Site C

[rustled]

...

The power from site C is going to cost between $80 and $100 to produce and be sold for (using the current average price BC gets) for $32. or even double that $64. Therefore, site C has to be subsidized by the BC consumer. Thats the price/cost crossover and what I have been saying since day one here.

And we or rather our children and childrens children and their children will have to subsidize this for 70 years which is the expected life of the dam. So at the end of the life cycle of the dam they can quit subsidizing it.
BC hydro does not need to raise its rates to $44 unless we build site C. IF we go ahead with site C prices have to rise to subsidize the continuous loss building the dam will incur. I have read as much as 28% just to pay it off but of course BC Hydro has not said how much rates have to go up to pay for it but they do say they have to go up to pay it off. Even they say it is our children and childrens children who will be responsible.

Well, this is disappointing. I've asked several specific questions about how your plan is better for our children and our children's children and their children, and yet you're unable to provide sensible, logical answers to any of them. You seem unable to explain to me how we will meet peak power demands in 2027 without more hydro-electric turbines.

I realize you don't trust anything BC Hydro says about what will be required to meet peak demand in 2027, but frankly I find them more willing to provide answers than those who are telling us Site C is the wrong thing to do.

[rustled]

So everything you argue is fairy tales and snake oil until you can show a genuine real world example.

If we never tried anything until we could show a real world example that worked we would never try anything.

This is emerging technology. It is advancing rapidly. Your grandpa probably laughed at the first tractors and gasoline engines. You are just like your grandpa.

Technology is advancing and getting cheaper and cheaper and more efficient.

But as to your never ending why don't you provide a link to yada yada yada.

Look at Scotlands grid. 97% of their power in 2015 came from wind.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-35277045

But that's not accurate at all. Here's what the story actually said:

The environment charity said wind power produced the equivalent of 97% of Scotland's household electricity needs.

Here's a more detailed assessment:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 55846.html
Please do read the entire thing, bearing in mind the huge differences between Scotland and BC.

Most importantly, neither story answers any of the questions I asked you about how peak demand is met on winter evenings.

[Glacier]

Scotland is also tied in with England, so when the wind doesn't blow, they can get some coal power from the UK. As for BC, we could do the same, getting coal and oil power from Alberta when the wind doesn't blow. Ya ya, that's not good for the environment, but hey, at least there won't be any site C producing zero emissions power, and instead, we can have 100s of warm and fuzzy feeling wind turbines up and down the Okanagan Valley producing warm and fuzzy power for twice the price.

[rustled]

Scotland is also tied in with England, so when the wind doesn't blow, they can get some coal power from the UK. As for BC, we could do the same, getting coal and oil power from Alberta when the wind doesn't blow. Ya ya, that's not good for the environment, but hey, at least there won't be any site C producing zero emissions power, and instead, we can have 100s of warm and fuzzy feeling wind turbines up and down the Okanagan Valley producing warm and fuzzy power for twice the price.

Yes, I suspect that's exactly what they are doing. (Although Scotland does have some interesting hydro-electric, too. Smurf posted a link to one some time back.)

Warm and fuzzy is all very good for those who believe wind power is actually green, but that's for another discussion.

I still don't see how even an overabundance of wind turbines can promise to help keep me warm when we're at peak demand on a winter evening in 2027, without adding more turbines driven by hydro.

[hobbyguy]

So everything you argue is fairy tales and snake oil until you can show a genuine real world example.

If we never tried anything until we could show a real world example that worked we would never try anything.

This is emerging technology. It is advancing rapidly. Your grandpa probably laughed at the first tractors and gasoline engines. You are just like your grandpa.

Technology is advancing and getting cheaper and cheaper and more efficient.

But as to your never ending why don't you provide a link to yada yada yada.

Look at Scotlands grid. 97% of their power in 2015 came from wind.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-35277045

Good grief Charley Brown. Do you ever look past the headline propaganda???

1. Scotland's electricity rate is $.2750/kWh CAD.
2. Most of Scotland's electricity came from fossil fuels and nuclear in 2015.

So how is that? Why with all that lovely "free" wind power do Scots have to pay nearly triple what we do? Why with all that windy nonsense power does Scotland need to get 57% of their electricity from fossils fuels and nuclear?

By the way, part of Scotland's plan to overcome the shortcomings of wind - to build more hydroelectric, and - wait for it - build more pumped hydro!

So in order to make their wind power work, Scotland is going to build dams and reservoirs and then pump the reservoirs full with wind power when it isn't needed and then generate peak demand electricity by opening the valves and generating hydroelectric power.

You see how silly that is when you have an option like site C? Site C, just like those pumped hydro dams, is a dam and a reservoir, but it doesn't need the stupid ugly wind turbines in the first place!

And $.2750 is not affordable. Energy poverty in Scotland is a real thing. And guess what? Scottish electricity prices are going up by 10.8%!!!

So once again:

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

[Smurf]

butcher99 wrote:

If we never tried anything until we could show a real world example that worked we would never try anything.

This is emerging technology. It is advancing rapidly. Your grandpa probably laughed at the first tractors and gasoline engines. You are just like your grandpa.

Technology is advancing and getting cheaper and cheaper and more efficient.

But as to your never ending why don't you provide a link to yada yada yada.

Look at Scotlands grid. 97% of their power in 2015 came from wind.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-35277045

As Rustled pointed out above your post is inaccurate. You should do some research before following newspaper articles as gospel. I know Scotland's situation a bit and immediately went to a Scotish government site.

Renewables were again the single largest source of electricity generated in Scotland in 2015 (42%) – higher than both nuclear generation (35%) and fossil fuel generation (22%). Scotland continued to be a net exporter of electricity, exporting 28.9% of total generation in 2015, up from 23.7% in 2014. Overall electricity generation in Scotland increased by 1,225 GWh to 51,200 GWh in 2015.

In 2015 renewables generated 42% of Scotland’s electricity output—the single highest contributor to electricity generation. Nuclear output increased from 33.3% to 34.7% in 2015. Overall the levels of fossil fuel output decreased from 27.7% of total Scottish generation in 2014 to 22.0% in 2015. The proportion of generation from gas fell from 5.5% to 3.7%.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/B ... lectricity

Renewables, not wind were the highest contributor. Remember hydro is also considered a renewable type generation so will be part of the 42% . But even this information doesn't tell the whole story as that is electricity generated in Scotland and does not include what they might have bought. Yes they were a net exporter but they probably sold cheap alternative power, wind etc, during the day when they had an abundance and bought the other half of the day when wind was not available. Probably bought at a higher rate.

Sorry that I am assuming some things but the exact information was not available where I was looking. However as you see from mine and Rustled's information the bit about 97% wind power was totally false news. Remember opinion articles are only as good as their bias, research, whatever and frequently do not give all the information.

[butcher99]

Please post a link to a windy-solar non synchronous grid jurisdiction that has

What a line of bull. Again. that is not what synchronous means in the world of electricity.
Scotland did produce enough electricity to cover their grid. They sold more electricity than they produced. Something BC will not be able to do even with site C. They did exactly what I am saying we do in BC. Wind and solar when available. Certainly a lot cheaper than site C. And then back up with other sources as we should be doing in BC.

The world is moving on. Time does not stand still. Neither should you or BC.

[butcher99]

2005 BC Hydro domestic sales: 51,205 GWh
2016 BC Hydro domestic sales: 57,300 GWh

Wind and solar don't work in the real world. Hydroelectric does.

It is that simple.

Please post a link to a windy-solar non synchronous grid jurisdiction that has

BC Hydro itself says it expects demand until 2020 to be flat. So yes, there was growth over those years but they are gone. Past history. Even BC Hydro says growth is expected to be flat. BUT somehow over the next 20 years despite growth being flat 2019 and 2020 somehow it will grow 40% over the next 20 years.

[Smurf]

butcher99 wrote:

What a line of bull. Again. that is not what synchronous means in the world of electricity.
Scotland did produce enough electricity to cover their grid. They sold more electricity than they produced. Something BC will not be able to do even with site C. They did exactly what I am saying we do in BC. Wind and solar when available. Certainly a lot cheaper than site C. And then back up with other sources as we should be doing in BC.

The world is moving on. Time does not stand still. Neither should you or BC.

Hey now that is an accomplishment. Where did they get it from to sell. Sounds almost as good as the 97% bit.

You should tell the government about all of this because even thought they are in charge they don't seem to know about it.

[hobbyguy]

Please post a link to a windy-solar non synchronous grid jurisdiction that has

What a line of bull. Again. that is not what synchronous means in the world of electricity.
Scotland did produce enough electricity to cover their grid. They sold more electricity than they produced. Something BC will not be able to do even with site C. They did exactly what I am saying we do in BC. Wind and solar when available. Certainly a lot cheaper than site C. And then back up with other sources as we should be doing in BC.

The world is moving on. Time does not stand still. Neither should you or BC.

Nope. If it doesn't work in the world, it is useless fairy dust dreaming. You have been sucked in by industry advertising propaganda.

China figured out that their wind and solar direction wasn't working. So they shifted gears in the latest 5 year plan to building Gen III nuclear. 8.6% of China's "installed capacity" is wind, but it only generates 3.3% of the electricity used - pretty useless.

You seem to think that wind and solar are "new" and exciting technologies lol. Humans have been using wind and solar for a donkey's age. Ya, PVs are sort of new, but they can not overcome the basic physics. Neither can wind.

If your beloved wind and solar were so good you could answer the challenge. That's the real world challenge. I can tell you that snake oil is wunnerful, but unless you find out otherwise, it's just a scam. Wind and solar are just a subsidy mining scam until proven otherwise, and nobody has been able to make them work economically. Like Warren Buffet says, there would be no wind industry without all the subsidies.

So yes indeed the challenge is relevant and important. Because it easily demonstrates that hydroelectric power grids are far and away superior to windy-solar fairy dust nonsense. IF they worked, then you would be able to answer the challenge:

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

I can give you three jurisdictions in Canada that have abundant, renewable, reliable, affordable electricity without subsidies - but they have almost no wind and solar.

[maryjane48]

CLEARING THE PR POLLUTION
☰
Falling Costs of Renewable Power Make Site C Dam Obsolete, Says Energy Economist
Judith Lavoie | September 12, 2017

Site C dam
The cost of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, has dropped dramatically since the previous B.C. government decided to build the Site C dam and the B.C. Utilities Commission must look at updated figures when considering the megaproject’s future, says a prominent energy consultant.

Robert McCullough, who is recognized as a North American expert on hydroelectric issues, was asked by the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association to make a submission to the BCUC, using up-to-date figures and research.

His conclusion is that BC Hydro could meet the province’s power needs at a much lower cost than the projected $8.8-billion Site C price-tag, without supply risks.

“Alternatives to Site C have expanded in scale while declining precipitously in price since the studies submitted by BC Hydro in the environmental process,” McCullough wrote in his submission.

“Renewable prices have fallen by 74 per cent for solar and 65 per cent for wind since 2010 when the B.C. government announced it wished to pursue approval and development of Site C,” he said.



https://www.desmog.ca/2017/09/12/fallin ... -economist

[hobbyguy]

http://www.hydroquebec.com/self-generation/faq.html

Notice how stupid Ontario is being with solar panel customers? Paying them $.42/kWh. Boy did the solar industry ever suck Ontario in.

Good for Quebec for not doing that!

