Hudson’s Hope Calls for Review of Site C
Prince George, B.C. – The Mayor of the District of Hudson’s Hope, Gwen Johansson, has released a review of the Joint Review Panel’s report on the Site C dam. The review concludes there are alternatives, and there are many unanswered questions.
Johannson released the review in the courtyard of BC Hydro’s corporate offices in Vancouver.
(at right, Mayor Johannson talks with reporters in Vancouver – photo submitted)
The review says “The evidence suggests that a commitment to this $7.9 billion public investment would be premature before the BCUC undertakes a review of the proposed Site C project costs and long-term energy pricing and re-investigates the comparatives costs and benefits of potential alternatives.”
The problem says Johannson, is that it is not within the BCUC’s mandate to review the costs of the project. She says at this point there is no indication the Province will instruct BCUC to conduct that kind of review on the project.
Johannson says with alternative energy forms now being produced at megawatt hour cost levels below that of the proposed Site C dam, it is worth exploring the options which include geo-thermal, natural gas/ co generation, solar, and mix of Renewable Alternatives and Energy Conservation “Just yesterday we heard of Kimberly where they are starting to build a solar farm so these things are starting to go mainstream.”
She says no one has explored what impact price of energy will have on demand and that’s something she says needs to be examined.
There is a lot at stake for Hudson’s Hope. BC Hydro has, over the years, purchased the property adjacent to the Peace River, preparing for the possible development of a dam. That means Hudson’s Hope has seen a significant drop in its tax base from those river front properties. Johannson says there won’t be any “reservoir frontage properties” as there will be a significant buffer established, a precaution in the event of erosion or sloughing. “so it eliminates those very desirable waterfront properties” says Johannson.
“The important thing to remember here is that there is still time” says Johannson, “BC Hydro says it has enough capacity to meet the demand until 2028. The report points out that the JRP has accepted BC Hydro’s own estimates that it has enough capacity to meet the demand until 2028. “If we want to do this properly we can, but I would think that the general public, the tax paying public in BC would want to look at the fact that there has not been a proper review on whether this is a wise expenditure of $8 billion dollars, and this is a class 3 projection, so it could be 30% higher and still be within the mandated budget.”
Johannson admits, this battle puts Hudson’s Hope up against two powerful entities, BC Hydro and the Provincial Government “The only thing more powerful is the need to be able to look yourself in the mirror when you get up in the morning.”
Comments
There are no alternate energy forms that can produce power cheaper than hydroelectric per megawatt hour. How can a mayor spout things that are completely untrue…oh right…
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2014/07/06/dan-potts-site-c-dam-unlikely-ever-to-be-cost-competitive/
Slinky. Natural Gas plants can produce cheaper electricity that Site C, when all things are considered.
In fact you can build the Natural Gas plant for a third of the cost of Site C. Have it up and running in 4 years, and also build it in the area where the power is needed, thus eliminating the need for power lines etc;
Don’t listen to all the BS put out by Hydro, and the Provincial Government. These people have a vested interest in Site C, and could care less about flooding thousands of hectares of prime farmland.
If we can ship LNG all over the world to produce electricity, then of course we can do it a home much cheaper.
Site C should never go ahead.
Maybe yank out a calculator and consider your natural gas facility has to be rebuilt and decommissioned every 30 years or so then repost your reply. Capital costs for Natural gas or hydro are pretty much the same but hydro is not affected by commodity cost increases.
touché slinky!!!
Palopu: ‘Slinky. Natural Gas plants can produce cheaper electricity that Site C, when all things are considered.”
You keep saying this. I would like to see your calculations and proof of this statement, considering natural gas is non-renewable, and as slinky says, subject to commodity cost changes.
no demand
Palopu can you predict the cost of gas into the future? Once the dam is built its costs to operate is a small percentage of a gas plant.
The mayor has been sold a bill of goods about the cost of other sources of energy compared to hydro.
In the states wind generator operators can get permits for the number of eagles they can kill. Imagine the uproar if the Oilsands applied for a permit.
Wonder if Johannson has business connections with alternate forms of energy production?
Damn it, build the dam.
Hudson Hope is practically on top of the WAC Bennet Damn but the mayor is fighting a dam 83 kms downstream… Follow the money
I want the good ole day’s back, Way too much is spent on whinney people.
Yes there is alternative, its higher prices for limited resources.
Building Site C when its not needed shows the ignorance and stupidity of the Government and BC Hydro.
We know that the cost of Site C is three time the cost of a gas fired plant that would produce the same amount of electricity.
We know that a gas fired plant will last 20 to 40 years compared to 100 years for Site C. Which means that we could build 2 or three plants over a 100 year span and not have to build Site C.
We know that Site C will cost $7.9 Billion and that these are conservative numbers.
We know that gas-fired plants will not flood 5,500 hectares of land 3,800 hectares which are capable of agricultural production.
We know that the Shepherd Energy Facility in Calgary, whose energy and capacity are comparable to Site C including the cost of gas, has a unitized energy cost (UEC) of $30 per MWh. On the other hand Site C has a (UEC) indicated to be $110 per MWh.
We know that we are going to allow LNG companies to burn natural gas to produce electricity to freeze LNG for export, and at the same time we will not allow plants to be built by Hydro to generate electricity. In fact we closed down the Burrard Thermal which has a similar production capacity as Site C.
There is much more to this fiasco, which I have no intention of going into. Suffice to say that Site C, much like other projects of this Government is nothing more than a huge scam.
Anyone (in my opinion) who believe the garbage spewed about Site C by the Government or BC Hydro, probably invested their money with Bernie Madoff.
Keep in mind that the Government of BC owns the natural gas and allows private business to produce and export it. They could very easily make arrangements for cheap gas for the next 100 years. Considering that they own the gas, I don’t see the cost of gas in the future as being an issue for the Government.
The LNG plants were originally intended to use some mystical “greenest and cleanest” power on earth. That has since been quietly watered down. They will probably generate on site with gas. Which is the smartest, most economical solution.
However, the government will not allow generation ,outside the LNG industry,using gas. Green wash. It will be burnt elsewhere.
BC hydro is paying contract IPP’s their rate and asking they not generate to capacity. There is simply no demand. Mid Columbia prices for power are quite low.
There may one day be a need for site C, but it’s probably not in this lifetime.
Have the supporters on this site read the information and studies around the construction of site C, or do they just embrace any development regardless of the cost to taxpayers? Or do they just believe because the government says so?
Hm. Believe the government or some anonymous internet blogger vith an anti-govenrment agenda.
It is a tough choice for sure. ;-)
JohnnyBelt. You are the ultimate Government believer.
The information that I posted came from the Joint Review Panel on Site C, and from some articles written by Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun. Hardly anonymous. Its all out in the public domain for anyone with an iota of interest could access in a New York minute. So do we believe the anonymous internet bloggers with a pro Government slant??
Seems you me you were 100% behind the HST and we now wait with bated breath for all the bad things that are going to happen to this Province because we got rid of this ignorant, multi national, subsidy.
Govsux’s last paragraph in the above post pretty well sums it up for some people.
Palopu, you just can’t stand it when others might have a different perspective than your own. Don’t worry, you’re not the only one on this site with that affliction.
Yeah, we’re so much more further ahead now that the HST is gone, aren’t we? Nice move, BC. ;-)
You bet were further ahead. I now spend my HST savings on myself, rather than have it go to Corporate CEO’s salaries and bonus’s.
Your entitled to your different perspective on Site C. However like so many others you would have ANOTHER perspective if the property being flooded was your own, which you wanted to keep.
It always easy to build something, or destroy something in some one else’s back yard.
Your ‘HST Savings’ are an illusion, Palopu. But, whatever helps you sleep at night.
As for Site C, the decision to build it (or not) won’t be decided by anonymous posters in the comment sections of blog sites. As they say, money talks and BS walks.
Palopu take a peek into your crystal ball and tell us what the price of natural gas will be 20, 40, 60 years down the road
Site C floods 5% of WAC BENNETT Dam area (williston lake) but produces 33% of the power.
LNG exists to profit from 4 dollar natgas in NA and 17 dollar natgas in the rest of the world.
What is the unit cost for electricity when you plug in 17 dollar nat gas? 120 dollars sounds familiar.
Also Hydro acts like a battery for wind and solar. IE less water needs to be discharged when wind turbines spin and solar panels soak up sun and more can be discharged on calm cloudy days.
Also the river has been dammed twice so the majority of the damage is done.
7 + 5 = 12
Hmmm
Well lets give you one more shot.
The first four years of operation of Site C will lose $800 Million dollars because there will be no market for the extra electricity.
After that they will start to make some money, however it will be on sales of power to the USA. There is no significant market for Site C power in BC/Alberta.
So in effect Site C is to generate power for export. Since the USA is reducing the amount of LNG it buys from Canada, we will export our LNG to South East Asia, and export elec power to the USA.
Its all about the money, and has nothing to do with a shortage of power. WAKE up and smell the roses.
Palopu: “So in effect Site C is to generate power for export.”
Assuming it is true, you say it as if it’s a bad thing. Revenue would fund all of the big government and social programs we all hold dear.
Same thing with LNG. There is no market for it in the US, we have vast amounts of it. Exporting it will generate revenue which will keep us all living in the style we’re accustomed to and take for granted.
JohnnyBelt. Do you live in a dream world.??
The only money that will be generated for the Province on LNG will be royalties. They have already agreed to give them lower taxes, but the companies want them lower still. So don’t expect a lot of revenue from LNG. The money will go to the LNG companies.
As for revenue from exporting electricity. We have already heard this song and dance when we built the WAC Bennett Dam, and the Columbia River. All the revenue from these exports disappears into the Governments general revenue. BC Hydro is so far in debt that no matter how much money they generate they will continue to be in debt for the next 50 years more or less.
The BC Government is a huge vacuum cleaner that sucks up all the revenue in the Province, and for the most part it is for paying Civil Servants, and giving lucrative contracts to their friends.
Giving the BC Government more revenue, would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
With the vast amounts of LNG, it is a no brainer to generate electricity with natural gas, and forget about Site C. However being a **no brainer** is exactly why the Government cannot cope with the concept.
Right johnnybelt ,, only to have to pay back ,, what was it last fall? 750 million to the usa , california,because they said we charged to much ,, yikes I give up, better than over a billion ,,,, I guess, that sounds to me like more revenue from you and me again and again and again
So you are saying build site c when the price of construction is higher.
How is every one enjoying the higher priced power which is only going to get higher thanks to IPPs.
Where did you get 110$ meh?
Every dam built people bitched the power will never be used, guess what?
Build a gas plant near the load, ya right, look a t the whining over burrard thermo.
I say build nuclear.
I say build nuclear.
I say build nuclear.
So you are saying build site c when the price of construction is higher.
How is every one enjoying the higher priced power which is only going to get higher thanks to IPPs.
Where did you get 110$ meh?
Every dam built people bitched the power will never be used, guess what?
Build a gas plant near the load, ya right, look a t the whining over burrard thermo.
Comments for this article are closed.