Site "C"

[REMINGTON JIM]

Looking pretty good for BC Hydro today - judge ruled in favor ! :tongue: RJ

[Cyrus]

let the protest begin...

[REMINGTON JIM]

Site C is gonna happen no Matter what any FN's or other groups thinks or wants - Thats my prediction ! :shock: Christy wants it so Christy will get it as long as shes BOSS ! :-( RJ

[Singleshotneeded]

Git 'er dun! The North needs power...otherwise those peeps up there will freeze and drive down here to escape...then the southern woods will get really crowded! :-P

[tangozulu]

North doesnt need power. Its the south that does.

[TARCHER]

not really needed

[Surrey Boy]

Badly arranged project, going to costs us our pensions in 20 years. Look at Ontario.

[Down South]

Just build natural gas fired plants as needed, where needed.

I don't think any other government would build "site C" with all the available NG we have, just to try and save face

[Monashee]

Not needed , huge wildlife loss of habitat , hunting opportunities gone forever , farmland gone .... forever , lifespan of dam considered to be short due to heavy silt buildup .

[Singleshotneeded]

A short lifespan as well...hadn`t heard that bit of news...

[Mtn Wonderer]

I agree its likely not needed, however it has been on the books since the 70's, millions spent on design, reputations and ego's at stake. So it will get pushed thru, Sad really.
Such pristine country!

Existing dams in the area are due for major upgrades because of age and new construction and seisimic standards.

The construction of the new Dam will bring prosperity to the region in a time when oil and gas revenues are low, Many in the area have an inflated lifestyle that has
been funded by oil and gas. Its Nice when industry is booming not so nice when it isn't. But really from down here who are we to decide, its the locals who will be affected, loss of land for farming, hunting and fishing, yet some good long and short term jobs will be available, a project like this can make careers for them the are willing to take on the responsibilty.

Just some thoughts

[Drillbit]

^I have a few buddies that lost their jobs in FortMac and are now building the siteC camp.

[bridger]

Git 'er dun! The North needs power...otherwise those peeps up there will freeze and drive down here to escape...then the southern woods will get really crowded! :-P

I doubt it lol

[bridger]

Just build natural gas fired plants as needed, where needed.

I don't think any other government would build "site C" with all the available NG we have, just to try and save face

pretty well to the point! Costs less more long term jobs.

[ACE]

Just build natural gas fired plants as needed, where needed.
I don't think any other government would build 'Site C' with all the available NG we have, just to try and save face.

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 .....

[M.Dean]

The protesters, and the Native Bands are the only ones that can see how much dam good land will be lost, so in time, your going to see more and more yellow and orange extension cords stretched out to supply our "Neighbors" with cheap power, well we pay through the bloody nose for our "Own" power! But hey, what do I know, Eh?

[REMINGTON JIM]

The BC Gov gave away electricity from the Revelstoke Dam for years to the USA while we tax payers who paid to build the Dam paid regular prices ! WTF Site C is gonna be the same way ! jmo RJ

[OOBuck]

The BC Gov gave away electricity from the Revelstoke Dam for years to the USA while we tax payers who paid to build the Dam paid regular prices ! WTF Site C is gonna be the same way ! jmo RJ

Oh dont forget the BC government was sued & lost for wanting to get paid for its power that was never paid for....

[wideopenthrottle]

Oh dont forget the BC government was sued & lost for wanting to get paid for its power that was never paid for....

and when we finally had them over a barrel and made huge profits they sued powerex to get chit loads of it back http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-hydro-s-powerex-pays-750m-to-settle-california-claims-1.1378482

[Surrey Boy]

A short lifespan as well...hadn`t heard that bit of news...

Every thread about Site C, I've alluded to it in some fashion. I thought it odd that nobody would ever argue the point.

[wideopenthrottle]

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????

[ACE]

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

[REMINGTON JIM]

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

I guess they want to store it up behind a dam ! LIKE Mt Polley ! :sad: lol RJ

[Vladimir Poutine]

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.

[wideopenthrottle]

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

[Vladimir Poutine]

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.

[Surrey Boy]

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.

[REMINGTON JIM]

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 ! :cry: RJ

[325]

I am 100% opposed to Site C. It will destroy productive land and provincial finances all at the same time.

[HarryToolips]

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???

[adriaticum]

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 yes, "WE" will borrow the money and "THEY" will profit when it starts to sell.

[Vladimir Poutine]

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???

Well the only one left at this point unless she comes to her senses will be the ballot box. Like she said at Bennett's Memorial "I will take this past the point of no return." What a low class person.

[Cyrus]

wonder how much Christy gets to put in her pocket with the approval of this one???

[walks with deer]

Christy a pig... best ungulate winter range in the province flooded.

Had a old guy tell me the animals will find somewhere else to winter.

Yup animals migrate there cause there is somewhere else to go..
watch the peice mule deer numbers drop like caribou...

[one-shot-wonder]

Christy a pig... best ungulate winter range in the province flooded.

Had a old guy tell me the animals will find somewhere else to winter.

Yup animals migrate there cause there is somewhere else to go..
watch the peice mule deer numbers drop like caribou...

She's better known as "Missy Piggy"

[180grainer]

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.
O and G is not coming back anytime soon. The infrastructure in FSJ continues to build based on the idea of at least $100.00 a barrel. Houses, townhouses, apartments planned and paid for based on 2014 projections are still being built now. Who's buying those in an area you wouldn't live in unless you were making lots of money......... What other jobs are there in the Peace? The Clark government needs this dam to go ahead no matter what. Phuke logic, it has nothing to do with logic.

[mpotzold]

I am 100% opposed to Site C. It will destroy productive land and provincial finances all at the same time.

I am 99% opposed!:p

Personally always been against it & hopefully it can be legally stopped!

Consider the opposition party leaders!
Andrew Weaver, B.C. Green Party leader called Site C a "risky and foolish" project

-“Despite the court’s ruling, I still believe Site C is risky and foolish and I will continue to voice my opposition to this project. British Columbians are going to be paying for Site C for decades and in the absence of a vastly expanded LNG industry, we simply don’t need it.”


-It’s a project that was dreamt up to support the pipedream of LNG.


As many of us are aware BC LNG future gov’t revenue/profits are nothing more than pie in the sky promises. Why? The world as we speak is oversaturated in natural gas & it will get worse before it gets better.


The proposed flooding.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zVmVZ68OsZ2M.kgdzb0_XN7VY&msa=0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=56.133307%2C-121.46759&spn=0.727011%2C1.480408&z=9&source=embed (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zVmVZ68OsZ2M.kgdzb0_XN7VY&msa=0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=56.133307%2C-121.46759&spn=0.727011%2C1.480408&z=9&source=embed)


-By BC Hydro’s own admission, we don’t currently need Site C’s power, and won’t for decades. Only in the increasingly unlikely event that a liquefied natural gas industry emerges does the scenario change.


John Horgan, leader of the BC NDP would shut down Site C if elected next May.
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/rafe-ndp-leader-horgans-site-c-dam-opposition-is-a-political-game-changer/ (http://commonsensecanadian.ca/rafe-ndp-leader-horgans-site-c-dam-opposition-is-a-political-game-changer/)

[shortrange]

They are building a new power corridor to Alberta so the dam will be going ahead. With all the LNG available it makes sense to build gas power plants too, and sell some electricity to make money for BC

[Sitkaspruce]

SO NOW people are getting concerned......???

A little late folks....kind of like closing the door when all the horses have left......

The Libs did the best thing on this Site C; they waited until most of the huggers, professional protesters and most Indian bands focused on The Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan and they slipped this Dam in under the radar.

Other than the local land owners, Indians and local Peace folks, did not see many concerned when they passed a bill that had the Dam excluded for the BC Utilities Commission, didn't see many folks say much when they started issuing clearing contracts and contracts for building the dam.

Now that it has made the news because of the court injunction and there is some interest.......

A co-worker was out yesterday and talked to a couple of RCMP that are being paid to sit 100k out in the bush to ensure no protesters are coming back to the spot the injunction was for. Hydro has actually given a designated spot for the protesters to legally protest that is not far from the original location.

This dam will be a blight on top of the other blights here in the North East.....

Cheers

SS

[180grainer]

SO NOW people are getting concerned......???

A little late folks....kind of like closing the door when all the horses have left......

The Libs did the best thing on this Site C; they waited until most of the huggers, professional protesters and most Indian bands focused on The Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan and they slipped this Dam in under the radar.

Other than the local land owners, Indians and local Peace folks, did not see many concerned when they passed a bill that had the Dam excluded for the BC Utilities Commission, didn't see many folks say much when they started issuing clearing contracts and contracts for building the dam.

Now that it has made the news because of the court injunction and there is some interest.......

A co-worker was out yesterday and talked to a couple of RCMP that are being paid to sit 100k out in the bush to ensure no protesters are coming back to the spot the injunction was for. Hydro has actually given a designated spot for the protesters to legally protest that is not far from the original location.

This dam will be a blight on top of the other blights here in the North East.....

Cheers

SS

You're right....which sucks cause it pretty much includes me....

[boxhitch]

Andrew Weaver, B.C. Green Party leader
-It’s a project that was dreamt up to support the pipedream of LNG.um , a little late to the party
Site C has been on the books for decades.
IT wasn't viable then , and no one can prove it is viable now.
Take the $billions it will cost and put that back into the hands of the public to spend and the economy will truly benefit

[mpotzold]

Another good reason why SiteC project is not needed-check graph- 10 years of flat domestic demand for electricity.

Site C has an $8.8 billion budget but could cost up to $17.2 billion(if not a lot more!)

http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/2016/02/delusion-and-deception-are-complementary.html (http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/2016/02/delusion-and-deception-are-complementary.html)

[REMINGTON JIM]

um , a little late to the party
Site C has been on the books for decades.
IT wasn't viable then , and no one can prove it is viable now.
Take the $billions it will cost and put that back into the hands of the public to spend and the economy will truly benefit

YUP ! Right you are Billy ! ;) RJ

[wideopenthrottle]

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ontarians-just-signed-up-for-more-expensive-unreliable-electricity-they-dont-need

hey good to see we are following the lead of Ontario <sarcasm>

[Vladimir Poutine]

um , a little late to the party
Site C has been on the books for decades.
IT wasn't viable then , and no one can prove it is viable now.
Take the $billions it will cost and put that back into the hands of the public to spend and the economy will truly benefit

Not entirely. I would suggest that what the poster means is that Site C was only one of several reasons Clark and Co have given for it's shoving up our collective asses. At one time or another it was for export, then it was for future needs of BC, and then it was potentially for LNG. All of which are changed to fit Clark's narrative but all of which are patently false. Site is not needed. Period. Let Burrard Thermal be put to use. It's already paid for, upgraded, and can produce more power to the grid now than Site C ever could.

[1899]

Not entirely. I would suggest that what the poster means is that Site C was only one of several reasons Clark and Co have given for it's shoving up our collective asses. At one time or another it was for export, then it was for future needs of BC, and then it was potentially for LNG. All of which are changed to fit Clark's narrative but all of which are patently false. Site is not needed. Period. Let Burrard Thermal be put to use. It's already paid for, upgraded, and can produce more power to the grid now than Site C ever could.

Agreed.....

[mpotzold]

Today’s appeal may be the last legal challenge from the PVLA (PeaceValley Landowners Association) who are challenging the B.C. government’s approval of the Site C dam at the B.C. Court of Appeal( April 4th& 5th.)

Three other lawsuits from the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations also have a chance at delaying the project—including a judicial review of 36 construction permits issued for the dam.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-landowners-challenge-appeal-1.3519495 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-landowners-challenge-appeal-1.3519495)

Let’s hope this boondoggle can be stopped. :mad:


This can’t be true!:shock:
http://www.desmog.ca/2016/04/04/bc-hydro-s-bizarre-multi-million-dollar-boondoggle-save-fish-site-c-dam (http://www.desmog.ca/2016/04/04/bc-hydro-s-bizarre-multi-million-dollar-boondoggle-save-fish-site-c-dam)

The election to oust CC & Co. can’t come soon enough.

[wideopenthrottle]

http://www.desmog.ca/2016/04/04/bc-hydro-s-bizarre-multi-million-dollar-boondoggle-save-fish-site-c-dam (http://www.desmog.ca/2016/04/04/bc-hydro-s-bizarre-multi-million-dollar-boondoggle-save-fish-site-c-dam)[/SIZE]

.

so much for hydro-electric power being so much "greener" than burning Nat gas..seems there will be more ecological damage with the dam

[MichelD]

http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-hydro-spent-17-5-million-to-not-buy-power

B.C. Hydro spent $17.5 million to not buy powerIt cost B.C. Hydro $17.5 million last year to ask eight Independent Power Producers of biomass energy to turn off production because their power was not needed, a sizeable figure that B.C.’s energy minister said actually resulted in millions of dollars in savings for ratepayers.

[sparkymacker]

http://vancouversun.com/news/politics/b-c-hydro-spent-17-5-million-to-not-buy-power

B.C. Hydro spent $17.5 million to not buy power

It cost B.C. Hydro $17.5 million last year to ask eight Independent Power Producers of biomass energy to turn off production because their power was not needed, a sizeable figure that B.C.’s energy minister said actually resulted in millions of dollars in savings for ratepayers.

That is the beauty of Green, subsidize the construction because it is uneconomical; then pay the producer not to produce because it is uneconomical. If that is not a model of sustainability I don't know what is? :razz:

[hawk-i]

The Dam will open up hunting opportunities...the game will still be there...the land is NOT lost its still there and will be far more fertile in the distant future. We need jobs, 100% in favour of site C.

[Whonnock Boy]

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on your comment, or are you being sarcastic?


The Dam will open up hunting opportunities...the game will still be there...the land is NOT lost its still there and will be far more fertile in the distant future. We need jobs, 100% in favour of site C.

[REMINGTON JIM]

um , a little late to the party
Site C has been on the books for decades.
IT wasn't viable then , and no one can prove it is viable now.
Take the $billions it will cost and put that back into the hands of the public to spend and the economy will truly benefit

Right on boxhitch ! :wink: RJ

[REMINGTON JIM]

The Dam will open up hunting opportunities...the game will still be there...the land is NOT lost its still there and will be far more fertile in the distant future. We need jobs, 100% in favour of site C.

Ok Christie ! :-( What ever you wanna Believe ! :roll: RJ

[hawk-i]

Ok Christie ! :-( What ever you wanna Believe ! :roll: RJ

LOL, to funny :)

The people voted on it the last election....maybe you don't remember that. :(

I didn't vote Liberal....did you?

[Vladimir Poutine]

The Dam will open up hunting opportunities...the game will still be there...the land is NOT lost its still there and will be far more fertile in the distant future. We need jobs, 100% in favour of site C.

Soooo just how is it that the land will be more fertile when it's under water? And you're welcome that the BC taxpayer will subsidize a small number of jobs to the tune of over 8 BILLION dollars for a project that will get revenue that won't service the debt of what it will cost to build. Absolutely f*****g brilliant.

[REMINGTON JIM]

LOL, to funny :)

The people voted on it the last election....maybe you don't remember that. :(

I didn't vote Liberal....did you?

Yea i did Because the only other NON choice was NDP ! don't mean i LIKE her or the rest of the Libs ! :sad: RJ

[hawk-i]

Soooo just how is it that the land will be more fertile when it's under water? And you're welcome that the BC taxpayer will subsidize a small number of jobs to the tune of over 8 BILLION dollars for a project that will get revenue that won't service the debt of what it will cost to build. Absolutely f*****g brilliant.

Absolutely f*****g brilliant...the land will not be under water forever, where do you think all the silt/organic debris/minerals will settle?

[hawk-i]

Yea i did Because the only other NON choice was NDP ! don't mean i LIKE her or the rest of the Libs ! :sad: RJ

Yeah will by voting Liberal you gave your support to the Site C project when it mattered ....why whine about it now?

[Vladimir Poutine]

Absolutely f*****g brilliant...the land will not be under water forever, where do you think all the silt/organic debris/minerals will settle?

You are being sarcastic correct? Your scenario plays out when the damn dam fails.

[Stormy]

Yeah will by voting Liberal you gave your support to the Site C project when it mattered ....why whine about it now?


Much of BC Hydro's current generating capacity (infrastructure) is 50 years old and older...... And like everything else - stuff wears out - turbines, valves and penstocks have a "use by" date.

Already much of Hydro's equipment is earmarked for replacement and upgrade, take the John Hart dam generating facility in Campbell River for example, ($600 million up grade) or the Cheakamus power facillity near Squamish ($300 million up grade) - these are just two examples of many, many more projects being undertaken right now, to not only improve - but to prop up a crumbling and worn-out system.

BC Hydro does not have some sinister plan with Site C - if it was not needed, it simply would have just sat on the shelf (as it has done for many years)

Sometimes people need to pause and stop being drama queens, just take 5 minutes to look around and realize that there are people who can see a little further into the future - than just the tip of their noses!

[Vladimir Poutine]

Much of BC Hydro's current generating capacity (infrastructure) is 50 years old and older...... And like everything else - stuff wears out - turbines, valves and penstocks have a "use by" date.

Already much of Hydro's equipment is earmarked for replacement and upgrade, take the John Hart dam generating facility in Campbell River for example, ($600 million up grade) or the Cheakamus power facillity near Squamish ($300 million up grade) - these are just two examples of many, many more projects being undertaken right now, to not only improve - but to prop up a crumbling and worn-out system.

BC Hydro does not have some sinister plan with Site C - if it was not needed, it simply would have just sat on the shelf (as it has done for many years)

Sometimes people need to pause and stop being drama queens, just take 5 minutes to look around and realize that there are people who can see a little further into the future - than just the tip of their noses!

First of all, if there was nothing sinister about Hydro's plan to build Site C then why was the BCUC not allowed to see if it was viable and needed? After all, if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't mind if the regulator that is supposed to oversee this type of thing did it's job.

You say that much of Hydro's equipment is breaking down etc etc. Why then does the BC Gov use Hydro as a cash source to help it's bottom line? If the infrastructure is in such bad shape why are BC taxpayers shelling out billions this year to IPPs for power that is higher than current market rate? How will building a project that even if it sells all of it's capacity won't service it's debt to build? How does spending more than 10 BILLION on a project that Hydro has admitted has changing reasons for it to be built make any sense?

Power requirements in BC are going down, not up. How can spending those billions on a new project help plants that are getting as you put it needed upgrades?

The provincial government has made it clear that Site C is about meeting future electricity demands. But the province is currently energy self-sufficient; we are a significant net exporter of power.

"According to BC Hydro's own growth forecasts, by 2024, the annual energy demand, after the current conservation plan, will almost equal the projected annual energy supply — without Site C.

This would seem to indicate that when Site C comes online, almost all of the 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity produced annually will be in excess of projected demand within the province."

This is not looking to the future other than saddling the future BC Taxpayers with unnecessary debt.

[Stormy]

First of all, if there was nothing sinister about Hydro's plan to build Site C then why was the BCUC not allowed to see if it was viable and needed? After all, if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't mind if the regulator that is supposed to oversee this type of thing did it's job.

You say that much of Hydro's equipment is breaking down etc etc. Why then does the BC Gov use Hydro as a cash source to help it's bottom line? If the infrastructure is in such bad shape why are BC taxpayers shelling out billions this year to IPPs for power that is higher than current market rate? How will building a project that even if it sells all of it's capacity won't service it's debt to build? How does spending more than 10 BILLION on a project that Hydro has admitted has changing reasons for it to be built make any sense?

Power requirements in BC are going down, not up. How can spending those billions on a new project help plants that are getting as you put it needed upgrades?

The provincial government has made it clear that Site C is about meeting future electricity demands. But the province is currently energy self-sufficient; we are a significant net exporter of power.

"According to BC Hydro's own growth forecasts, by 2024, the annual energy demand, after the current conservation plan, will almost equal the projected annual energy supply — without Site C.

This would seem to indicate that when Site C comes online, almost all of the 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity produced annually will be in excess of projected demand within the province."

This is not looking to the future other than saddling the future BC Taxpayers with unnecessary debt.

Ok then - please enlighten us (with that superior knowledge of yours) tell us why you think BC Hydro is building the site C dam and generating facilities....

[wideopenthrottle]

Ok then - please enlighten us (with that superior knowledge of yours) tell us why you think BC Hydro is building the site C dam and generating facilities....

cuz Christy wants a legacy like flying phil or wacky Bennett....see C.C.'s site "C"

[Vladimir Poutine]

Ok then - please enlighten us (with that superior knowledge of yours) tell us why you think BC Hydro is building the site C dam and generating facilities....


Coming out of the gate being dismissive and condescending to your audience is a sure fire way to have the responses be condescending and dismissive.

I will try and not fall into that trap.

At one time or another the reasons given for Site C were as follows.

1- We need the power for BC's power requirements.

Fact- Consider that domestic power consumption has not changed in the past decade but the balance of BC Hydro's property, plant and equipment has doubled from $10 billion to $20 billion. And, with planned projects, it may double again in the next decade, even though BC electricity consumers will continue consuming quantities of electricity similar to the amounts in 2006.

2- It's needed for LNG

Fact- Unless you have been traveling outside of the country for the last 3 years or so, LNG is not likely to happen.

What's really wrong is that BC Hydro has been spending billions on new capacity but producing less power. Demand has not grown since 2005 but purchases from IPPs, between FY 2005 and FY 2015, rose 108% from 6,444 GWh to 13,377. The purchasing is up again in 2016, by about 11%. The cost of IPP power was almost $500 million more in FY 2015 than in 2013.

[srupp]

Hmm dont know anything about this new project..however I do think WAC Bennett was ahead of his time his projects were vital to where we are today.
Population and energy demands should grow..build it while it is feasible . ready for rsmped up need..spoken from no knowledge of this project.
Steven

[Stormy]

First of all, if there was nothing sinister about Hydro's plan to build Site C then why was the BCUC not allowed to see if it was viable and needed? After all, if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't mind if the regulator that is supposed to oversee this type of thing did it's job.

You say that much of Hydro's equipment is breaking down etc etc. Why then does the BC Gov use Hydro as a cash source to help it's bottom line? If the infrastructure is in such bad shape why are BC taxpayers shelling out billions this year to IPPs for power that is higher than current market rate? How will building a project that even if it sells all of it's capacity won't service it's debt to build? How does spending more than 10 BILLION on a project that Hydro has admitted has changing reasons for it to be built make any sense?

Power requirements in BC are going down, not up. How can spending those billions on a new project help plants that are getting as you put it needed upgrades?

The provincial government has made it clear that Site C is about meeting future electricity demands. But the province is currently energy self-sufficient; we are a significant net exporter of power.

"According to BC Hydro's own growth forecasts, by 2024, the annual energy demand, after the current conservation plan, will almost equal the projected annual energy supply — without Site C.

This would seem to indicate that when Site C comes online, almost all of the 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity produced annually will be in excess of projected demand within the province."

This is not looking to the future other than saddling the future BC Taxpayers with unnecessary debt.

OK - so you really don't know why BC Hydro is building Site C then! all you do is regurgitate stuff you read on the Internet

[Vladimir Poutine]

OK - so you really don't know why BC Hydro is building Site C then! all you do is regurgitate stuff you read on the Internet

I have given facts as to the muddled answers that Hydro has given for justification for the project, none of which pass the smell test. I am still trying to get the gist of your response other than it isn't a response.

Bottom line is that the reasons for building Site C aren't justifiable. So unless you hold the secret answer to that question then perhaps you could let us all in on it because so far Hydro and the Government haven't.

[Stormy]

I have given facts as to the muddled answers that Hydro has given for justification for the project, none of which pass the smell test. I am still trying to get the gist of your response other than it isn't a response.

Bottom line is that the reasons for building Site C aren't justifiable. So unless you hold the secret answer to that question then perhaps you could let us all in on it because so far Hydro and the Government haven't.


I have told old you already, much of the aged infrastructure is beyond repair now - turbine inlet valves have cavition damage that simply cannot get welded up and re-machined, turbine casings that are worn and out of spec, wicker gates that have eroded over the 50 year expected life span, draft tubes and penstocks all worn - all this shit needs replacement, and that includes complete facilities - reservoirs, dam walls - penstocks - tunnels and power houses.


Building a new reservoir, powerhouse and associated equipment makes perfect sense right now, it can't be done overnight or wold you like to see part of our province go dark first - so that you and your mates can start squealing that BC Hydro dosent know what's it doing?

[longwalk]

I have told old you already, much of the aged infrastructure is beyond repair now - turbine inlet valves have cavition damage that simply cannot get welded up and re-machined, turbine casings that are worn and out of spec, wicker gates that have eroded over the 50 year expected life span, draft tubes and penstocks all worn - all this shit needs replacement, and that includes complete facilities - reservoirs, dam walls - penstocks - tunnels and power houses.


Building a new reservoir, powerhouse and associated equipment makes perfect sense right now, it can't be done overnight or wold you like to see part of our province go dark first - so that you and your mates can start squealing that BC Hydro dosent know what's it doing?

I too am not particularly educated on this topic, but I thought I read recently that government just paid some producers over $17,000,000 not to produce because of oversupply. With all of Gordo's pet project IPP'S online and producing and the current power producers being paid not to produce, wouldn't there be enough slack in the system to cover any shortfall while repairs are being conducted? I can't imagine that Hydro would be doing repair/replacement to every power source in the province at the same time.

[Vladimir Poutine]

I have told old you already, much of the aged infrastructure is beyond repair now - turbine inlet valves have cavition damage that simply cannot get welded up and re-machined, turbine casings that are worn and out of spec, wicker gates that have eroded over the 50 year expected life span, draft tubes and penstocks all worn - all this shit needs replacement, and that includes complete facilities - reservoirs, dam walls - penstocks - tunnels and power houses.


Building a new reservoir, powerhouse and associated equipment makes perfect sense right now, it can't be done overnight or wold you like to see part of our province go dark first - so that you and your mates can start squealing that BC Hydro dosent know what's it doing?

You are not listening. You presented numbers about the vast quantities that Hydro is spending on two upgrades. If those are necessary timely upgrades for existing facilities then I don't think anyone would have an issue for spending those dollars. If that is the case and BC's own energy requirements are declining or static then the question you refuse to answer is why the huge outlay for Site C?

Your own comments have suggested that the infrastructure needs upgrading. I would agree and Hydro is spending the necessary $$$ to accomplish that. That then negates any need at all for Site C.

To suggest that Site C is required because other facilities are in need of repair even though they are being repaired and maintained is specious. The short answer to the real question of do we need Site C is no.

[Vladimir Poutine]

I too am not particularly educated on this topic, but I thought I read recently that government just paid some producers over $17,000,000 not to produce because of oversupply. With all of Gordo's pet project IPP'S online and producing and the current power producers being paid not to produce, wouldn't there be enough slack in the system to cover any shortfall while repairs are being conducted? I can't imagine that Hydro would be doing repair/replacement to every power source in the province at the same time.

What you have read about that is true. It is only the beginning of what the BC taxpayer is being forced to pay. The contracts that have been signed are long term and we will pay and pay, whether the power is needed or not, and in some cases whether the IPP is functioning at all. These are contractual obligations that we have been saddled with.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Yeah will by voting Liberal you gave your support to the Site C project when it mattered ....why whine about it now?

Not whinning Pal just saying BC does Not need that dam dam and the Libs are wasting the taxpayers money again ! RJ

[f350ps]

I have given facts as to the muddled answers that Hydro has given for justification for the project, none of which pass the smell test. I am still trying to get the gist of your response other than it isn't a response.

Bottom line is that the reasons for building Site C aren't justifiable. So unless you hold the secret answer to that question then perhaps you could let us all in on it because so far Hydro and the Government haven't.
I hope you realize you're arguing with Stormy/Kudu here, surely a South African knows a hell of a lot more about B.C. power generation than anybody here! Get with the program Vlad! K

[walks with deer]

Umm I am going solar and will buy my own batteries.

[Stormy]

I hope you realize you're arguing with Stormy/Kudu here, surely a South African knows a hell of a lot more about B.C. power generation than anybody here! Get with the program Vlad! K

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5747&stc=1

[hawk-i]

You are being sarcastic correct? Your scenario plays out when the damn dam fails.

Com'on there Vlad, the small amount of productive land being flooded will make less than an iota of difference in the grand scheme of BC productivity ..that is, except for those that see this as an opportunity to grab a little limelight. :)

[Vladimir Poutine]

Com'on there Vlad, the small amount of productive land being flooded will make less than an iota of difference in the grand scheme of BC productivity ..that is, except for those that see this as an opportunity to grab a little limelight. :)

So 10 BILLION plus is justification for flooding a wee bit of land when the project isn't needed? This whole thing recently started with someone asking the legitimate question of why are they building it? No one has given an answer that passes the smell test. So what are you attempting to grab?

[hawk-i]

So 10 BILLION plus is justification for flooding a wee bit of land when the project isn't needed? This whole thing recently started with someone asking the legitimate question of why are they building it? No one has given an answer that passes the smell test. So what are you attempting to grab?

10 Billion as an investment in the future when economic times are tuff in the oil industry....you bet its needed. You know the old saying "Build it and they will come". :)

[Vladimir Poutine]

10 Billion as an investment in the future when economic times are tuff in the oil industry....you bet its needed. You know the old saying "Build it and they will come". :)

So build something that is not needed to subsidize oil patch jobs. At a cost of 10 plus BILLION or more. So even if you take Hydro's estimates of 35000 total jobs for the life of the project, during the building phase and operation, that comes out to over $280,000 per job. So I guess as it's you being subsidized to the tune of 280,000 paid for by the rest of us that's OK. I say no to you and your Government subsidized job for that amount.

So far, apart from some handout that you want you still haven't given one good reason for it to be built. Still waiting.

[hawk-i]

So build something that is not needed to subsidize oil patch jobs. At a cost of 10 plus BILLION or more. So even if you take Hydro's estimates of 35000 total jobs for the life of the project, during the building phase and operation, that comes out to over $280,000 per job. So I guess as it's you being subsidized to the tune of 280,000 paid for by the rest of us that's OK. I say no to you and your Government subsidized job for that amount.

So far, apart from some handout that you want you still haven't given one good reason for it to be built. Still waiting.

Guys like you don't get it, will never get it.

Vlad, its an investment in the future of this province...10 billion is chicken feed, how many billions do we spend on Indian affairs and where is the job return on that?

This will help to keep a stable economy, it will help the merchants ,the service industries, the workers and the government.

How many return dollars in tax will the government receive? Workers buy cars, houses, food, clothing, they spend money on entertainment and necessities which in turn supports all others connected within the structured economy.

I could care less if you say no, who are you to take away from the families that will profit with their hard work and dedication.

I say no to the narrow minded views you are expressing, bring on Site-C and lets give our young families a chance at some prosperity. :)

[Monashee]

what about the farmers that have farmed the land for generations ? the people that hunt on the land for generations ? Does that have value ? You bet it does .

There is so little farm land in BC that we must protect it for our children and their children . Not to mention the critical wildlife habitat in the river bottom land .

Site C is a joke , total scam .

[hawk-i]

what about the farmers that have farmed the land for generations ? the people that hunt on the land for generations ? Does that have value ? You bet it does .

There is so little farm land in BC that we must protect it for our children and their children . Not to mention the critical wildlife habitat in the river bottom land .

Site C is a joke , total scam .

The farmers will get subsidized, the game will still be there.

I've hunted the area and I can say that the area supports an abundance of good wildlife habitat, it's not only in the river bottom land that is planned for flooding.

Older people, and to a degree some ethnic groups resist change, thats understandable.

However, change is a part of a growing and healthy society....without change we a doomed to be stuck in the past

If we can't adapt to change...will it's like what happened to the Doo Doo bird, adapt or perish.

What's the current population of BC in 2016 and what do you think it will be at in 2026, and in 2036, and in 2046, ect, ect? Do you think power will be in more of a demand or less of a demand?:D

[ruger#1]

It cost B.C. Hydro $17.5 million last year to ask eight Independent Power Producers of biomass energy to turn off production because their power was not needed, a sizeable figure that B.C.’s energy minister said actually resulted in millions of dollars in savings for ratepayers.

During estimate debates this week, Bill Bennett, the minister of energy and mines, said it would have cost B.C. Hydro about $26 million to buy the unneeded power from the biomass projects, meaning, he claimed, ratepayers realized savings of about $8.6 million.

Hydro critic Adrian Dix, however, framed the accounting differently, suggesting during the estimates debates that Hydro actually paid millions in contract penalties to the IPPs, which are all connected to pulp mills, to not produce electricity at a time when overall rates are going up.

“They talk about offsetting savings and so on, but what this shows is these are incredibly lucrative contracts and that Hydro has mismanaged the system,” Dix said in a follow-up interview.

“B.C. Hydro is paying $17.5 million not to take power.”

Bennett stressed during the estimate debates that the amount paid to the IPPs do not represent penalties. He said these specific IPP contracts allow Hydro to “essentially turn down” electricity during times of low demand, such as the spring, when it can also be purchased more cheaply from other sources.

“If they can acquire the electricity someplace else for less month, they can turn down the biomass IPP and say: ‘We’re not going to pay your electricity rate now. We’ll pay your fixed costs’ — I think they’re called deemed charges,” said Bennett. “Typically, that happens during the spring freshet, when there’s all this water rushing down rivers and into reservoirs and so forth, and there’s all of this really cheap electricity available. That’s when Hydro would avail themselves of their option under these contacts to turn down power.”

Earlier this week, B.C. Hydro said it could not release details of the contracts, including the names of the biomass projects that were “turned down” in 2015, due to confidentiality. In total, 300 gigawatt-hours out of a supply of 18,000 gigawatt hours from IPPs were not purchased, said Hydro.

However, during estimates, Bennett named the eight projects that were “turned down.” They are: PGP Bio Energy Project (Canfor Pulp Ltd., Prince George); Armstrong Wood Waste Co-Gen (Tolko Industries Ltd., Armstrong); Powell River Generation (Catalyst Paper, general partnership, Powell River); Cariboo Pulp and Paper (Cariboo Pulp and Paper Company, Quesnel); Harmac Biomass (Nanaimo Forest Products, Nanaimo); Kamloops Green Energy (Domtar Inc., Kamloops); Howe Sound Green Energy (Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Corporation, Port Mellon); NWE Williams Lake WW (Atlantic Power Preferred Equity Ltd., Williams Lake).

[Vladimir Poutine]

The farmers will get subsidized, the game will still be there.

I've hunted the area and I can say that the area supports an abundance of good wildlife habitat, it's not only in the river bottom land that is planned for flooding.

Older people, and to a degree some ethnic groups resist change, thats understandable.

However, change is a part of a growing and healthy society....without change we a doomed to be stuck in the past

If we can't adapt to change...will it's like what happened to the Doo Doo bird, adapt or perish.

What's the current population of BC in 2016 and what do you think it will be at in 2026, and in 2036, and in 2046, ect, ect? Do you think power will be in more of a demand or less of a demand?:D

First of all it's Dodo. What you are presenting is Doo Doo. Our power demands are dropping. This is a 10 to 17 BILLION dollar project that we are borrowing for. One that all indicators suggest isn't needed.

[Vladimir Poutine]

Guys like you don't get it, will never get it.

Vlad, its an investment in the future of this province...10 billion is chicken feed, how many billions do we spend on Indian affairs and where is the job return on that?

This will help to keep a stable economy, it will help the merchants ,the service industries, the workers and the government.

How many return dollars in tax will the government receive? Workers buy cars, houses, food, clothing, they spend money on entertainment and necessities which in turn supports all others connected within the structured economy.

I could care less if you say no, who are you to take away from the families that will profit with their hard work and dedication.

I say no to the narrow minded views you are expressing, bring on Site-C and lets give our young families a chance at some prosperity. :)

It's false prosperity when you are borrowing for something that won't provide the $$$ to service the debt load. Let's assume that you have a mortgage. You make X amount of dollars to service that mortgage. Under your scheme you would happily ask the bank to lend you more money than your wages can support. "It's for my kids future" you bleat. Remember the sub mortgage mess in '08? Back then they loved suckers like you.

[Whonnock Boy]

You ever hunt Williston before the dam was built? It was habitat for 10-12,000 moose. They estimate 2500-3500 now.


the game will still be there.

I've hunted the area and I can say that the area supports an abundance of good wildlife habitat, it's not only in the river bottom land that is planned for flooding.

[Bowzone_Mikey]

I am mixed on this issue ... while not a fan of flooding out that valley and turing into another Wiliston lake

I am a fan of putting the people in the Peace region back to work ....

Now I have heard that 65% of the labour is outsourced from offshore .... but that is a rumour so far ... can anyone confirm that? if so I personally believe that site C will do nothing for British Columbia
if local labour is used Say 70 local and 30% offshore Max.... (I fully admit that some aspects we may not have the expertise for locally) I would be in favour of it although it still a short term solution

[wideopenthrottle]

10 Billion as an investment in the future when economic times are tuff in the oil industry....you bet its needed. You know the old saying "Build it and they will come". :)

why are there fast cat ferries in my head when I read your quote

[Vladimir Poutine]

why are there fast cat ferries in my head when I read your quote

Fast Cats were a bargain compared to the overspending by the current Administration yet very little of that fact gets mentioned by others.

[Vladimir Poutine]

I am mixed on this issue ... while not a fan of flooding out that valley and turing into another Wiliston lake

I am a fan of putting the people in the Peace region back to work ....

Now I have heard that 65% of the labour is outsourced from offshore .... but that is a rumour so far ... can anyone confirm that? if so I personally believe that site C will do nothing for British Columbia
if local labour is used Say 70 local and 30% offshore Max.... (I fully admit that some aspects we may not have the expertise for locally) I would be in favour of it although it still a short term solution

The potential subsidy per worker (35 K according to Hydro) will be over 280000 per job. Are you really willing to finance that for a project whose need is suspect? I'm not.

[Spy]

This may be an alternative gel maybe we can get rid of BC hydro for good! ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl_0-1WAt_c

[IslandBC]

From 2008?

[Surrey Boy]

WAC Bennet cost millions of man-hours of employment by flooding the Columbia trench befor it was logged. He lost the election over it.

Subsidies never work in the long run. Let the free market work itself out.

Please don't misunderstand my love of industry, but industry is only good if it's profitable.

If Site C shareholders are well with funding the reservoir liability and buying out all other stakeholders, more power to them. But if they expect Government to help with that, we're being gypped.

[Spy]

From 2008?
Not following?

[IslandBC]

Not following?

I read the date on CNN's broadcast saying 2008. Just wondering why this hasnt been talked about since or is this new and i misread?

[IslandBC]

I read the date on CNN's broadcast saying 2008. Just wondering why this hasnt been talked about since or is this new and i misread?

Mis heard. Their first prototype was in 2008. My bad!

[Spy]

Mis heard. Their first prototype was in 2008. My bad!
Lol you had me checking and then running for tinfoil ;-)

[Whonnock Boy]

The man's former company was from 2008, and the current news clip here was posted today on youtube, but I do not know when it was actually recorded.
I read the date on CNN's broadcast saying 2008. Just wondering why this hasnt been talked about since or is this new and i misread?

[Spy]

The man's former company was from 2008, and the current news clip here was posted today on youtube, but I do not know when it was actually recorded.
They have plans to go to market in 2018. I think its time to send this to CC and the Liberals. :-)

[Whonnock Boy]

There isn't enough proof of concept yet. Don't matter, they will do what their masters tell them.


They have plans to go to market in 2018. I think its time to send this to CC and the Liberals. :-)

[IronNoggin]

... If Site C shareholders are well with funding the reservoir liability and buying out all other stakeholders, more power to them. But if they expect Government to help with that, we're being gypped.

Damn near don't believe it... but...

http://i.imgur.com/d3Os2lG.gif

Cheers,
Nog

[Backwoods]

Git 'er dun! The North needs power...otherwise those peeps up there will freeze and drive down here to escape...then the southern woods will get really crowded! :-P
Hahahaha just in Kelowna right now and it's colder here than in Fsj!!! Brrrrr damp cold too

[wideopenthrottle]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/federal-court-of-appeal-dismisses-first-nations-challenge-of-bcs-site-c-dam/article33713407/
update

[HarryToolips]

^^^^thanks for the update....
"The environmental review of Site C was conducted jointly by the federal and provincial governments. It examined the effects of the project on Aboriginal Peoples and rights and determined it would cause significant harm to fishing, hunting and other traditional uses of the land.
The federal cabinet said these effects were justified in the circumstances when it approved the project in October 2014."

Well that's just sad, of course wildlife takes a back seat, excuse me if it's already been stated in the previous 10 pages, but what implications will this have on the ungulates in the area specifically???

[Salty]

The ungulates will loose the 9300 ha flooded area obviously and have to step to higher ground. And a hunting closure or two will be added to appease local first nations. It should be easy to look up those details was in the news recently.

[Dannybuoy]

The ungulates will loose the 9300 ha flooded area obviously and have to step to higher ground. And a hunting closure or two will be added to appease local first nations. It should be easy to look up those details was in the news recently.

Good to see the courts not automatically siding with the FN ! Its a very small parcel of land to be flooded , we have lost many times that amount and will continue to lose more to FN .
Having said that .... its not over yet ...next the Supreme court of Canada

[Whonnock Boy]

I don't know how you can say that when it's 85 km's of river valley to be flooded. That is a huge chunk of land in regards to wintering, and calving habitat.


Its a very small parcel of land to be flooded

[Angus]

There's some islands there that are year round habitat for elk. I'll be hunting one this weekend and it's gonna be a shame when they log and flood this area.

[HarryToolips]

The ungulates will loose the 9300 ha flooded area obviously and have to step to higher ground. And a hunting closure or two will be added to appease local first nations. It should be easy to look up those details was in the news recently.

Very sad news..............

[tigrr]

But guys someone has to sell cheap power to the states. Get some perks in the process. Canadians don't need the power it will be capable of producing. The US does. Specifically California.

[REMINGTON JIM]

But guys someone has to sell cheap power to the states. Get some perks in the process. Canadians don't need the power it will be capable of producing. The US does. Specifically California.

They NEVER paid us for the last $600 Million + dollars of electricity they can go Phuck themselves and live in the dark for all i care ! jmo RJ

[Drillbit]

There's some islands there that are year round habitat for elk. I'll be hunting one this weekend and it's gonna be a shame when they log and flood this area.

On the other hand.

You might know a prime jet-boat hunting location......

[mpotzold]

I am 100% opposed to Site C. It will destroy productive land and provincial finances all at the same time.

Fully agree(used to be 99%:smile:)

Latest on Site C

TYEE March 15, 2017-The Green Party of BC has consistently called for Site C to be cancelled, calling it “environmentally, economically and socially reckless.” The NDP has said they would send the project to the BC Utilities Commission for independent review if elected, something the Liberal government has refused to do.

NDP asked BCUC to review project(Aug.2, 2017)

Review is underway –will issue final report on Nov. 1, 2017

Here’s a report prepared for the BCUC by Mr. Marc Eliesen, former President and CEO of BC Hydro. Aug. 16, 2017

…….“The final investment decision made in late 2014 to proceed with Site C was a reckless and irresponsible decision made by the former Government of British Columbia and the Board of Directors of BC Hydro. Both the former government and BC Hydro’s Board abdicated their fiduciary responsibility to the rate payers and tax payers of this province.
There never was a business case for the start-up of construction of Site C, and there is not a business case to support its continuation or postponement.
The Project must be cancelled and the site remediated to minimize the negative impact on BC rate payers and tax payers……”

https://thetyee.ca/Documents/2017/08/17/Submission,P20to,P20BCUC--Marc,P20Eliesen,P20copy.pdf.pagespeed.ce.kdWmyI3hS o.pdf (https://thetyee.ca/Documents/2017/08/17/Submission,P20to,P20BCUC--Marc,P20Eliesen,P20copy.pdf.pagespeed.ce.kdWmyI3hS o.pdf)

Compounding the projects problems here’s Petrowest
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/leading-site-c-contractor-to-be-placed-in-receivership-1.21920314

[Whonnock Boy]

The argument with this guy is he's a jilted ex-BCHydro employee and NDP sympathizer. His stance means nothing to Site C and Liberal supporters.





Here’s a report prepared for the BCUC by Mr. Marc Eliesen, former President and CEO of BC Hydro. Aug. 16, 2017

…….“The final investment decision made in late 2014 to proceed with Site C was a reckless and irresponsible decision made by the former Government of British Columbia and the Board of Directors of BC Hydro. Both the former government and BC Hydro’s Board abdicated their fiduciary responsibility to the rate payers and tax payers of this province.
There never was a business case for the start-up of construction of Site C, and there is not a business case to support its continuation or postponement.
The Project must be cancelled and the site remediated to minimize the negative impact on BC rate payers and tax payers……”

[mpotzold]

The argument with this guy is he's a jilted ex-BCHydro employee and NDP sympathizer. His stance means nothing to Site C and Liberal supporters.

Sorry Troy, I don't agree.:p Time will tell.
Don't have to be an NDP sympathizer to see the idiocy of the project.

[Salty]

Its better to be 10 or 20 years ahead of the times than 30 behind. This project has always been planned its called site C because its the 3rd dam. People whined and bitched when the first phases were being build decades ago too. But now we sit with some of the cheapest and cleanest electricity anywhere. We're growing at an accelerating rate and you can debate the longevity of fossil fuels but everyone knows electricity is here to stay and power more things than it does now. The jobs well on its way stopping it now would be beyond foolish.

[Angus]

On the other hand.

You might know a prime jet-boat hunting location......

Nope. If this project proceeds you'll need a submarine, not a jet boat.

[180grainer]

I suspect the Libs knew very well what the BCUC report would have said about the dams viability. That's why, after being used for numerous other projects, the Libs decided not to consult with them on this one. Time will tell. I'm not a fan of the NDP by any stretch. But if the report comes back as I suspect........the result rests squarely with Crusty and the Libs.

[srupp]

Hmmmm I'm in support of this dam.to stop it now will waste hundreds of millions of dollars in lawyers fighting at the pig trough..we can have the dam and the power or spend the money on lawyers. .it's 20 % finished..
Steven

[Ride Red]

"Cancel and remediate the site" And at what cost; what a bunch of bloody monkeys. I'm sure glad my business isn't left to these fools. Continue the project to the end and get on with it. This would be the only infrastructure in this province built ahead of it's intended time; unlike our behind the times highways.

[SSG-man]

I have a simple solution and said it before.
All against the project can sign a form and be the first to have their meters pulled when we are experiencing brownouts in the future and need to conserve.

Only fair thing to do if you want to block it.

Horgan can be the first to get cut off. Block head.

[180grainer]

According to some critics, and if right, you'll see a significant increase in your hydro bill in order to pay for the dam due to a lack of demand, thus a lack of revenue. Demand 50 years from now to generate revenue on a bill due now. Not a good business model.

[Surrey Boy]

I have a simple solution and said it before.
All against the project can sign a form and be the first to have their meters pulled when we are experiencing brownouts in the future and need to conserve.

Only fair thing to do if you want to block it.

Horgan can be the first to get cut off. Block head.

Why not just end the BC Hydro monopoly? If a private party wants to invest in a dam, let them take the risk and reward.

I'm not particular about the environmental impact, but I've been leery about the economic outlook of the project since I heard about it. My uncle with a Masters of Economics deplored the project structure when it was first announced.

[srupp]

Why not just end the BC Hydro monopoly? If a private party wants to invest in a dam, let them take the risk and reward.

I'm not particular about the environmental impact, but I've been leery about the economic outlook of the project since I heard about it. My uncle with a Masters of Economics deplored the project structure when it was first announced.

You don't want private dam. Double waste to have the electrical power and some private company jacking the prices out of reach..does Ontario powers privatization and folks can't afford it.
Steven

[Farmer001]

If the project is completed it will be here long after all of us on this site are gone. It is a 100 yr investment. Nat gas burning is not any good unless you want a huge emission puking engine in your neighbourhood and the smog that goes with it. Those engines use more gas in 1 day than you will use in your lifetime. Solar and wind is getting better if you live in a desert or in the prairies. Nuclear well that stuff just does not go away "forever". Hydropower is as clean and environmental friendly as you are going to get. If you do not want electricity pull your meter and do your part. Everywhere you go they are promoting electric cars and new devices. Where do you think this stuff comes from? Can't plug into a tree to get power. Private power companies Ha, just think a lot of us pay more for our cable bill than electricity for our homes.

[GreyDog]

I live by a reservoir created by a hydro-electric dam and , when I look out at the sand flats in the winter, where there was once trees and grasslands, I don't see the "environmentally friendly" aspect quite as clearly. Perhaps the real answer would be to abandon the idea that a continually increasing population is a good thing and accept that, at some point, growth has to stop. People can probably stop "being fruitful and multiplying" now. In fact, fifty years ago would have been a good time to begin to abandon that concept. GD

[Piperdown]

I live by a reservoir created by a hydro-electric dam and , when I look out at the sand flats in the winter, where there was once trees and grasslands, I don't see the "environmentally friendly" aspect quite as clearly. Perhaps the real answer would be to abandon the idea that a continually increasing population is a good thing and accept that, at some point, growth has to stop. People can probably stop "being fruitful and multiplying" now. In fact, fifty years ago would have been a good time to begin to abandon that concept. GD

You can move to china if you like

[Ride Red]

If the project is completed it will be here long after all of us on this site are gone. It is a 100 yr investment. Nat gas burning is not any good unless you want a huge emission puking engine in your neighbourhood and the smog that goes with it. Those engines use more gas in 1 day than you will use in your lifetime. Solar and wind is getting better if you live in a desert or in the prairies. Nuclear well that stuff just does not go away "forever". Hydropower is as clean and environmental friendly as you are going to get. If you do not want electricity pull your meter and do your part. Everywhere you go they are promoting electric cars and new devices. Where do you think this stuff comes from? Can't plug into a tree to get power. Private power companies Ha, just think a lot of us pay more for our cable bill than electricity for our homes.

Someone who gets it.

[Ride Red]

Why not just end the BC Hydro monopoly? If a private party wants to invest in a dam, let them take the risk and reward.

I'm not particular about the environmental impact, but I've been leery about the economic outlook of the project since I heard about it. My uncle with a Masters of Economics deplored the project structure when it was first announced.

Do your homework on Ontario and tell us if you still feel the same.

[Ltbullken]

I live by a reservoir created by a hydro-electric dam and , when I look out at the sand flats in the winter, where there was once trees and grasslands, I don't see the "environmentally friendly" aspect quite as clearly. Perhaps the real answer would be to abandon the idea that a continually increasing population is a good thing and accept that, at some point, growth has to stop. People can probably stop "being fruitful and multiplying" now. In fact, fifty years ago would have been a good time to begin to abandon that concept. GD

Feel free to live the nihilist dream.

[GreyDog]

You can move to china if you like
Don't have to. If I live long enough, I'll be in China. In some areas in North America, I could already be there. Of course, this population growth is all part and parcel of keeping the economy growing and this should be our only goal.

[S.W.A.T.]

