So far, the construction of the Site C dam construction has cost $1.8 billion dollars and will need another $7 billion to reach completion. It has been estimated it would cost $1.1 billion to dismantle the project and remediate the site should the project be cancelled. There is also the potential for legal action for contract cancellation and there is no price tag yet associated with that portion of the equation.
The Angus Reid Survey results also show mixed feeling about the project within political party supporters.
While support for the project is highest among those who voted for the Liberals (70%) the survey indicates Green supporters are nearly neutral on the future of the project, and while 48% of NDP supporters say it should be cancelled, a full 34% say it should proceed.
The BCUC’s community input session in Prince George is set for this Friday at the Ramada Hotel. A First Nations sessions is set for 1-4 p.m., and the general public session will be held from 6 pm to 10 pm.
A final report with estimates of the cost of completing the project, suspending it, or cancelling it is due to the province by November 1.
I would love to know where these polls are supposedly done. They seem to have results , when convenient and one never hears about them being taken. or they take them in an area that isn’t affected maybe?
that should have read is only affected. ie stock holders?
Its not likely they asked the Farmers in the Peace Valley, or the First Nations in that area.
If the question was. Do you support a 40% increase in your hydro bill, you might get a different outcome.
40%? Common now Palopu you are telling us what hydro rates will be 10-years out….
The way I see it is if we have surplus production then it will lower our rates due to market forces. If we don’t build it we could see rates go up 100% chasing after unmet production.
I think the switch to electric cars is a game changer. I also think the need for reliable power for data centers will also be substantial. I think in 10-years the demand will be there and at that time it will be too late to flick the switch on a site C like source of production unless we are working towards that kind of generation today.
“The way I see it is if we have surplus production then it will lower our rates due to market forces.”
The lower limit of price is always COST, Eagle. While the upper limit is governed roughly by what’s known as the ‘quantity theory of money’. And while Site C is being built the ‘quantity’ of new money created as bank debt entering the economy will be continually rising.
That in itself is the basic attraction of having that kind of mega-project. It masks the fact that without such an infusion of new credit the rate of business profitability overall, from which existing bank loans are to be amortised, will FALL. And the inability of businesses to fully repay what they’ve borrowed will lead to a contraction of credit by the banking system, making the overall situation worse.
The downside to this, aside from whether Site C’s power will not be available IF it is ever needed, is that what is portrayed by government as ‘prosperity’ from its construction is really no more than disguised ‘inflation’. So our power bills could certainly increase another 40%, and even more, even WITH Site C providing future surplus power. It’s entire ‘Capital Costs’ are going to be money that’s distributed NOW, but money that HAS TO BE recovered in the FUTURE. And that won’t be recovered by having LOWER power prices, that’s for sure.
One thing you forget is money today is not the same as the 70s nor the same it will be in 2050. Right now 8 cents a kWh seems high. But look at the price to generate from older dams. Sure the price seemed high back then but now Mica is very cheap. In 20-30 years Site C will be a bargain. How much has Hydro risen since the 70s when the other dams were built? 20-30-40-50-100 percent? Buying a house in the 80s was 30,000 now 250,000. Why not shut down all new home sales as too expensive and we all need to live in cardboard boxes from now on?
The real question would be how much will the price of power increase in the next 10-20-30 years in BC without Site C. Then do the equivalent with Site C. You may find an answer you do not like
How are natives affected in that area? Never saw any of them living there. As for farm land affected basically a widening of the river. Land affected, a fleas bite on an elephants ass. Much more productive farm land is constantly being “redeveloped”
seamutt. Get your head out of the sand. I have seen plenty of natives in that area. Futhermore this is class one and two farm land they are going to flood. You haven’t got a clue about what land is productive and not productive in this Province.
Your support for Site C and those who want to build it clouds your ability to see the big picture.
From driving through that route dozens of times over the past few years I don’t know if more than a dozen residences will be displaced. As for farm land there is none to speak of on the south side of the Peace. Most of that land is steep banks covered in scrub timber and brush of little or no commercial value. On the north side there are cattle and horses on some farms. The major crop appears to be hay interspersed with some canola. I don’t know if there’s as much as 20% of the projected flooded land that is used for or can be used for agriculture.
sorry Palopu, but you are full of crap!
