Site C

[The Green Barbarian]

If you have to twist yourself into pretzel then arguments lost

Exactly. Which is why whoever quotes the Big Green supporting scum at Desmog will always be the ones to lose the argument.

[The Green Barbarian]

We looking at if site c completes 30 billion in debt

I thought it was $20 billion? Which already was a number that was shown to be pulled straight out of your *bleep*. Now it's $30 billion? Why not $40? Go for the gusto!

[The Green Barbarian]

If you think im going to keep repeating myself your sadly mistaken.

you don't keep repeating yourself. Your lies just keep getting bigger and bigger.

[The Green Barbarian]

Bclib site c job claims debunked
]

you say this, but then you provide a link to Desmog? Why? It debunks nothing!

[The Green Barbarian]

Urb the ones that did sign up dont have a inch of land thsts about to be flooded so signing up was easy . 5

This totally isn't true, and is horribly racist. Anyone who is against Site C is a horrible racist.

[The Green Barbarian]

Done that lots of times already on some of tne other pages.

No, you have not.

[The Green Barbarian]

Perhaps you should tell those countriez states and cities signing contracts for a half or a third of what site c will cost that those thirty year contracts for cheap power are no good.
.

Since these contracts don't exist, no one has to do this.

[The Green Barbarian]

The number oF jobs may be wrong but the man years may end up correct once it runs a couple years late like Manitobas project and newfoundlands.

why would Site C be like those projects?

[hobbyguy]

erinmore - I agree until you get to the part about developing solar and wind. They just flat out do NOT work in the real world complexity of a grid system. The SYSTEM cost is too high.

Perhaps you should tell those countriez states and cities signing contracts for a half or a third of what site c will cost that those thirty year contracts for cheap power are no good.
The experts who deal in this all the time and have to deal in actual dollars and cents or pesos in mexico just dont agree with you. They put their jobs on the line signing 30 year agreements for less than site c power will cost.
These are the pros in the business. They think it will work. I think i will agree with the guys who do this for a living over some random guy on the internet who says they dont work.

Blah, blah, blah. FIND one grid jurisdiction where they meet my simple challenge. Hydroelectric gives us abundant, reliable, renewable and affordable electricity without subsidies.

NOT one. Not a single jurisdiction that has gone windy-solar nonsense has that. Wind and solar and the other garbage in the BCUC so called alternative just creates Energy Poverty. It is trash written for political cover, nothing more, and will hose the residents of BC. It is the price delivered to the customer, the SYSTEM cost, that matters.

Go ahead, FIND a grid jurisdiction that meets what hydroelectric gives us. You won't, you just keep coming up with sidetrack deflections and when you are shown to be wrong - blah, blah, blah. You nor any of the site C detractors has a leg to stand on.

Site C continues us forward with what we have, abundant, reliable, renewable and affordable electricity without subsidies.

[Urban Cowboy]

If you have to twist yourself into pretzel then arguments lost

Might want to bear that in mind, next time you try to sell manufactured data from questionable sources as fact, simply to suit your agenda.

[Urban Cowboy]

We looking at if site c completes 30 billion in debt

I thought it was $20 billion? Which already was a number that was shown to be pulled straight out of your *bleep*. Now it's $30 billion? Why not $40? Go for the gusto!

Well if we're going to go down that path, then go big or go home and just call it 100 billion.

[Rider59]

erinmore - I agree until you get to the part about developing solar and wind. They just flat out do NOT work in the real world complexity of a grid system. The SYSTEM cost is too high.

Perhaps you should tell those countriez states and cities signing contracts for a half or a third of what site c will cost that those thirty year contracts for cheap power are no good.
The experts who deal in this all the time and have to deal in actual dollars and cents or pesos in mexico just dont agree with you. They put their jobs on the line signing 30 year agreements for less than site c power will cost.
These are the pros in the business. They think it will work. I think i will agree with the guys who do this for a living over some random guy on the internet who says they dont work.

It's not like these guys are doing it for a profit tho so we must believe their unbiased shtick. They think it will work. LOL

Your thinking won't help you, Prayin' won't do you no good. https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ledzeppelin/whentheleveebreaks.html

[butcher99]

Yeah and your point?

Might be a good idea for you, and the anti Site C crew, to also recognize that many of the places their "facts" are pulled from, to support the NO narrative, are also nothing more than random voices on the internet with an agenda.

It would also be good to note that many who have gone to great lengths to explain why Site C is a good idea, and provide supporting links or data, do so using credible unbiased sites such as Statistics Canada, etc.

However CBC is not some rsndom guy on the internet but a respected news organization as was the tucson paper i quoted with long term prices a third of site C.

I am typing this all in a phone on a very poor connection whole i winter in much warmer climes. So if there is no link it is because a. It is tough do do on my phone. B. i have linked it before.

For the most part i have not posted from opinion pieces or blog posts other than Vaughn Palmer. I feel he is fairly credible. Yes some were from sources who had a vested interest. That does not make their statstics wrong.
But as i said. Lets come back to it in a year or two and see the cost of site C and how the time line is going.
You all said gbe exact same bull to me on LNG. Called me an ndp so and so. My links were bogus. My math flawed. Heard it all before from you. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.
If site c was to be just starting up not past Christys point of no return this would be a no brainer. It would be a dead duck.
That was one take away from the BCUC report that is obvious.
The question i got from the report was, is it too expensive to just drop it. Probably yes.

If it goes ahead i sure hope you are correct but with the prices rolling in now i dont see how you can be.

[butcher99]

It's not like these guys are doing it for a profit tho so we must believe their unbiased shtick. They think it will work. LOL

Your thinking won't help you, Prayin' won't do you no good. https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ledzeppelin/whentheleveebreaks.html

They are paid to think. They are paid for their thought processes and insights.
How about this After they have gone through theirinvestigations on the costs of installing solar system and the benefits of it these corporations have come to the conclussion that they can build maintain and make a profit from selling solar energy for a third to a half of what site c power will cost.
And the cities and states have come to the conclussion that the corporations can provide and maintain the systems at that price point. Providing reliable cheap power for upwards of 30 years
Does that work beter for you?

[butcher99]

Might want to bear that in mind, next time you try to sell manufactured data from questionable sources as fact, simply to suit your agenda.

You are great with the "i dont like your sources comments" how about a couple sources proving the cbc report on those contracts were incorrect. Or a source showing my link to the price Tucson signed a contract for is incorrect.

It is too easy to just say fake news. Totally different when you have to go out and provide sources for why it is fake news.