What will Horgan do with Site C?

[Cactusflower]

Excuse me for interrupting, but I do have a solution and it's right here in this link. Please read it. Don't just shoot the messenger.

https://lailayuile.com/2017/11/13/the-b ... ht-answer/

Actually, I'd like to see what the QIM and the rest of BC's enviro-warriors would do if Horgan up and announced they're bringing back Burrard Thermal instead. Weaver, too. Great fun to think of the possibilities.

She actually makes a good point about the risks to grid with more remote location. I'd be interested in understanding plans for mitigation around that for Site C.

But all in all: Isn't this precisely what the green virtue signallers have been ignoring? That to have their trendy wind/solar/geothermal energy, all highly subsidized, all intended to fight the great evil of climate change (hence the Clean Energy Act), they must also rely on the very same dread horror (fossil fuels) these expensive, trendy alternatives were supposed to replace? Isn't that what's happened in Europe and Australia? Isn't that precisely what we were trying to avoid here, with Site C?

Thanks for reading Laila's article. But no, I don't think we're trying to avoid sensible alternatives that don't contravene any clean energy program. Most British Columbians are now aware of former Premier Campbell's reason for his so-called Clean Energy Act. It's the same as Christy's 'let's get this puppy past the point of no return' reason. Using NG as a way to supplement the grid when a severe weather event occurs surely will not affect our GHG emissions like the expansion of the AB 'oil' sands will.

[The Green Barbarian]

It's the same as Christy's 'let's get this puppy past the point of no return' reason. Using NG as a way to supplement the grid when a severe weather event occurs surely will not affect our GHG emissions like the expansion of the AB 'oil' sands will.

I don't know what GHG emissions are, but are you saying that you are in favor of burning natural gas at the Burrard Thermal Station, as this Laila person suggests? I support your position, though I would also like to see Site C built too.

[rustled]

Actually, I'd like to see what the QIM and the rest of BC's enviro-warriors would do if Horgan up and announced they're bringing back Burrard Thermal instead. Weaver, too. Great fun to think of the possibilities.

She actually makes a good point about the risks to grid with more remote location. I'd be interested in understanding plans for mitigation around that for Site C.

But all in all: Isn't this precisely what the green virtue signallers have been ignoring? That to have their trendy wind/solar/geothermal energy, all highly subsidized, all intended to fight the great evil of climate change (hence the Clean Energy Act), they must also rely on the very same dread horror (fossil fuels) these expensive, trendy alternatives were supposed to replace? Isn't that what's happened in Europe and Australia? Isn't that precisely what we were trying to avoid here, with Site C?

Thanks for reading Laila's article. But no, I don't think we're trying to avoid sensible alternatives that don't contravene any clean energy program. Most British Columbians are now aware of former Premier Campbell's reason for his so-called Clean Energy Act. It's the same as Christy's 'let's get this puppy past the point of no return' reason. Using NG as a way to supplement the grid when a severe weather event occurs surely will not affect our GHG emissions like the expansion of the AB 'oil' sands will.

Why bring Campbell or the oil sands into it? This is about Site C.

You're championing the suggestion Horgan cancels Site C and brings Burrard back to supplement wind/solar.

How likely is it that the rabid environmentalists who pushed for the world to move away from relatively clean but fossil-fuel based sources like Burrard are going to be happy about bringing it back online? If so, will they also agree it's sensible bring back the technologically advanced and relatively clean-burning coal-fired plants, too?

If we're back to using those, why are we tearing up the landscape to subsidize environmentally destructive wind farms, and why are we continuing to subsidize solar panels (especially given their ugly pollution footprints)?

Heck, if common sense actually gets to rule over emotion here in BC (hallelujah!), why not proceed with Site C so we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels which must be transported and IPP agreements which cost us in too many ways, in order to provide a far more secure energy future for generations to come?

[Urbane]

Very interesting:

Keith Baldrey‏Verified account
@keithbaldrey
Follow Follow @keithbaldrey

NDP govt. deputy ministers write to BC Utilities Commission asking pointed questions about implications of halting Site C. Another clue where things are headed with this project? http://tinyurl.com/y7c42x86 #bcpoli

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/NewsRelea ... stions.pdf

Both Mike Smyth and Keith Baldrey now say they believe that Horgan will decide to complete the project. As Baldrey says, "Cue the haters." So true.

