250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 3:31 pm

Report Says Stopping Site C Could Save Money

Thursday, September 14, 2017 @ 6:00 AM

Prince George, B.C. – A review of the Site C  project  has concluded  ending the  project  and  building renewable wind and geothermal  generating systems instead, could save  the Province  anywhere from $0.7 billion  to $1.6 billion dollars.

The  review  from McCullough Research,  was commissioned by the Peace Valley  Landowners Association which has  opposed Site C  from the beginning.

Robert McCullough  of McCullough Research  says  it would  cost B.C. much less to build  a renewable energy portfolio that doesn’t include Site C  and  that such a  portfolio would still meet the  Province’s  clean energy goals.

The McCullough report says the  savings   could be  much higher, if  Site C id not on time or on budget, as  such projects   have been known to have significant cost  over runs.

The report also   says  B.C. Hydro’s  forecast for future demand is  vastly overstated,  and that  the province doesn’t need Site C as a back up  for  times  when  other sources,  such as wind and solar are not available.   According to the report, “the Williston reservoir already plays this role and has sufficient capacity to continue doing so for many decades to come.  In fact, it has approximately ten times the usable elevation and almost twenty times the usable area of Site C.”

While that point may be true,   a recent  attempt by BC Hydro  to  lower the level of water in the Williston reservoir was fought strongly  by the District of Mackenzie and  local  industry.   Both argued,(successfully)  lowering the water level  to create more electricity would be disastrous. The Mayor of Mackenzie  says  reducing the level  would  result  in the community having to spend millions of dollars to get its effluent discharge line to a river while industry would lose access to log dumps and barges would be out of commission for months at a time.

The President of the Peace Valley Landowners Association, Ken Boon  says the McCullough report  provides all the info the BC Utilities Commission needs  to call for  an immediate  halt  to the construction of the Site C dam ,”We call on the BCUC to consider the McCullough Report’s  new findings in preparing its September 20th interim report and its November 1st final report”


Wind and solar are a big waste of money, 10-15 years and rebuild time. Cleaning up dirty power is not green at all. Missing from the report is the overwhelming amount of people who want to go with electric cars to save the world. But clueless people not knowing that power has to be available to charge them to make them run. You will never see another dam get off the ground in this day and age.

    Quote your source on 15 year life for solar and wind power? You telling me all those wind farms in Tumbler Ridge are going to be gone in the next 10 years?

      And you know the solar and wind power will last longer than 15 years, why don’t you quote your source and present your evidence?

    Well, there’s this report:
    ht tps://www.desmog.ca/2017/09/09/site-c-dam-costs-could-escalate-40-says-auditor-s-report

    and this:
    ht tp://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/site-c/q-a-dr-harry-swain-former-site-c-panel-chair-becomes-outspoken-opponent-1.2296875

    and then this:
    ht tp://globalnews.ca/news/3390946/site-c-dam-project-should-be-suspended-ubc-study/

    That’s a good point. I wonder, did the report take into account the cost of all the rebuilds that would be necessary to match the lifetime of Site CÉ

One strategically located natural gas electric generating plant with 800mw of capacity solves all the problems, for many decades to come.

Site C is now, and always has been a bogus project.

    For about 25 years then you have to think about decommission and rebuild. So Alberta home owners have cheaper power than BC now that they built natural gas power?

    One thing you always forget to mention when beating the drum for gas fired generation facilities is the cost of natural gas that adds up day after day, week after week and year after year.

    The initial cost for a project like site C might be higher but once operational the generation costs are extremely low, unless the City of PG gets involved and tries to implement a rain falling from the sky/storm sewer tax:)

    One would also have to question a study commissioned by the Peace Valley Landowners Association, a thumb if not the whole hand on the scale. About as useful as report on climate change paid for by Exxon or one by Phillip Morris on the health benefits of tobacco.

    It would be a huge waste to stop the project as $2 billion already spent and a further $2.5 billion in signed contracts. Even slightly delaying the project could be costly as it would delay the river diversion by a year.

    Stay calm and carry on!

Even the people pushing these windmills say maximum 25 years, no wind.. no power, contrary to popular belief, deicing is extra. Who picks up the tab removing these bird slicers? Lets bury these facts.

NDP sources I’m sure

“The review from McCullough Research, was commissioned by the Peace Valley Landowners Association which has opposed Site C from the beginning.”

