Gas plant image from Energy & Utilities Board documents filed by NB Power
The proposed 500 MW gas/diesel generating plant on the Chignecto Isthmus would not pose a threat to human health, according to a consultant’s report commissioned by the U.S. company PROENERGY.
“Basically what we found was that during the electricity generation mode, the project will emit some common air pollutants, but the levels that we’re predicting are below the levels associated with the health effects identified by the World Health Organization,” said Tania Noble, a risk assessor for the consulting company Stantec.
She was speaking Tuesday during a 90-minute, question and answer session organized by PROENERGY, the company that would build and operate the gas/diesel plant over 25 years.
The online meeting also heard from Stantec’s Jennifer McPhail that test wells showed there is enough groundwater to supply the gas plant’s needs, but that the water would have to be managed carefully, especially during peak winter months.
“What our study found was that there is enough water for the project on an annual basis,” McPhail said, adding however, that operational measures would be needed during peak periods to avoid the need to pump more water than the aquifer could sustain.
“What this means is that during periods when the plant is not operating, water could be pumped from the well and put into storage so that it’s available when it’s needed during those peak periods,” she said.
Health study
Tania Noble. Photo: Stantec
During her detailed presentation on health risks, Tania Noble explained that Stantec considered air emissions to be the main concern because there would be no hazardous wastewater from power generation and any solid wastes would be removed from the site for safe disposal.
She said the plant would emit nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and ammonia only when it is burning gas or diesel to generate electricity, not during 85% of the time when its turbines would be spinning without burning fuel to provide stability to the power grid.
“For electricity generation, the base case or the expected case is a little over 500 hours per year,” she said. “So a very small percentage of the time.”
She added that the Stantec health study used about 2,700 hours per year in its modelling to build in an even greater margin of safety.
While she acknowledged that the modelling showed levels of particulate matter above World Health Organization guidelines, she said existing air quality conditions in the area are already above the WHO guidelines and the gas plant would add only a small incremental amount.
Noble said Stantec was recommending routine, air-emissions monitoring to ensure actual emissions match the study’s modelling predictions.
She also said a comprehensive groundwater monitoring plan is under development to protect residential well users, with commitments to address any effects on their water supplies.
When PROENERGY Canada President John MacIsaac was asked about a letter signed by about 130 scientists and academics opposing the gas/diesel plant partly on health grounds, he said the company commissioned the study assessing health risks even though it was not required under the regulations.
He noted that Stantec’s health impact assessment used a worst case scenario.
“It [the study] clearly articulates that there’s negligible to no human health impact, so the results actually in the report speak for themselves,” MacIsaac said.
Water study
Jennifer McPhail. Photo: Stantec
In presenting Stantec’s water study, Jennifer McPhail maintained it was designed to determine how much groundwater could be pumped from deep underground without affecting other users.
She said Stantec concluded that the aquifer could sustain withdrawals of about 416 litres per minute or up to 435 litres per minute for periods shorter than 30 days.
However, she acknowledged that during the cold months of January and February when the gas plant may need to meet peak electricity demand, it could require about 852 litres per minute or about double the sustainable level, but she said that on-site water storage tanks filled during periods of low demand could fill the gap.
The Stantec water study says that during “constant-rate pumping tests,” groundwater levels recovered gradually after the pumping stopped.
“The prolonged recovery response suggests that the aquifer does not rebound immediately following sustained pumping and that residual drawdown may persist for an extended period after shutdown,” the study adds on page 15.
“This response was considered in the interpretation of wellfield performance and supports the need to evaluate operational pumping rates, pumping duration, and recovery periods when assessing long-term wellfield sustainability.”
When McPhail was asked about the aquifer’s slow recovery, she said the answer would be more complicated than she could provide during the online Q&A, promising to post a written response later on the RIGS website.
