of course, the MUN prof who says good saving a MYTH, it seems he is also a frog, and maybe could mate with frog Locke, who thought himself an OX?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-21442837959987963382018-08-03T22:54:15.796-02:302018-08-03T22:54:15.796-02:30Anon @ 21:50
I would rate your reply with an A ra...Anon @ 21:50<br /> I would rate your reply with an A rating, or if in figures 90%<br />And your point out the value of good quality units vs cheap low grade units. You site figures and ambient temperature applicable for Nfld, especially the Avalon, -15C<br /> Too many reporting good results , so the MUN professor certainly seems wrong. And Take Charge wrong unless one uses low quality units and poor installation methods. 40 % demand reduction in winter peak load is considerable, and believe Adams reported that or higher.<br /> Heracles: Says good quality units can offer savings, but gives nothing to quantify savings, nothing to ambient temperature condition. He suggests setting temperature up and down, contrary to best method , best to let run steady, as up and down forces unit to inefficient operation. Heracles really says nothing as to peak load reduction, which is necessary to counter and shut Holyrood production.<br /> Heracles cannot resist to bring up Take or Pay, obsessive tendency, which is another issue from that asked.<br /> I rate Heracles a D, in numbers 40 percent.<br /> Of course, as a MUN mech grad it shows that MUN mech grads can exceed MUN mech profs in knowledge and ability. Heracles a IT engineer, lacks considerable knowledge on this subject, has no apparent experience, and no monitoring (evidenced based) experience as the MUN grad reports to have done. <br /> In this case, the MUN mech grad the OX, the IT engineer the frog, my opinion. <br />PFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-16818926037843615172018-08-03T21:50:19.831-02:302018-08-03T21:50:19.831-02:30PF,
A MUN mechanical grad and senior engineer with...PF,<br />A MUN mechanical grad and senior engineer with considerable buildings experience. I have minisplits and based on winter #1 2017/18 achieved on average 50% monthly billings vs prior years. As this includes lighting, appliances, etc, the heat savings were considerably greater. I have good brand units but the workhorse - a tri-zone is the standard series with -15C rating as I didn't splurge on the more premium low temp model. My annual savings projection is easily over $1000 but I don't have a megahouse. I also know several other people getting solid results.<br />To answer the 3 questions:<br />1. Take Charge is wrong. Low grade units could fail the test though.<br />2. I haven't seen such a report but I'd have no problem arguing against such a surprising conclusion<br />3. Compared to resistance heating, Feehan and Adams are right<br />As for the peak load question I'd hesitate to expect 60% demand reduction but it might be a substantial part. I use an energy monitor like Adams so I see how power demands fluctuate. It's too complex to discuss here but I'd expect about 40% demand reduction.<br /><br />PF - a question for you and only you - would you say this response is far more relevant than Heracles31 who wants to demonstrate his knowledge of every subject even where he has zero experience and first hand knowledge of the issue?<br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-88236440633726259422018-08-03T21:03:55.091-02:302018-08-03T21:03:55.091-02:30Hi PF,
For mini-splits like for anything else, yo...Hi PF,<br /><br />For mini-splits like for anything else, you have good products, you have average products and you have cheap products.<br /><br />No doubt that some cheap products will fail during winter, even more during the coldest days, so when they would be most needed. As for saving, again, a cheap product may even have problem to pay back for itself.<br /><br />Fortunately, there are good products. These good products are not 100% perfect and they do have their failure rate like anything else. Still, they will perform as expected even during winter when they are most needed. They will also offer savings.<br /><br />If they are mixed with a smart thermostats, they can help reduce peak loads. By heating 1 or 2 degrees above the target before peak hours and waiting for termperature to drop 1 or 2 degrees below target, they can offer a significant period without heating at all. There will be a variation in temperature in the house, but that variation will stay within comfort margin.<br /><br />If they keep their temperature steady, then their only help is to reduce base load. Once base load is reduced, adding the same peak load on top of it still remains below the previous peaks.<br /><br />So I believe they can offer a real saving. The bug is : this saving is useless as long as the Take-Or-Pay contract is in effect. Because whatever is not taken must still be paid, there is no saving not to take.<br /><br />Get free of the Take-Or-Pay contract first. Once free from it, then heat pump and energy efficiency may very well offer real benefits.<br /><br />Always nice to talk with you,Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-35985942695543910652018-08-03T20:52:09.709-02:302018-08-03T20:52:09.709-02:30Two aspects to MUN economist Feehan report,
