Site C

[Cactusflower]

In view of what is coming out with the BCUC review of Site C I am not encouraged to believe a single thing that BC Hydro says or has ever said.

You won't even believe the NDP puppet ( or is it puppet master) running BC Hydro now ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stock ... 0Authority

This NDP puppet? Try reading his background.

[hobbyguy]

That actually is relevant to site C in that the opponents of site C base their opposition on beliefs and not on facts.

The facts say that site C is needed, is reasonable cost, and is the best renewable alternative. That should be enough, but instead the opponents resort to not believing facts because the facts don't suit the narrative they believe in.

[Smurf]

Excellent background! He knows BC Hydro, he knows the business. I would trust him a lot more than a few people on here who can't understand the facts and how Hydro works or at least refuse to understand them to fit their own agenda.

[Urban Cowboy]

Excellent background! He knows BC Hydro, he knows the business. I would trust him a lot more than a few people on here who can't understand the facts and how Hydro works or at least refuse to understand them to fit their own agenda.

Refuse to accept them, because I simply can't bring myself to believe some are really that obtuse naturally, though I suppose you never know.

[The Green Barbarian]

CF says: "I'll try, HG. Since there's nothing in the above article that states the project is being subsidized by taxpayers, here's the comparison:

Site C 132.5MW per $1 Billion
Offshore wind project - 30MW per $263 Million

I'm not nearly as good at math as you, but according to my calculations, StatOil's wind project is cheaper.

In addition to your simple math error that others have pointed out, you blissfully ignore the subsidies involved, which while not stated are there in the subsidy supply agreement with the Scottish government. You also ignore the "and then what?" questions inherent in the project, as well as capacity factors, transmission costs, scale up cost multipliers, service life costs.

In other words, all of the real world factors that make such projects little more than quaint and literally tilting at windmills.

1. On its face, the stated cost would be higher than site C
2. The lifespan of such offshore developments is poor, at best 1/5 of the site C lifespan
3. The capacity factor for offshore wind is generally around 41%, and is highly variable http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms
4. Site C is a tertiary dam "recycling" water from two upstream and much larger dams. Essentially the capacity factor for site C will be close to 100%.
5. Marine transmission cables are expensive, and have environmental drawbacks https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/08/140819-submarine-power-cables-offshore-wind/ - and difficult to estimate the costs of (just ask the folks at the Muskrat Falls project - which includes a lot of undersea transmission)
6. As anyone who has ever owned a boat in salt water will tell you, maintenance costs are much higher for any equipment in salt water are much higher.

The basic simplistic: 30 MW for $263 million. We don't know what the direct subsidies are, we do know that the Scottish government guarantees the feed in tariff, and guarantees feed in uptake (that may or may not be needed at the time).

Anyway, now you have to take into account capacity factors. Site C is unusually high for a hydroelectric dam as its water supply is virtually guaranteed 4 seasons. (WAC Bennett dam is about 3 times as large by output). So Site C is going to put out its full 1100 MW, but we should fudge that for maintenance time etc. Call it 1000 MW.

$10 billion/1000 MW = $100/MW (I added another $1 billion to the cost as a fudge factor as well) for site C
The floating wind farm: S.263 billion x 1.25 [USD exchange]/(30 MW x .41) capacity factor = $267/MW

So right there, the offshore wind farm is 2.67 times as expensive as site C.

But wait! That capital cost has to amortized over the lifespan. The lifespan of site C will be roughly 125 years. The lifespan of the offshore wind farm will be roughly 25 years.

That means that we have to adjust the capital costs for relative lifespans. Site C relative capital cost 25/125 = 20% of the relative cost of offshore wind farms (assuming zero inflation for the costs of replacement wind farms).

So the relative capital cost now become:

Site C: $20/MW
Floating wind farm: $267/MW

Which means that the floating wind farm costs 13.35 times as much as site C over its lifespan.

So why?? on earth do corporations keep building these things? Because of the subsidies and tax breaks. They are nothing more than subsidy mining operations.

Somebody says to you Kelowna needs a widget factory (provide employment etc. etc.). You work out you costs:

- Plant construction
- land costs
- development and permit costs
- wages and salaries
- material input costs
- taxes
- transportation costs

Then you compare it with widget prices, and find it is a money losing proposition.

But the government decides to start "sweetening the pot". Free land, no taxes, no development or permit fees, and free transportation costs to Vancouver. Starts to look good, so ask for guaranteed prices for widgets and guaranteed sales of widgets (only idiots would accept that deal - the government has to buy your widgets at a set price whether there is any demand or not at that time). They bite! You know have a "no lose" contract with the government.

That is literally the kind of deals that governments have been getting sucked into with these guys. Why? Because the wind and solar guys have done a superb marketing job, and much of it through phony "institutes" and "citizens groups". So governments get whipsawed by voters who don't take things beyond simple math, and the wind/solar industries always peddle them the wrong numbers to keep them that way.

As Warren Buffet has said, nobody would build wind farms without the tax breaks and subsidies.

Just look at Ontario - they finally realized that the wind industry was playing them for fools, and dumped the subsidies to them, while being forced to add $45 billion in consumer subsidies to cover up the mistake. The response of the wind industry? Close the wind turbine plants, and sue the Ontario government for not continuing down the wind/solar garden path!

I keep saying to you guys "do the math". Look at the real world. Every single jurisdiction that has gone windy-solar has ridiculously high electricity costs (subsidies adjusted) and is running into serious energy poverty issues.

Excellent response HG. I was going to point out that wind turbines only last 15 years, or 10 years out at sea, versus a 100 year life for hydro, but you beat me too it. The purveyors of wind power scams truly are dishonest prevaricators. Lock em up I say.

[hobbyguy]

^^ You have to give the wind and solar guys credit, they have done an excellent job of latching themselves onto and perverting the environmentalist movement to their purposes.

It amazes me that people will give credence to everything that Elon Musk et al say, while ignoring the fact that they selling a product - it is like believing everything that a used car salesman tells you.

Contrast that to the lack of trust placed in BC Hydro by the opponents of site C, they automatically assume that everything from BC Hydro is false.

The IPP folks (again for their own wallet fattening purposes) and the wind/solar lobby (funded heavily by Tides out of silicon valley) have worked very hard through co-opted "organizations" to discredit site C and hydroelectric dams. Somehow the "environmentalist" groups (link back to Tides funding, George Soros et al) can sell the convoluted argument that hydroelectric dams are a bad option.

The reality is that hydroelectric dams are "greener" than wind and solar. The MIT study I posted waay back shows that. Renewable and low cost electricity that is suitable for an electricity market that need electricity on demand - not just when the sun shines or the wind blows etc.

The IPP folks, and the wind/solar folks, know that site C is a killer for their wallets. They can't compete. So they put up a tsunami of bs information that is all based on "nameplate" capacities and theoretically ideal conditions etc. etc.

Unfortunately people buy that nonsense. I personally have a tough time with that, but then people also believe that a Nigerian Prince wants to give them $5 million....

[Urban Cowboy]

Unfortunately people buy that nonsense. I personally have a tough time with that, but then people also believe that a Nigerian Prince wants to give them $5 million....

Unfortunate indeed, and somewhat sad that there are so many gullible people still out there.

Good rule of thumb is if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.

It just troubles me that even after all sorts of information, not to mention detailed explanations, have been given in this thread, we still have the deniers most of whom share one common trait, they all distrust anything coming from BC Hydro simply because of their Liberal hatred, yet gullibly buy into every blog or website that is anti site C without ever questioning the source or possible motives.

It's almost a matter of, well it's not a Liberal so any information here is gospel truth.

[flamingfingers]

When terms like 'independent external peer reviews' are bandied about, the public might be less skeptical if the peers were independent of each other, too.

It smacks of the the old boys network in action.

Four of the Site C six are U.S. residents. Why's that relevant?

They don't have to pay the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dermodtrav ... 58098.html

[Carrs Landing Viking]

Seriously!! an American and a biased blogger.

[flamingfingers]

No, 4 Americans and 2 Kliweit people interconected by business and hired by BC Hydro!!

'Independent' - give me a break!!

[Cactusflower]

When terms like 'independent external peer reviews' are bandied about, the public might be less skeptical if the peers were independent of each other, too.

It smacks of the the old boys network in action.

Four of the Site C six are U.S. residents. Why's that relevant?

They don't have to pay the bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dermodtrav ... 58098.html

I know of at least a handful of commenters on this thread who refuse to read any link with the headline, "The Figures Behind BC Hydro's Site C Dam". They just don't want to know the inconvenient truths behind this white elephant.

I bet they don't read Norm Farrell's tweets either.

[Cactusflower]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=norm+far ... jAPN1Ya4Bw

Shades of Enron?

[hobbyguy]

^^

All been explained to you anti-site C conspiracy theorists before. You have no economically viable alternative, and even if site C cost 30% - you still have no economically viable alternative.

So now you are down to quoting the had conspiracy theorist himself.

Why don't you ask him why every jurisdiction that relies on every other type of renewable electricity has ridiculous rates and energy poverty problems?? That's what the opponents don't want to see.

None of the muck the opponents throw about means anything if they can't answer the challenge:

Please post a link to a windy-solar-tidal grid jurisdiction that has abundant, reliable, renewable, and affordable electricity without subsidies.

[Cactusflower]

^^

All been explained to you anti-site C conspiracy theorists before. You have no economically viable alternative, and even if site C cost 30% - you still have no economically viable alternative.

So now you are down to quoting the had conspiracy theorist himself.

Why don't you ask him why every jurisdiction that relies on every other type of renewable electricity has ridiculous rates and energy poverty problems?? That's what the opponents don't want to see.

None of the muck the opponents throw about means anything if they can't answer the challenge:

Please post a link to a windy-solar-tidal grid jurisdiction that has abundant, reliable, renewable, and affordable electricity without subsidies.

Just as soon as you can prove to me that you read the two previous links and can effectively debate what was written there. Neither link even mentioned wind or solar energy. This is all about BC Hydro and the Site C dam.

[Urban Cowboy]

They just don't want to know the inconvenient truths behind this white elephant.

Speaking of not wanting to know inconvenient truths, when are you going to concede that solar costs more than hydro, and for an end product rife with problems when compared to hydro which is available 24/7/365?

Your solar dream has the dubious distinction of qualifying as both the white and the pink elephant in the room.