Who paid the tab? hydro, BC Government?

if either paid for this review the review is pretty much slanted for their benefit before it even got started..

the Joint review panel is reviewing the oil pipeline too, so , I am guessing the okay will be forthcomming shortly.

So bcracer what is your alternative?

Damn….I gotta move out of Ft St John. If that dam goes ahead…and it looks like it might…then that place will get even more unaffordable than it is now.

So bcracer what is your alternative?asks seamutt

I was asking a question and made a statement… do I really have to solve all their problems for them too?

Isn’t it nice to know the question arises as to if you possibly pay for a review you get your wishes?

Build the dam, start training, planning

If you put all the BS aside the report indicates the following.

1. In its summary, the panel writes the benefits are clear-despite high initial costs and some uncertainty about when the power would be needed.

2. Significant environmental and social costs, in the form of losses to wildlife and rare plants, fish and fish habitat, certain archaeological resources, social costs to farmers, ranchers, and hunters in the Peace River Valley, and changes to current traditional uses by area First Nations.

So. a. No apparent need for the power, b. a huge cost of $8 Billion that will not be recovered for generations, c. huge environmental and social costs.,

So why build it????

As I said many time before much to the chagrin of JohnnyBelt and others on this site, there is no shortage of power in BC, hasn’t been a shortage for many years, and will not be a shortage for many years to come.

So DEEP SIX SITE C

Build it as the power will be needed in a decade.

How do you know it will be needed in a decade,taxpayerteacher. Do you have some sort of crystal ball that allows you to see into the future???

Obviously you could care less about the environmental aspects of this project.

The best they can hope for is to produce some cheap power to sell to the Americans.

Seems a rather lame reason to build Site C.
By the time you pay back the $8 Billion cost of the project, which will no doubt be borrowed money, we will see no benefits from this project for 25 or more years, if then.

Totally a hair brained idea, that is good for the construction industry, transmission lines, and power line industry, cement industry, turbine industry, etc; but diddly squat for the average taxpayer.

Far better off to leave it as it is. Ie; farmland, ranchland, etc;

What makes you such a Hydro expert, Palopu? You’re a hot air expert, that’s for sure.

You got that right JohnnyBelt, and as an expert I can tell you that there is a lot of **hot air** on this site.

I’m sure there were people like yourself questioning the WAC Bennett dam and others as well before the internet age made people like Palopu feel like they were the ultimate authority on such subjects.

Stupid quote by Christy Clark.

**The additional power is needed for natural gas plants proposed for the region**

One wonders why they would not just generate the needed electricity with natural gas. They could access the same amount of electricity, at a third of the cost, and in half the time.

The earliest Site C would come on stream would be 2024, and even then there would be no real need for this power.

In the 80’s the B.C. Utilities Commission rejected Site C, ruling the need wasn’t there. This time the Province has exempted the project from BCUC review.

Hmmmmmmm. Now why would they do that.

There was a real need for power in BC when they built the WAC Bennet dam. The need was obvious to everyone in the Province.

Site C on the other hand is not needed, and only those who stand to make millions building it, are in favour of the project. This project is all about making money. No one really gives a s..t about the power that will be produced. They will sell it to the Yankee’s or shut off some turbines for 50 years until they need them.

Pretty easy to declare everything “BS” and not have to back up the statement with any hard numbers or facts, just lots of opinions and *hot air*.

Hard to judge this without bringing in WAC Bennett Dam into the picture. Williston lake will be 19 times bigger than site C yet site C will produce 35% of the power.
Even if we do sell some power to the states I think that it is our duty to do this as the environmental impacts are minimal (despite a few farms being flooded) and the gigatonnes of carbon that will be saved is tremendous. Also Hydro is critical to work with other green power as it acts as a battery that can quickly turn off and on like no other when the wind blows, the sun shines, or when power is desperatley needed.
Palupo I suggest you move to New Brunswick.

hydro (or any other type) generation has nothing to do with grid capacitance, and it does not turn off and on at will.

Again, there is no single solution. it is going to be a hybrid solution to power the world in the future. We need to explore the alternatives.

The biggest problem with this issue is there is potentially a lot of money to be made. By hindering the development of the alternatives, the owners of the current model retain their profits.

This is what they fear.

Let’s see LNG, Site C, WAC would have these built in a moment. Hydro has also stated it is needed to back up IPP power. IPP power is non firm intermittent power while Site C would be firm power.

Hydro power is the cheapists form of electrical genetation. After the initial cost ongoing operating cost is the lowest. That is why BC, Manitoba and Quebec have very low rates. The majority of their generation being hydro. The proplem in BC is governments using Hydro as their private piggy bank and the high cost of IPP contracts.

The Americans are sold power at the market rate.