The "green" argument to a hydro dam just isn't there. Granted it is one of the best going no argument there but to say it's green just isn't true. Lots of pluses but just about as many minuses

[Salty]

If fish passage is taken care of properly (which hasn't been the case south of the border where most of the negative examples of hydro electric damns are pointed at) the environmental damage is small IMHO. Natural erosion and slides does more damage to waterways than dam construction done properly. Many lakes are naturally damned rivers if you go back a few thousand years. Its not perfect but done properly its the most environmentally responsible way to produce electricity we have.

[Visle]

Not sure where to start. This is such a polarizing topic.Decided that the best thing to do was post some facts along with their sources.

Much has been said about how necessary this project is. In truth BC Hydro is paying $55 M annually to the the Campbell River privately owned generating facility to not produce power...just in case it is needed for power in times of power shortages. No word on similar facts available.

https://www.desmog.ca/2016/04/05/b-c-hydro-paying-independent-power-producers-not-produce-power-due-oversupply

In 2014 it was estimated that site c would cost $8.3 B and didn't include the transmission lines estimated at $743 M.
An economic estimate in 2016 projects that if all the power was sold on the US spot market as little as $1.8 B would be returned and taxpayers would be responsible for the balance of debt.

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

In 2015 the Shepard facility NG station started up in Calgary and immediately produced 860 MW of power at a cost of $1.4 B. Site C is to produce 1100 MW of power at what was projected projected to cost $8.3 B. Using Calgarys' example of Natural Gas we could produce 4030 MW for the same cost.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-s-largest-natural-gas-fuelled-power-plant-plugs-in-1.2392201

Marc Eliesen (former head of Ontario , Manitoba and BC Hydro) says pursuit of site C is reckless and an illusionary fiscal dream.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/08/21/news/marc-eliesen-calls-site-c-dam-reckless-and-illusionary-fiscal-dream

There is also questions about how green Site C is and and sustainable given our weather change.

http://peoplepowerplanet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC_RECE_Overview_PPP.pdf

The following article shows that BC Hydro has increased total debt by 1137 %

http://peoplepowerplanet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC_RECE_Overview_PPP.pdf

Lastly see the attached for list of questions on politics and finances.

http://peoplepowerplanet.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BC_RECE_Overview_PPP.pdf

[Salty]

Lefty special interest group links abound. ^ Oh sorry, you did get one from ctv in there. lol
Kind of hard to believe the Elk falls dam just went through a 4 year complete refit worth billions so it could sit idle. Kind of hard to believe much of anything from 'desmog canada' whoever they are.

[mpotzold]

Fossil fuels to the rescue! Alternative energy derived from natural gas or coal is the answer for present/future demands.

For starters
-BGS should be restarted & Site C scrapped along with that useless Clean Energy Act that probably started it all. The sites poor soil stability(unstable slope along the slide-prone Peace River banks) & 400 m. tension crack alone should suffice to end it all.

-Burrard Generating Station (BGS) aka Burrard Thermal was shut down/decommissioned in 2016 by BCHydro. It was powered by natural gas, a clean burning fuel to generate electricity. It accounted for approximately 9% of BC Hydro’s total capacity – enough power for about 700,000 homes.
(Site C will flood more than 5,500 hectares of prime agricultural land along the Peace River, creating an 83-kilometre-long reservoir and provide enough power to light up 400,000 homes.)

-BC Hydro installed selective catalytic reduction units to reduce nitrogen oxides production by more than 90%. As a result, Burrard Thermal became the cleanest operating standby natural gas fired plant in North America.

-Situated in a strategic location in the Lower Mainland, it is an ideal plant for use as a vitally important backup to provide electricity during emergencies and peak demand periods

-In 2008, during the winter months of peak demand, there were ice jams on the Peace River that curtailed electricity operations there. At that time, Burrard was fired up on five of six units (83% capacity) and it ran for several weeks.

continued

[mpotzold]

BGS-see KEY FACTS
http://www.portmoody.ca/index.aspx?page=839

More on BGS
http://www.tricitynews.com/lifestyles/green-scene-shutting-burrard-thermal-makes-no-sense-1.2221160

Burning Fossil Fuels(coal, oil, natural gas..)- Has Proved a Win-win for both Humans and the Environment
In most developed countries, especially the US, the conventional pollutants resulting from burning fossil fuels have been greatly controlled,
http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3771

[Edward Teach]

The "green" argument to a hydro dam just isn't there.

Oh yes it is! It means they won't feel the need to erect huge swaths of noisy bird-choppers that can't handle peak loads. That's very green in my book.

[Farmer001]

Burning fossil fuels is good for humans and environment. if you believe that I gotta a bridge to sell ya. Didn't they want to build a co gen plant in Sumas and got voted down cause no one wanted that in their back yard because of the emissions- smog that went with it. Did they not shut down production in China weeks before Olympics to allow the air to clear and it still looked pretty ugly from my couch. Burrard thermal did it's time and may still have some life left as a "Standby" plant or backup in emergencies. As for efficient is probably because was build with that good asbestos insulation and a good engineer to fudge the books. Would you want a natural gas burning engine beside your house. If I remember correctly it burns a 1/2 million cu/ft per hour of natural gas and that makes 40-50 mega watts. Imagine that exhaust near your school playground 24 hrs a day 365 days a year. But hey they are CHEAP to put in and your power bill is reflective of gas prices. Thing is we are to scared to stick our necks out and take a risk on big projects anymore. Sorry folks but unless you want to throw away our easy lifestyle and long lifespan electricity is required. Google sometime world consumption of oil and then look at you kids and say burning fossil fuels is good for them.

[mpotzold]

BCUC Submissions –see F27-1 by MIKE HARCOURT
http://www.bcuc.com/SiteCSubmissions.html
Some points from Mike
-Site C is an economic, fiscal, environmental and aboriginal treaty rights disaster

-more likely Site C will cost $15-17 billion

-huge increases in B.C. Hydro rates for consumers, way beyond the 80 % imposed on consumers the last 10 years;

-disturbing cracks appearing where the dam is proposed.
(IMO-a band aid solution is out of the question-the real cost could be prohibitive maybe bringing the total closer to $20 billion+)

-extend the existing IPPs
(Disagree- terminate all contractual obligations with the 119 IPP’s & have BCHydro generate its own power again.)

On IPPs
https://www.biv.com/article/2017/3/bc-racks-58-billion-independent-power-producers-co/
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/liberal-pals-plundering-bc-hydro-tens-billions/

Today BC has at least 7 wind farms owned by IPP:roll:
Canadian Wind Energy Association pulls out of B.C.
GOOD RIDDANCE:)
http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/regional-news/canadian-wind-energy-association-pulls-out-of-b-c-1.2172268

[Farmer001]

Interesting read for sure. But wasn't Mike Harcourt premier when cancelled the Kemano completion project, probably one of the most efficient power plants in the world, water wise per megawatt produced. Multi million dollar project cancelled 1/2 way thru. May have been classed as a IPP but megawatt costs according to BCUC were pretty low. Cost of building projects increase a average of 3-5% per year, does not get cheaper in the future. Disturbing cracks, hate to say it but cracks are everywhere under the ground, if they can build a high rise towers to withstand a earthquake/ hurricane I am pretty confident they can build something on the ground. Quite a distance from a major fault line anyway. And totally agree that BC Hydro should build their own power projects but way to many people don't want to pay or don't want to sacrifice something which seems to be the main topic of this thread. Just food for thought that I used to take my kids in the Revelstoke reservoir fishing and boating and even had lunch less than 500 yrds from the power station waiting to go on a tour. Another tourist mentioned a strange fact that we were actually swimming in a huge battery or stored energy. Clean quiet environment, try to do that at burrard thermal or a co-gen plant with cooling towers and tons of NOX emissions being puked into the air. The way we are screwing up the environment with all the junk we are putting into the air we will need to control and store as much water as possible cause we will see 100 year events happen from floods to droughts. Well I have put more than my 2 bits in this thread and need to get serious about this fall.

[markomoose]

Build it and we will consume!The population in the LML alone will eventually devour 50 percent of what this new dam produces in 20 years!

[Bear Chaser]

Build it and we will consume!The population in the LML alone will eventually devour 50 percent of what this new dam produces in 20 years!

Bing. We have a winner.
This is all about future consumption by the lovely residents of the LML.
After all we wouldn't want to F up the lifestyle of the NDP voters with something trivial like power shortages regardless of where the power is consumed or the habitat lost as long as it isn't in their backyard.

[Bear Chaser]

Go back and search previous posts.
I predicted problems with the terrain they are building the dam in.
I predicted cost overruns.
It doesn't take a geo-technical expert to see that shit will go sideways with the construction of this dam.

[mpotzold]

[QUOTE=mpotzold;1929798]

The sites poor soil stability(unstable slope along the slide-prone Peace River banks) & 400 m. tension crack alone should suffice to end it all.

A harbinger of things to come

Landslide......extremely rapid flow slide of 6.4 Mm3, damming a large river in the course of a few minutes and projecting a wave onto the opposite bank.
A rapid flow slide on the Peace River, north-eastern B.C., involving 7 million m3of overconsolidated clay and silt. The deposit is approximately 1 km long
https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/research/landslides/landslides_files/image013.jpg

[mpotzold]

LATEST

David Vardy’s today warning
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/site-c-review-in-b-c-should-focus-on-future-price-tag-not-sunk-costs-expert-1.3567139

From August 2, 2017
David Vardy’s message about continuing work on the dam while reviewed by the BCUC.
‘Stop.’ This is crazy. Don’t go ahead with this [project],”
“While the review is taking place the activity should be suspended.”
https://www.desmog.ca/2017/08/02/it-s-finally-happening-7-years-later-site-c-gets-its-date-bc-utilities-commission

Yesterday-UN panel calls for halt of the dam
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-un-panel-august-2017-1.4266109

[mpotzold]

Latest!

Let’s hope JH gets it right & cancels the entire project ASAP.


“……..the dam's construction faces major risks including……. unforeseen geotechnical (engineering) conditions…”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-utilities-commission-to-release-preliminary-report-on-site-c-1.4298338

[Brez]

Amen to that!

Latest!

Let’s hope JH gets it right & cancels the entire project ASAP.


“……..the dam's construction faces major risks including……. unforeseen geotechnical (engineering) conditions…”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-utilities-commission-to-release-preliminary-report-on-site-c-1.4298338

[tuner]

LATEST

David Vardy’s today warning
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/site-c-review-in-b-c-should-focus-on-future-price-tag-not-sunk-costs-expert-1.3567139

From August 2, 2017
David Vardy’s message about continuing work on the dam while reviewed by the BCUC.
‘Stop.’ This is crazy. Don’t go ahead with this [project],”
“While the review is taking place the activity should be suspended.”
https://www.desmog.ca/2017/08/02/it-s-finally-happening-7-years-later-site-c-gets-its-date-bc-utilities-commission

Yesterday-UN panel calls for halt of the dam
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-un-panel-august-2017-1.4266109

Yeah, a UN panel recommendation,the same folks that advocate for a total ban on all private firearm ownership.
Well I'm convinced!!!

[srupp]

Wow, sheeeple" will say anything..what's worse than completing this? Not completing this dam...and needing the energy and we don't have it...Ontario situation. .
Srupp

[wmd]

Funny how the people saying stop the dam all live in ndp land.

[okas]

Just build natural gas fired plants as needed, where needed.
ere are no trades people
I don't think any other government would build "site C" with all the available NG we have, just to try and save faceand burn the garbage while there at it:wink: make power there are no trades people in gov.:|

[mpotzold]

Horgan faced with Sophie’s choice.
http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2017/10/30/bc-hydro-site-c-dam-project-decision-a-political-sophies-choice-for-john-horgan

Waiting for the final report to be announced sometime today. Let’s hope it’s scrapped!
Just released
http://www.sitecinquiry.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/11-01-2017-BCUC-Site-C-Inquiry-Final-Report.pdf

[Ubertuber]

Too bad such short sighted people got elected. Oh well.

[Surrey Boy]

Too bad such short sighted people got elected. Oh well.

By shortsighted voters. It is also the fault of those who know better, but tolerate the imprudent among us, because that tolerance has allowed society to decline.

[Hublocker]

Don’t forget that one of the first reviews the BCUC conducted was of Site C, when it was formally proposed in 1981. The commission spent two years reviewing the project details, and ultimately recommended that it be rejected. BC Hydro’s forecasts for future electricity demand were too high, the commission found, and the dam wasn’t needed.

Then the Liberals under Gordon Campbell brought in the Clean Energy Act in 2010 that effectively exempted Site C from undergoing scrutiny by the BCUC, something that has finally been done now.

You have to ask why they didn't want it to be closely looked at.

[SeaScene]

Jobs lotsa jobs, local jobs ... for a long, long time in re-greening site C, long after the short terms crews have left for Alberta, Ont.. etc etc...

There is big employment literally everywhere in re-greening this plundered planet. Means lotsa jobs, lotsa hunting and fishing and does not sh*t on the kids expecting us to protect what we have borrowed from them.

"Renewable Energy Is Creating Jobs 12 Times Faster Than the Rest of the Economy"http://fortune.com/2017/01/27/solar-wind-renewable-jobs/

Google up job opportunities in environmental remediation. It will be decades of effort to turn this trashcan earth back in a direction of our own survival let alone keeping our hunting and fishing experiences not just in old videos.

[PKernohan]

Too bad such short sighted people got elected. Oh well.

Actually...if you read the report, it seems the old government were the shortsighted ones. Pushing through a project based on insanely overprojected BChydro demand estimates. To assume everything is just going to be status quo in 10 years and not take into account the leaps and bounds that green energy and personal power production is taking, all to create a few hundred or even a few thousand temporary jobs is pretty short sighted.

Site C is already over budget and behind schedule, there's significant risks that could further balloon the budget by 20%-50%. And the most important, there's significant risks that by the time the dam Is completed there will be little demand for the power it's creating.

Pretty obvious why the liberals never had this study done in the first place....

[IronNoggin]

... Pretty obvious why the liberals never had this study done in the first place....

Ahh but Fisher Dude's favorite set of politico mammary glands needed their legacy... :wink:

Cheers,
Nog

[Iron Glove]

Ahh but Fisher Dude's favorite set of politico mammary glands needed their legacy... :wink:

Cheers,
Nog

This'll make the "Fast Ferries" look like chicken feed.
Chrissie is making Glen Clark look like a genius. ;)
FD is crooning "Thanks for the Mammaries, er Memories."

[Jagermeister]

You have to wonder if any elected officials have any sanity. You also have to wonder if we, the voters, have any sense whatsoever.
Given that Gregor Robertson has declared that by 2030 to have Vancouver emission free. He'll be having lotsa folks wanting to plug their electric cars up his ass.
Here is an excerpt from an email I received a short while ago.

ELECTRIC CARS - IT MAKES YOU WONDER.....

Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile of those things has never been discussed. All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with nary a mention of the cost of electricity to run it.


Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things yet they’re being shoved down our throats…


At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than 3 houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.


This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy the damn things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This latter "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS!' and a shrug.


If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following. Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It’s enlightening.


Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors … and he writes, "For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.” Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.


It will take you 4-1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.


According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.


The gasoline powered car costs about $20,000 while the Volt costs $46,000+. So the American Government wants loyal Americans not to do the math, but simply pay three times as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country.

[Bugle M In]

Not to mention the "environmental impact" that making batteries causes...
and their disposal when they are completely dead.....not overly recyclable at that point.
Hydrogen is still the best way forward for cars in the future.
End result is water out of the tail pipes.
And the Gas Companies will like the fact that they will stile have "service stations" like we do with gas, just hydrogen
instead.
Its a win/win in the end.
And as for people, and there sense of reality.....
When someone pays 5+ bucks for a cup of coffee....where do you think they are coming from, or could possibly be thinking??

[Johnny G1]

Just where the hell do you pay $1.16 a kwh. for hydro?????

[HappyJack]

Just where the hell do you pay $1.16 a kwh. for hydro?????

That is what they sell the power to the Americans for.....we sure don't see that price.

[srupp]

Hmmmm residential rate is 2 tier system. .

First basic rate charged is $0.0858 per KWH" from BC hydro website tonight.
Srupp

[S.W.A.T.]

Mine is high and we are split across two meters

[Bugle M In]

Mine is high and we are split across two meters

You know, you can just go to the corner and buy weed, you don't need to try and grow it home anymore:p

[Fisher-Dude]

Ahh but Fisher Dude's favorite set of politico mammary glands needed their legacy... :wink:

Cheers,
Nog


This'll make the "Fast Ferries" look like chicken feed.
Chrissie is making Glen Clark look like a genius. ;)
FD is crooning "Thanks for the Mammaries, er Memories."

Misogynistic pigs from the left wing rear their ugly heads again.

[S.W.A.T.]

You know, you can just go to the corner and buy weed, you don't need to try and grow it home anymore:p

Wish I could use that as an excuse. Hydro is just another example of a miss managed government corporation.

[Iron Glove]

Misogynistic pigs from the left wing rear their ugly heads again.

Hey, we Pinkos just rear our heads every now and then, guys like you are always at the trough. :mrgreen:

[browningboy]

What’s funny is mayor Robinson wants to eliminate all gas in Vancouver and use electric heating, so where would you get that demand from....wind? Lol
people need to build for the future, just like the fore fathers did with our existing dams...

[Hublocker]

What’s funny is mayor Robinson wants to eliminate all gas in Vancouver and use electric heating, so where would you get that demand from....wind? Lol
people need to build for the future, just like the fore fathers did with our existing dams...


What's funny is that there is no "mayor Robinson."

[f350ps]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to "Moonbeam", we all got it! K

[browningboy]

What's funny is that there is no "mayor Robinson."

so sorry hobnocker... hublocker

[GreyDog]

Just because our predecessors cheerfully flooded valleys throughout the province is no reason we should feel compelled to keep it up. GD

[Salty]

Just because our predecessors cheerfully flooded valleys throughout the province is no reason we should feel compelled to keep it up. GD

So do you think we should be like Alberta and burn coal and gas to generate electricity? Not in my book I'm glad that we're blessed with clean hydro electric power for all this time and time to come. BC has a lot of water and a lot of slope in our geography many natural lakes are just valleys damed by natural process'. What we've changed amounts to a postage stamp on a football field and we've allowed for the passage of fish unlike other jurisdictions. We should be proud of our hydro electric history even the staunchest greenies are. And we should build more.

[Fisher-Dude]

so sorry hobnocker... hublocker


https://i1.wp.com/gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Thats-Gold-Jerry-Gold-Kenny-Bania-Seinfeld-Quote.gif?ssl=1

[180grainer]

Just because our predecessors cheerfully flooded valleys throughout the province is no reason we should feel compelled to keep it up. GD
Could apply that analogy to immigration too.

[guntech]

There is no end for the increasing demand for electricity.

It's either burn coal, build a Nuclear Reactor or build a dam as proposed... at this stage wind and solar are not a large scale option for the public demand.

[Surrey Boy]

Could apply that analogy to immigration too.

Hard to pinpoint blame for the decline of Canadian families.

[The Hermit]

So what is wrong with nuclear power again? ;-)

[Keta1969]

There is no end for the increasing demand for electricity.

It's either burn coal, build a Nuclear Reactor or build a dam as proposed... at this stage wind and solar are not a large scale option for the public demand.

This pretty much says it all. Wind solar etc. can contribute but you still need the base power.

[S.W.A.T.]

Nuclear is good until something happens. I like the idea of it over a dam in that area

[Surrey Boy]

So what is wrong with nuclear power again? ;-)

Cost-effectiveness. Coal and natural gas are cheaper.

Otherwise it seems like a good option.

[guntech]

Hydo electric is cleaner... and provides a beautiful expanse of water...

[eric]

What guntech said..
Also we need more lakes up here.
Piss of with Nuclear, up here

[brian]

Can't build nuclear in potentially seismically active areas, which is most of BC!

[S.W.A.T.]

Can't build nuclear in potentially seismically active areas, which is most of BC!

Much better to put a dam on unstable ground

[Bugle M In]

Much better to put a dam on unstable ground

Well...whats the worst that can happen.....Richmond gets flooded??!!

[Surrey Boy]

Whitecourt almost got a nuclear plant around Y2K or so, but the mill stayed active and needed the McLeod River.

[markomoose]

Need that construction to continue.Hurting business here.

[KodiakHntr]

What we've changed amounts to a postage stamp on a football field and we've allowed for the passage of fish unlike other jurisdictions.

Funny you should mention that... The report that I read that was released by BCHydro indicated that their "fish passage" plan was to build a holding pond at the bottom of the dam to catch the bull trout (from one of the longest migration routes anywhere), drug them, net them, and then truck them up to the Halfway river. IIRC correctly they had budgeted money for that for 10 or 15 years, as they were expecting a mortality rate of 80% of the population per year on the return.....


Hydo electric is cleaner... and provides a beautiful expanse of water...
Which is exactly what we need... a big pond that has highly fluctuating water levels, where there used to be wintering grounds for mule deer and elk....


Much better to put a dam on unstable ground

Seems to be the thinking now....


Well...whats the worst that can happen.....Richmond gets flooded??!!

The unstable ground, is right exactly where the dam is.... Big part of the reason why it is so far behind schedule now, and over budget. I think it would be more likely that Taylor would be flooded when it lets go.....

[SeaScene]

Need that construction to continue.Hurting business here.

Re-green it. Then re-green the forests. Re-green Mt Polley disaster. Re-green the Alberni forest slaughter etc..etc. "No economy that wrecks the environment can create anything other than a relatively short-term economic boom. The price is a poorer long-term economy with fewer choices" https://www.terracestandard.com/opinion/lng-more-than-jobs-vs-environment/
Tons of jobs for the north ... fix what has been fu*k'd.

[SeaScene]

....and not to mention that there is lots of money to seed new jobs by the ton. This in today's CBC news.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tax-havens-how-they-work-and-why-they-are-a-problem-1.4388620

When you think that this video is just about Canada's rich thieves gotta wonder about Asian economies fuelled by over 2 billion pop economies. (I guess owning BC residential Vancouver housing stock without firing a shot) would be one outlet.

[Surrey Boy]

....and not to mention that there is lots of money to seed new jobs by the ton. This in today's CBC news.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/tax-havens-how-they-work-and-why-they-are-a-problem-1.4388620

When you think that this video is just about Canada's rich thieves gotta wonder about Asian economies fuelled by over 2 billion pop economies. (I guess owning BC residential Vancouver housing stock without firing a shot) would be one outlet.

Our leaders have been selling us out for a generation. I'm trying to figure out how to get my kids set up in eastern Europe. Looks like the last straight place on earth.

[S.W.A.T.]

I have never been a fan of the site c project as mentioned here before. Always thought it was a liberal agenda to show job creation prior to the election. I would be more inclined to think it was a good idea if 1) it's was needed 2) my rates would go down or at the very least stay the same 3) was in a different area. More stable ground, less prone to flooding up stream ect.

Site c has some perks going for it but believe there are more cons. I also don't like the city of Vancouver pushing the electric system. People should have the choice on how to heat their homes

[SeaScene]

I have never been a fan of the site c project as mentioned here before. Always thought it was a liberal agenda to show job creation prior to the election. I would be more inclined to think it was a good idea if 1) it's was needed 2) my rates would go down or at the very least stay the same 3) was in a different area. More stable ground, less prone to flooding up stream ect.

Site c has some perks going for it but believe there are more cons. I also don't like the city of Vancouver pushing the electric system. People should have the choice on how to heat their homes

Good points for sure... I spend my years (retired now) sailing the BC coast from Van to Rupert. Many times to catch a tide or favourable wind I leave at night. Several miles off the Salish passing by towns and cities I see that they are all lit up like Christmas trees 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning when one would think are not needed. Surely just some common sense conservation would cut back massive demand as well as hydro bills. This go round of human... I would not bet on us.

[Angus]

I have never been a fan of the site c project as mentioned here before. Always thought it was a liberal agenda to show job creation prior to the election. I would be more inclined to think it was a good idea if 1) it's was needed 2) my rates would go down or at the very least stay the same 3) was in a different area. More stable ground, less prone to flooding up stream ect.

Site c has some perks going for it but believe there are more cons. I also don't like the city of Vancouver pushing the electric system. People should have the choice on how to heat their homes

Okay, everybody has an opinion on what is the best move here, but, as a geologist who lives in the Peace and has actually been to the site (not employed there), I gotta chime with some facts on this constant theme of "unstable ground".

The concrete core of the dam will be tied into bedrock on both banks of the reservoir. There is no instability issue with the dam itself, so put that out of your minds.

The "tension cracks" observed on the left bank occurred in the overburden material (silt and clay) that mantles a great majority of the Peace River valley. This is observed all over the valley and has been occurring since the retreat of the glaciers thousands of years ago.

I did ask a question at one of the BC Hydro presentations if Hydro had planned on a maintenance dredging program during the life of the dam. My concern is that once these fine grained sediments (silt and clay) on the slopes of the reservoir become saturated from contact with the impounded water, the slopes will fail at a greater rate than what we currently see. No response from Hydro. I continued on, that this material from the slope failures which enters the reservoir will effectively reduce the water holding capacity of the reservoir. Crickets.

Granted, the majority of the water that would flow through Site C is already impounded behind the Bennett and Peace dams located upstream.

My $0.02.

[S.W.A.T.]

Okay, everybody has an opinion on what is the best move here, but, as a geologist who lives in the Peace and has actually been to the site (not employed there), I gotta chime with some facts on this constant theme of "unstable ground".

The concrete core of the dam will be tied into bedrock on both banks of the reservoir. There is no instability issue with the dam itself, so put that out of your minds.