1. sho...Two aspects to MUN economist Feehan report,<br />1. showing 60 % energy saving on minisplits, <br />2. as to peak demand saving, this is vague by the Telegram reporter, who little understands peak demand it seems.<br /> WA repeated stated the huge peak demand potential, that is necessary to eliminate Holyrood in winter. Feehan seems to agree with WA, by saying that changes ahead could push people to reduce their electricity usage enough that Holyrood could be "largely or even totally unneeded". If minisplits fail to deliver winter peak load reduction, this cannot happen for Holyrood, so Feehan implied that he agrees with Adams?<br /> Now if so, a problem, if I recall correctly, as WA stated in the past:<br />1. Take Charge told the PUB minisplits would fail in winter and so no peak load reduction.<br />2. MUN mechanical professors say minisplit savings a"myth"<br />3. Take Charge claims minisplits save only 40% on energy , vs Feehan say 60% . Adams claims more than 60% possible. So 50% more saving if we believe Feehan instead of Take Charge (Nfld Power and Nfld Hydro). <br /> Who is telling the truth? Can UG bust another myth, whether the power companies and some MUN professors spreading fake news for 6 years or more?<br />PF<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-50613566610835992252018-08-03T20:42:40.823-02:302018-08-03T20:42:40.823-02:30Hi again PF,
You hit another part of the problem ...Hi again PF,<br /><br />You hit another part of the problem on the nose : ego.<br /><br />To change a mentality based on emotion is already hard enough. When this also means to step on your ego, doing that requires a trememdous force, discipline and self-control. Does Feehan and UG have such a force, discipline and self-controle ? I do not know but I hope they do.<br /><br />If they don't, then reality will have to be forced on them. Technically, that is about to happen soon enough. The bug is if this is the only way to get pass these emotions, then everyone trusting these leaders will have to suffer the same fate.<br /><br />So Yes, they may think it is better to save their ego and let people down; or by understanding how their own ego is about to push Newfoundlanders to bankruptcy, they may recognize that doing this is no sense and they are better saving the game than their ego.<br /><br />DW let his ego and his emotions neutralize his rational side. We see the result. Will leaders after him like UG, Feehan and other will do the same mistake they denounce or will they lead by example ?<br /><br />I hope they will lead by example....Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-22707109451295121512018-08-03T20:23:31.933-02:302018-08-03T20:23:31.933-02:30Seems, Heracles, you confuse readers by linking Fe...Seems, Heracles, you confuse readers by linking Feehan past report with this one. You seem to know more of Feehan past than I do. <br /> If he was anti Quebec, then I doubt if few of such mind will acknowledge an error to admit they were unjustified. So proof of them being pro Quebec from them, is a waste of time, and perhaps most to expect they don't repeat it or write about anti Quebec......so not to live in the past. Feehan has not changed from pro to anti MF, as always anti as far as I see. <br /> Now the piece says it makes a switch from baseboard to minisplits to heat pumps an incentivized option for customers. Not sure he advocated an incentive to install, but maybe it is wise investment, for the customer, but not a solution to the boondoggle. <br />PF Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-75879205554873375252018-08-03T17:18:37.140-02:302018-08-03T17:18:37.140-02:30Hey Anon,
True, CFLCo is owned about 65% Newfound...Hey Anon,<br /><br />True, CFLCo is owned about 65% Newfoundland / 35% HQ. So the UC power plant is owned in that proportion.<br /><br />If you pointed this to demonstrate that Newfoundland will not have 100% of the benefit after 2041, fair enough. But know that before CFLCo can distribute its benefits internaly, it must pay 2 different dividends to the government. One is 8% and the other is 22%. So Newfoundland ends up with 30% + 65%*70 = 76%, so HQ with 24. Lets round this to 75% Newfoundland and 25% HQ.<br /><br />The point I made is this :<br />Day 1 : Brinco invested 60 millions and HQ, 115 millions<br />Day 1 : Brinco has been able to contract its gigantic debt thanks for HQ having signed the Power Contract by which HQ was forced to pay back all the money needed to re-imburse the debt under virtually all conditions.<br /><br />As such, Day 1, HQ put twice as much equity as Brinco in the power plant alone, plus it engaged itself to pay for the entire debt, either by taking UC' power or paying its price tag (Take or Pay contract).<br /><br />The power plant has no value withtout transmission lines. HQ paid over 500 millions alone for them.<br /><br />So Day-1, Brinco put 60 millions and HQ, over 600 millions + engaged itself for about 6 billions.