Do not get caught in the carbon bs. Man’s contribution is only 3% of total co2 and there is no science that explains the effects of natural contribution let alone man’s contribution and all the doom and gloom predictions are from computer models not real world data. Some of the big players in the bs were predicting an ice age back in the seventies. The warmers have been crying wolf for twenty years and nothing has happened that hasn’t happened before in climate history.

Comment Posted by: Palopu on May 8 2014 7:43 PM
You got that right JohnnyBelt, and as an expert I can tell you that there is a lot of **hot air** on this site.
—————————————

Damn tootin! Guys like JB will benefit from all the required conveyor belting used in a dam project like this. You will never see him denounce anything like this project that benefits him. No matter what it is. Money in the pocket is ALL that matters to this type.

Comment Posted by: JohnnyBelt on May 8 2014 7:44 PM
I’m sure there were people like yourself questioning the WAC Bennett dam and others as well before the internet age made people like Palopu feel like they were the ultimate authority on such subjects.

————————————-

You’re one to talk! All you do here is agree with anything that will benefit you financially and bad mouth anyone that goes against anything that benefits you financially. That’s all you are about Johnnyboy!

Comment Posted by: JohnnyBelt on May 8 2014 7:58 PM
Pretty easy to declare everything “BS” and not have to back up the statement with any hard numbers or facts, just lots of opinions and *hot air*.
—————————————

Pot meet kettle….BIG FN TIME!

Hydro can be ramped up and down at a moment’s notice far easier than most other forms of generation. Look up load following. At night BC Hydro buys thermo power from the states and Alberta at a very cheap rate because simply it is difficult to change load in coal fired and nuclear plants for various reasons. Load is lowest at night. Yes we buy nuclear power. Then during the day power is sold back generally at much higher than bought because of need. Americans have referred to Hydro as white Arabs.

Palopu I agree with you.Maybe the plan is to build it with TFW.

Natural Gas plants strategically located through out the Province would produce all the power we need for our future needs. We have the gas, we have the knowledge, we have the manpower, so why send this gas to foreign countries to produce power, and not do it here.

Furthermore. There is a 7% loss of electricity transmitting it from WAC Bennett dam to Southern BC and the USA. This is a huge loss of revenue. If we produce the electricity in the areas where it is needed, then we save this transmission loss, which in itself would pay for the cost of constructing the natural gas plants. In addition we would not have to flood any land, or cause any environmental damage.

Its pretty obvious what route we should take.

It’s too bad we’ve never learned from the one big mistake WAC Bennett made that, more than anything else, ended the long run of BC’s most successful government, ever.

That mistake wasn’t in building dams, or roads, or anything else needed that was built in that era. But rather in believing, as his government came to foolishly believe, that ‘inflation’ was the equivalent of ‘prosperity’. By the time they realised it wasn’t, it was too late.

And whether Site C, or all the LNG plants, or an Enbridge Pipeline , etc., are really ‘needed’ or not, one thing is virtually certain if they do go ahead. We will get ‘inflation’ again ~ and those who think getting to work with bigger figures means they have more ‘purchasing power’ are going to be in for a very big let down.

It doesn’t have to be that way. But the crowd in Victoria led by Christy Clark are too dumb to realise that. They see rising prices as a sign of ‘prosperity’, still.

Til the bills start coming in. And they’re payable from all the incomes everyone’s already spent meeting those rising prices.

By then the mega-projects are built, and the jobs are shrinking. Both from the end of those projects, and because without displacing as much labor as possible, all our remaining export industries will have priced themselves out of the ‘global markets’ they were going to capture. But are then finding it difficult to retain. All thanks to ‘inflation’, and a government that hasn’t yet learned from the lessons of long ago.

Hey Dragon, you better calm down or you’re gonna pop a vein in your forehead.

Natural gas for power is more expensive than hydro in the long run and is subject to fluctuating gas prices. What is the future of gas prices

We had a similar proposal done in the UK, it didn’t pass sadly.

http://www.number-direct.co.uk/severn-trent-water-contact/

Mercenery, one could always buy their lake front cabin property now for cheep and watch its value go up with the water level? It will probably be the new thing in the Peace area.

Anyone ever thought of taking the dust off the (old) Morgan proposal – tunneling from the Fraser canyon over to Harrison Lake, with a power generator at that end? At least, this does not eat up so much agricultural land.

Exactly seamutt, Hydro is cheap, reliable, and long lasting power, and sorry about using this buzzword, more sustainable.

I’m not sure where Palopu gets the idea that Natural Gas is cheaper. Maybe in the very short term, but definitely not the long term.

Boy I wish I was approaching retirement with a big pension waiting so I could just sit around and call for the end of anything that remotely smells like progress… oh wait, what are those pensions invested in again?

interceptor: “Boy I wish I was approaching retirement with a big pension waiting so I could just sit around and call for the end of anything that remotely smells like progress”

Yeah, it’s a pretty comfortable position to be in for sure.