The "tension cracks" observed on the left bank occurred in the overburden material (silt and clay) that mantles a great majority of the Peace River valley. This is observed all over the valley and has been occurring since the retreat of the glaciers thousands of years ago.

I did ask a question at one of the BC Hydro presentations if Hydro had planned on a maintenance dredging program during the life of the dam. My concern is that once these fine grained sediments (silt and clay) on the slopes of the reservoir become saturated from contact with the impounded water, the slopes will fail at a greater rate than what we currently see. No response from Hydro. I continued on, that this material from the slope failures which enters the reservoir will effectively reduce the water holding capacity of the reservoir. Crickets.

Granted, the majority of the water that would flow through Site C is already impounded behind the Bennett and Peace dams located upstream.

My $0.02.

My comment as you highlighted on unstable ground has far more to do with what takes place up stream of the dam. In heavy snow years we see constant flooding on both dams above the site c site. Add in further run off and flooding of rivers entering the peace between the Hudson hope dam and the projected site c and it would build greater volume. Im sure it has been engineered to withstand this sort of thing and perhaps all these points have taken into account however this is by far not my only reason for not standing behind this project, although there are some folks that live in the "old fort" that I wouldn't mind seeing being relocated.

[Angus]

My comment as you highlighted on unstable ground has far more to do with what takes place up stream of the dam. In heavy snow years we see constant flooding on both dams above the site c site. Add in further run off and flooding of rivers entering the peace between the Hudson hope dam and the projected site c and it would build greater volume. Im sure it has been engineered to withstand this sort of thing and perhaps all these points have taken into account however this is by far not my only reason for not standing behind this project, although there are some folks that live in the "old fort" that I wouldn't mind seeing being relocated.

Point taken SWAT.

My comments were directed at those (media mainly) who keep going on about the tension cracks that occurred on the left bank.

[SeaScene]

Financial Post today... ".....BC Hydro is also hiding expenses by attributing billions of dollars to “deferral” accounts..."

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/provincial-finances-are-worse-than-they-look-as-politicians-hide-their-megaproject-boondoggles

[Whonnock Boy]

Creative bookkeeping at its finest, with more to come I'm sure with those sniveling, no good, dirty rotten, PETA loving, ring stealing, national park making, Grizzly hunt ending, fiscally irresponsible, non-election winning Dippers!!!

There.... I said if for you FD. :lol:

[Iron Glove]

Creative bookkeeping at its finest, with more to come I'm sure with those sniveling, no good, dirty rotten, PETA loving, ring stealing, national park making, Grizzly hunt ending, fiscally irresponsible, non-election winning Dippers!!!

There.... I said if for you FD. :lol:

You forgot to add: "Canuck fans." :mrgreen:

[f350ps]

You forgot to add: "Canuck fans." :mrgreen:
And what exactly have I ever done to you to hurt your feelings? :) K

[S.W.A.T.]

You forgot to add: "Canuck fans." :mrgreen:

Ohhh easy...... Gear down there big rig

[Frango]

You forgot to add: "Canuck fans." :mrgreen: This remark could get you banished or at least sent to the outhouse with no tickets. Blasphemous is what I say.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Creative bookkeeping at its finest, with more to come I'm sure with those sniveling, no good, dirty rotten, PETA loving, ring stealing, national park making, Grizzly hunt ending, fiscally irresponsible, non-election winning Dippers!!!

There.... I said if for you FD. :lol:

Well you only spoke the truth the NDPers are all rotton to the core ! :twisted: RJ

[Iron Glove]

This remark could get you banished or at least sent to the outhouse with no tickets. Blasphemous is what I say.

Just so I'm not kicked off the Island, I want to make clear that I'm a Canuck Fan and I was only adding "Canuck fans" to the list as it was purported to be Fisher Dude's list of most hated things, ya know, just trying to be inclusive. :mrgreen:

[Whonnock Boy]

Since we're talking about fudging the numbers, here's ICBC.... https://globalnews.ca/news/3863586/icbc-deficit-billion-dollars/?utm_source=GlobalBC&utm_medium=Facebook

[mpotzold]

Looks almost certain that CC, who vowed to get the project "past the point of no return" will get her way.:mad:

Had Horgan wanted to kill the project he would have done it right after the report or at least totally halted the construction until the year end when the final decision is made.

VS( Nov. 17,2017) -Also AW said he does not have inside information, but he is convinced the NDP will decide to keep building the dam, already under construction for more than two years.
Earlier this month AW promised that he won't bring down Horgan & Co. if they choose to continue construction of the Site C dam.

[Salty]

Had Horgan wanted to kill the project he would have done it right after the report or at least totally halted the construction until the year end when the final decision is made.


And how would you have felt if he would have done just that and then without any future revenue from the massive investments spent to date, your hydro bill would have to go up to pay for billions of dollars they just pissed in to the wind? And you'd be left behind the times with BC Hydro infrastructure instead of ahead of the times with no clear plan to get out the situation, and looking at a massive debt to pay off for nothing.

[srupp]

Hmmm 2 sides. .already spent 2 years and 4 Billion dollars..we will get a dam
Cancelled..no dam..4 Billion wasted..plus years of lawsuits, lawyers. ..etc.
Certainly better than Ontario lack of affordable hydro .

From the other side..
Steven

[Pemby_mess]

"sunk costs" are a particularly potent fallacy when it comes to investment decisions. although i cant be sure that it's necessarily the case here, it's precisely this line of faulty reasoning that causes otherwise smart, rational people to stay in losing financial positions and regularly under-perform the market. while perseverance is often a required condition to seeing a difficult project through to fruition, quite often cutting one's losses to stem the bleeding whence new information comes to light is essential.

i personally think this is a tree that'll never bear marketable fruit. in fact, we have a bunch of low hanging fruit rotting on the pre-existing trees as it is. this was always about an industrial subsidy - not in the interests of hydro rate payers. it's a text book example demonstrating the bcuc's raison d'etre. rarely, does anything good come from goverments circumventing regulatory structures.

[mpotzold]

Site C once finished will be the biggest white elephant in BC’s history.

Estimate started with a little over 8 billion then recently climbed to 10 billion.
Unforeseen geotechnical conditions could easily escalate the cost to well over 12 billion and counting. More tension cracks, unstable slopes, unstable soil,…….coming, like it or not.

Simply put .THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DAM. PERIOD!
https://www.nationalobserver.com/sites/nationalobserver.com/files/img/2017/07/22/site_c_-_image_of_inflatable_white_elephant_-_vo.jpg

[Edward Teach]

Yeah...we could erect thousands of acres of bird choppers instead.

[Fisher-Dude]

Unforeseen geotechnical conditions could easily escalate the cost to well over 12 billion and counting. More tension cracks, unstable slopes, unstable soil,…….coming, like it or not.


You mean those access roads you and your anti-everything crowd mistook for tension cracks?

Maybe this will help: we'll drown some bears (bears with gigantic teeth and sharp claws, no less) with the dam and make it safe for you to go in the bush again. Still against it?

[Stresd]

Site C will go through. Too many Unions on Horgans ass pushing for it. And wouldn't make him very popular putting 2000 out of work before Christmas. Even if the majority currently are non-union. Andrew is really biting his tongue. He doesn't want Site C but won't threaten to kick the stool out from under Horgan by pulling his 3 members support.
Horgan has a bigger plum that he is looking at. The Proportional representation vote. The thing Horgan promised to Weaver for his parties support. Imagine using proportional representation results of the last election . Liberals received 40.36% Ndp 40.28%and the Greens received 16.8% of the vote. That would give the Greens roughly 15 seats of the 87 available if proportional was the rule. Thats Weavers pot of Gold for not telling Horgan to kill site C or lose his parties support. He wants the Vote!!!

[180grainer]

I wonder what the argument for the dam would be if it hadn't been started until after the BCUC report? Crusty and her crew knew what the report would say which is why they didn't include it in the original estimate "before" things got underway. Now, the only argument the pro-dam people really have is, "we can't stop now". If things had been looked at properly from the beginning, the dam wouldn't be built. A flash of jobs for a few years and then on to the next mega project so some a-hat politician can point and say "look how many jobs we've created". Take out the current "paid" costs already for the dam, and the pro-dam side wouldn't have an argument. Period. We were lied to by the Libs in order to push this thing through and no one seems to recognize that.

[ACE]

And just where is the lovely Christy Clark now .... ?
Will she be asked to 'cut the ribbon' on the dam/damn that bears her name ...... 'Site CC'
What a wonderful moment for the British Columbia taxpayers.

[Iron Glove]

I wonder what the argument for the dam would be if it hadn't been started until after the BCUC report? Crusty and her crew knew what the report would say which is why they didn't include it in the original estimate "before" things got underway. Now, the only argument the pro-dam people really have is, "we can't stop now". If things had been looked at properly from the beginning, the dam wouldn't be built. A flash of jobs for a few years and then on to the next mega project so some a-hat politician can point and say "look how many jobs we've created". Take out the current "paid" costs already for the dam, and the pro-dam side wouldn't have an argument. Period. We were lied to by the Libs in order to push this thing through and no one seems to recognize that.

Methinks you have nailed it.
Chrissy with her "jobs for votes" promises.
Well said.

[mpotzold]

Superior alternatives to the risky & costly site C. There is still time!
New for BC- coal-fired power stations &/or more natural gas-fired power stations including re-opening of Burrard Thermal should be considered in the near future if needed.

Site C (if built?)would provide 1,100 megawatts (MW) of capacity, and produce about 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity each year – enough energy to power the equivalent of about 450,000 homes per year in B.C.

Calculation-re:5100GWh
The average household in BC Hydro’s service area uses about 11,000 kWh per year
1 GWh = 1,000,000.00 kWh
5,100 GWh=5100,000,000 kWh ÷11,000=463,636 households
Also 5,100 GWh is enough for about a dozen industrial complexes or 1000 20 to25 storey buildings.


Read that the 950 MW natural gas-fired Burrard Generating Station near Vancouver had a capability of 7,050 GWh per year (considerably more than Site C)

Other major benefit is the CO2 released
Burning fossil fuels should be encouraged as long as the pollutants created are controlled. CO2 is not a pollutant & is essential for plant growth. The more the better.
Today’s CO2 is 406 ppm.
For optimal plant growth it should be well over a thousand ppm. When dinosaurs roamed the CO2 level was at least 5x higher.

Clean Coal
IER- Coal-fired electricity generation is far cleaner today than ever before..Since 1970, the six so-called criteria pollutants have declined significantly, even though the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants has increased by over 180 percent. (The “criteria pollutants” are carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide [SO2], nitrogen oxides [NOx], ground-level ozone, and particulate matter [PM].
Ash produced in coal combustion is collected using electrostatic precipitators. It is sold for use as a concrete additive.

Other notes
-2/3 of the world’s electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels.

-WUWT-EPA document supports only ~3% of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to human sources

-US-Coal plants are the nation's top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,

-Another reason why the dam must be stopped
https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/site-c-slides/
Teton Dam also constructed in a sedimentary basin collapses!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6NAjrIjf3U

[srupp]

Wow..pee away 4 billion $$$$..nothing in return..
Clean burning coal ? really..in Vancouver...ha ha ha
Hmmmmmmm. ..use the billions for site C..get some value..probably more than most suspect..energy will never go to waste..
My .02
Steven

[finngun]

If i heard right they say in radio,,,,if not site C.... HYDRO BILL needs 10% hike coming year.....willing to pay??

[srupp]

Wasn't the recent an ounce mentioned. .on time..on budget?
So if site C is scrapped our taxes go up 10 %

Or are you implying if site C goes ahead our taxes head up 10 % ?
Steven

[Bear Chaser]

Pretty sure I read that if it gets cancelled our hydro rates will need to immediately increase by 10%. Instead of financing the cost of the completed project over decades they will have to pay for the remediation and other expenses out of the hydro operating budget which has strict limits on terms of repayment.

As to the tax increase confusion we have an NDP provincial government and a Liberal federal government. Taxes are most definitely going up.
Merry Christmas.

[browningboy]

Lol, doesn’t anyone have a mindset of building for the future? Like our fore fathers? Today we build for yesterday and sit and whine and ......

[Surrey Boy]

Lol, doesn’t anyone have a mindset of building for the future? Like our fore fathers? Today we build for yesterday and sit and whine and ......

Why build for a future we won't inherit?

Former generations built for their children, for a country to be proud of and people they cared for. Modern Canadians build for Indians and Immigrants and apologize for being privileged should they come out ahead. We don't save for posterity, we save so the government can tax us back to poverty. Modern men are accursed as Sisyphus, always striving but never prevailing. Equally, why bother conserving a healthy environment that will only be pillaged by Chinese Communists. They're already here, and will soon expand operations until BC looks like home. Either way our efforts are futile.

The Titanic is sinking; no need to polish brass. Raid the liquor cabinet instead.