I have travelled that valley for many years, something in the order of 40 years or so. In that time, I’ve driven through that valley literally hundreds of times. I’ve flown up and down the valley both in small private planes and in helicopters. I’ve gone up and down the river many times in river boats. I’ve floated down the river in canoes, kayaks and zodiacs. I’ve fished the valley, camped in the valley and on it’s islands, hunted in the valley, picked saskatoons and mushrooms in the valley and not once, not once have I ever come across a First Nations person out there hunting, fishing or gathering!
As far as the land that will be flooded, much of it is rocky treed land, land like where Ardill’s Ranch is located, where they let their cattle graze for whatever they can find! It’s hardly arable “farmland”, but it is included in the total “farmland” area that will be affected. This distorts the true amount of land that is currently under cultivation.
Um no native settlements affected by site c and it is your opposition is your cloud over the big picture. So you are saying Peace land is more productive than the lower mainland and the widening of the Peace River children will starve?
I wish all my hydro went up was 40%, try 100% and I have incorporated every electric saving option I can find, and they still raised the rates, why, maybe because I reduced my consumption so I pay more.
Correct. Rates are determined by the cost of making the energy. Through dams they are low but if you reduce demand the Wind and run of the river expensive power does not have the benefits of lower generation to offset it. Ontario is experiencing this as their nuclear and Hydro generation are offsetting the solar and wind costs but the more solar and wind built there is less to offset. Cheaper to get them to shut down and pay stand by costs then have them supply power to the grid sometimes. Some Ontario solar is paid out at almost 20 cents a kWh to the grid. Takes a lot of Hydro and nuclear to offset it in order to make a profit, easier to raise rates to compensate.
You have to remember all the 10 cents a kWh you pay is not just direct power but also the network and substations which are not free and the salaries and buildings required to maintain and bill the network.
From what I’ve seen on TV some of the interviews on this subject in the Lower Mainland are uninformed and ignorant. The common thread seems to be that:
A) they feel it is bad for the environment.
B) the people of the Northeast should find another way to get their power.
To me I can excuse the questions of its environmental imprint, as this is par for the course on any large project like this. But the sheer ignorance of commentators from down south who assume this project has no impact on them and their future power needs, and that it only effects those in the Peace Region as a make work project at the provinces expense… that is the real problem of an uninformed populace making major decisions based on populism.
People in Vancouver largely don’t even realize that Site C is not for power in the remote reaches of BC, but rather for the security of the entire provincial grid. If its not Site C then its windmills at Stanley Park or Gas generation in Surrey to power all those electric cars they want to drive.
Our fathers paid for the last dam while we repeat the the benefits of it. It is now our turn to pay it foreword for the next generation.And besides most of the people rejecting the new dam are for green energy. And this is half the coast of
power per KWH to wind power over the same life of a DAM.
“Our fathers” had an untapped treasure trove of natural resources with global markets anxious to receive them to help pay for the dams of their generation.
Even with all that we got inflation, the costs of everything here rose faster than incomes were able to rise to meet them. And debt, unrepayable in its totality, burgeoned ever upward to bridge the gap.
Now that treasure trove has been drawn down considerably. How can you offer lower product prices through increasing volume when the volume of raw material is no longer there?
The dams were built with the idea that their construction would give us the “Good Life”, as WAC Bennett used to put it. They did, but at a cost far greater than it ever should have been. And NO government since has ever moved effectively to be able to correct that. Why do we not learn from past mistakes on the ‘financial side’ and move to correct them? Or are we so stupid that as we increasingly have to move to “export the best, sell the locals the rest” just to be able to afford to live, we think this is progress?
I may be the minority on this site but I do believe that Site C should go ahead. We may not need it at this immediate time, but at the rate we are increasing our power consumption I see a need in the near future. So why not get prepared now instead of having to rush into something when we can not wait any longer. I know people want wind and solar farms, but from the research I have done on these they are not at a point yet where they are completely able to produce what is need for our needs. and only last about 20 years before needing to be replaced. I would love to see a better option then site C. But to me it seems like the best option we have at this time. I can’t predict the future but I hope there will be better solutions going forward in the next 20 -50 years. As I see it now and our current situation it has been started so lets finish what we have started and complete the site C.
Great post starrider.
sorry starrider, but I simply must correct you!
You are NOT the minority on this site!
You are part of the “SILENT MAJORITY”!
Starrider. You talk about the rate we are increasing our power consumption.
Give us some examples. One of the main reasons that Site C might be closed down, is because there is not a need for this power. Even the commission set up by the Liberals could not find an immediate need for further power in this Province.
