Site C

[hobbyguy]

Cancelling site C would be bad for the environment.

While I have shown previously that site C, as a hydroelectric project, is the most environmentally friendly option, never really focused in on that aspect. This is where the phony environmental-radicals who have latched onto the plastic kayak solar panel "ain't I virtuous" California trendy fashion fad are the ultimate in hypocrisy - and working against environmental protection.

Sounds harsh? Well, perhaps so. But reality indicates it is true: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-paris-agreement-obligations-means-a-herculean-electrification-effort/article36933939/

As Canada's climate diplomats head to Bonn to haggle over how the Paris Agreement will be implemented, the head of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) bluntly stated our country is not living up to its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction promises. Our emissions are currently on track by 2030 to increase 14 per cent to 29 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year used by the European Union, which is set to meet its pledge of a 40-per-cent cut.

One big hurdle we face in meeting our goals is a lack of recognizing the herculean scale of new clean-electricity infrastructure required. We don't just need to replace fossil-fuel-fired generation and somehow achieve heroic efforts at energy efficiency and conservation, we also need a great deal more clean generation to permit the deep decarbonization of transport, heating and industry.

Modelling work performed for Environment and Climate Change Canada and released last year in its Mid-Century Long-Term Low-Greenhouse Gas Development Strategy suggests that by 2050, to achieve a 65-per-cent reduction (on 2005 levels), between a doubling and quadrupling of clean-electricity generation is necessary. Most will come from hydro and nuclear because of their reliability, with a supporting role played by wind, which is intermittent but plentiful. Most other renewables only get cameos in these scenarios owing to their variability.

It's eye-popping stuff. At a minimum, it means building the equivalent of another electricity system. Saying that the ramifications for First Nations rights are significant is an understatement. But all this is not widely known.

This month's British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) report on the controversial Site C hydroelectric dam highlights the gaps with familiarity about Paris Agreement obligations. The BCUC concludes that alternatives such as wind, cheap battery storage, aggressive demand-side management (reducing or shifting demand via such mechanisms as Uber-style dynamic pricing) and reopening the natural-gas-fired Burrard Generating Station, previously shuttered to reduce GHG emissions, were as good or better options.

BCUC also says electrification to prevent dangerous climate change should not be taken into account because of uncertainty over timing and magnitude. The commission rejects the federal findings of Environment and Climate Change Canada and projections produced in 2011 by Simon Fraser University environmental economist Mark Jaccard and his group that foresaw up to a similar doubling of demand by 2050 owing to deep decarbonization.

The BCUC report also overlooks the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan's projection of an increase of about half a Site C's worth of electricity annually and the City of Vancouver's forecast of a near doubling of electricity demand by mid-century for the same reasons. To put this in context, consider that Site C is projected to deliver just 5.1 terawatt hours annually, about a twelfth of current demand. So, we must ask: How many climate policy experts were invited by the BCUC to appear as technical witnesses?

SNIP

"The commission also rejects use of B.C.'s hydroelectricity to help Alberta's decarbonization efforts, meaning that the plan by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley's administration to build out wind turbines will likely have to depend on substantial backup capacity from natural gas plants, thus increasing GHG emissions."

SNIP

But no energy mix is pristine. All options have their drawbacks. We are on a fool's errand if we seek an energy mix that has no impact. We should be asking: What suite of options has the least impact?

To answer that, experts on climate and deep decarbonization need to be in the room.


So the BCUC in their report are working against Canada's efforts to reduce GHGs, and are are entirely wrong and misinformed (deliberately??) as to the electrification issue. That throws the entire BCUC report under the bus, as it is complete garbage without reasonable estimates of the future electricity needs.

But then the BC NDP never had any vision for the future, and it appears they don't want one, and don't really care about the environment - just pandering for votes and raiding the taxpayer purse to cover up for their incompetence as a party. The BC NDP really does define the expression "populism and spoils of ignorance".

[The Green Barbarian]

[b]BCUC also says electrification to prevent dangerous climate change ".

What the hell is "dangerous climate change"? What an idiotic phrase.

[Urbane]

What the hell is "dangerous climate change"? What an idiotic phrase.

