Site C

[Urbane]

The same people who have been trumpeting the need for green energy are some of the same ones who are blasting Site C. Hydro-electric power is exceedingly clean but the green proponents on here don't want to pay for it. Curiously, they favour options that will be even more expensive. Why? It's all politics.

Christy Clark's government is building Site C so they are automatically opposed to it. They ignore the obvious benefits of Site C, they ignore the obvious pitfalls of the alternatives, they make silly suggestions (e.g. if we run short on power we can just buy power from Washington State), and they've been unable on here to refute the arguments in favour of Site C.

Case closed. The dam is being built and even one of its critics, Marvin Shaffer, now says that we are beyond the time when cancellation of the project is a viable option. You may not want to pay for Site C but I'm willing and our kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids will be happy that the government built the Site C dam.

[alfred2]

People who oppose site c can get of the grid and not use the power and stop being idiots, by opposing site c.If you believe strongly then live your belief and stop all the crap you post.

[Smurf]

Agreed, its the same as all the idiots like Suzuki and Al Gore that run around preaching their ideas while flying private planes, driving big motorhomes and fancy big cars, even owning a number of large homes. It is an absolute hipocracy and people fall for it.

[hobbyguy]

I continue to follow the South Australia debacle to see what solutions they come up with to their oversupply of intermittent solar and wind with corresponding under supply of baseload power like site C. Another problem with grid stability is emerging that threatens the power grid of the whole country, and it won't be cheap to fix: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-24/aemc-says-australias-power-system-weakened-by-wind-solar/8381356

"A power system with increasing non-synchronous generation has less inertia," the AEMC said.

"Falling inertia means the system has less time to recover from sudden equipment failure before widespread blackouts."

In order to partially resolve this, South Australia is planning to build a huge battery. 100MW (less that 1/10 of site C output). They want a private operator to build it (total cost not yet available) and are offering a subsidy of $150 million to get the project started.

So now, on top of subsidies paid to attract solar and wind generation (privately held), South Australia is going to have to subsidize storage for that intermittent power. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/03/13/sas-power-play-australias-biggest-battery-and-a-state-owned-g/

Apparently though, Elon Musk has offered the battery itself for $25 million USD. A massive Li-ion battery. Hope it tests better than some recent cellphone batteries. At any rate, those batteries aren't cheap, and estimated lifespans have not been published (that I could find) - but I'm guessing 5 years??

Whatever the lifespan of those batteries is, the replacement cost and profits for the storage companies are going to have to be added to the already high South Australia grid rates.

[Smurf]

The cost of all this is going to be unbelievable. I can see many people not even being able to afford power and many more only on a very limited basis. I talked about the grid problems of wind and solar early on and they are definitely coming to light in Australia. Knowing exactly what they are talking about I still wonder exactly how well the correction methods they are talking about will work. Sounds like they are just adding to the experiment and I am betting there will be many more problems arise. If I was in Australia right now I would have the very best surge protector (another expense to add to the cost of your electricity) to protect anything I valued like any sort of electronics. I will guarantee there is no end to the problems they are still going to run into. I can't even imagine what we could run into with this type of thing in our huge North American grids. Actually the time could come where places like BC will be paid by others to build large dams just to control the grids properly.

I am certainly glad that we are smart enough to build site C and not get caught up in the experimentation that Australia is. Shutting down their old generating systems and now contemplating adding huge expensive battery banks with a short life span. Batteries that are dirty to build and dirty to get rid of. How many liquid fuel powered aero derivative generators are they going to have to buy. It may look good up front but I have to wonder if when all is said and done they will be any greener than when they started. I would like to see all the costs emissions etc from beginning to end especially with the short life span of much of this equipment.

I am so thankful we are going to have site C. At this point it is by far the best for cost, for emissions, for the environment, for everything.

[hobbyguy]

At least with the issues in Australia, we now know roughly what to watch out for. 20% wind and solar on the grid seems to be the maximum that a grid can absorb before the other issues get out of hand. I am not sure if that isn't a little optimistic in the context of the North American grid, as wind and solar tend to sell really cheap off peak, driving down profits for existing producers. My guess is that the North American grid (mostly in the US) is even more profit sensitive.

With site C, and a mandate to supply BC first, we should be insulated from these issues for the foreseeable future. Every time I look at the issues, I wind up thanking WAC Bennett for his vision in building our power infrastructure.

[Urbane]

Here's what's happening in the next couple of weeks at Site C:

https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/defa ... 170317.pdf

[lasnomadas]

I (and anyone who has lived in B.C. for the past half-century) know exactly what has happened to BC Hydro over the past 16 years, and we have no intention of believing anything that comes out on their (or the BC Liberal) websites. I tend to rely on other, more educated contributors to this topic, such as the chairman of the JRP, Dr. Harry Swain, who said that if Site C currently lacks a social licence in B.C., it's because critical questions about alternatives and project need have not undergone a fully transparent and independent review by the BCUC.