Rte 940
John MacIsaac. Photo: PROENERGY
One question, addressed to John MacIsaac referred to the “poor quality of Rte. 940,” the road that leads to the proposed site of the gas/diesel plant:
“What actions will be taken to bring this highway up to a condition that will allow the heavy trucking that will occur during the construction phase?”
MacIsaac’s response:
“Our commitment to the local residents and to the local municipal unit and to the department of transportation is based on the fact that we recognize the condition of the road. We’ve done a baseline assessment of the road conditions. We’ve done a detailed video recording the condition of the road before any activity was commenced and we’ll take into consideration the condition of the road and the route that we select to travel the heavier loads,” he said.
“The heavier loads will use special equipment to move the heavier pieces across the road so that we mitigate and minimize the risk for road damage and our commitment to the local residents and to the department of transportation is to leave the road in as good a condition as we found it, if not better,” MacIsaac added.
“We’ll be specific on the route that we travel with pieces of gear and and we’re more than likely on the larger pieces to come in from the Shemogue end to minimize the amount of traffic through the community.”
Wildfire risk
When MacIsaac was asked whether PROENERGY had assessed the risks of wildfires that could affect the plant, he replied:
“What we’ve agreed with the provincial fire authority is that we would have the ability to connect to the tanks…and prioritise firefighting ahead of water storage. So there will be the ability to leverage two very large tanks for the unfortunate event or unplanned event of fire in the local area. So it will help support the local fire department in addressing water needs for localized firefighting.”
To read the Stantec human health risk assessment, click here.
To read Stantec’s water supply report, click here.
Tania Noble: “safe disposal” to where, exactly?
Are we expected to believe that NB Power is investing billions of dollars into a plant that will generate electricity only 15% of the time? We know that electricity demand will continuously increase over the life of this project and we can likely predict that the cost of methane (from the USA) will also increase. Those 500 MWh jet turbines will not be sitting idle. — “She said the plant would emit nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and ammonia only when it is burning gas or diesel to generate electricity, not during 85% of the time when its turbines would be spinning without burning fuel to provide stability to the power grid.”
The bigger concern for me is the fact that area is already exceeding WHO air quality gulidlines. In rural areas like Centre Village, home heating with wood stoves and fireplaces is very common, especially in winter. This is one of the largest sources of PM2.5 in rural New Brunswick. Health Canada estimates wood burning accounts for a substantial share of national PM2.5 emissions, and it spikes during cold months especially with stagnant air. So why has this town never taken in the issue of wood buring which is a huge contributor to PM. Or the fact we are bascially the tailpipe of the US. Emmission from south of our boarder and from local long-range transport: Southern New Brunswick (including the Tantramar area) receives significant fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone carried by winds from other parts of North America and even farther afield. This is a documented issue across the province’s southern air zone. Yet no one ever mentions these air quality issues. I have so many family members with COPD that have never even smoked. NB Lung Association and others have highlighted that poor air quality (from wood smoke, wildfires, long-range transport) disproportionately affects the 1 in 5 New Brunswickers with lung disease, including COPD.
Stantec Consulting… hmm… ? They’re also benefitting from their efforts locally with the proposed solar farm..
read more here: https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/env/pdf/EIA-EIE/Registrations-Engegistrements/documents/eia-registration-1669.pdf
Jamie Burke former CAO in Sackville N.B. works for Stantec.. and more importantly he is the Atlantic Lead for Urban Planning.. as noted at Sabine Dietz Climatlantic tribe where he is on the board of directors:
https://climatlantic.ca/dipl-team-member/jamie-burke/
You have to stand in awe at this point at the money changing hands over “power”.. and “planning” [ George Carlin: ‘its a big club and you and I are not in it’]
Everyone is saying this plant will lock us into fossil fuels. First, I’m not concerned about natural gas, it produces far fewer particulates, than coal and heavy oil, which this facility will be replacing. Natural gas is also considered a primary bridge fuel to take us into Net zero, you can see that by the amount of LNG this country producing and other countries are demanding. Second, anything that operates on natural gas can also operate on hydrogen. Given the amount of hydrogen Nova Scotia is planning to produce, this plant can be supplemented with 40–50% hydrogen. That would displace much of the fossil fuel use, especially any diesel, making it one of the cleanest peaking plants available.
