Hasn’t the BC Government already decided to build this dam?
This must be just for show… to make us think they care and are listening to us?

like the pipelines…..

all are going through

Given the current alternatives, this one is a no-brainer. Nuclear is not an option. Windmills are great but lack the capacity to generate the amounts of electricity needed without building hundreds of the things. Coal fired plants are gross polluters and NG plants have the same concerns.

The dam would be a clean source of electricity for decades to come….

Site C is not really required for power in BC. If anything it will just add more power to be sold to the USA.

BC Hydro is good for putting on Dog and Pony shows, but not for much else.

There will be stiff opposition to this project in the Peace River, and so there should be. We do have alternatives, which would be Natural Gas electric producing plants.

If Hydro would say that they would shut down all Wind Power, Run of the River Private Projects, as a result of Site C, they might have some credibility, however don’t hold your breath on that one.

Natural gas [electric producing] plants make more sense, why flood out an entire valley when we have a glut of NG in the province? The pollution excuse doesn’t really cut it because we will just export it and the gas will be burnt overseas anyway. At least if we burn the NG here we can make sure the most modern technology is used to burn the gas and reduce emissions.

“Site C is not really required for power in BC. If anything it will just add more power to be sold to the USA.”

And this is bad because…?

The majority of our economny is based on resources, this is no different.

Natural gas power that would cost more to produce. IPPs were a call for ‘clean’ power, note no natural gas plants were proposed as IPPs.

Clean power is expensive, except for hydroelectric. It remains the cheapest power there is and our province is blessed to have the resource.

Build it.

9 in 10 people I know that live up there are not in favor of this project. Those that are are business people.

JB’s comment …. The majority of our economny is based on resources, this is no different.
———————————————
Even agriculture and farming is “resource extraction” … consider the prairies and the tons of potash dumped on the depleted soils in an effort to maintain production … of course the local people are not in favor of Site C … this project will change the resource extraction from one form (commercial agriculture) to another (hydroelectric production) … and before some one argues that the Peace River is more ranching, not farming, consider the (non-existent) number of bison, wolves, etc. still roaming the valley … commercial ranching is also an invasive form of resource extraction … so this decision is really about which is the most appropriate form of resource extraction

That is a nice graphic. I’d like to see something similar that would show the valley before and after the flooding.

“9 in 10 people I know that live up there are not in favor of this project. Those that are are business people.” (Dragonmaster)

I live in Fort St. John, and you are either
A) making this up
or
B) The people you know are from a very specific demographic

only2c … That is a nice graphic. I’d like to see something similar that would show the valley before and after the flooding.
———————————————
Here you go … lots to choose from :-)

https://www.google.com/search?q=site+c+dam&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=gmmCUtLzMOegiQLarYCwCQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955

bcracer wrote: “Hasn’t the BC Government already decided to build this dam?”

Yes ….. just like Enbridge has decided to build a pipeline and mining companies have decided to open a mine, etc.

All those decisions, however, are dependent on impact reports so that they can be denied or approved.

In most cases, they are actually approved, but there may be conditions put on the projects which are in addition to those which were proposed.

In the case of the Site C Dam hearings, as it states in the article, the project will be scrutinized for its potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects.

The public appears to be generally in favour. That could change.

The most important thing is, I am in favour because there is the difference between night and day between a virtually assured sustainable source of clean energy which does not depend on shorter term finite resources.

Yes, the amount of water drained into the system may change over a long period of time, so there may be more or less running through it in 50 years, 100 years, 500 years. We really do not know.

I have only run across one person that is vehemently opposed to this project… and he owns an IPP. What does that tell us?

I do not know how long the term of the agreement is to sell the power to BC Hydro. But if it is not for more than 10 years or so, then it tells me the individual may realize the increased risk he has of not making his project as profitable as was planned. :-)

I think one has to be pretty dumb to not approve this project with the info that is available at the moment. I understand the land owners affected are very few.

I have agree with Pal, do we need this power or is it for the US market?
cheers

I work in FSJ. I’d say the majority of the people I work with are strongly in favour of this going forward. Given the alternatives…yes even NG plants…this is the best option IMO. Why would we want to burn more fossil fuels and pump more CO2 into our atmosphere when this project would prevent that?

No brainer….

Ppptt… does anyone here think BC Hydro will be lowing our electricity bills when Site C is built? JB says who care3s if the electricity will be sent and sold to the US.

Umm… most of us who are paying through the nose for our kilowatt hours care! It upsets many of us that we are a net exporter of hydro electricity, yet pay as much, or more, than any province and country that imports our energy.

A possible 26% increase in our hydro rates this year, plus another 7% through to 2017? Given us a break BC Hydro and Provincial Liberal Government!!!

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Hydro+forecasts+massive+rate+increases/8896768/story.html

Palopu: “Umm… most of us who are paying through the nose for our kilowatt hours care!”

Umm… We are lucky enough to have amongst the cheapest power in the developed world. But like everything else, the costs to provide that power go up over time. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

People don’t seem to realize the reason our hydro rates are cheap is because we have over 85% of our power through hydroelectric dams. The cheapest rate in Canada is Quebec which 97% hydroelectric.

Kootenay Power had super cheap rates in the 4 cent a Kw/h when I lived in Nelson which was due to being 100% hydroelectric, with 4 dams along the Kootenay River between Castlegar and Nelson. Since Fortis bought it the rates have been climbing to what we pay here

Natural gas would be slightly more than hydroelectric at the cheap rates for LNG right now but what if the price doubles back to what it was 5 or 6 years ago…or triples? Imagine the letters to the editor then when the cost of producing electricity in the province increases past IPPs

“It upsets many of us that we are a net exporter of hydro electricity, yet pay as much, or more, than any province and country that imports our energy.”
California hydro rates are near double BC – just sayin…

Residential ELECTRICITY rates by province

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/regulatory_affairs/energy_rates/electricity/utility_rate_comp.shtml#residential_2000

at 2,000Kwh, Montreal is the cheapest with Vancouver in 4th place.

At 750 kWh (which is residential average) Vancouver is 3rd and 1/3 less than our next door neighbour in Alberta which uses 40% coal and 40% natural gas. When you get into large industrial loads you see the rates jump further

“Palopu: “Umm… most of us who are paying through the nose for our kilowatt hours care!”

—-

Apologies to Palopu, it was People#1 who made the above statement.

gus; the hydro rates by city you linked to is a good one. I noticed Vancouver (the rest of BC) does not include a 5% deferral account rider, so including that on our electricity bills pushes BC up even higher. The other commenters are correct, at 85% BC is the second largest producer of hydro behind Quebec, so why aren’t our rates comparable to Quebec’s (Montreal) which is the lowest in Canada…. just saying.

http://www.bchydro.com/search.html?q=What+is+a+rate+rider%3F&qid=1334&ir_type=1

It is simply disgusting to read people complaining about the cost of electicity. Watch the news and be grateful for what you have.

“We are lucky enough to have amongst the cheapest power in the developed world.”

I do not presume to know what power costs are in the rest of the developed world but it is true that as far as North America goes we are definitely getting power at bargain rates.

You are right cougs78 and PG, we shouldn’t complain, oooh… I can hardly wait for that 26% increase in my hydro bill next year :-)

There are three rates here in Ottawa:

Off-peak: 7.20 cents per kWh
Mid-peak: 10.90 cents per kWh
On-peak: 12.90 cents per kWh

If you pay attention to stuff like running your dishwasher at night, doing laundry later in the day, etc., you can make noticeable improvements to your bill. The a/c is what really sucks up the power in the summer out here, but you don’t really have to deal with that in PG.

I have to agree with cougs78. The things we complain about are often ridiculous. Be thankful you can walk in your house, push a button and have light. If you don’t want that, don’t push the button, wash your clothes in the sink and eat canned food.

Oh and I would tend to agree that Site C is likely the best alternative for power that BC has. It is not a salmon bearing river, it’s a relatively uninhabited area and it’s renewable energy. I simply don’t see how NG plants are a better alternative.

You miss the point People#1. You have electricity! Get it!!!!

YOU missed the point cougs78. 1 in 8 people in Canada live in poverty, in BC that rises to 1 in 6 people. BC has the highest child poverty rate in Canada.

A 26% increase in electricity rates will put more people and kids out on our streets, how many remains to be seen! Get it!!!

Lets all just stop and think for a minute before we start to prime our keyboards.

1. It has already been established that one Natural Gas Electric Plant can produce the same amount of electricity as Site C. at a third of the cost.

2. The LNG that the Government wants to export to China, and Japan, will be used for producing electricity for those Countries.

3. Why is it **OK** for Japan and China to use our gas for electrical production but not **ok** for us to do the same.

4. The Natural Gas in BC is owned by the Province and sold to private developers. The BC Government collects royalties on the gas at the well head. The BC Government could enter into a long term agreement with a company to build natural gas plants here in BC, and guarantee them a long term supply and price. The electricity produced would be used to supply additional needs in the Province for industry and citizens. The surplus could be sold to the USA.

5. Five plants located strategically around BC would provide jobs and cheap energy for the next 100 years.

6. Building the plants in BC, and using local knowledge to reduce GHG emissions would also create jobs.

7. Natural gas plants would negate the need to build Site C. That decision alone would save us $8 Billion dollars, which would be enough to build three plants. Furthermore we would not have to flood thousands of hectares of good land.

