Site C

[hobbyguy]

The opponents of site C just recycle the same nonsense propaganda they pick up from industry and Tyee type misinformation.

We have thoroughly debunked the methane nonsense argument, more than once, so when they get to the point where all their other false information fails them - they start recycling the same false stories.

If you understand basic science, and you can read an audited financial statement, every single so called argument against site C falls apart. Even politically it has no basis, both John Horgan and Andrew Weaver (he spent years advocating it should be built) were for site C until they decided to grab some ignorant votes and make it an issue. Horgan was still supporting site C until the Quadra Island Mafia threw a hissy fit and threatened to leave caucus if he did.

But then there are believers of any nonsense out there on the internet. Apparently folks even got sucked in by Russian bs during the US election and went to fake rallies....

In the end, the opponents of site C can only deflect bask to the same false arguments because their precious windy-solar scam they got sucked into is a complete dud. The NGOs and apparent NGOs (yup, lots of phonys out there - there are PR firms that have entire divisions devoted to creating them) just keep peddling spin half truths and the "greenies" lap it up without thought - and forgetting that BC doesn't have an electricity generation problem with GHGs - BC is one of the lowest electricity generation GHG emitting jurisdictions in the world (waaay better than Denmark et al).

None of them can answer the real world challenge (because it is impossible):

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

Yet that is the ideal. We have all that except for the stupid windy-solar nonsense. Site C ensures that we maintain that for many years to come.

[butcher99]

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.

Your exact same argument could be used for solar. As wind is already cheaper than site C that does not matter. And we could won both of them as well. Get rid of IPPS. PPP projects have been proven to be more expensive over and over or at best break even with no benefits.

The rest of the world is moving to greener pastures. Hydro actually not being especially green.
Canada and BC can join the world or stay in the horse and buggy days.

[rustled]

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.

Your exact same argument could be used for solar. As wind is already cheaper than site C that does not matter. And we could won both of them as well. Get rid of IPPS. PPP projects have been proven to be more expensive over and over or at best break even with no benefits.

The rest of the world is moving to greener pastures. Hydro actually not being especially green.
Canada and BC can join the world or stay in the horse and buggy days.

butcher99, this makes no sense. Solar and wind are both more expensive both in the short term and in the long term, neither is greener than hydro-electric in our climate, and neither can be relied on to provide the energy we currently require for peak demand. Neither can hope to supply peak demand power in the future.

Site C allows us to reduce our reliance on IPPs.

WADR, if you're simply going to continue to regurgitate stuff you don't understand, why bother posting?

[erinmore3775]

B 99 wrote: "...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."

They currently pay those high rates now, not 20 or 30 years from now. Using your logic, and assuming a very conservative 2% inflation rate the Scottish consumer will be paying $0.65 KWh in 2037. Using your figures BC ratepayers would still be paying $0.20 KWh less.


http://callmepower.ca/en/news/comparison-uk-canada

The above site compares total household energy cost for an "average" residence in Scotland to an "average" residence in Canada. The cost of electricity and gas is averaged for the suppliers, but it clearly shows that Canada is cheaper than Scotland. Since BC is on the low end of Canadian electric and gas costs, the difference between BC and Scotland is even greater. Recently, energy suppliers in Scotland have raised their prices 7% to 12%.

https://www.scottishpower.co.uk/pdf/SCP1492-Jan-15.pdf Here is a detailed outline of Scottish electric and gas prices accurate to 2015. Please remember that companies have just raised their price a minimum of 7%. Please also remember to convert the currency listed from British Pounds to Canadian Dollars.

Some contributors have argued against Site C because of its carbon footprint. The Suzuki Foundation still ranks hydro electric production as one of the lowest carbon footprints of electricity production. The only one lower is nuclear. What contributors here fail to mention or include is the carbon/environmental footprint of the production of SWEG power producers. Most of the manufacturers of SWEG are located in countries that power their production facilities with carbon based thermal electric power plants. They also fail to include the carbon/environmental footprint of producing the raw materials necessary to produce SWEG products (mining, smelting, petroleum based supplies). When we are doing cost comparisons and carbon foot print comparisons, let's be accurate and include all the costs and figures.

The challenge remains, what is the cost of SWEG replacement for Site C?

[hobbyguy]

It is worth noting that Wind is NOT cheaper. The best estimates of the current true (real) cost of wind are about $.14-15/kWh USD delivered to the customer (that's where it matters). The wind industry lobby always just quotes the "installed capacity cost". They never add in transmission and delivery costs. Transmission costs for collecting wind from far flung locations (like the Pennask Summit) are very high per kWh. Transmission lines typically cost about $1 million/mile. Site C has its transmission costs included in the estimated cost (as it should be).

The wind lobbyists also never factor in the capacity factor, which is generally 35-40%. So if a wind lobbyists says we can install 100 MW of capacity for "x" - it is horsefeathers. That's the nameplate capacity, so the cost per kWh is dramatically overstated. So whatever "costs" the wind lobbyists quote, you can multiply by 100/38 = 2.63 (triple for easy quick estimate). That's all part of the scam they pull for subsidy mining.

The wind lobbyists also never factor in storage costs. Currently, the most cost effective storage system is pumped hydro - which involves building a dam, and flooding a reservoir, then generating hydroelectric power for delivery when it is actually needed. At best pumped hydro is 80% efficient - so right up front the wind lobbyists figures have to be multiplied by 1.25. Then you have to add the costs of maintaining and financing the the pumped hydro facility.

I keep going back to China's experience with wind, where 8.6% of their "installed capacity" is wind, but it only generates 3.3% of the electricity used. That's 38% of the "installed capacity". Right on the mid point of 35-40% capacity factor.

If we take the base "cost" figures that wind lobbyists like to quote using "installed capacity" and multiply by 2.63 and again by 1.30 (rough to including pumped hydro facility costs) = 3.42 - so any number you get for "costs" from the wind lobby, you need to multiply by 3.42. The wind lobby will quote an average of $.047/kWh USD. But if you account for those capacity factor, and storage cost factors - $.047x 3.42 = $.1607/kWh plus transmission costs - In line with the true cost estimate I noted above. Note that in Europe, transmission levies are set at about $.035/kWh for systems with lots of wind.

We know that wind is cheaper than solar.

But when you compare those true costs with the true costs of site C, even the high estimates look really really good!

[maryjane48]

http://globalnews.ca/news/3742394/cance ... m=Facebook

[rustled]

Will we need the energy?

B.C. Hydro does not forecast electricity demand to 2050. But, studies by us and others show that B.C. electricity demand will be almost double today’s levels if we are to reduce emissions by 55 to 70 per cent in just over three decades while our population, economy, buildings and equipment grow significantly. Most mid- and small-sized vehicles will be electric. Most buildings will be well insulated and heated by electric resistance or electric heat-pumps, either individually or via district heating systems. And many low temperature industrial applications will be electric.

Aggressive efforts to promote energy efficiency will make an important contribution, such that energy demand will not grow nearly as fast as the economy. But it is delusional to think that humans will stop using energy. Even climate policy scenarios in which we assume unprecedented success with energy efficiency show dramatic increases in the consumption of electricity, this being the most favoured zero-emission form of energy as a replacement for planet-destroying gasoline and natural gas.

The completion of the Site C dam is a complicated and challenging societal choice. There is unbiased evidence and argument supporting either completion or cancellation. But let’s stick to the unbiased evidence. In the case of our 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets, such evidence shows that we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity. If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/o ... lectricity

[maryjane48]

it is a flawed study as theres no mention of people supplng their own power . . it is a model based on letting the energy robber barrons to keep on fleecing everyone. tsktsk. facts are wont be long till folks can go buy a unit . plug it in. make their own power .

[rustled]

it is a flawed study as theres no mention of people supplng their own power . . it is a model based on letting the energy robber barrons to keep on fleecing everyone. tsktsk. facts are wont be long till folks can go buy a unit . plug it in. make their own power .

How's your solar panel system working, mj? Are you fully self-sufficient yet?

[maryjane48]

, B.C. is about to surpass about five megawatts of solar, which is roughly 2,000 residential installations.


https://www.google.ca/amp/vancouversun. ... cloudy/amp

[rustled]

, B.C. is about to surpass about five megawatts of solar, which is roughly 2,000 residential installations.


https://www.google.ca/amp/vancouversun. ... cloudy/amp

Yes, but unfortunately:

Yet there remain additional costs that undoubtedly make installing solar panels unattractive to many potential customers, and that could prevent the technology from ever going mainstream. The cost of meeting municipal requirements, such as electrical permits and engineering certificates, can add thousands of dollars in some jurisdictions to the overall cost of a solar system.

A recent study by the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation ranked the Vancouver as the most expensive city in terms of added municipal fees and costs.

(Bear in mind the news story is more than a year old.)
Good thing it's not yet mandatory to install them in Vancouver. This has driven up the cost of homebuilding in other places, notably at least one county in Florida.
Also a good thing there's hydroelectric power for cold winter evenings.

[flamingfingers]

A major concern is the debt that BC Hydro currently has which Moody's has warned (for the past 3 years) may put the province's credit rating at risk. And that is not considering the final debt that Site C will inflict on the province. And while people profoundly claim we will have no major rate increase in power rates when Site C comes on stream, I feel that is a pie-in-the sky opinion. With no major increase in rates and demand having been stagnant for years,(and no major markets jockeying for electricity) how will the Hydro debt be paid down without a rather large increase in rates?

[maryjane48]

https://www.enel.com/en/media/press/d20 ... rship.html


now this is a large company that makes beer . have they suddenly lost their mind or do they see the future ?

[Urban Cowboy]

Don't know, how many beer did they drink?

That would have a significant impact on the ability to see into the future.

[hobbyguy]

Lol. MJ - a report from the PVA nimby group is not a report. It is propaganda.