Site C

[BeingHuman]

"The $8.8-billion Site C dam has run into a wall of opposition from scientists and legal scholars. More than 250 of them from across Canada have signed a "statement of concern" about the regulatory review of the project on the Peace River in northeastern B.C."

"Based on evidence raised across our many disciplines, we have concluded that there were significant gaps and inadequacies in the regulatory review and environmental assessment process for the Site C Project," the statement of concern declared. "Our assessment is that this process did not accord with the commitments of both the provincial and federal governments to reconciliation with and legal obligations to First Nations, protection of the environment, and evidence-based decision-making with scientific integrity."

http://www.straight.com/news/703556/mor ... m-approval

Meh, what is the findings of 250 scientists and experts compared to hobbyguy's and a couple of other pro-Site C opinions. Sorry, I have to go with the scientists and experts on this one. Moreover, we really need to have a government that makes important decisions, like spending $9 Billion of our tax dollars dollars, based on the preponderance of "evidence", and not on politics. Time to vote in a new government on May 9th.

[Urban Cowboy]

Methinks the fact that you don't provide proof of how solar is cheaper than hydro, says a lot, given you guys always get very quiet when the hard questions come up.

Why won't you take advantage of an opportunity to convert some folk, if all it requires, is proof of a jurisdiction where solar is not subsidized, and cheaper than hydro?

Waiting!

[BeingHuman]

Methinks the fact that you don't provide proof of how solar is cheaper than hydro, says a lot, given you guys always get very quiet when the hard questions come up.

Why won't you take advantage of an opportunity to convert some folk, if all it requires, is proof of a jurisdiction where solar is not subsidized, and cheaper than hydro?

Waiting!

I would rather comment on Site C, you can start a new comment thread titled "Alternative Energy" if you like?

[Urban Cowboy]

Nice deflection, but the question pertains directly to site "C" given that one of the main reasons it is required is due to the low cost of hydro generation compared to everything else.

I'll take that as a no then, and that you guys are just blowing smoke as usual.

[lasnomadas]

We could build hundreds of alternative energy projects for less than the $17 -$18 Billion that Site C is going to cost in the end. And we wouldn't have destroyed thousands of acres of agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and indigenous territories in the process.

So now that we've settled the subsidy debate, what else would you like to discuss?

[Mr_Mrs_Wolf]

Site C, the most expensive white elephant ever conceived by bankrupt politicians.

Not worth a dam, April 21, 2017, North Shore News Editorial:

The project, which was approved without a proper review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, is going to cost $8.8 billion we don’t have to produce electricity we can’t use, to power LNG plants that won’t exist, at a cost too expensive to sell to foreign markets...

The fiscal-responsibility-loving premier is actively out campaigning on Site C saying the project is all about jobs, jobs, jobs (mostly hers).

It’s true, that $8.8 billion could create a lot of jobs at Site C – or be spent elsewhere.

We’d suggest starting with things that the province is actually in crying need of: affordable housing, child-care spaces, seismically sound schools, hospital wards, a transit system that doesn’t leave people stranded at rush hour, addictions treatment and mental health services, or a boost to welfare rates that haven’t budged since the time a one-bedroom apartment cost $375 a month.

Or, as Christy Clark is very fond of saying, the money could stay right where it is now, in ratepayers’ pockets.

[erinmore3775]

There is no free ride...

It is important to set a series of balanced priorities that accurately reflect the current and future needs of this province. Yes, “…affordable housing, child-care spaces, seismically sound schools, hospital wards, a transit system that doesn’t leave people stranded at rush hour, addictions treatment and mental health services, or a boost to welfare rates that haven’t budged since the time a one-bedroom apartment cost $375 a month…” must be addressed by the next government. However, so must a balanced tax structure and environmental issues. None of this can be done cheaply; there is no free ride. Someone has to pay and it is the citizens of B C that must pay.

The Anti-Site C advocates say that the project is not needed and that the money for the $9 B project can be better spent elsewhere on Solar and Wind Energy Generation (SWEG) and social and community projects. They hold up California and Germany of examples of those jurisdictions that are doing it right. Yet careful examination of these jurisdictions shows that they have one of the highest effect tax rates in the United States and one of the highest effective tax rates in the world.