In any event perhaps we are all wrong. So give us some examples on the increased need for the next 10 years and we can go from there.
Hi Palopu, As I clearly stated in my comment “We may not need it at this immediate time,” But in the future, I see a greater need to rely on electricity as we move away for fossil fuel, (and I hope we do) we will need something to replace it guess what that will be electricity. As for other examples al we have to do is look at say the past 25 years. We have increased our consumption of electricity considerably and I think this trend will continue. With the increase in population and the increased use in appliances such as air conditioners, Dish washers, computers …. and yes, even the advancement and use of consumer products like Electric vehicles. I predict that there will be an increasing need for electricity production in the future, unless some new form of energy come into play but I have not heard of any. If you want some clear facts this year alone we broke 2 electric consumptions records due to the high temperatures in BC this past summer.
Nothing more than a make work project with a high cost to the taxpayer.
No cost to the taxpayer except this NDP review. You think you are not paying for the review as opposed to BZc Hudro? Anyhow taxpayers pay nothing to the construction of Site C. There may be some subsidized costs to permits but all projects pay the same rates for those.
These polls are done by real people, I should know as I belong to the Angus Reid survey team. And yes I voted for keeping the Site C dam going. Remember this….the NDP government wants all of us to drive electric cars hmmm where is the power suppose to come from? Putting the cart before the horse I would say! Too much has gone into this project to abandon it.
Never in my life have I ever been approached by Angus Reid and his henchmen! Polls must be done down south, because north of hope there is no BC. If I ever get to do a poll I will have to pick myself up off the ground! Personally this is like the Sasquatch! A myth! It would be nice to actually have input instead of the inner southern country called Mainland getting the say in the northern part!
The NDP are opposed? No surprise there. As long as the machine works to make their Austrian goat milk double-half-caf-half-decaf-soy milk cappuccino – extra hot – with a dash of Madagascar cinnamon-and half tablespoon of caramel-latte-frappa-mocha… everything is fine!
Wind and solar are inefficient non-dispatchable power which cannot be counted on being available when needed. They also contribute to grid instability. Where ever these sources of power are used in a grid system electrical costs have sky-rocked.
Solar at this latitude makes no sense at all, low angle of sun, cloud cover, short days in winter, snow cover. Also just when one gets the system paid off it needs to be replaced.
Ever notice the present wind generator companies never ever advertise their power output compared to name plate. The reason being the output over a year is only about 30% of nameplate and often times less, sometimes zero. That is one reason stated by Hydro for site C and backup for unreliable wind. So in effect you are paying for two power sources not one.
What is always ignored for some reason is the 65 billion in contracts to IPPs and now another 9 billion to back them up.
Who is making the money, our money. Christi Clarke was going to investigate that but was told to shut up.
Those that want wind and solar then demand your smart meters be set up so only wind and solar is sourced. Lets see how long you keep smiling then.
I have to call you on that seamutt. I am not a big wind energy fan because of what it does to wildlife, but your numbers are way off. I have an uncle from the Pincher Creek area that has set up the majority of wind farms in Canada.
Their big sell is that they guarantee 85% availability… meaning that if the wind farm does not produce 85% of its rated output than the manufacture of the turbins pays the difference to the wind farm owner. At the 85% availability they pay for themselves in 7-years.
I have asked him about Australia and he admits its a big boondoggle. From what I gather they located the turbins next to a cliff where the wind comes off the ocean… tremendous amount of wind, but they didn’t factor in that the cliff deflects the wind pressure up and over the turbins and as a result they are located in a sort of dead space. He admits the Australia situation is a big black eye for their industry, but comes down to poor placement planning by the architects of that system.
Sorry I will have to call your uncle on that. have a look at this link and wind right now is next to nothing. Kind of hard to make 85% with nothing. Me thinks there is some story telling going on.
We’ve been talking about Site C for decades. The time for delays, studies, navel gazing and general foot dragging is over. Let’s get it done and let future generations reap the benefit.
Seamutt and starrider have it right. I worked on the Revelstoke hydro project in the 80’s and the rhetoric was exactly the same. “It costs too much”, “We don’t need the power”, “We’re screwing up the environment”. And the fact that the facility was constructed with two extra capped-off pentstocks to facilitate future development invited even more criticism. Well, guess what – within years, those ‘useless’ penstocks were developed and more generation added to a facility that is now considered a necessary and critical part of our electricity system backbone.
You don’t build dams based on 5 year needs predictions, these are 20 yr+ investments. Natural gas is a non-renewable resource. Wind and solar, despite their advancements, are just like seamutt says. And tell all the users of the Kinbasket/Revelstoke/Arrow lakes systems that, despite the initial negative impacts of their development, that these lakes continue to be nothing but a blight on our environment.
Seamutt and starrider have it right. “I worked on the Revelstoke hydro project in the 80’s and the rhetoric was exactly the same.” How true . You three are indeed stuck in the 50s and 80s . Well guess what it’s almost 2018 . The lithium battery was also a product of areo/space research . It is still in the process of improving . The 80s also brought windmills good enough to go commercial . Solar cells PVs were also just coming into their own in the 80s . Today AI is being brought to bare on all three facets . Even without AI , all three techs are improving making them more efficient and productive . That’s not happening in old tech. With site C , transmittion is its pricing down side .
Stuck in the 80s because it is still true today. All your other mentioned generation systems are higher for ROI. You want generation that is subsidized by taxpayers – oldman will spit out his cornflakes at your suggestions.
Overall if you have the means to provide hydroelectric power it is still cheaper than any other source hands down with the exception of nuclear. That is why they just built a new nuclear plant in the UK and not solar or wind or wave or…
Ataloss please regale us of your pixie dust powered system? Oh wait you have said that is a secret similar to the pixie dust output of wind generation.
Not much wind generation in Australia right now, fossil generation flat out holding the system together. Wonder how the wind generation is doing in BC today, oh wait its a secret even though piles of taxpayer money is involved. Where is the openest of wind generation, why the secret.
Hey BC wind generation what are you folks trying to hide. Hey Ataloss even you must be curious after all its your money.
Link to Australia generation
Would be nice if we had something similar in BC, even Alberta reports their output. Hey looky there wind is only generating 96 mw out of 1445 mw. Coal and gas keeping the lights on.
No wonder BC wind generation is hidden.
Ataloss hey where is all that solar in Australia, must be in that link somewhere. Please help me find it.
this dam is being built to export the surplus power to trump land so that cristy could give more money to the corporations and provide a few temporary jobs to feed the yesses.
False assumptions and innuendo
It may be an assumption as far as your concerned. The trump world owed Power X $300.000,000.00 at one time. I have never herd that that amount was ever been paid.
In the past they have consumed that amount of Canadian power so what will they use for power at this time. Oh I suppose they are now using wind and solar power to keep up with consumption.
Generation is not built to match load. Adequate generation is required for system security so the there is power in low water years, planned and unplanned outages.
If there is excess generation to our needs yes then sell it, why not. At times there may not be excess to sell. Retired you would be one of the first to complain if your load is shed because of inadequate generation.
What do you think of that 65 billion to IPPs ?
In all the years that I have been a user of electric power I can count on one hand the outages that I have experienced and they were for very short times.
My friend you are peeing up wind so take a break. All you see is a few jobs that will make billions for the contractors on the project. All your doing is supplying peanuts for the workers on the project. It is the commercial suppliers for the project that what it completed
With the site going dark in a few days it is the last chance to provide some facts to back up your hyperbolic statements.Even a single source other than your distorted view of the world would be a nice change
It is you like saying the sky is brown. Although in Abbotsford I could see how one could make that mistake it is not brown…..it just smells as if it is:P
Besides by the time the turbines start turning on site c you will have likely relocated to a very very very warm place wishing you had gone to confession a little more often.
Is that all you can come up with. It will be nice at the end of the month that your stupid remarks will come to an end. Do those stupid remarks make a moron like you feel good. I really don’t give a sh88t what you think. You are a real low life in my book.
I’ll miss you too Kimmy. Is the protagonist in your book named Spot? Run Spot Run!
CCs first justification was ” it’s for Natgas for export ” then when that ship sail out on empty , ” it’s for export to Alberta ” much to the suprise of Alberta and for those paying attention. If CC had played by the rules , it would never have been considered . I see our nuclear fans still have seen the bill for and the price of Hiinkley Point C power to the consumer . It’s Three times as expensive as other sources . Nuclear is by far the most expensive and Most dangerous source of power in the world . The cost of decomitioning is also paid for by the rate payers , which takes decades of paying without power being produced . Who pays for dealing with nuclear waste ? Taxpayers and rate payers . How stupid is that ?
Previous generations of nuclear plants were a bit ‘hot’. But it is not accurate to say that it is dangerous. Looking at the numbers of casualties objectively, we see that coal is by far the worst, followed by gas then hydro. Nuclear barely even registers in comparison. Even the worst nuclear accident in history has only 45 fatalities attributed to it.
New nuclear tech can not only generate power without the fear of proliferation of weapons, but also can CONSUME the waste of old inefficient uranium burning plants, which only used a small fraction of the useful fuel – hence the long ‘hot’ period the waste must be stored.
Don’t let your fear guide you. Lets use logic and numbers to make decisions, not knee-jerk fear and ignorance. Google LFTR.
Wind / solar / hydroelectricity all fail to provide reliable baseline power which is capable of scaling out. Keep in mind there are 8 BILLION people on the planet – and ALL require power to live.
Hydro is by far the best of the three – but we can only dam so many rivers. The sun doesn’t shine when we need power the most – the middle of winter. The wind may not blow at all some days – what then, do we just let our homes freeze?
For the poster above that said taxpayers would not be paying for this – that is just a lie. We are still saddled with the debt of previous generations megaprojects. How many billions worth of debt servicing can we realistically expect future generations to pay? We will not be paying less for power if we go ahead with site C – we will be paying MORE.
Mega projects are a boondoggle that contribute more to inflation than it does to the productive economy. That means that a dollar you have today will be devalued by this project. Jobs can be created in other ways which should be explored. Ways that are not tied to natural resource extraction which will happen anyways. For 8 billion we could begin to create our own space agency and begin asteroid mining.
There are cheaper, faster, safer ways to generate power, such as natural gas plants (roughly 1/8 the cost). And cleaner ways such as LFTR (Thorium) reactors (we would stand to GAIN a great deal by developing this technology and becoming a technological world leader). LFTRs were proven to work in the 50’s and were only abandoned because they can’t be used to create nuclear bombs.
One thing that is not often talked about is the dependence of communities on the consistent water flow. Dams are great for controlling that, but if they need to raise/lower the levels of water stored there, it can cause havoc. Likewise if the dam were to break, an extreme level of hazard and danger is present. What if the river is diverted by climate change? If it takes 100 years to pay back, how can we predict something like that in today’s uncertain world? Pay back times needs to be 1/4 that or less.
Look how well “reliable” hydro power has worked for Puerto Rico – they are completely without power. The 90 year old dam broke. They have no plan moving forward to fix their power grid. If we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of others, our power infrastructure needs to have redundancies built in, as well as being highly resilient in every way that makes sense.
Site C is not a wise investment. If it costs us a billion to cancel the project, that is still less than the 8 billion (so they say) to complete it. Since when has a project like this EVER finished on budget. NEVER. It may cost 16 B by the time all is said and done.
My 2c – I’m sure there are plenty from all political sides who will disagree, but to me this is NOT a partisan issue – it is a practical one. If we spend 10B to generate jobs, there are more effective ways to distribute those monies, and generate even more power for future generations.
So give me a comment on 65 billion in contracts to IPPS?
IPPS = Independent power producers? Thank you for bringing that up, it isn’t an area I am well versed in. I was surprised to read this passage in the Wiki article about it: “IPPs can be developed by anyone in the private or public sector. Since the implementation of the 2002 Energy Plan, however, BC Hydro will no longer be authorized to develop its own public IPPs, leaving future projects to be developed by the private sector.” – Why should Hydro be excluded from the effort of generating energy in new ways? That makes ZERO sense.
To be honest I wasn’t aware 65 billion was being spent in those contracts. Are those subsidies to wind/solar installations, essentially? Do you have a link to more info for us?
I like that energy is a public issue in BC – and in my opinion the energy and delivery grid we all depend on so greatly should all be managed directly by BC Hydro – as a provincial resource of greater importance than perhaps any other we need to ensure its reliability and cost effectiveness to ensure competitiveness of BC companies.
IPPS seems like a bit of wasteful approach – perhaps useful in it’s day as a way of proving the new renewable energy sources, but we need a PLAN that doesn’t include solar and wind. It smacks of BC Liberal shell games and privatization efforts meant to fly under the radar of the population. Seems like it worked for its purpose, which doesn’t seem to have benefited BC as a whole.
What’s your take on the IPPS contracts?
Spidey IPPs also include run of the river hydro electric plants which where supposed to be the next thing in environmental friendliness. Did not turn out that way and has caused a lot of issues on streams and rivers. The majority are not firm power and some can pay quite hefty penalties if unable to produce a set output. One of the reasons for building site c is to back up IPPs so ineffect two sets of generation is being built at huge cost when only one, site c is actually required.
The people behind IPPs read like the whos who of politicians of all strips including ex politicians and a few ex Hydro managers. The Tyee of all sources ran a good expose on IPPs a few years back, you may be able to dig it out.
Anyhow the contracts amount to 65 billion or so, very lucrative. Christy was actually going to look into those contracts but went silient. I suspect she was told by here handlers to shut up. I believe one of the reasons she got out of politics at least for now.
It has always amazed me the hullabaloo about site c but the 65 billion to IPPs seems to be ignored.
spidey thumbs up!
Balderdash…. nuclear only ever killed 45 people. Discredits everything else you say on the subject. The Ukrainian melt downin the 80’s alone killed hundreds of thousands with cancer and Fukishima will likely kill the entire Pacific ocean when all is said and done, to say nothing of the massive spike in thyroid cancer.
Nuclear not only kills as a silent cancer killer that effects us all worldwide, but it is actually a mass extinction technology. With the accumulation of radiation from this technology it breaks down the basic dna needed for life and the ability to reproduce healthy offspring. Already the spearm count in North American men is down 40% since the advent of nuclear technology.
Nuclear radiation from a uranium meteor caused the last mass extinction rupturing the ability of life to reproduce and nuclear from man will be the source of our planets next mass extinction. Best we just stay far away from nuclear IMO.
Sorry, taxpayers will not pay for this, the government may receive some money from it in terms of a dividend but no taxpayer cash goes to Hydro. Rate payers will pay as they use the power. This is not “government debt” although it may show up for a time as “provincial debt” as they are a crown corporation.
You can debate site C forever. It appears to me seeing that it was a Liberal idea to go ahead with this project it has to be good. No need for any review.
Alberta and the USA are building Natural Gas plants to supply their electrical needs and have a stable electric supply. They will be buying less power from BC not more.
We have the huge surplus power from our agreement with the Americans on the Columbia River Treaty which could supply our future needs if we needed this power. We presently sell it on the open market through Hydro’s subsidiary PowerEx.
So we are going to build an $8 billion dollar dam to supply power to a market that does not exist, and at the same time continue to sell power to the USA from Columbia River, rather than use it ourselves. The pulp and paper industry in BC have gone to co-generating power, Rio Tinto in Kitimat has surplus power now that they have upgraded their ingot plant.
Major industry all over BC lumber mills, mines, pulp and paper mills, fisheries, etc; etc; have all closed down over the past 20 years and so don’t need power.
So the question is. Who needs this power????
Why not do another cost comparison between hydro and natural gas generation only this time add in the price of the natural gas used to generate that power.
Old man Bennett was vilified when he started to develop the provinces hydro power in the same manner that Site C is raked over the coals these days. Today he is seen as a visionary making all the nay sayers look like shortsighted fools.
Hydro electric power is clean, green and renewable. What more could one ask for?
Palopu good question. Who needs the power? I would have to say only a strong Liberal supporter. The liberals tried to pull the wool over our eyes saying it was needed for LNG but now they are trying to say it is needed for electric vehicles. Same old BS, nothing on this site changes.
I wonder if you felt any irony writing that last sentence?
Pulp and paper cogeneration is nothing new and their newer generation is from subsidies. Rio has always had excess generation when both transmission lines in and water for all generators. Can even carry all BC Hydro load west of PG when needed.
Good one pal.
Bigger question is why is Horgan and the commission looking at replacing Site C with some other form of electricity generation? Looks like even they know the power will be needed
So we now have a situation where we are producing power that is not needed to supply a market that does not exist. Add to that the myth that hydro electric power is clean, and we can only conclude that we are totally out to lunch when it comes to producing electricity in BC.
Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, say Eric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) ** Everyone thinks that hydro is very clean, but this is not the case,** he says.
Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.
I am not going to go into a lot of detail on greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric, however anyone can look it up by putting **greenhouse gas emissions from hydro electric dams into their search engine** What you find will keep you reading for a longtime.
So lets quite the BS and face the reality that we have pollution problems from cattle flatulence to fossil fuels to hydro electric, and we need to find a balance.
