Site C

[Urbane]

No need for Site C . . . LOL! Hey, look over there!

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – It was likely just a matter of time until this happened. The power utility says between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. yesterday, consumption peaked at 10,126 megawatts. That breaks the old record from November 29th, 2006 of 10,113 megawatts during the same hour period. It’s blaming the usage on the cold weather.
Full article: http://www.news1130.com/2017/01/04/bc-h ... ty-demand/

[maryjane48]

doesnt mean anything when bc hydro themselves said we wont need it for 40 years . consuption is going down . plus the scoc still will have say . be interesting to see what they rule in regards to the 2 native bands directly affected who never were approach for negotianons . so far the scoc has ruled in favour of first nations

[w84u2]

Two different issues. BC still needs the dam and the jobs and the power when it is completed.

[flamingfingers]

No need for Site C . . . LOL! Hey, look over there!

VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) – It was likely just a matter of time until this happened. The power utility says between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. yesterday, consumption peaked at 10,126 megawatts. That breaks the old record from November 29th, 2006 of 10,113 megawatts during the same hour period. It’s blaming the usage on the cold weather.
Full article: http://www.news1130.com/2017/01/04/bc-h ... ty-demand/

Oh, Goodie!!! they finally had a domestic use for all the IPP power they have been forced to buy and then turn around and sell it for 1/3 of the cost!! A whole amount of 13 megawatts!! MY, MY, that certainly justifies the $9 BILLION (and half again) cost for Site C!!

Pathetic.

[maryjane48]

Two different issues. BC still needs the dam and the jobs and the power when it is completed.

you cant prove that when bc hydro says demand going down

[Urbane]

you cant prove that when bc hydro says demand going down

You can't predict the future by simply looking back. You need to look ahead and consider what that future will look like. Electric vehicles and population growth are two huge factors that will increase our energy needs.

[maryjane48]

which can and will be mitigated by other ways than a dam . whats your prediction for what scoc says and will you accept thier ruling ? i will

[Urbane]

which can and will be mitigated by other ways than a dam . whats your prediction for what scoc says and will you accept thier ruling ? i will

The SCOC is a wildcard but I don't foresee a ruling that would cancel the Site C project. The court might insist on more "consultation" but that word is often misinterpreted. While I realize that consultation has to be meaningful it doesn't mean that those being consulted have a veto.

[Smurf]

maryjane48 wrote:

which can and will be mitigated by other ways than a dam . whats your prediction for what scoc says and will you accept thier ruling ? i will

Please tell us what those other ways are, it has already been proven in this thread by facts that current solar and wind will not work. Besides the fact that the highs come at night and there is no sun. Whether it is needed 24/7/365 is not important unless everyone is prepared to accept rolling blackouts during peak periods. Seeing as that is usually when it is cold out I'm sure no one would be bothered if they had no heat. Please think about real life in BC instead of trying to relate to somewhere like Arizona or wherever. On top of that take a real look at the cost of power in the areas that are using other ways. In the end BC will be extremely happy we have site C to fall back on.

[Glacier]

Site C is way too controversial and expensive. I think we should go with Site D instead. Flood right up to the Rocky Mountains, and create millions of green jobs with all the electricity. win-win.

[The Green Barbarian]

which can and will be mitigated by other ways than a dam .

like what? Coal-fired plants? What the hell are you talking about?

[Urbane]

like what? Coal-fired plants? What the hell are you talking about?

Nuclear but we all know how that would go over. The alternatives proposed on here (e.g. buying our power from Washington State in the future) won't cut it.

[hobbyguy]

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/regulatory-planning-documents/integrated-resource-plans/current-plan/irp-summary.pdf

Peak capacity is a key issue. Peak demand is indeed a difficult thing to fully forecast.

When you consider the conservation efforts that have been made, everything from LED bulbs to high efficiency appliances, better insulation standards etc., it is remarkable that BC hit a new peak demand record.

Over the period of a year, demand fluctuates significantly, but you need power (like now with the cold weather) - it needs to be there (otherwise you get brownouts etc.). That means that you need considerably more total demand capacity that when annualized, will look at first glance to be well in excess of annual sales.

The NDP and others choosing to oppose site C are playing on the fact that most of the public do not think about that peak demand/capacity issue. They therefore can fall prey to political chicanery by the NDP that can truthfully show that BC Hydro can annually produce much more power than BC consumes in total over a year, while ignoring peak capacity.

The problem with that is that lack of electricity during peak demand is not an inconvenience, it can even threaten lives.

IF, for example, we exceed the peak capacity of our water supply system, then the short term effect is to have watering restrictions. A brown lawn is not a critical thing.

IF, however, we exceed the peak capacity of the electrical supply system, it is most likely to result in serious harm to people's lives and/or livelihoods. If we did not have enough electricity to meet the peak demand during the recent period (with its new record), then people would experience lack of heat or industries would have been required to shut down. Lack of heat in these cold temperatures can be life threatening, and shutting down industries would result in no pay cheques. Neither of those are acceptable, and running to close to average demand when a peak record occurs could result in both.

In the future, as EVs penetrate further into the automotive market, we can expect peak demand surges that are even heavier. People come home from work, plug in their Prius Prime, and fire up the stove, the lights, the heating, the coffee maker, the TV etc. etc. all around the same time.

That's where the "green" political chicanery peddled by some self-serving politicians falls apart. I find it annoying because they are deliberately ignoring the reality of the situation.

[maryjane48]

which can and will be mitigated by other ways than a dam . whats your prediction for what scoc says and will you accept thier ruling ? i will

The SCOC is a wildcard but I don't foresee a ruling that would cancel the Site C project. The court might insist on more "consultation" but that word is often misinterpreted. While I realize that consultation has to be meaningful it doesn't mean that those being consulted have a veto.

all good points , but did you read ruling on muskrat fall ? the hydro company there said no risk of mercury poison . the scoc said your full of it . now that hydro company has to pay awhole lot more and for the life of the dam .


now in bc the main issue for the 2 bands are burial grounds flooded and hunting area . and they were never consulted in a meaning full way

[Gypsylady]

Explain meaning full way. Hunting grounds are just a way of complaining, how many hunt for food now ?