So why are those doing this so-called B.C.Hydro "review" all politicians?

Will they look in to very expensive contracts given out to Independent Power Producers for run of the river plants and wind power. If one looks into the operation of these plants, found will be a sleu of ex Hydro managers and liberal supporters.

The power from these plants is not dependable so site c still has to be built to back them up.

scrapping the new stupid meters would be a good start

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_Development_Life_Cycle[/ur]

A Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) adheres to important phases that are essential for developers, such as planning, analysis, design, and implementation, and are explained in the section below. A number of system development life cycle (SDLC) models have been created: waterfall, fountain, spiral, build and fix, rapid prototyping, incremental, and synchronize and stabilize. The oldest of these, and the best known, is the waterfall model: a sequence of stages in which the output of each stage becomes the input for the next. These stages can be characterized and divided up in different ways, including the following[6]:

Project planning, feasibility study: Establishes a high-level view of the intended project and determines its goals.
Systems analysis, requirements definition: Defines project goals into defined functions and operation of the intended application. Analyzes end-user information needs.
Systems design: Describes desired features and operations in detail, including screen layouts, business rules, process diagrams, pseudocode and other documentation.
Implementation: The real code is written here.
Integration and testing: Brings all the pieces together into a special testing environment, then checks for errors, bugs and interoperability.
Acceptance, installation, deployment: The final stage of initial development, where the software is put into production and runs actual business.
Maintenance: What happens during the rest of the software's life: changes, correction, additions, moves to a different computing platform and more. This, the least glamorous and perhaps most important step of all, goes on seemingly forever.

Maintenance becomes an input for planning the next iteration.

What bothers me about all these urgent projects is that they are urgent because no planned for the end of life of our infrastructure. Even a lay person knows that everything has an expected life. Why do they not begin planning for rejuvination and replacement at known intervals? The life span of most products are known. Then, borrowing would be mitigated and there would be fewer surprises. Gads, this is not rocket science. Way back in Rome they did this kind of long term planning of infrastructure rejuvination.

Bang on seamutt!
There are a lot of questions regarding these independant power producers that have never been answered...and probably are not going to be!
When the B.C.Liberals started handing over our rivers to these private producers,they started neutering B.C.Hydro at the same time.
Why?
What's behind it?

Seamutt, what is your vested interest in site "c"?
You have been an ardent supporter of that excessively priced, monopolistic, environmental catastrophy for a lonfg time now. You obviously are blind to the reality that we must start finding alternatives to past practices.

Run of River is a newly approved solution that is only in its infancy. Will it work? Will it be harmful? Will it be cost effective. NO ONE KNOWS! That is why there are limited approvals for it so far.

You belly ache that is is costing taxpayers to much for the benefit of private enterprise. What, you prefer a monopoly supported by all levels of government, that can and does rape your pocket and the environment? It's not like there is any competetive consumer environment for electricity.

Run of river is not the only possible solution. It is one several that need to be tested and explored to determine its viability.

IMO, site "c" is just more of the old school way of centralizing control, distribution in a non-competetive market on the consumer and taxpayers wallet for the benefit of the friends of government. That way of thinking and doing is changing due to the concerns and objections raised by those consumer taxpayers.

Lots of truth here regarding Run of River and the IPP's

http://thecanadian.org/

Lots of words there DM. They just don't really say much.

So why was no money ever set aside over the years for infrastructure upgrading and improvements?
Where did it all go?
I bet we can guess.

Loki I have no vested interest nor have I been an ardent suppoter of site c. The contracts given out to the IPP's are very expensive and for the run of the river plants and windfarms backup power to these are still needed. River flows vary over the course of a year and some even dry up. Windpower over a year usually only generates 30% of the nameplate rating. In England were they are having problems with wind power they find that that generation falls to less than 20% of nameplate 1/3 of the time. They were under the mistaken belief that windpower would supply the power needs into the future. The people of England have been told by the government to expect brown outs and even blackouts in the near future,in a couple of years. They have not been building backup power which in their case is coal and/or nuclear. Since the english government is under the mistaken belief thermal power will cook the earth, they are hooped. As for nuclear they think it is nasty stuff but buy all the power they can get from France of which 80% of their power is nuclear generated.

General BC population seems to have developed the belief, helped by the government, that site c will not be needed. Hydro itself though has stated site c is needed as backup for run of the river and windpower.

Loki says " IMO, site "c" is just more of the old school way of centralizing control, distribution in a non-competetive market on the consumer and taxpayers wallet for the benefit of the friends of government". Loki that is exactly what the government is doing with IPP's, you have it the wrong way around. That Monopoly gives you about the lowest power rates in the country. The three provinces in Canada and North America with the lowest power rates are government run monopolies, BC, Manitoba and Quebec. What also helps is low oast hydroelectric power. If you want to see an expensive mess for private power check out Alberta.

Site c is cheap compared to IPP's and will be built. I am retired and cannot afford the costs to experiment with exotic sources of power.

Loki I borrowed this from another site and explains a lot

The public was never asked if it wanted run of river and it certainly was never informed of all the implications. Yes we want green energy and that essentially is what we have with hydro.Hydro could also build projects cheaper than private for profit companies simply because it can borrow funds at a far lower rate than private borrowers.Also hydro is in it for the good of all of us and pays dividends back to the gov.,us.These dividends go towards our other public programs you know like health care.Not out of province to some shareholder.I feel certain that if the public were told honestly what private power means for us and the cost to our wallet and the environment as well as who is going to benefit,not us,not many would vote for it.That's the other problem.The Libs. don't talk about this kinda stuff around election time,it just comes out suddenly and gets rammed through and before you know it they are everywhere.
Hydro makes good money for us and it should have enough to do repairs and upgrades with the occasional modest increase.

I don't dispute that BC needs more power generation. with any growth, that is a given.

nucear is a no go for me except where there is NO other option such as a remote site.

You are correct in that wind, and solar are not consistent generators. However, part of the plan is to spread out those generation sites to smooth that inconsistancy. That it why I beleive that home owners and large structure owners "should" be encouraged to do a little self generation on their own similar to the mills with thier co-gen progects. The biggest objection to that is the supposed size of all the wind mills. I use the term micro-generation to refer to wind turbines (whatever you want to call them) smalled than one meter, but use more units. Rather than trying to get a three meter turbine that can comply with local safety rulls like PG's 150% rule for the tower. By using many small turbines, these can be located all over buildings and property. No, this will not completely elimante the need to be attached to the grid. What it will do is reduce the local loads, especially at peak times.

One thing you have neglected is the capacitance of the current system. What I mean by that is the total power holding carried within the system once it is generated. I don't have the numbers to illustrate, perhaps an electrical engineer would be able to explain for us. With solar or wind generation, the system is designed to hold that "charge" for an extended period. That is how the inconsistancy is addressed.

The main reason I am out right opposed to mega dams like site "c" is the sheer arrogance of government and the mega corporations needed to build them. Then there is the ecological distruction of those valley. All over the world we have lost historical artifacts and Irreplaceable eco-systems that are destroyed in the persuit of infinit growth in a finite space.

The real reason we need to generate more power is not to feed ourselves. It is so it can be exported to the USA. Now, it is my understanding that the resources of BC belong to the people of BC. If that is so, and there is a profit on that resource, where is my cut?

The appointment of a panel to examine BC hydro finances, while comendable, will produce results only as good as the panel members want. Asking government insiders to examine what amounts to their own handy work has to be delusional.
It has been the practice of the government for BC to aggressively use "contracting" (IPPs and P3s) as much as can be managed. By this method the government and its crown corporations have deliberately not disclosed billions of dollars of contractual commitments. By the report to the Legislature, August 2010, BC' Auditor General asked for disclosure of financial obligations of greater than $53 billion. This amount did not include any amount for IPP obligations by BC Hydro that are variously estimated to be between $30 and $80 billion.
BC Hydro, in fical year 2010 (year ago), entered $3,6 billion onto long-term debt (the formal kind). This debt came about when cash was borrowed to pay for $3.4 billion of current liabilities (mostly made up of obligations to IPPs). The lion's share of all that money did very little to increase hard assets (bricks, cement, steel, transmission lines).
Asking government insiders to explain and suggest remial measures when they were mostly instrumental in the creation of this mess has to make one wonder who gave these folks the keys to "daddy's T-Bird".

The government setting up a panel to investigate a goverment entity... why do I get the feeling this is all show and nothing will change.... one more incident where the Liberals show how shady they are?

Well said erik andersen!

If you think run-of-river projects are a waste of money, wait till you see what a waste solar and wind are! And the hippy-dippies just looove that junk. After recklessly expanding into solar, Ontario is now blowing 1 billion a year on solar subsidies. But Willy Nelson said it would pay off! Stick to big dams, coal, nuclear, you know - what works!

"Lots of words there DM. They just don't really say much"

You were able to come up with that deduction after less than an hour of reading and watching videos on the subject found on this site.

You're amazing!

Next time you should read the articles and watch the videos on the subject.

Loki there is no way to store electricity in the power system. What you might be thinking of is when the wind is blowing water powered generation can be cut back, and hydro generation ramped up when no or little wind. In BC we have an advantage of hydro power for backup as it is fast reacting. Most areas of the world depend on thermal power and any changes there cannot be fast reacting because of thermal stresses.

But saying that, windpower is very expensive and limited output. Site c will be 900 megawatts. Now lets say we replace that with windpower. Over a year the output from a windfarm works out to 30% of nameplate rating so if you want reliable power 900 times 3.3 = 2970 megawatts of installed capacity. But don't forget about 1/3 of the time wind generation is less than 20% of nameplate. Yes we can have more windfarms all over the province tied together with more transmission lines and hope there is wind somewhere. Windpower comes in economy of size, so lets pick a 5 megawatt size generater. How many towers 2970 divided by 5 = 594 towers. Now it gets really interesting, each tower reguires one square mile so 594 square miles will be required. Now lets throw in roads and transmission lines. Not looking so great now is it.

Loki you mention each house having a little wind generator well go down to Canadian tire and price out a system and all the equipment involved. Do you want to maintain all that?

Anyhow I could also go on about solar power also but all I am trying to do is point out there is no free ride for any form of electrical generation. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal will most likely only eversupply a small component of our power generation.

You are against mega corporations well who do you supplies the power equipment also have a read here. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/04/19/EdmontonProfits/

Thanks for your excelent post Dragonmaster dated April 7 1:43 pm. Aparently Loki didn't have tim e to read it.

It may help the discussion if we stick to the financial issues at BC Hydro rather than be off on a talk about the sources.

BC Hydro is owned by every citizen which makes it important because we are all resonsible for the contractual obligations the board and executives have assumed without the blessing of anyone I know.

For over a decade BC Hydro produced and delivered the electricity we needed in BC using assets shown on their balance sheets totaling about $10-12 Billion. Long-term debt remained steady at close to $7 billion in each year from 2000 through to 2009.

BC Hydro reported a fairly steady demand at between 50,000 GWhrs and 54,000 GWhrs in the years from 2000 to now. 2010 (last year) saw demand (GWhrs sold to BC customers; residential,commercia and industrial)at its lowest level in over a decade. When one uses the recorded official population numbers, the per capita demand peaked in 2008 at 13,000 KWhrs which was followed in 2010 to a level of 11,103 KWhrs.

BC Hydro had and still has the generation capability of prodcing, from its legacy generation, well over the present need of 50,000 GWhrs. IPPs relaced Hydro generation, a 2 cent cost, by 9,000 GWhrs at 10 cents or more, last year.

I am able to secure the trading prices for electricity contracts for future sales in the open market for the western part of North America. Last week the price for firm contracts for delivery in 2012 was at 3.4 cents per KWhr. For 2013 it was 3.8 cents. Those are the prices BC Hydro must sell surplus electricity at today. The recent BC Hydro call for IPP power indicated they were increasing the price they would pay to greater than 12 cents a KWhr.

I have to think many folks reading this material are in business for themselves. It takes less than a second to understand that this is lunacy. It is what I refer to as a "situational deficit" in Hydro and Victoria.

Erik Anderson. Bang on.

With all the industry that has shut down though-out BC in the last 15 years, it would be almost impossible for us to be using more electricity.

When they do their cost analysis of BC Hydro they might want to look at them spinning off the BC Transmission Corp. and then returning it to Hydro. This cost Hydro something like $70 Million dollars. $100 Million if you can beleive the NDP.

A lot of the people working for BCTC are still on the payroll, and are now **pretending** to work for BC Hydro.

Spending $800 Million on smart meters so that they can increase our rates during peak user times should also be looked into.

We dont need this kind of BS. After all we built the dams, the power lines, and we employ everyone who works for Hydro. This facility belongs to the people of BC, and we should be first in line for lower Hydro costs.

BC Hydro has been out of control for a number of years, and needs to be re-assessed with a view to making cheap Hydro in BC the number one priority.

We all know that the Government likes to bleed money from entities like Hydro, ICBC, etc, so in effect they are increasing our taxes through these entities.

All Government entities, and also the Government itself needs to be downsized, and they need to be more fiscally responsible, and open to public scrutiny.

Why have we never been allowed to see a copy of the contract between the province and an independant power producer?
Seems to me we have the right to see the details?