[rustled]

Please post a link to a windy-solar non synchronous grid jurisdiction that has

What a line of bull. Again. that is not what synchronous means in the world of electricity.
Scotland did produce enough electricity to cover their grid. They sold more electricity than they produced. Something BC will not be able to do even with site C. They did exactly what I am saying we do in BC. Wind and solar when available. Certainly a lot cheaper than site C. And then back up with other sources as we should be doing in BC.

The world is moving on. Time does not stand still. Neither should you or BC.

Again, what you have posted here is not true. Sure, the headline reads
Scotland sets renewable energy record as wind power provides equivalent of 118% of nation's electricity
but you have to read and absorb the entire story, including this part:

In the first six months of 2017 enough power was generated to supply more than all of Scotland’s national demand for six days. Turbines provided 6,634,585MWh to the National Grid, which analysts say could on average supply the electrical needs of 124 per cent of Scottish households, or more than three million homes.
...
Scotland’s total electricity consumption including homes, business and industry for first six months was 11,689,385MWh.
...
Renewables experts say this means wind generated the equivalent of 57 per cent of Scotland’s entire electricity needs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 55846.html\
Your post has made it absolutely clear that you do not understand much of what you are reading. I suspect this is why you are unable to answer my specific questions about meeting peak power demand on winter evenings in 2027 (or 2017 for that matter) with anything that makes logical sense.

You also seem unable to make the connection between the amount Scotland has invested in wind power and the energy poverty Scotland is experiencing as a result of their energy policy.

I cannot fathom why you are so set on convincing us we would be better off with wind than with Site C, but it's pretty clear we cannot rely on your alternative plan to ensure energy security at a reasonable cost for our children, our children's children, or their children.

Until such time as someone show there is a better alternative, I will continue to support Site C.

[erinmore3775]

“Renewable prices have fallen by 74 per cent for solar and 65 per cent for wind since 2010 when the B.C. government announced it wished to pursue approval and development of Site C,”

This is a quote from Robert McCullough's submission on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association to the BCUC. In the parts of his submission that I read he does not put a direct price on the replacement of Site C with SWEG technology. If a contributor here can direct me to the page where I can find that I would appreciate it.

His presentation does outline accurately that the costs for SWEG have fallen dramatically in the last five years. However, I have not been able to find a researchable price that is below $100 CDN. American prices seem to hover in the $120 CDN range and European costs seem to be in the $140 range. Nobody involved in the SWEG industry, including the Germans, provides a direct cost so that one can compare to the Site C option.

If any contributor could direct me to these projected replacement costs of Site C with SWEG alternatives I would appreciate it. What the current arguement seems to be for the replacement of Site C is that SWEG costs are coming down substantially, therefore sometime in the future SWEG may be cheaper.

I have to give BC Hydro a lot of credit, at least they have a costed option.

[maryjane48]

“Renewable prices have fallen by 74 per cent for solar and 65 per cent for wind since 2010 when the B.C. government announced it wished to pursue approval and development of Site C,”

This is a quote from Robert McCullough's submission on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association to the BCUC. In the parts of his submission that I read he does not put a direct price on the replacement of Site C with SWEG technology. If a contributor here can direct me to the page where I can find that I would appreciate it.

His presentation does outline accurately that the costs for SWEG have fallen dramatically in the last five years. However, I have not been able to find a researchable price that is below $100 CDN. American prices seem to hover in the $120 CDN range and European costs seem to be in the $140 range. Nobody involved in the SWEG industry, including the Germans, provides a direct cost so that one can compare to the Site C option.

If any contributor could direct me to these projected replacement costs of Site C with SWEG alternatives I would appreciate it. What the current arguement seems to be for the replacement of Site C is that SWEG costs are coming down substantially, therefore sometime in the future SWEG may be cheaper.

I have to give BC Hydro a lot of credit, at least they have a costed option.

your not a expert on electrical generation as is any of your gang of bclib supporters . you are in no position to even comment short of talking points .