Pretty much tells you everything you need to know. I wonder how long it took the Association to find this guy?

    About as long as it would take any group ‘for’ Site C to come up with someone to provide some ‘research’ data why it should be built.

    That’s the way both the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives function. The ‘research’ they do isn’t neutral, its to provide data to back up the direction those who fund them want us to go. That direction has already been decided on, (just like Site C’s construction)BEFORE the data gathering even begins.

    In the case of Site C, whether we actually ‘need’ the power or not is somewhat immaterial. What is needed is a means to put money into the economy NOW, (without which the overall rate of profit of businesses in BC will not be enough to sustain their continued access to credit), and leave it to future governments to deal with its repayment via some future megaproject, or who knows what.

    The Commission to look into the viability of Site C was appointed by the Liberal Government bypassing the BCUC. So I wonder how long it took them to come up with this commission. The CEO of Hydro at the time was a friend of Christy Clark, and the Chairmen of Hydro was Bennett, who worked on her last campaign.

    That pretty well tells you all you need to know about Site C

      Actually, all that does is confirm what I already knew, that being it’s always possible to find someone to agree with you.

      Personally, I think Site C is a great idea but then again, I’m not a landowner in the Peace.

Hopefully common sense will prevail. To piss away the already spent 2 billion and another billion to put things back to square one does not make any sense and would truly be a shame.

Pretty easy to find a research company that will write a biased report. Did they take into account the penalties/fines for scrapping the project, and the contracts/letters of agreement signed by the previous government? Of course not! And we the taxpayers will be saddled with those bills long after the NDP government is history.

We already have this, the conclusion by everyone is they are expensive contracts and we should get rid of them. Sure you could call in some Chinese investors who want to build up our landscape with windmills at an affordable price for the first term of the contract but what then? That is when they have you by the knackers and you pay through the nose

Mark Jaccard is a professor of sustainable energy in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.

He wrote this opinion piece “Opinion: Would we use Site C’s electricity?” that appeared in the Vancouver Sun on September 12, 2017. I found his closing paragraph very interesting, especially the final sentence:

“The completion of the Site C dam is a complicated and challenging societal choice. There is unbiased evidence and argument supporting either completion or cancellation. But let’s stick to the unbiased evidence. In the case of our 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets, such evidence shows that we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity. If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.”

The final sentence again, just in case you missed it:

“If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.”

ht tp://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/opinion-would-we-use-site-cs-electricity

    Finally getting around to reading this morning’s Citizen newspaper and I see that this opinion piece appears as the Guest Editorial on Page 6!

    Hart Guy. The article in question is in the local Citizen to-day. You wouldn’t be cherry picking those parts of the article that you agree with and ignoring the other information would you.?? :)

    How can BC be serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time proposing LNG exporting plants that will increase GNG to the point that we could not meet any of our GNG targets.

    If we can get the same results by lowering the Williston Lake reservoir then thats what we should do. We can compensate the City of Mackenzie to build a new sewer line, and also work with industry to compensate for any losses they might incur. That would be a much cheaper and more intelligent way to go, rather than spend billions of dollars on a white elephant.

      Palopu, thanks for pointing out what I have already pointed out! As far as cherry picking from the article, I was simply stating that I find the closing paragraph and sentence interesting.

      I find it interesting because there are some, including here on this site, that are of the opinion that Site C is not needed, and that some consider it to be a “white elephant”!

      I find it interesting because the writer of the editorial is a Professor of Sustainable Energy and he suggests that we should stick to the unbiased evidence that “we must substantially increase our generation of dependable electricity”. I agree and as such I support Site C!

      As far as the issue of LNG plants is concerned, some suggest that as we are all share the planet with each other, we all must do our best to reduce our Greenhouse gas emissions and overall global greenhouse gas emissions. Allowing China for example to burn our cleaner LNG instead of their dirtier coal might very well play a part in this effort, wouldn’t you agree?

Hydroelectric power is renewable energy, full stop. What part of this fact does the NDP not understand?

It’s clean frequency, on demand 24/7/365 power. Site C will provide power for at least 100 years – that’ll keep electric cars moving in the 22nd century.

“If the Site C dam is built, and if we are true to our climate goals, all its electricity will be used in B.C. soon after completion.”

Obviously that is going to happen! How soon is the big question, but it will probably be much sooner than the naysayers are saying. It is green 100% renewable power for a century or more! The NDP needed an election issue so it ran with this and charmed its supporters and got the BCGreen party to support it, even though Weaver was apparently vocally in full support of Site C. It is all about politics and people are gobbling it up!

Been to California and have seen wind power generators for as far as the eye can see. Always in valleys where the winds are as close to constant as they can be. Rivers flow every second of the day.

    And they still need to import electricity from us, maybe we can import some from Quebec or Newfoundland once their dam is built

So if the Williston reservoir already plays the role of a back up for times when other sources, such as wind and solar are not available and has sufficient capacity to continue doing so for many decades to come, why would we need to bother building wind and geothermal? Why not just use the already existing generation capacity of the Williston?

    Read the part above where the town of Mackenzie does not want the reservoir lowered or it will screw up their industry.

      I did read that, duffer. Considering that the costs of mitigating those deleterious effects would be a whole lot less than building all that wind and solar, and considering that the possibility of such a draw-down of the reservoir would be high if it’s needed for base-load back-up, it would seem to be a waste of money and totally redundant to build the wind and solar.

    Dirtman, Horgan says that Site C is not needed and the NDP will continue to look for alternatives to Site C for the electrical energy that we will need.

    So, this falls in line with your school of thought. Why would we need to look for other options for our electricity IF there is no need for more electricity?

    So Horgan, which is it? Do we need more electrical generation capacity or do we need more electrical generation capacity that is NOT from a dam on a river that has already been dammed twice!

      He has Weavers hand to worry about, of course we will need power.

      7 out of the last 12 years we have needed more power than we generate. It is simple math

, even though Weaver was apparently vocally in full support of Site C. ????? You may have heard his apparently vocal support inside your head but this comes as news to us BC Green Party supporters . You do know he’s a mathematician, right ?

    He was a vocal supporter, I am surprised you do not know this. His only opposition now is the cost, when he was a vocal supporter it was a billion to build it but unfortunately his calculator doesn’t have a commodity and inflation increase button on it.

      Here you go

      htt ps://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/site-c-the-bc-green-partys-big-dam-dilemma/article35386000/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

    Mr. Weaver, as a member of Mr. Campbell’s climate action advisory team, advocated for the dam. In a 2009 interview with The Globe and Mail, he urged Mr. Campbell’s government to dust off the project, which had been shelved in the 1980s.

Have we ever got a lot of experts this morning. The only use for Site C is for export power. And what if the Americans will not need that power . Appears they are going for alternate power such as wind power. Have all of you ignored the fact that site C is not needed.

I know some of you seem to think site C will provide power in perpetuity . But I guess its OK to download our debit to our grand kids to provide some jobs for today and that’s what all this controversity is about.

    If its sole purpose is to export power then why has BC been a net importer of electricity for 7 out of the last 12 years?

      We are a net importer because we buy the power for next to nothing, from plants that have to run full out 24/7, and we save our hydro to generate and export when power is expensive.
      We could easily supply our own demand, but we save our potential and buy cheap. That’s the beauty of hydro electric.
      There is a glut of power on the grid. Many power producers are paid to turn down. There’s no demand for the power.
      The case for site c is very, very weak.

      Uh, no. If we import cheap power in order to export expensive power, then we would not be a net importer.

      I guess that depends on whether we are talking revenues or volumes and capacity vs actual production. BC Hydro is paying plants their full contract rates and asking power producers to turn down. They have no market for their power.

      Have you noticed a lack of “Power Smart” propaganda from BC Hydro? Conservation efforts played a huge role in the lack of demand, as have solid state electronics and declines in heavy industry users.

      IPPs are paid to “turn down” when the spring thaw allows cheap power from hydroelectric dams to run full tilt. You see hydroelectric power is “cheap” power so why pay for expensive IPP power when if you did you would have to open the spillway and drain away your power making water. It is cheaper to pay them to stand down and run cheap hydro out of the reservoirs.

      You have it all backwards, we are not saving our hydro because there is no demand – we are running it full tilt to cover the demand with spring runoff cheap hydroelectric power. We still need to buy power when there is no spring runoff filling the reservoirs. During spring we get a reprieve as heaters are no longer a daily necessity and air conditioning is yet to become a heavy draw on the system. During that time they pay the fixed costs but do not buy electricity, that is built into the IPP contracts

      Oh and did I mention that hydroelectric is cheap power?

      Where I work, we turn down every summer, but I’ve got it all backwards I guess.

      And Hydro pays us as if we were generating twice as much. ROR plants are also generating during the freshet.

    Retired 02, some time ago you blabbed on regarding your concern about downloading debt onto our grandkids!

    At that time, I asked you why you aren’t concerned about the debt that Justin and his Liberal Government are piling up for your grandkids!

    You never answered me as to why you seem ok with left-wing governments piling on debt for your grandkids, but you seem to have an issue if a right-wing government does something that might leave debt behind for your grandkids.

    You never answered, so perhaps you might answer now? Are you really concerned about debt being left for your grandkids or not? Debt is debt, so which is it?

    OOPS, almost forgot….CHEERS!!

      Seems to go both ways. Ain’t party politics a funny thing?

The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is a measure of a power source which attempts to compare different methods of electricity generation on a consistent basis.

It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime.

It is an international recognized standard for comparing costs

For those who have a better way of measurement, please let us all know.

Here are two examples sorted in ascending order of costs..
French LCOE in €/MWh (2011)TechnologyCost in 2011 (1Euro=1.29US$)
These are based on actual plants in operation

Hydro power = 20
Nuclear (with State-covered insurance costs) = 50
Natural gas turbines without CO2 capture = 61
Onshore wind = 69
Solar farms = 293

Projected LCOE in the U.S. by 2022 (as of 2016) $/MWh
These figures are estimates for plants going into service in 2020

Geothermal = 53.4
Hydro = 69.8
Wind Onshore = 75.6
Natural Gas-fired Advanced Combined Cycle = 81.7
Natural Gas-fired Conventional Combined Cycle = 83.2
Natural Gas-fired Advanced CC with CCS = 90.4
Advanced Nuclear = 104.3
Biomass = 125.3
Natural Gas-fired Advanced Combustion Turbine = 129.8
Coal with 90% carbon sequestration = 142.5
Solar PV = 143.0
Natural Gas-fired Conventional Combustion Turbine = 148.3
Coal with 30% carbon sequestration = 196.3
Wind Offshore = 212.9
Solar Thermal = 372.8

In regard to effectiveness of wind turbines related to failures, there is some good info here:

The top ten most common causes for turbine failure that according to GCube in order of greatest to least

Gearbox issues
Lightning strikes
Blade issues
Mechanical Breakdown
Nacelle fire
Human error
Turbine collapse
NAT CAT events
Yaw motor events
Poor O+M arrangements

“GCube has a portfolio over 30,000MW of wind turbines, located around the world, that it continues to safeguard and protect.

“Out of that portfolio, in a typical year we expect to see anywhere between three and four total losses – typically caused by a fire – whereby the unit can no longer be repaired and is declared a total loss.

“In these instances, the most common causes are internal component failure or a buildup of material in lubricants. This can start an escalating spiral of sequential events and a rather spectacular – if not expensive – mechanical fire.

“In occasional circumstances, extreme weather is also responsible for failure – whereby the wind speed and the elements simply become too much for the engineering dynamics of the machine. Brakes fail, blades seize up and the chain of events continues to make things worse.”

    wind power is not reliable. Gas power adds too much CO2 into the air. nuclear leaves heavy water as waste. Coal power is too dirty. That is why hydro dams are proven to be successful. We are not daming up a new river. This is a river which already has two damns. We are only storing and using previously processed water.

BTW, I am not an expert. However, I slept in a Holiday Inn last night…;-)

Actually, I do know how to search expert data as well as opinions and post them on here, which very few people seem to have the capacity to do.

Weaver and Weasel wants a feather in their cap. This site C is for our grandchildren. We enjoy some of the cheapest electrical power in the world because of Wacky Bennetts vision 50 plus years ago. So why can’t we leave this legacy for them.

Sure its going to be 8- 10 billion dollars. sounds like a lot, but erosion of buying power makes it puny in twenty-30 years. I think WAC dam project was under a billion dollars, and this is probably 5-8 times the work of Site C.

We are not being selfish building site C, This is for our grandchildrens children. think forward, see far.

For those advocating for geothermal here is a reality check.

ht tps://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Geothermal_Alberta_A_Cause_for_Caution.pdf

If the NDP and Greenies stop site C then I think we need to begin recall proceedings. We can’t afford 4 more years of this BS.

The NDP screwed up BC last time they were in power. This time seems to be no different.

    The only reason they are in power is because of Port Mann and Golden Ears tolls, and nothing else. Now they have even peed those supporters off with their new taxes to support lost tolls

Here is an article on early than expected wearing out of wind turbines, 12 to 15 years.

Bear mountain wind generation had to replace theirs blades after only three years supposedly for more efficient ones. I call BS on that story considering the cost of blades and installation they sure would have to be more efficient to make up those costs.

htt p://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html

    The thing that is often not taken into consideration is known reliability.

    Hydro power is a well known technology, whether thousand year old water wheels in a running river for mills, including the damming of those streams and rivers to build capacity, right up to today’s hydro electric dams.

    We are not even talking about ocean wave and tidal power here.

      Some interesting information about tidal power, not so benign.

      ht tp://www.triplepundit.com/special/energy-options-pros-and-cons/tidal-power-pros-cons/

    3.7 cents/kWh = Cost of power generated by the La Rance in France tidal barrage, cheaper than most competitors.


The only ones on this site that feel site C is needed is the strong Liberal supporters and that will not change. There should have been a review of this project before it was started to see if it was even needed. You can bet that there will be large cost overruns if this project goes ahead. The cost may be 15 billion instead of 10.

    “The cost may be 15 billion instead of 10.”

    The world may go to a nuclear ware tomorrow as well.

    “The only ones on this site that feel site C is needed is the strong Liberal supporters.”

    So all that says is that the strong Liberal supporters on this site are logical and analytical people.

    I think that is unfair to NDP supporters and Green supporters and especially those who do not believe in voting and are neutral.

    According to a report from the known far right publication that is in the pocket of the BC Liberals – The CBC* the Site C project is on time and on budget and could come in $500 million less than projected.

    That being said it could change now that the ndp have their fingerprints on the project.

    Might want to check your facts before opening your virtual mouth oldman1.

    *Conservative Bullshite & Conjecture :D




      If your famous leader CC would not have bailed out we may have had the opportunity to ask her some tough questions on site c but she apparently did not want to be put on the hot seat.

      What tough questions? Even the courts (including the Supreme Court of Canada) have ruled in Hydro’s favour so far

      Here is a picture of the reservoir and its location

      htt ps://i.cbc.ca/1.3762254.1499306596!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/bc-hydro-s-site-c-map.jpg

      Here’s a tough question for you. Can you provide any proof that Site C will cost $15 billion? Up until the ndp took power the project was on time and on budget..

      Will that change under the current government who believe that if one level of bureaucracy is good then eight levels must be better.

      As for questions for Christy Clark- shoot – I’m sure they are easy to answer with a minimal amount of research

    oldman1, another study? Then what, another study? And another and another and then another?

    That’s the problem with this idiotic province! We study things to death!

    Site C has been “studied” since way back in the 70’s! For what we spend on studies, we could have built the damn dam already!

    If not for studies and protests, there won’t be much else going on in our province, especially now with the NDP/Green Government!

    I’d say more, but Ive got more studying to do! ;-)


The simple fact is, regions of the world with predominately hydro electric power have the lowest cost electricity. Those areas moving into non dispatchable, inefficient wind and solar have the highest costs and an unreliable grid.

Alberta right now has only an output of 97 mw out of an installed wind capacity of 1445 mw imagine that, coal and gas making up most of the difference.

You might find this interesting. I did. Wonder how much is actually true?
wooooops and I have just bought a Nissan leaf and ordered a Tesla 3. total of $150.000, upgraded the power connection cables to my house and installed 2 charging units in my garage as each car needs different systems !!!!!!!

Government by Morons who think they know everything
At a neighborhood bbq I was talking to a neighbor, a power company executive. I asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious. If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. On our small street (approximately 25 homes), the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than 3 houses with a single Tesla, each. For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.

This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles … Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load. So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy the damn things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system! This latter “investment” will not be revealed until we’re so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an oops and a shrug.
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following:
Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. Enlightening.
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors…and he writes…For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine. Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.

It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery. Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg. $3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.
The gasoline powered car costs about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000…….So the American Government wants loyal Americans not to do the math, but simply pay 3 times as much for a car, that costs more than 7 times as much to run, and takes 3 times longer to drive across the country…..

    Luckily we pay up to 10 cents a kWh – good thing we don’t live in the US, yikes.

