Site C

[Smurf]

Cactusflower wrote:
Yet you're okay with the BC taxpayers going into debt to the tune of $10.7 billion (or likely much more) for a big white elephant?

Yes, it is. We may not live long enough to see just how bad that decision was, but our children will.

Yes I am okay with it because we will have assets to cover that and it will be paid off overtime. Yes rates will increase but even BCUC said the alternatives would also raise them at least as much as with site C but no one knows how high. With the alternatives we will own no assets and we will have huge commitments to pay to suppliers even if they are home owners. As they said today California pays a premium and just like our IPP's that is whether we need the power or not. Why would we want more stupid IPP's and zero assets. None of it makes any sense.

Yes our children, my grandchildren and at least one great granddaughter will get to enjoy the stable rates that will hopefully keep us amongst the lowest in North America, not amongst the highest like Ontario with it's wind and solar. The same thing was said about the last hydro dams and look where they have put us. With all the "facts" I have seen and the knowledge of the industry that I have, I am much much more comfortable with site C than any of the current alternatives.

[alanjh595]

Yet you're okay with the BC taxpayers going into debt to the tune of $10.7 billion (or likely much more) for a big white elephant?

Yes, it is. We may not live long enough to see just how bad that decision was, but our children will.

Now it is the NDP's decision. That is the cross that they will have to bare for decades to come.

[Urban Cowboy]

Cactusflower you keep asking so I will tell you about today. We were visiting at a RV park just inside California on the I-8 today and ended up talking to a couple of the office managers. They have a fair bit of solar and are getting ready to install a bunch more. I asked if they really thought it was worthwhile. They said definitely due to the fact they are in one of the sunniest places in the world and the California government pays them huge subsidies to install it and high guaranteed premium rates for the power they produce. They said knowing what they know they probably would not install it without all the government money. In other words the California taxpayers are paying for them to install the solar units, sell the power to the system and make a profit. Sounds like a good deal for the RV park and a terrible deal for the California tax payers. I am certainly glad BC did not fall into that trap.

Yet you're okay with the BC taxpayers going into debt to the tune of $10.7 billion (or likely much more) for a big white elephant?
Yes, it is. We may not live long enough to see just how bad that decision was, but our children will.

Oh stop it now you're just teasing.

[maryjane48]

Make no mistake: the flooding of the Peace Valley would be a profound violation of the human rights of the First Nations of Treaty 8, as well as local farmers and other landowners.

I guess we will see how it plays out in scoc

http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/ho ... ace-valley

[LordEd]

The SCOC I believe has ruled previously that the requirement to consult does not constitute a veto power in developing resources.

[maryjane48]

http://www.cbc.ca/1.4466869


Site c could lead to forestry downturn

[alanjh595]

Contained in the article posted above:

In an email, BC Hydro spokesperson David Conway confirmed contracts are being renewed at lower rates but said Site C was not the reason.

"BC Hydro has been renewing contracts with independent power producers at prices less than what they were paid under the original contracts, recognizing that those producers have typically recovered most of their capital costs over their original contract terms," he said.

Sounds like good business sense from Hydro's point, since they are in the business of making money and keeping our electrical costs down. Remind me again, which government is currently in power? Oh yeah.......NDP.

[LordEd]

You just complained about them paying 55M to Capital Power Corp for maintaining a biomass station in case peak power is needed... now you're complaining that they're eliminating biomass IPPs?

[alanjh595]

Just like on one hand there are complaints about all the trees that are being cut down to build houses, and on the other hand, complaining that they will reduce the number of tree to turn into electricity by private companies and resold back to taxpayers at a premium price.

[hobbyguy]

http://www.cbc.ca/1.4466869


Site c could lead to forestry downturn

That's silly. Biomass burning for electricity = stupid. Emits a huge whack of GHGs. Besides, the dimbulbs in Europe will take it all so they can greenwash their emissions.

[maryjane48]

Lol. Hobby but if it was bclibs your positions would be opposite. Proven and recorded by my outstanding research into your posts .

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[The Green Barbarian]

Make no mistake: the flooding of the Peace Valley would be a profound violation of the human rights of the First Nations of Treaty 8, as well as local farmers and other landowners.

I guess we will see how it plays out in scoc

http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed/ho ... ace-valley

or, option B. You can admit the good guys won, and that this debate is over.

[The Green Barbarian]

We may not live long enough to see just how bad that decision was, but our children will.

and hopefully most of us live long enough for our grandchildren to thank us for standing up to brainless anti-economy enviro-lunatic charlatans who opposed Site c. Just as I hope everyone here thanks their grandparents for supporting the original Bennett dam and giving us the gift of cheap electricity. Oh it feels good to pay it forward to our grandkids. So good.

[maryjane48]

Only thing your paying forward by supoorting sire c is corruption