Castanet

maryjane48 wrote:Lol. Hobby but if it was bclibs your positions would be opposite. Proven and recorded by my outstanding research into your posts .

You mean because I research and do math? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114993-europes-green-energy-policy-is-a-disaster-for-the-environment/ and even from huffington https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-gibbs/green-nightmare-burning-b_b_395553.html

Ain't no free lunch MJ. Site C does the least amount of environmental damage next to nuclear. All that "biomass" and "biofuel" nonsense is just green dogma delusions.

I was just re-reading some of the more interesting news stories of 2017 and found this little gem:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/batteri ... -1.4455998

Since we won't be needing any of Site C's power for the foreseeable future, why on earth wouldn't our government cancel the ill-conceived project and go with newer, less environmentally destructive energy storage?

Cactusflower wrote:
Since we won't be needing any of Site C's power for the foreseeable future, why on earth wouldn't our government cancel the ill-conceived project and go with newer, less environmentally destructive energy storage?

Because it's stupid and sucks tons of money from taxpayers for no benefit to anyone. If you can do even basic math, it's pretty simple to understand.

^^I was hoping for a reply from HG, or Smurf, or someone with some knowledge on the topic. Silly me.

Cactusflower wrote:I was just re-reading some of the more interesting news stories of 2017 and found this little gem:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/batteri ... -1.4455998

Since we won't be needing any of Site C's power for the foreseeable future, why on earth wouldn't our government cancel the ill-conceived project and go with newer, less environmentally destructive energy storage?

The answer there lies within the question.

Most would disagree with your definition of less environmentally destructive, particularly since you've never responded to the finding, that solar panels as well as batteries pose a huge environmental issue, in so far as their production and subsequent disposal is concerned.

This issue also being one that would require addressing, no less than four times in the lifespan of a dam, and very likely even more times than that. Never mind that this is also something not accounted for by the anti Site C group, when presenting their claims of how alternatives are cheaper than hydro.

So to sum it up, there goes your false narrative on environmental concern.

Sorry Cactusflower but we have been busy doing bigger and better things in the beautiful weather down here. I read your article but do not have enough information as there were no facts given to show anything other than more opinions. How long will these batteries last under load if we have bad spells like most of Canada is having right now. Cloudy, solar panels covered with snow, production down due to the cold and on and on. Will they be of any use after 3 or 4 days of extreme loads. Are they being subsidized by taxpayers. I would need so much more information to give an honest opinion but off the top of my head I doubt it is a huge breakthrough but definitely holds potential.

I have to agree with OT about the environmental part of it also. Building these batteries is not environmentally friendly and they will have to be replaced numerous times in say the life of site C. it also leaves the problem of getting rid of hazardous waste etc after their useful life is up. What can be recycled, what can't.

One thing I did notice in the article:

In Alberta this month, the price of wind-generated electricity plunged to 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour. As the price of storage falls further, it will become increasingly economic to scale back on traditional peak generator capacity such as coal or gas plants and store that cheap power until it's needed.

Notice that it is exactly the same as all the articles about the alternative they always conveniently forget to compare to Hydro production. I wonder if that is because they are still not good enough to compete with Hydro. I don't believe they are even close yet to competing with Hydro production over the long term. The time will come but I have yet to see any facts that there is anything out there that can get electricity to your door without subsidies that is close to Hydro. Especially not wind and solar.

Cactusflower wrote:I was just re-reading some of the more interesting news stories of 2017 and found this little gem:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/batteri ... -1.4455998

Since we won't be needing any of Site C's power for the foreseeable future, why on earth wouldn't our government cancel the ill-conceived project and go with newer, less environmentally destructive energy storage?

How much time/effort would it take to clean all this snow off the solar panels to charge a AA battery? OH yeah, after getting all that snow off, IT"S CLOUDY! ..........Since it's the middle of Winter and the demands are high for heat....where is that power going to come from?
I sure hope you cut down enough trees for heat....oh yeah, wood smoke is a particulate contributor to the biosphere and causes air pollution and contributes to green house gasses.
OH, by the way, cutting down trees is not conducive to carbon reduction and reduces revenue generating jobs for BC taxpayers/employees.

This is just the start.

Cactusflower wrote:^^I was hoping for a reply from HG, or Smurf, or someone with some knowledge on the topic. Silly me.

Yes silly you, because I do have knowledge on the subject. It doesn't take much to find plenty out there about just how stupid and horrible wind turbines are. Just the worst.

Old Techie wrote:

This issue also being one that would require addressing, no less than four times in the lifespan of a dam, and very likely even more times than that. .

Four times? Try 10 or more. Wind turbines last 8 - 10 years, if you are lucky. A dam continues to produce for 100 years or more. That's what these horrible Big Greenies will never tell you, because of course, their agenda is pure evil.

Cactusflower wrote:^^I was hoping for a reply from HG, or Smurf, or someone with some knowledge on the topic. Silly me.

No, you were just trolling with a poorly thought out and poorly researched article by pitiful Pittis. We have discussed the entire issue previously, including your false statement that we won't need the electricity in the foreseeable future.

Just go ahead and move to Australia and be happy to pay 4 times as much for greenwashed electricity coming form coal plants.

Zing

What will we name site C ? I mean , we have to give it a name , right ? I think that we should call it the Christy Clark dam.

gordon_as wrote:What will we name site C ? I mean , we have to give it a name , right ? I think that we should call it the Christy Clark dam.

I think we should sum up the feelings of the majority of the people of BC and name it in the same tradition as the French - "Dam Andrew Weaver".

looks like the latest polls show 52% in favor of Site C in BC. I think the strong support for Site C for everyone but the most loony must have been one of the factors Horgan used in his decision.

And 26% are against it.

The Angus Reid Institute poll suggests 52 per cent of respondents to the survey believe it was the “right decision” - twice as many as say it was the wrong one (26%).

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/216086 ... ove-Site-C