47063
45622

Site C

Re: Site C

Postby jimsenchuk » Nov 10th, 2017, 5:18 pm

What compensation? you call 150 bucks an acre compensation? Plus the homestead was in the family for over 60 years. All prime farmland.
The only effective answer to organized greed is organized labor.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
jimsenchuk
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3307
Likes: 297 posts
Liked in: 412 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2011, 5:03 am

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 10th, 2017, 7:56 pm

That was a loooong time ago. About that time my gramma sold her waterfront home in North Vancouver for $18,000. All relative.

It also has zero to do with site C.
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

4 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6591
Likes: 1669 posts
Liked in: 5621 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby jimsenchuk » Nov 10th, 2017, 9:19 pm

hobbyguy wrote:That was a loooong time ago. About that time my gramma sold her waterfront home in North Vancouver for $18,000. All relative.

It also has zero to do with site C.


You just don't get it hg, you just don't get it, that's to bad, have a great life.
The only effective answer to organized greed is organized labor.

maryjane48 likes this post.
User avatar
jimsenchuk
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3307
Likes: 297 posts
Liked in: 412 posts
Joined: Nov 24th, 2011, 5:03 am

Re: Site C

Postby Urbane » Nov 10th, 2017, 10:09 pm

Please vote in the poll as to what you think that John Horgan will do with the Site C project. I think that he has more to lose by cancelling it so I voted that he'll let it go ahead. If he considers what's best for the province he'll also let it go ahead. Anyway, please keep the discussion in this thread and just use the poll thread for the actual poll. Thanks.
User avatar
Urbane
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19864
Likes: 6728 posts
Liked in: 8063 posts
Joined: Jul 8th, 2007, 6:41 pm

Re: Site C

Postby The Green Barbarian » Nov 10th, 2017, 10:41 pm

jimsenchuk wrote:What compensation? you call 150 bucks an acre compensation? Plus the homestead was in the family for over 60 years. All prime farmland.


So where should the electricity come from?
Not sure why I bother with a signature as it seems to just randomly disappear on a regular basis. Especially if it offends liberal snowflakes.

Smurf likes this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 24184
Likes: 9376 posts
Liked in: 11294 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Site C

Postby Queen K » Nov 10th, 2017, 10:46 pm

Well this is just it right? ^^
Electric vehicles, yes. But no dam?
Can't have one without the other.
Can't have electric charging stations as ubiquitious as gas stations, without dams.
Personal solar panels for charging personal electronics - yes.
But for entire sections of a huge Province? - no.
The NDP Government: 2017 thread is not in the Bickering Room. Money can't buy what I want for Christmas.

5 people like this post.
User avatar
Queen K
Queen of the Castle
 
Posts: 48453
Likes: 8689 posts
Liked in: 9542 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2007, 11:39 am
Location: What? You mean here?

Re: Site C

Postby Carrs Landing Viking » Nov 10th, 2017, 11:38 pm

I think John Horgan will allow site c to continue, as he is well aware that to cancel it would be political suicide.

Both him and Andrew Weaver have supported site c in the past, and know full well it is the best thing to do for the future needs for the province.

Anyone who says site c is not needed does not know what they are talking about. But then I have the luxury of having a resident expert(my husband) in the field of hydro electric power, P.eng with more than 33 years at BC Hydro.

4 people like this post.
User avatar
Carrs Landing Viking
Board Meister
 
Posts: 521
Likes: 5752 posts
Liked in: 582 posts
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2010, 7:06 pm

Re: Site C

Postby mikest2 » Nov 11th, 2017, 3:31 pm

Once I thought I was wrong.....but I was mistaken...

2 people like this post.
mikest2
Board Meister
 
Posts: 689
Likes: 412 posts
Liked in: 777 posts
Joined: Aug 7th, 2006, 9:00 pm

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 11th, 2017, 5:36 pm

mikest2 wrote:A very balanced opinion piece:

http://inroadsjournal.ca/john-horgans-site-c-problem/


Interesting to see an opinion from a PhD in economics.

Confirms a lot of what we who are in favor of site C have been saying, and points out a lot of bias induced by the terms of reference the BCUC were given, plus perhaps some revenge bias at having been shut out in the first place.

The case for shutting down site C is factually flimsy, and only appears to have any validity if you don't step back and look at real world facts.
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

4 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6591
Likes: 1669 posts
Liked in: 5621 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby maryjane48 » Nov 11th, 2017, 7:19 pm

From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.
Last edited by ferri on Nov 11th, 2017, 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Bait removed.
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 16001
Likes: 9976 posts
Liked in: 2497 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: Site C

Postby alanjh595 » Nov 11th, 2017, 7:47 pm

maryjane48 wrote:From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.


Can you provide a copy of the "Joint Review Panel’s advice"? I don't see it mentioned before now.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 780
Likes: 234 posts
Liked in: 445 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Site C

Postby mikest2 » Nov 11th, 2017, 7:52 pm

maryjane48 wrote:From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.


I'll ignore whoever wrote that for you, it's nowhere near your normal syntax
Once I thought I was wrong.....but I was mistaken...

3 people like this post.
mikest2
Board Meister
 
Posts: 689
Likes: 412 posts
Liked in: 777 posts
Joined: Aug 7th, 2006, 9:00 pm

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 11th, 2017, 8:08 pm

maryjane48 wrote:From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.


Fer heaven's sake MJ. Governments with a plan for governance make decisions.

Read the rest of it. The author takes issue with the low demand estimate the BCUC used, the flimsy cost estimate they used for wind and geothermal, the failure of the BCUC to recognize the true value of the shapable electricity site C would produce, and failure of the BCUC to discount the value of intermittent wind power. On top of that he takes the BCUC to task for not recognizing that DSM (demand side management) including TOU billing and Industrial Curtailment would drive up consumer very high and cost many ratepayers their jobs. Plus several other key points like wind and such being IPPs.

It is a big "so what" that you did not like Christy Clark. It is irrelevant to rational discussion. Site C is by far the best option for BC for affordable, reliable, renewable electricity for generations to come.
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

3 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6591
Likes: 1669 posts
Liked in: 5621 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Urbane » Nov 11th, 2017, 8:21 pm

Scientist Blair King, on Twitter, has analyzed Harry Swain's model and found some serious flaws. He laments the fact that many of the Site C supporters aren't doing enough to challenge the misinformation emanating from the anti-Site C side. Have a read:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2017/11/1 ... of-site-c/

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Urbane
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 19864
Likes: 6728 posts
Liked in: 8063 posts
Joined: Jul 8th, 2007, 6:41 pm

Re: Site C

Postby alanjh595 » Nov 11th, 2017, 8:35 pm

Urbane wrote:Scientist Blair King, on Twitter, has analyzed Harry Swain's model and found some serious flaws. He laments the fact that many of the Site C supporters aren't doing enough to challenge the misinformation emanating from the anti-Site C side. Have a read:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2017/11/1 ... of-site-c/


Yes, I read it once, but now that you have brought it up again, I will re-read it again........tomorrow, though. I am getting tired tonight.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 780
Likes: 234 posts
Liked in: 445 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to B.C.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cr125, Get Moving Kelowna Team and 9 guests