One natural gas generating plant will supply sufficient power for BC needs for the next 30/40 years, and beyond. One more could be built if necessary.
So, no need for Site C and all the flooding, dislocation, and pollution that comes with it.
Time to be responsible.
Good point Pal – another one which is left out of these discussions all too frequently. Hydro power just isn’t as neutral as many believe. Carbon dioxide and methane are both greenhouse gases, and Hydro dams release large amounts of those.
The best thing about hydro dams in the past has always been the ECONOMICAL benefit and providing STABLE power. If it isn’t economical, we need to explore other options.
Hydro has cleared a lot of the land, logging and clearing much of what will be flooded. Would you not agree that this is being done to reduce carbon dioxide and methane release from flooded lands?
Hydro is being far more proactive in reducing these CO2 and methane sources than they have been with past hydro-electric projects. They should be given credit for these efforts, even though these efforts in part are being done to reduce opposition to the dam.
Build the damn dam! Use current “best practices” but get on with it!
Who said hydro power is benign? No form of energy production is benign I think you are just grasping at straws. Where is the threat from c02 or methane, show some real data? Hey I know one maybe its a threat that added c02 is greening the planet.
Actually nothing wrong with gas over all but thought you are worried about c02 and cow farts. People do not want gas plants in their back yards and considering the price of gas is slowly increasing along with world use what will be the price in five, 10, 20 years?
Boy you sure can tell who is paying the bills at 250 news.
Any proven comments against the Libs and your post is pulled.
Like I said in another post that was deleted or pulled, the Libs raised BC gas by 80 % over the next 3 years. google it .
Seamutt. The Shepard Energy Centre natural gas electric plant will add 800 megawatts of electricity to Alberta’s provincial grid. The plant is located at 9500 100 Street SE in Calgary, and is up and running since 2015.
Guess what. Its in everyone’s back yard and no one is complaining. Your backyard argument like a lot of your posts, is not based a fact. You should become a fiction writer.
You are ignoring Burrard Thermal in Ioco.
The Shepard plant is just one on many to be built. The next big one will be just outside of Edmonton. These plants get rid of the need for miles of transmission lines and the associated energy loss.
Have a nice day.
Ya good luck getting a plant built in metro Vancouver. There a big fight about building one near Abby.
There was a big fight.
Years ago, perhaps almost 20 years ago, I remember that there was efforts made to develop a natural gas storage facility in the Abbotsford area. The idea was to store massive amounts of dry, processed natural gas closer to the Vancouver market in order to better serve that area and to better meet peak demand levels during cold spells!
From what I was led to understand, there is a large and very porous rock formation deep underground. The plan was to develop a number of injection wells that would pump natural gas into the rock formation ultimately reaching higher pressures as more natural gas was forced into the formation.
During high demand periods, rather than cranking up the pipeline from this end and from further north into Northeastern BC, the flow from the formation would be reversed providing the gas needed to meet any spike in demand. Pump gas into the formation when demand is low, so that you have it readily available when demand spikes!
This type of facility already exists in Northern BC. It was originally developed by a number of natural gas companies, with UNOCAL as the lead partner and operator of the plant and facility. I believe that UNOCAL was taken over by Chevron and the facility was purchased a year ago or so by FORTIS.
Abbotsford and the lower mainland would have nothing to do with it! Absolutely no way was a natural gas storage facility going to be built down in lotusland!
Their attitude was, we want the gas, we just don’t want any part of the industry down here!
Good luck trying to build a natural gas generation station in the lower mainland!
Took me a moment or two to find this!
The natural gas storage facility is called Aitken Creek and it’s massive!
April 04, 2016 – Fortis Inc. (“Fortis” or the “Corporation”) (TSX:FTS) announced today that it has completed the acquisition of Aitken Creek Gas Storage ULC from Chevron Canada Properties Ltd.1
“Aitken Creek is the only underground natural gas storage facility in British Columbia and has a total working gas capacity of 77 BCF. The facility is located in the heart of the prolific Montney production region.”
Abbotford and the lower mainland wanted nothing to do with any sort of underground storage facility that would provide them with clean, dry natural gas! They like using natural gas, they like spending the royalties and taxes generated by the industry but they just don’t want the jobs and industry that provides all of it!
Hmmmmmmm, sounds like Site C!
Palopu look up Sumas 2
Comments for this article are closed.