Will money and arrogance cost Christy Clark the election?

[George+]

What the heck is that damage?!

[Merry]

The risks can be managed and we know enough to make it safer than most other forms of power generation.

I respectfully disagree.

there are a number of concerns with relying on nuclear power as an environmentally and financially viable option. Nuclear power creates radioactive waste for which there is no accepted method of safely managing or storing. It is also prohibitively expensive.

As of 2012, Canada had over 56,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste and nowhere to put it. With a radioactive half-life of 25,000 years, nuclear waste remains dangerous for 250,000 years, posing huge costs and risks for future generations.

Power plants can also leak hazardous materials. For example, Pickering reactor #4 had a heavy water leak in April 1996 that released radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario, contaminating drinking water supplies.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/clima ... ar-energy/

[Merry]

What the heck is that damage?!

With regard to wind, they do require a lot of land (because the turbines have to be spaced so far apart), and they have a negative impact on both birds and bats. There have also been noise complaints from folks living close to wind farms, and they are definitely unsightly.

Consideration must also be given to the environmental impact of the materials production, materials transportation, on-site construction and assembly, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning and dismantlement.

This same consideration must also be given to those same issues with regard to solar. There has been a lot of discussion surrounding the poor environmental practices of Chinese solar technology development (which is where much of our solar technology comes from).

Also, if we were to develop large scale solar plants, they would require a lot of land. And, depending on the type of solar power plant, there is an issue with levels of water use and it's effect on the environment.

In the United States, 90 percent of electricity comes from thermoelectric power plants—coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil—that require cooling. The remaining ten percent is produced by hydroelectric and other renewable energy facilities. Some renewable energy technologies are thermoelectric as well, including certain types of concentrating solar, geothermal, and biomass power plants.

Why is Cooling Necessary?

Thermoelectric power plants boil water to create steam, which then spins turbines to generate electricity. The heat used to boil water can come from burning of a fuel, from nuclear reactions, or directly from the sun or geothermal heat sources underground. Once steam has passed through a turbine, it must be cooled back into water before it can be reused to produce more electricity. Colder water cools the steam more effectively and allows more efficient electricity generation

Types of Cooling

Even though all thermoelectric plants use water to generate steam for electricity generation, not all plant cooling systems use water. There are three main methods of cooling:

Once-through systems take water from nearby sources (e.g., rivers, lakes, aquifers, or the ocean), circulate it through pipes to absorb heat from the steam in systems called condensers, and discharge the now warmer water to the local source. Once-through systems were initially the most popular because of their simplicity, low cost, and the possibility of siting power plants in places with abundant supplies of cooling water. This type of system is currently widespread in the eastern U.S. Very few new power plants use once-through cooling, however, because of the disruptions such systems cause to local ecosystems from the significant water withdrawals involved and because of the increased difficulty in siting power plants near available water sources.

Wet-recirculating or closed-loop systems reuse cooling water in a second cycle rather than immediately discharging it back to the original water source. Most commonly, wet-recirculating systems use cooling towers to expose water to ambient air. Some of the water evaporates; the rest is then sent back to the condenser in the power plant. Because wet-recirculating systems only withdraw water to replace any water that is lost through evaporation in the cooling tower, these systems have much lower water withdrawals than once-through systems, but tend to have appreciably higher water consumption. In the western U.S., wet-recirculating systems are predominant.

Dry-cooling systems use air instead of water to cool the steam exiting a turbine. Dry-cooled systems use no water and can decrease total power plant water consumption by more than 90 percent. The tradeoffs to these water savings are higher costs and lower efficiencies. In power plants, lower efficiencies mean more fuel is needed per unit of electricity, which can in turn lead to higher air pollution and environmental impacts from mining, processing, and transporting the fuel. In 2000, most U.S. dry-cooling installations were in smaller power plants, most commonly in natural gas combined-cycle power plants.

Siting: The geographic location of power plants has a huge impact on cooling technology options, water availability, type of water used for cooling, and environmental impacts. Solar and geothermal power plants, for example, must be sited in areas with high solar radiation and geothermal energy, respectively—locations that may be arid and far from conventional water resources. In these situations, dry cooling may be an option, or alternative water sources may be available, but such choices can affect power plant performance and local environments.

Water type: Although many power plants use freshwater for cooling, waste water and salt water are other possibilities with advantages and disadvantages. Salt water is an obvious and abundant option for coastal power plants, for example, but such plants face similar challenges as inland plants with regard to damaging the local aquatic ecosystems through excessive withdrawals or thermal pollution (from discharges of hot cooling water.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/ener ... RykaLGGM_o

[neilsimon]

...

While I completely agree re: nuclear, it's interesting you'd choose to emphasize the potential damage from hydro while minimizing the damage done by solar and wind farms.

I don't know enough about solar to know of the damage it does, so I generally don't comment on it. I do know that wind is just about the cleanest energy there is. The cost in land is greater for the power than some, such as nuclear, and less than others such as hydro. The actual environmental impact of building the windmills is relatively small as they do not use exotic materials, nor huge quantities of cement. Personally, I've spent time around them in other countries and you get used to the noise, just as you get used to the noise of a distant airport or highway. Personally, I actually don't find them unsightly and I know plenty of others who agree. Especially those who have lived with them for a number of years. So, I just don't see the damage as anywhere near as bad as some seem to. That said, I am well aware of their drawbacks with regards to reliable power delivery.

The reason that I highlight hydro's issues is that they are significant and often ignored. I believe that it has been oversold here in BC. That said, it's still a better alternative than fossil fuel, but only if the engineering and choice of site is good.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

Neilsimon, i enjoy your passion, please to not regard my position as an attack.

Wind is not the cleanest energy, nor is it even close to the ideal with respect to the pragmatic reallity of our current ussge demands and storage capabilities.

Site c need not be, and the natural run of the river can be maintained, all well harvesting more energy than the working projection, and without habitat destruction/devastation.

Green hydro is what british columbia should be exploiting.

[George+]

Hmmmm...

https://www.desmog.ca/2016/10/21/bc-hyd ... nstruction

[rustled]

...

While I completely agree re: nuclear, it's interesting you'd choose to emphasize the potential damage from hydro while minimizing the damage done by solar and wind farms.

I don't know enough about solar to know of the damage it does, so I generally don't comment on it. I do know that wind is just about the cleanest energy there is. The cost in land is greater for the power than some, such as nuclear, and less than others such as hydro. The actual environmental impact of building the windmills is relatively small as they do not use exotic materials, nor huge quantities of cement. Personally, I've spent time around them in other countries and you get used to the noise, just as you get used to the noise of a distant airport or highway. Personally, I actually don't find them unsightly and I know plenty of others who agree. Especially those who have lived with them for a number of years. So, I just don't see the damage as anywhere near as bad as some seem to. That said, I am well aware of their drawbacks with regards to reliable power delivery.

The reason that I highlight hydro's issues is that they are significant and often ignored. I believe that it has been oversold here in BC. That said, it's still a better alternative than fossil fuel, but only if the engineering and choice of site is good.

There's quite a bit of information available about the concrete and steel rebar used in the bases for the turbines. They pour all day long, truck after truck, as shown in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX0RhjeLlCs
and this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW6xZtsHp1o
This one isn't as large, and requires 170m2 for its base.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP6xjRYcCZU
That's for a single base.

Generally, there's no plan to remove the concrete after decommissioning a turbine. (Their lifespan is limited, and replacement costs to the environment have to be factored into the equation.)

While operational, they adversely affect birds, bats, and the insects many species rely on. When I first looked into this, there was some concern about earthworms being absent from the soil around these bases. The theory at the time was this was an issue with vibration, but I don't know the outcome.

It's not just about the turbines and their bases. Consider also the development of access roads and power lines. For example, the farm on the Pennask Summit: the impact of establishing roads for all the concrete and rebar hauled up there and deposited pretty much permanently, then the units themselves, and now the required maintenance of roads and power lines.

Yes, high-rise buildings and power lines in cities are responsible for the deaths of a great many birds, bats and insects, and now we're scattering turbines all over agricultural and forested areas where these creatures should have a larger measure of safety. It's little comfort to say "well, these other things kill critters, too" when we are so very clearly making a bad matter worse.

Of course all of these are factors with hydroelectric projects, too. When you properly weigh all cost-benefit considerations, the consistent long-term product from the one megaproject vastly outweighs the scattershot approach of the other.

There are similar issues with solar farms. Fragile desert ecosystems were treated with callous disregard we'd never have allowed, had it not been for the unconscionable disregard for the environment in favour of "green" energy projects.

It's disappointing to see other folk (not referring to you here, neilsimon) accuse Clark and the Liberals of "arrogance" for proceeding with Site C, when they so clearly haven't done their homework.

[maryjane48]

i would say yes it did

[The Green Barbarian]

. I do know that wind is just about the cleanest energy there is. .

if you think piles of dead birds and bats lying at the bases of these bird blenders makes wind the cleanest energy there is, then yeah, sure.

[George+]

Okey...show us the piles?

[rustled]

Okey...show us the piles?

To what purpose?

It doesn't seem Site C opponents are able to recognize any of the significant problems with wind farms, since they don't fit the narrative of "Site C is proof of Clark/Liberal arrogance".

George+, Site C opponents need to prove there's a better alternative that would be ready to meet our energy needs . One that is less harmful to the environment, and capable of providing consistent, long-term, reasonably-priced power for those who rely on it for their homes and businesses.

No one has shown there's a better alternative anywhere, because you can't.

Opponents of Site C continue to propose we gamble on them being right about the future, but they won't even acknowledge what's so obviously wrong with these technologies today: their shortcomings for BC, their weaknesses in general, or their real costs economically or environmentally.

Site C is a practical measure to ensure we have reasonably-priced energy needs in the near future, and for decades to come as other technologies improve. It's good governance.

Gambling is bad governance, and IMO gambling on the scale Site C opponents propose is the height of arrogance.

[Urban Cowboy]

Opponents of Site C continue to propose we gamble on them being right about the future, but they won't even acknowledge what's so obviously wrong with these technologies today: their shortcomings for BC, their weaknesses in general, or their real costs economically or environmentally.

Site C is a practical measure to ensure we have reasonably-priced energy needs in the near future, and for decades to come as other technologies improve. It's good governance.

Gambling is bad governance, and IMO gambling on the scale Site C opponents propose is the height of arrogance.

X100

[The Green Barbarian]

Okey...show us the piles?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -continue/

I have in numerous other threads George. The wind lunatics just don't want to listen, as it doesn't mesh with their disgusting narrative.

[Queen K]

I've seen new wind technology that doesn't have the chopping blades, will find it when I have more time.
Every form of energy has a price, name it: fracking, oil, tar sands, pipelines, wind, dams, it goes on and on. We can't win.

[The Green Barbarian]

I've seen new wind technology that doesn't have the chopping blades, will find it when I have more time.
Every form of energy has a price, name it: fracking, oil, tar sands, pipelines, wind, dams, it goes on and on. We can't win.

To me it's cost benefit. Right away I rule out all of the global warming nonsense when it comes to any oil products, especially LNG. So now it's just about any particulate pollution, which is an actual, real concern, and about potential oil spills. I will never ever understand the lunatic fringe that demonstrates against oil pipelines. Even after an entire town is incinerated, due to oil by rail, these idiots still want to put human lives in jeopardy over a fairy tale. Just so freaking stupid.