Site C

[Jflem1983]

420 plus pages of this nonsense.

[maryjane48]

Alternatives to the $10 billion Site C dam would produce significantly more jobs than construction of the controversial hydroelectric dam, according to a new study led by the University of British Columbia.



The independently-reviewed analysis by researchers from UBC’s Program on Water Governance found that if Site C is scrapped, there would be modest job losses in the short-term — 18 to 30 per cent until 2024 — but job gains of between 22 and 50 per cent through 2030.

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/11/28/altern ... c-analysis

[alanjh595]

420 plus pages of this nonsense.

YES, I know......

[Urban Cowboy]

420 plus pages of this nonsense.

Despite which we still have those, who believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch.

[butcher99]

To summarize you've been fixated on the cost of solar panels, but all along have ignored system costs. Solar panels could be free and Site C would still be a better investment.

The biggest concern to me, is all these statements manufacturers make regarding their solar panels, regarding output power, and overall lifespan, when no one has had a system long enough to prove those statements.

It's not inconceivable to think, that by the time utilities come to realize the specifications were far to optimistic, the vendor will be long gone, and consumers will be the ones on the hook.

Actually i have been fixated on the fact that Site C is far more expensive than wind and current solar cost with no subsidies. (For barbarian.... no it isnt)
I have said all along that site C is just too costly, and odds on to go up in price. The solar wind is just something ghat came up.
With all 3vreasons given 4 site c having gone up in smoke there is even less need for it.

You complained that i dont provide links when more often than not, i do the first time i mention a figure. Then you give me reasons why you do not have to? Thats fine. I will assume your figures from different sites were valid at the time they were posted. I have just found that most links about how expensive solar and wind are are out of date somewhat.

We all have our sources. My last one was cbc.

[hobbyguy]

MJ, you, like desmog the propagandists, keep touting exactly the same rubbish. It has all been debunked, including that garbage report from Karen Bakker, which I took apart and showed to utter stilted nonsense and a disgrace to the academic community waaay back in the thread.

But then, that is ALL we see from the detractors of site C. They don't think for themselves and analyze anything. Just take whatever rubbish gets thrown out there that happens to fit their political position, and regurgitate it without back up.

Rather than believe propagandists, why not look at the real world and see the results.

Those who believe in real science follow the experimental method. Look at a theory, then test it through application and experiment. Well, we have LOTS of data in the real world where combinations of wind/solar/batteries etc. have been applied and tested. The results are clear. Every single grid jurisdiction that has messed about with wind and solar can NOT provide what Canada's hydroelectric system delivers. That is abundant, reliable, renewable and affordable electricity without subsidies. - exactly what ratepayers want.

That's a simple thing to check fairly quickly. You don't have to look far... Ontario has totally fouled up their electrical supply system with wind and solar. It is costing them $50 billion (and more when that runs out in 10 years) and more every year, and the result is much higher prices than we pay including the TOU billing scam.

Think that's anomaly? Nope. It isn't, every single windy/solar grid jurisdiction sees massive (88% in Ontario) price increases and problems with grid stability and supply. Wind and solar are parasites on the grid SYSTEM, intermittent, not dispatchable, and unreliable.

Just challenge yourself:

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

[hobbyguy]

To summarize you've been fixated on the cost of solar panels, but all along have ignored system costs. Solar panels could be free and Site C would still be a better investment.

The biggest concern to me, is all these statements manufacturers make regarding their solar panels, regarding output power, and overall lifespan, when no one has had a system long enough to prove those statements.

It's not inconceivable to think, that by the time utilities come to realize the specifications were far to optimistic, the vendor will be long gone, and consumers will be the ones on the hook.

Actually i have been fixated on the fact that Site C is far more expensive than wind and current solar cost with no subsidies. (For barbarian.... no it isnt)
I have said all along that site C is just too costly, and odds on to go up in price. The solar wind is just something ghat came up.
With all 3vreasons given 4 site c having gone up in smoke there is even less need for it.

You complained that i dont provide links when more often than not, i do the first time i mention a figure. Then you give me reasons why you do not have to? Thats fine. I will assume your figures from different sites were valid at the time they were posted. I have just found that most links about how expensive solar and wind are are out of date somewhat.

We all have our sources. My last one was cbc.

Same old BS. Go ahead, stick your head in the green sand, add the subsidies in, direct and indirect. Then everything you post is complete and utter garbage. NOBODY cares about theoretical spin about generation costs, they care about what the effects are on their electricity bill, and that's where your garbage fails because wind and solar don't work for grid systems.

We have proven that, because absolutely NO windy-solar grid system has abundant, reliable, renewable and affordable electricity without subsidies.

[The Green Barbarian]

Appeals on the one case . That had nothing to do with treaty rights. Unlike you the scoc doesnt treaty rights as. To be ignored. Instead of making yourself look foolish start counting the bill increases when site c hits 30 billion

And look out when it hits $40 billion. And really look out when it hits $50 billion. And woah look out when it hits $60 billion. And wowsers oh gee willikers when it hits $70 billion.

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[ferri]

This thread is going nowhere fast. I'm locking it until something newsworthy occurs.

[ferri]

STAY ON TOPIC AND DON'T ATTACK EACH OTHER.

I hope you could hear me.

[maryjane48]

On Monday, the New Democrat government announced its decision to go ahead with the Site C dam, a hydroelectric megaproject first approved by the B.C. Liberals three years ago during their tenure in office and criticized by the orange team and its captain. In 2014, John Horgan, then NDP Opposition leader, argued against the project on the grounds that it was opposed by Indigenous peoples, that it was unnecessary given projected energy needs, and that it was environmentally dodgy because it would flood a considerable amount of arable land. By 2016, Horgan was fully hedging on the project, waiting on more information. That’s all easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy when you’re in opposition, but when you’re the government, you have to decide—that’s when life becomes difficult.


http://www.macleans.ca/news/why-approvi ... l-blunder/


Big mistake soon to be followed by massive spending to try and win back the base

[HoboJo]

Thank you mods for the unlock.

Also, a hearty thank you to all the castanauts who keep this thread alive.

[Cactusflower]

I'm disappointed. I thought Horgan had more intestinal fortitude than that.

[alanjh595]

The rest of us knew he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to manage the night shift of a gas bar in Winfield. That is why he didn't get voted in.