BC Hydro/BC Liberals continue to praise Site C as being 'green', and if British Columbians don't need it, Alberta doesn't need it, and the non-existent LNG industry doesn't need it, well, they can always sell it to California (for less than what it costs to produce it). Wrong!

"The final word on whether or not Site C is actually green goes to California. This state has historically been one of BC's prize energy export markets, and the last time Site C was proposed in the mid-to late 1980s, California was the export target. But today, hydro projects bigger than 30 MW do not even qualify as renewable energy under California's current renewable portfolio standard requirement. And while solar and wind generation surge, even small hydro is expected to account for less than 0.5% of the state's renewable, online capacity by the end of 2016. To California, Site C is a dinosaur---and anything but green."
-------from 'The Peace in Peril........the Real Cost of the Site C Dam'.
(The author, Christopher Pollon is a 'city boy' journalist who along with photo-journalist Ben Nelms, traversed the 100kms between Hudson Hope and Taylor, BC by canoe in Sept 2015, gathering local information at the various farms, ranches, and settlements as they travelled).

[Muzza]

Again lasnomadas, you are posting and making decisions from/based on very politically biased publications and individuals.

This is called "Confirmation Bias". Please look it up. Don't ignore the very excellent information that Hobbyguy has continually posted.

[Urbane]

More good news:

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – Halfway River First Nation and BC Hydro have reached agreements pertaining to the construction and operation of Site C.

The agreements include an Impact and Benefits Agreement, a Contracting Agreement, as well as a Tripartite Land Agreement, which the Province of British Columbia is also involved in.

BC Hydro says benefits under the agreements include a lump sum cash payment, a payment stream over 70 years, procurement opportunities, the selection and transfer of provincial Crown lands and commitments respecting certain land management initiatives.
Full article: https://energeticcity.ca/2017/03/halfwa ... ed-site-c/

[hobbyguy]

Actually, I got to thinking about it, and the NDP shills might be right about not needing the power from their narrow view. IF the NDP got elected we wouldn't need the power because they would mess up the province so badly we would lose industries and population. You don't use as much electricity if you are unemployed... and your closed employer won't use any.

[The Green Barbarian]

Actually, I got to thinking about it, and the NDP shills might be right about not needing the power from their narrow view. IF the NDP got elected we wouldn't need the power because they would mess up the province so badly we would lose industries and population. You don't use as much electricity if you are unemployed... and your closed employer won't use any.

Yes the NDP are the cure for the demand for electricity, the cure for high housing prices, the cure for inflation and the cure for man-made climate change. Once they are done with the economy we'll all be living in caves and half the population will be dead from starvation or frozen to death.

[lasnomadas]

Now hear this, 'hobbyguy' and friends: There is NOTHING political about my comments on the Site C dam. You should know that by now.

If you can't debate the topic without bringing politics into it, why bother to comment at all?

[Urban Cowboy]

Now hear this, 'hobbyguy' and friends: There is NOTHING political about my comments on the Site C dam. You should know that by now.

If you can't debate the topic without bringing politics into it, why bother to comment at all?

The answer to that would be simple, because you brought politics into it.

You think you can trash the Liberals non stop, use NDP propaganda to do it, then complain when people view you as an NDP shill?

Seriously?

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then generally it's safe to call it a duck, even if it says it's a goose.

You're the one stirring the pot, so if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

You are also the one assuming many of us are Liberals simply because we approve of "some" of the things they are doing, such as site "C".

I'm quite capable of agreeing that not everything the Liberals do is right in my eyes, but I can also give them credit when it's due, something a few of you are completely incapable of.

I'd even give the NDP credit for doing something right, should that day ever come. Not holding my breath on that one though.

[Urbane]

Now hear this, 'hobbyguy' and friends: There is NOTHING political about my comments on the Site C dam. You should know that by now.

If you can't debate the topic without bringing politics into it, why bother to comment at all?

Nothing political about your comments on the Site C dam??

lasnomadas wrote: According to the latest poll, 63% of BC Liberal voters want the project halted until more environmental and economic studies are done. How does it feel to be one in only 37% who follow Christy like a blind little puppy?

It's great to see the strong arguments made on here in support of Site C and it's particularly gratifying when those comments come from posters who aren't that thrilled with the current government. Separating politics from merits/demerits of the Site C dam is what should be happening but all too often on here we see opponents of Site C making snide remarks about Christy Clark rather than providing any evidence that the dam shouldn't be built. By the way, that poll you quote has been totally discredited. Biased questions in the extreme.