<br /><br />Day-2, Newfoundland bought back Brinco. Still, the reality Newfoundland bought was nothing more than the reality that Brinco had.<br /><br />So as for inital investment, that is one thing. What the final outcome is another. Same for Emera and the Maritime Link : Ownership is now Emera and it will turn Newfoundland's at the end of the contract.<br /><br />Initial investment was 60 millions Brinco ; 600 millions HQ + 6 billions HQ under the Take-Or-Pay contract.<br /><br />Outcome as defined by the power contract is CFLCo owner of a fully paid for power plant, CFLCo being 65% Brinco and 35% HQ.<br /><br />Newfoundland chose to pay 160 millions to get Brinco's share of the outcome of the contract. What it means is that Newfoundland will be the owner of a fully paid power plant, at no risk, for 160 millions. Considering the asset is valued to about 20 billions, that is a great return on investment!Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-45027523287645041892018-08-03T17:07:26.610-02:302018-08-03T17:07:26.610-02:30Anon 15h45;
So, how much NL paid to nationalise B...Anon 15h45;<br /><br />So, how much NL paid to nationalise Brinco (thus its 66% of CFLCo) in 1973 (or 1974)?<br /><br />Now, compare that to how much HQ paid for UC (the interests rate guarantees, the 3 x 735kv transmission line, power purchase etc.).<br /><br />The firm power purchase commitment by HQ (must pay the power, even if not taken or not needed or the transmission lines fail or water is "spilled" and what not) ensured CFLCo could repay its "mortgage", and then some afterward. <br /><br />------------------------------------------------<br /><br />So I fail to see your point.<br /><br />Which word don't you understand in: <br /><br />==> CFLCo will totally own & control all UC assets in 2041, debt free. <==<br /><br />And, really, what is not factual in the above.<br /><br />Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-73924254793348351922018-08-03T16:25:43.586-02:302018-08-03T16:25:43.586-02:30Hi Anon 15:31,
Being pro-heat pump or anti-MF is ...Hi Anon 15:31,<br /><br />Being pro-heat pump or anti-MF is 100% unrelated to Qc. As such, it is neither anti-Qc nor pro-Qc. I did not said they were anti-Qc because they were pro-heat pump, but PF used the pro-heat pump as an example of not being anti-Qc.<br /><br />Pro-Heat pump or anti-MF is neutral towards Qc. Both of these positions can be taken by pro-Qc people as much as by anti-Qc peoples.<br /><br />Saying that Qc abused a vulnerable CFLCo is attributing an explicit malicious intention to Qc. Feehan and many others said that and keep saying that.<br /><br />In court, even the latest Supreme Court case, CFLCo acknowledged that they were not contesting the fairness of the original deal. When CFLCo itself says that the original deal was fair, why do you keep saying the opposite ?<br /><br />As for Feehan, I am referring not the latest report he published about demand elasticity. I am talking about a report he produced years ago, about the renewal clause of the power contract. It is in that report that he expresses his anti-Quebec mentality.<br /><br />Did he changed since ? Great. Just show me. But to show me, you do it not by bringing a Quebec neutral statement like him being pro-heat pump. You do it by bringing a positive statement towards Quebec.<br /><br />As for examples of what a positive statement looks like, I posted many positive statements about Newfoundland above, like the generosity and care demonstrated by Newfoundlanders to people forced to land at Gander during 9/11. That great sympathy, help and support has been acknowledged by everyone and celebrated many times. Another is when Newfoundland started an interesting project, Qc supported it and expressed its desire to contribute to it.<br /><br />So again, find me pro-Quebec statement and do not confuse them with neutral statements...Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-62399620941442701102018-08-03T15:56:27.174-02:302018-08-03T15:56:27.174-02:30The only grandchildren the PC's and Liberals g...The only grandchildren the PC's and Liberals give a damn about are their own and the Rich people whose boots they lick. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-88306448127896023102018-08-03T15:52:09.294-02:302018-08-03T15:52:09.294-02:30It'll soon be time again for the local media t... It'll soon be time again for the local media to try and drum up support for all rural NL to move to Sin Jawns to fill up Danny Land. Funny how they can run a whole series on such claptrap but can't ask a hard question or bother to confront our crooked politician's. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-63833595477741805742018-08-03T15:45:12.590-02:302018-08-03T15:45:12.590-02:30So you don't agree with the 'True" fa...So you don't agree with the 'True" facts that I presented at 12:35. That's the trouble with you guys, you don't accept true facts even when they stare you in the face from documentation. Must be a Quebecois thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-56900484790973422782018-08-03T15:31:02.722-02:302018-08-03T15:31:02.722-02:30Where did you say that EE was anti-Quebec?
In ref...Where did you say that EE was anti-Quebec?<br /> In reference to Feehan You said "pro heat pump or anti MF is not what shows one is free of this anti Quebec mentality".<br /> You say UG is anti MFs but anti Quebec, and Feehan was anti Quebec because of some other issue or opinion not part of the Telegram story on rates. <br /> Feehan says heatpumps and wood oil etc (all of these are alternatives, but heat pumps, that use 60 % less energy is EE) all is detrimental to power sales here, and high rates.<br /> Now you say pleading for EE is not proof that Feehan is not anti Quebec. So your commnet applies only to Feehan and others that advocate for EE you don't accuse of being anti Quebec?<br /> Seems you have a bee in your bonnet fro Feehan? And for UG. <br /> You attack Feehan for this economic report which rather basis and should have been advanced pro sanction. <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-3298449344786286682018-08-03T14:39:22.991-02:302018-08-03T14:39:22.991-02:30=>correction of above - sorry AJ ;-)
Anon 12:...=>correction of above - sorry AJ ;-)<br /><br />Anon 12:35, you seem to be a lost cause. You've been presented with tons of facts on how that 1969 contract was a win - win agreement then, and is still a win - win today.<br /><br />Something I wrote here (Nov 2016)<br /><br />"A big step in any Nfld/Quebec reconciliation would be to re-establish 1969 contract facts, and explain it properly to everyone. <br /><br />This anger (and the general victim culture) in the mind of people actually diminishes entrepreneurship (I believe), and encourages political knee jerk reactions (like MF)."Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-68330862759340010862018-08-03T14:37:30.483-02:302018-08-03T14:37:30.483-02:30Hi PF,
Please, point me where I said that EE was ...Hi PF,<br /><br />Please, point me where I said that EE was anti-Quebec ?<br /><br />My position is the an official EE program in Newfoundland can be a very good thing --ONLY-- --AFTER-- a bailout or bankruptcy freed Newfoundland from its Take-Or-Pay contract. As long as the Take-Or-Pay contract is active, not to take is no benefit because you still have to pay.<br /><br />What I said about Feehan and many others is that they expressed the anti-Quebec way of think that must be changed. For them, everything from Quebec was / is / will be bad for Newfoundland, was / is / will be abuse and with the clear intent of doing so.<br /><br />Feehan said that the extension was an abuse of a vulnerable CFLCo, that the UC contract is unfair to the point that few, if any, can say the opposite and more.<br /><br />Know that the extension was the only way to save the project because HQ was the only buyer and user for the UC. Con ED, Ontario and others all said No. Because HQ was / is also a producer of hydro-electricity, the only viable way to sell its own product to a producer is to sell it to a lower price than the one he can achieve himself. Without the extension, the price tag for UC was too high to justify not doing our own projects. So either that price was lowered or we would have walk away because our projects were lower cost than UC.<br /><br />The price could not be lowered during the first 40 years of the contract because CFLCo needed the money to pay back the debt. As such, the only way to lower the average price was with a lower price over a longer period. CFLCo understood that and made their decision accordingly.<br /><br />So again, Yes Feehan and all the others I quoted above expressed clear anti-Quebec positions, the very anti-Quebec way of think that you say you can not see. If they changed their mind, good. But show me that they did and unfortunately, pleading for EE is not such a proof.Heracles31https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598467925778515764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5235138415013046381.post-34139427673934428542018-08-03T14:35:12.536-02:302018-08-03T14:35:12.536-02:30This comment has been removed by the author.Ex-Military Engrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209511368820589727noreply@blogger.com