Site C

[jimsenchuk]

What compensation? you call 150 bucks an acre compensation? Plus the homestead was in the family for over 60 years. All prime farmland.

[hobbyguy]

That was a loooong time ago. About that time my gramma sold her waterfront home in North Vancouver for $18,000. All relative.

It also has zero to do with site C.

[jimsenchuk]

That was a loooong time ago. About that time my gramma sold her waterfront home in North Vancouver for $18,000. All relative.

It also has zero to do with site C.

You just don't get it hg, you just don't get it, that's to bad, have a great life.

[Urbane]

Please vote in the poll as to what you think that John Horgan will do with the Site C project. I think that he has more to lose by cancelling it so I voted that he'll let it go ahead. If he considers what's best for the province he'll also let it go ahead. Anyway, please keep the discussion in this thread and just use the poll thread for the actual poll. Thanks.

[The Green Barbarian]

What compensation? you call 150 bucks an acre compensation? Plus the homestead was in the family for over 60 years. All prime farmland.

So where should the electricity come from?

[Queen K]

Well this is just it right? ^^
Electric vehicles, yes. But no dam?
Can't have one without the other.
Can't have electric charging stations as ubiquitious as gas stations, without dams.
Personal solar panels for charging personal electronics - yes.
But for entire sections of a huge Province? - no.

[Carrs Landing Viking]

I think John Horgan will allow site c to continue, as he is well aware that to cancel it would be political suicide.

Both him and Andrew Weaver have supported site c in the past, and know full well it is the best thing to do for the future needs for the province.

Anyone who says site c is not needed does not know what they are talking about. But then I have the luxury of having a resident expert(my husband) in the field of hydro electric power, P.eng with more than 33 years at BC Hydro.

[mikest2]

A very balanced opinion piece:

http://inroadsjournal.ca/john-horgans-site-c-problem/

[hobbyguy]

A very balanced opinion piece:

http://inroadsjournal.ca/john-horgans-site-c-problem/

Interesting to see an opinion from a PhD in economics.

Confirms a lot of what we who are in favor of site C have been saying, and points out a lot of bias induced by the terms of reference the BCUC were given, plus perhaps some revenge bias at having been shut out in the first place.

The case for shutting down site C is factually flimsy, and only appears to have any validity if you don't step back and look at real world facts.

[maryjane48]

From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.

[alanjh595]

From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.

Can you provide a copy of the "Joint Review Panel’s advice"? I don't see it mentioned before now.

[mikest2]

From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.

I'll ignore whoever wrote that for you, it's nowhere near your normal syntax

[hobbyguy]

From mikes link *removed*

Unfortunately, Christy Clark’s B.C. government did not heed the Joint Review Panel’s advice. Despite outstanding questions about need and alternatives, and the vociferous opposition of environmental groups, First Nations and local interests, the government directed BC Hydro to start construction immediately with a target in-service date of 2024.

Fer heaven's sake MJ. Governments with a plan for governance make decisions.

Read the rest of it. The author takes issue with the low demand estimate the BCUC used, the flimsy cost estimate they used for wind and geothermal, the failure of the BCUC to recognize the true value of the shapable electricity site C would produce, and failure of the BCUC to discount the value of intermittent wind power. On top of that he takes the BCUC to task for not recognizing that DSM (demand side management) including TOU billing and Industrial Curtailment would drive up consumer very high and cost many ratepayers their jobs. Plus several other key points like wind and such being IPPs.

It is a big "so what" that you did not like Christy Clark. It is irrelevant to rational discussion. Site C is by far the best option for BC for affordable, reliable, renewable electricity for generations to come.

[Urbane]

Scientist Blair King, on Twitter, has analyzed Harry Swain's model and found some serious flaws. He laments the fact that many of the Site C supporters aren't doing enough to challenge the misinformation emanating from the anti-Site C side. Have a read:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2017/11/1 ... of-site-c/

[alanjh595]

Scientist Blair King, on Twitter, has analyzed Harry Swain's model and found some serious flaws. He laments the fact that many of the Site C supporters aren't doing enough to challenge the misinformation emanating from the anti-Site C side. Have a read:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2017/11/1 ... of-site-c/

Yes, I read it once, but now that you have brought it up again, I will re-read it again........tomorrow, though. I am getting tired tonight.