Forgive me if you find some conflicting data from post to posts. My intention is to provide food for thought, and as I learn new things, I may link it in or reference it, but not go back to earlier posts and make corrections. Thank you and enjoy.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Environmental implications

This was posted for James at NB Gov. Could you please review the Environmental Implications document that is published on this website and check into the following possible error:

The 2007 greenhouse gases emmisions levels that NB has to reduce in the future is based on 18.7 MT per year. This has to be reduced to 16.1 MT by 2012. The document states that closing Grand Lake power plant (officially anounced before the MOU) and Dalhousie power plant would reduce the in province emmisions by 2.1 MT. This would put the level at 16.6 MT. (18.7 - 2.1 = 16.6)

Then the document goes on to say : "Eliminating NB Power’s GHG emissions from the Grand Lake and Dalhousie facilities will have the following
effects:
• the province’s annual GHG emissions would be reduced by 11 per cent;
• by 2012, GHG emissions would be six per cent below 1990 levels"

The 11% percent reduction I can figure out. The second statement rational eludes me. 1990 levels are 16.1 MT, yet the math clearly shows that 16.6 MT would be the greenhouse gases emmitted after the reductions by NB Power. If the reductions only reduce GHG emmisions to 16.6 MT, where is the other 0.5 MT of GHG reductions coming from?

Are you assuming that Coleson Cove and /or Belledune will run so few hours between now and 2012 that NB will meet these targets? Has contruction already started on the intertie connections between Quebec and NB to upgrade the HVDC stations to allow Belledune and Coleson Cove to shutdown?

Was there not talk of a second oil refinery in Saint John? Where were the GHG credits for this coming from? If gas turbines are installed in the southern part of the province that could possibly be supplied from the new LNG plant or the incredibly vast natural gas resources in the province, where would the GHG credits for this come from?

As for the rest of he document, it's a good history lesson, but does not really have any bearing the MOU. And I'll say it again, most of the emmisions benefits are the result of the previously announced Grand Lake closure.

No comments:

Post a Comment