Regardless of how one feels about "climate change," the interesting thing is that the provincial and federal governments made a commitment to reduce GHG emissions by x amount. The only way for that commitment to be met is through a substantial increase in electrification. The BCUC essentially opined, without actually saying it directly, that the provincial government will renege on its emission targets.

Given that we currently have a Green-DP government, and given that the previous Liberal government made the commitment to reduce GHG's, it's an astounding conclusion reached by the BCUC. Where is the media asking about that? And why do we have a Canadian Press story telling us that the BCUC pointed to geothermal being an option to replace Site C while leaving out the part where the BCUC admitted that geothermal might NOT be an option at all??

[Urban Cowboy]

What the hell is "dangerous climate change"? What an idiotic phrase.

Regardless of how one feels about "climate change," the interesting thing is that the provincial and federal governments made a commitment to reduce GHG emissions by x amount. The only way for that commitment to be met is through a substantial increase in electrification. The BCUC essentially opined, without actually saying it directly, that the provincial government will renege on its emission targets.

Given that we currently have a Green-DP government, and given that the previous Liberal government made the commitment to reduce GHG's, it's an astounding conclusion reached by the BCUC. Where is the media asking about that? And why do we have a Canadian Press story telling us that the BCUC pointed to geothermal being an option to replace Site C while leaving out the part where the BCUC admitted that geothermal might NOT be an option at all??

Might be worth contacting one of the large media organizations, and giving them a list of questions they should be asking.

For that matter, it couldn't hurt to forward the list to multiple media outlets, and perhaps some reporter will do something with it.

[Smurf]

Sending it to all the MLA.s might also help. They, at least the Liberals, might also get it into the house and the MSM.


EDIT TO ADD:
Wouldn't it be interesting to hear Weaver seriously questioned about this in the house.

[Merry]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-paris-agreement-obligations-means-a-herculean-electrification-effort/article36933939/

As Canada's climate diplomats head to Bonn to haggle over how the Paris Agreement will be implemented, the head of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) bluntly stated our country is not living up to its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction promises. Our emissions are currently on track by 2030 to increase 14 per cent to 29 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year used by the European Union, which is set to meet its pledge of a 40-per-cent cut.

One big hurdle we face in meeting our goals is a lack of recognizing the herculean scale of new clean-electricity infrastructure required. We don't just need to replace fossil-fuel-fired generation and somehow achieve heroic efforts at energy efficiency and conservation, we also need a great deal more clean generation to permit the deep decarbonization of transport, heating and industry.

Modelling work performed for Environment and Climate Change Canada and released last year in its Mid-Century Long-Term Low-Greenhouse Gas Development Strategy suggests that by 2050, to achieve a 65-per-cent reduction (on 2005 levels), between a doubling and quadrupling of clean-electricity generation is necessary. Most will come from hydro and nuclear because of their reliability, with a supporting role played by wind, which is intermittent but plentiful. Most other renewables only get cameos in these scenarios owing to their variability.

It's eye-popping stuff. At a minimum, it means building the equivalent of another electricity system. Saying that the ramifications for First Nations rights are significant is an understatement. But all this is not widely known.

This month's British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) report on the controversial Site C hydroelectric dam highlights the gaps with familiarity about Paris Agreement obligations. The BCUC concludes that alternatives such as wind, cheap battery storage, aggressive demand-side management (reducing or shifting demand via such mechanisms as Uber-style dynamic pricing) and reopening the natural-gas-fired Burrard Generating Station, previously shuttered to reduce GHG emissions, were as good or better options.

BCUC also says electrification to prevent dangerous climate change should not be taken into account because of uncertainty over timing and magnitude. The commission rejects the federal findings of Environment and Climate Change Canada and projections produced in 2011 by Simon Fraser University environmental economist Mark Jaccard and his group that foresaw up to a similar doubling of demand by 2050 owing to deep decarbonization.

The BCUC report also overlooks the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan's projection of an increase of about half a Site C's worth of electricity annually and the City of Vancouver's forecast of a near doubling of electricity demand by mid-century for the same reasons. To put this in context, consider that Site C is projected to deliver just 5.1 terawatt hours annually, about a twelfth of current demand. So, we must ask: How many climate policy experts were invited by the BCUC to appear as technical witnesses?

SNIP

"The commission also rejects use of B.C.'s hydroelectricity to help Alberta's decarbonization efforts, meaning that the plan by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley's administration to build out wind turbines will likely have to depend on substantial backup capacity from natural gas plants, thus increasing GHG emissions."

SNIP

But no energy mix is pristine. All options have their drawbacks. We are on a fool's errand if we seek an energy mix that has no impact. We should be asking: What suite of options has the least impact?

To answer that, experts on climate and deep decarbonization need to be in the room.


So the BCUC in their report are working against Canada's efforts to reduce GHGs, and are are entirely wrong and misinformed (deliberately??) as to the electrification issue. That throws the entire BCUC report under the bus, as it is complete garbage without reasonable estimates of the future electricity needs.

This is a VERY interesting read (I deliberately removed your cheap shots at NDP voters from my response HG because they hurt, rather than help the debate. But, other than that, this is an excellent post).

All too often we jump on "bandwagons" which initially seem to be a good idea, yet turn out to be the opposite once we get all the facts. And I think the windy/solar thing is going to turn out to be one of them. Yes, there IS a place for windy/solar, but not on a scale large enough to replace Site C, particularly given the points made in the above article.

We should be embracing Site C as well as Windy/Solar, not instead of. And vice versa.

[The Green Barbarian]

As Canada's climate diplomats head to Bonn to haggle over how the Paris Agreement will be implemented, the head of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) bluntly stated our country is not living up to its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction promises. Our emissions are currently on track by 2030 to increase 14 per cent to 29 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year used by the European Union, which is set to meet its pledge of a 40-per-cent cut.

In response to the bolded above, I say "GREAT!!" That Euro-trash clown can stick it where the sun don't shine. And I bet he'll still want to put a solar panel there anyway.

[maryjane48]

Cancelling site C would be bad for the environment.

While I have shown previously that site C, as a hydroelectric project, is the most environmentally friendly option, never really focused in on that aspect. This is where the phony environmental-radicals who have latched onto the plastic kayak solar panel "ain't I virtuous" California trendy fashion fad are the ultimate in hypocrisy - and working against environmental protection.

Sounds harsh? Well, perhaps so. But reality indicates it is true: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-paris-agreement-obligations-means-a-herculean-electrification-effort/article36933939/

As Canada's climate diplomats head to Bonn to haggle over how the Paris Agreement will be implemented, the head of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) bluntly stated our country is not living up to its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction promises. Our emissions are currently on track by 2030 to increase 14 per cent to 29 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year used by the European Union, which is set to meet its pledge of a 40-per-cent cut.

One big hurdle we face in meeting our goals is a lack of recognizing the herculean scale of new clean-electricity infrastructure required. We don't just need to replace fossil-fuel-fired generation and somehow achieve heroic efforts at energy efficiency and conservation, we also need a great deal more clean generation to permit the deep decarbonization of transport, heating and industry.

Modelling work performed for Environment and Climate Change Canada and released last year in its Mid-Century Long-Term Low-Greenhouse Gas Development Strategy suggests that by 2050, to achieve a 65-per-cent reduction (on 2005 levels), between a doubling and quadrupling of clean-electricity generation is necessary. Most will come from hydro and nuclear because of their reliability, with a supporting role played by wind, which is intermittent but plentiful. Most other renewables only get cameos in these scenarios owing to their variability.

It's eye-popping stuff. At a minimum, it means building the equivalent of another electricity system. Saying that the ramifications for First Nations rights are significant is an understatement. But all this is not widely known.

This month's British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) report on the controversial Site C hydroelectric dam highlights the gaps with familiarity about Paris Agreement obligations. The BCUC concludes that alternatives such as wind, cheap battery storage, aggressive demand-side management (reducing or shifting demand via such mechanisms as Uber-style dynamic pricing) and reopening the natural-gas-fired Burrard Generating Station, previously shuttered to reduce GHG emissions, were as good or better options.

BCUC also says electrification to prevent dangerous climate change should not be taken into account because of uncertainty over timing and magnitude. The commission rejects the federal findings of Environment and Climate Change Canada and projections produced in 2011 by Simon Fraser University environmental economist Mark Jaccard and his group that foresaw up to a similar doubling of demand by 2050 owing to deep decarbonization.

The BCUC report also overlooks the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan's projection of an increase of about half a Site C's worth of electricity annually and the City of Vancouver's forecast of a near doubling of electricity demand by mid-century for the same reasons. To put this in context, consider that Site C is projected to deliver just 5.1 terawatt hours annually, about a twelfth of current demand. So, we must ask: How many climate policy experts were invited by the BCUC to appear as technical witnesses?

SNIP

"The commission also rejects use of B.C.'s hydroelectricity to help Alberta's decarbonization efforts, meaning that the plan by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley's administration to build out wind turbines will likely have to depend on substantial backup capacity from natural gas plants, thus increasing GHG emissions."

SNIP

But no energy mix is pristine. All options have their drawbacks. We are on a fool's errand if we seek an energy mix that has no impact. We should be asking: What suite of options has the least impact?

To answer that, experts on climate and deep decarbonization need to be in the room.


So the BCUC in their report are working against Canada's efforts to reduce GHGs, and are are entirely wrong and misinformed (deliberately??) as to the electrification issue. That throws the entire BCUC report under the bus, as it is complete garbage without reasonable estimates of the future electricity needs.

But then the BC NDP never had any vision for the future, and it appears they don't want one, and don't really care about the environment - just pandering for votes and raiding the taxpayer purse to cover up for their incompetence as a party. The BC NDP really does define the expression "populism and spoils of ignorance".

Your little. Article was written by biased pro dam folks. I did some research on them and its clear they have a agenda .try again

[maryjane48]

BC Hydro's capital spending will increase to $2.4 billion a year from $1.7 billion annually over the next eight or nine years as the dam is constructed, McDonald said.

Site C is expected to meet just 22 per cent of upcoming energy demand. McDonald said the remaining three quarters of demand would be met largely through conservation — by convincing consumers to use less electricity and through new technology such as smart meters.

This is what jessica mac said in 2015 lol. Now lets review . She says bchydro will spend 2.5 billion for 8 years which equals. 20 billion in tax money spent . Now knowing site c could double in price add another 8 billion to bring us to 28 billion over 8 years.

Next she says site c can only supply bc energy needs by 22 percent lol other 78 percent would come from conservation and smart meters Lol


Im telling yea if i was a rightwinger i would feel lied to and used like a cheap motel room . We know know everything clark and bchydro said was rubbish .

If john does decide to build site c expect. There to be real unions there and not the psuedo christian so called union there now . If it has to be built because bclibs recklessly spent to much already then it should be real unions doing it

[The Green Barbarian]

Im telling yea if i was a rightwinger i would feel lied to and used like a cheap motel room .

why?

[The Green Barbarian]

Your little. Article was written by biased pro dam folks. I did some research on them and its clear they have a agenda .try again

"Biased pro dam folks" = smart people who can do math and don't lie. As for posting stuff from people who have an agenda, all I can say is "OH THE IRONY"....

[LordEd]

If john does decide to build site c expect. There to be real unions there and not the psuedo christian so called union there now . If it has to be built because bclibs recklessly spent to much already then it should be real unions doing it

So... Pay out existing contracts and renegotiate new ones at higher rates. That sounds like a great plan.

[The Green Barbarian]

If john does decide to build site c expect. There to be real unions there and not the psuedo christian so called union there now .

what the hell are you talking about????

[LordEd]

what the hell are you talking about????

In order to understand, take everything you know about contracts and business and put it in a box. Wrap it with pot leaves and set it on fire. Be sure to do so in a non ventilated room.

Now repeat the mantra 'unions are the only good' three times and you will have the spirit of Horgan come down from the sky with a magic wand wearing a pink tutu and he will explain it to you.

Only then will you truly understand.

Don't try to tackle with facts or reality.

[christopher]

If john does decide to build site c expect. There to be real unions there and not the psuedo christian so called union there now . If it has to be built because bclibs recklessly spent to much already then it should be real unions doing it

YA that way we can make sure the cost is up changing out labour and supervision NOW what a great idea. What you don't know is lots of the CLAC people working are members of building trades unions. What you don't know is the contracts would have to be redone. But then you could just pay them by the hour and John could hire people like you to supervise if you could pass the pee test.