We will and do need more power despite what the nay Sayers and environmental groups say. Northern BC is in the midst of a building boom and some major developments are moving forward. Again the negative people say BC let alone northern BC is not growing and there is no need for the extra power.

This will be a contenscious issue for the Indians, environmentalists and Eco-terrorists for months and years to come spending millions of dollars in the courts to say the environment and way of life has irreparably damaged. I can argue that case but it’s not worth it as both sides are deeply entrenched in their beliefs.

Suffice it to say we will need the power and I fully support the dam being built.

Very good article, Ben.

we are running around our house looking to plug in. doesn’t that say something about our reliance on power. We are all living longer, and more people are moving into BC. So we do need more power.

Thru the late 80s and the 90s BC Hydro pushed PowerSmart, that really made an impact on not having to build Site C. Than thru the last decade they pushed IPP, which filled some gaps and made some industries a bit more power independent as well.

But I think the time has come to build Site C, so that we can continue to use energy efficient products and lights.

I would rather have a 9 billion dollar dam, than a 5 billion dollar super gas power plant!!!!

I’d like to think that a person can oppose Site C without being branded an eco-terrorist. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the equation, and unknowns such as the outcome of litigation, total cost of the project, whether or not we will need the power, and costs and impacts of alternative sources of energy. My sense is that the right decision was made but we won’t know for sure for decades; today we just have opinions.
CL

Yes the valley is beautiful, but they are not flooding the entire thing. I was shown where the dam will cover, and was surprised, after hearing the nay sayers, that it would be so…small. Most of the valley will still remain. And the current road that is there, while picturesque, slides, and is hazardous. A new, better, road will be built. Hopefully one that will handle all the industrial traffic in the area.
The lake that will result from the flooding will also be pretty.
“Again the negative people say BC let alone northern BC is not growing and there is no need for the extra power.”
The area this dam is going into is growing. ;)

My understanding is currently we have a negative birth rate. So, if there is going to be this massive influx of people that are necessitating the building of this dam, they will be immigrants. Either from other parts of Canada, or foreign nations. So, if they are immigrants, what are they coming here to do? Why is it that we can’t just keep the population where it’s at – allowing enough immigration only to supply our birth rate short fall. Why not quit building new places for new people to live, and perhaps they’ll just stay where they’re at, and we don’t have to raise the PST in the lower mainland for more roads and bridges, and we can leave the Peace River the way it is. What I would like to hear, is the basis for spending billions of dollars to accommodate not current citizens, or children of current citizens, but immigrants – or am I missing the point entirely.

I agree Newstme. Buntzen Lake is also a BC Hydro created lake and is supplying power, be it on a much smaller scale. What BC Hydro has done with that area is outstanding as far as nature is concerned. They stock it with fish, and the hiking trails they create and maintain are amazing. It will be nice if BC Hydro puts a similar effort into Site-C.

canis: “I’d like to think that a person can oppose Site C without being branded an eco-terrorist. ”

The problem is that most people who oppose Site C also oppose Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgan expansion, LNG development, Mine development, etc. etc. Those same people are in favour of increased social services, hospitals, education, infrastructure, etc. etc.

I agree, a very good article!

I hope they are going to log this area before flooding it. Remember Williston lake? Ugly looking with trees sticking up out of the water, millions of cubic feet of good timber left under water. Also what about the impact on the weather system by now having this huge body of water.?

Who is going to build the 450,000 homes to use this power? Has anyone asked that question? May be we should get the USA for the 9 billion they will be using the power.
Cheers

Retired 02… I know you pretend to live inside of a bubble, but have you been deliberately ignoring the population explosion of the lower mainland? I know for a fact Abby is feeling the pinch too.

BC’s population is projected to increase by 1.44 million people by 2040. If you take into account families of 2 adults + 2 children, that would require roughly 360,000 new homes that will need hydro. With more energy needs for industry, where do you think it’s going to come from?

As usual we get 7 different sides to a story.

A person could support Site C, if in fact there was a need for this power, however even the Governments own commission could not find a need for at least 20 years, and even then it was open to debate. So those who think there is a big need for this power are not supporting their arguments with any kind of facts.

We already know that we can build a natural gas plant for a third of the cost of Site C and produce the same amount of electricity. In fact if we chose to we could build more than one. We could start the process immediately and people could be working on the project right away. These plants would be completed in half the time it would take to build Site C and we could avoid flooding 5,550 hectares of land, 3,800 of which is prime agricultural land.

Some would argue that we do not have a sustainable supply of natural gas. These are the people who overlook the fact that the Liberal Government is in the process of setting up at a minimum 4 LNG plants, with companies that will sign 30 year contracts with their customers in China, etc; So if you can sign those long term agreement for LNG, then is logically follows that we have a huge amount of natural gas, and could in fact supply these local gas plants for the next 100 years if we chose to.

Furthermore we could make a concerted effort to reduce the green house gas emission and I suggest that we would do a much better job of reducing these emissions, than we will get from the people we export LNG to.

So we have a Boni Fide case for going to natural gas, but we chose to go to Site C. Why??

Hydro is cleaner, more sustainable, and not subject to unforeseen supply issues and price fluctuations (like gas is). It is clearly the better choice.

P Val – Also what about the impact on the weather system by now having this huge body of water.?

Good question. I lived in Mackenzie in the 80’s and old timers then said the weather had become milder since Williston Lake. Not that milder weather is necessarily a bad thing, it just happened to make it easier for the pine beetle to survive and wipe out the pine forests. What would the effect of milder weather be in this area in the Peace to the overall ecosystem?

P Val is also correct on the logging. They left millions of metres of timber, they left equipment, at the bottom of the lake, because bringing the dam on-line sooner had more value than what they left behind. But what they left behind, was a lake that was dangerous to navigate, as uncut trees broke from the their roots and shot up above the water. If you were in a canoe, you were dead.

Johnnybelt. Gas fluctuations may effect some users from time to time, however why would you need a 30 year contract for LNG?? I suggest that the long term contracts are to protect the pricing and supply issues.

The BC Government could sign long term contracts also. Keep in mind that its the people who own this resource and allow the private companies to extract it. If push came to shove, we could extract it ourselves to ensure long term supply and price stability.

Just because electricity is a cleaner option, doesn’t mean that we have to adhere to it. In fact the clean option is nothing more than a weak argument.

Bicycles are much cleaner than cars, however most of us choose to drive. So lets not be cherry picking our **clean** options.

@Palopu “Just because electricity is a cleaner option, doesn’t mean that we have to adhere to it. In fact the clean option is nothing more than a weak argument. ”

How did you write that, and keep a straight face? The pulp mills in PG would love you.

Every reservoir since williston has been logged. Argument out of date.

Hrdro electric is the cheapest source of electricity.

If we generated using gas our rates will even go higher.

Ride bicycles, ya okay go talk to a soccer mom.

Power not needed, we’ll then how are all those electric cars going to be charged, fairy dust!

Want the lowest enviromental impact though more costly, New generation nuclear. China, India, Russia building them as fast as they can.

Again lowest cost, hydro electric.

The export of LNG would bring billions in revenue to the provincial coffers over time to pay for things like schools, hospitals, roads etc. Burning that same gas to produce power for the province will do squat to help GDP.

The investment in a 100% renewable energy source will allow for power for population growth but also for industries like mining to grow. A reliable reasonably priced power supply could spur an mining exploration and development bonanza in northern BC.

In a earlier thread Palopu you mentioned sawmills and pulpmills closing all of which have zero to do with the cost of electricity. Sawmills need logs in order to run and newsprint mills like the one in MacKenzie need customers for their product and newspapers are in a steep state of decline across the continent. Do you think Canfor would have rebuilt NCP if they were offered free power, Hell No as a steady supply of peelers is much more critical.

