47395
45615

Site C

Re: Site C

Postby Cactusflower » Nov 10th, 2017, 11:58 am

alanjh595 wrote:
Cactusflower wrote:https://www.desmog.ca/2017/11/03/why-british-columbians-should-demand-public-inquiry-site-c-dam?utm_source=DeSmog+Canada+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a5239e04af-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_10_25&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f6a05fddb8-a5239e04af-103246003

This public inquiry could probably be completed over the winter when most of the workforce is laid off anyway.


Dam builders don't get laid off in the winter time.


https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/six ... id-site-c/
Emphasis on the more winter layoffs to come.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1254
Likes: 578 posts
Liked in: 261 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Cactusflower » Nov 10th, 2017, 12:13 pm

hobbyguy wrote:^^ Nimbys.

No facts. Lots of conjecture. Even John Horgan and Michelle Mungall told the BCUC to use BC Hydro's forecasts.

Found that magic place where grid wind and solar work economically in the real world yet?


Found that magic place where BC Hydro proves that our electricity rates won't skyrocket by the time the Site C dam comes on-stream (if and when it ever does)?

And what was your point in telling me that Horgan and Mungall told the BCUC to use BC Hydro's forecasts? I don't march to the NDP drum either.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1254
Likes: 578 posts
Liked in: 261 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Site C

Postby alanjh595 » Nov 10th, 2017, 12:29 pm

60 specialized workers, who's work is dependant upon the temperature (and they knew it from day #1), and will be coming back after freeze. Out of 1700+ that are working around the clock. Those 60 are not from the area and have looked forward to going home since they started.

Capture.JPG

Smurf likes this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 744
Likes: 221 posts
Liked in: 412 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 10th, 2017, 12:54 pm

CF - you from Babylon?

You can not factually answer the challenge as to economically viable alternatives.

Gee, the doofus and their supporters said WAC Bennett couldn't justify the costs of building up BC Hydro's dam system. The doofus NDP tried to tell WAC that the electricity would be too expensive.

History shows that WAC Bennett was right. Hydroelectric electricity is the basis of all affordable renewable energy in Canada. The three lowest rate provinces? Quebec - massive hydroelectric development that the fact challenged far left said was "too expensive" - but had no viable alternative.

Quebec has been a laggard re stupid solar and wind - guess what? Lowest rates in Canada! Manitoba has the second lowest rates in Canada, based on hydroelectric development. The NDP government in Manitoba saw Keeyask as the best and lowest rate option and started construction. The PC party took over, ran into a few construction sangs that pushed the budget up, but decided to carry on because hydroelectric is by far the best option. BC has the third lowest rates in Canada (we would probably have the second lowest if it wasn't for the stupid expensive IPP scammers).

Site C allows BC Hydro to terminate every IPP contract as it comes up for renewal - guess what? That will remove upward pressure on rates!

It is so simple in the real world CF, but partisan eyes and phony plastic kayak virtue signalers don't see to see the real world.

Site C is the way forward for real people, the working people of BC that actually do something. Only in the land of NDP politics where nobody ever actually accomplishes anything is there any question.
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

2 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6564
Likes: 1661 posts
Liked in: 5548 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Cactusflower » Nov 10th, 2017, 1:10 pm

hobbyguy wrote:CF - you from Babylon?

You can not factually answer the challenge as to economically viable alternatives.

Gee, the doofus and their supporters said WAC Bennett couldn't justify the costs of building up BC Hydro's dam system. The doofus NDP tried to tell WAC that the electricity would be too expensive.

History shows that WAC Bennett was right. Hydroelectric electricity is the basis of all affordable renewable energy in Canada. The three lowest rate provinces? Quebec - massive hydroelectric development that the fact challenged far left said was "too expensive" - but had no viable alternative.

Quebec has been a laggard re stupid solar and wind - guess what? Lowest rates in Canada! Manitoba has the second lowest rates in Canada, based on hydroelectric development. The NDP government in Manitoba saw Keeyask as the best and lowest rate option and started construction. The PC party took over, ran into a few construction sangs that pushed the budget up, but decided to carry on because hydroelectric is by far the best option. BC has the third lowest rates in Canada (we would probably have the second lowest if it wasn't for the stupid expensive IPP scammers).

Site C allows BC Hydro to terminate every IPP contract as it comes up for renewal - guess what? That will remove upward pressure on rates!

It is so simple in the real world CF, but partisan eyes and phony plastic kayak virtue signalers don't see to see the real world.

Site C is the way forward for real people, the working people of BC that actually do something. Only in the land of NDP politics where nobody ever actually accomplishes anything is there any question.


WAC Bennett was right; Christy Clark was wrong. And you still haven't answered my challenge either. All I read is "Ontario did this, Quebec did that, Manitoba did something else." That's not a valid response; that's a deflection. If I bring up some info from CA, or Texas, or Mexico, or anywhere else that alternative renewable energy is successful, I get called out by you and every one of your Myna birds.

