Site C

[lasnomadas]

Never mind the poll. It's not as important as Dr. Swain's report on what the JRP found. Nor is it as important as the misinformation that BC Hydro is reporting about the BCUC.

Do you have any idea how long it would take to read every comment on this thread? If there are some exceptional ones that I should be reading, please advise which pages I should be referencing. Otherwise, I'll get back to you in a few weeks, or however long it takes to find the pertinent facts.

[Smurf]

Do what you have to, the information is here, we're not here to babysit you or at least I am not. Give us some facts and figures not just someones opinion out of a newspaper, if you want us to listen to you. Did you even bother to look at the reference pages shown in the Hydro note I posted or did you just reject it?

You seem to have your mind made up as you eluded to earlier that you are the only one that knows anything or that has studied anything and everyone else is uninformed. You are misleading yourself as some on here have spent a great deal of time digging out actual facts and information to prove their points and may I say done an excellent job of it. In fact you might do better reading this thread and following up on the information provided than some of the newspaper articles you are reading.

For instance can you tell me the environmental impact of a solar system or any number of solar systems large enough to completely supply 450,000 homes. Battery and equipment production, battery disposal. If you are using a bunch of home systems roof replacements now and in the future. Do you really know if in the end they will truly be greener especially if there are 400 or 500 thousand home systems. I have no idea personally but I can imagine the garbage and pollution that would be put out in the life span of a powerhouse like site C. Remember if we are truly worried about saving the planet, we have to protect the whole planet not just little BC.

[Urban Cowboy]

Do you have any idea how long it would take to read every comment on this thread? If there are some exceptional ones that I should be reading, please advise which pages I should be referencing.

So by that you've basically confessed that you don't bother to read much of what is posted, and yet you're among the first to pull the trigger and lambaste any post that doesn't suit your agenda.

Shame on you!

Do your own due diligence, especially if you're going to be as vocal about a topic as you are. You aren't so special that another member needs to put together the Cliff Notes version of what's been posted, to explain why solar power is next to useless in BC.

[lasnomadas]

My only agenda is to protect the environment. I have seen too much environmental destruction in my life, and I will do anything I can to put an end to it.

Oh yes, I read BC Hydros' report on the JRP that you included in your post, Smurf, and it was written in the same old Dave Conway style that I've read in other 'opinion pieces'. Phrases like 'no notable effect', 'no measurable effect', 'small changes to the hydrology', etc. are meant to appease the general public. That last paragraph, which included the words,'a cumulative effects assessment on the PAD is not required' begs the question, "Why not?" The folks at Wood Buffalo National Park tend to disagree with BC Hydro's white-washing of the effects on the delta.

I don't pretend to be an expert on alternative renewable energy sources, but I'm learning. For now though, I'm tired of reliving the events in the Columbia River valley during the horrific decade of the 1960s when my friends and family lost houses, outbuildings, and land that had been their ancestral homes for generations. And to think that this is happening again up in the Peace River valley, and for no other reason than to stroke Christy Clark's ego and allow her to reimburse the contractors who so generously donate to her 'war chest' well, it's frankly disgusting.

This is how I feel, and I'm not a member of the NDP, nor do I vote for any particular political party. In a perfect world, there would be no political parties, simply independent representatives of each region. Goodnight, all.

[Smurf]

Thank you, at least you have come out and admitted exactly how biased you are. Do you know the meaning of progress or do you want the world to stand still. Site c is still the best all around green plan to do what is necessary. I do not see any proof of anything better.

[Urban Cowboy]

And to think that this is happening again up in the Peace River valley, and for no other reason than to stroke Christy Clark's ego and allow her to reimburse the contractors who so generously donate to her 'war chest' well, it's frankly disgusting.

This is how I feel, and I'm not a member of the NDP, nor do I vote for any particular political party. In a perfect world, there would be no political parties, simply independent representatives of each region. Goodnight, all.

Well you might add to your list of things you don't know, that it's hardly Christy Clark who initiated the Site "C" project. It's been debated for decades.

Your making numerous statements, without any real effort to educate yourself, on subjects you have a strong opinion about, is frankly also disgusting.

Here's a suggestion, instead of flooding the place, with what really is nothing but your opinion, and often steeped in flawed data, sourced from NDP leaning sites, whether you are NDP or not, brush up on the issues, using data from non biased sources, of which there are plenty.

Read up on things like population increases in BC, which for example, have never dropped below approximately 45,000 per year minimum, and recent maximums around 60,000. Knowing that, plus the fact that baby boomers are all retirement age now, or darn close to it, and many like BC, translates into at least 500,000 more people that will need power within the next decade.

A little nosing around will also reveal, that most measures to decrease power consumption, have already been implemented, and is why for a few recent years it looked like we required less, and temporarily did, due to that and economic downturn.

Now there is nowhere to really go but up, and that's just based on population, not accounting for any increase in demand from EV's even.

Solar and wind can't and won't reliably produce what our BC grid needs, and that is why we need Site "C".

We need it regardless of who is governing the province. To say no is to not plan for the future, and to in all likelihood, create a big problem for the next generation.

