Site C

[Urban Cowboy]

How dumb, there is all kinds of carbon footprints in building batteries etc,wake up and small some brains.

If these forums are any indication, then brains is not something the diehard NDP faithful, possess in any measurable amount.

The only real gift they have, is the ability to repeat over and over, what their masters trained them to say, in the hopes that if repeated enough times, everyone will buy into the nonsense.

So far, they haven't demonstrated the wherewithal, to accept their approach is failing miserably.

[hobbyguy]

I have been following the developments in Australia because there are two related issues that have some similarities to BC.

BC did not get get LNG off the ground (at least not yet). Australia did. The unintended consequence of the Australian LNG boom was that it drove up natural gas prices.

That natural gas price increase created a problem for their "green" energy plans of wind and solar, because part of that plan was to replace coal fired electricity with natural gas fired plants for lower carbon emissions. The result of the price increase was that natural gas fired plants were unable to compete with subsidized wind and solar. Not to mention that at times, the domestic supplies of natural gas became very tight as the export demand for LNG was higher priced and cut into domestic supplies.

The result of that cascading scenario was somewhat cheered by the fans of solar and wind because they saw it as a triumph for "green" energy - until it all came crashing down and they did not have power when they needed it. The total grid supply has become very dependent on the intermittent supply of solar and wind, and there simply isn't an economic way to store sufficient quantities to deal with peak power demands. Making the problem worse, wind and solar providers, because they can't store the power they produce, will undercut the market during off peak hours making it even tougher on steady stream producers like natural gas plants.

The grid supply forecasts for Australia now indicate some serious problems going forward. To the point where manufacturers are considering leaving Australia because of high electricity prices and lack of assurance of supply. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-19/manufacturers-will-quit-australia-if-reliable-energy-in-doubt/8366528

"The threat of east coast blackouts is now real because of the disorganised disconnection of coal-fired generation without any new investment in base-load power."

"Once wind energy passes about 20 per cent of generation it creates a series of well-documented challenges for electricity grids in both managing intermittency and stabilising the system's frequency."

"So absent massive amounts of storage in the market — so that you can store up that energy when it's produced and release it when it is demanded from consumers — we have a problem," Mr Dimery said.

"That leads to expensive fixes."

Battery technology was advancing rapidly and the cost was falling but it was still not an economic solution for Australia. What made sense for households did not, yet, add up for business."

So what does that have to do with us in BC?

1. Alberta is looking to wind power to replace coal fired electricity
2. 5 US states have already surpassed 20% of their grid capacity coming from wind
3. States like Iowa have exceeded 33% of their grid capacity from wind and solar. Even Texas gets 10% of its power from wind.
4. BC is connected to the US grid. If there are grid problems, they can become our problem.
5. BC hydro makes money by acting as a virtual storage facility for off peak power producers in other areas - buying it cheaply off peak, and selling back during peak hours. They do this by not generating as much during off peak hours, and storing water, then ramping up during peak hours - and selling that power at high prices.

If you look at what is happening in Australia, they are looking hard at building more pumped hydro facilities in to provide relatively inefficient energy storage (even to the point of pumping sea water up into land based reservoirs/dams).

By building site C, we are not only guaranteeing electricity for BC residents. We are also enabling more coal plants to be replaced with wind and solar where it makes sense, and although that is not here, it is all one atmosphere. We may also be setting up a scenario where BC makes money off of say, Texas wind power, and that helps to pay for our social programs, roads etc.

[lasnomadas]

It's nice to see a few informed comments among the rude, misinformed, or uninformed ones (you know who you are). My reasons for opposing the Site C dam have been well-documented by scientists, geothechnical engineers, and even the Chairman of the Joint Review Panel who studied the proposed mega-dam for BC Hydro and the BC Liberals. Of course, they ignored the JRP and also refused to put the proposal before the BCUC, for obvious reasons. Now they're having to admit that the north bank of the Peace is unstable and in danger of sliding into the river, endangering not only fish stocks and fish habitat, but everything and everybody in the vicinity.

I'm not saying that all hydroelectric facilities are bad for the environment, but these huge mega-dams are a thing of the past. We can't expect the original dams on the Peace and the Columbia to be de-commissioned like the US is doing to many of their dams, but we can bring the unused turbines on stream, as BC Hydro is doing at Revelstoke. The bottom line is, we do not need the Site C dam.

