Site C

[alanjh595]

The chances of that happening are about the same as you winning the lottery without first buying a ticket.

That has got to be the second worse analogy/comparision I have ever seen.

[hobbyguy]

Cf - like it or not you can not speak about "humanity" without concerning yourself with the cost of living - especially for the working poor.

That means that you have to look for the lowest rate cost option. Site C is that, before you even get to the silly notion of cancelling it, which is just NDP looney wing rubbish.

The so called alternative that the BCUC came up with is garbage and will cost the working poor a bundle! It pretty much mirrors the nonsense approach that Ontario took, which is now costing $45 billion in subsidies so that folks don't freeze in the winter. TOU billing whacks the working poor the hardest of any societal group. Yuck. Industrial Curtailment means fewer good jobs to aspire to.

No socially responsible person would ever consider such regressive tripe.

You can not say that jacking the rates of the working poor 10% by cancelling site C, and then whacking them another 40% (the typical TOU premium) is being socially responsible. It will take food out of their children's mouths and create more child poverty problems.

You can not say that by instituting Industrial Curtailment and thus taking away some jobs and meaning fewer jobs will be created in the future that you are being socially responsible.

I advocate for site C largely out of understanding that the so called "options" are a disaster for the average folks, a disaster for the poor working folks, and a disaster for seniors. I am fortunate, I can afford to adjust to higher rates, but many are not. I can not stomach the energy poverty that has been induced in all of the grid jurisdictions that have gone with the so called option that the BCUC and so called environmentalists like the phony George Heyman propose. The options do not work in the real world for real people!

That's what matters, real people, not some grinning fool collecting a fat salary for pretending to be a leader, or some lunatic virtue signaler doing the same. I could care less if they were members of the Rhinoceros party but did the right things. Cancelling site C will be a real disaster for the people very people the NDP profess to care about. It just isn't right. The biggest beneficiaries will be the fat cat leeches that own IPPs. Well to heck with those shysters and there political donations to the NDP and the Greens!

For regular folks in the real world site C is a guarantee of affordable electricity for the future. That's what is important!

[Cactusflower]

^^I don't believe that Site C is a guarantee of affordable electricity for the future. BC Hydro has not been able to prove that. The BCUC is not through with their investigation. There is more to come.

[alanjh595]

^^I don't believe that Site C is a guarantee of affordable electricity for the future. BC Hydro has not been able to prove that. The BCUC is not through with their investigation. There is more to come.

The BCUC is finished. That is why the title on their document is: "Final Report".

[Merry]

I'm still not convinced that the members of the BCUC have the right qualifications to truly judge whether or not Site C should proceed.

[alanjh595]

I'm still not convinced that the members of the BCUC have the right qualifications to truly judge whether or not Site C should proceed.

they have not judged anything. All the did is provide the evidence from their investigation. It is still up to the (powers-that-be today) to make the final decision.

[mikest2]

The BCUC were held to a very narrow view report of Site C by the NDP Government

Immediately refer the Site C dam construction project to the B.C. Utilities Commission on the question of economic viability and consequences to British Columbians in the context of the current supply and demand conditions prevailing in the B.C. market.

There is no room in that statement to consider the future, it is readily apparent the the NDP either don't want the dam, or don't want to consider the future, or as I believe.............both.

[flamingfingers]

Merry - Have a look at the bios of the commissionaires of the BCUC and realize they can call on any and every person to give their expert opinion on any and every subject. I trust the BCUC to be nonpartisan and give an unbiased judgment.

http://www.bcuc.com/about/commissioners ... phies.html

[flamingfingers]

Of interest as well:

Replying to @commonsbc @cc_larochelle @Norm_Farrell
Certainly questions have been raised about financial management and it's been suggested that the Hydro board directors who signed off on the dam should be investigated. And unstable geology fast becomes a financial concern, not just a safety one. It's responsible for overruns.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like Direct message
Norm Farrell Retweeted

CommonsBC‏
@commonsbc
1h1 hour ago
More
Replying to @cc_larochelle @Norm_Farrell
They imagine they can beat nature? But the geology was always unstable - and that's part of the reason why the BC Liberal gov't wrote legislation to exempt Site C from review by the BCUC, which had rejected Site C in the past! The level of mismgmt here verges may be criminal.

[Urbane]

^^ "Questions have been raised . . ." "It's been suggested . . ." Typical of the blogger you're quoting.

[flamingfingers]

^'Suggestions often lead to answers. These 'suggestions' require answers.

[hobbyguy]

^^ what else do you expect from the math challenged fact free zone that Norm operates in? Just conspiracy theories and tripe as usual.

I have yet to see Norm ever make a fact based comment. It is always "he said, she said" and a'the NDP are wunnerful". But that's what gets paid for. To be an NDP shill.

I get tried of folks who constantly quote obvious shills and try to pass it off as relevant and/or important. It isn't.

What matters is that site C is a good project, and none of the so called problems being ginned up by NDP shills amount to anything that can not be overcome. The only problem is thick headed NDP ideologues and loonies who believe that ideology and political calculations should Trump facts.

[hobbyguy]

^'Suggestions often lead to answers. These 'suggestions' require answers.

Only in the la-la land of conspiracy theory. NDP conspiracy theory.

Come on FF, try a fact based, real world challenge:

Please post a link to a windy=solar non synchronous generation grid jurisdiction that had reliable, abundant, renewable and affordable electricity without subsidies.

Perhaps Norm can help you? Why don't you ask him?

[Cactusflower]

^^ what else do you expect from the math challenged fact free zone that Norm operates in? Just conspiracy theories and tripe as usual.

I have yet to see Norm ever make a fact based comment. It is always "he said, she said" and a'the NDP are wunnerful". But that's what gets paid for. To be an NDP shill.

I get tried of folks who constantly quote obvious shills and try to pass it off as relevant and/or important. It isn't.

What matters is that site C is a good project, and none of the so called problems being ginned up by NDP shills amount to anything that can not be overcome. The only problem is thick headed NDP ideologues and loonies who believe that ideology and political calculations should Trump facts.

"Trump facts"......was that what's known as a Freudian slip?
Seriously though, it appears that every time someone comes up with an appropriate challenge to your 'fact based comments', they are immediately called NDP shills. Not everyone with an opinion on the Site C dam is an NDP shill, or a shill for anyone else for that matter. Some actually speak from their own experiences, but take your research seriously, too. Why can't you offer them the same consideration?

[The Green Barbarian]

Seriously though, it appears that every time someone comes up with an appropriate challenge to your 'fact based comments', they are immediately called NDP shills.?

Appropriate challenge? This has literally never happened. Ever.