[Smurf]

lasnomadas you say your only agenda is to protect the environment but have you ever thought you are going about it the wrong way. First off do you think you can stop growth of population, increased need for electricity which is protecting the environment. Can you stop progress and increased need for infrastructure all of which again requires electricity unless we revert back to fossil fuels. Maybe instead of just saying no to everything you should be looking at all the possibilities and choosing the one(s) that work best for now and the near future while working towards getting better and better as time goes on. This protection cannot and believe me will not be done over night. We cannot ruin it all by not even giving it a chance. Nothing good happens fast, we have to be patient and work hard at it. That does not include crippling our abilities to be able to progress to where we all want to.

At this time, with our needs in the near future site C is the only viable option for BC to progress to get better and better. You have to remember that in a situation like this when we talk about near future we mean a couple of decades. Having worked in electrical and dam construction for a few decades I can tell you that large electrical systems like we require don't get completed in a couple of years. Site C has been on the radar for decades. Solar in the grand scheme of things is new still in the experimental, design stages as far as time for projects like we require. So far most of the experiments have not worked out real well and are extremely expensive. They will be expensive for some time if they ever become viable on a large scale for BC for any number of reasons.

Please think about it realistically knowing what is going to happen in our future and work with it to improve it as fast as we can. Don't fight to block the inevitable and stretch out the positive progress any more than necessary. Don't get blinded by your passion as there is nothing wrong with a passion as long as it is directed properly to get the most out of it.

I hope this makes some sense to you.

[hobbyguy]

I consistently find that the opponents of site C citing environmental concerns consistently ignore the basic facts regarding environmental impacts of wind and solar.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-wind-power#.WNKjgaK1uUk
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-solar-power.html#.WNKjLaK1uUk
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-solar-panels-reveals-impact-earth.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/environment.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

Also ignored is the fact that rare earths used in solar panels are just that - rare. Some estimates have Indium shortages developing within in a decade, and tellerium shortages developing within 2 decades.

Generally also ignored are the impacts on bird and pollinator populations from other sorts of solar plants: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-deaths-20160831-snap-story.html

All of that combined is why MIT concluded that large scale hydro has a lower environmental impact than wind and solar. Subject, of course, to the size of the reservoir relative to the output.

In the case of site C, the amount of land flooded relative to the output is very small, as the dam is tertiary in a series of 3 dams. The primary storage dam is up stream, and site C is only recycling water released from that primary dam. That makes site C perhaps one of the lowest impact large scale hydro projects possible.

[The Green Barbarian]

I hope this makes some sense to you.

Smurf - you are admirable in trying to reason with zealots, but these people have "drunk the Kool-Aid" that the only forms of power generation that are acceptable are high cost wind and high cost solar. There is no other option that is acceptable. And so for that reason, any other form of power generation, be it hydro or nuclear, is just "bad", and any attempt to explain how financial non-viable or just plain logistically untenable wind and solar are to supplying all of society's needs for electricity, will just be met by them going "la la lah" and putting their fingers in their ears. Just like any cult though, you can't blame the cult members, as they are just the victims. It's the scumbags that are continuing to push solar and wind and spout lies about renewable energy that are the ones to blame. And there is only reason these scumbags are pushing this stuff, and it's moo-lah. Billions of dollars of subsidies. Convince the cult members that they are "saving the earth" and they will shill any idea, no matter how bad.

[hobbyguy]

Solar and wind have their places. But context really matters. As does the portion of peak capacity and the impact on baseload generation.

It is not a "black and white" issue.

The mess that Australia has gotten itself into is very instructive about the limitations of what you can do with solar and wind, and what it does to costs. South Australia has gotten to the point where rates are at about $.35/kWh as a result of over reliance on wind and solar. Industries are starting to look at leaving Australia because the energy prices have skyrocketed.

$.35/kWh would be devastating for the BC economy, and really onerous for folks using electric heating.

It is a careful balance. The objective is lowest cost and at the same time maximum renewable energy content.

site C is just that. Renewable energy at the lowest cost. It also happens to be baseload power, not intermittent like wind and solar - which ups its real value even higher.

[The Green Barbarian]

. Industries are starting to look at leaving Australia because the energy prices have skyrocketed.
.

No different than Spain or Germany.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... dies_.html

https://stopthesethings.com/2014/06/02/ ... o-a-close/

[Smurf]

Along with all our endeavors to be clean we have to be realistic or it will blow up in our faces. There are examples around the world of the problems and Australia at this moment is one of the worst. We certainly don't want to set ourselves back to where people are using fossil fuels because they just can't afford the alternatives. Ontario is as a good example right here at home. People are complaining about their Fortis bills, I wonder how they would like two or three times as much as a base price.

[Mr_Mrs_Wolf]

The hypocrisy comes clear of those who are claiming the Provincial debt rankings is pivotal to the well being of the province all the while continually supporting Site C

http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b ... debt-grows

[Mr_Mrs_Wolf]

"In fact, this has been a government that doesn’t just employ puffery or exaggeration, it lies through its teeth, as if lying was its default position"

http://commonsensecanadian.ca/bc-hydro- ... call-cops/

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

This Christy Clark BC Liberal boondoggle is going to leave ratepayers a untold-billion dollar bill (the debt is an ever increasing total) for power that can’t be sold for what it costs to produce.

[hobbyguy]

None of those have anything to do with site C on its merits, they are just deflections.