Site C

[Queen K]

If you can't bother to take the time to prove what you are saying it is pretty doubtful anyone else will do it for you. There is nothing worse than the lazy slacker at work who expects his fellow workers to make up for him.

That is if you are approaching posting here as a job with obligations. Is posting here a job with obligations if you know you're right? I've often contempated that one. And there are plenty of willing posters here anxious to check facts and have nothing better to do than doing so.

As for the lazy slacker comment, yes, and that is on every job site. I know, do someone a "favour" once or twice and it becomes your expected job. And you're doing their job! Worse if you id with that person as a friend.

[Smurf]

I agree Queen K, but then don't tell people to do it for themselves and actually expect them to do it. If someone can't do it for themselves, do not expect, direct, people to do it for you. The rest of us are not your servants. Actually as has been said if someone really wants to be taken seriously I believe you need some proof that what you are saying is true.

For instance the no side cannot seem to provide any factual information as asked for numerous times.

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

So why should anyone believe that information is even out there. I know I don't. I do not believe it exists and have seen nothing to prove otherwise.

[LordEd]

It's quality of information. The poster said there were 70 lost jobs with no link cited. I also searched for 70 jobs and nothing came up.

Pointing out that given information is uncited or straight out fiction is for the benefit of those just reading the conversation. They can decide which direction to believe for themselves based on the facts.

[Smurf]

LordEd » 6 minutes ago

It's quality of information. The poster said there were 70 lost jobs with no link cited. I also searched for 70 jobs and nothing came up.

Pointing out that given information is uncited or straight out fiction is for the benefit of those just reading the conversation. They can decide which direction to believe for themselves based on the facts.

Hopefully people do that and don't go with unproven opinions, but I won't hold my breath.

[Urban Cowboy]

It's quite obvious that some posters on here, believe that everything on the internet is true, and zero in only on material that supports their narrative, whether it is legitimate or not.

There are all manner of crackpots using the internet, many with an axe to grind, thus anything posted by bloggers or unknowns, needs to be vetted, but that's a step the anti everything zealots can't be bothered with.

They just come on here and help spread misinformation.

What they don't seem to grasp is that eventually readers pick up on it, and consequently don't trust anything the person posts.

Such ones are often identified by their lack of providing sources for statements they make and attempt to sell as facts.

There are people who get compensated for spreading false information, and some days it sure seems like there are a few present here.

[lasnomadas]

It's quite obvious that there are several posters on here who are in complete denial. I told you where to find the article about the second tension crack, the 70 lost jobs (Laila Yuile), and all info I've posted is readily available on any MSM news outlet. Surely you don't expect me to provide links to those, too. You should have them in your bookmarks.

[LordEd]

A link to 70 jobs. It doesn't exist. You clearly have misread.

[hobbyguy]

Decisions should be based on empirical, verifiable facts. Not nonsense promulgated by political hacks et al.

That's why I ask for links to back up the simple underlying question what are the alternatives to site C?

The detractors are unable to provide empirical, verifiable facts to make the case that a better alternative site C is available.

Here is another empirical, verifiable fact: Our new Energy minister is from Nelson. She sat on the board of Nelson Hydro. The city of Nelson has its own hydro power system. The electricity come from the Bonnington Falls hydroelectric dam. That facility was completed and put into service in 1907, with upgrades and expansions since. After 110 years the Bonnigton Falls facilities are still providing the electricity for the city of Nelson. Bonnington Falls is a 16 MW facility. As far as I can tell, there are no indications that Bonnigton Falls will have to be replaced in foreseeable future. Will it make it to 200 years old? Don't know, but maybe.

The practical lifespan of wind and solar facilities is 25 years or less for the generating facility. Li-ion battery storage facilities have a practical lifespan of 10 years or less.

To match Bonnington Falls, wind and solar generating facilities will have to be replaced 5 times. The storage facilities will have to be replaced 15 times.

Wind power has been around at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. Nelson chose a hydro dam facility. Looks like they made the right choice for abundant, clean affordable electricity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnington_Falls and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#/media/File:James_Blyth%27s_1891_windmill.jpg

[Smurf]

lasnomadas wrote:

It's quite obvious that there are several posters on here who are in complete denial. I told you where to find the article about the second tension crack, the 70 lost jobs (Laila Yuile), and all info I've posted is readily available on any MSM news outlet. Surely you don't expect me to provide links to those, too. You should have them in your bookmarks.

With all the time you have spent arguing about it you would have saved time posting the links right off the bat, unless of course they don't exist.

[flamingfingers]

Yes, there are MORE problems with Site C construction, along with layoffs:

Peace River Hydro Partners confirms layoffs at Site C dam
July 24, 2017 Jessica Fedigan News, Site C 0

View of the north bank, looking downstream above a storage area for relocated excavated material. Taken in November, 2016/Photo: BC Hydro

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – Peace River Hydro Partners says they had to layoff over 70 workers near the end of last week due to safety related work stoppages.

Amber Harding with PRHP confirmed the layoffs to Energeticcity.ca on Monday.

“It’s a result of the safety related work stoppage on the north bank of the project. The result of that and our ongoing workforce management is that we are moving people from different work area to different work area. Some workers from that side of the project were reassigned to other work and then additionally 72 workers were laid off.”
Harding says that the majority of the workers laid off were heavy equipment operators and labourers.

https://energeticcity.ca/2017/07/peace- ... ite-c-dam/

[Urbane]

^^ Good to see them taking safety seriously! That's as it should be.

[flamingfingers]

^^Too bad about people losing their jobs tho, eh?

[LordEd]

Wow. A 70 worker link. It exists!

[flamingfingers]

^^So really don't care about 70 people losing their jobs. Then you should not care about people losing their jobs when Site C is cancelled, right?

[Urbane]

^^Too bad about people losing their jobs tho, eh?

You want them to ignore the safety concerns?? I don't. There are lots of jobs at Site C and most of them are being taken by British Columbians. If the new government shuts down the project they'll ALL lose their jobs. That's okay with you?? You don't want to see 70 laid off for safety reasons but it's okay to lay off everyone by cancelling the project??