What will the cost to the consumer be for this power. An increase of 30% in hydro rates. Nice project for profit at the consumers expense
Cheers

Add to these all of the wind projects approved on the west coast of BC. What will the savings be to the consumer?

I just looked at my hydro bill for our house and it's $62.00 on equal payments. 2 dollars a day. Yup that's an outrage.....give me a break.

Even with the increase of 30% it would be about $80 per month. I guess my home might be a bit more efficient than the average, but even if your bill is $100/month, that's still not crazy.

I'm not sure what people think would be reasonable. If people would bother to look at what you pay for the same energy in other countries I think a lot of people would be amazed.

Just look at the following link for rates around the world in 2007:

http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/prcng/lctrct/frqntlskdqstn-eng.html

23 different countries are on the measuring stick and we are the lowest of them all.

Do I want to pay more, not really. But people should realize that they have it pretty good before they start flipping out.

"I'm not sure what people think would be reasonable. If people would bother to look at what you pay for the same energy in other countries I think a lot of people would be amazed."
So you are saying its okay to raise our power rates to match the world average rate so our money can go into some corporations pockets. Wind and run of river power is expensive power and highly subsidized. That is not mentioned.
It is always mentioned for these type of projects how many homes could be supplied for reference. What they leave out is that when averaged over a year only 30% of those homes will be supplied by wind, wind being variable so you still need equivalent backup power.

Good post mwk. People definitely do not realize how well they have it with respect to power rates.

Could some of the nay-sayers out there give us a no-expense alternative for generating more power?

What was P.E.T.'s quote: "Do you want to freeze to death in the dark?"

the increase power production is to provide free (as in unpaid) or cheap power to our neighbours to the south. that's what the 30% is for.

mwk .... check your bill again. Hydro bills are for a two month period. You payments of $62 per month would meant you are using a lot of electricity, as in heating part of your house with electricity would do, or perhaps heating the water with electricity.

The average should be around $1/day.

I agree our power rates are reasonable. But the fact is that all new power being developed is for export to the USA. It is pure crap that BC has to import power. The only power that is imported comes from coal fired generation in Alberta. This cheap power is then sold across the line at a huge profit. Coal fired plants are different then hydro power. The generators have to keep turning and during off peak hours this power is surplus and sold cheap to BC.

BC Hydro produces power at .55 per MW. They have been forced to buy power from private development at 1.50 plus per MW from private developers. They now have to pass that cost on to the BC consumer.
Cheers

I think wind power is a great idea for supplementing our needs. Wind generation is a wave of the future for supplementing our energy needs. As long as it is done in a smart way.

I just checked my Hydro bill it says quite clearly that neither mwk or gus know diddly squat of what they talk about.
I suspect your both on the BC Liberal dole.
-------------------------------------------
mwk on March 13 2010 10:32 AM
gus on March 14 2010 9:38 AM

From all I've read and seen on documentarys, wind power is not at all economical. The man hours for the maintenance is extreme and the majority of them are subsidized, so we actally pay for it twice. Worse for nuclear.

In fact the last doc I saw on the discovery channel suggested that coal powered is the most economical and a lot less polluting with the newer plants. They also easily produce much more power. The downside of the wind is of course: no wind but there are now health problems arising as well.
I'm convinced that an undergound tunnel from a river is the best and cheapest way and you don't have to flood anything.

Michael J. Trebilcock, professor of economics at Toronto University, says Denmark’s wind power is a con:
There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions… Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).
Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery…
Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”