Don’t go bringing any kind of rational thoughts here, you will be labelled a fool. Their way or no way. BTW I support your comment fully.
The only issue is that there is no indication that they will supplement their gas/diesel with hydrogen, unless you’ve seen something others of us haven’t.
I do agree with you, as much as LNG may not be ideal, it is better than some other fuels, though ‘switching’ to diesel when ‘necessary’ – with necessary being an unknown – could negate some of the LNG.
Biggest issue for me is that this is a US company building it no matter what excuses NB Power has. Another issue that’s a Johnny come lately, is that NB Power’s absolute disregard for their duties in consultation, information and even proving it’s needed to the EUB (EUB decision notwithstanding). There’s ALSO the highly likely – despite NB Power saying no – that the plant will run MUCH more in order to supply the extra power if the Lorneville Data Center gets built, AND sending power off to NS (what happened to us being out of power by 2028?) AND sending surplus power to support Maine’s Data Center (why should NB be sending power to the US for THEIR stupidity when we could keep that power here to help lower costs to customers?) AND admitting that even WITH this project, our power rates are going to INCREASE?!
There’s a lot of stupid going on with NB Power that does not jive with this project.
That it might be the “cleanest peaking plant available” does NOT outweigh, IMO, the other concerns I have (and I am not bringing up the Environmental ones, that’s for other, more informed people to raise).
Or are those thoughts not “Rational” enough?
They have made public statements that they will be switching to greener fuels. NB Power’s official RIGS project page:
“As cleaner options like hydrogen or biodiesel become available, the facility can transition to those fuels.”
~nbpower.com
Federal Initial Project Description (IPD) documents (submitted for environmental assessment):
“The turbines are described as dual-fuel combustion turbine generators (CTGs) capable of using natural gas and ultra-low sulfur diesel “as well as hydrogen fuel if available in the future.”
~iaac-aeic.gc.ca
Thanks, rational thinking is certainly in short supply.
Imagine being a boomer wanting this shit and having younger generations in your family? Did the lead really blind you this much to have such tiny amounts of self awareness? Chr**t, you folks are embarrassing and pathetic.
In response to Allen Crane’s comment about hydrogen as a fuel in the Centre Village gas plant here is Brad Coady of NB Power speaking to Tantramar Town Council, available on youtube. He is speaking about how the gas plant is unlikely to burn hydrogen as a fuel anytime soon:
Begins at 40:20ish.
Councillor Matt Estabrooks: “Um, Welcome to Tantramar, […] Um, I understand that these turbines have the potential – this is more of a technical question – have the potential to be converted to use hydrogen as a main fuel, uh, instead of natural gas. Some of the info, I mean, uh, that I have been able to look up, uh, hydrogen is potentially the future and burning of hydrogen results is only pure water as a byproduct, so, um, I am wondering if, my question is, if, um, you could speak to what a possible hydrogen conversion of these turbines look like in the future, was it discussed, um, and, from somebody on the team, could, could something like that actually be realized in 2, 5, 10, 15 years, is that something that was discussed?”
Brad: “Yeah, so what I’d say is that technically it’s possible, uh, what we said is that if the renewable fuels are readily available on the marketplace we would be moving to, uh, to use those fuels in the most you know, economical sustainable way possible.
Hydrogen, uh, it’s a bit of a, a wild one, for lack of a better word – there was a big rush into the hydrogen space in Atlantic Canada in the last few years, it seems to have petered out, so, no I don’t think Hydrogen is right on our horizon, but technically it is possible and would be achievable if we could get Hydrogen into our gas pipelines.
What I would say is, uh, these turbines are dual fuel, uh, combustion turbines – what do I mean by duel fuel? Primarily they’re gonna be powered on natural gas, because it’s a cleaner alternative and we don’t need to have any fuel on site or stored in any way, uh, they do have the ability to, to burn, uh, light fuel oil, or diesel fuel, or kerosene, some version of jet fuel, because again they, they are jet engines at the end of the day, and uh, it’s probably more likely that a bio fuel or a bio diesel or sustainable aviation like a liquid fuel could materialize because, uh, smaller scale and easier to transport using road traffic and tanker trucks and what not, uh, – another interesting development is, uh, I can’t get into too much of the details ‘cause we’re protected by NDA, but we are exploring renewable natural gas, so that would be the conversion of, uh byproducts from farming, in our beautiful province, that’s a big part of, of Tantramar, and a lot of other places around NB, could we capture the waste and by-products of those farms and put it through bio digesters to produce, uh, renewable and natural gas. Uh, the benefit in that is today those byproducts decompose into methane and get released into the environment and into our atmosphere and methane is 20x more, uh, potent from a greenhouse uh gas or global warming perspective than carbon dioxide.
So, uh, we are actively pursuing those avenues to say is there ways that we can actually make this project renewable sooner rather than later, uh, that is our commitment to the environment, that’s how we show our core values and care for the future is to say that we’re clever people, uh, can we figure out ways that, that turn this, you know, potentially a negative – and I’ll admit, a negative natural gas fire facility – into something that is more renewable and sustainable for future generations.”
Ends 43:57 ish.
So 1) Hydrogen is not “on the horizion”. It is not “2, 5, 10, 15” years away. It is a bit of a “wild one” and has “petered out”. Hydrogen is being used as a greenwashing technique, despite Brad being very well aware that it is not anywhere on the horizon. It is textbook greenwashing, a dangling carrot that people like Allen Crane are echoing.
And 2) Brad said the quiet part out loud: this gas plant is “a negative – and I’ll admit, a negative natural gas fire facility”. It is not renewable, not sustainable for future generations.
When Estabrooks gleefully asked a pointed question, it forced Brad to admit that this greenwashing carrot of Hydrogen is just a thing they say. They put it in the IAAC even, knowing that it is no where on the horizon at all. And still we have people acting like it is — Brad admitted it is absolutely not: “so, no I don’t think Hydrogen is right on our horizon”.
Tossing out “technically possible” maybe greener options to this “negative natural gas fire facility” while admitting it is essentially just a thing that they said and continue to say, does not make this dirty project green. It is greenwashing.
And 3) Natural gas is not clean, green, renewable, nor sustainable — but also it is not going to be available when we would need it the most. The times when this plant would need it, the peak times especially the predictably cold winter days, that is when the North East US would need it too. The supply is not guaranteed. Also natural gas does not travel well in pipes in extreme cold. They are going to store massive, massive amounts of diesel on site. And they will use it.
None of this dinosaur of a generator, jet engines, in a forest and on and surrounding webs of wetlands and waterways makes sense. It is the most expensive option. The most polluting option. This project and they way that they’re using double-speak is textbook greenwashing. They admit this is a negative project, a negative natural gas fire facility – it is not renewable, sustainable, green, nor clean. No one wins here. All of NB’ers will pay the costs, environmental and financial. The costs of this plant are too high. No one wins here … unless … unless maybe your family sells and profits off the massive, massive amounts of diesel that will be stored and used on site … they win. They win and we lose.
(Also, I would have replied directly to Allen Crane, but the reply option was not showing for some reason).
But it’s not true. Hydrogen is not miles away they already have plans for a Peaker Plant operating on hydrogen in Owen Sound, Ontario. Check it out. https://www.owensoundh2peaker.ca/
Allen, hydrogen production sounds like a great use for the erratic electricity produced by tidal power plants if they can finally efficiently harness what our amazingly powerful Bay of Fundy has to offer. May the FORCE be with us! — Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy.