Site C

[Donald G]

To Maple Leaf ...

Interesting article but definitely one sided;

1) Is one of the attractions of hydro power not to reduce carbon emissions of carboniferous production fuels ??
2) Multiplying the THEORETICAL financial loss of $70.00 per megawat times the THEORETICAL output of 1,100 megawats and calling that the yearly loss is in no way a financially sound calculation.

Do you have anything a bit more balanced (realistic) to offer ??

[maple leaf]

To Maple Leaf ...

Interesting article but definitely one sided;

1) Is one of the attractions of hydro power not to reduce carbon emissions of carboniferous production fuels ??
2) Multiplying the THEORETICAL financial loss of $70.00 per megawat times the THEORETICAL output of 1,100 megawats and calling that the yearly loss is in no way a financially sound calculation.

Do you have anything a bit more balanced (realistic) to offer ??

The government refuses to let the BC utilities commission do it's job.

[Donald G]

Are you aware that a one time Social Credit Premier of BC, who was the son of a long term Social Credit Premier of BC a few years back chaired a year long study to determine the feasibility of the BC Hydro plans for the future that involved input from a large number of experts in their respective fields and access to all BC Hydro material ??

Your conclusion is based on what studies ?? And by who ??

[maple leaf]

There was a Federal environmental assessment done,which does not examine the economical viability and need ,they referred it to be examined by the independent BC utilities commission that should be looking at it, not an inside Ex Social Credit Premier.Or the likes of KPMG,who donate thousands to the Liberal party.

Federal panel wants B.C. Utility Commission’s take on Site C dam
JUSTINE HUNTER
VICTORIA — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jan. 07, 2014 10:26PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 07, 2014 10:29PM EST


The B.C. government has shielded its Site C dam proposal from scrutiny by an independent regulator, but a federal joint review panel is drawing attention to what might be missed as a result.

In a letter to the B.C. Utilities Commission, Ottawa’s environmental review panel has asked for a submission about what the commission’s regulatory review would have looked like, had the province not declared the $8-billion project exempt from the BCUC’s authority.



“What’s missing in the joint review panel process is whether or not the development of the Site dam actually makes economic and logistical sense for the B.C. Hydro energy grid,” he said in an interview. “That’s the expertise of the BCUC.”

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency began public hearings on the dam project in December and will wrap up those sessions on Jan. 23. The review has already generated tens of thousands of pages of documents, and the agency will complete its inquiries and start writing the report by Feb. 3. Its recommendations will be presented to federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq by late April. If she finds the project would cause significant adverse effects, she will take the matter to cabinet for a final decision.

Kristine Bienert, acting director of policy planning for the BCUC, said the regulator will comply with the agency’s request. “It’s not completely unusual for us to provide information, what we do is unique.”

B.C. Hydro has proposed a third hydroelectric dam on the Peace River near Fort St. John to meet future energy demand. The provincial government decided to avoid a BCUC review, which would have probed whether the Crown corporation’s budget projections are accurate, and whether the megaproject is required.

An earlier incarnation of Site C was reviewed by the BCUC in the early 1980s. After 18 months of public hearings, the utilities commission recommended it be deferred. “The commission is not satisfied that Hydro has demonstrated that a 1983 construction start-up date is justified … or that it is preferable to all other sources [of power].”


The federal review process gives Ottawa greater control over the development, but the B.C. government has made it clear it wants the project to go ahead, in part to help support the development of a liquefied natural gas industry. But organizations representing B.C. Hydro’s ratepayers have expressed concern that the project will not be built on budget, and that it will drive up rates unnecessarily.

In a Dec. 20 letter to Erica Hamilton, commission secretary for the BCUC, the lawyer for the joint review panel asks for an outline of what topics the regulator would have expected to cover, and how long it would take. Lawyer Brian Wallace also asked for details about the resources the BCUC would have invested in its own hearings, and about its powers to compel witnesses to submit to cross-examination.

Mr. Quail said he can’t speculate on the agency’s reasons, but suggested the panel may be responding to assertions that their process is inadequate and they may seek to cover some of the territory that the commission would have reviewed.

Follow Justine Hunter on Twitter: @justine_hunter

[twobits]

Donald and Hassel, Legacy projects such as dams, big bridges, airports etc are favored by politicians because they can have their names put on them. This makes the project a little bit more suspect, how badly does Cowdy Custard want his name on the bridge, or dam?
Legacy projects must always be looked at a little more carefully because of this.

Do you seriously think the naming of a project has any bearing whatsoever of the project coming to fruition? If you do, you have better meds than I. Any thinking person would realize this is a good investment in BC's future and they wouldn't care less if it was called the "I Think" dam as long as the dam damn is built.
What you are supplying here is just more of the same rhetoric and message that Dix put forward with a 15 point lead in the polls.
And where is he now? I hope pushing a shopping cart somewhere.

I hope Horgan keeps chirping like he is about cancelling the project. He'll then have his own shopping cart to push beside Dixs' and British Colombian's will be spared NDP policies for at least another 4 years.

[Donald G]

To Maple Leaf ...

Lets see now. According to the information you posted the Commission recommendation that the "1983 start up date be delayed". Do you not think that a delay of 32 years might be sufficient ?? Or would you like to see it delayed another 33 years until the lack of hydro becomes critical and the costs of construction completely prohibitive ??

Or should we just keep right on burning coal, gas, oil, wood and other carboniferous sources of energy and forget all about clean and renewable hydro electric from water as it makes its never ending way from inland rainfall to the ocean ??

[Smurf]

Just maybe it should have been built back in 1983.

It would have been unbelievably cheaper.

We would not have had any need for those ridiculously expensive IPPs that we are going to be paying for, for years to come. We can't even sell the power without taking a huge loss.

We could have been selling cheap "clean" power to Alberta and the US and it would be long ago paid for. Look at Manitoba's record and they are proceeding as I write to continue to build and make huge profits.

We would have had a solid, reliable, base on which to build other sources of power.

We would probably have cheaper rates similar to Manitoba. Here is a rate comparison. Follow down the charts to see how the differential grows.

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affa ... ntial_1000

Maybe, just maybe, we missed the boat a long time ago as we used to be a leader and we have certainly let that slip at a cost to us all.

[maple leaf]

To Maple Leaf ...

Lets see now. According to the information you posted the Commission recommendation that the "1983 start up date be delayed". Do you not think that a delay of 32 years might be sufficient ?? Or would you like to see it delayed another 33 years until the lack of hydro becomes critical and the costs of construction completely prohibitive ??

Or should we just keep right on burning coal, gas, oil, wood and other carboniferous sources of energy and forget all about clean and renewable hydro electric from water as it makes its never ending way from inland rainfall to the ocean ??

All I want is for the government to allow an independent commission to examine the viability of building this project,to determine if in fact it is needed at all ,to determine if it makes economical sense in that it will be profitable and a benefit to BC residence.Compared to other options to meet our electrical needs.Geo Thermal energy plants are used around the world,there are many suitable places in BC to build such a plant.A Geo Thermal plant can be built for a fraction of the 9 + billion Christy Clark wants to spend on Site C .A Geo Thermal plant takes up a fraction of a footprint compared to site C. A Geo Thermal plant can produce as much electricity as site C,and at a comparable cost.Geothermal Plants can be built faster than it will take to build site C and can be built when and if the need is there.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ ... story.html

http://geo-energy.org/reports/Values%20 ... 0Final.pdf

http://www.cangea.ca/bc-geothermal-reso ... -maps.html

[maple leaf]

Just maybe it should have been built back in 1983.

It would have been unbelievably cheaper.

We would not have had any need for those ridiculously expensive IPPs that we are going to be paying for, for years to come. We can't even sell the power without taking a huge loss.

We could have been selling cheap "clean" power to Alberta and the US and it would be long ago paid for. Look at Manitoba's record and they are proceeding as I write to continue to build and make huge profits.

We would have had a solid, reliable, base on which to build other sources of power.

We would probably have cheaper rates similar to Manitoba. Here is a rate comparison. Follow down the charts to see how the differential grows.

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affa ... ntial_1000

Maybe, just maybe, we missed the boat a long time ago as we used to be a leader and we have certainly let that slip at a cost to us all.

The retired head of the Association of Major Power Users of BC, Dan Potts,disagrees with you that site C will bring cheaper rates to BC ,but actually will cost rate payers and loose money.He is not the only one who thinks so,there are many people who are saying the same kinds of things,that this dam is not needed.It is irresponsible for this government to press ahead without showing otherwise ,which they have not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHOxwqr0lJE

[Donald G]

To Maple Leaf ...

After reading the three threads that you posted I see nothing but theories that have never yet tested out successfully in B.C.

WADR there is a huge gap between what those who support harnessing geothermal energy as a means of producing electrical energy say can be done and what has actually been accomplished to date.

I am inclined to stick with the tried and true methods of producing hydro and significantly reducing carbon emissions at the same time. I am also inclined to encourage our Government to "get on with it" instead of sitting around talking about it for another 33 years.

[maple leaf]

To Maple Leaf ...

After reading the three threads that you posted I see nothing but theories that have never yet tested out successfully in B.C.

WADR there is a huge gap between what those who support harnessing geothermal energy as a means of producing electrical energy say can be done and what has actually been accomplished to date.

I am inclined to stick with the tried and true methods of producing hydro and significantly reducing carbon emissions at the same time. I am also inclined to encourage our Government to "get on with it" instead of sitting around talking about it for another 33 years.

Geothermal is not a theory,but is a tried and true method used to produce energy.Geothermal plants are used around the world to meet energy needs.BC is just stuck in the 1950's ,building cumbersome dams ,destroying thousands of acres of usable land .Geothermal is forward thinking and is the way of the future .Geothermal can be built faster,cheaper,on a fraction of the footprint of a dam,produce electricity at a comparable rate,and is as clean as your dam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... r_stations

http://geo-energy.org/geo_basics_environment.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjpp2MQffnw

[Smurf]

Maple Leaf I don't believe I said anywhere that site C will bring cheaper rates. I said had we built it the last time it was turned down we would probably have much cheaper power now similar to what Manitoba has. They have basically stayed on course and have surged ahead of us which is a real shame as we were once the system to be envied, sadly no longer. I believe that and I strongly believe we are looking at that scenario again now. I was involved with building plants for decades and have followed the industry for years. My opinion is that there is no time like the present to build, especially with our neighbours looking for clean, inexpensive alternatives. This cannot be supplied with wind, solar or most if any alternative sources and give a stable product that can be sold. What better way than to build now, sell the power to at last pay for a majority of the cost, then as we need it, it will be here at little or no expense. As I said It is a proven scenario. The one thing we do know is that with the province growing the way it is we will need more supply in the future. There is no time cheaper to build it than now.

[alfred2]

what use able land have you been there to take a look at the land, scrub land.

[maple leaf]

Maple Leaf I don't believe I said anywhere that site C will bring cheaper rates. I said had we built it the last time it was turned down we would probably have much cheaper power now similar to what Manitoba has. They have basically stayed on course and have surged ahead of us which is a real shame as we were once the system to be envied, sadly no longer. I believe that and I strongly believe we are looking at that scenario again now. I was involved with building plants for decades and have followed the industry for years. My opinion is that there is no time like the present to build, especially with our neighbours looking for clean, inexpensive alternatives. This cannot be supplied with wind, solar or most if any alternative sources and give a stable product that can be sold. What better way than to build now, sell the power to at last pay for a majority of the cost, then as we need it, it will be here at little or no expense. As I said It is a proven scenario. The one thing we do know is that with the province growing the way it is we will need more supply in the future. There is no time cheaper to build it than now.

Sorry Smurf,for misunderstanding what you were saying there.But the project was deemed unneeded at that time and would if allowed to have an independent analysis most likely be found the same now.Even MLA Bill Bennet is not so sure .I disagree that our needs can not be met by other means and my opinion is echoed by many people in the industry .Wind power by itself ,no,Solar by its self,no,but combined with Geothermal and upgrades projects on existing dams it can be met without Site C.

[maple leaf]

what use able land have you been there to take a look at the land, scrub land.

Yes ,I took a trip there last summer to have a look for myself.Where I stood to take the picture .I looked over the bank and there was a survey stake pounded into the ground .On the side was written High water Mark.