3 ms·

Arguments were effectively made that it’s not all hydro power - it’s a connection to the grid not a single source of energy. But in the end this was doomed by

Arguments were effectively made that it’s not all hydro power - it’s a connection to the grid not a single source of energy. But in the end this was doomed by the route. If it were economically possible to go around the north woods it would have had little opposition.

SonicScrub 5y ago
Which is a nonsense argument as easily seen by a single google search of Hydro-Quebec's energy sources.
- throwawaycuriou 5y ago
  The 'greenwashing' risk is real. They may provide their electricity via hdyrothermal, but could potentially resell energy from any other source connected to their grid.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    They could. They agreed to sell to Mass. at 0.05$/KWh. I don't think there's anything apart from hydro they can sell at this price (and still make a profit on).
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Hydro Quebec only generates hydroelectricity in the main grid. Some islands that aren't connected may use thermal generators. So no, there is no such risk.
throwawaycuriou 5y ago
I heard that as well and it really detracted from the 'green' component of the project. Did HydroQuebec give any contractual guarantee that this would indeed be hydro-power and not just whatever's surplus in their grid?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  It's 100% complete bullshit. There are no non-renewable sources connected to the Hydro-Quebec main grid. Fossil fuels are only used for some islands that aren't connected to the main grid.
  - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
    Good to know, can you link me to further explanation about this?
belval 5y ago
How effective can those arguments be? Quebec power is 95% hydro, you can argue about the remaining 5% but wait it's actually 80% (4%) wind! I think there are arguments about sovereignty, not being reliant on a foreign country for power that could be made, but saying "what if we get the 1% diesel in the mix" is a terrible one.
- subpixel 5y ago
  Effective doesn’t mean “right” - it just means it worked.

SonicScrub 5y ago

Which is a nonsense argument as easily seen by a single google search of Hydro-Quebec's energy sources.

throwawaycuriou 5y ago
The 'greenwashing' risk is real. They may provide their electricity via hdyrothermal, but could potentially resell energy from any other source connected to their grid.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  They could. They agreed to sell to Mass. at 0.05$/KWh. I don't think there's anything apart from hydro they can sell at this price (and still make a profit on).
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Hydro Quebec only generates hydroelectricity in the main grid. Some islands that aren't connected may use thermal generators. So no, there is no such risk.

throwawaycuriou 5y ago

I heard that as well and it really detracted from the 'green' component of the project. Did HydroQuebec give any contractual guarantee that this would indeed be hydro-power and not just whatever's surplus in their grid?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sudosysgen 5y ago
It's 100% complete bullshit. There are no non-renewable sources connected to the Hydro-Quebec main grid. Fossil fuels are only used for some islands that aren't connected to the main grid.
- throwawaycuriou 5y ago
  Good to know, can you link me to further explanation about this?

belval 5y ago

How effective can those arguments be? Quebec power is 95% hydro, you can argue about the remaining 5% but wait it's actually 80% (4%) wind! I think there are arguments about sovereignty, not being reliant on a foreign country for power that could be made, but saying "what if we get the 1% diesel in the mix" is a terrible one.

subpixel 5y ago
Effective doesn’t mean “right” - it just means it worked.