All I'm asking for is some proof that Hydro rates are going to be cheaper than alternatives when or if Site C is completed.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1254
Likes: 578 posts
Liked in: 261 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 10th, 2017, 1:15 pm

Cactusflower wrote:
hobbyguy wrote:^^ 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? :biggrin:
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?


IF you actually bother to look, none of my arguments are based on anything partisan. My links are to audited financial documents, university studies (like MIT), credible business websites (like Bloomberg), credible news organizations (der Spiegel, Australian Broadcasting, Globe and Mail, et al), credible governent sites like the US Dept. of Indian Affairs etc.. You won't find me relying on obviously biased site like Desmog and the Fraser Institute or silly tweets from the likes of Norm nor quotes from politicians for any of the factual back up to my arguments.

"Trump" was an intended pun, the NDP ran a fact challenged incoherent populist Trumpian campaign and their foolish, incoherent and reckless* populist applications of governance are entirely Trumpian. Populism and the spoils of ignorance. The NDP are behaving like they won a mandate from the people of BC. They did not. The NDP usurped government through a hypocritical and sleazy backroom deal with Andrew Weaver who lied to the electorate during the election.

The real world facts are being obfuscated by the incompetent NDP who constantly have to admit that they don't know what they are doing, have no plan, have no expertise, by referring everything to for "review" and "study" and to a quango of their cronies.

The meritocracy of ideas and outcomes is not in the NDP lexicon. The NDP are against site C because of political calculatiosn and welcoming the fact challenged conspiracy theorists into their so called party.

There is no real world factual argument against site C. Just the Magpie chattering of bloviating partisan bloggers and politicians.
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

3 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6564
Likes: 1661 posts
Liked in: 5548 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 10th, 2017, 1:16 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Nov 10th, 2017, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Off topic
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6564
Likes: 1661 posts
Liked in: 5548 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Cactusflower » Nov 10th, 2017, 1:26 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Nov 10th, 2017, 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Response to off topic post.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1254
Likes: 578 posts
Liked in: 261 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Site C

Postby The Green Barbarian » Nov 10th, 2017, 1:38 pm

Cactusflower wrote:
WAC Bennett was right; Christy Clark was wrong.


actually, both of them were right, and the brainless NDP and Greens are wrong.
Not sure why I bother with a signature as it seems to just randomly disappear on a regular basis. Especially if it offends liberal snowflakes.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 24066
Likes: 9279 posts
Liked in: 11099 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Site C

Postby Smurf » Nov 10th, 2017, 1:58 pm

Cactusflower wrote:

WAC Bennett was right; Christy Clark was wrong.


Any proof LOL!
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 8740
Likes: 12151 posts
Liked in: 4485 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: Site C

Postby Cactusflower » Nov 10th, 2017, 2:59 pm

Smurf wrote:
Cactusflower wrote:

WAC Bennett was right; Christy Clark was wrong.


Any proof LOL!


I think these 384 pages are proof enough.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1254
Likes: 578 posts
Liked in: 261 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Old Techie » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:03 pm

Smurf wrote:
Cactusflower wrote:

WAC Bennett was right; Christy Clark was wrong.


Any proof LOL!


Cactusflower wrote:
I think these 384 pages are proof enough.



Indeed. Proof that there's a faction going through life with rose colored glasses on, who aren't in the least bit swayed by real life factual data.
"Fools multiply when wise men are silent!" - Nelson Mandela

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2153
Likes: 1734 posts
Liked in: 2921 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Site C

Postby alanjh595 » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:05 pm

384 pages is proof enough that the anti Site-C faction has got NOTHING, zero, zippo, zilch, nadda.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 744
Likes: 221 posts
Liked in: 412 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Cactusflower » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:27 pm

alanjh595 wrote:60 specialized workers, who's work is dependant upon the temperature (and they knew it from day #1), and will be coming back after freeze. Out of 1700+ that are working around the clock. Those 60 are not from the area and have looked forward to going home since they started.

Capture.JPG


Posting employment stats from July 2016 means nothing in November 2017. When someone comes up with some new stats (which I've been unable to find, except for the link I provided) then we can discuss the layoffs this winter.
Cactusflower
Übergod
 
Posts: 1254
Likes: 578 posts
Liked in: 261 posts
Joined: Aug 27th, 2017, 10:33 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Smurf » Nov 10th, 2017, 3:34 pm

Cactusflower wrote:

I think these 384 pages are proof enough.


Please point to some factual proof that Christy was wrong to want to build site C, anything factual and proven.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 8740
Likes: 12151 posts
Liked in: 4485 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

PreviousNext

Return to B.C.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests