Site C

User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Site C

Post by Smurf »

Agreed! We need a strong, reliable, base to build on and this would be a huge step towards that for the future. As we grow we need to be sure that wer'e not constantly suffering blackouts because of unstable power.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Donald G »

One factor not yet commented on is that you can ship large quantities of "water", in the form of hydro, to any point that it is needed whereas the only way to ship large quantities of water is through the existing river systems.

Using the water to produce agricultural products more locally and shipping the products is no different than shipping the water needed to grow them. Since hydro is also the cheapest energy available to "pump" water to arid fields I think that large hydro dams will play a role in pumping more available and dependable water to large parts of the growing area surrounding the larger lake formed by the Site C dam.

Especially if Weather Scientists are right in suggesting that, in general, weather (and agricultural belts) will slowly move 300 to 500 miles north and south of the equator from where comparable weather is presently to be found.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 39865
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Glacier »

Gixxer wrote:Ive worked up there on and off for 10 years. and have driven highway 29 probably no less than 200 times. So I know that area, and the flood plain very well. I also know a lot of locals up there, and the only ones that are opposed to Site-C are the ones that live in the area that will be affected. There's a few farms along the flood plain, but thats it. Most of the land up there is muskeg anyways.

The frost free period in the summer, what are you talking about? If anything the frost comes sooner, and last longer in the north country.

So yes losing a few farmlands is worth the extra power.

I guess the real question is how much valuable farmland will be lost. At best I bet its only .02% of the total farmland in the peace river area.

I am not against Site-C, and in fact, I think the benefits outweigh the costs, but to be clear there are costs. The agricultural land will be lost (just as it was lost when the Arrow Lakes were dammed), but the benefits are huge here. Big dams like his are better than those so called "run-of-the-river" projects because more electricity is created by flooding less land.

The land being flooded here is some of the best agricultural land in BC. In fact better than 98% of BC. Let's look at growing-degree days. Also, it's the only growing area in BC where you don't have to irrigate, and irritation means you reduce the temperatures, and thus slow down growth. It also has much better soil than over 99% of the province.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Donald G »

Seven thousand acres sounds like a lot of land. I know of one farm north of Manning in the Peace River area that farms 10,000 acres. IMO there is no comparison between the clean energy benefits derived from the proposed dam and the benefits derived from 7,000 acres of agricultural producing farmland. Not even close.
I Think
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10550
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 6:12 pm

Re: Site C

Post by I Think »

Dams are not without their problems, as they age they become less stable, they may cause sedimentation to build up upstream of the dam, they change the water flow and temperature impacting fish and other wild life, they cause alterations in the downstream streambed.
We're lost but we're making good time.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Site C

Post by Smurf »

Nothing is without problems, but dams especially large ones have by far the least compared to the quality, quantity and and constant output they produce compared to the alternatives. They are an excellent constant stable base of many large systems and should be for ours for the foreseeable future and probably beyond. Other sources have their place but not as the mainstay of a reliable system.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
I Think
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10550
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 6:12 pm

Re: Site C

Post by I Think »

One of the good things about dams is that they are relatively easy to control, increase or decrease the water flow to suit the demands for the electricity, when you couple them with wind turbines and solar you get a really useful synergy.

Coal and oil are much harder to adjust, they are usually built to run at full throttle.
We're lost but we're making good time.
Liquidnails
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 890
Joined: Mar 7th, 2010, 10:45 am

Re: Site C

Post by Liquidnails »

Building site C right now doesn't make any sense, and lots of people smarter than Crusty Clark agree. It makes the most sense to build a couple combined cycle natural gas fired plants. They would cost a fraction of the price of Site C, be built in less than half the time and generate less pollution than any single LNG project. The Liberals exempt LNG export terminals from their Clean Energy Act (thus defining natural gas as a clean energy source), but use this same Act to prevent BC Hydro from building a gas-fired power plant instead of Site C. Apparently our gas is good enough for the rest of the world to burn but not good enough to meet BC's power needs
I Think
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10550
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 6:12 pm

Re: Site C

Post by I Think »

Nails, the problem with building gas powered gen stations is that politicians, bureaucrats and company CEO's don't want to put their names on them.

Now the site C Christy Clark dam has a nice ring to it don't you agree?

10 years from now Clark dam will be holding back lake Jessica
We're lost but we're making good time.
Gixxer
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4858
Joined: Jul 26th, 2007, 8:24 am

Re: Site C

Post by Gixxer »

Liquidnails wrote:Building site C right now doesn't make any sense, and lots of people smarter than Crusty Clark agree. It makes the most sense to build a couple combined cycle natural gas fired plants. They would cost a fraction of the price of Site C, be built in less than half the time and generate less pollution than any single LNG project. The Liberals exempt LNG export terminals from their Clean Energy Act (thus defining natural gas as a clean energy source), but use this same Act to prevent BC Hydro from building a gas-fired power plant instead of Site C. Apparently our gas is good enough for the rest of the world to burn but not good enough to meet BC's power needs





How much heat does a natural gas fired plant vs. a hydro dam?

How much methane gas does a natural gas fired plant vs a hydro dam?

How much green house gases does a natural gas fired plant vs a hydro dam?

How big are the natural gas reserves that power a natural gas fired vs. a water source to power a hydro dam?

From start to finish what is the long term environmental impact of a natural gas fired plant vs. a hydro dam?
Gixxer
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4858
Joined: Jul 26th, 2007, 8:24 am

Re: Site C

Post by Gixxer »

Site C dam was in the works before Christy Clark was even in politics.
Last edited by Gixxer on Dec 2nd, 2015, 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
I Think
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10550
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 6:12 pm

Re: Site C

Post by I Think »

The site C dam was in the works before Christy Clark was even in politics.


But you can bet your last nickel that she would like her name on the damn dam.
We're lost but we're making good time.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: Site C

Post by Donald G »

To I Think ...

So one of the reasons that you are against the "damn dam" is that Premier Clark's name might be on it ??

Not really too objective about the dam are you ??
User avatar
Hassel99
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3815
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012, 9:31 am

Re: Site C

Post by Hassel99 »

I Think wrote:But you can bet your last nickel that she would like her name on the damn dam.


How is that relevant?
I Think
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10550
Joined: May 29th, 2008, 6:12 pm

Re: Site C

Post by I Think »

Donald and Hassel, Legacy projects such as dams, big bridges, airports etc are favored by politicians because they can have their names put on them. This makes the project a little bit more suspect, how badly does Cowdy Custard want his name on the bridge, or dam?
Legacy projects must always be looked at a little more carefully because of this.
We're lost but we're making good time.

Return to “B.C.”