Page 3 of 48 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 476

Thread: Site "C"

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    6,446

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by Surrey Boy View Post
    Every thread about Site C, I've alluded to it in some fashion. I thought it odd that nobody would ever argue the point.
    short life span for a dam.....perhaps cuz few have a clue what that means is it 75 years??? 100 years...even 50 years would seem like a short lifespan for a dam to me... but I assume upgrades and maintenance along the way during that time frame... but again no experience to base from other than I have never heard of a dam being removed due to being past its lifespan????

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    somewhere in time......
    Posts
    4,118

    Re: Site "C"

    The Peace River moves cubic miles of silt .....

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    14,699

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by ACE View Post
    The Peace River moves cubic miles of silt .....
    I guess they want to store it up behind a dam ! LIKE Mt Polley ! lol RJ
    Last edited by REMINGTON JIM; 03-01-2016 at 12:34 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,677

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by ACE View Post
    Nailed it ..... ^
    But ...... Christy Clark wants a monument to herself .....
    She figures she's a 'mover and shaker' in the pattern of the Bennett's .....
    Ask yourself why on earth would they shut down Burrard Thermal, paid for and renovated, and can right now produce more to the grid than Site C ever can or will? We are going to borrow over 10 BILLION on a project that won't even cover the debt costs when we sell the power. It's madness.
    It's Mom not Mum
    It's Fries not Chips
    It's Soccer not Football
    It's School not Shooting Range

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    6,446

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Poutine View Post
    Ask yourself why on earth would they shut down Burrard Thermal, paid for and renovated, and can right now produce more to the grid than Site C ever can or will? We are going to borrow over 10 BILLION on a project that won't even cover the debt costs when we sell the power. It's madness.
    because lower mainlanders don't wanna be known as "dirty energy" users...they would rather see thousands of miles of transmission lines slice across the province

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,677

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by wideopenthrottle View Post
    because lower mainlanders don't wanna be known as "dirty energy" users...they would rather see thousands of miles of transmission lines slice across the province
    Sad but true. At my most cynical it was CC that declared LNG as a clean fuel. Burrard Thermal should be used and NOW. We paid for it, we own it and it works. I would suggest that the carbon produced just by the Site C build is up there with Burrard Thermal.
    It's Mom not Mum
    It's Fries not Chips
    It's Soccer not Football
    It's School not Shooting Range

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    RDN
    Posts
    6,658

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by wideopenthrottle View Post
    short life span for a dam.....perhaps cuz few have a clue what that means is it 75 years??? 100 years...even 50 years would seem like a short lifespan for a dam to me... but I assume upgrades and maintenance along the way during that time frame... but again no experience to base from other than I have never heard of a dam being removed due to being past its lifespan????
    It's not the dam, it's the reservoir. It's shallow with loose soil on all banks that will slough in, requiring shoring and dredging. Not only will that be extremely expensive, but also prevent the lake from becoming a productive ecosystem. The highway between Fort St. John and Hudson's Hope will be flooded, but there isn't much talk of rerouting it. Mile 95 and Mile 91 roads will be the backdoor for access to land and resources, whose stakeholders will need to be compensated.

    GE owns the dam (asset) but the Crown owns the reservoir (liability) and infrastructure (liability).

    In 20 years, BC will regret this. They didn't build it in the 70s because even then they knew it was a bad idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricDyck View Post
    ....i dont buy ** fish ..its like buying your stolen tools back from a crack head..

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    14,699

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Poutine View Post
    Ask yourself why on earth would they shut down Burrard Thermal, paid for and renovated, and can right now produce more to the grid than Site C ever can or will? We are going to borrow over 10 BILLION on a project that won't even cover the debt costs when we sell the power. It's madness.
    Makes No SENSE ! and 10 billion will be on the light side - they always go 50% over on the REAL job ! RJ

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Nelson, BC
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: Site "C"

    I am 100% opposed to Site C. It will destroy productive land and provincial finances all at the same time.
    I won't always be young, but I can be immature forever

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    region 9
    Posts
    11,589

    Re: Site "C"

    Quote Originally Posted by 325 View Post
    I am 100% opposed to Site C. It will destroy productive land and provincial finances all at the same time.
    Same here...seems like too much work for such little results...and the hunting, fishing, and agricultural areas lost are terrible..is there any petition out there that people can sign or something, just to show the BC Liberals how many BC citizens oppose this???

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •