50444
49733

Site C

Re: Site C

Postby The Green Barbarian » Nov 28th, 2017, 7:33 am

butcher99 wrote: And the cities and states have come to the conclussion that the corporations can provide and maintain the systems at that price point. Providing reliable cheap power for upwards of 30 years
Does that work beter for you?


Nope. It's still a complete steaming pile of blarney.
3.7 cents kwh in alberta is a lie. The science is settled - wind turbines suck.

Not all leftists are stupid, but most stupid people are leftists.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25044
Likes: 9965 posts
Liked in: 12242 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Site C

Postby The Green Barbarian » Nov 28th, 2017, 7:34 am

butcher99 wrote:
You are great with the "i dont like your sources comments" how about a couple sources proving the cbc report on those contracts were incorrect. Or a source showing my link to the price Tucson signed a contract for is incorrect.


What's the point? You would either ignore the proof, or just run to the next fake news study. There is no compromising with a zealot.
3.7 cents kwh in alberta is a lie. The science is settled - wind turbines suck.

Not all leftists are stupid, but most stupid people are leftists.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25044
Likes: 9965 posts
Liked in: 12242 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Site C

Postby Old Techie » Nov 28th, 2017, 9:23 am

butcher99 wrote:
Old Techie wrote:
Might want to bear that in mind, next time you try to sell manufactured data from questionable sources as fact, simply to suit your agenda.


You are great with the "i dont like your sources comments" how about a couple sources proving the cbc report on those contracts were incorrect. Or a source showing my link to the price Tucson signed a contract for is incorrect.

It is too easy to just say fake news. Totally different when you have to go out and provide sources for why it is fake news.


What's the point in providing you sources, or trying to explain something to you, when you ignore it anyway, and continue to cling to your misguided notion?

Hobbyguy is much better at explaining than I am, not to mention uses unbiased credible sources, and he understands how the whole grid works, not just one tiny part of it.

He's told you numerous times that your biggest error is being focused solely on generation costs, when what matters is system costs.

The problem with solar and wind generation is that they are intermittent, and that aspect is what has a detrimental effect on the grid, and the end price of power to the consumer.

Since you can't generate solar power in the dark, or make wind power when there is no wind, those alternatives are only useful in limited locations where the people have no other choices.

One of the posts not too far back even revealed that batteries to store the amount of solar/wind power that Site C will provide would cost about a billion dollars, but then only be able to provide power for an hour. Power for an hour is simply not useful in a grid that needs to be reliable and have what people need 24/7/365.

I also haven't seen anyone take into consideration the issue of solar panels that have reached end of life, or the storage batteries, which naturally would be a huge part of the equation also, given that in regards to the dam we are talking 100 years even though in all likelihood it would last longer than that.

That means solar panels and batteries would have to be replaced, and the old ones dealt with, at least four times if not more, and I'm fairly certain none of that happens for free. At a billion dollars a pop, how long the batteries are good for would be a huge part of the overall equation. If their lifespan is roughly the same as solar panels are touted, then that would be four billion right there, but what if it's far less? A car battery certainly doesn't last 25yrs.

To summarize you've been fixated on the cost of solar panels, but all along have ignored system costs. Solar panels could be free and Site C would still be a better investment.

The biggest concern to me, is all these statements manufacturers make regarding their solar panels, regarding output power, and overall lifespan, when no one has had a system long enough to prove those statements.

It's not inconceivable to think, that by the time utilities come to realize the specifications were far to optimistic, the vendor will be long gone, and consumers will be the ones on the hook.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein

8 people like this post.
User avatar
Old Techie
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2520
Likes: 2121 posts
Liked in: 3435 posts
Joined: Apr 27th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: Site C

Postby alanjh595 » Nov 28th, 2017, 9:27 am

Hazardous Materials in solar panels.

The PV cell manufacturing process includes a number of hazardous materials, most of which are used to clean and purify the semiconductor surface. These chemicals, similar to those used in the general semiconductor industry, include hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and acetone. The amount and type of chemicals used depends on the type of cell, the amount of cleaning that is needed, and the size of silicon wafer [4]. Workers also face risks associated with inhaling silicon dust. Thus, PV manufactures must follow U.S. laws to ensure that workers are not harmed by exposure to these chemicals and that manufacturing waste products are disposed of properly.


http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our- ... l#bf-toc-2
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1694
Likes: 592 posts
Liked in: 1108 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Site C

Postby erinmore3775 » Nov 28th, 2017, 9:46 am

This "random Internet guy" has been perplexed and challenged by MJ's statement a few pages back. "...i noticed you leave out the first nation court case that they will win because its established law already . They not humans in your opinion ? Dont deserve respect or wishes considered ?