Why not fire up Tumbler Ridge and build coal fired plants?

Seamut, the .logging argument is only out of date if they plan to log this area.. Haven’t heard a peep about it..so it’s still a concern.

I lived in Mackenzie in the early 70’s and there was a big change in the weather patterns..but who cares about the environment right seamut, it only sustains life.

Palopu, so instead of Site C, let’s build a Natural Gas burning Generating Station, and let’s build it in the Fraser Valley! After all, the lower mainland uses a lot of electricity so let’s generate the power there! Oops, wait a minute, Retired 02 would have a cow if we tried to do that!!

Hmmm, perhaps a Nuclear Power Plant would be a better option? Maybe we could build one of those, again in the lower mainland! Nope, not gonna happen because Retired 02 doesn’t want to glow in the dark!!

So, let’s use the Peace River water once again, recycling at it’s best! The water flows through the WAC Bennett dam, voila, power is generated!

Then the very same water flows downstream and through the Peace Canyon Dam. Voila, more power!

Now we are going to build Site C! More power from the same flow of water!

As far as I’m concerned about our environment and our rivers, I’d much rather see another dam on the Peace River instead of a dam on an as yet untouched river!

After Site C, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if at some point in the future, the Alberta Government looks at a 4th or 5th dam further downstream on the Peace River!

much as we don’t want

Oops, ignore the last sentence! We need an edit function, haha!!

Pval not to be logged, ya okay. Already man made lakes in that airshed or didn’t you notice. What is your idea for more power?

“As far as I’m concerned about our environment and our rivers, I’d much rather see another dam on the Peace River instead of a dam on an as yet untouched river”

==========================

Agreed. The Peace is already “compromised” in that sense. If there is a need for more power (and I fail to see how there couldn’t be given BC’s projected population growth), I think this is probably the best option. No project of this scale is without side effects, so I think you have to pick the best of the alternatives.

I like the idea of a few nuclear plants in southern BC….it’s about time that part of the province provided some energy sources. And why not a gas fired plant? Either one makes more sense than flooding prime farmlands.

ski51, I think the point that’s missing is that ‘financially’ we can’t currently ever fully pay FOR what we’ve done FROM what we’ve done, and have to try to do that from what we’re DOING, or more likely now, going to HAVE TO DO.

So, the only way this new subdivision, mega-project, etc. can be paid for is from the NEXT subdivision, mega-project, etc., and so on. As long as there’s constant growth and it seems to be accelerating it creates the impression everything’s fine. While that’s really far from being the case.

Palopu wants to build gas generating plants but seems to forget the bruhaha over burrard thermo and a gas plant near Abbotsford, from the nimby crowd. Just imagine trying to build a gas plant in the okanagan, oh my, the uproar from that nimby crowd.

Thx socredible. So in other words, we can’t pay for what we’ve already got, so we have to create a future revenue stream, but of course, we’ll probably just spend more anyway, and create essentially a ponzi scheme where the next generation get’s a huge surprise.

Valid points regarding the already jeopardized river vs a wild river. Same argument would favor Kinder Morgan vs Northern Gateway. Cheap gas generating at home could entice attract large industry.
Gas is best used close to the source, so no worries for the okanagan.
The BCUC said BC should diversify its generation.
We have some of the best geothermal professionals,all working in other countries. We have no geothermal and some of the best potential for it.

Seamut, well how about some step down turbine generators, solar power, nuclear power, upgrade the turbine gens we have now. Stop selling power to California, stop paying rio tinto so much for the electricity they send to the grid. That’s a few without any research.. Germany has done wonders with solar energy.

Well put govsux . I don’t think that the folks in Victoria are watching the most important part of the ratio , our market . Our market for electricity , by the time it ( site C ) would be built will have no market . Califournia and the rest of the sun states are going solar exponencially . As we sit on our hands the largest solar panel factory in the world is being built in Buffalo NY. Utilities in the state are complaining that they have lost 2% of the market to LED lights . I can hear you say ” the sun doesn’t shine at night ” , that’s why the tesla battery gigafactory is being built as fast as they can . It will double world production and electrovaya building one as well . What a shame Andrew J. Weaver is not our premier or better yet our PM.

Our so called mines minister just wondered out loud about whether or not we have geothermal . Unbelievable ! We live with the second largest group of volcanoes in North america . Somebody get some of these people a ticket to Iceland . They are planing the longest under sea transmition line in the world to England and vastly increasing the unlimited geo they have . What’s canada doing ? Errrrrrr nothin .

All these great minds as to what our power needs are. We have been sitting our hands for decades and have never really looked at other options then rather to build and increase our supplies. Has anyone ever done a study on what our power needs are?

Hydro is already buying power from AB. What we should of done years ago and that in to have a power grid across Canada instead we have gone to selling power to the USA and created a grid in our own time zone.

The idea has been around for decades where you build a power grid across the Canadian time zones. Traditionally power demands peak at certain times of the day say 4 pm to 7 pm. That means that the peak has dropped off in the Ontario time zone it is just starting to peak in BC. That means that we could move the demand across Canada,

Oh yes out population is growing by leaps and bounds it will need all this surplus power. Then why is Powerx selling power to the USA? And the population of PG is growing buy how many each year! There is already talk of the housing market slowing in Vancouver. With that big boom in the Tar Sands I might be able to sell my cow stupid.
Cheers

Pval hydro electric is still the cheapest. Why stop selling to California? I have explained before how the grid operates. We have reserve power in case of outages and low water years. Beck we even buy power from California at night so that their thermo plants do not have to ramp down which is inefficient. Buy low sell high. With our advantage of abundent cheap Hydro, excluding expensive IPP power Powerex sells and buys using our power as collateral.

Solar is not benign and will always cost more than hydro. One of the reasons their rates are so high. Batteries, huge cost and think of the chemicals and exotic metals required and mining of.

Geothermal comes with its own plethora of issues. Works in Iceland because they have nothing else. Geo has been researched for decades, see anybody using it in a large scale in north America?

There is no surplus of power in Ontario or Eastern states, they have their own issues. Eastern north America is such a huge grid that there can be no direct ac tie because of system stability issues. There are some dc ties but limited due to cost. If a tie could be done to the east don’t you think western north America would have done so? You are not inventing the wheel.

Every major generation project in BC has had its critics. Well where would we be now without those.

Power is bought and sold. It can be bought from one utility and sold to another using our reserves as back up. Hydro sells and buys, this inter action helps to keep our rates down.

What do you folks think of the 60 billion in contracts to IPP’s and need site c on top of that to back them up. Bad bad deal and the fiberals did that. If you didn’t notice that is a lot more than site c.

Go on line and learn something about grid operations.

The US is the largest geothermal generator , followed by the Philippines. We have huge potential and free energy.
Exporting power via powerex helps the public coffers and funds social programs. At least it used to until the bad energy policies of the last decade turned BC Hydro into a basket case.

I don’t need to go online to learn about the grid, I work with Hydro.

Retired 02, you have a cow named Stupid??

Or a turkey named Avian ?

Ya but do you know how the grid operates? It’s a lot more than wires. Power system dynamics.

1. If we have sufficient natural gas to supply 3 or 4 LNG Plants, then it logically follows that we have sufficient gas to build natural gas electricity producing plants.

2. Alberta is in the process of building such a plant. The cost of a plant to produce the same amount of electricity as Site C is about a third of the cost of Site C.

3. As seamut well knows approx. 7% of the electricity produced at WAC or Site C is lost in transmission. Electricity loss in the USA due to sending electricity over long distances would supply electricity for about 7 cities the size of New York.

4. Anyone who thinks that these dams are efficient is just fooling themselves.

5. Natural gas plants close to users would over time save millions of dollars.

6. Natural gas plants would negate the need to flood 5,500 hectares of land, 3,800 of which is prime farm land

7. Building a natural gas plant in the Hart Industrial Complex would create thousands of jobs in the Prince George area during construction, and many jobs after construction. Cheap electricity would help to attract business to this area.

8. To be bitching about the lack of industry and population and jobs in this area, and then to support a project that takes jobs away, and exports the electricity shows just how out of touch some people are.

9. We could find ways to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas plant.

10. Either you want local industry and jobs or you don’t. Its time to quit caterwauling and think about whats good for Prince George and surrounding area, as whats good for the Southern part of the Province and the USA.

Make no mistake about it. The majority of the money and profits from building Site C will go to American companies. Once the dam is built we will have few jobs.

The argument that the money from Site C will go to pay for social programs is pure unadulterated BS. It will take 50 years or more just to pay off the bloody debt. Hydro rates (as pointed out by someone previously) are already rising to pay for this white elephant.

A forward looking Government with vision, would see that gas generating electricity plants is the way to go, but guess what???

Site C has been a done deal for a number of years. What we are seeing now is the Liberal Governments propaganda to pretend that they went through the proper process’s and are now moving forward.

Ask yourself where they are going to borrow the money. Do you think that the borrowing has already been approved, or do you really believe that they will start next year, and not know where the money will come from.

Who will be the major suppliers of cement, steel, equipment,etc; Who will be the primary contractor.

Most of this has already been agreed to behind closed doors a number of years ago.

You don’t just start a project on an announcement from Christie Clark.

So we can say with some certainty that the dirty deed is done, unless the enviromentalists, or First Nations put a stop to it.

I’d like to clarify something about the weather in Mackenzie before Williston Lake;

Before Williston Lake there was no Mackenzie.
Mackenzie the town and its’ industrial complex were created at about the same time as the WAC Bennett dam started backing up the Peace River, eventually creating the Williston Reservoir.

So I assume that any old timers who would have noticed lake effect weather changes were living in the area before the town was built, local Indians, maybe trappers or “river rats” (river freighters)

metalman.

The same useless arguments Palopu

You will need to build at least 3 natural gas plants during the lifetime of one dam. Plus you have to build it 30 years from now and another one 60 years from now, how much is that going to cost in the future once you factor in inflation? Also increased power needs in the future, you may need to increase the size in the future as well or maybe two gas plants instead of adding turbines or building a smaller gen plant elsewhere. No one seems to recall Burrard Thermal is on its way out. And what of the environment from burning gas for 100 years? Where do you think all these electric cars are going to get their power?

The river will double in width and a lake by the dam site, brilliant thinking compared to mass flooding, like Mica some brilliant engineering going on

1. Make more money selling NG than generating electricity seeing hydro electric is cheaper

2. Alberta if you haven’t noticed is kinda short of Hydro electric opportunities so is forced into more expensive thermo. Long turn operating costs more expensive than hydro. That is where hydro wins out. You got a crystal ball for future gas costs?

3. Wrong, tilt energy costs higher in the US because of more expensive thermo which is over 40% of generating capacity and nuclear in the mix. Let’s not for the billions wasted on inefficent, expensive wind and solar.

4. Show me where hydro electric is inefficent? I think you are starting to make things up.

5. Higher operating costs negates being closer to load centers. You left out nimbyism.

6. What about developments on more productive land on the Fraser valley?

7. Doesn’t take thousands of jobs to build a gas plant.

8.

7.

7. Doesn’t take thousands to build a gas plant. Where did that come from? Again you forgot nimbyism.

8.

Don’t know what happed there, doing this on my phone.

8. Huh!

9. Know you are worried about a trace gas essential for life.

10. Again, HUH!

Suppliers to hydro plants, ditto gas plants.

I see you are learning something so far, dropped the requirment of gas plants requiring LNG. There is hope yet.