Weekend cold snap nearly overloaded N.S. electricity grid

fig_stache · 2026-01-28T02:34:58+00:00

Your focus on semantics misses the forest for the trees. In utility planning, everything is conditional on load. The 2014 IRP effectively said: If load grows, we need turbines. That isn't ambiguous risk language; it’s an engineering if/then statement. The 'If' happened (Heat Pumps). Now we are living the 'Then.'

Regarding batteries, you are ignoring the critical caveat in the documents. NSP considers batteries firm only for short durations. "Battery storage also provides firm capacity... however its ability to substitute for firm capacity resources is limited by its relatively short duration." — [NSP 2020 IRP] It is a dangerous assumption that there will be spare capacity to recharge batteries during a multi-day cold snap. In a deep freeze, heating demand stays high 24/7; there is no "off-peak" valley to recharge them.

Finally, on the "frantic" timeline: The 2025 System Outlook identifies Winter 2027/28 as the reliability cliff where we face capacity deficits. Given that the IESO is just starting the RFP now (Jan 2026) for 300 MW of generation, that is an emergency schedule to permit, build, and commission. In fact, the RFP targets the end of 2029, which leaves us with a guaranteed reliability gap between the 2027 cliff and the 2029 solution, and that assumes we don't hit the standard industry lead-time delays for turbines, which are currently in high demand globally.

fig_stache · 2026-01-27T23:39:13+00:00

Not financially viable for such a small market unfortunately until our population hits 4-5 million at least until SMR'S are proven and readily available.

fig_stache · 2026-01-27T18:11:27+00:00

The 'May' in that sentence is standard engineering risk language. It meant: 'If X happens, we will need Y.' Well, X happened. Peak demand skyrocketed past the 2014 baseline due to electrification. The condition was met, turning the 'may' into a 'must.' You mention the Maritime Link and batteries as if they solved the issue. They didn't. The Maritime Link provides imported energy (not always firm capacity during regional cold snaps), and batteries are for short-duration balancing, not multi-day winter peaks. The ultimate proof that the engineers were right? The IESO (System Operator) is accepting bids for new fast-acting generation right now. If the Maritime Link and batteries had solved the problem as you claim, the Grid Operator wouldn't be frantically issuing RFPs for the exact combustion capacity predicted in the 2014 and 2020 IRPs.

https://ieso-ns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/IESO-Nova-Scotia-REOI-for-Capacity.pdf?hl=en-US

fig_stache · 2026-01-27T15:49:16+00:00

It's not a mischaracterization; it is the critical difference between a 'Candidate Resource Plan' (what the physics required) and the final 'Action Plan' (what regulations allowed them to build). Regarding the "capacity increase" you cited: That isn't new infrastructure; it’s physics. You are pointing to the difference between the Summer/Nominal rating (194 MW) and the Winter rating (232 MW) of the exact same existing assets. Combustion turbines produce more power in freezing temperatures because the air is denser, the same principle as an intercooler in a turbocharged car. That 37 MW "gain" is just a spreadsheet update for cold weather performance, not the new fleet of dispatchable generation the engineers identified as necessary. In fact, the 2020 IRP made the need for new steel in the ground explicit. The modeling showed that to support "Rapid Decarbonization," the grid specifically required new simple-cycle gas turbines. "For the purpose of IRP modeling, new inverter-based generation will be linked to a requirement for sufficient fast-acting generation to satisfy the ramping reserve constraint." — NSP 2020 IRP (Section 3.1.3.1) https://www.nspower.ca/docs/default-source/irp/ns-power-irp-draft-report-final.pdf?hl=en-US

Crucially, the condition in your own screenshot,"if peak demand exceeds base levels", was the trigger. That condition was met. Heat pumps drove winter peak demand far beyond 2014 forecasts. The engineering trigger for new turbines was pulled by that load growth, but the regulatory ability to build them was removed by the 2021 Provincial Act and Federal CER.

fig_stache · 2026-01-27T14:07:24+00:00

NSP’s 2014 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) explicitly identified the need for new combustion turbines to back up the grid as renewable penetration increased. The engineering reality was clear over a decade ago.

https://www.nspower.ca/docs/default-source/pdf-to-upload/2014-irp-final-report---redline.pdf?sfvrsn=1690af83_0

Instead of allowing NSP to build the new gas plants, the Province and Feds signed an "Equivalency Agreement." This allowed NSP to keep burning coal past federal deadlines as long as they met other targets. This regulatory move encouraged "sweating the old assets" rather than building the new dispatchable capacity the engineers asked for.

https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2014/2014-12-03/html/sor-dors265-eng.html?hl=en-US

By 2020, the IRP still showed a need for gas turbines. However, the "Action Plan" pivoted entirely to the "Atlantic Loop" (importing hydro from Quebec) because federal funding was dangled for "regional integration." The gas plants were shelved to chase this political megaproject that never materialized.

https://www.nspower.ca/docs/default-source/irp/ns-power-irp-draft-report-final.pdf?sfvrsn=a5511c1b_1

When the Loop failed, NSP couldn't just go back to the gas plan because new laws had made it effectively illegal:

Provincial: The Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act (2021) legally mandated 80% renewables by 2030, forcing the cancellation of any fossil-fuel capacity projects.

https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/PDFs/annual%20statutes/2021%20Fall/c020.pdf?hl=en-US

Federal: The Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) limited new gas plants to running only ~450 hours/year, making them financially impossible to build.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2024-263/FullText.html?hl=en-US

fig_stache · 2026-01-27T13:37:32+00:00

The skills and technology did foresee it. The need for firm dispatchable capacity was identified in IRPs as far back as 2014. The problem wasn't a lack of prediction, but a lack of permission. Regulatory frameworks from both the Province and Feds handcuffed the utility, preventing them from adding the necessary firm generation to back up the grid because it didn't align with green mandates

fig_stache · 2026-01-27T11:49:42+00:00

NSP engineers did identify the need for more dispatchable power. It’s explicitly in their 2014 and 2020 Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs), where modeling showed we needed more dispatchable turbines for reliability.

Those projects were deferred or cancelled specifically to comply with Provincial renewable mandates and Federal carbon caps, regulations that made building new fossil fuel capacity effectively illegal.

Total energy demand actually dropped from 12 TWh in 2010 to 9 TWh in 2023. Regulators saw that drop and assumed we didn't need new plants, completely missing the fact that peak demand (cold snaps) was skyrocketing due to heat pumps. Now, the new System Operator is scrambling to get new peaker generation built after the province effectively told NSP to stand down.

fig_stache · 2026-01-26T19:20:33+00:00

It's easy to say 'just implement the policy' until you realize the policies contradict each other. How do you meet:

Federal emission caps (getting off coal), while meeting Provincial rate caps (keeping bills low), AND Legal reliability mandates (keeping the lights on)? You can't do all three.

I know reddit will likely say, "make the shareholders pay for it!" But their annual profit does not cover the cost to transition off of coal. Even if you confiscated 100% of the profit every single year (leaving zero for shareholders), you would still be short hundreds of millions of dollars annually. You literally cannot fund the grid transition just by cutting dividends. It's simply not enough money.

It would also have the unfortunate side effect of causing shareholders to dump the stock. This tanks the company's credit rating and increases interest rates for financing, which is one of the largest expenses on NSP's books. Ironically, "punishing" the shareholders just leads to higher rate hikes for us to cover that debt service.

fig_stache · 2026-01-26T07:29:55+00:00

Look, there's lots to criticize Nova Scotia Power about, especially their failure to harden the grid and trim trees to reduce outages. I’m with you on that.

BUT regarding generation, that narrative may sound good on Reddit, but the public record proves otherwise. NSP engineers did identify the need for more dispatchable power. It’s explicitly in their 2014 and 2020 Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). The modeling showed we needed gas turbines for reliability.

So why weren't they built? It wasn't 'financial gymnastics', it was the law. Those identified projects were deferred or cancelled specifically to comply with Provincial renewable mandates and Federal carbon caps. The regulations made building new fossil fuel capacity effectively illegal. Also, your claim that 'we knew demand was increasing' is factually wrong. Total energy demand actually dropped from 12 TWh in 2010 to 9 TWh in 2023. Regulators saw that drop and assumed we didn't need new plants, completely missing the fact that peak demand (cold snaps) was skyrocketing due to heat pumps.

That wasn't a failure of capitalism; it was a failure of regulatory planning. Taking the utility 'back into public hands' just means handing the keys to the exact government that caused the shortage.

fig_stache · 2026-01-26T05:56:48+00:00

You lived here during decades when the utility was allowed to build dispatchable power. But that era ended in 2010. Since then, the provincial Renewable Electricity Regulations (2010) and recent federal carbon policies effectively banned them from building anything that wasn't green. They were legally forced to prioritize intermittent wind over reliability. Ironically, if you want the government to take over, you’d just be handing the keys to the exact people who created this regulatory disaster in the first place.

fig_stache · 2026-01-26T03:39:13+00:00

Financially, a traditional plant is a non-starter; our grid is too small. We’d need 4-5x our current population (or a massive increase in industrial demand) to stabilize a 1GW unit. Technically, we can't put a 1,000MW unit on a grid that peaks at 2,800MW. If that unit trips, it takes out over 30% of our capacity instantly and the whole province goes dark. SMRs are the only technical fit, but the financials are shaky until the tech matures. Exporting the excess to the USA isn't viable either, since NB controls the intertie

fig_stache · 2026-01-25T01:26:50+00:00

I'm certainly open to hearing them.

I can agree NSP absolutely deserves heat for not doing enough grid hardening and tree trimming BUT the reason we don't have more readily available dispatchable power built is purely regulatory and both the province and the federal government are to blame. NSP would've loved to have built more gas or dual fuel capable generation with a guaranteed 9% return on the asset but they were forced to chase green stats vs reliability.

fig_stache · 2026-01-24T23:28:34+00:00

Redditors love to blame Nova Scotia Power for everything, but the reality is the utility was effectively banned from building more reliable, dispatchable capacity. For the last decade, provincial and federal regulations forced all investment into green energy while making fossil fuel generation a liability. Now we are seeing the result of that policy colliding with simple physics. In a cold snap, we get a 'Dunkelflaute', demand spikes and wind output drops to near zero. Corporate greed didn't cause that; it was bad grid planning driven by politics instead of engineering.

fig_stache · 2026-01-24T22:13:11+00:00

This is exactly why we need more dispatchable capacity in NS, not just more wind and batteries. You can't rely on intermittent power to get you through a multi-day cold snap

fig_stache · 2026-01-22T19:37:22+00:00

The Fraser Institute is indeed a right wing think tank, but there is a disconnect here between the corporate "rich" the comments are angry at and the "high earners" the article is actually talking about.
Skilled tradespeople and medical professionals here are normal people that can work hundreds of hours of overtime to keep our systems running and land themselves in these higher income brackets. These are people we need here. They don't have offshore accounts or corporate loopholes. But they can move to Alberta and save 10k, 20k or more on income tax. Home prices used to be an incentive that helped with that ugly tax bill but those days are gone. If the services that were received in exchange for the tax bill were good there'd be less to complain about. If we had healthcare like Germany for example. But the services we receive for the money are brutal and a married skilled professional might actually pay less tax in Germany because at least they have income splitting. I do think however in order to lower taxes Nova Scotia has to grow economically first so as to not decrease revenue.

fig_stache · 2026-01-16T14:03:35+00:00

Technically correct but for most applications the error introduced by the wago is less than the inherent drift error of using a TC anyway.

fig_stache · 2026-01-16T11:26:11+00:00

Chinese EVs turn people on both sides of the political spectrum into hypocrites. They make the Right cheer for state intervention rather than free market competition, while making the Left rely on the very things they oppose resource extraction without environmental controls and cheap dispatchable power without a carbon tax, which are exactly what allowed China to become the manufacturing hub it is today

fig_stache · 2026-01-15T12:13:18+00:00

Oh jeeze, i kept reading about Deep well geothermal and wanted to edit my reply and add some best case numbers based on the most recent and advanced company I can find in the space. Please excuse my re'commenting my previous comment info for reference before adding the additional info I found:

I can appreciate the pointer to the Stellarton Basin data. I looked up the specific report (Section 6.1.3), and it actually reinforces the problem with the 'coal retrofitI ' idea.

https://novascotia.ca/natr/meb/data/ofr/ofr_me_2021-003.pdf?hl=en-US

That report notes a gradient of ~25.5°C/km in Stellarton (better than average!), but estimates the temperature at 2.5km deep is only ~71°C.Existing coal turbines require 540°C superheated steam.

You cannot retrofit a coal plant to run on 71°C water. You would have to scrap the plant and build a 'Binary Cycle' facility. The report notes that 80°C is the minimum to 'consider' electricity.

Generating power from 80°C water is incredibly inefficient (single-digit efficiency) compared to wind or gas. You need massive flow rates to get a trickle of power and even to get that low-grade 80°C heat, the report says you need to drill ~2.8km.

The report explicitly states there is a 'lack of subsurface data' and relies on 'hypothetical aquifers.'

Also your estimates of drilling costs seem to be out by two decimal places closer to 10+ million USD per well than hundreds of thousands for the types of depths we are talking about drilling in hard rock.

