Site C

[lasnomadas]

@Rwede:
Repeating Urbane's references doesn't answer the question, "Why is BC Hydro building a dam on mud"? Nor is it an adequate response to "The taxpayers are unintentionally paying for the largest environmental and economical catastrophe of B.C.'s 21st century, and the only argument so far has been, 'Well, we're gonna need it someday'."

[butcher99]

Exactly hobbyguy! I cannot understand why anyone would like us to become like Ontario or California with tons of excess off peak power they have to sell at a loss and no power to sell at peak times when there are profits to be made. The only reason I can see is because they have absolutely no understanding if the grid system and the "buy low, sell high" system that is making BC hydro and us the rate payers so much money.

Ok, where do these profits come from? Not from site C that is for sure. It is just too expensive to build.

[butcher99]

Former head of BC Hydro says Site C is a bad idea.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/08/17/Reje ... s-Eliesen/

[maryjane48]

i wish bc was like california with so much solar power they have to turn off the carbon burning power stations and 5 million units with solar panels installed . . my future is star trek while the *removed* bclibs is chernobyl

[Rwede]

Former head of BC Hydro says Site C is a bad idea.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/08/17/Reje ... s-Eliesen/

The guy appointed by the NDP during the Decade of Doom to be Hydro CEO in the 1990s said that?

Well, I'm stunned. Imagine, an NDP insider says it's bad, and in an article on the NDP-funded Tyee no less.

That's it, I'm convinced. Tear that sumbitch down and build me a solar panel for the welder in my shop.

[butcher99]

The guy appointed by the NDP during the Decade of Doom to be Hydro CEO in the 1990s said that?

Well, I'm stunned. Imagine, an NDP insider says it's bad, and in an article on the NDP-funded Tyee no less.

That's it, I'm convinced. Tear that sumbitch down and build me a solar panel for the welder in my shop.

Yes, that is the kind of response we have come to expect from you. Would you care to elaborate on the "ndp-funded" part of your statement?

[Smurf]

butcher99 wrote:

Ok, where do these profits come from? Not from site C that is for sure. It is just too expensive to build.

From the sale of hydro. Even you have written more than once it will be paid off in 75 years. The only place Hydro gets money is from the sale of it's product and much of that profit is from the grid " buy low, sell high".

Hey at least site C will pay for itself (according to you) and it will make a profit, unlike any of the alternative systems out there who all have prices two or three times as high as BC Hydro and still require subsidies to stay afloat according to the links "you" posted. So far no one has taken Hobbyguy's challenge yet to prove there is a system that can survive on it's own.

[maryjane48]

we dont want a make work project . we want clean energy future. its not hard concept .

[Queen K]

The guy appointed by the NDP during the Decade of Doom to be Hydro CEO in the 1990s said that?

Well, I'm stunned. Imagine, an NDP insider says it's bad, and in an article on the NDP-funded Tyee no less.

That's it, I'm convinced. Tear that sumbitch down and build me a solar panel for the welder in my shop.

Yes, that is the kind of response we have come to expect from you. Would you care to elaborate on the "ndp-funded" part of your statement?

Butcher99, there's a smart group who are ahead of the curve figuring out solar and welding: here is but one link,

https://forums.energymatters.com.au/liv ... ic835.html

[butcher99]

Hey at least site C will pay for itself (according to you) and it will make a profit, unlike any of the alternative systems out there who all have prices two or three times as high as BC Hydro and still require subsidies to stay afloat according to the links "you" posted. So far no one has taken Hobbyguy's challenge yet to prove there is a system that can survive on it's own.

But they are not more expensive anymore. That is the point. They cost the same and the price is falling and will continue to fall according to a link provided by one of your cohorts. Meanwhile the price of building the dam continues to rise. The estimated cost of power from Site C is $100 per MKH. as I have posted before.

So you are willing to add a minimum of 7% to your power bill for the rest of your life to pay for the dam and add $500 million per year to the deficit every year while we lose money on every sale to the US yet in the next message you cry about having to lose money selling power to the US at a loss on solar power.
Make up your mind.

[mikest2]

But they are not more expensive anymore. That is the point. They cost the same and the price is falling and will continue to fall according to a link provided by one of your cohorts. Meanwhile the price of building the dam continues to rise. The estimated cost of power from Site C is $100 per MKH. as I have posted before.

So you are willing to add a minimum of 7% to your power bill for the rest of your life to pay for the dam and add $500 million per year to the deficit every year while we lose money on every sale to the US yet in the next message you cry about having to lose money selling power to the US at a loss on solar power.
Make up your mind.

Nope, it adds to Hydro's debt load not to the provincial deficit. we don't have to lose money on hydro sales as we, unlike wind and solar producers can store our energy (water) and buy off peak solar and wind for a song, all the while selling power at peak demand for whatever the market price is.

[butcher99]

Nope, it adds to Hydro's debt load not to the provincial deficit. we don't have to lose money on hydro sales as we, unlike wind and solar producers can store our energy (water) and buy off peak solar and wind for a song, all the while selling power at peak demand for whatever the market price is.

Who owns BC Hydro? Who pays for the loss? The power produced is 3 times the going rate. You can make all the foolish statements you like about selling off peak for more but when that power costs you 3 times the going rate and you pay the difference on your power bill it is not a winning proposition.

Yes, it does add to the deficit. Right now BC Hydro has been putting money into the government coffers. That will quit. Although the Liberals were so greedy of late that they made BC Hydro borrow money to pay the toll, and they made ICBC give up the fund that kept our insurance rates low (but that is another story).

[GoStumpy]

we dont want a make work project . we want clean energy future. its not hard concept .

Hydroelectric is clean energy.

[maryjane48]

its clean in some areas of the world but thats changing fast and it certainly isnt clean in canada and it isnt acceptable to flood first nation land for it. thats racist

[hobbyguy]

The power from site C is NOT too expensive.

All I see is spinning nonsense coming from the opponents of site C.

They say "we want clean power". Yup, site C IS clean renewable power, and a heck of lot cheaper than the windy-solar nonsense. All site C does is take advantage of mother nature's natural sun-water vapor-wind-rain-return to the sea cycle. It is really arrogant to think that mankind ever does better than mother nature.

IF hydroelectric power is "too expensive" (which is a daft statement!) - then why is that that the three least expensive power jurisdictions in North America are all hydroelectric? Quebec, BC and Manitoba?

https://issuu.com/hydroquebec/docs/comp_2016_en?e=1151578/39216309

Note that Quebec is the lowest cost - by a long shot. Why? Because Quebec ignored the critics and charged ahead with massive hydroelectric projects some time ago. They ignored the critics who said "we don't need it", they ignored the critics who said "it's too expensive". Quebec went ahead and who is laughing now??? Is Quebec electricity "too expensive", do they "not need it"???

If hydroelectric is "too expensive" - then what do you plan to account for the upcoming shortage? Solar-windy garbage like California that is being charged at more than double? - and going to TOU billing because they can't supply peak demands?

Why do you folks hate low income and poor folks who can't afford a house, let alone the $25,000 for a solar PV system?

Energy Poverty is a real thing in countries that have gone windy-solar. 60,000 families in Birmingham alone can not afford to heat their homes, 2.3 million people in England are classified as living in energy poverty - so much for the great wind experiment.

Why do you want to bring those things to BC??

Look at this: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/energy-poverty-low-income-households/486197/

You can clearly see that California is generating a LOT of energy poverty compared to other western states, and you want to do that to people in BC??