BC hydro exposed

[Hurtlander]

We have discussed at length the need for more electricity for the future.

We have discussed at length that BC already has a huge surpluse of electricity. The actual, qualified experts we gain our information from claim that site C won't be needed for at least 40 years. Whereas your info comes from government propaganda.
Furthermore, I've never in my life ever voted NDP. Try to get it through your thick skull that there's folks from all walks of life, and every political persuasion that question the need for site C at this point in history.

[maryjane48]

lol at anyone thinking bc is going to build 15 more site c . we will need 15 more site c to cover the needs . but that wont be the future . its unrealistic . the future is mainly solar for the planet . the state of texas gets enough energy from the sun in one day to power the earth . no dam will come with in 1 percent of that . choice is clear

[Smurf]

Hurtlander wrote:

The article is interesting, but there's a few things I strongly question. The article claims that BC doesn't produce anywhere near the amount of electricity that it uses, however, BC Hydro has a huge surplus of electricity that it sells on the open market, the surplus is so great at BC Hydro is actually paying some IPP producers to go off line and stop producing electricity.....

Also while I'm having my morning rant LOL ; I really wish some of you would stop blending everyone that's opposed or question site C into one camp, that being a bunch of environmental extremist NDP tooters..
There are two distinct groups, the environmental extremists, and folks like myself that ARE NOT opposed to site C, but strongly question the actual need for it at this point in time strictly based on economic reasons. There isn't a single member of the BC Liberal caucus, or the Liberal appointed fart catcher executive and directors of BC Hydro that have the first clue about electricity generation, distribution, demand etc, yet these non experts claim we need to build site C....On the other hand there's been numerous articles published by people who are actual experts in electricity production, distribution, demand etc that claim site C is not needed at this time, there's also BC Hydro supervisors further down the chain of command that actually do know what's going on who also claim site C isn't needed. Personally I think it's foolish to simply take the word of politicians or political appointees with no real world expertise on the subject at face value, and totally ignore actually experts. An independent body such as BCUC or some other independent body, should've reviewed the need for site C before committing $9-15 Billion on something that may not really be needed.

If you go back through the "site C" thread you will see that BC Hydro imports more power than it exports. You also seem to be confusing the need for power overall with peak loading which has been growing and needs to be met when demanded as it is usually at very necessary times like extreme cold, storms etc.

We might not need the power today but as explained we will need it if we move ahead with alternative methods. We will need the synchronous power it supplies that these other types do not supply or do it with extremely "expensive" "dirty" methods. Now is the time to build it because it will never be any cheaper and it lays the foundation necessary for the alternative sources.

I would have to think that the people within Hydro who deal solely with the production and sale of Hydro everyday, publicly and on and off the open market probably know more about it and are more up to date on it than anyone on the BCUC. During my career I had the opportunity to meet with a number of these people in a couple of provinces and believe me when I say they are as close to experts as you will get. The actual people at the very head of the corporation might not know it all but that is not their job, they rely on the people who deal with it on a day today basis inside and outside of Canada. I would have to believe that they have as much or more information at their disposal as anyone. Read the factual information in the site C thread and think it all through remembering that most if not all of us that are promoting site C are not against alternatives but we just realize that to work the most efficiently we must have a proper mix and that as explained in mikest2's post is still a long way off.

[Hurtlander]

If you go back through the "site C" thread you will see that BC Hydro imports more power than it exports.

No, that's not exactly true.
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/3/brit ... -exports-/

I would have to think that the people within Hydro who deal solely with the production and sale of Hydro everyday, publicly and on and off the open market probably know more about it and are more up to date on it than anyone on the BCUC. During my career I had the opportunity to meet with a number of these people in a couple of provinces and believe me when I say they are as close to experts as you will get. The actual people at the very head of the corporation might not know it all but that is not their job, they rely on the people who deal with it on a day today basis inside and outside of Canada.

Exactly, I completely agree with that comment, but I still have this nagging feeling that the senior brass of BC Hydro who are nothing more than political appointee Liberal fart catchers didn't base their decision to build site C on the combined wisdom of their employees that actually are real experts in the fields of electricity production and distribution, rather the BC Hydro senior brass took their marching orders from the office of Christy Clark...The fact that Christy Clark publicly stated that she wanted site C built beyond the point of no return before the election sounds to me like the only reason she wanted site C built was a legacy project, and for no other reason..
Also, if there was a real business case for building site C, the government would've had absolutely nothing to worry about with BCUC giving its rubber stamp to proceed with the project.

[maryjane48]

yes it be exact same as approving ajax mine with no enviromental review .

[Smurf]

Hurtlander wrote:

Smurf wrote:
If you go back through the "site C" thread you will see that BC Hydro imports more power than it exports.

No, that's not exactly true.
https://www.biv.com/article/2016/3/brit ... -exports-/

Thank you for posting the article, it proves how valuable site C will be for export if we can't use it all.

B.C. has long been a strategic buyer and seller of electricity, the NEB noted in a December report highlighting how the province uses its hydro system to maximize gains from electricity trade.

The province was a net importer of electricity for seven out of the past 11 years, the report said.

“However, B.C. has had a positive trade revenue balance since 2011 due to its additions of generation over the last few years and its ability to buy electricity when prices are lower (during the night or during spring) and sell when prices are higher (during peak hours).”

The province’s ability to “buy low and sell high” is based on several factors, the NEB says, including “sizeable amounts” of added wind power generation capacity south of the border, making prices in the United States Pacific Northwest low—especially during spring and early summer, when there is abundant hydro generation from rain and melting snow.

I also noted that "we have been a net importer for 7 of the last 11 years". That is what I was talking about.

