Wednesday, February 1, 2012


The exchange of perspectives between Nalcor and energy pundit Tom Adams continues.

Nalcor boss Ed Martin replied to Adams' call for a halt to the project, demanding that Adams apologize. Instead Adams is picking up momentum. He threw the gigawatt back into Nalcor's lap with a new blog post and an appearance on VOCM Nighline last night.

Adams is continuing to question Nalcor's numbers related to the amount of energy that can be produced at Muskrat, arguing that previous studies show the water flows do not support the utilities claim that the project will produce 4.9 terawatts of electricity each year.

The bottom line, more questions and no apologies.

I'll be watching the Nalcor Leadership Blog for the next installment. The lion will speak!


Anonymous said...

According to humble Hollett he has "demolished" Martin's argument so I can't see how this debate will be electrfying from this point on?
It is intersting that Locke refused to answer technical questions during his presentations because he is not qualified, but Hollett is an expert and continues to educate his readers on all things technical.

Also I have noticed that Hydro Sue is suggesting that people be wary of Adams' because he pissed on Sue's parade a number of years ago. One would also notice that Sue has not once mentioned why this deal is not a good thing. In fact, she appears to be over her head in comprehending what's going on while instead wanting to talk about Marg Delahanty

I think the local blogger "experts" will soon have all angles covered and I suggest that we forget the whole thing and rely on the advise of these two energy experts.

This Peter is the "electrfying" part of the debate

Wm. Murphy said...

I have noticed that since the MH report there seems to be a bit of squirming from the naysayers
What's interesting is that Holett; et al, have no answer when asked about whether we should shut down Holyrood.
I would like to know what the opponents have in mind concerning the plant in Holyrood? Should we upgrade or get rid of it?

If it's the later then I suggest that MF is the best way to do this?


Peter L. Whittle said...

Murphy..been missing you. Good question.

I am still unconvinced that this project is off the rails. I think, at this point the future demand issue has been addressed. There will always be debate on the best way to address that demand, but it is time to prepare for it. The two options have been looked at.

Wm. Murphy said...

Well that's the question...what does the province do regarding Holyrood?

Do we continue with the oil burning option that will require considerable retrofit and modernization, or do we look at other energy sources to replace Holyrood?

We have everyone running around spouting partisan crap but I haven't heard one other option on how, or if we should get rid of Holyrood?

So, is the question that we maintain the status quo in energy delivery, or do we look at other options? I get pissed off when we have "experts" spouting off while not giving one alternative to what can be done for future energy development.

I think it is time for these experts to let us know what they have in mind? Why don't you put out the question in a Post and see what comments you receive. My guess is that the "nattering" experts will run away while they hide behind their bantering Tweets!!