Local Company Completes Temporary Bridge at Site C
Temporary bridge image shows crane on the north bank of the Peace – image courtesy BC Hydro
Prince George. B.C. – Ruskin Construction of Prince George has completed the temporary bridge over the Peace River that will carry people, machinery and materials to the south side of the Peace for the Site C project.
The 329-metre-long bridge connects the north and south banks of the Site C construction site and was built by 35 workers with Ruskin Construction and a First Nations joint venture partner.
The steel bridge is 11.2 metres wide, and the bridge deck is made of 180 precast concrete deck panels. Rapid Span from Armstrong BC produced the deck panels and the 72 steel girders for the bridge.
The bridge will be removed once the Site C dam is complete.
Comments
ht tp://www.bchydro.com/news/press_centre/news_releases/2016/site-c-construction-bridge.html
globalnews.ca/news/2604546/714-million-mica-dam-upgrades-boost-b-c-s-ability-to-produce-power/
Hydro keeps telling us the need for more power in BC justifies the (in this case $718 million) cost. The taxpayer pocket is apparently deep.
The next decade 2020 , will be the age of the electric vehicle.
So how are you going to met the power demand, to charge them up.
So happy to see a project like this go ahead, so many of them have been cancel by the chronic complainers who have never had to worked a day in their life.
I work every day and I don’t want it to go ahead. It’s destroying land that should be saved.
The urban sprawl that is the Lower Mainland is destroying much more valuable farm land then that in the Peace. Why is no one protesting that?
Saved for what?
An acre of agriculture land in the GVRD produces about 1% less value of agricultural products than an acre of land in the Peace.
When it is converted to water storage for a hydro project it produces far more than it ever would as agricultural land.
I work and and I think site C is an economic and environmental disaster. It is a massive boondoggle. A huge waste of money that could be better put to use modernizing BC Hydro’s existing facilities. Krusty figures she can inflict the environmental wound of site C up here because votes up here don’t matter in her re-election.
“chronic complainers who have never had to worked a day in their life”
Why bring up Donald Trump in this discussion? … ;-)
I think he’s worked a day in his life Gus. You on the other hand, not so sure,unless your paid by someone to post here.
Axman. People have been complaining about the urban sprawl in the Lower Mainland for many years. The problem is the same as Site C. No one is listening.
There is no evidence that BC would need any power from Site C at least until 2028/2030 and perhaps not even then.
The whole Site C issue is a fiasco, and what amazes me is the number of people who buy into this type of BS.
We have surplus power we could access from the downstream benefits from the Columbia River Treaty, we could add transformers to the Revelstoke Dam and generate more electricity, and of course we could use the Burrard Thermal Plant for back up if we chose to.
So, no shortage of Power in BC. In fact with Alberta building natural gas plants, and the oil patch slowing down they will be purchasing less power, and so will the USA.
BC will be awash with power for years to come, which will drive down the price for exports, if Site C is built.
If you look at the proponents of Site C. ie; Christy Clark, Bill Bennett, De Jong, and the CEO of BC Hydro, you can see very quickly that we do not have our best people looking after this file.
“There is no evidence that BC would need any power from Site C at least until 2028/2030”
The project is expected to be completed in 2024. That leaves a window of 4 years to 2028.
How close do you like to cut your major construction projects to the deadline?
“we could add transformers to the Revelstoke Dam and generate more electricity, and of course we could use the Burrard Thermal Plant for back up if we chose to.”
Transformers do not generate electricity, generators do and they are being added. More generators also increase water usage and the water storage is not there to run all generators at full load 24/7. Also there are downstream water flow restrictions at certain times of the year.
Burrard is being shut down because of NIMBYs.
Again generation is not built to match load. Reserve capacity has to be built in for planned and unplanned generation outages, low water years. As our load increases the reserve capacity shrinks.
A gas generation plant is more expensive than hydro over time, period.
People have been lined up at the tesla store in Vancouver for over 48 hours to put a thousand dollar deposit on a model three that won’t be delivered till 2017 and it’s happening around the world . The model three won’t even have been seen by the public till this evening . I don’t think there has ever been this kind of demand for fossil burner .
Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.
And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies. About 5 billion in subsidies.
If the electric cars are so great why the subsidies? Oh I am not against electric cars, but the hype is over blown
ht tp://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html
Ataloss I guess you have it all, your subsidized car running off your subsidized solar, unicorns.
So what? Like as if fossil fuel and automotive companies have never received subsidies during their existence.
More salesmutt bs . Musk got his money for tesla , solarcity and spaceX from the sale of his company PayPal .
Ataloss did ya read the link, what BS, referring to your make believe solar system????
Hahaha so subsidies for electric vehicles, solar, wind, unicorn farts good. Subsidies for fossil products bad, the product that lifted us out of the dark ages. The electric vehicles, solar wind could not exist with out subsidies lifted out of your pocket. That is why these industries are crying the blues about subsidies being stopped and Musk is very good at milking those subsidies.
seamutt, don’t you know that if it’s not posted in the HuffPost or the Tyee, Ataloss isn’t going to read it!
Yesterday, I posted a comment about a Reuters article about SunEdison, a U.S. solar energy company being at risk of bankruptcy.
ht tp://www.reuters.com/article/us-sunedison-inc-terraform-global-risk-idUSKCN0WV160
Today I read that “Abengoa, the Spanish green energy company has filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. after getting billions of dollars from the Obama administration to build solar power and biofuels plants.
Abengoa, which has gotten $2.7 billion in federal subsidies, filed for U.S. bankruptcy protection after already filing for bankruptcy in Spain. In U.S. bankruptcy court, Abengoa can get more favorable terms, such as “the so-called automatic stay that halts lawsuits and prevents creditors from seizing assets”
ht tp://dailycaller.com/2016/03/30/obama-backed-green-energy-company-goes-bankrupt-after-getting-billions-from-taxpayers/
Another article provides more information, “Abengoa Solar combines taxpayer dollars and deceptive practices to succeed Spanish firm got a $3.6 billion boost while breaking multiple laws and putting people at risk.”
ht tp://www.cfact.org/2014/05/06/abengoa-solar-combines-taxpayer-dollars-and-deceptive-practices-to-succeed/
It would appear that there are issues with “green” companies and their ability to provide energy. Perhaps we should continue to use coal to generate electricity, so that there is enough power to charge all of those “green” Teslas!
There is no issue with the ability for sunedison wind and solar assets at all . No matter who ends up with them they will be , are today producing energy every time the wind blows and the sun comes up . You don’t know much about bankruptcies either . There are a great many more successful green power producers than failed ones . Sunedison is not in trouble for lack of production . It’s a credit issue and mismanagement . Great to see some Intel seeping into that brain of yours .
“are today producing energy every time the wind blows and the sun comes up” Ataloss thanks for making my point, where does the energy come from before the sun comes up, if not cloudy, or when the wind don’t blow? Answer for most of the world, fossil fuels.
Real world test on the model s shows it can go 250 miles on a full charge not using AC or heater when those are on full the range drops to 150…I for one do not have the time to make a trip to Vancouver a three day trip each way or even two long days if there are any quick charge stations along the way. I guess I could always strap a gas powered generator to the roof to extend the range a bit.
Our fuel efficient four banger will make the trip comfortably in 8 hours at close to 50mpg.
Because people are sheep. There are many other electric cars, some even better. This isn’t about electric, it’s about ego.
Build a gas-fired generating plant in Stanley Park to charge all of those Vancouver plebes’ electric cars instead of destroying another river and wildlife habitat in Northern BC. We don’t need any more of Vancouver’s environmental degradation exported to other parts of the province, so that they can continue to arrogantly enjoy their “Pearl of the Pacific”.
Why is the First Nation group working on this project not named in the Hydro Media Release? Is this some sort of state secret?
gopg2015. You missed the part **perhaps not even then** Not even then is exactly what will happen. Part of BC Hydro’s grand scheme was to sell some of this power to LNG Plants. Hmmmmm. Wonder how that’s going.
Perhaps you can explain why Hydro circumvented the BCUC on this issue.
I can understand those people who stand to make a dollar, or get a job being in favour of this project, because they have a vested interest in it going forward. So does the BC Liberals, because they can use the issue to get re-elected. So if you want to admit that the project is about profits, jobs, and politics, then I would agree with you.
For those who try to argue that this project and power is needed, I say to you, show us some evidence. Making bland statements about electric cars, or power for some future industry that has yet to be built, or stating that the electricity is needed to light 450,000 future homes, is bogus.
Lets keep things in perspective. The Government can confiscate private property for a project if they can show that it is needed for the greater good of all people in the Province. They have not made the case, however they will still stumble along, go to court, etc; etc; because of their inability to do what’s right for the Province as opposed to what’s right for politics.