[GreyDog]

Hydro rates will increase regardless of whether or not Site C is built. Taxes will increase regardless of whether or not Site C is built. When projects like this are undertaken, it is the equivalent of stirring the pot of money while those with access to the pot try to scoop out all they can. The rest of us are like remorae; along for the ride and hoping to pick up some crumbs. Of course, at the same time, money is taken from us and thrown back into the pot. If I was a construction worker in the area, I wouldn't care whether I was getting paid to build the dam or to repair the damage which has been done; either way, I'd be getting paid.
If BC Hydro's power production capacity were to suddenly double, how many here believe hydro rates would drop? If Hydro was able to sell this excess power at a premium, would the stance of BC Hydro be, "lets give the BC ratepayer a break" or would it be, "BC ratepayers should be paying the same as international purchasers"? I don't believe altruism is a big part of BC Hydro's corporate mentality nor is it a big part of government mentality. GD

[Salty]

Lol, doesn’t anyone have a mindset of building for the future? Like our fore fathers? Today we build for yesterday and sit and whine and ......

Problem is too many people in BC that moved here from somewhere else don't get this or understand our heritage. They just want to pull up the draw bridge and bitch about everything and spend not a penny more than they have to. Plus, they're the vocal ones.

[finngun]

if we are not gonna build it...our kids are gonna whine about it...it will cost wayy more to build 20 years ahead...windmills are not gonna make enaugh power,,,cost is huge..

[cdub]

To save money with BC Hydro you need to remove BC Hydro. They are incompetent and a complete waste of money. Try working on projects with them, if it wasn't for the fact that if you work on their projects you need to sign an NDA the public would have removed them years ago.

[SeaScene]

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/12/06/Site-C-Cancellation-Costs-Exaggerated-Says-Chief/

Common sense is just not that common Chief Willson. H Sapiens has a history of loving a fight. But no enemy has ever been as Kamikaze as the one in the morning mirror. If we do as we have always done, we will get what we have been getting. BC "supernatural" is a remnant of what it was even a decade ago. Slum Dog Millionaire is a good "lesson" movie in just what a human being will, over time, gradually accept as every day normal.

[Brez]

if we are not gonna build it...our kids are gonna whine about it...it will cost wayy more to build 20 years ahead...windmills are not gonna make enaugh power,,,cost is huge..


By then there will be another 3 or 4 better alternatives

[Brez]

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/12/06/Site-C-Cancellation-Costs-Exaggerated-Says-Chief/

Common sense is just not that common Chief Willson. H Sapiens has a history of loving a fight. But no enemy has ever been as Kamikaze as the one in the morning mirror. If we do as we have always done, we will get what we have been getting. BC "supernatural" is a remnant of what it was even a decade ago. Slum Dog Millionaire is a good "lesson" movie in just what a human being will, over time, gradually accept as every day normal.
That was poetic and beautiful. Thanks for that.

[New Bow Hunter]

Interesting read!!
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/energy-electricity-cost-1.4428048

[HappyJack]

Hydro rates will increase regardless of whether or not Site C is built. Taxes will increase regardless of whether or not Site C is built. When projects like this are undertaken, it is the equivalent of stirring the pot of money while those with access to the pot try to scoop out all they can. The rest of us are like remorae; along for the ride and hoping to pick up some crumbs. Of course, at the same time, money is taken from us and thrown back into the pot. If I was a construction worker in the area, I wouldn't care whether I was getting paid to build the dam or to repair the damage which has been done; either way, I'd be getting paid.
If BC Hydro's power production capacity were to suddenly double, how many here believe hydro rates would drop? If Hydro was able to sell this excess power at a premium, would the stance of BC Hydro be, "lets give the BC ratepayer a break" or would it be, "BC ratepayers should be paying the same as international purchasers"? I don't believe altruism is a big part of BC Hydro's corporate mentality nor is it a big part of government mentality. GD

Well said!! Hydro power sure won't fit into the supply and demand niche .

[srupp]

Hmmm built with taxpayers money..we took the risk..and paid for it...no reason we shouldn't be demanding a favoritable rate..the excess can be sold at a different rate..there is already a precidence for multiple tier pay rates..my bill yesterday charges one rate up to a certain use age. ..08 cents. .per kw or ? then it jumps to .12 cents per ?..
Sell our excess at what makes us money...
Srupp

[Pemby_mess]

^ that'd be great if it worked that way, and indeed it's supposed to. But with Site C, it's industry that is getting the break at .06/kWh on a long term contract. If the province was willing to sign a long term discount contract with rate payers in exchange for putting up the capital, I'd be all for it.

unfortunately it's going to go the other way on us. Our Utility, is giving our suppliers huge money for procuring energy that we could be making ourselves with our current infrastructure. It's going to bleed us on both ends: taxes and hydro rates. I'm heating with wood and have an incoming bill for 900 bucks!

[srupp]

^ that'd be great if it worked that way, and indeed it's supposed to. But with Site C, it's industry that is getting the break at .06/kWh on a long term contract. If the province was willing to sign a long term discount contract with rate payers in exchange for putting up the capital, I'd be all for it.

unfortunately it's going to go the other way on us. Our Utility, is giving our suppliers huge money for procuring energy that we could be making ourselves with our current infrastructure. It's going to bleed us on both ends: taxes and hydro rates. I'm heating with wood and have an incoming bill for 900 bucks!

Hmmm i guess I'm still in the dark on this subject..
I live in Williams lake,42 year old home..have a few energy efficient lights..mostly the garage..high efficiency forced air furnace and hotwater tank.just Susan, our faithful pooch eEbony. .we plug our 2 vehicles in, both have a block heater and oil pan heater..
Our hydro bill for 2 months was $200..for 61 days..or $3.28 per day...furnace, water, lights, cooking showers, laundry..everything..plus 2 vehicles with 4 high wattage heaters. ..I'm not Complaining about that..during may, June July Aug, sept it's much lower..yes $900 is expensive..this is about as high as our hydro gets..a bit higher in January. .feb but not much..
Don't wear sweaters and turn the heat off..21 degrees ..and 19 at night..nor do we leave lights on..life..
Natural gas is about the most reasonable heat source..and gain no complaints with that bill...

Just our experience..can't imagine a huge bill..couldn't manage that on my pension...ouch.
Steven

[Pemby_mess]

I have been in a long battle with BC Hydro over their smart meter program. No conspiracy nut stuff. Perhaps not surprisingingly, I've done a bunch of research. If anyone is interested I can detail it here.

What I've found is apparently in places with access to natural gas, and/or you have a long established pattern of use pre-smart meter, you will have not have seen a significant rise in your bills. If you live in a location that has no access to gas, and/or you have recently moved into a new situation, you may be seeing a pattern of rising KWHs used, and large spikes in the winter.

unfortunately, we are not unique with this situation in BC. There are international studies that confirm gross inaccuracy of the new meter tech. Regulatory bodies are staying quiet for now because it's a huge looming disaster for everybody. The stories coming out of Northern Ontario can be attributed to this as well.

[okas]

well i think go for it as the more power the better but do not give it away to the USA like the gas deal years ago

[Dannybuoy]

^ that'd be great if it worked that way, and indeed it's supposed to. But with Site C, it's industry that is getting the break at .06/kWh on a long term contract. If the province was willing to sign a long term discount contract with rate payers in exchange for putting up the capital, I'd be all for it.

unfortunately it's going to go the other way on us. Our Utility, is giving our suppliers huge money for procuring energy that we could be making ourselves with our current infrastructure. It's going to bleed us on both ends: taxes and hydro rates. I'm heating with wood and have an incoming bill for 900 bucks!
You may have a problem...I heat with wood and average <$100 per month (1800sqft) and no natural gas in our community
back to site C , we are going to need the power someday

[Pemby_mess]

You may have a problem...I heat with wood and average <$100 per month (1800sqft) and no natural gas in our community
back to site C , we are going to need the power someday

Yes, our summer bills, rarely go over 100 bucks a month, and that is what I calculate our approximate power usage to be. All though even the summer bills inexplicably creep upwards. I've put a legacy mechanical meter in series with the utility's and they don't match. Of course Hydro claims their's to be the accurate one. The day you move, is likely the day you will have my same problem:-)

Site C has got to get paid for somehow. Even if future demand justifies it going ahead, you have to ask yourself why the BCUC rejected it repeatedly in favor of other solutions to the same problem. Another question that needs to be asked is why the utility is so willing to pay private suppliers .4-to .9 $kwh in long term contracts, with no customers out there willing to do the same.

[Fisher-Dude]

I have been in a long battle with BC Hydro over their smart meter program. No conspiracy nut stuff. Perhaps not surprisingingly, I've done a bunch of research. If anyone is interested I can detail it here.

What I've found is apparently in places with access to natural gas, and/or you have a long established pattern of use pre-smart meter, you will have not have seen a significant rise in your bills. If you live in a location that has no access to gas, and/or you have recently moved into a new situation, you may be seeing a pattern of rising KWHs used, and large spikes in the winter.

unfortunately, we are not unique with this situation in BC. There are international studies that confirm gross inaccuracy of the new meter tech. Regulatory bodies are staying quiet for now because it's a huge looming disaster for everybody. The stories coming out of Northern Ontario can be attributed to this as well.

I'll take the savings of $54 million a year as grow ops are detected by smart meters, thank you very much. I'm not subsidizing the illegal production of dope for dopes.

Only people that don't want this technology have a lit up basement, IMO!

[HappyJack]

Hmmm i guess I'm still in the dark on this subject..
I live in Williams lake,42 year old home..have a few energy efficient lights..mostly the garage..high efficiency forced air furnace and hotwater tank.just Susan, our faithful pooch eEbony. .we plug our 2 vehicles in, both have a block heater and oil pan heater..
Our hydro bill for 2 months was $200..for 61 days..or $3.28 per day...furnace, water, lights, cooking showers, laundry..everything..plus 2 vehicles with 4 high wattage heaters. ..I'm not Complaining about that..during may, June July Aug, sept it's much lower..yes $900 is expensive..this is about as high as our hydro gets..a bit higher in January. .feb but not much..
Don't wear sweaters and turn the heat off..21 degrees ..and 19 at night..nor do we leave lights on..life..
Natural gas is about the most reasonable heat source..and gain no complaints with that bill...

Just our experience..can't imagine a huge bill..couldn't manage that on my pension...ouch.
Steven

Interesting, do you have a smart meter yet??

We have a country home, just the two of us...ours is $140 a month on equal payments...we have all led lights, electric hot water, wood heat, we only plug in the vehicles when it is really really cold. And we run an oil filled electric heater in the chicken house over the winter. It seems like our power usage just inexplicably keeps going up and up....we have a smart meter now.

[Pemby_mess]

I'll take the savings of $54 million a year as grow ops are detected by smart meters, thank you very much. I'm not subsidizing the illegal production of dope for dopes.

Only people that don't want this technology have a lit up basement, IMO!

Well I'd sure appreciate an investigation for the power apparently going missing between my meter and panel feed. I've actually suggested this quite a few times. So far hydro has declined, so either I'm getting conned or Hydro doesn't seem to be all that interested in curbing power theft from where I sit.

https://www.utwente.nl/en/news/!/2017/3/313543/electronic-energy-meters-false-readings-almost-six-times-higher-than-actual-energy-consumption

Above is a study recently conducted that shows the very clear problems with the new tech. If you've used clamp-on ammeters before that is the same technology the new meters use and there are many issues trying to implement that in a real world metering application. The mechanical meters were impossible to fudge. The Itron smart meters have so many security vulnerabilities and oversights built into them, I don't even know where to start. Add in two way communication and you've given the utility both motive and means to hide the problem indefinitely. So far, measurement Canada seems uninterested in addressing the issues brought to light by the study.

[Pemby_mess]

Interesting, do you have a smart meter yet??

We have a country home, just the two of us...ours is $140 a month on equal payments...we have all led lights, electric hot water, wood heat, we only plug in the vehicles when it is really really cold. And we run an oil filled electric heater in the chicken house over the winter. It seems like our power usage just inexplicably keeps going up and up....we have a smart meter now.

you've seen nothing yet - they're estimating what you (should be) using. According to the study I posted above, you will have seen your kWh consumption go up when you replaced your lights with LEDs. Reason being LED's, and anything running a switched power supply create harmonic interference that the hall-effect sensors can't pick up properly. This will result in a wildly under-reading or over reading meter.

Now this is what I think they're trying to do to compensate-

The chances of hydro actually letting your bill under-read are slim. They'll adjust it to what they think it should be reading. Massively over reading meters are adjusted down. (Sometimes). There is two way communication that has the ability to link to the metrology board inside the meter.

[Fisher-Dude]

Those smart meters are bad, and all part of a huge government conspiracy!


http://lynncinnamon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/tinfoilhat.jpg

[Spy]

Those smart meters are bad, and all part of a huge government conspiracy!


http://lynncinnamon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/tinfoilhat.jpg
You got that right :-) once again calling people conspiracy theorist you would have thought your ilk would have learned their lessons. Smart meters were rammed down our throats I held out until the end and paid the 30 $ charge until one day they just changed it.