    It changes the fuel consumption charging it here, unfortunately we wouldn’t even get that range on a hybrid. But even at 10 cents a kWh that changes the equation to 2 bucks for 25 miles or pretty much the exact same money as a gas engine without the extra 30k US and interest on your loan added in.

    For the pocket book it makes no sense and never has unless you money to burn or need a write off. Now those chinese electrics at 8,000 bucks US with subsidy would change the dynamics but they would never pass crash tests here. Maybe a few black market shipments would change things

    Most homes already have a 100 amp service. If your charging your vehicle at 8-12 amps I am quite sure you will not have a problem. We already charge our vehicle batteries with a 10 amp charger. My understanding is it takes 13-19 hrs to charge a chev volt at 8 amps and this will not blow a 15 amp breaker.

      Soo how many cars sit for 13-19 hours? Want to up the charge rate then 30 amps or more needed.

      htt ps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/12/imagine-escaping-a-hurricane-in-a-tesla/

      htt p://notrickszone.com/2017/09/12/german-analysis-florida-evacuation-with-e-vehicles-would-mean-mass-death-on-the-highways/#sthash.jttZXIJP.dpbs

    I think your neighbor has his wires crossed.

In the winter the city toy, Nisson Leaf with a cold battery, heater, lights, wipers all going can barely make it from city hall to the uni.

    No problem – 220 volt outlet at 16 amps approx.4 1/2 hrs.re-charge.

      No problem? Are you thinking dragging an extension cord along and staying plugged in.


One one hand you are arguing against Site C and on the other are singing the praises of electric cars. Do you not see the contradiction in this?

With current electric car and battery technology electric cars will never be anything but a niche market product. However if the latest battery innovations pan out it could mean electric vehicles are a lot more appealing to the masses.

Carbon-ion batteries charge 20x faster than Li-ion meaning a vehicle could be charged in minutes rather than hours making them a lot more desirable as a charge stop would be comparable to a gas stop on a longer trip.

Demand for electricity in BC continues to rise and will rise even faster if electric vehicles become more mainstream.


    sparrow what makes you think there is going to be such a high demand for power. Charging your car battery takes no more power than letting a couple of TV’s run all day. A cloths dryer takes a lot of power so I guess we better not turn them all on at the same time or we will overload the system. This area may not best place in winter for electric cars but there are many places in the world that they are a plus.

      To fully charge a battery in a tesla would take about 100kwh @ 220. Hydro charges .1028 per kwh so it would cost $10.28 to go from flat to full that is more than a whole bank of TVs- you must be thinking of charging a lead/acid battery with a trickle charger.

      Better batteries could mean a significant increase in people switching to electric vehicles. They are already beefing up electrical capacity to parts of the lower mainland as they nearing full capacity. Electric vehicles make up an almost insignificant percentage of vehicles on the road today. Demand for power will go through the roof if they become one in five.

      WAC was raked over the coals when he developed the province’s hydro power in the same way that Site C is today. In hindsight old Wacky Bennett move seems brilliant- cheap-renewable-green power. Site C will also be a no brainer in the not to distant future.

      Old man so you think plugging in tens of thousands of evs would have no effect, well okay then.

    Sparrow good information on ev cars but being able to charge in minutes would require a huge amp flow and a cable that most people would have a hard time lifting.

      seamutt if tens of thousands evs plugged in just think of the power savings we would have at the refinery with it only running at half throttle. Have a good day.

      One or two new residential high rises would use what a fully functioning refinery would use and if a quarter of those people in those towers drove ev cars then if would be an additional load on the grid.

      Just yesterday I read about a certain sports car manufacturer whose vehicles can charge the battery pack to 85% capacity in less than 15 minutes! I would be willing to drive to one of those dedicated charging stations and would not bother to charge the car at home! The problem is not the batteries as such, but the lack of charging stations! In Europe they are installing charging stations all over. They are like gas stations. Often I wait a gas station line up for a few minutes too, plus the time to fill up. Nevertheless, the electric vehicles will cone a lot sooner than we think. I also heard the interview on CBCONE and an NDP representative said that the NDP will look for alternate sources like solar and wind so that BC will have enough energy. Very odd, to say the least!

My understanding is we need site C because of the projected increase in population in B.C. over the next 20 years or so.

So my questions are:

Who are the people that will be coming?
Where are they right now?
Why can’t they stay there?
If they have to come here, why are we not asking them to pay for the dam?

Comments for this article are closed.