Location of the five plants could be as follows.
Terrace, Prince George, Southern Okanogan,
Ft St John, Greater Vancouver Area.

This is a win, win situation for all areas of the Province, and should be our first option. Site C should be a last resort.

Lets make BC first for a change.

no palupo, it is not been established. You are saying it cost 1/3 the cost for a natural gas plant than a hydroelectric one. But you fail to realize that gas plant has to be built 3 times to last as long as a hydroelectric one and the maintenance costs are higher not to mention the cost of fuel. Over the long run the electricity from a gas plant costs more which increases rates

We have a natural gas plant in BC which is used for a backup power source because why? It cost more to produce electricity so they don’t run it full tilt. Plus it is at the end of its service life and the locals want it gone

Palupo: 5. Five plants located strategically around BC would provide jobs and cheap energy for the next 100 years.

Whaaaat? More like 35 years…40 tops then you have to decommission it at what cost? Plus pay to rebuild it or build something else

“Why is it **OK** for Japan and China to use our gas for electrical production but not **ok** for us to do the same”

Because natural gas plants are a step up from the coal they are using now and they don’t have access to the hydro electric options we have in BC

It matters little if the plants only last 40 years, because we would just build a new one. The point is, do we want to build and operate these plants in BC, and keep the jobs in BC or do we want to sell our resources cheap so foreign companies, and governments can reap the benefits of our resources.

My point is. We can build the plants, produce local electricity, and jobs, export surplus electricity to the USA, and also build a few exporting LNG terminals, and not have to build Site C.

So we either smarten up, or we can sit on our butts, and watch the world go by.

We presently export logs to Japan and China, and at the same time we are closing mills in BC because of a shortage of fibre??

“We presently export logs to Japan and China, and at the same time we are closing mills in BC because of a shortage of fibre??”

What kind of logs for what kind of products? Do we want to build a plant or two to have 5 years of a market, and then lose it to Russia or some other country?

Typically one does not put their eggs in one basket. We saw where that got us with the USA.

Do we have to learn that lesson again?

3. Why is it **OK** for Japan and China to use our gas for electrical production but not **ok** for us to do the same.

Simple. For a similar reason that Enbridge wants to build a pipeline to anywhere they will get access to market for more of the bitumen which is being extracted in Alberta.

We have natural gas. BC wants to sell it now rather than wait 40 years. Sort of like the bird in the hand scenario.

They need a new market to sell it to … an offshore market. For that they need Liquified Natural Gas. To get LNG, they need cheap electricity to liquefy it.

Maybe Russia or Australia or some other country will beat BC to it.

“The electricity produced would be used to supply additional needs in the Province for industry and citizens. The surplus could be sold to the USA.”

Gas is dirty energy compared to hydro electricity. Gas is finite energy compared to hydro.

Lets keep talking about apples instead od oranges ….. we have oranges in Sumas ….

Do you have a friend who is a rancher that will get compensated for putting her land under water along the Peace?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumas_2

“That decision alone would save us $8 Billion dollars, which would be enough to build three plants.”

Wait a minute ….. how would we save $8 billion if we use the money to build 3 electrical plans operating on gas? We would still need $8 billion!!! LOL….

So, what is the cost of generating electricity from a new hydro project versus 3 gas generated electric stations?

What will it look like in 20 years? The water costs the same in 20 years ….. the gas will likely rise at least as much as inflation if gas stays plenty. What are the operational cost of piping gas to the power stations and operating those versus operating the generators at the dam?

I can not support this so long as the BC government can not assure us that the power generate will not be used to subsidize the LNG plants.

BC Hydro needs to be fire-walled from the LNG plants or residential home owners will not only be paying higher gas heating bills, but our hydro rates will go through the roof as well. That is just unacceptable and irresponsible.

LNG prices are way too unstable, they are down at a reasonable price for now, but who is to say 5 – 10 years in the future?

In July 2008, LNG shot up to an all time high of $13.00 per 1,000 cubic feet. Just over 1 year later in September of 2009 it was 3.35 per 1,000 cubic feet.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9103us3m.htm

Besides price volatility, we should also consider the GHG emissions from burning Natural Gas, a much heavier carbon foot print than clean renewable hydro electric energy!

I would go with Site C especially if it was for our own consumption, if we are going to sell it, sell it for a big ROI and invest / compensate the peace river region for giving up their land for the dam.

People: “YOU missed the point cougs78. 1 in 8 people in Canada live in poverty, in BC that rises to 1 in 6 people. BC has the highest child poverty rate in Canada.”

Weren’t you berating someone in another thread about ‘repetitive talking points’? Doesn’t your same old rhetoric about poverty apply as well?

Why am I not surprised that you would call people living in poverty; rhetoric JB? No empathy, no inkling of human compassion… hmm… yup that is a sack of hammers!