Site C

[Urban Cowboy]

Yeah, that's great, but it ONLY works on windy days. You are extrapolating your figures to include all "Non-windy" days. How many locations are there in BC, that have 365 days of wind, 24 hours/day?

I'd reckon the same number as there are locations able to allow a solar panel to function at it's full rated capacity along the 50th parallel.

[LordEd]

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/hyd ... report.pdf

Finavera Renewables Inc. Meikle Wind Tumbler Ridge wind 117MW 327GWh/year

Refactoring this to match the 185MWh, that's a multiplier of 1.58, making it 516GWh/year.
Site C is 5100GWh/year, so you actually need 9.8 wind farms * 5 replacements * 400M = $19.6B

[The Green Barbarian]

You are still living I the past.

And you are living in a present where you can't do math.

Solar dropped in price last year by about 20% after installation That includes labour which has not fallen.

Who cares.

But, I am still waiting for an explanation of now site C power costing upwards of 100.

100 what?

Site C would be among the most cost-effective resource options for BC Hydro ratepayers at a cost per megawatt hour of $83. After an upfront capital cost of $7.9 billion, Site C would be inexpensive to operate and would have a long life of more than a 100 years.

https://www.bchydro.com/news/press_cent ... roval.html

Yet again let me reiterate site C is only getting more expensive.

Only because that idiot Horgan has delayed the project.

. Meanwhile solar and wind continue to drop in price.

And will still be more expensive than hydro. By a billion miles.

Both are facts that you cannot get away from.
In fact those two points are really not in dispute. .

I looked it up, and these *bleep* "facts" are just lies being spread by the Desmog loser gang. You've chosen to buy into the lies. As I've said before, this is a mental illness, and so there is no point continuing to debate with you. All those out there who aren't mentally ill - do your own due diligence. But know that Desmog is funded by special interests too. It's all one big manipulation and total lies from the "no" side.

[The Green Barbarian]

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/hydro/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/2010q3/cpc_rfp_process_report.pdf

Finavera Renewables Inc. Meikle Wind Tumbler Ridge wind 117MW 327GWh/year

Refactoring this to match the 185MWh, that's a multiplier of 1.58, making it 516GWh/year.
Site C is 5100GWh/year, so you actually need 9.8 wind farms * 5 replacements * 400M = $19.6B

And as we've seen these wind farms usually produce a fraction of what the output is they claim they will produce, because you know what? A lot of times there is no wind. And the turbines never last nearly as long as the "expected" time. Wind farms are a total scam. A bird-blending taxpayer-money-wasting scam.

[HoboJo]

So, Hydro is NOT green technology? Is that what the NO side is saying?

We oughtn't' mine uranium because 'mining' but lithium, cadmium, and nickle mines are A.O.K?

(Canadian shield is a good place for nuclear, BC is certainly NOT)

We should play to our strengths. Wind could certainly be a provider and Hydro is sooo such a good backup.

Also, I don't give a flying fig. I'll burn diesel fuel in inefficient 'crappy tire' gensets before I'll have a problem that effects me.

Breath deep.

[The Green Barbarian]

Does it or does it not say that solar and wind will be cheaper.
.

no, it definitely does not say that. And as I said before, no mention of solar. Even the BCUC people couldn't bring themselves to mention just how stupid it would be to invest in solar panels in BC.

[The Green Barbarian]

Guys.. Math and technology do not support your argument. .

yes, math and technology does support Site C. All day long.

[The Green Barbarian]

China stopped construction of 120 coal fired plants as too expensive and switched to solar. Solar and wind are the real world now.

No, they're not. China is shutting coal plants and switching to nuclear. The Chinese are smart enough to know that wind and solar are not only stupid and total wastes of money, they also hardly generate any power. And you can't run one of the largest industrialized economies in the world on stupid wind turbines and crappy solar panels. You need steady sold power sources, and nuclear provides that, wind and solar don't.

https://www.bchydro.com/news/press_cent ... roval.html

[HoboJo]

Not disagreeing on this very particular point with you particularly, but China does not have much Uranium whithin it's as yet to be expanded borders.

Most Uranium reserve honours goes to Kazakhstan. Canada falls into third place after Australia unless you believe that Russia doesn't control Kazakhstan.

We oughtn't' mine uranium because 'mining' but lithium, cadmium, and nickle mines are A.O.K?