“gopg2015. You missed the part **perhaps not even then** Not even then is exactly what will happen”
I most certainly did not miss that part!!
If there is a range given for when something may happen in the future and the early part of the range would mean a shortfall, curtailment, shut down etc. of activity which would create a hardship, loss of opportunity and so forth, then only an idiot would plan a preventive activity to be in place post the possible early onset.
So Palopu , using your logic.
Why did we build the WAC Bennett dam ?
The first dam on the Peace River.
Seamutt. I meant to say generators, thanks for the correction.
Burrard is not NOT being shut down because of NIMBY’s. It is being shut down to help the Government create a shortage of power, so that they can make a case for Site C.
There are many other arguments that can be made to show that the Government and Hydro, are in fact being less than honest when they try to make a case for Site C.
If you want to connect yourself to the Provincial Government and BC Hydro on this issue be my guest. Politics make strange bedfellows.
They don’t run Burrard Thermal because it is expensive power… period
gopg2015. Only an idiot would build a huge power complex for a future need that does not exist, and probably will not ever exist.
Hydro right now is awash with power, and in fact is selling it at a loss.
So, lets quit supporting a bad business model, do some research, and get the facts about Site C.
“It is being shut down to help the Government create a shortage of power, so that they can make a case for Site C.”
Actually no, Burrard has not been used as a prime source of power for a long time because of nimbyism. Its prime use is as backup generation and its generators run as motors not generators for a reactive source. When run as motors the turbines are not used.
Unless I missed it you have never shown proof site c is not needed.
Seamutt. Without going into to much detail I will just give you some of the findings of the only independent review of the need for the dam by the Site C Joint Review Panel. The panel concluded that BC Hydro “has not fully demonstrated the need for the project on the timetable set forth”
Specifically, it found that BC Hydro “could provide adequate capacity and energy until at least 2028” without Site C, assuming modest development of LNG resources.
BC Hydro doesn’t need more supply per se: it needs greater ability to produce electricity in the specific hours when needed. Site C cannot provide this peak power until 2023, or 2024, however when Site C comes into service it will provide much more annual energy supply than required. The surplus would be sold at a loss, because there is no market for it.
To meet its peak requirements BC Hydro could very economically add peak generating capacity at the existing Revelstoke and GM Shrum hydroelectric stations. That is what the Review Panel explicitly suggested when it stated BC Hydro’s existing facilities could be sufficient to meet all requirements until 2028 or beyond.
Most of this information came from a presentation and discussion about Site C held at UNBC on Tuesday March 29th. 2016
The presentation was put on by Marvin Shafer, from Simon Fraser University, where he is an adjunct professor and consulting economist in the Public Policy Program. He received his B.A. Honours in Economics from McGill University, and his Ph.d in Economics from the University of BC.
Look him up and read some of his articles on Site C.
There are many more ways to prove that Site C is not needed, however this should keep you going for a while.
Have a nice day.
I am going with the opinion of a person who has much more knowledge about Hydro in B.C. than anyone here. Former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen says Site C doesn’t make any sense. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest make work projects in B.C. history.
Might want to read the words of someone who knows his subject matter.
www .huffingtonpost.ca/desmog-canada/marc-eliesen-site-c-dam_b_7953034.html
Eliesen has strong ties with the NDP and considering the NDP has itself strong ties with all those corporate quasy environmental NGO’s one has to take anything Eliesen says with a grain of salt.
Costs of site c, well Eliesen makes no mention of the 65 billion in IPP contracts forced on Hydro by the liberals. Wonder if he has money in that bag.
Hydro is shuttered out of new gas generation because of the provinces clean air act of which the LNG plants are exempt, interesting.
Oh since IPP’s do not supply firm power, site c is required for backup with its base load. So the taxpayer, ratepayer gets hit with a double wammy, IPP costs and site c cost when site c is really all that is required.
Not one major piece of Hydro generation was thought required at the time of building also.
I hear that Hydro has asked some IPP’s to close down their plants. They still receive payment from Hydro, however they do not produce any electricity. Why? Because we have to much power.
Site C is not all that is required. All that is required, would by a natural gas electric generating system, which would provide back up with a base load, and could be shut down, when we don’t need the power.
The solution is basically grade two math. The problem is the Provincial Government, and some people in Hydro.
Comments for this article are closed.