Enough power for thousands of homes or one LNG plant on the coast. Who do you really think the power is for ?

You got that right LunarcomPG. Taxpayers will pay for site C, and then the Government will take money from Hydro (taxpayers dollars) and give it back to some taxpayers in the Peace River Regional Districts.

The are going to have a fight on their hands in trying to get site C off the ground.

We need huge reductions in Government spending and waste, and a concerted effort to get out of debt, rather than going further into debt by financing these mega projects that benefit everyone other than the citizens of BC.

The lame excuse that the Government needs additional revenue to pay for education, health, etc; is wearing a little thin. They always roll out this list of excuses to justify their terrible decision making, and spending habits.

So what do you folks think of the 58 billion in very expensive contracts fetted out to IPP’s over the next 30 years. Lets see in Hydro’s own words this project, site c, is needed to backup the power from those IPP’s.

Lets say site c costs 10 billion, that is 10 B on top of 58 billion where as the 58 billion does not need to be spent in the first place.

Did you also know that Hydro is forced to buy the very expensive IPP power over their own much cheaper power.

How come greenies never seem to squawk about the environmental impacts of bird eating wind generators but come unglued when there is a drop of oil spilled.

IPP costs are the main reason your power bill is increasing.

Good thing the WAC Bennett Dam is built. People would probably say ‘no’ to that too if it were proposed today.

valid point JB … by rejecting the WAC Bennett dam, we would be missing would be the pulp mills in PG and the community of Mackenzie … and the Kenney dam would have definitely been rejected along with Kitimat and most of the development in Terrace

put in that perspective, most of the current residents in the North would be living somewhere else ,,,

The difference is the WAC Bennet dam has the power to feed a variety of industry and home based users. The LNG plants basically will consume all the power of Site “C” with no benefit to us at all.

People really do need to look into the whole scam of IPP’s and the failed liberal power plan.

seamutt:
Are you a BC hydro employee?
What is your vested interest?

You have been ragging on the IPP’s with misinformation since they were announced.
What is your problem with IPP, please?

I worked for an electrical engineering firm that was involved with some of those projects, so have some information.

The information I have is that they are a little more expensive to operate due to economies of scale, but are stable and individual sites have a much smaller impact.

back to lunar,

the point I was trying to make is that the major hydro projects that opened up the North to major industry and developing communities 50 years would receive stiff opposition by current “environmental” or “green” standards …

===========================================
The LNG plants basically will consume all the power of Site “C” with no benefit to us at all.
===========================================
Your argument would suggest that is OK to be environmentally unfriendly if the economic and social payoffs are sufficient … that is a slippery slope to slide …

58 billion corporate welfare handout

Apparently business does not have the ability to operate without major government contributions.

Loki those plants as a whole do not have a small impact. Their contracts are very expensive, 58 billion over 30 years, do you think that is trivial? Show me my misinformation? I think you have a bias.

People rag on about site c but give the IPP’s a free ride, why is that?

Myself I could care less if site c is built except for the fact it could deliver power much cheaper than the IPP contracts.

New generation nuclear power is actually the way to go. That is why China, India and Russia are building them.

To say that LNG will have ” no benefit to us at all” is just plain stupid lunar.

I do indeed have a bias towards smaller projects that are easier to manage, and are less environmentally detrimental than flooding hundreds or thousands of acres of land that is:
agricultural
home to certain indigenous groups
abundant wildlife
natural water filtration system

All in the name of supporting industry on the backs of the taxpayers without an ROI for that investment other than some get to continue with being contemporary slaves, er ah, employees.

I did ask you a straight forward question, which you dodged.

Don’t take this as an affront, I am curious about the specific allegations you have regarding the IPP’s.

What is your vested interest?
You have vehemently railed against IPP, why?

By the by,
There is no free ride for IPP.
They have to prove value ROI, while being environmental.
They are also under significantly more oversight by public bodies, NGO’s, and the various interest groups like the environmentalists.

Yet the old rape and pillage the land mentality still goes on, a la Site C.

Here ya go Loki. Just click around and read all the facts about the IPP’s in BC. They’re absolutely wonderful aren’t they? Tons of real info here——>

http://thecanadian.org/item/1518-anton-the-inkfish-clouds-hydro-losses-from-bad-ipp-deals

It was not the LNG that will not provide any benefit but rather building Site “C” as a P3, to basically feed the LNG, that will not give any of the benefits that the government touts as benefits of site “C”.

I don’t know why they don’t just burn the NG to power the compressors to make the LNG. (I know it is green house gasses but you can’t pick and choose which part of the environment you want to ruin, if you are calling yourself a green government. )

We should be using volcano power. One volcano can power all of North America. Its similar to how a nuclear reactor works but without any of the potential radiation events of a nuclear reactor. The technology is there and we do live on the ring of fire. Put the pipes into the ground a few kilometers and they can use the 600degree heat of the earth to generate all the steam they need.

Problem is it would put the nuclear industry out of business, make dams obsolete, and ham string the so call renewable industry to say nothing of the captive power of the carbon based energy industry.

Just because some people are opposed to Site C, doesn’t mean that they were opposed to the WAC Bennett Dam. Most people were in favour of the Kenny Dam being built, however they were opposed to Kemano Two (2) because it will basically destroy the Nechako River. You can rest assured that Kemano Two will raise its ugly head (again) in the not to distant future.

To assume these people are opposed to everything is just rubbish. Some things need to be opposed.

Its usually those who live far away, and have a vested interest in these projects, or have no idea about the ramifications, that promote them, however you rarely if ever see them on the front line of anything.

If you have strong feelings in favour of Site C, then go the Peace River and talk to the farmers, and others that will be flooded out. Be prepared to be tarred and feathered and ran out of town on a rail.

If we were all followers this Province and this Country would be in one hell of a mess.

Don’t forget that it was people that opposed lobotomys and using children for chimney sweepers, and child labour.

Loki I will try again. It iks the cost, understand the cost of these sweetheart deals.

Do you understand the environmental impact of wind farms.

Read dragonmasters post

Is it not interesting that IPP’s did not get near the scrutiny that pipelines have gotten.

So you are saying IPP’s have no environmental impact?

Palopu: “To assume these people are opposed to everything is just rubbish. Some things need to be opposed.”

Not the way I see it. People are pretty much opposed to everything these days (you’re a pretty good example), much of it based on false and biased information.

Palopu: “Its usually those who live far away, and have a vested interest in these projects, or have no idea about the ramifications, that promote them, however you rarely if ever see them on the front line of anything.”

I would say there are more people who sit at home on their (oil soaked) computers (sucking BC Hydro power) railing against any kind of development, while complaining that they’re taxes are too high and government services aren’t good enough. A bunch of hypocrites.

Building dams sounds like good investment and if they have done the geology survey and the dam will not leak in the future. But LNG with current world prices is not profitable and rushing into it will add to BC debt.

What BC needs is government support for building refineries “by private sector” to process the Alberta oil, create employment and export the petrochemical products, instead of exporting raw material.

ipps…not what you think…

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-private-power-projects-damaging-a-b-c-legacy-1.177392

all this and more brought to you by the fiscally responsible bc liberal party.

Hydro power in general is the most environmentally and cheap energy in the world. So why someone would not build more capacity if it is available is beyond me.

The story is that the first plant might be operational by 2015, although that seems very qucik to me … 2 years? I highly doubt it. The next by 2020 … more like it.

It states that the potential is to have access to clean electricity – which likely refers to hydro electricity, not gas generated electricity.

Whether we have capacity in 2 to 3 years, who knows. Site C, if it gets built, would be what, 10 years down the road?

So where is the schedule for the integrated projects? Does anyone on this site know?

I agree 100% with Loki. We are living in an age where smaller is returning to be beautiful. So, if some projects are screwed up I put it down to a learning curve. How many times did the Wright Brothers and their followers get it wrong? Or Autocad …. or anything we develop for the first time ….. like the first steps we all took ….. fell down over and over again …. but the ones on this board seemed to have managed in the end.

billy68 … from the article you posted come thse words:

“72 per cent are located in known or suspected fish-bearing waters.”

There is a hell of a difference between “known” amnd “suspected” fish bearing waters.

So that may be 2 percent are in “known” fish bearing waters and the rest in “suspected”

Once they are studied thoroughly, it may be found that 4 percent are in “known” and the rest in non-fish bearing waters.

So, once we determine that, we have to discver whether the system of harnessing the electricity is actually detrimental to fish for that 4%.

VERY SHODDY JOURNALISM!!!!

BTW, shoddy journalism is ripe for the gullible and unscientific people to take it even further into fantasy land.

Vancouver including most of the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley is the biggest clearcut in BC. So there. Whaddya gonna do about it?

Sorry Gus more research would show the post from billy68 is right on. Also if IPP’s had gotten the same review as pipelines instead of been given a pass I doubt most of them would have been built.

Do a search in The Tyee, I do not agree with their postings most of the time but information about IPP’s is again, right on.

It is interesting when something is perceived to be green, people tend to get all misty eyed.

Also Hydro has stated site c is required to back up power from the IPP’s.

Seamutt … you say two reports are “right on”….

What you do not tell us is on what you base that judgement?

You just say to do more research.

I, on the other hand, tell you on what I base my judgement … lumping together two different characteristics …. fish-bearing … possible fish-bearing ….

they are two distinctive criteria lumped together in one percentage …

scientists do not do that ….. only people who want to spin a story …. journalists, environmentalists, industrialists, politicians ….

well, you know, virtually everyone under the sun likes to spin a story ….. ;-)

Pembina’s (for those who may not know, Pembina is an environmental watchdog/advocacy group from Alberta) position on samll scale Hydro power

“Small run-of-river hydropower systems generally have lower environmental and social impacts, and therefore are often preferred to larger plants that involve the construction of dams”

http://www.pembina.org/re/sources/hydro-power

Gus, 58 billion, is that a spin. Hydro has said site c is needed to back up the IPP’s, is that a spin? 58 billion vs 10 billion is that a spin?

JohnnyBelt. As usual you live in a dream world where everything is bright and rosy.

1. Rio Tinto Alcan (Multi National Corporation) owns the Alum Plant at Kitimat, and the Kemano power project, and sells any surplus power to BC Hydro. Once they complete their new plant they will lay off 400 permanent employee’s and continue to sell to Hydro. If they get the go ahead on Kemano (2) they will sell this power to Hydro also, without much concern to the impact on the Nechako River.

2. Powerex (A subsidiary of BC Hydro) sells surplus power to the Americans. Part of this power is from the Columbia River projects, and is in excess of $250,000,000.00 per year. So that’s where some of our surplus power goes.

3. BC Hydro will sell power to the LNG Companies (if they ever materialize) to freeze NG for export. Taxpayers will pay for Site C, and other than the initial construction jobs will get little or no benefit the additional power. This will be cheap power for the Multi Nationals.

So, rather than make snide comments on your oil soaked computer you might want to take some time to find out what is really going on in the Province as opposed to your views through rose colored glasses.

Have a nice day.

Palopu: “So, rather than make snide comments on your oil soaked computer you might want to take some time to find out what is really going on in the Province”

I’m aware of what goes on in this Province. I’m just not going to be against development when a lot of that development provides the quality of living you and others seem to take for granted. I see it as hypocritical. You don’t have a problem with it.

Oh, and have a nice day.

In these projects there are always two issues: the environmental issues versus economic/business issues.

Investment in dams is a good “business” investment because of the return on your investment (in contrast to LNG with a lower chance of return on your investment in current climate). Dam construction is also less damaging to the environment than say oil pipelines and leaks.

That might be true univ, if you don’t calculate the damage to the area that is flooded, the loss of prime farm land, and trees, that contribute to the atmosphere, and the changes to the weather caused by these huge bodies of water.

Seems rather strange that we complain about loss of prime land due to oil spills, and then put 100 times or more land under water, so that it becomes totally useless.

LNG Plants generating electricity would have a greater return on investment and you would get this return in a much shorter time frame that you would from Site C. This has been shown to be true, using the one that is located in Ft McMurray as a model.

JohnnyBelt. When you talk about development that provides the standard of living we are accustomed to, I presume you mean Alcan, built in early 1950’s the Pulp Mills built in the early 60’s in Prince George, and much earlier in other parts of the Province. Planer mills that have been operating in Prince George area for over 100 years. The Railway that arrived in Prince George in 1912.

Fact of the matter is there is very little private development in Prince George that has taken place in the last 20 years or so.

They have been taking natural gas out of the ground in the Peace River area way back in the 50’s and 60’s.

If anything development in BC and especially in Prince George has actually declined dramatically in the past 20 years.

So not sure what you are talking about when you talk about development. It all took place before you ever got involved.

Putting through a pipeline to Kitimat or Prince Rupert (Gas or Oil) will provide very few long term jobs.

Pipelines, LNG Plants, and Huge Dams, do not employ very many people. We need to develop something that is sustainable over the long term, and generates good jobs.

The mines presently on the drawing board at best will replace those that have shut down in the past 20 years.

Any suggestions????

I don’t necessarily agree with the Site C project or disagree. We need to have a complete environmental assessment of the project, looking at all the plusses and negatives. These questions among others must be answered. How much electricity does BC Produce and how much does it export? How much does BC import and what time of year does it do this? How much electricity does BC get from IPP’s and how much does it cost? What are the environmental impacts of the dam, wrt flooding large areas of forests that consume GHG’s. It will produce lots of electricity, but how much? How much land will be flooded? How much CO2 will not be absorbed because trees are drowned in the reservoir? These questions must be answered.

i believe that any lng plant ever built would power itself, and even produce excess power.

Any “responsible government” will prepare a reliable feasibility study and a business plan before any project. This hasn’t been the case in BC and if the BC government follows the WIDC example again, we are going to waste a lot of money and the BC debt doubling in the next 4 years.

The main problem is that there is no way to control the BC government from wasteful spending and the recent 18% increase of salaries of BC government is not a good starting for fiscal restraint. In the US, the congress controls the purse, in Canada, the ruling party governs and controls the purse.