Site C

[Smurf]

For once I agree with you MJ, this is terrible and someone should be on top of it. No excuses. When my son was an engineer in the oil fields he ran into a lot of these types of problems. I remember one where the company didn't follow the drawings because it was easier to move the road a bit. They disturbed a special area and were forced to go back build the proper road and repair all the damage. It broke the company and they are no longer in business. I hope this works better than Mount Polley seems to have. Time to clean up their acts.

[erinmore3775]

I would hope that the Environmental Assessment Office continues to closely monitor the Site C construction site as the construction proceeds. It would seem that the EAO and the public are doing a much better job of monitoring this construction site than they have done in the past for other mining and logging sites throughout the province. Environmental corner cutting should not be allowed no matter where the construction or mining or logging activity is occurring.

[Urban Cowboy]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/hydro+slapped+with+site+enforcement+order+related+sediment/13125512/story.html

some world class contractor you hired christy . idiots

And another deflection when presented with honest information.

It's actually very telling that you constantly ignore factual, realistic posts, such as made by hobbyguy, outlining precisely why your fixation on solar is completely without merit, to simply watch you deflect and post something unrelated.

So far the only thing you've really proven to everyone, regarding solar power, is that you fail to understand, and apply correctly, much of what you read.

Then again, ignoring everything but what they are fixated on, whilst employing faulty logic, is a proven NDP trait.

Many of us are still waiting to hear how well your solar system provides for your needs? Oh wait, that's right, you're still on the grid like the rest of us.

Oh and FYI construction companies running afoul of environmental regulations, is hardly anything new, for if it was, there wouldn't be any need for inspectors. Not condoning such conduct at all, just pointing out that using such an argument against Site "C" is but another one of your oft used straw dogs.

If a company screws up then fine the crap out of them, and if that doesn't do it, then fire them, but don't act as if this is the only example ever of such an occurrence. Negligence is nothing new, and that's coming from someone who's spent over six decades in construction.

[Smurf]

I agree Old Techie after decades of hydro dam construction and as I said earlier my son was involved big time as an engineer in the Alberta oil fields. I still however believe that the environment does have to be looked after. I like to think I am not an enviro nut after years of working around it but I also don't want to destroy it. I 100% agree with site C and hope they will manage to fall in line as I'm sure it is getting more difficult every year and I don't think they need to give the whiners any more to cry about.

I do agree MJ does everything but answer the questions asked. But I think we all know why.

[Urban Cowboy]

I do agree MJ does everything but answer the questions asked. But I think we all know why.

You would think someone so clearly pro solar power, would eagerly embrace any opportunity to provide factual information that furthers their position.

Information that might generate some converts so to speak.

Instead all we get is deflection, or deafening silence.

Then again it's difficult to provide supporting documentation, when all that's out there is contradictory data.

The odd link that has been posted, has always been something irrelevant, as a viable comparison to British Columbia's location, and terrain.

You might as well start promoting camels as an excellent alternate form of transportation for BC.

[Smurf]

They tried that years ago in the desert in Arizona and it didn't work either.

[Smurf]

I for one certainly wouldn't want to go to solar and wind with the end result being like Australia and other places in the world. Can you imagine rolling brownouts and blackouts during our heating and cooling seasons. No thank you I like stability and knowing that baring disasters or unforeseeable equipment failures we have electricity. I love and use my hydro within reasonable limits. I have never once got to tier 2.

[christopher]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/hydro+slapped+with+site+enforcement+order+related+sediment/13125512/story.html


some world class contractor you hired christy . idiots

I am sure they do not have the dam building experience and water management skills your NDP friends have. When I worked in rivers the water upstream and downstream of the work location was checked they allow a percentage of contaminants in the water. The challenge is that in the winter the water is clean so almost any contaminant in the river will be over the percentage allowed keep in mind that you could be pumping and everything is ok 1 hour later they check the water and you could be over what you are allowed. When the reading is taken it is reported as a fail if you are over the count.
. Reading the story it is water being pumped and surface drainage by work crews likely not supervised properly and the warm weather has likely caused problems. But you know all this stuff right.

[Smurf]

I was thinking today when reading the story about high Hydro bills that it is ironic that if we dropped site C and went to wind and solar we probably would not have to worry about excessive bills. When it got cold or hot we would not have enough power available and that would mean we would not have any to buy so we would have smaller bills. The only problem would be we wouldn't have any heating or cooling but I guess that wouldn't matter as long as we didn't have site C. LOL.

[erinmore3775]

Like Smurf, I too have been examining BC electrical rates, comparing them to other electrical rates in Canada, and trying to project what rates would be like if I was using solar/wind/green energy. Currently, the best comparison source seems to come from Manitoba.

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affairs/energy_rates/electricity/utility_rate_comp.shtml#analysis

Vancouver rate seems to be stuck in the middle of the pack and the sticking point seems to be the 675 tier (block) cutoff rate. This block rate creates an artificial rate hike. While supposedly designed to encourage conservation, it is almost impossible for those in the lower mainland in townshouses with electric baseboard heat and electric hot water (all very common) to stay below the 675 amount with a household of more than one person. This limit is not designed to encourage conservation but designed to ensure BC Hydro of increased revenue.

If I was to try to lower my electrical costs with solar panels, whether I lived in the Okanagan or in the lower mainland, I would have a minimum of a $6 000 outlay and mostly likely be required to replace the roof, if the house was older than 8 years. This is a considerable expense to save a few dollars on my electric bill. This would realize even smaller savings in the lower mainland since there are fewer days with at least 70% clear skies.

The other side of this coin is that if Site C was not developed, my estimates indicate that at least 50% of the lower mainland and Okanagan homes would have to convert to solar power to attempt to keep pace with the addition of current new users. Would someone who believes that Site C should not be developed please explain how solar/wind would benefit my current electrical costs.

[lasnomadas]

You don't seem to realize that going solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. is less about saving you money and more about saving the planet. And don't think for a minute that mega-hydroelectric dams don't have a carbon footprint. But of course the worst thing about this out-dated form of renewable energy is the fact that it destroys thousands of acres of valuable agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and indigenous territories. Hundreds of people are evicted from their homes, and I know of at least one First Nations community that was displaced by a mega dam almost half a century ago to an area where they still have no electricity.

How's that for irony?

[The Green Barbarian]

You don't seem to realize that going solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. is less about saving you money and more about saving the planet. And don't think for a minute that mega-hydroelectric dams don't have a carbon footprint.

First of all, who cares if the mega-hydro-electric dams have a carbon footprint, whatever that is. And secondly, you can't just try and justify insanely stupid and just plain bad ideas that cost billions of dollars and generate no electricity to speak of as acceptable because accordingly to people who can't do math, they are "saving the planet". That's just a giant load of crap. Sorry, but what you are saying is just propaganda and pure nonsense. Even if you buy into the man-made climate change myth, solar and wind are not the answer. They don't generate enough electricity for mankind to live on, and so the only way you are "Saving the planet" is by killing off millions of people. I know some People think that this would be a good thing, but they are just that, People.

Anyway, to sum up - it's not good enough to use touch-feely sound-bites and over the top sanctimony to justify extremely bad ideas that solve nothing. Only the truly naïve will fall for it, and they will fall for anything.

[erinmore3775]

"IM" wrote "You don't seem to realize that going solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc. is less about saving you money and more about saving the planet."

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/17/10-solar-energy-facts-charts-everyone-know/

Cost of power produced is $0.447 (US)/watt produced per panel.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-solar-panels-Do-they-need-more-energy-to-produce-than-what-they-would-produce-in-their-entire-life

Carbon footprint comparisons. Hydro generation is the lowest if not one of the lowest.

Perhaps, IM and other contributors would like to read a little about Bullfrog Power and the David Suzuki Foundation. The Suzuki Foundation "recommends" the use of renewable electrical power largely produced by hydro-electric generation. They believe that hydro-electric power production has one of the lowest long-term carbon footprints. It trumpets Bullfrog Power as a "blueprint" for responsible low carbon footprint electrical production. In BC, Bullfrog is an IPP supplier to BC Hydro. They have developed wind farms and small hydro projects in BC and Ontario. While the Suzuki Foundation supports the reduction of petro-based thermal electrical production in Canada, nowhere in their literature can I find opposition to hydro-electric generation.

What I can find is their opposition is the "industrialisation" of natural environments. This is the centre of their opposition to Site C. Yet they support solar and wind production of electrical energy. The components for these technologies are totally dependent on mineral and metal materials mined from areas of "industrialisation" of natural environments for their manufacture. It would seem that they are using an illogical and circular argument. I would prefer to see the development of Site C that produces a totally renewable environmental damage (reservoir, flood plain, etc.) that can be used for recreation, natural food production, and tourist-based industry, than an open pit mine in China.

I challenge those that oppose Site C to provide facts that in BC solar/wind green energy electrical production has a lower cost per kw/h of power production, lower carbon footprint from manufacture to energy production, and a lower transmission cost than hydro-electric production. So far I cannot find a better way for BC to "save the planet" and reduce our carbon footprint than the use of hydro-electric energy and the development of Site C. Prove me wrong.

[The Green Barbarian]

. So far I cannot find a better way for BC to "save the planet" and reduce our carbon footprint than the use of hydro-electric energy and the development of Site C. Prove me wrong.

I agree. For those of us who don't care about carbon footprints and all of that man-made climate change gibberish, or think that whatever we produce is just a mouse-fart anyway, it's really all about the cost. And there is no lower cost power out there. How could there be? Once the costs are spent, the dam just sits there and produces electricity from water running over turbines! What could ever compete with that? Nothing. And it's stupid to even try and argue otherwise.

[alfred2]

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