My research indicates that the Treaty 8 Nations are split on their opposition and support of Site C. "...Four First Nations communities have banded together to fight the project — Doig River, Halfway River, Prophet River, and West Moberly....Three other Treaty 8 First Nations — Blueberry River, Saulteau, and McLeod Lake — have agreed to negotiate for compensation and have been offered “impact benefit agreements...”

https://fnbc.info/news/first-nations-split-over-bc-hydros-site-c-dam-megaproject

Currently, the McLeod Lake Band has a series of signed agreements with the Province and BC Hydro. They have indicated that if Site C is cancelled and the agreements nullified, they are prepared to sue. They have also said that nullification will set back reconcilliation for years.

"The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed a lawsuit from two B.C. First Nations trying to prevent the Site C dam project from going ahead.

The Prophet River and West Moberly First Nations argue flooding 5,500 hectares of the Peace River valley to make way for the hydroelectric project infringes on their constitutionally-protected treaty rights...The case was dismissed with costs."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/federal-court-dismisses-first-nations-challenge-of-site-c-dam-1.3948830

Subsequently, The Supreme Court of Canada says it will not hear appeals from two B.C. First Nations in their court challenges of the $8.8-billion Site C hydroelectric project.

The court announced its decisions in the cases involving the Prophet River and West Moberly First Nations on Thursday. As is customary, it did not disclose its reasons.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/first-nations-lose-another-bid-to-stop-site-c-project/article35508031/

MJ, I have not been able to find any further information about court challenges against BC Hydro, the Province, or Site C launched by the Prophet or West Moberly Bands. Perhaps you could direct me to the information that indicates that they have filed current legal challenges.

It is my hope that the Treaty 8 Bands would use the benefits from Site C agreements to improve their economic position through endeavors that support and market their tradition way of life and skills. It would also be interesting if they took theinitiative and used the revenue to develop alternative forms of energy generation. Their grid connection and transmission costs would be lower than perhaps anywhere else in the province.
"Justice will not come until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured."
- Thucydides, Greek Philosopher

"You make a living by what you get; you make a life by what you give." - Winston Churchill

2 people like this post.
User avatar
erinmore3775
Übergod
 
Posts: 1020
Likes: 900 posts
Liked in: 1398 posts
Joined: Aug 18th, 2010, 8:16 pm

Re: Site C

Postby erinmore3775 » Nov 28th, 2017, 9:56 am

^^ Great post Old Techie...I would encourage contributors to carefully examine the "miracle" Mexican alternative energy contracts. It should be noted that those auction costs are for the "equipment and installation" only. They do not include land acquisition, any permits or additional government contracts required, or transmission and grid connection costs. Nor do these contracts include maintenance or replacement costs. The correct analogy to these "miracle" contracts would be the lot sticker price of a new car. The sticker price looks cheap until you include, the delivery charge, dealer preparation charge, environmental taxes,etc., etc. Furthermore, the biweekly payment makes it look even cheaper.

Those jumping on the "miracle low price" bandwagon need to read the non disclosed costs before saying that it is cheaper.
"Justice will not come until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured."
- Thucydides, Greek Philosopher

"You make a living by what you get; you make a life by what you give." - Winston Churchill

5 people like this post.
User avatar
erinmore3775
Übergod
 
Posts: 1020
Likes: 900 posts
Liked in: 1398 posts
Joined: Aug 18th, 2010, 8:16 pm

Re: Site C

Postby maryjane48 » Nov 28th, 2017, 10:16 am

The scoc is going to hear arguments based on treaty 8 . :130: thats when the real fun begins . :smt045
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 28th, 2017, 10:39 am

butcher99 wrote:
Old Techie wrote:
Might want to bear that in mind, next time you try to sell manufactured data from questionable sources as fact, simply to suit your agenda.


You are great with the "i dont like your sources comments" how about a couple sources proving the cbc report on those contracts were incorrect. Or a source showing my link to the price Tucson signed a contract for is incorrect.

It is too easy to just say fake news. Totally different when you have to go out and provide sources for why it is fake news.


Don't be obtuse. Your Tucson link was shredded as being a false cost. Remember? The massive subsidies? YOU are the one who is spreading misleading and false information put out by the hedge fund guys who are subsidy mining in the US. The federal subsidy alone is double the off peak wholesale electricity price! It averages almost $.09/kWh CAD. So those "producers" get BC retail price if they sell at $.000001/kWh. What a scam! They are just stealing taxpayer $$!!!
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

The Green Barbarian likes this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6997
Likes: 1782 posts
Liked in: 6188 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby hobbyguy » Nov 28th, 2017, 11:24 am

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/site-c-dams-sustainability-on-top-of-bc-ndps-agenda/article37106878/

"Perhaps the strongest voice on the panel defending Site C will be consultant David Craig, who will be speaking to the one issue that Premier Horgan said will decide the fate of the project – the impact on ratepayers.

Mr. Craig said he is not advocating for Site C, but he says ratepayers have the most to lose if the government cancels the project now. When the remediation costs are factored in, cancelling Site C will cost an estimated $4-billion.

"The scenario for completing Site C would have a near zero impact on ratepayers … Cancellation would represent a 10[-per-cent to] 12-per-cent rate increase over 10 years," he said. "It's difficult for ratepayers to understand why one would want to cancel it."

If you read the whole article, you will see the character of those opposing site C, and those that the NDP are CHOOSING to listen to. An IPP advocate, a wind/solar industry advocate. An IPP industry executive (I guess those fat cheques to the NDP pay off!), an ivory tower theorist, and a consultant for the Commercial Energy Consumers association (industrial and commercial electricity users).

Who? is representing the interests of ordinary ratepayers? I guess we don't count because we don't write $5,000 cheques to the NDP party and the Greens. A yank, McCullough, gets a big voice. BC ratepayers? Nada.
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: 6997
Likes: 1782 posts
Liked in: 6188 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Site C

Postby maryjane48 » Nov 28th, 2017, 1:36 pm

User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: Site C

Postby The Green Barbarian » Nov 28th, 2017, 2:01 pm

maryjane48 wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electricity-prices-markets-auction-alberta-1.4417616

Cheapest power on earth


Biggest scam on earth, more like it.

The wind industry in Australia is doomed, and it knows it. Power consumers who have received power bills since retail rates increased fully 20% in July, are furious; tens of thousands simply can’t pay them and have been put on ‘payment plans’, while thousands more have simply been disconnected from the grid, unable to pay their power bills, at all.

Something had to give.

With blackouts looming this Australian Summer (stinking hot December days, when the demand for power skyrockets, beckon), it was inevitable that the Federal Coalition would do something. That ‘something’ is the National Energy Guarantee.

STT gave our initial analysis of the NEG here: PM’s Reliable Power Play Spells Disaster for Unreliable & Intermittent Wind Power

In the graphic above, it appears that investors, who might have otherwise thrown their money to the wind, agree with STT.
Infigen (formerly Babcock & Brown) is an all wind power outfit, which has lost investors hundreds of millions of dollars since 2009, when it Phoenixed from the wreckage of Babcock & Brown (see our post here).

In April this year, it shares were trading at $1.06, by November they had plummeted to $0.64: a 42% haircut for its hopeful investors. Some of those who threw their money at Infigen also paid $0.89 a share for an equity raising project back in April, adding financial insult to investing injury.

Tilt Renewables (aka Trustpower) saw 15% wiped off its share price when the NEG was first floated, and Deutsche Bank placed no value on its development pipeline of more than 1650MW of wind and solar projects, because they have almost no chance of seeing the light of day.

Wind power was built on government edicts, mandated subsidies and targets: the slightest hint that governments might mess around with any part of that formula sends bankers and investors running to the hills (see above).
And it’s the threat of the NEG that is the source of their perfectly understandable panic.

Getting the NEG up and running may take some political finessing from Malcolm Turnbull and his hapless sidekick, Josh Frydenberg. Here’s the latest on that saga.


https://stopthesethings.com/2017/11/26/ ... re-prices/
3.7 cents kwh in alberta is a lie. The science is settled - wind turbines suck.

Not all leftists are stupid, but most stupid people are leftists.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
The Green Barbarian
Admiral HMS Castanet
 
Posts: 25044
Likes: 9965 posts
Liked in: 12242 posts
Joined: Sep 16th, 2010, 8:13 am

Re: Site C

Postby alanjh595 » Nov 28th, 2017, 2:04 pm

maryjane48 wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electricity-prices-markets-auction-alberta-1.4417616

Cheapest power on earth


Has been previously linked to and addressed.
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1694
Likes: 592 posts
Liked in: 1108 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Walking Wounded » Nov 28th, 2017, 2:45 pm

maryjane48 wrote:The scoc is going to hear arguments based on treaty 8 . :130: thats when the real fun begins . :smt045

Proof please, the scoc has already said they will NOT hear appeals.

The Green Barbarian likes this post.
User avatar
Walking Wounded
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 767
Likes: 3736 posts
Liked in: 1008 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2009, 10:25 pm

Re: Site C

Postby Walking Wounded » Nov 28th, 2017, 2:49 pm

alanjh595 wrote:
maryjane48 wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electricity-prices-markets-auction-alberta-1.4417616

Cheapest power on earth


Has been previously linked to and addressed.

Come on now didn't you know that if you say it often enough it will come true, at least to the feeble minded.
User avatar
Walking Wounded
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 767
Likes: 3736 posts
Liked in: 1008 posts
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2009, 10:25 pm

Re: Site C

Postby maryjane48 » Nov 28th, 2017, 2:52 pm

Appeals on the one case . That had nothing to do with treaty rights. Unlike you the scoc doesnt treaty rights as. To be ignored. Instead of making yourself look foolish start counting the bill increases when site c hits 30 billion
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to B.C.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests