Print 38 comment(s) - last by Gnarr.. on Jun 14 at 4:47 PM

Niagara Falls is the most powerful waterfall in North America. It is fueled by the Niagara River, one of North America's largest rivers.  (Source: Yuke Zhao)

The Falls lies south of Toronto.  (Source: Ontario Power Generation)

Canadians have drilled a massive new tunnel to divert flow from the river and create more cheap hydroelectric power.  (Source: Ontario Power Generation)

Big Becky breaks out into open air, as workers cheer and wave a Canadian flag.  (Source: Ontario Power Generation)
"Big Becky" finally returns from her underground adventure

Canada has stepped up its clean power offerings by complete a significant expansion [press release] of its Niagara River hydroelectric power capacity.  Stretching 6.3 miles (10.2 km), the tunnel bumps Canada's already substantial 4.4 GW generating capacity upwards by 182.65 MW (~4.2%).  And all of that wouldn't have been possible without "Big Becky".

I. Big Becky

Big Becky is a massive tunnel-boring machine (TBM). She gets her name from Sir Adam Beck, a prominent Canadian politician who served in Ontario's Legislative Assembly.  Sir Beck was an outspoken advocate of power grids and hydroelectric power and helped oversee the creation of the Queenston Chippawa power station, which was later renamed the Sir Adam Beck Station in his honor.  The first station went online in 1922, three years before Sir Beck's death from Anemia (at age 68); a second station, named Sir Adam Beck Station II, went live in 1954.

The Sir Beck plants carried water in a tunnel a mere 1.24 miles (2 km), before depositing it in an open cut, above ground.  The new tunnel aimed to be over five times as long.  To accomplish that, state of the art excavation techniques would be needed.

The critical component was Big Becky.  Weighing 4,000 tons, Becky was the largest hard rock TBM the world had ever seen.

There are several types of TBMs, but hard rock TBMs operate by using rolling discs to create stress fractures in the rock.  Loose rock, known as "muck", is then sucked up through the holes in the boring plate.  

The result of a hard-rock TBM is a smooth tunnel that is typically coated with concrete as a final step, to ensure integrity of the tunnel.

II. The Dig

The unprecedented hydroelectric project didn't come cheaply.  The initial budget was set at $985M USD.

But complications arose.  Becky unexpectedly hit a patch of soft loose crumbling rock along the planned route.  To save the tunnel, the team had to divert Becky along an expensive detour.

The approach worked, at the massive TBM soldiered along, re-routed, towards its destination.  As Becky was driven forward by hydraulics, tunnel workers lined the walls of the tunnel with concrete.  Becky finally emerged last Friday, breaking out into the air.

By the end of the journey she had chewed through 1.6 million tons of rock -- enough rock to fill even the largest sports stadiums up to the top stands.  And she also racked up a $1.6B USD bill -- significantly more than the project planners had hoped for.

III. The Future

The tunnel will go live in 2013.  

Already, between 50 and 75 percent of the Niagara River's flow is diverted to hydroelectric projects, so the available flow is limited.  The new tunnel will take advantage of the fact that the water will be faster moving than in previous tunnels.  It delivers water at 500 cubic metres (17,660 cubic feet) per second, fast enough to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool in seconds.

The finished tunnel measures 47.3 feet (14.4 m) wide -- the equivalent of a four story building, laid on its side.  That's big enough to drive large semi trucks or doubly stacked freight trains through.

The new tunnel will send additional flow to the Sir Adam Beck Power Stations.  It is expected to produce 1.6 billion kilowatt-hours a year, enough electricity to power approximately 160,000 Ontario homes.

The tunnel is expected to operate for over 100 years (the original tunnel and cut for the first plant is going strong at 90+ years old).  Thus the net cost from the construction will be about $0.01 USD per kilowatt-hour.  Operations increases may drive up that cost slightly, but considering the Sir Adam Beck Generating Systems are already fully staffed, it seems unlikely it will rise by much.

Despite the seemingly competitive costs, Liberal party Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (a premier is similar to a U.S. governor) has been attacked by Conservative leader Tim Hudak about the project.  Mr. Hudak has been critical of the Premier's green projects in general, but was particularly scathing about the budget overruns with the tunnel.

But Premier McGuinty urges the public to consider the bigger picture and the cheap power the tunnel will provide.  He states, "Yes, some of it has come at a price that hasn’t been easy. But neither was it easy for our parents and grandparents to build our original electricity system, to build our schools, to build our roads. But they did it anyway, because they were builders. And so are we."

"When you spread that cost over the 100-year duration of the project, it just doesn’t get any better in terms of the kind of power we’ve got our hands on here. When you compare the options available to us, nothing is easy, nothing is free. It’s well worth the investment."

The project created tens of thousands of construction jobs.

According to The Star, a Toronto newspaper, the workers planned to tune out the political bickering and showmanship by celebrating with their own party, which occurred last Friday at the Niagara Falls hall.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

So Boring..
By solarrocker on 5/17/2011 9:45:10 AM , Rating: 5
Ok, guess I'm the only idiot that actually thought for a split second that the Canadians made a machine that was massively boring.

"Canadian Boring Machine Completes Massive Hydroelectric Tunnel"

Guess I'm just bored..

RE: So Boring..
By MrTeal on 5/17/2011 9:57:00 AM , Rating: 4
Massive Canadian boring machine?

That's what she said.

RE: So Boring..
By solarrocker on 5/17/2011 10:03:27 AM , Rating: 3
Guess my brain was thinking differently in the early morning.

Giggidy, nice one

RE: So Boring..
By nafhan on 5/17/2011 11:25:17 AM , Rating: 4
I thought the same thing.
I started to read "Canadian Boring Machine" and immediately wondered what a Canadian exciting machine would be. Maple syrup distributor, maybe?

RE: So Boring..
By theArchMichael on 5/17/2011 11:26:26 AM , Rating: 5
the Canadians made a machine that was massively boring.

To compete with our American made boring machine Al Gore

RE: So Boring..
By Omega215D on 5/17/2011 12:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't the Canadians always making something that's massively boring?


RE: So Boring..
By Hieyeck on 5/17/2011 2:58:37 PM , Rating: 3
Boring is nice. It means we're not involved in trillion dollar wars during a depression :)


RE: So Boring..
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/18/2011 8:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

I guess there is a lot to be said for living in Canadia, then.

*boring tunnel*!

RE: So Boring..
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2011 1:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's just called Canada.

RE: So Boring..
By ZachDontScare on 5/17/2011 3:20:03 PM , Rating: 4
Not since Celine Dion has a Canadian machine been this boring.

RE: So Boring..
By Motoman on 5/18/2011 3:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Sorry sir, but the Lucy Liubots are going to be delayed by about 20 can have a Celine Dionbot right now though if you want."


"I'll wait."

RE: So Boring..
By tech_nut on 5/17/2011 4:54:59 PM , Rating: 1
Not to worry; we can out-bore the Canucks any day, and that is saying something! The tunnel boring machine (TBM) to be used for excavating the tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle will be 58 ft. in diameter (see:

RE: So Boring..
By geekman1024 on 5/17/2011 11:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
All machines are boring since they do repetitive works.

Besides, why would it dig a massive tunnel, if it wasn't bored?

Is a tunnel better than a dam?
By AntiM on 5/17/2011 11:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking that a hydroelectric tunnel is more enviromentally friendly than a dam, since it doesn't create a large lake. I suppose a tunnel wouldn't work in many areas because a tunnel would certainly require a certain amount of downhill slope in order to work.

RE: Is a tunnel better than a dam?
By Kosh401 on 5/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: Is a tunnel better than a dam?
By modus2 on 5/17/2011 11:45:45 AM , Rating: 5
Lol what?? You are joking right?

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

By rudolphna on 5/17/2011 2:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Lol is right, you do understand that it would take more energy than is produced to get the water back up to the top, right? It's like trying to power a generator with an electric motor- that is being powered by the generator it is driving. It will eventually stop, because of energy loss along the way.

It's not possible. However, they could divert the river at the bottom of the falls into one of these tunnels, or another dam, if there is enough vertical room to do so.

RE: Is a tunnel better than a dam?
By rcc on 5/17/2011 12:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on who you ask, I'm sure the environmentalists brought up the pending destruction of the falls caused by all the water diversion. Given another 1000 years or so and the water diversion will have turned the falls into a really gnarly set of rapids.

