Site C

[Walking Wounded]

CLEARING THE PR POLLUTION
☰
Falling Costs of Renewable Power Make Site C Dam Obsolete, Says Energy Economist
Judith Lavoie | September 12, 2017

Site C dam
The cost of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, has dropped dramatically since the previous B.C. government decided to build the Site C dam and the B.C. Utilities Commission must look at updated figures when considering the megaproject’s future, says a prominent energy consultant.

Robert McCullough, who is recognized as a North American expert on hydroelectric issues, was asked by the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association to make a submission to the BCUC, using up-to-date figures and research.

His conclusion is that BC Hydro could meet the province’s power needs at a much lower cost than the projected $8.8-billion Site C price-tag, without supply risks.

“Alternatives to Site C have expanded in scale while declining precipitously in price since the studies submitted by BC Hydro in the environmental process,” McCullough wrote in his submission.

“Renewable prices have fallen by 74 per cent for solar and 65 per cent for wind since 2010 when the B.C. government announced it wished to pursue approval and development of Site C,” he said.



https://www.desmog.ca/2017/09/12/fallin ... -economist

Desmog.ca is a bunch of far left wing nut jobs against everything, best to take anything they say with a truck load of salt.

[mikest2]

“Renewable prices have fallen by 74 per cent for solar and 65 per cent for wind since 2010 when the B.C. government announced it wished to pursue approval and development of Site C,”

This is a quote from Robert McCullough's submission on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association to the BCUC. In the parts of his submission that I read he does not put a direct price on the replacement of Site C with SWEG technology. If a contributor here can direct me to the page where I can find that I would appreciate it.

His presentation does outline accurately that the costs for SWEG have fallen dramatically in the last five years. However, I have not been able to find a researchable price that is below $100 CDN. American prices seem to hover in the $120 CDN range and European costs seem to be in the $140 range. Nobody involved in the SWEG industry, including the Germans, provides a direct cost so that one can compare to the Site C option.

If any contributor could direct me to these projected replacement costs of Site C with SWEG alternatives I would appreciate it. What the current arguement seems to be for the replacement of Site C is that SWEG costs are coming down substantially, therefore sometime in the future SWEG may be cheaper.

I have to give BC Hydro a lot of credit, at least they have a costed option.

your not a expert on electrical generation as is any of your gang of bclib supporters . you are in no position to even comment short of talking points .

You got an electrical ticket ? Smoke another one one, you have gone over the edge tonight, if I think of anyone else you can libel, I'll message you.

[Urban Cowboy]

Apparently going through life in a THC fog transforms some into unquestionable experts in all fields.

Who needs school when you can just roll another doobie.

[Walking Wounded]

Apparently going through life in a THC fog transforms some into unquestionable experts in all fields.

Who needs school when you can just roll another doobie.

her posts give pot smokers a bad name, I smoke, but I guess not as much as some, I'm not delusional.

[Smurf]

maryjane48 wrote:

your not a expert on electrical generation as is any of your gang of bclib supporters . you are in no position to even comment short of talking points .

What are your qualifications to comment?

[mikest2]

maryjane48 wrote:

your not a expert on electrical generation as is any of your gang of bclib supporters . you are in no position to even comment short of talking points .

What are your qualifications to comment?

certainly has a buzz on, with some serious harmonics from the asynchronous wave form

[butcher99]

Again, what you have posted here is not true. Sure, the headline reads
Scotland sets renewable energy record as wind power provides equivalent of 118% of nation's electricity
but you have to read and absorb the entire story, including this part:

In the first six months of 2017 enough power was generated to supply more than all of Scotland’s national demand for six days. Turbines provided 6,634,585MWh to the National Grid, which analysts say could on average supply the electrical needs of 124 per cent of Scottish households, or more than three million homes.
...
Scotland’s total electricity consumption including homes, business and industry for first six months was 11,689,385MWh.
...
Renewables experts say this means wind generated the equivalent of 57 per cent of Scotland’s entire electricity needs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 55846.html\
Your post has made it absolutely clear that you do not understand much of what you are reading. I suspect this is why you are unable to answer my specific questions about meeting peak power demand on winter evenings in 2027 (or 2017 for that matter) with anything that makes logical sense.

You also seem unable to make the connection between the amount Scotland has invested in wind power and the energy poverty Scotland is experiencing as a result of their energy policy.

I cannot fathom why you are so set on convincing us we would be better off with wind than with Site C, but it's pretty clear we cannot rely on your alternative plan to ensure energy security at a reasonable cost for our children, our children's children, or their children.

