NDP Talk Site C
Prince George, B.C. – Two NDP MLAs couldn’t resist weighing in on the Site C project while in Prince George Monday.
Both George Heyman, spokesperson for green economy and technology and Lana Popham, spokesperson for agriculture and food, were here touring green innovation projects – ironically just one day prior to a Site C networking session in town.
NDP MLAs Lana Popham and George Heyman – photo 250News
Specifically, Heyman addressed the possibility his party may scrap the project should they be elected next year.
“What we’ve said was, and the joint review panel on Site C said the same thing, that it was really a mistake for the government not to submit it to the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) for an independent review and the government’s answer to that has never been satisfactory,” he said.
“We’ve also said that energy production has changed since the building of the dams in the past in B.C. and if we’re going to spend somewhere between $9 billion and $13 billion we think we have a better plan and we’d be prepared to put our plan to the BCUC along with Site C to get an independent review.”
That “better plan” Heyman is talking about is the NDP’s Power BC.
“In its simplest terms what we’re suggesting is a big focus on demand side management energy conservation,” he said.
“That the government order BC Hydro to roll back from their mid-option to a lower conservation option to put less money into conservation because right now we have more power than we need and even when Site C’s completed – the joint review panel will operate at a $200 million a year loss for the first four to five years.”
Secondly, Heyman said the government should move on from public buildings to commercial and residential buildings.
“We believe that we can help finance conservation and retro fitting initiatives in a manner that would be paid back on bill financing as has been done in other jurisdictions.
“We know that the space already exists at the Revelstoke Dam for a six turbine that would cost 1/18th of the price of Site C and produce about 43% of the amount of capacity. So on the argument we need to beef up our high peak demand energy, we can do that, we can do it a lot faster and a lot less expensively.”
In the meantime, he said the cost of renewables such as wind, solar or other technologies “are dropping like a stone.”
“British Columbians should be able to avail themselves of these technological advances and price efficiencies,” said Heyman. “If we’re elected in 2017 we’ll see how its gone and let the BCUC decide what’s in the best interests of British Columbians – to complete the project or if it’s still a better idea to transition to other things.”
Popham called it “irresponsible” a fulsome discussion on the consequences of Site C hasn’t occurred.
“What we’ve never been able to do is debate in the Legislature the value of that land and so it’s irresponsible as we’re facing a climate change crisis and possibly a production crisis around the world.”
And what of Liberal MLA Bill Bennett’s widely reported charge that the NDP’s openness to scrapping the project is “asinine?”
“Well that’s typical of the depth of analysis that Bill Bennett brings to most energy questions. The truth is if he was confident that he had the best plan we would take us up on our suggestion that the BCUC review both of them,” said Heyman.
“We’re quite prepared to campaign in an election on economic diversification in every community in B.C. – long term jobs for people, training for First Nations as well as maintaining important agricultural land at a time when people have seen droughts, not only in California but in Washington, Oregon and in BC some predict next summer.”
Comments
“right now we have more power than we need and even when Site C’s completed ”
The question still remains why do we need site c?
We have heard the rhetoric for more than 50 years, so why now, why this project?
According to the above article and previous comments, the power is not needed. If it is about sustainable employment, then it is a flat out lie. If we are just talking jobs, there are only a few hundred at most employed at any time on the project, and the project is a finite project with almost no actual job creation because it takes a small crew to operate a dam.
We are destroying a unique agricultural environment for what?
My wife did a calculation that showed if we grew cauliflower, the area would produce about $2.5 million per year.
Could it be simply a way to create money?
Almost all money today is debt, created by world banks when they create currency for nations that is known as loans.
We will discuss the high value of alternative generation later.
Loki:- “Could it be simply a way to create money?
Almost all money today is debt, created by world banks when they create currency for nations that is known as loans.”
————————————————————————
You’ve nailed it, Loki. Whether we need the power or not, that’s what is really driving it. It’s another way to put bank created credit into the economy ~ which IS necessary if it is to continue to function and seem as if it’s able to fully liquidate previously created bank credit more completely than would otherwise be the case. The downside is that this needed new credit is introduced as FURTHER debt that will have to be repaid somehow in the future. And if the economy isn’t fully financially self-liquidating now, just HOW is that additional debt going to be repaid then? Especially when the construction of a project like Site C is going to increase consumer product prices, which will remain high long after the good paying jobs its construction enabled have ended. You’d think this government would learn from the mistakes previous, better governments once made. But they don’t seem to.
A little real research on your own goes a long way Loki. When reading critics and bloggers you have to always think of their agenda and point of view.
“In the meantime, he said the cost of renewables such as wind, solar or other technologies “are dropping like a stone.” .. really? What is your definition of “dropping like a stone”? I have been watching different off grid applications for a number of years because our retirement home is going to be off-grid and I an tell you the average drop per watt of solar panel has maybe, maybe, dropped 10-15% over the course of 5 years. And that is only because of the cheaper panels coming out of China, any panels that are made in North America or Europe are still running at 3 or 4 dollars a watt unless you find a good sale somewhere or build your own. What has come down substantially are things like inverters and charge controllers mainly because the technology has improved. There has been only a small improvement on actual pv panels in the past dozen years or so. And any improvement at all in them drives the price back up again.
Lets never forget that the most successful government BC has ever had, that of WAC Bennett, was brought to an end primarily because of ‘inflation’. Inflation always comes first under the guise of ‘prosperity’. But it’s really no such thing. Prosperity only has meaning when your standard of living is rising FASTER than your cost of living. When the standard of living is rising, for many, or even most of us, but our cost of living is rising still faster, (and exponentially increasing debt is making up the difference), we’re going backwards financially.
What makes Christy and her followers think that this is the best thing for the province. Why would you spend this kind of money for something that is not needed and I am sure there will be many cost overruns. We should be spending tax dollars on things such as roads ,infrastructure, education etc. When we have to start charging students for riding a bus something is wrong. Is Christy willing too put this to a referendum.
If we look at who actually wants this project, ie; BC Government, BC Hydro, Big Business, and Big Unions, you can see what is the driving force behind it.
In actual fact this whole project is a **sham** and is being pushed more, to create short term jobs, and to get Christy and her lot re elected, than it is about needed power.
Bill Bennett is a joke, and in fact will probably not run in the next election, so I doubt he really cares one way or the other.
We need to sit back and relax and find other ways to generate power if and when we need it, and get away from this dinosaur way of thinking.
The ignorance in this post is overwhelming but then again I guess its politics playing to the cbcer’s and paranoid.
Notice they don’t mention the 65 billion in contracts to the IPP’s for their very expensive non firm power.
Hydro-electric is green
The green they talk about wind and solar is only very expensive inefficient, non reliable. Look at the issues all over the world, power rates have skyrocketed where ever this power has been installed. As problems have been shown all over the world, the wind don’t always blow and the sun don’t always shine.
They also left out the infrastructure required to install these sources of generation or most likely ignorant of the issues.
These politicians ramble on with no facts or figures to backup their ignorance. Cancel the project, sorry that would most likely bring in hundreds of millions in penalties as contracts already let and those big generators, turbines, power transformers and switchgear are not sitting on venders shelves. They have to be ordered years ahead.
Wonder if the NDP has ever gone to the control center to have a look at the load flows, if they have anyone smart enough to figure out what they are looking at.
If big hydro electric is so expensive how come we have about the cheapest rates in the world?
If wind power is so great how come we never hear about the bird slicing complex near Dawson Creek? Nothing, absolutely nothing about its output compared to nameplate.
Who is picking up all those dead birds anyway? They have to legalize pot if your brain is baked seamutt everything will become a lot…. who cares about dirty power anyway.
seamutt, your constant tirades bringing in completely unrelated matters like the IPP inefficiencies on the matter of this dam or anything else to do with power generation or distribution completes obliterates any credibility you may have once had.
Please come up with some actual, factual information. Ideally with a reference or two.
So far, you have out shouted any one and everyone who shows any sort of opinion about this project. You repeat, your repeat,, and then you repeat. Blah, blah, blah and some blah blah, blah.
I don’t know if your a BC Hydro shill, or just a sucker. I am leaning towards the latter due to the little bait I laid and that you bit.
I am interested in a logical discussion about this matter, but not one of the proponents have ever in MHO offered any thing substantial in the reasoning for this project. In addition, your repetitive tirades do not add value to the debate as most of your anecdotal claims have been refuted or refused as ludicrous.
You speak like someone that may have been around BC Hydro at one time. Maybe a long time ago in your youth, you were a number 2 spade operator or something menial like that.
I have worked with real engineers in electrical design. You pale by a large margin in having any substance as a real deal engineer would have.
All I am asking is that your put up or shut up. At least occasionally, put up valid, cited and widely accepted information or just stop trying to play with the adults and go back to your basement.
@Loki, I suppose the cauliflower argument is hard proven science.
Here are some hard numbers for housing starts in BRITISH COLUMBIA, ALL AREAS 34,667 36,443 39,195 34,321 15,203 25,082 25,429 26,507 26,436 27,680 (BC stats)
Total 290,963 residential housing starts in 10 years from 2005 to 2014 in BC
Site C can power 450,000 houses. Looks like in 15 years we will need Site C case closed. Building it when we need it is too late as Hydro facilities take up to 10 years to construct and thousands of workers not hundreds as you alluded to. There are already hundreds working on the project and no concrete has even been poured yet.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
thank you slinky.
That is what I am asking for.
The point you missed was prompting someone else to perform in such a manner.
Site c is not about powering homes, it is touted to be to power LNG and petroleum industry.
There is in 2015, 842,120 single detached households and this will enhance to 450,000 more. So we need to add 50% capacity by 2030?
You do realize that means at least a 50% increase in population in this province alone. At 1.7% persons per household, it will increase more. Is that the province you want to live in? I stay in BC for the chance to get away from urban areas.
We need to stop this colonial expansionist economy. It is not sustainable. Having a feast and famine, bonanza philosophy only serves the few in the short term.
We should be settling for the long haul, not quick money. We should serve the earth to save humans.
Gonna be a lot more pissed off people when Alberta announces the 4th dam on the Peace River!
Alberta’s NDP Government is looking at the elimination of coal fired electrical generating stations. How much do you want to bet that they will need more than just solar and wind to compensate for the lost generation capacity of the coal fired plants?
Alberta doesn’t have the abundance of large rivers that we have in B.C. I am sure that the Peace River will be their choice for a hydro-electric project!
I support Site C and if need be, a Site D, E and F if need be in Alberta and the Northwest Territories as the water continues to it’s flow towards the Arctic Ocean.
The Peace is already dammed and I would rather we leave our other rivers alone while enhancing power production from the Peace!
Oh dear Loki I must be over the target, catching flak.
Actually your little tantrum has not refuted anything I have had to say. Actually my computer looks out a big window.
Hum has your real engineer ever operated generation from sea going ships, and land based steam, diesel and hydro electric. Does he know the dynamics of an integrated power system, I could teach him.
Oh as I have stated before Site C is required to back up the IPP’s which are not firm power. Which I have stated before Ipp’s exist only to fill the coffers of Liberal friends. So you see Ipp’s are very expensive power, 65 billion which you ignore, and then site c has to be built on top to back them up. Two generation schemes when only one Site C was required. That is what should be investigated.
Should be interesting! BC NDP opposed to a dam on the Peace, while the Alberta NDP will be in favour of a dam on the Peace!
The left wing battling the left wing! No holds barred, haha!
Yes site C is also required for the LNG and what ever other industry comes along, are against industry Loki? Also site c is required for power system security incase one leg goes down. Backup is needed for the loss of say Mica, it does happen but because of planning you never notice. Generation as I have explained before is not built to match load, a surplus is required for maintenance, shutdowns, unplanned outages, low water years. Surpluses can also be sold when available.
Other countries are discovering the folly of wind and solar and are ramping up the building of coal generation because they do not have a cheap hydro option.
Get and read more.
loki ask your engineer expert if he has read the book power system operation, available on Amazon, all so many others. You should read also.
seamutt, more birds are killed by domestic cats than are by any windmill generators on this planet. There is a new battle for you to fight.
Comments for this article are closed.