The “solar only” supporters point to the success of solar in California and indicate that there was no additional cost attached. Here are the facts.

http://www.ecowatch.com/most-solar-saturated-zip-codes-california-1954601457.html

Since the inception of the Go Solar program in 2004, California has paid out approximately $3.3 B in residential subsidies. That is approximately equal to the amount of money siphoned off by various B C governments from B C Hydro over the same period. According to 2016 statistics there are approximately 500,000 solar homes in California, accounting for over 4000 megawatts of generation capacity. Most of these homes are in the Los Angeles/San Diego, Bakersfield, and Riverside areas. These areas have an average of less than 20% solar residential saturation. Residential solar saturation for the entire state is significantly less than that.

https://energycenter.org/solar/homeowners/cost

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-solar-initiative-the-complete-list-of-rebates-and-tax-credits

Current costs to residents to participate in the Go Solar Program are significant. The average cost per roof top watt is between $3 and $5. This means that the average residential 5-kW residential system will cost $15,000-$25,000, prior to tax credits or incentives. Rebates and tax credits vary throughout California depending on your electrical service provider. They vary from a high of almost $3 000 in San Francisco to zero if you are a P G & E customer. If the most aggressive rebate scale is used, the residential solar customer is on the hook for between $6 000 and $8 000 and a payback period of 12 to 20 years. That coupled with some of the highest electrical rates in the US (due to a 5 tier electrical rate system that features up to 400% jumps between tiers) mean that Californians, like Germans pay a lot for the electricity they use.

What I would like to see happen and what I have proposed in other comments is the use of the money (+$200 M) regularly syphoned from B C Hydro to be used for the development of province wide SWEG projects. Jurisdictions like Australia, California, Belgium, and Germany have demonstrated the need for integrated synchronous and non-synchronous electrical power production. The completion of the Peace River Hydro Electric projects with the building of Site C will allow B C to have the supply backbone for the growth of SWEG in the province. The success of SWEG in Germany and Belgium is built upon a backbone of continuous power supply. The SWEG problems in Australia are a result of that continuous electric generation backbone being missing.

There is no one-way to build B C’s energy future. It must involve integration. While no one has the perfect crystal ball for the future, there is one certainty; clean reliable low-cost electrical energy will be important. That can only be provided if there is an integration of our current electrical production system with future development. That future development should include both SWEG and Site C.

I would simply ask that those who are opposed to this integrated SWEG/hydroelcric proposal provide cost estimates for their proposals and demonstrate that the same amount of electrical energy can be generated by their proposals.

[Merry]

Meh, what is the findings of 250 scientists and experts

We hear a lot these days about how the advice of certain "scientists" is often being ignored by politicians. So, after reading the article you cited, I decided to do a little digging into exactly who comprised the 250 scientists referred to, and just how qualified they are to make recommendations regarding the dam.

What I came up with is that the group most of these "scientists" belong to is a group comprised of about one third arts and humanities academics, one third social scientists, and one third of the kind of scientists most of us tend to think of as fitting the term. So, in the absence of knowing how many of the cited 250 actually belong to that third group, I'm not sure just how much weight we should be giving to the recommendation.

The group is called the Royal Society of Canada and, here's how Wikipedia describes it:

The Royal Society of Canada currently consists of more than 2,000 Fellows: men and women from all branches of learning who have made contributions in the arts, the humanities and the sciences, as well as in Canadian public life.

250 out of a total of 2000 members is not a very high number and, as I've already pointed out, it would be interesting to know which category of member most of those who signed belong to. After all, is a member in the Arts and Humanities category really qualified to give more than just their "personal" opinion? Ditto for someone whose membership is based solely on their particiapation in "Canadian Public Life". It's not that we shouldn't respect the rights of such folks to have an opinion, but that such opinions should not be touted as being of scientific origin if that is not the case.

The current leader of the group is a Quebecer who Wikipedia describes as being

a Canadian academic and neuropsychologist

and, admirable as that description is, I do question whether or not such a person is qualified to provide a fact based opinion on the merits or otherwise of a hydro electric dam.