Until such time as someone show there is a better alternative, I will continue to support Site C.

Yes, Scotland is so short of electricity they shut down all their coal fired plants. Do you have a link to a shortage of power in Scotland? I found a couple from 2015 that said there might be a shortage. Did not find one that said there was. Since then more renewables (wind) have come online. Scotlands problem is that they privatized the industry. Since then not a single plant has been put online. Just like the liberal plan with the IPP some things should never be privatized.

Here is a question you have never answered nor has anyone on your side of the ledger.
California no longer wants BC power. It does not meet their new green standards. Alberta does not want BC power as they can build gas fired plants and buy it cheaper than site C can provide it. They are also building wind and solar farm.
LNG is not going ahead. Another great liberal promise that got them elected but was pie in the sky. IF they did go ahead they have said that they do not want power from site C. It is too expensive even though the Liberals gave them a massive break on the price they were originally told they would have to pay.

BC Hydro says that power sales are flat until at least 2020. Just who is all this power for? There is not a single person left that the Liberals said were going to buy the power. Just like LNG all the players have left the field.
Who is going to buy the power?

[butcher99]

Another question for you pro site C people

If site C was such a good idea why did the Liberals pass legislation to specifically prohibit the board in charge of seeing if it was a good idea from even looking at it?

There was a good plan in place to conserve hydro that was working. Retrofitting buildings to make them better insulated and money to replace lightbulbs with more efficient LED lights and many more plans that were making a difference. Why did the government pull all these? Did they need to justify site C?


Also, if Site C is such a great money making plan why would BC Hydro not tell us how much rates were going to go up to pay for this white elephant. Why has there not been an updated estimate on the cost to completion? The big contracts have not been let and we are seeing figures from 3-4 years ago on them.

[hobbyguy]

butcher - Scotland doesn't meet the challenge. Just google energy poverty in Scotland - you will find that it is bad enough to separate government programs - several of them. They don't have a shortage of electricity - they have a shortage of affordable electricity.

Guess what? With site C added we in BC will have: abundant, renewable, reliable and affordable electricity without subsidies. Scots would love to have such an inexpensive source of renewable electricity.

Please post a link to a windy-solar grid jurisdiction that has abundant, renewable, reliable and affordable electricity without subsidies.

[butcher99]

You also seem unable to make the connection between the amount Scotland has invested in wind power and the energy poverty Scotland is experiencing as a result of their energy policy.

I cannot fathom why you are so set on convincing us we would be better off with wind than with Site C, but it's pretty clear we cannot rely on your alternative plan to ensure energy security at a reasonable cost for our children, our children's children, or their children.

Until such time as someone show there is a better alternative, I will continue to support Site C.

I found out why Scotland might have an energy shortfall. It is because they privatized the industry and those companies can make more money selling it elsewhere than into the Scottish market.

"On the face of it Scotland will have a bonanza in energy supply. But much of it is scheduled for export for the benefit of the generating companies and the rest of the UK. Without Scotland’s ‘green energy’ and long distance nuclear, there is little prospect of England and Wales approaching, let alone meeting, their own target in that field. The Scottish people are far from being beneficiaries of this resource. Instead they have to endure higher electricity bills, bearing down especially on those suffering from fuel poverty in a climate that is wetter, windier and colder than that of the UK as a whole."

There is a better alternative. Don't bankrupt the people of BC by raising their power prices up with Ontarios. That is what site C will do.
We don't even know if it is needed. The Liberals made sure that that commission could not look at that question.

[erinmore3775]

Scotland has a highly privatized electrical energy production system. It also has a series of subsidies to support solar and wind power production both at the residential level and the industrial level. The subsidies are high and so are Scotland's electrical rates. They are some of the highest in Europe.

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/TrendElectricity

On most days Scotland produces about 40% of its electricity by SWEG. The rest of their energy is produced by carbon based thermal, nuclear, and hydro. During the day Scottish utilities export most of the electricity produced by SWEG to England and Wales.

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/sectors/renewables-in-numbers/

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/10/scottish-power-customers-to-be-hit-by-78-price-hike

I do not really see how Scotland can be used as an example for how Site C should be replaced with SWEG. Scotland used incentives and subsidies to move away from dirty coal fired thermal electric plants to reduce their carbon footprint and particulate air pollution. They have increased their nuclear, gas, and hydro electrical generation along with SWEG. They "export" their surplus power ( largely during the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM) to the rest of the UK. The deregulated power companies make big profits, but the Scottish consumer still pays extremely high electrical rates.

In sharp contrast, BC produces about 90% of its electricity by clean hydro and has one of the lowest carbon footprints in all of Canada. SWEG power still costs more than hydro and even at the current rate of cost reduction, it is not predicted to dip below hydro production costs until the mid-2020's. Most manufacturers of SWEG production put the lifespan of their product in the 30 to 40-year range. The lifespan of hydro is currently estimated at 70 years with many projects throughout the world still producing electricity without a major upgrade after 100 years of service. Perhaps someone could give a logical explanation why Site C should be replaced by SWEG when that technology will initially cost about the same or slightly more, have a shorter and unproven lifespan, and not substantially reduce BC's carbon footprint. If there is an explanation, please point me to the research that supports it. Thank you.

[butcher99]

I do not really see how Scotland can be used as an example for how Site C should be replaced with SWEG. Scotland used incentives and subsidies to move away from dirty coal fired thermal electric plants to reduce their carbon footprint and particulate air pollution. They have increased their nuclear, gas, and hydro electrical generation along with SWEG. They "export" their surplus power ( largely during the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM) to the rest of the UK. The deregulated power companies make big profits, but the Scottish consumer still pays extremely high electrical rates.

You guys are unbelievable. We can't use Scotland as an example because the companies make huge profits. Can't use them because they got rid of coal fired generators. Can't use them because they export.

They did all this and the scottish consumer pays extremely high rates. They are not that high. They are about what BC will be if we have to pay for site C.

You can't use that because. I don't believe that because. That site does not know what it is talking about etc etc.
You are just buried in the past.
TIme is passing you by. Hydro is not all that green. It releases methane gas which is far worse than CO2 as far as a green house gas. That is why California no longer wants BC power. We don't qualify for their green standards.

Site C. Too expensive. Just another Liberal ploy to pay off their supporters. Site C the Liberals fast ferry debacle.

[LordEd]

Site c is 1100 MW. All of hydro is 12000MW.

10% of the capacity is going to quadruple the rate?

[rustled]

I do not really see how Scotland can be used as an example for how Site C should be replaced with SWEG. Scotland used incentives and subsidies to move away from dirty coal fired thermal electric plants to reduce their carbon footprint and particulate air pollution. They have increased their nuclear, gas, and hydro electrical generation along with SWEG. They "export" their surplus power ( largely during the hours of 9 AM to 5 PM) to the rest of the UK. The deregulated power companies make big profits, but the Scottish consumer still pays extremely high electrical rates.

You guys are unbelievable. We can't use Scotland as an example because the companies make huge profits. Can't use them because they got rid of coal fired generators. Can't use them because they export.

They did all this and the scottish consumer pays extremely high rates. They are not that high. They are about what BC will be if we have to pay for site C.

You can't use that because. I don't believe that because. That site does not know what it is talking about etc etc.
You are just buried in the past.
TIme is passing you by. Hydro is not all that green. It releases methane gas which is far worse than CO2 as far as a green house gas. That is why California no longer wants BC power. We don't qualify for their green standards.

Site C. Too expensive. Just another Liberal ploy to pay off their supporters. Site C the Liberals fast ferry debacle.

Anti-Site C talking points are not enough to make you believable, butcher99.

If you want me to believe we are better off relying on wind and solar than we are will be with Site C, you need to answer my question: without more hydro-electric turbines, how will we meet peak demand on winter evenings 10 years from now?

So far, you have continually deflected away from this question with anti-Site C talking points instead of simply answering it.

This, along with several inaccurate posts you continue to make (including your reference to methane above, along with completely misunderstanding the information you presented about Scotland's energy situation, and your unsubstantiated allegations regarding what we will pay for power with Site C) show me you do not have a clear grasp of what it takes to provide power to the public in this decade, let alone for decades to come.

It is unfortunate this issue has become so political that various parties are now capitalizing on voter ignorance and their willingness to swallow wholesale whatever messaging supports their notion Site C is a bad idea, and completely ignore any evidence that shows Site C is our best option.

[LordEd]

Revenues for hydro were 5 billion.
If loss of 50/MWh, that's 5100*50 =255M. 5%

Residential up from 10c to 10.5c.

If residential usage increases to use some of that 5100MWh in 20 years, that 5% disappears as the asset is paid for by higher rate residential instead of bulk sale. AND we own the asset.