[Urbane]

^^ Everyone should click on one of the links (either one will lead to the questions from the deputy ministers). Those are great questions. I think those deputy ministers must have been reading posts on the Castanet Forums:)

[seewood]

I bet BCUC is sputtering their tea out their mouths... Great questions and if the BCUC are honest, I suspect the only rational thing to do is to carry on ladies and gentlemen... keep building.

The BCUC could still obfuscate with baffle-gab as I believe they still have a distaste for being not included in the initial development plans for Site C

Those are great questions. I think those deputy ministers must have been reading posts on the Castanet Forums:)

You and Hobby guy didn't write them a letter did you?

Many of your and other's retorts to the anti Site C crowd and pro windy solar crowd as an alternative, should be printed in the two Vancouver's dailies.

[Cactusflower]

Very interesting:

Keith Baldrey‏Verified account
@keithbaldrey
Follow Follow @keithbaldrey

NDP govt. deputy ministers write to BC Utilities Commission asking pointed questions about implications of halting Site C. Another clue where things are headed with this project? http://tinyurl.com/y7c42x86 #bcpoli

http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/NewsRelea ... stions.pdf

Both Mike Smyth and Keith Baldrey now say they believe that Horgan will decide to complete the project. As Baldrey says, "Cue the haters." So true.

I give about as much credence to Baldrey and Smyth's blogs as you give to Yuile's.

[The Green Barbarian]

I give about as much credence to Baldrey and Smyth's blogs as you give to Yuile's.

Still waiting for a response on the Burrard Thermal plant.

[Cactusflower]

I give about as much credence to Baldrey and Smyth's blogs as you give to Yuile's.

Still waiting for a response on the Burrard Thermal plant.

While you're waiting, why not click on Laila Yuile's blog? She explains it much better than I ever could.

[Cactusflower]

I bet BCUC is sputtering their tea out their mouths... Great questions and if the BCUC are honest, I suspect the only rational thing to do is to carry on ladies and gentlemen... keep building.

The BCUC could still obfuscate with baffle-gab as I believe they still have a distaste for being not included in the initial development plans for Site C

Those are great questions. I think those deputy ministers must have been reading posts on the Castanet Forums:)

You and Hobby guy didn't write them a letter did you?

Many of your and other's retorts to the anti Site C crowd and pro windy solar crowd as an alternative, should be printed in the two Vancouver's dailies.

I wrote them a letter, and I'm happy to see the questions they've asked BCUC. You seem to be reading something into their questions that isn't there.

[Urbane]

I wrote them a letter, and I'm happy to see the questions they've asked BCUC. You seem to be reading something into their questions that isn't there.

The questions speak for themselves.

[Queen K]

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#211718

Interesting, coal fired plants to generate electricity to be shut down by 2030?


"Canada has committed to shutting down all of its coal-fired power plants by 2030. Ontario has already shut down all of its coal-fired plants, and Alberta has committed to doing the same by 2030, though the plan in that province is to mainly use another fossil fuel: natural gas.

Speaking in Manila on Tuesday at a summit of Southeast Asian countries, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called coal the "dirtiest of all fossil fuels" and that reducing its use is one of the greatest challenges to meeting climate change targets."

Nevermind if we're going to make to 2030, the way the environment is going, but if this is the goal, then hydro-electric power at Site C is going to be needed. And by 2030, it will be thought of as "forward thinking."

Will John Horgan take note? Or was this the announcement the NDP have been waiting for?

[The Green Barbarian]

While you're waiting, why not click on Laila Yuile's blog? She explains it much better than I ever could.

or you could just explain it. How can you believe in the stupid man-made climate change hoax, and yet pump an energy source that uses natural gas? It makes no sense.

[hobbyguy]

Interesting to note that the DSM measures proposed as part of the BCUC so called alternative may be illegal. If so, where do they get off proposing them? http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/loo102/loo102/10_326_2008

Not precisely sure, but the BCUC DSM proposals certainly seem to be outside the law as I read it.

[hobbyguy]

seewood, now you have somebody else sputtering tea...

None of the nonsense contained in BCUC so called "alternative" stands up to real analysis.

So now the NDP little red bookers are deflecting again.