Site C

[flamingfingers]

we are making a huge profit.

Smurf -explain how BC Hydro is making such a huge profit by buying IPP power at an average of $100 per Megawatt hour and dumping it on the free market for 1/3 of that cost?

[seewood]

Yes, but in BC at night we have hydro. You also glided right over they work great during the day. On cloudy days solar panel actually work better sometimes because they get both the sunshine coming through and the reflection off the clouds. Look it up.

What I quoted was what the hospital administrator said. If in this case solar was working better on cloudy days, I strongly believe the administrator would not say what she did. Think otherwise?
Would this be the case in every solar array? No,I doubt it. I'm sure solar would work on cloudy days to some extent, but in this case to replace the electrical demand required, this hospital this day had to use fossil fuels.
If dams can supply enough power for demand during low demand periods and then ramp up the penstocks/turbines for peak demand period during rainy, cloudy, no wind type days, why would or better, should BC build solar or windy electrical production to be connected to the grid? We seem to be doing it just fine right now, and with Site C if completed, we would be able to continue this for the next 50 years or more with unsubsidized electrical rates. I just don't believe the assertion from some, the windy electrical production will be less or equal to hydro, now or in the future. From what I see in other jurisdictions in the world that are weaning off fossil fuels and going to windy, the price to the house is considerably more that what we do or will pay.
Many jurisdictions are going to windy solar to get off the expensive fossil fuels and reduce GHG. A good thing we all agree. ( too bad they don't have access to hydro) It's just windy/ solar seems to be more expensive than hydro.

[Smurf]

flamingfingers wrote.

we are making a huge profit.


Smurf -explain how BC Hydro is making such a huge profit by buying IPP power at an average of $100 per Megawatt hour and dumping it on the free market for 1/3 of that cost?

Please point out where I said we were making a profit buying IPP power and selling it. I was talking about buying the power that California was dumping on the grid for a loss. I even said why would we want to get into that scenario. In fact I and others have said numerous times that site C will enable us to get rid of all our IPP's when their contracts come due. Are you against doing that. I am saying we should not further our IPP boondoggle by canceling site c and going to alternatives like California, Australia, Germany and number of others.

[flamingfingers]

Smurf - anyone with a half a brain cell realizes that the Campbell IPP power initiative was a travesty and used to reward his good buddies while irrevocably damaging small rivers and streams - and then getting rewarded for it. Evil, evil and damaging to BC Hydro ratepayers. Some of these contracts won't run out until 2070!!! So we will not only have to continue to pay for IPP power - we will ALSO have to pay for Site C. Not a happy picture for BC Hydro ratepayers!!!

[Smurf]

flamingfingers wrote:

Smurf - anyone with a half a brain cell realizes that the Campbell IPP power initiative was a travesty and used to reward his good buddies while irrevocably damaging small rivers and streams - and then getting rewarded for it. Evil, evil and damaging to BC Hydro ratepayers. Some of these contracts won't run out until 2070!!! So we will not only have to continue to pay for IPP power - we will ALSO have to pay for Site C. Not a happy picture for BC Hydro ratepayers!!!

\

FF you know as well as I do that the IPP's have nothing to do with the building of site C. But at least site C will give us a surplus of power to sell till we need it all for ourselves which I believe will happen long before the usable life of site C ends. At the very least it will not add to the problem as has been proven by every jurisdiction using alternative methods of production. Site C is the only reasonable way to go for the province of BC and even all the other areas we will be able to support while making a profit to help pay for site C.

[flamingfingers]

WHO is BC Hydro going to sell Site C power to at a profit??

Why is BC Hydro dumping power on the open market at a loss?

[Smurf]

FF have you even been following this thread? BC hydro has been selling power to California at a good profit for years and will continue to do so. BC Hydro is loosing money on IPP power because of bad deals that have nothing to do with site C and nothing to do with any of it's regular production. It has nothing to do with whether or not site C (which this thread is about)is finished other than deflection from the real subject.

[hobbyguy]

^^ Yup. IPPs absolutely suck. All the more reason to build site C and then we can dump them forever - bunch of leeches.

I have been making that point all along - site C can't lose money if we dump the IPPs - replace $110/MW electricity with $83/MW electricity.

[Smurf]

I do have to wonder if our IPP's are as bad as the leeches called alternative energy. At least they haven't put us into energy poverty like most of the alternative energy jurisdictions. All the more reason to complete site C and get rid of the leeches we do have.

[hobbyguy]

^^ some of the IPPs are wind turbine subsidy miners. Some of the IPPs are solar subsidy miners. They ALL get subsides in the form of FITs and rooftop solar (dumbest and most regressive idea of all in a grid situation) get Net Metering subsidies. ALL those subsidies come straight out of regular ratepayer's pockets.

Best thing I have seen the NDP do came from Michelle Mungall - she shut down new applications for IPPs! Good for her. That's the beginning, now build site C and chuck the lot of them.

Awkward for the Greens and NDP though - they both took fat donations from the IPP lobby.

[Urbane]

Now this is interesting:

VICTORIA — B.C. Hydro says the recent report into the Site C project by the B.C. Utilities Commission underestimated the hydroelectric dam’s benefits by $800 million.

In a letter to the commission released Thursday, Hydro argued the independent regulator made mistakes in two models that compared Site C to a portfolio of alternative energy options.

“B.C. Hydro performed a preliminary analysis of these two models and has identified what appear to be calculation and input errors,” Hydro wrote in the letter. “The cumulative effect of these errors is to understate the benefits of completing Site C, as compared to the commission’s ‘illustrative alternative portfolio,’ by approximately $800 million.”

Hydro’s six-page letter detailed what it argued was an incorrect discount rate on Site C’s surplus, inconsistent inflation rates, and inaccurate treatment of some of the project’s costs, among other technical issues.

One of the errors has already been admitted by the utilities commission, which said last week it had incorrectly calculated $336 million in discount rates for Site C’s surplus.
Full article: http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b ... -of-site-c

[Cactusflower]

^I stopped reading right after "BC Hydro says....." Who can believe anything they say anymore?

[Walking Wounded]

^I stopped reading right after "BC Hydro says....." Who can believe anything they say anymore?

Of course you stopped reading, it doesn't support your views so it's worthless in your mind. But you expect everyone else to read desmog.ca and take it as gospel where what they say can be proven wrong.

[Urbane]

^I stopped reading right after "BC Hydro says....." Who can believe anything they say anymore?

You should have kept reading:

One of the errors has already been admitted by the utilities commission

[Urban Cowboy]

*removed*