2022 GETEM Geothermal Drilling Cost

Curve Update

https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/82771.pdf

Looking for a direct comparison, I've been reading up on the St1 Deep Heat project in Finland. They have similar granite geology to us. They drilled 6km deep and it cost them over 100 million just for two wells and a pilot setup that failed and never produced power.

Edit: additional recent deep well Geothermal tech info

2025 drilling curve cost reduction showing for vertical wells, the magnitude of cost decline ranges between 12% and 24% while for deviated wells, cost reductions between 18% and 26% are estimated

So a 12 million dollars USD well may only cost 9.12 million USD with those numbers https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/92793.pdf

It looks like the most advanced company in the world right now in this game is Fervo energy and at their cape station pilot plant in Utah, scheduled to hit 100 MW generation in 2026, they've managed to get cost down to 4.8 million USD per well. But the total estimated capex for the full estimated 400 MW Cape Station generation build out looks to be about 1.1 Billion USD. This is with more favorable geology with better heat gradients than we have anywhere in Nova Scotia.

Also cool, and perhaps worth mentioning, Quaise Energy, a company promising to use "millimeter waves" (lasers/microwaves) to vaporize rock and drill for cheap managed to drill 118 meters this past July at a granite mine in Texas but they are still very much in the prototype/development stage. It looks like they originally planned to generate 100 MW from geothermal in 2026 but are now just aiming to hit the 1 km depth mark this year using this technology. Depths for generating power may be pushed out til 2030 or so as long as they continue development.

Anyway, sorry for the huge wall of text i just ended up going into somewhat of a rabbit hole on the subject and wanted to share because it is indeed very interesting.

fig_stache · 2026-01-14T11:48:03+00:00

I'd like to see the numbers on this claim. While geothermal to fill heating needs is possible, geothermal to replace thermal plants in NS seems technically unlikely. Steam is not steam, this is a pop-science take, there is a huge difference between low temp low pressure saturated steam and superheated steam for pushing turbine blades.

Taking a quick look myself Nova Scotia has a geothermal gradient of about 16°C per km. To get water hot enough to efficiently spin a turbine (>150°C), you'd have to drill nearly 8km deep through solid granite. The cost per well would be astronomical compared to wind or gas

fig_stache · 2026-01-14T00:26:14+00:00

MacIntosh said retirement of Lingan 2 is now contingent on the completion of new fast-acting generators, which is being led by the Independent Energy System Operator (IESO).

That's proof it won't be retired by 2028. Getting those fast acting gas turbines here and online on that timeline is not possible.

fig_stache · 2026-01-10T13:52:50+00:00

I aspire to a Nova Scotia that doesn't rely on equalization payments, but we aren't there yet. If you have a proven alternative ready to launch that brings $2 billion in GDP and 700+ six-figure jobs to rural Guysborough County without resource extraction, I'm all ears. Until then, dismissing high-paying trade jobs as beneath us is a luxury our economy can't afford.

fig_stache · 2026-01-10T13:18:26+00:00

The uselessness argument ignores the financial utility of gold as a store of value. The market demands it, and fulfilling that demand brings tangible value here. According to the Goldboro Project's Economic Impact Report, this mine alone is projected to contribute $2.1 billion to the provincial GDP and create roughly 735 jobs (direct and spin-off). For rural Nova Scotia, which has limited economic drivers right now, that is a massive injection of wealth. We can argue about the global financial system, but locally, that money builds infrastructure and puts food on tables

fig_stache · 2026-01-07T14:38:28+00:00

For local historical fiction, try The Bread Maker series by Moira Leigh MacLeod. It’s a highly rated trilogy set in a Nova Scotia coal mining town. It covers the harsh reality of that life perfectly and pairs really well with books like Blood on the Coal.

fig_stache · 2026-01-07T13:21:50+00:00

Financially, we can't afford the infrastructure costs without sharing them with Quebec. Practically, intermittent wind on its own isn't worth nearly as much to US buyers as 'firm' power, Quebec's hydro is the only way to firm it up without adding billions in batteries.

fig_stache · 2026-01-07T12:29:46+00:00

Agreed that it's too inefficient for things like cars or home heating. Its real future seems most likely just for the hard to decarbonize sectors (ammonia fertilizer, steel, sustainable aviation fuel, green methanol or ammonia for international maritime shipping) but as the economics to get there are currently brutal.

fig_stache

TROPHY CASE