[Hurtlander]

“However, B.C. has had a positive trade revenue balance since 2011 due to its additions of generation over the last few years and its ability to buy electricity when prices are lower (during the night or during spring) and sell when prices are higher (during peak hours).”

The province’s ability to “buy low and sell high” is based on several factors, the NEB says, including “sizeable amounts” of added wind power generation capacity south of the border, making prices in the United States Pacific Northwest low—especially during spring and early summer, when there is abundant hydro generation from rain and melting snow.

I also noted that "we have been a net importer for 7 of the last 11 years". That is what I was talking about.[/quote]
That was prior to 2011, 2003-2010, 4 of those 11 years BC was not a net importer. For the past 6 years BC has been a net exporter because of our surplus.

[maryjane48]

and yet no bill reductions . one best scams clark has run on us and if we are exporting we need lowerc bills before one watt gets shipped any where

[Smurf]

The reasons bills have not been lower are:

That the government is taking money from BC Hydro to put in general funds to fund education, health etc that everyone seems to like. They like to take it from there because they can fool people who don't pay attention and don't even realize it is actually a type of hidden tax. These easily fooled people then blame Hydro for high rates which actually even after the theft are amongst the very lowest in the world. Good for Hydro. Remember also that this was started by the NDP not the Liberals.

Secondly thanks to their BCUC and governments trying to look good by keeping rates down BC Hydro has fallen behind on maintenance, improvements etc which have now built up to a stage where they are necessary. Had these so called experts LOL stayed out of it and let Hydro do their job properly we would not be in this position now and although rates might be a bit higher they would not be as high as they will be now due to the meddling of these outsiders.

Also the brilliant idea to allow run of the river IPP's which was also outside meddling. They should never have been allowed or at least not as many as were for sure. Site C should have been built sooner, it would have been much cheaper because as we all know costs of building just go up, never down. it would have alleviated the need for IPP's and set the stage for alternative methods to be developed. A plus for everyone. And again in the end rates would be lower as we would not be subsidizing the IPP's.


Does anyone else realize we are just rehashing everything from the "site C" thread and that again there has been no factual proof from the no site that site C is not a good thing.

Back to Hobbyguy's request from that thread that has never been met.

Please post a link to a windy-solar grid jurisdiction that provides abundant, renewable, reliable electricity at affordable prices without subsidies.

The best part of it all is that thanks to the fact we run almost completely, approximately 90%, on Hydro generation, we have some of the very lowest rates in the world even after the government steals it's share to pay for goodies for us all. Who can complain about that? OPP's! my bad, we just have to look at these threads to answer that one.

[Urban Cowboy]

and yet no bill reductions . one best scams clark has run on us and if we are exporting we need lowerc bills before one watt gets shipped any where

Actually the NDP gets credit for running that scam on us!

[Smurf]

Just wait till they get a chance to add huge subsidies to alternative methods of power production to the list if they get a chance. They will manage to give away all the profits they take from Hydro in no time.

[maryjane48]

it doesnt matter who started it . whar matters is bills increasing while electricty gets exported . now with site c your argument has changed from we need the power for us to we need power to sell lol .

so if your so concerned with money for education could you point me to the thread you started on stopping clark from wasting 150 milion plus on losing court case ?

[Smurf]

If you have read anything that I have posted you would know that I have said from day one that if we have extra power we should sell it on the open market. I have watched this go on through my whole career and since I retired and it is a wonderful source of income to pay some of the costs of new generating stations. If you bothered to read the article that Hurtlander referred to earlier you would see how BC Hydro has made a lot of money buying low and selling high. That is one of the ways that Hydro producers make money. Hydro produces 27/7/365 which allows them to sell to areas that say use solar when prices are high in the evening and demands are high. You should go back and read that article and much of the information in the "site C" thread proving it happens.

Here is some interesting information from the article related to possible future exports.

The NEB notes this is because B.C.’s hydroelectric power qualifies as “low-emission” under the rules of California’s carbon market, making it more attractive than other options.

All the more reason we should proceed with site C, if we don't need it we can sell it and as more and more areas need synchronous sustainable power it will become more valuable. What we don't want to do is become one of those areas like California that require that power.

And yes I am interested in money for education. I never opened a thread about Christy and court cases but again if you read my posts on the subject I was 100% against her going to court from the very beginning. Maybe you should read up on info
available before you ask such silly questions. Two totally wrong things in one short post is bad even for you.

[Smurf]

Hurtlander wrote:

I also noted that "we have been a net importer for 7 of the last 11 years". That is what I was talking about.

That was prior to 2011, 2003-2010, 4 of those 11 years BC was not a net importer. For the past 6 years BC has been a net exporter because of our surplus.[/quote]

Could you please point me towards this information because I missed it somewhere and can't seem to find it.

[Urban Cowboy]

it doesnt matter who started it . whar matters is bills increasing while electricty gets exported . now with site c your argument has changed from we need the power for us to we need power to sell lol .

Of course it doesn't matter to you, because if it did you'd be exposed as being the hypocrite you are. You keep complaining about the Liberals taking money from Hydro, to pay for services you demand, yet fail to acknowledge that if the money taken, was instead used to lower your electricity bills, you'd have to pay more tax to cover the cost of programs. Something that no doubt would compel you to begin another thread.

There is no free lunch mj, never was, never will be, and it makes no difference what party is in power.

so if your so concerned with money for education could you point me to the thread you started on stopping clark from wasting 150 milion plus on losing court case ?

This is where you are attempting to sell a foible, given that the 150 million plus, still turned out to be cheaper than paying for the backroom deal that was being disputed.

The court case saved the province money over its duration. Seems like good governance to me.