RE: Is a tunnel better than a dam?
By myhipsi on 5/18/2011 8:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
Niagara falls is destroying itself anyway. The falls edge is being eroded at a rate of about 1 foot per year.

Extracting energy comes at an environmental cost, no matter where it comes from or how it's produced. Overall, hydro-electric power is one of the best forms of energy in terms of the amount of power produced vs. the impact on the environment.

RE: Is a tunnel better than a dam?
By Kurz on 5/18/2011 10:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hell we are are slowing down the errosion of the falls themselves by diverting that water.

RE: Is a tunnel better than a dam?
By rcc on 5/20/2011 1:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
That was in part my original point. However, along with slowing the creep of the falls upriver, the reduced water flow is evidently not clearing the debris at the bottom of the falls as well as it used to (makes sense). So, eventually we'll have rapids instead of falls.

So, heres an interesting question. Taking people out of the equation, what happens, environmentally speaking, in 1000 years, or 10,000 (or 1 million), whatever it takes; when the falls back up the river far enough to hit Lake Eire? Should be exciting.

I'm guessing Lake Eire gets a lot smaller, and Lake Ontario gets bigger. And, everything in between gets soggy.

So wait
By FITCamaro on 5/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: So wait
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2011 12:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry ~183 MW

RE: So wait
By Ringold on 5/17/2011 5:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
One might point out solar panels have a warranty expiry and loss of power around 25 years, whereas this should keep going for hundreds of years; I dont see why it wouldn't last like some Roman aqueducts have.. except for the turbines and whatnot.

Still though, net present values of even large expenses at 25 and 50 years out are tiny.

I don't know, as part of an overall program to get all the "free" energy Canada can, doesn't sound ridiculous. Just shy of $9/watt installed, but practically a cost-free 183MW for the rest of time, effectively. So, maybe worth it. Maybe.

RE: So wait
By chmilz on 5/17/2011 6:26:02 PM , Rating: 5
You blew a trillion on a war in Iraq that only got you international hatred and a pile of dead American soldiers, and you question us spending $1.6B on a green energy project that will last centuries?

Criticism from a guy that lives in a country that can't get it's people off of Twitter long enough to get a job and support themselves.

RE: So wait
By myhipsi on 5/18/2011 8:24:26 AM , Rating: 2
Damn, I'd rate you up, only I already posted :)

RE: So wait
By tallcool1 on 5/18/2011 12:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
Why should we have to work when we can get free money and health care from Obama's "stash"? And while we are at it, lets open up our borders and let anybody come in so they can get thier hands on some of that stash too...

By ElementZero on 5/17/2011 9:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
The finished tunnel measures 47.3 feet (14.4 m) wide -- the equivalent of a four story building.


RE: Typo
By JasonMick on 5/17/2011 9:55:44 AM , Rating: 1

Straight from the source (Ontario Power Generation Inc.)...
How big is it? This Niagara Tunnel is 14.4 metres (47.3 feet) high—as high as a four-storey building. It's so big you could drive a double-stacked container freight train through it with plenty of room to spare.

The tunnel is as tall as it is wide -- as its circular -- basic geometry, calling. No typo as far as I see...

RE: Typo
By Gnarr on 5/17/2011 11:24:39 AM , Rating: 2
I think what he's implying is that a four-story building could possibly be more than 47.3 feet wide.

RE: Typo
By rcc on 5/17/2011 12:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Commercial buildings average approx 12 feet per floor. So, they're just saying you could fit the height in the tunnel.

RE: Typo
By MrTeal on 5/17/2011 9:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe not the clearest writing, but a round tunnel that's 47.3' wide will also be 47.3' high.

RE: Typo
By Gnarr on 6/14/2011 4:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, but there is nothing that says a four story building will be 47.3' wide

By Dr of crap on 5/17/2011 10:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
The picture references Toronto and the Falls, but where is the tunnel in relation to these two spots?

Give us a location of the first tunnel and where the second one is.

You have a map, but it does nothing to give a location for the story!

RE: So
By gmyx on 5/17/2011 10:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
Those images are from the OPG web site. Here is the tunnel location maps:

By chromal on 5/17/2011 11:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
These things are all kinds of awesome.

complications arose...
By drizzo4shizzo on 5/18/2011 9:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
But complications arose. Becky unexpectedly hit a dungeon full of skeletons along the planned route.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki