Git er done, imagine the number of jobs created.

And then what? Do we flood the whole Rocky Mountain Trench like what was proposed (seriously) by the "North American Water and Power Alliance" years ago?

Just think how many "jobs" that would create, too. Site C pales in comparison.

With pipelines carrying water all the way down to the parched country south of us. Years and years of 'work' and 'wages'.

Why places like Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona could liteally double, or triple in population. Not to mention Los Angeles, California. What's that you say, they already have? Well, surely we could cram some more in somewhere if we build 'up'.

Just think of it. Power lines from Site C all running down south to where all those air conditioners will be running non-stop, in all those new highrises, (built out of our wood ~ well, some of them anyways, maybe,), cooling off all those that've moved there for...., well, their 'quality of life' wasn't all that good wherever they came from, either.

Why maybe we'll all get so 'rich' from exporting all that water, and all that power, and all that lumber, we won't have to even worry about "jobs" anymore. We'll all be able to "live free". Or die

Get what done?

You realize that BC Hydro makes a surplus as it stands right now and that we "sell" that surplus to the states, particularly California who can't really pay for it, and then it gets written off.

don't quote me on this part, but I think that if we actually got paid the going rate and was able to cash that money, BC could pay for a very large chunk of Game's deficit.

Actually vodoo, surprising BC hydro is buying power, We are buying upto 10% of our power at peaks.

You look at your household. We all want to live green, but at the homefront. Remember when we were young'ns. A 1500 sf home was a fancy smancy house. Now its more or less the average, or below average. Remember more square footage means more energy to light it and heat it and cool it. Sure we have come a long ways to be green, but at the end of the day, we have way too many gadgets that needs to be plugged into a wall. 40 years ago, 100 amp service to a house was lots, Now we need to be looking at 200 amp service, and sub panels to make it work. So, it all boils down to what we do at the home front.


BC hydro has been doing the incentive programs for the past twenty years to deal with the increasing use. We have been doing our part bye getting rid off old fridges, washers and dryers, and using CFL, but our per wattage use keeps going up on each house hold.

Thus if we are going to succeed as a province we need site C, to access cheap power. Wind power is effective only if there is wind. Sure it may have capacity to produce 200 MW, but generally it is producing an average of 80MW, day in day out. We look at small RoR, but that is strictly relying too much on the spring run off. Thus in the middle of the winter when we need it the most, there is very little water being produced.

We do not need to have a coal fired generator. My opinion of a biomass boiler, is that it is marginally better than a coal fired unit. A natural gas fired boiler for power is marginally better than the wood fired. Using coal bed methane gas for is good only if your going to extract the coal. The garbage dump methane gas to power is good, since we are burning it off anyway.

Daming the river does have a price to pay, it is not all clean power. The biomass that is flooded will release methane gas. The weather will change with a large body of water near by. But it is in my opinion the best solution.

Site C, will flood appproximately 53 sq km, over a length of 83 km. Or basically widening the river by about 1500 ft for the length of the 83km. Hmmm, significant, but seems to me like a reasonable arrangement.

Just to put the ares of 53 sq.km. into some sort of context.

The area of the City of Prince George is 6 times that.

For the farmers and ranchers, that is 20 sections of land.

What can be produced on 20 sections of land in the Peace?

For all you wind mill and run of river supporters here is a dirty little secret. When the water don't flow and the wind don't blown where does the power come from? We need backup power for those heavily subsidized projects. Places like Denmark, Germany, UK and even Texas have found out the hard way that when the wind don't blow the lights go out. They are still building conventional power plants, read coal.
All I am saying is a lot of people believe unconventional power is the answer. Well sorry unconventional power will not even come close to our rising power needs.

As for selling surplus power that is better than just spilling the water for nothing. Also we need reserve power for when a generating plant goes down or a major transmission line or lines fail.

right on Seamutt.

Nobody likes change, or altering our landscape to satisfy our expected needs. Everybody is up in arms when they turn on the switch, and the light flickers and then everything shuts down.

Just imagine, life with out electricity.

I'd like to know how much potential farmland would be lost. Said another way, how much of that 53 sq km is unusable land right now? I'm sure a bunch of it would be riverbank and/or land that couldn't realistically be used for future development. Another question I have is whether there are any proposals currently out there to use the land for other purposes?

I don't think there is any doubt that environmental damage will occur with this proposal, however, we also need to be realistic and accept that some colateral damage will occur with any development. The question is whether the damage is too great for the benefit received.

In the grand scheme of things, I can't see this project having THAT great of a negative impact on the area, unless of course there are protected species that would be impacted, destruction of land that has historical significance, etc. I'm eager to hear what the potential negatives are before saying whether I'm in support of it or not. I really hate to see our natural environment destroyed with stuff like this, but if there are no other reasonable options and if the damage it causes is not "significant", I think we need to at least consider them.

Don't worry, NMG, the 'conclusions' of the Environmental Assessment Report have already been written. Now all they need to do is provide the 'study' they were based on. That'll be done just in time for the next election.

What won't be "studied" is how much the general price level will increase when construction starts. You'd think a Premier with a MBA degree would have learned the difference between "inflation" and "prosperity". Then again, one whose 'earned' his daily bread through the speculative rise in real estate prices might be forgiven for not knowing there is a difference.

Lets see now, the "interest" on all the borrowed money to build Site C is made up, like all "interest", of four components. There's (1.)the cost of providing the financial services (of the Bank's creating the 'money'), (2.)a premium for the risk of default, (3.) the Bank's profit, and (4.)an allowance for expected 'inflation'. Since the interest paid over the life of the loan is paid in dollars that are actually 'buying' continually less as time progresses.

The additional HST take should cover the last of the four quite nicely.

Continuing the policy of centralized power generation using mega size projects is not the answer now or in the future.

We definitely need a centralized distribution authority as in the BCTC.

It is the support and accumulation of many micro generation and self generation projects that will save us all.

Think about it. Site C is the third huge power generation development and it will take years if not decades to put into operation. It will offset our current deficiency, no pun intended. It will also cost us all a bunch more in fees, and it will provide more power to sell out of province.

Micro generation will not completely displace the need for a grid. First off the grid provides capacitance, second it evens out between your peak usage and peak generation disparity, see previous sentence. Third, it provides a power source when your own system is inadequate at the time.

By the by, run of river has cost the taxpayer jack squat. It has all been private money funding the research and the development.

The one thing that needs to happen to enable self generation while connected to the grid, is cooperation from BC hydro. The technology exists but they will not approve the installation of proper meters to compensate for putting power onto the grid as well as taking from the grid. this is the real hold up. We are being held hostage to their power distribution scheme for no other reason than it takes that away from them.

Bend over and don't squeak. We'll use lube next time.

Loki Run of the river plants have very expensive 30 year contracts, that is how we pay. Mega hydro projects are the lowest cost power. That is why our power is so cheap compared to the rest of the world. Micro and self generation so how is that accomplished by the majority of population? I can tell you haven't priced that out. How does someone in the city generate their own power in a cost effective enviromental way.

BCTC is the centralized control for transmission and distribution of power in the province.

Read my earlier post again.