[maryjane48]

lol hobby keeps trying to convince himself . but simpple fact to what clark hydro is spinning is that the drive to make atleast solar the main new thing is the fact it is virtualy same price for large scale use as any other type of energy production used now .

money will decide this and if you look at the investment that carbon companies like shell and exxon are dumping into it now ,plus companies like tesla and others the future is coming .


all one has to do is look at cell phones. how long did it take to go from bricks to a iphone 7 ? or windows 3 to windows 10 ? its what humans do . we advance . we make things better . dams are old technology .


and all this hogwash of site c saving the planet is just that . its first act will be to flood farmland and peoples land that is culturly important to them . you cant replace that with beads

[Urban Cowboy]

The bottom line is, we do not need the Site C dam.

So we keep being told, by the ignorant sector, you know who you are, that for that very factor, can't grasp that solar in Arizona, and solar north of the 49th parallel are two very very different things.

Your opinion has already been proven invalid numerous times by various posters, and using credible data, as opposed to alternate facts often presented by the negative nellies.

We're currently a net importer of power, even with the additional generating capacity installed, it's barely enough to meet current demand, yet within the next ten years we will grow by another half a million people at the very least.

All the measures to reduce consumption, have pretty much been implemented already, so there's really no place for power requirements to go but up.

How exactly does that support your "we don't need site "C"" statement?

Oh that's right, it doesn't!

From where I stand it's not rude to point out to the clueless, that they are in fact clueless, especially when the position is supported by factual data.

Choosing to go through life in denial, is certainly a personal choice, but doing so is not going to change reality one bit.

[christopher]

I have been following the developments in Australia because there are two related issues that have some similarities to BC.

BC did not get get LNG off the ground (at least not yet). Australia did. The unintended consequence of the Australian LNG boom was that it drove up natural gas prices.

That natural gas price increase created a problem for their "green" energy plans of wind and solar, because part of that plan was to replace coal fired electricity with natural gas fired plants for lower carbon emissions. The result of the price increase was that natural gas fired plants were unable to compete with subsidized wind and solar. Not to mention that at times, the domestic supplies of natural gas became very tight as the export demand for LNG was higher priced and cut into domestic supplies.

The result of that cascading scenario was somewhat cheered by the fans of solar and wind because they saw it as a triumph for "green" energy - until it all came crashing down and they did not have power when they needed it. The total grid supply has become very dependent on the intermittent supply of solar and wind, and there simply isn't an economic way to store sufficient quantities to deal with peak power demands. Making the problem worse, wind and solar providers, because they can't store the power they produce, will undercut the market during off peak hours making it even tougher on steady stream producers like natural gas plants.

The grid supply forecasts for Australia now indicate some serious problems going forward. To the point where manufacturers are considering leaving Australia because of high electricity prices and lack of assurance of supply. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-19/manufacturers-will-quit-australia-if-reliable-energy-in-doubt/8366528

"The threat of east coast blackouts is now real because of the disorganised disconnection of coal-fired generation without any new investment in base-load power."

"Once wind energy passes about 20 per cent of generation it creates a series of well-documented challenges for electricity grids in both managing intermittency and stabilising the system's frequency."

"So absent massive amounts of storage in the market — so that you can store up that energy when it's produced and release it when it is demanded from consumers — we have a problem," Mr Dimery said.

"That leads to expensive fixes."

Battery technology was advancing rapidly and the cost was falling but it was still not an economic solution for Australia. What made sense for households did not, yet, add up for business."

So what does that have to do with us in BC?

1. Alberta is looking to wind power to replace coal fired electricity
2. 5 US states have already surpassed 20% of their grid capacity coming from wind
3. States like Iowa have exceeded 33% of their grid capacity from wind and solar. Even Texas gets 10% of its power from wind.
4. BC is connected to the US grid. If there are grid problems, they can become our problem.
5. BC hydro makes money by acting as a virtual storage facility for off peak power producers in other areas - buying it cheaply off peak, and selling back during peak hours. They do this by not generating as much during off peak hours, and storing water, then ramping up during peak hours - and selling that power at high prices.

If you look at what is happening in Australia, they are looking hard at building more pumped hydro facilities in to provide relatively inefficient energy storage (even to the point of pumping sea water up into land based reservoirs/dams).

By building site C, we are not only guaranteeing electricity for BC residents. We are also enabling more coal plants to be replaced with wind and solar where it makes sense, and although that is not here, it is all one atmosphere. We may also be setting up a scenario where BC makes money off of say, Texas wind power, and that helps to pay for our social programs, roads etc.

If the building of LNG in BC happens and the coal power plants in Western Canada are shut down and converted to gas
this could happen here. Your post could be used as an argument against building BC LNG by the rest of Canada

[erinmore3775]

MJ wrote: "simpple fact to what clark hydro is spinning is that the drive to make atleast solar the main new thing is the fact it is virtualy same price for large scale use as any other type of energy production used now ."

Please show me and others the references for BC that demonstrate that in the province of BC, at latitude 49 degrees North and above, that "solar...is virtualy same price for large scale use as any other type of energy production used now..."

Unfortunately, even the Suzuki Foundation does not advocate the conversion to large scale solar instead of developing hydro-electric power. What they and other responsible energy usage advocates do recommend is a development of solar/wind farms in conjunction with biomass related electrical production AND hydro-electrical production to reduce our carbon footprint. It would appear that BC is following their advice.

I believe that your arguments would have a great deal more weight if you bothered to provide the references that support large scale solar farms in BC a a principal/main source electrical power supply.

[Smurf]

I truly have to laugh when someone talks about site C being a "mega dam" (hydro) project. I hope lasnomadas that you realize that our tiny new dam will only produce 1100 MW's.

Here are some examples of Mega projects.

The James Bay Project (in French, projet de la Baie-James) refers to the construction by state-owned utility Hydro-Québec of a series of hydroelectric power stations on the La Grande River in northwestern Quebec, Canada, and the diversion of neighbouring rivers into the La Grande watershed. It is located between James Bay to the west and Labrador to the east and its waters flow from the Laurentian Plateau of the Canadian Shield. The project covers an area of the size of the State of New York and is one of the largest hydroelectric systems in the world. It has cost upwards of US$20 billion to build[citation needed] and has an installed generating capacity of 16,527 megawatts. If fully expanded to include all of the original planned dams, as well as the additional "James Bay II" projects, the system would generate a total of 27,000 MW,[citation needed] making it the largest hydroelectric system in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project

The Three Gorges Dam is a hydroelectric dam that spans the Yangtze River by the town of Sandouping, located in Yiling District, Yichang, Hubei province, China. The Three Gorges Dam is the world's largest power station in terms of installed capacity (22,500 MW). In 2014 the dam generated 98.8 terawatt-hours (TWh) and had the world record, but was surpassed by Itaipú Dam that set the new world record in 2016 producing 103.1 TWh.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

The Belo Monte Dam (formerly known as Kararaô) is a hydroelectric dam complex currently under construction on the Xingu River in the state of Pará, Brazil. It is on the northern part of the Xingu river. The planned installed capacity of the dam complex would be 11,233 megawatts (MW), which would make it the second-largest hydroelectric dam complex in Brazil and fourth-largest in the world (in installed capacity), behind the Three Gorges Dam in China, the Brazilian-Paraguayan Itaipu Dam and Chinese Xiluodu Dam. Considering the oscillations of flow river, guaranteed minimum capacity generation from the Belo Monte Dam would measure 4,571 MW, 39% of its maximum capacity.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam

Site C is not even in the ballpark of a "mega dam (hydro)" project in Canada let alone the world.

[Smurf]

Yes erinmore3775 I believe they would have weight if they even had any factual truth to them. So far I have seen nothing.

[hobbyguy]

I keep hearing this "we don't need capacity for the future" from the NDP supporters, and it is purely political.

The talk is of wind and solar without any real understanding of the pragmatic realities. My previous post about Australia, and their solar/wind mess, combined with some realities of the North American electricity grid, was intended to remind them that it it is, to a large extent an "ecosystem" not a straightforward issue. It does not lend itself to "bumper sticker" solutions. Solutions have to be crafted carefully with the whole context in mind.

The current NDP "bumper stickers" seem to be "We don't need more power" and "Wind and Solar will Save Us".

Certainly the latter, solar and wind, have been proven impractical in the BC context and expensive on the production end costs. Those we have detailed many times in this post.

The first one, whether we need the capacity has been discussed from all angles. Future forecasts are difficult to prove as they rely on a variety of factors that can change.

Not the least of which is that I am a believer that EVs are the future, which will do a lot to reduce pollution and improve health - BUT EVs will only work if the economics are there, which means you need lots of renewable and affordable energy. Improvements in battery technologies are coming, but they will impact small scale aspects of the picture first - things like EVs. Scaling up technology is difficult.

Perhaps the most puzzling part of the NDP "bumper sticker" position on capacity is that John Horgan, as energy critic, argued that the aging, obsolete, and polluting Burrard Thermal Plant should not be closed. Which is it John? Do we need the capacity or not?

The second most puzzling part is that BC is already well over 90% renewable in terms of electricity production, so why would we want to build expensive and intermittent solar and wind capacity if we don't need more capacity to start with????

Those conundrums and contrary positions lead me to conclude that the NDP positions are just populist ones for the far left that they adopt for political purposes. They just aren't as good at it as folks like Trump.

[lasnomadas]

There is nothing political about my opinion of the Site C dam; it is purely scientific. Furthermore, the fact that the dam is going to flood 83kms of agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and indigenous territory makes it fit into the category of unwanted, unnecessary, technologically-challenged mega-dam.

[Smurf]

Just imagine 10 years from now, 100,000 homes in Vancouver with solar power. During the day they sell to the grid but come evening, it's dark and/or raining heavy, everyone come home, turns on lights etc, starts to cook, many do a quick load of laundry and many plug in their EV or possibly even 2 of them. Suddenly no power going to the grid and a large draw on the grid. OOPS no site C, not enough power. Rolling brown outs and even blackouts. Sorry kids no supper tonight and your school cloths are dirty. Wow the car didn't charge now what do I do? Wonder what the NDP, green solution is?

[hobbyguy]

lasnomadas - this is a long thread , but if you read through it, you will see that the arguments about site C regarding land use etc just don't hold up.

There has been considerable discussion about that, including the fact that the two bands who were making legal challenges actually live in Fort Nelson and the Chetwynd area - a long way from the site C area.

Have you ever stopped to think about wind towers? The land they consume, the concrete made for the bases, the additional power lines that have to run - and the land that those consume.

The same applies to solar. Do you want to see large scale solar concentrators that destroy millions and millions of pollinating insects?

There has been a myth floating about the land being flooded is "prime agricultural land". When I checked, the output from the affected area was $200,000 in agricultural goods. That's all. If you have ever been to Fort St. John you would realize that there is no prime agricultural land around there.

And so on. Every single argument put up against the site C dam has been winnowed down to being unscientific and based on a political position. I choose to make my judgement that it is a good project (not perfect, none ever is) and is needed based on examining all sides of the issue and examining the data.

[Urban Cowboy]

I keep hearing this "we don't need capacity for the future" from the NDP supporters, and it is purely political.

Of course it is. The same suspects can be found throughout the board, opposing anything that has to do with the Liberal party, regardless of whether it's good or bad.

I've seen one set of data used to argue against site "C" in this thread, then they pull a completely different set of statistics to support the NDP in another thread. LOL

You could post a thousand pages of legitimate data, supporting why the dam is needed, but their blind hatred compels them to disregard it automatically, without even a glance, or slightest thought, as to whether it truly has merit or not.

Basically their minds are made up and closed to any further consideration. I'm of the mind they'd rather slit their own wrists than admit Liberals are doing something right.

[lasnomadas]

I haven't read all 133 pages, of course, but I imagine most are inundated with BC Liberal/Christy Clark supporters. None of them have done any research concerning the Site C dam, never read any findings by the JRP or the geotechnical engineers, nobody who knows the truth behind why this white elephant is being built. They refuse to believe anything that doesn't come from the newsletters of BC Hydro or the BC Liberals.

There comes a time when the Christy fans have to stop covering their eyes and ears, and loudly humming lest they see or hear some inconvenient truth.