Project Alternatives
The following project alternatives were considered and deemed not technologically or economically feasible:
The following project alternatives were considered and deemed not technologically or economically feasible:
Conservation and Demand Management:
Achieved through the installation of cost/energy efficient technologies throughout the province, this was considered not a feasible alternative due to the marginal cost savings it would incur and the low participation in programs encouraging efficent technologies historically (Nalcor 2009).
Wind Power:
Though Labrador has immense wind resources and development potential, it was determined that current system isolation and the intermittent nature of the power source would make this alternative unreliable and a threat to the stability of the Newfoundland and Labrador's power grid (Nalcor 2009). Nalcor is currently studying the feasibility of utilizing wind power as an alternative complement to diesel generation in smaller communities in Newfoundland (Nalcor 2009).
Natural Gas:
Natural gas would produce less CO2 emissions than Newfoundland and Labrador's current power supply, but the natural gas reserves off the coast of Labrador is not commercially produced and cannot yet be economically produced and transported to the market (Nalcor 2009).
Other:
Biomass, solar and fuel cells were all among the "other" alternative energy sources considered, but none were technologically or economically feasible means of producing the amount of electricity associated with the project (Nalcor 2009).
Run-of-the-River Hydroelectric Development:
It was determined that such a development would not be economically or technologically feasible (Nalcor 2009). In northern latitudes, ice suspended in the water column can restrict flow and disrupt the capacity of a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project. As such, without a reservoir or a means to control the ice in the water column, the project would be burdened by operational difficulties and low energy potential (Nalcor 2009).
Adding Capacity:
Adding capacity to existing facilities could only be done at hydroelectric sites were spillage occurred regularly (signaling there was greater potential energy being underutilized). This was only economically feasible at relatively minor hydro power sources and the added capacity would be small, only enough to serve the province in the short term (Nalcor 2009). Adding capacity to a major thermal plant in Holyrood would involved using even more CO2 producing heavy fuel, which was also deemed an unacceptable alternative to the project as a major goal of the project was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the project (Nalcor 2009).
No Project:
Not proceeding with the project would mean the provinces future energy needs would not be met and the province would remain reliant on unsustainable fossil fuel means to generate electricity (Nalcor 2009). It would also mean that the province would pass up a very economic opportunity and a chance for the region to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions (Nalcor 2009). As such, no project was not considered a viable alternative.
Achieved through the installation of cost/energy efficient technologies throughout the province, this was considered not a feasible alternative due to the marginal cost savings it would incur and the low participation in programs encouraging efficent technologies historically (Nalcor 2009).
Wind Power:
Though Labrador has immense wind resources and development potential, it was determined that current system isolation and the intermittent nature of the power source would make this alternative unreliable and a threat to the stability of the Newfoundland and Labrador's power grid (Nalcor 2009). Nalcor is currently studying the feasibility of utilizing wind power as an alternative complement to diesel generation in smaller communities in Newfoundland (Nalcor 2009).
Natural Gas:
Natural gas would produce less CO2 emissions than Newfoundland and Labrador's current power supply, but the natural gas reserves off the coast of Labrador is not commercially produced and cannot yet be economically produced and transported to the market (Nalcor 2009).
Other:
Biomass, solar and fuel cells were all among the "other" alternative energy sources considered, but none were technologically or economically feasible means of producing the amount of electricity associated with the project (Nalcor 2009).
Run-of-the-River Hydroelectric Development:
It was determined that such a development would not be economically or technologically feasible (Nalcor 2009). In northern latitudes, ice suspended in the water column can restrict flow and disrupt the capacity of a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project. As such, without a reservoir or a means to control the ice in the water column, the project would be burdened by operational difficulties and low energy potential (Nalcor 2009).
Adding Capacity:
Adding capacity to existing facilities could only be done at hydroelectric sites were spillage occurred regularly (signaling there was greater potential energy being underutilized). This was only economically feasible at relatively minor hydro power sources and the added capacity would be small, only enough to serve the province in the short term (Nalcor 2009). Adding capacity to a major thermal plant in Holyrood would involved using even more CO2 producing heavy fuel, which was also deemed an unacceptable alternative to the project as a major goal of the project was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the project (Nalcor 2009).
No Project:
Not proceeding with the project would mean the provinces future energy needs would not be met and the province would remain reliant on unsustainable fossil fuel means to generate electricity (Nalcor 2009). It would also mean that the province would pass up a very economic opportunity and a chance for the region to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions (Nalcor 2009). As such, no project was not considered a viable alternative.