Is Bipole III worth the cost?

VANRIDERFAN · #1 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:20 AM**

So Manitoba Hydro is to start construction in 2015. Is it really necessary to zig zag this thing across the province?

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2643166101/

Riverman · #2 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 2:47 PM**

No. It is being done this way to ensure maximum cost of construction and to ensure maximum line losses. If the government changes the project will be scrapped, but I doubt the government will change.

The Unknown Poster · #3 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 3:51 PM**

Ive never really understood this. Looking forward to discussion here.

Watching the video, I find it interesting that the deputy Premier explains the meandering route is partially to avoid using First Nations land and that "we learned our lessons". But that its fair to expropriate other land because they are paying 150% of the value. Firstly, if its fair and needed why pay so much over value? Secondly, if its fair for land owners, why cant they simply take the First Nations land at the same 150% of market value?

CoryB · #4 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:03 PM**

Those radio ads running about how the surveyors are not answering question from land owners suggesting this whole project is wrapped in a high level of secrecy makes it more interesting. One other side effect of a longer, meandering route is that it significant increases the expropriation costs as well.

esquire · #5 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:06 PM**

I get the impression we're not getting the full story on the real rationale behind the proposed routing. On the surface it just doesn't make sense.

Riverman · #6 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I get the impression we're not getting the full story on the real rationale behind the proposed routing. On the surface it just doesn't make sense.

I explained it in my post above.

The circuitous makes the line more expensive requiring more construction hours, meaning more dues flowing into union coffers.

The added line losses mean more electricity will have to be generated to sell a given amount resulting in extra water fees, thereby generating more revenue for government.

I would like to hear any arguments countering this.

Stormer · #7 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

I explained it in my post above.

The circuitous makes the line more expensive requiring more construction hours, meaning more dues flowing into union coffers.

The added line losses mean more electricity will have to be generated to sell a given amount resulting in extra water fees, thereby generating more revenue for government.

I would like to hear any arguments countering this.

What will be the cost per MW of capacity and what is the expected cost/price per KWH? Are they planning to sell some of this to SaskPower. I am sure it is still much cheaper than SaskPower's other zero GHG emission sources like wind and CCS.

Riverman · #8 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:39 PM**

I don't know these figures. If any power is sold to Sask. it will have to be transmitted from Winnipeg where the converter station is.

VANRIDERFAN · #9 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I get the impression we're not getting the full story on the real rationale behind the proposed routing. On the surface it just doesn't make sense.

It's because some jackass Kennedy came up here and said some bullshit about the pristine boreal forest on the east side of Lake Winnipeg and how this line will destroy it. Jesus Christ the government is building an all-weather road on the east side! Build the Bipole III right beside the bloody thing!!

But to the Winnipeg NDP thinking its better to piss off a bunch of right wing Manitoba farmers who never vote for you anyway than to upset some pseudo-enviro nut from Boston.

jmt18325 · #10 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:50 PM**

It has the proposed routing it does to avoid issues with land claims. There are still some issues, but less than there would have been.

drew · #11 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 4:55 PM**

If the route chosen is actually to avoid reserves, I can understand it.

Hydro, probably more than any other company, knows the long term costs associated with negotiating with First Nations. Even if there is an agreement in place.

Is it possible the route chosen is being publicly stated as "for the boreal forest" but being quietly planned around reserves simply to avoid headaches down the road?

rrskylar · #12 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 5:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

I get the impression we're not getting the full story on the real rationale behind the proposed routing. On the surface it just doesn't make sense.

First Nations consider all crown land east of Lake Winnipeg as First Nations land, now tell me why MB Hydro was forced to use an alternate route. The provincial and federal governments caving to any sort of First Nations pressure on land disputes is where the problem arose in the first place.

Didn't read Drew's post above and yeah Hydro rerouted unnecessarily to avoid future disputes. Hopefully (one generation) First Nations will realize that they are also the beneficiaries of the provincial infrastructure.

So with increased Hydro costs, the huge expense to Manitoban's for Bipole 3 taking the more expensive western route thank our wonderful First Nations leaders.

esquire · #13 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 5:37 PM**

As someone with an electric furnace, I am reminded of the folly of this all with every hydro bill

rrskylar · #14 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 5:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Unknown Poster

Ive never really understood this. Looking forward to discussion here.

Watching the video, I find it interesting that the deputy Premier explains the meandering route is partially to avoid using First Nations land and that "we learned our lessons". But that its fair to expropriate other land because they are paying 150% of the value. Firstly, if its fair and needed why pay so much over value? Secondly, if its fair for land owners, why cant they simply take the First Nations land at the same 150% of market value?

Sadly running Bipole 3 down the east side of Lake Winnipeg would be very easy as most of the route would be on crown land, unfortunately our First Nations have been led to believe that all crown land is somehow their land and that they should be compensated for it's use. Treaties they signed years ago are only worth the paper they are printed on if directly influences the ability to garner more tax dollars.

1ajs · #15 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 5:57 PM**

east side run also is more complicated because of the reserves and the royalty agreements that would need to be hashed out

Riverman · #16 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

As someone with an electric furnace, I am reminded of the folly of this all with every hydro bill

Change it to gas, today. You will start to realize the savings immediately. My last electric bill was $42.

esquire · #17 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 8:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Change it to gas, today. You will start to realize the savings immediately. My last electric bill was $42.

The house was a late 2000s build with no gas service that I'm aware of. I'm guessing it's going to be quite a project to change that.

My last hydro bill was $300... even the bloody hydro bill comes with pamphlets touting the virtues of gas furnaces and water heaters

So yeah, news stories about hydro rate increases and Bipole III get my attention.

Riverman · #18 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 8:57 PM**

Esquire, neighbour two doors down had a wood/electric when she bought and she converted to gas. Not that big a deal, new furnaces don't even need a chimney. You really should inquire.

esquire · #19 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Esquire, neighbour two doors down had a wood/electric when she bought and she converted to gas. Not that big a deal, new furnaces don't even need a chimney. You really should inquire.

Thank you for that, I will look into it. I've mulled it over before but never took any steps... the steadily increasing rates have me approaching my breaking point, though.

drew · #20 Posted **Dec 23, 2014, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

The house was a late 2000s build with no gas service that I'm aware of. I'm guessing it's going to be quite a project to change that.

My last hydro bill was $300... even the bloody hydro bill comes with pamphlets touting the virtues of gas furnaces and water heaters

So yeah, news stories about hydro rate increases and Bipole III get my attention.

$300 is nothing. Especially if that is your "actual" cost. Our "budget" for both gas and electricity is $262, every month of the year. (heating a 1905 vintage house), some infloor heat...

I suspect you will see savings changing from gas to electricity, but gas isn't free, so you should check out when your payoff will be.