Maybe those LNG plants could use some of that natural gas to fire some generators and help with their own electrical needs.

I would hope that Hydro is about its namesake … hydro … a renewable energy source.

I thought that natural gas is about another energy source … a non-renewable one, which can be captured and exported to places in the worls which do no have sufficient access to renewable energy sources such as hydro.

The neat thing about that is that when we run out of natural gas, we have hydro capacity left to keep on producing energy for other uses.

Well other than the buy more plan all of the above isn’t that bad. The buy more is just a clever way of saying selling off BCH and increasing the rates to the point where then the government says you know what it makes sense to sell of the whole thing to save us money. Very much like what they did with BC Rail.

They ram a plan through that will waste $1 billion and that nobody seems to want and now they want to consult us, the owners, about investing in infrastructure? I think it’s a little late for lip service BC Liberal government. Your public consultation public relations campaign won’t save you now.

BC Liberals had best be brushing up on their resume’s. I hear Timmies is hiring.

This is nothing other than the same old mis-direction we witnessed with the HST. Why should WE have to shiver in the cold and the dark ‘conserving more’ so Hydro can provide cheap, plentiful power to LNG plants? The answer comes back, as always, “…because we need jobs”. It’s an utterly stupid answer. People work, or should, to get themselves materially AHEAD. To have a rising standard of living. NOT to go behind! But this is exactly what Hydro and those in the BC Liberal Party are proposing.

That we should produce MORE, and personally conserve MORE, so we can collectively produce MORE again, but at the same time we all have to consume LESS. How do you get ahead that way?

It seems to be based on the inane mis-conception that money, in and of itself, is wealth. It isn’t. The wealth (well-being) of any country is based on what it CONSUMES, not what it saves.

Just what nourishment do you get out of that roast of beef in your freezer while it’s in the freezer? It’s only after it’s been thawed, cooked and eaten that you get any ‘well-being’ out of it at all.

Follow BC Liberal thinking and we’ll all end up like some old biddy you hear about every once in awhile in some big city somewhere. You know, when the cops come across her emaciated, dead body in some shabby one room apartment with one light bulb, and no other heat except an electric hot plate for cooking. Dressed in raggy, second or third hand clothes, with signs that most of her grocery shopping was done at the dumpster behind the supermarket. And eaten raw, to conserve electricity.

And then they find her passbook showing she had a couple of million in the bank. Rich, in other words. Only she was too afraid to spend even a little of it. Because then she wouldn’t be rich any more. Was she EVER really rich?

They missed one….. Charge the general public through the nose………..

Good post socredible. Too long people have equated savings with wealth. Savings is not consuming today, lending it to someone else to consume now, who in theory will produce goods for you to consume later. But what if there is nothing to consume later? What if there’s no one to produce the goods to consume. What if you’ve shipped everything somewhere else? A bank balance means nothing if there’s no future economy, no future production, and no workers sufficient to replace the goods consumed now – later.

BCUC should be the organization chairing the discussion about Hydro’s future plans.

“Develop energy procurement options to acquire up to 2,000 gigawatt hours from clean energy producers for projects that would come into service in the 2016 — 2018 time period.” Sounds too much like more purchases from run-of-the-river privatize the profit and publicize the risk.

Socredible wrote:
“The wealth (well-being) of any country is based on what it CONSUMES, not what it saves.”

I take issue with the notion that wealth = well being. That is where the fallacy of the rest of the proposition originates.

Happiness is a synonym for well being, wealth is not. After some of the basic needs are taken care of, accumulation of wealth and tangibles which represent wealth do not lead to further well being or happiness.

See figure 8-1 at the linked page.
http://www.sustainablescale.org/attractivesolutions/understandinghumanhappinessandwellbeing.aspx

From the site: “In every country studied, reports of personal happiness level off after GDP continues to grow.”

I think that most can agree that the USA is the greatest consumer of any country in the modern world. It should be the the country with the most happiness. After all it is everyone’s right to pursue happiness in the USA. Yet greater consumption has not increased happiness over other countries who consume less and generations in the USA who consumed less.