Site C

[Urbane]

Good to see:

The chief of the McLeod Lake Indian Band in northern B.C. says the NDP's decision to move forward with the Site C dam project is "a Christmas present" and advised other Indigenous leaders to start negotiating economic benefits from the project.

"I saw the writing on the wall a long time ago," said McLeod Lake Indian Band (MLIB) Chief Harley Chingee. "This project is too important for our government to shoot it down."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4447675

[seewood]

I believe the McLeod band is rather progressive. A number of years ago in a wood/logging trade magazine the McLeod band was featured in an article. They have bought into harvesting timber in their area employing many members of the band. Seem to be always looking out for benefits / things to get involved with.

[Cactusflower]

CF writes:

"This is what sounds familiar:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ ... -1.4013521

"

You are proving my point.

There is no "free lunch".

Hydroelectric projects are not about today, they are investments for the future, and are inter-generational investments. 40 years from now site C and Keeyask will be looked upon as a gift of low cost energy from previous generations. Each generation, as I pointed out, has had the negative Nellies who scream, "it costs too much, we don't need it, there are other ways" - and yet the cheapest renewable source of electricity we have is hydroelectric.

By that kind of thinking I should stop paying my school taxes, because I already have an education, and don't need the schools today. I don't think that way. Previous generations paid for the schools and education I benefited from, and I choose to happily pay school taxes so that future generations can enjoy the same.

Yes, I estimate that site C will add $10-15/month to my electricity bill. That is a price I am willing to pay so that future generations can have clean, reliable, abundant and affordable electricity without subsidies. If you are not willing to make that kind of investment for the future of the province and the country, well.....

You can not have a "free lunch" unless you choose to drain down the investments past generations made for you, and in the process destroy the social capital of the province and the country.

The James Bay hydroelectric project cost roughly $20 billion in 1974. That would be roughly $100 billion today just using CPI . Yup, $100 billion! But in reality, given the real cost of materials and labour today, it would probably be closer to $150 billion. So if you tried to build it today, you would here "It costs too much. We don't need it! There are other ways!". Yet Quebec has the lowest electricity costs in North America, and those low electricity costs brings jobs (like aluminum smelters and on and on) as well as providing revenues to help pay for things like $10/day daycare.

Interestingly, the NDP government of Manitoba that started the Keeyask project first went with experiments with wind power in southern Manitoba but THAT failed them. So they turned back to the tried and true hydroelectric for the future. The NDP government KNEW that building Keeyask would add costs for ratepayers, but were looking to the future, and decided to balance that by not concurrently building the Conawapa dam ( an even larger project). And yes, all of that went through the Manitoba equivalent of the BCUC.

Even more interesting is that Manitoba NDP chose to look even further into the future and to build the north-south transmission system that enables Keeyask and should largely enable Conawapa. The north-south transmission system was estimated to cost $4.6 billion at the same time Keeyask was estimated at $6.5 billion.

That transmission system cost is something that wind advocates always seem to ignore (and the Manitoba NDP conveniently sort of separated and kept low key). Going from a large source like Keeyask need only 1 transmission line. LOOK at the cost. It is almost as much as the dam! Then think about wind power - lots of tiny generating facilities spread over large areas, each of which requires transmission facilities. Yes, individually the lines are smaller. But the cost per mile is not linear with large systems. Kind of like a 1/2 ton pickup costs $50,000 and 1 ton pick costs $70,000 and a "40 ton" Freightliner transport tractor costs $175,000. Texas spent $9 billion on transmission for wind, and is having to spend more.

I get that folks can focus on the environmental impact of a dam. It is highly visible and generates a focal point for every crackpot and every wingnut to start spinning tales. That provides an "angle" for industries that that want to take advantage (for profit $$$ for themselves) - like the costly, and yes somewhat crooked, IPP industry (which includes the wind and solar hucksters).

Have a look at the Pennask wind farm. In order to optimize the output it had to be sited in just the right place. It has roads and we know that has caused some deforestation and has all kinds of ramifications for wildlife. The turbines themselves require large cleared areas. There has to be a transmission system built to service it. No matter what you say, that area is no longer wilderness, and there is considerable habitat destruction. How many of those ugly wind farms would be needed to replace site C? A LOT.

Every time we see a story about an endangered species, what is the underlying common cause in all cases? Habitat destruction.

To be honest, if I had my way, we would not build any more dams, nor any more wind farms, nor silly solar. We would build nuclear plants close to where the electricity is needed - in the lower mainland, and at already destroyed sites like garbage dumps, gravel pits, abandoned mines etc. That would add MORE to my electricity bill than site C, almost as much as wind, and a lot less than solar. My guess? About $30-50 per month - so $15-35/month more for NO more habitat destruction at all.

Yup, the new generation nuclear reactors can't: "do a Fukushima" or do a "3 mile Island" or do a "Chernobyl". You can build them close to where the power is needed, so no habitat destruction from transmission lines and road accesses etc. Canada has lots of uranium, and we wouldn't need new mines - or at least very, very few. No GHGs at all. No pipelines needed. None of all that habitat destructive stuff.

Oddly enough, the right answer TODAY for those us who really care about preserving our beautiful country and preventing further habitat destruction is nuclear energy. WE would have to pay more for it, but I believe the price is well worth it, and it is the best path to a more sustainable future.

But sigh, try to get the "plastic kayak" protestors to go along with that.[/quote]

Where do I start? There's so much to digest in your reply. First of all, I guess I should address your "There's no free lunch" comment. I don't think anyone expects a 'free lunch', although there are times when I've wondered about that when I read your and other Site C supporters' droning on about subsidies for alternative renewable energy projects. Seems you want a free lunch when it comes to investment in wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power, but not in hydroelectric or nuclear power projects. Why is that?

BTW, has nuclear fission become a viable source of energy now? If it has, I totally agree with you in that it would put an end to the environmental destruction of projects like the Site C dam. And finally, I think you should dispense with the condescending remarks. Calling those who are concerned about the adverse effects of ugly scars on our landscape and flooding of wildlife habitat, agricultural land, and Treaty 8 territory "wingnuts", "crackpots", and "plastic kayakers" does nothing to enhance your otherwise thought-provoking comments.

[hobbyguy]

No CF, I don't want our beautiful country trashed up with ugly and habitat destroying wind toys.

IF we are going the route of destroying some habitat, then it must be minimized. Site C destroys less habitat, and destroys habitat that is already compromised (the river is already dammed, and some of the land has already been logged and a small part turned to agriculture. That gets balanced off a bit by the creation of an artificial lake that provides a different habitat for some creatures.

It also has be economically sustainable. Site C is. Wind is not. Solar is not. Nuclear falls in between in terms of economic sustainability https://cna.ca/why-nuclear-energy/affordable/power-rates/

That chart is somewhat misleading as nuclear built today will likely cost around $.13/kWh. But with the advantages of being 24/7 reliable and a smaller habitat footprint. The real cost of wind is much higher than that chart, because the chart does not include the massive subsidies Ontario is forking out.

Yes, if we want to reduce our impact on the planet we will have to pay more. No free lunch. The lowest habitat footprint is the best way to achieve a more sustainable society. GHGs are a symptom, not the real problem. The real problem is habitat destruction.

Yes, I will use terms like "plastic kayaker" to try to shock people out of their hypnosis induced by the industry propaganda.

[maryjane48]

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/12/15/ndp-go ... ng-experts


Funky math i

[Smurf]

I agree MJ Desmog's good at that

[Cactusflower]

The NDP needs a do-over on this decision, IMHO.

[hobbyguy]

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/12/15/ndp-government-s-site-c-math-flunk-say-project-financing-experts


Funky math i

Let's see now. The desmog doofus math doesn't agree with Liberal math, doesn't agree with JRP math, doesn't agree with an analysis done by an economics professor at SFU, doesn't agree with BCUC math, doesn't agree with Deloitte math, doesn't agree with my math (went to uni on a math and physics scholarship).

Hmmm... do the desmoggers know what math even is? Or is the correct name for that biased website defoggerbrains?

Eoin Finn... interesting name... is that the blissologist?

[Jflem1983]

The NDP needs a do-over on this decision, IMHO.

Thank god u dont get to make decisions that effect millions of people

[Urban Cowboy]

The NDP needs a makeover, not a do-over, and they had 16yrs to do it, yet accomplished absolutely nothing in that time.

[vegas1500]

*removed*

[Cactusflower]

The NDP needs a makeover, not a do-over, and they had 16yrs to do it, yet accomplished absolutely nothing in that time.

Yes, I was disappointed as well that they weren't able to overthrow the BC Liberal dictatorship during all those years. If they had, we wouldn't still be living in the 20th century.

[Urban Cowboy]

The NDP needs a makeover, not a do-over, and they had 16yrs to do it, yet accomplished absolutely nothing in that time.

Yes, I was disappointed as well that they weren't able to overthrow the BC Liberal dictatorship during all those years. If they had, we wouldn't still be living in the 20th century.

Says a lot about how intelligent the NDP were and are I'd say. Glad you agree.

[Cactusflower]

Yes, I was disappointed as well that they weren't able to overthrow the BC Liberal dictatorship during all those years. If they had, we wouldn't still be living in the 20th century.

Says a lot about how intelligent the NDP were and are I'd say. Glad you agree.

That's a first. I never thought you'd agree that the BC Liberal government was a dictatorship. I suppose we also agree that they should never be allowed to rule this province again. It would be a shame to have British Columbians pay for another boondoggle like the Site C dam.

[LordEd]

If they had, we wouldn't still be living in the 20th century.

They'd still be in their review of 20th century practices and just starting on the idea of a 21st century committee.