What will Horgan do with Site C?

[butcher99]

Horgan just made a real world decision, one based on facts and yes, that icky math stuff. Site C was always a better choice for the people of BC, but the far left and the math challenged windy-solar fad wannabe green followers will never accept that.

Now we get to see how "principled" the likes of looney Lana Popham are. Will she once again sharpen her knives and spring from a dark corner? Or will she instead prefer her undeserved but nice fat salary cabinet job (which is meaningless because she is ignored)?

The far left fringe and the plastic kayak wannabee greens are displaying their true colours. Totalitarianism - the place where the far left and the far right always meet. No compromise, no pragmatism, no prisoners. Already we see some of them on this forum calling for Horgan's head.

Will there be blood in the streets of NDG la-la land over site C?

No. No blood in the streets. As Christy was quoted as saying, she wanted this past the point of no return by election time. It is obvious she managed that. Much as I don't like the decision and feel much more money could have been saved in the long run by just pulling the plug it is politically impossible to justify 4 billion dollars down the tube with nothing to show for it. Much easier to just go ahead.
But as some have already done, you can always blame the NDP when the real costs come in. It was a political decision to build it and a political decision to go ahead.

As to getting rid of first past the post, I am all for that. Lets get real representative government and maybe decisions will start to be made on need, not politics.

[hobbyguy]

^^ the economics of site C when compared to the so called "alternative" the BCUC and the math challenged see as viable are so good that site C could cost $20 billion and we would still be ahead of the game in 10 years or so.

Just ask Ontario. They got about the same amount of usable electricity as site C from the "alternative" and they get to pay far higher rates, TOU billing, and are stuck with $45 billion in subsidy costs.

[butcher99]

^^ the economics of site C when compared to the so called "alternative" the BCUC and the math challenged see as viable are so good that site C could cost $20 billion and we would still be ahead of the game in 10 years or so.

Just ask Ontario. They got about the same amount of usable electricity as site C from the "alternative" and they get to pay far higher rates, TOU billing, and are stuck with $45 billion in subsidy costs.

again, you are using figures from setting up solar and wind from up to 10 years ago vs todays prices. Site C does not come close to the costs of wind and solar setups today. But we have been down that road.
Time of use billing works. Every utility that has used it has managed to level the load and actually cut usage. Off loading power usage from the high times to the low times saves money.
When you can turn on your dishwasher at 7 pm and pay high rates or you can wait and run it in the morning and save money. Most people opt for plan B. Plans like this are what are helping slow the use of electricity. Along with much more efficient lights and machinery.

As I have pointed out many times, contracts are now being signed all over the world in the 4 cents per kw hour range and less. Without subsidies. 20 and 30 year contracts. 2.5 cents in India. 4cents in Tucson, I believe it was around 2 cents in Saudi Arabia (where yes, they get much more sun).

If site C had not been started possibly TOU billing and increasing efficiency would have helped alleviate the need for site C and the ensuing decision to continue.
If this was a private corporation building this it would have been stopped long ago.

[hobbyguy]

^^ the economics of site C when compared to the so called "alternative" the BCUC and the math challenged see as viable are so good that site C could cost $20 billion and we would still be ahead of the game in 10 years or so.

Just ask Ontario. They got about the same amount of usable electricity as site C from the "alternative" and they get to pay far higher rates, TOU billing, and are stuck with $45 billion in subsidy costs.

again, you are using figures from setting up solar and wind from up to 10 years ago vs todays prices. Site C does not come close to the costs of wind and solar setups today. But we have been down that road.
Time of use billing works. Every utility that has used it has managed to level the load and actually cut usage. Off loading power usage from the high times to the low times saves money.
When you can turn on your dishwasher at 7 pm and pay high rates or you can wait and run it in the morning and save money. Most people opt for plan B. Plans like this are what are helping slow the use of electricity. Along with much more efficient lights and machinery.

As I have pointed out many times, contracts are now being signed all over the world in the 4 cents per kw hour range and less. Without subsidies. 20 and 30 year contracts. 2.5 cents in India. 4cents in Tucson, I believe it was around 2 cents in Saudi Arabia (where yes, they get much more sun).

If site C had not been started possibly TOU billing and increasing efficiency would have helped alleviate the need for site C and the ensuing decision to continue.
If this was a private corporation building this it would have been stopped long ago.

Nope. The way silly kiddie toy solar and wind work they produce low value power. Read the BCUC report, it shows that. Notice that every single grid wind and solar project except those in areas where rates are sky high (like the Yukon areas with diesel generation) has to be subsidized - and heavily.

Wind and solar produce mostly junk power. Nobody in their right mind builds them without subsidies, tax breaks etc.

Get over it, wind and solar are kiddie toys next to hydroelectric. Horgan knows that. Notley knows that - which is why the Alberta program has subsidies for wind and solar and so does the BC program. Enough with the money wasting to benefit sharks like Elon.

[The Green Barbarian]

again, you are using figures from setting up solar and wind from up to 10 years ago vs todays prices. Site C does not come close to the costs of wind and solar setups today.

This just isn't true.

[Urban Cowboy]

^^ the economics of site C when compared to the so called "alternative" the BCUC and the math challenged see as viable are so good that site C could cost $20 billion and we would still be ahead of the game in 10 years or so.

Just ask Ontario. They got about the same amount of usable electricity as site C from the "alternative" and they get to pay far higher rates, TOU billing, and are stuck with $45 billion in subsidy costs.

again, you are using figures from setting up solar and wind from up to 10 years ago vs todays prices. Site C does not come close to the costs of wind and solar setups today. But we have been down that road.

You're quite right we have been down that road, and no matter how much info is given you to show you wrong, you still cling to your fantasy. How about giving an example of a solar array installation in BC somewhere that proves what you say. Oh right there isn't one, yet you apparently know for certain that it would be cheaper.

Time of use billing works. Every utility that has used it has managed to level the load and actually cut usage. Off loading power usage from the high times to the low times saves money.
When you can turn on your dishwasher at 7 pm and pay high rates or you can wait and run it in the morning and save money. Most people opt for plan B. Plans like this are what are helping slow the use of electricity. Along with much more efficient lights and machinery.

Yeah I'm sure the people of Ontario believe every word you say, especially the ones who have had their power cut off.

As I have pointed out many times, contracts are now being signed all over the world in the 4 cents per kw hour range and less. Without subsidies. 20 and 30 year contracts. 2.5 cents in India. 4cents in Tucson, I believe it was around 2 cents in Saudi Arabia (where yes, they get much more sun).

Yes and hobbyguy dissected your Tucson example proving it to be but another lie.

If site C had not been started possibly TOU billing and increasing efficiency would have helped alleviate the need for site C and the ensuing decision to continue.
If this was a private corporation building this it would have been stopped long ago.

It would have alleviated the need for site C by industry moving to a more favorable locale, as opposed to ridiculous electricity rates making them non competitive. That such a move would also see jobs lost, and the unemployed unable to pay high energy costs seems to have completely slipped your mind.

Good reporters apply objectivity in penning their story, unlike the 100% bias flowing in every one of your posts.

[maryjane48]

Who cares if scabs are not working ? Lol .but alas john will be booting them scabs soon enough as he already said they are toast . so you lose

[The Green Barbarian]

Who cares if scabs are not working ? Lol .but alas john will be booting them scabs soon enough as he already said they are toast . so you lose

I have no idea what this post means, nor why it was made.

[alanjh595]

Perhaps we need a refresher coarse in what a "scab" is. Since dome use this derogatory term in the wrong context....here it is.

Strikebreaker

A strikebreaker (sometimes derogatorily called a scab, blackleg, or knobstick) is a person who works despite an ongoing strike. Strikebreakers are usually individuals who are not employed by the company prior to the trade union dispute, but rather hired after or during the strike to keep the organization running. "Strikebreakers" may also refer to workers (union members or not) who cross picket lines to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strikebreaker

In order to be considered a "scab", the pre-requirement must be an ongoing labour strike. To better understand that concept, one must also understand what a "labour strike" is;

Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. Strikes became common during the Industrial Revolution, when mass labor became important in factories and mines. In most countries, strike actions were quickly made illegal,[citation needed] as factory owners had far more power than workers. Most Western countries partially legalized striking in the late 19th or early 20th centuries.

Strikes are sometimes used to pressure governments to change policies. Occasionally, strikes destabilize the rule of a particular political party or ruler; in such cases, strikes are often part of a broader social movement taking the form of a campaign of civil resistance. Notable examples are the 1980 Gdańsk Shipyard or 1981 Warning Strike, led by Lech Wałęsa. These strikes were significant in the long campaign of civil resistance for political change in Poland, and were an important mobilizing effort that contributed to the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of communist party rule in eastern Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action

Therefore; in order for there to be a "scab", there 1st must be a "strike". Without one, there can not be the other.

[Cactusflower]

Who cares if scabs are not working ? Lol .but alas john will be booting them scabs soon enough as he already said they are toast . so you lose

I have no idea what this post means, nor why it was made.

I have no idea why any of these comments are being made, since we have known since yesterday what Horgan did with Site C.

[Gone_Fishin]

More salt in the wounds of the Exploding Heads Society.


Someone is auctioning Premier Horgan's 'stake' in the Peace over Site C

NDP leader admitted his Site C approval would be unpopular. But Peace Valley residents are debating what to do with a symbol of his one-time support.




Then-Opposition leader John Horgan stands with a wooden stake bearing his name and title before he became Premier, purchased for $100 to support anti-Site C legal efforts by Peace Valley residents and First Nations


By: David P. Ball Metro Published on Tue Dec 12 2017

B.C. Premier John Horgan knew the stakes were high in approving the Site C dam Monday. But he may have forgotten that, on this issue, the stakes are quite literal.

Near the shores of the Peace River, soon to be submerged under 6,500 hectares of floodwater, is planted a long yellow wooden post bearing a name: "John Horgan, MLA."

On Monday, that humble piece of wood — for which then-Opposition leader Horgan reportedly paid $100 to show his support for anti-Site C First Nations — has become a bitter symbol for residents of the Peace Valley outraged by his decision to approve the $10.7-billion Site C dam.

It was part of a two-year-old "Stake in the Peace" lawsuit fundraiser by the Peace Valley Landowner Association and First Nations — and Horgan at the time posed proudly with his contribution. With the tables turned after Monday's decision, locals immediately recognized the stake as a newfound symbol.

"We may sell this. How much would you offer?" joked Fort St. John resident Shelley Falk Ouellette on Twitter on Monday evening, adding that Horgan "paid $100.00 to support Treaty 8 legal costs against the previous government.

"… I say sell it, let it help pay for our fight against him going forward. Every $ helps."

Well, bid they did — as social media lit up with suggestions for what to do with the offending wood.

"Just got a bid on John Horgan's stake in the Peace for $120.00," Falk Ouellette wrote on Facebook just hours later. Another user quickly offered $140.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/ ... ite-c.html

[butcher99]

Get over it, wind and solar are kiddie toys next to hydroelectric. Horgan knows that. Notley knows that - which is why the Alberta program has subsidies for wind and solar and so does the BC program. Enough with the money wasting to benefit sharks like Elon.

if you actually read the report they say green energy will cost about the same.

How about Tucson? Solar at 4 cents with no subsidy? China is about to install the most solar ever installed in one year. India 2.5 cents per kwh.
But we have been through this. You want to live in the past thats fine. The rest of the world is moving on without you.

[butcher99]

Yes and hobbyguy dissected your Tucson example proving it to be but another lie.

]

the Tucson deal is less than 3 cents per kwh and is for 20 years. that works out to 4 cents with no subsidies. you can argue with the article.



http://www.elp.com/articles/2017/05/tuc ... oject.html

You can lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink.

[ferri]

*This topic has pretty well been covered. Again. I'm locking it until there is something new.