I have nothing against nuclear power as a backup but it does suffer from some of the same start/stop problems that coal does.

Build the F damn!

(Also rainbow trout are tasty)

[The Green Barbarian]

Not disagreeing on this very particular point with you particularly, but China does not have much Uranium whithin it's as yet to be expanded borders.

Yup. Good thing Canada does though. Check out a local uranium company here in Kelowna called Fission. Have a look at who one of their biggest investors are. (Hint - they may be Chinese). Wonder why that is?

[LordEd]

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/hydro/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/2010q3/cpc_rfp_process_report.pdf

Finavera Renewables Inc. Meikle Wind Tumbler Ridge wind 117MW 327GWh/year

Refactoring this to match the 185MWh, that's a multiplier of 1.58, making it 516GWh/year.
Site C is 5100GWh/year, so you actually need 9.8 wind farms * 5 replacements * 400M = $19.6B

And as we've seen these wind farms usually produce a fraction of what the output is they claim they will produce, because you know what? A lot of times there is no wind.

117MW * 24h/day*365 days = 1024GWh theoretical. Since they are anticipating 372GWh, its divide by approx 3.

[butcher99]

Which part of the real world am I ignoring? The part where solar and wind price continues to fall? The part where Tuscon just signed a contract for solar power (remember wind is cheaper and works better in BC) at 4.3 kw after all subsidies are removed?

Your silly windy solar line is just that. It is a meaningless sentence you continue to post. Just what do you want? A jurisdiction where it is only wind and solar? Why? BC has tons of dams to provide power backup.
BC is an example. We have wind power and dams. Wind power 85% of the time and the dams for when the wind does not blow. Mix in solar which is now cheaper than site C and you have almost 24 hour a day power. There is power 24/7.

Silly? Really?
Please explain exactly how it's silly, to ask you to prove that the end product of solar or wind is cheaper than hydro, which is what you've been saying for eons now. You're simply being asked to prove your statement.

You and your fellow NO team are the ones promoting solar/wind as cheaper, so prove your point with a real world example, as opposed to simply throwing out vague terms, and reminding us how the cost of solar panels has come down.

Just because you are deflecting as usual by calling the question silly and meaningless doesn't make it so.

We can provide you ample proof of jurisdictions where solar/wind has shown to cost way more, and creates terrible problems with cost and brownouts.

You say solar is cheaper, so prove your point by providing a real world working example, in some jurisdiction anywhere in the world.

In the world of debate people who make statements as fact, are required to prove said statements, something I still haven't seen anyone on your side do. You've all resorted to either ignoring the question or calling it irrelevant, silly, or whatever.

It's about as irrelevant as a car salesman, telling potential buyers you can purchase a Ferrari for fifty bucks, then when asked to prove it, saying that's irrelevant and not necessary, while all along the buyers know full well a Ferrari costs six figures. Obviously they want the guy to prove it.

Probably the guy was talking about a poster of a Ferrari.

Maybe the NO team is referring to a picture of a solar panel farm being cheaper than Site C.

I explained why it is meaningless. Your inability to comprehend is not my problem

Watch the video link I sent. It goes into great detail why solar is cheap and getting cheaper. It will answer all your questions.
I not only quoted from it I gave you the link in an earlier message.

[butcher99]

Site c is 1100MW, so closer to 6. And they last for 20-25 years so multiply by 5 again for the same lifespan.


$400M* 30 = 12B. That doesn't factor 24/7 power output either.

maximum the average is posted as half that.

[butcher99]

China stopped construction of 120 coal fired plants as too expensive and switched to solar. Solar and wind are the real world now.

No, they're not. China is shutting coal plants and switching to nuclear. The Chinese are smart enough to know that wind and solar are not only stupid and total wastes of money, they also hardly generate any power. And you can't run one of the largest industrialized economies in the world on stupid wind turbines and crappy solar panels. You need steady sold power sources, and nuclear provides that, wind and solar don't.

https://www.bchydro.com/news/press_cent ... roval.html

china like everyone else is having nuclear power plant problems in construction. You will notice a lot of solar and wind in the graphs here.
The best solution is a mix. Not just pile on more extra expensive site C

https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas- ... or-energy/

[HoboJo]

butcher99 is pro mining but against piling a few rocks into a gorge.

+10 greenpoints
-30 conscious thought