If we are to base our decisions on science and not politics, it is vital that we make sure that the scientists we are listening to are qualified in the field they are giving an opinion on. After all, a political scientist in hardly in a position to offer a qualified opinion about something like the Site C dam, yet political scientists are included in the membership of the group that provided the report you cite (as are many other groups of folks who study various kinds of science that are not the kind we normally associate with large engineering projects).

[BeingHuman]

Thank you for doing the "digging" to clarify the review by 250 scientists. If, as you say, only a third of the 250 scientist belong to that reputable class of scientists who could be considered "experts" on the subject of hydro power generation, that would be over 80 scientists disagreeing with the Site C Project.

I will accept the expert opinions of those more than 80 scientists, over hobbyguy and a couple of other pro-Site C posters on this site. Also keep in mind two previous assessments of the Site C project by the BC Utilities Commission, both times the BCUC recommended shelving the project. I would think the BCUC is made up of experts in their own right.

[Carrs Landing Viking]

We could build hundreds of alternative energy projects for less than the $17 -$18 Billion that Site C is going to cost in the end. And we wouldn't have destroyed thousands of acres of agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and indigenous territories in the process.

So now that we've settled the subsidy debate, what else would you like to discuss?

And where exactly would you put these "hundreds of alternative energy projects". Assuming they would require a vast amount of land somewhere. Please tell us all where these would be placed. I don't think you understand how much land would be required to house all these "hundreds of alternative energy projects".

[lasnomadas]

Name one solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal project that has destroyed farmland and has evicted landowners, indigenous groups and wildlife from their homes.

[George+]

Lees than the land currently flooded behind dams.

[hobbyguy]

Once again the anti-site C folks are being parochial and nimby and political instead of looking at the real world.

Obviously you can not find a windy-solar grid jurisdiction that has abundant, affordable, reliable electricity without subsidies because there isn't one.

Therefore you say "we don't need it" - so how are you going to address the other 2/3 of the provinces energy needs without more electricity and get away from fossil fuels? Dumbeldor's wand is your only other option.

You say "we don't need it" and ignore rising population against a background of a now rapidly slowing reduction in energy/capita density.

You say "we don't need it, can't sell it" and ignore the rapidly growing needs of the grid for synchronous power and storage taht site C provides, making it optimally positioned to sell to export markets within Canada and the rest of the North American grid as coal fired plants shut down one after the other.

You ignore the habitat disruptions and wildlife corridor disruptions created by wind and solar. Did you know that large scale solar is a major killer of pollinating insects? You ignore the study I posted from MIT that clearly shows that large scale hydro has the lowest environmental cost.

You ignore peak power and the implications of peak power demands and the failure to meet it causing major power outages.

You ignore the implications and costs of the non synchronous nature of wind and solar. How are you going to resolve that? At what costs? (site C resolves that).

You dramatically overstate the value of the agricultural land that will be flooded.

You fail to accept that the bulk of BC citizens can not afford to pay the high electricity rates that you would trap us into, and fail to accept that those high electricity rates you would trap us into will be job killers.

You quote stilted polls that do not ask the correct question. The correct question is:

Should we build site C with a moderate ($.01-$.015/kWh) increase in rates, or should we bank on alternative energy sources to solve our problems and have electricity rates of $.35/kWh or more?

[Urban Cowboy]

Name one solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal project that has destroyed farmland and has evicted landowners, indigenous groups and wildlife from their homes.

You're the one peddling solar and wind, so how about first you provide some factual information that shows it as being cheaper than hydro.

The main reason hydro is so important is because it is a clean constant source of power, and the most affordable of the lot.

I'm not going to pay double my current bill, just so the area in question can produce a whopping $200,000 worth of crops a year. Something the recreational aspect of the dam can easily surpass.

The insignificant number, in the big picture, that are being displaced, are being well compensated, and it's hardly the first time such a thing has happened. Just because it affects someone you may know, simply provides a bit more drama, and that's about it.

[hobbyguy]

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html#.WP5uCsa1uUk

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

https://e360.yale.edu/features/a_scarcity_of_rare_metals_is_hindering_green_technologies

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

Just because the ecological damage and displacements of people, agricultural land, and wildlife isn't right in front of your nose, doesn't mean it isn't there.

From water usage issues, to wildlife disruptions, to destroyed farms and destroyed farmers the "green" technology has it all.

I'll take the minimal impact of site C over that mine in China any day!