Small could be beautiful for next Churchill River development

Dear Editor:

I don’t understand why it was not considered before but there is another way to look how the Churchill River Hydroelectric Complex could be completed. It is about time the inform the population

What would happen if we would only consider the essential elements of the complex? The first project, undoubtedly, involves upgrading the existing Churchill Falls generating station at a cost of $1.5 billion. But the second project, a new development, could also lie in the existence of a potentially more attractive alternative to the Gull Island project, a project that has been under consideration for some four years.

This project, currently named “River Bend” because of the sharp bend in the Churchill River about 15 miles upstream from Gull Island, is located in a very narrow gorge, on solid bedrock, and requires a dam three times smaller. While it results in a 20 per cent reduction in the head and therefore energy output, the project cost would be reduced from $25 billion to less than $10 billion.

The Gull Island design dates back to the 1950s and 60s and presents enormous challenges due to the presence of thick overburden terraces that must be sealed before constructing an eleven-million-cubic-meter dam with a large clay core, all within a tight, 10-year timeframe, while the future impact of financing and inflation remains uncertain.

By focusing on energy development, with a 74 per cent utilization rate, as achieved for Churchill Falls and Muskrat Falls, the three existing transmission lines connecting Churchill Falls to Quebec are sufficient. The fourth line is not required, and the Gull Island site is reserved, as requested by the First Nations.

This reminds me of the saying, “The fewer ideas you have, the more you cling to them.”

Why did Mr. Michael Sabia, then president of Hydro-Québec, flatly refuse to study this second alternative when it was presented to him by highly respected and more competent people in the field? There are no winners in needlessly investing $25 billion in this proposal, which is extremely damaging to the environment, requiring a fourth transmission line where 15 per cent of the energy is lost and where the constant flow variations caused by operating the complex at peak power exacerbate erosion. Moreover, there are much more economical peak power projects in Quebec.

One might wonder why this second alternative was not also presented to Newfoundlanders.

F. Pierre Gingras

Retired chief Planning and Cost Engineer

Hydroelectric Project

Hydro-Québec