374 replies to this topic

[spanky123]

Site C already has many FN agreements in place.  Not sure if they still get the money if it's cancelled.

 

My bet would be that Weaver would pay them out and then some.

[Bingo]

Now, we have some kind of odd desire to be more "food secure" but we are happy to think that forever we will have access to US energy?  Don't people want to be "electricity-secure" too?

 

Yes we can be more food secure if we make better use of all the arable land we have in the province, and to do that you need to have an abundant supply of water for irrigation, and just as we have water storage behind a dam at Sooke Lake, hydro dams can help provide water for downstream irrigation especially in the lean years of reduced snow packs.

[spanky123]

Yes we can be more food secure if we make better use of all the arable land we have in the province, and to do that you need to have an abundant supply of water for irrigation, and just as we have water storage behind a dam at Sooke Lake, hydro dams can help provide water for downstream irrigation especially in the lean years of reduced snow packs.

Fish are food not friends.

[VicHockeyFan]

 

Site C contractors launch campaign to defend project

More than 2,000 workers at Site C dam now fear for their jobs

 

https://www.biv.com/...defend-project/

[Bingo]

Another reason for the Site "C" dam is to store enough water for the fish and the natural order that ASE talks about over on the Global Warming thread.

Young fish need cold water to survive and a large concentration of cold water will form in the lake behind the new dam.

Once the engineers find a way to put a lid over the lake the water will be even colder.

 

by ASE

Personally I would not be impressed nor is that future desirable IMO; I like temperate BC the way it is just fine. It took millions of years of evolution to give us the spectacular province we now experience on a daily basis; seriously increased temps and humidity - and significantly decreased rainfall, if in fact that is the eventual outcome - would stress out and eventually kill off much of the natural order here as we know it now. You could kiss much of the native flora and fauna goodbye for good. Not to mention what that combination of conditions would do to our indigenous fish and marine species..... 

 

 

[Bingo]

With climate change our most valuable asset could be our storage supply of water. 

Pipelines will carry water instead of oil and gas, and I don't think too many will complain about that.

According to Deborah Harford, who runs the Adaptation to Climate Change Team out of Simon Fraser University's School of Public Policy, there will need to be infrastructure changes to everything from aquifers to sewage pipes to deal with shifts in precipitation. 

While B.C. might not be affected by a lack of water resources, surrounding areas — like Washington, Oregon, and California — will put pressure on our water resources.

"The southern part of the Columbia Basin [in the United States] is forecast to have about a 50 percent drop in stream flow by 2050, so by mid-century there's going to be a crisis down there, because they have a $5 billion irrigated agriculture industry, and they're going to need to get that water from somewhere," she said. 

"We need to value water more. We waste a great deal of it," she said. 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...imate-1.4137862

[VicHockeyFan]

Site C Inquiry

Thank you for visiting the BCUC’s Site C Inquiry webpage. This is your source of information about the inquiry, and how you can participate.

 

The BCUC initiated this inquiry into BC Hydro’s Site C project, as directed by the Provincial Government in an Order-in-Council (OIC) on August 2, 2017.

 

The scope of the inquiry is set out in the government’s Terms of Reference for the OIC. The BCUC has been directed to examine the financial impact on BC Hydro ratepayers associated with continuing, suspending or terminating the Site C project.

 

 

http://www.bcuc.com/...mission_2733278

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 August 2017 - 08:45 AM.

[Mattjvd]

I spoke to an engineer who was part of the Joint Review Panel for Site "C" back in 2013/2014. His background is water management, not energy, but he provided some great insight.
My take-away was that many of the arguements against are based in pathos and their descision making criteria gave appeals to pathos a low weight. Sound public policy is not made by emotion (even though it seems to happen a lot).

[VicHockeyFan]

If we believe that we should reduce fossil fuel use for electricity, we should build Site C.  The economic arguments against are solely based on the premise of us using cheap natural gas from US electricity producers for the next 10-25 years.  Instead at looking at the 100+ year life of Site C.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 05 August 2017 - 07:12 PM.

[johnk]

Hydro is pretty green power. Wasn't it part of the plan to sell juice to Alberta and help reduce their coal-burning?
Also, the last I heard the future is coming. Demand will be going up.

[Wally]

I spoke to an engineer who was part of the Joint Review Panel for Site "C" back in 2013/2014. His background is water management, not energy, but he provided some great insight.
My take-away was that many of the arguements against are based in pathos and their descision making criteria gave appeals to pathos a low weight. Sound public policy is not made by emotion (even though it seems to happen a lot).

 

Here is some sound public policy for you. I doubt that when the initial site c dam was proposed anyone was thinking of electric vehicles at any scale. If only 20% of us migrate towards plug in hybrids or fully electric cars over the next 20 years, the electricity required to power those vehicles will be immense. 1M vehicles each requiring an average of say 75KW/h every week means 3,900 GW/h of annual capacity or about 65% of site c's annual output.

[Mattjvd]

Here is some sound public policy for you. I doubt that when the initial site c dam was proposed anyone was thinking of electric vehicles at any scale. If only 20% of us migrate towards plug in hybrids or fully electric cars over the next 20 years, the electricity required to power those vehicles will be immense. 1M vehicles each requiring an average of say 75KW/h every week means 3,900 GW/h of annual capacity or about 65% of site c's annual output.

The original site C was proposed in the 1970s, the 2013/2014 joint review did look at electric vehicles.

[Mike K.]

If we're in agreement that western governments will try to phase out internal combustion engine-powered vehicles by circa 2050, where are the lucrative gas taxes going to come from? And where'll the motivation be for stuff like carbon taxes if BC's transportation energy will come from hydro?

I get the feeling that the Greens have shown their true colours with May's sudden love-in regarding oil refineries. If big bad oil is out of the picture, what's the easy-to-tax energy boogeyman? I mean, as we're positing here, if electric vehicles are the future why are the progressive governments opposing an opportunity for reliable, safe and green energy? It doesn't add up.

[VicHockeyFan]

We have pledged to phase out ALL fossil fuel by 2100. So unless we plan to go nuclear where will we get our power from? Site C will run into 2122 or more.

Solar and wind are not reliable in off times (night, and no wind).

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 06 August 2017 - 02:52 PM.

[Rob Randall]

Getting a job at a BC dam is a good gig if you don't mind the isolation. To compensate for the fact you're miles from the nearest town you're provided with a range of toys to keep you occupied including jet-skis, fishing boats, wakeboards and mountain bikes as well as a guest townhouse so your family can visit from time to time.

[Wally]

The original site C was proposed in the 1970s, the 2013/2014 joint review did look at electric vehicles.

 

In 2013 there was no model 3 and electric vehicles were few and far between. I doubt that anyone was thinking that they would gain as much traction as fast as they did.

 

The point I am making is that if you go by the NDP and Green's own forecasts, electricity demand for electric vehicles alone will consume all of site C's capabilities within a fairly short timeframe. Even if LNG never materialized we would still need the capacity.

[Mike K.]

Meanwhile Elizabeth May wants Canada to build more oil refineries. No jokes.

[Bingo]

Meanwhile Elizabeth May wants Canada to build more oil refineries. No jokes.

I agree. We need more refineries.

 

Since the 1970s, the number of refineries in Canada has plummeted from 40 to 19.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1539701.html

 

http://www.oilsandsm...st-of-the-world

[LeoVictoria]

I have registered to speak at the Sept 11 consultation session in Victoria.  

 

I'll be speaking in favour of building site C, with main points:

1. EV adoption will drive demand faster than anticipated once the threshold is reached where they are cheaper than gas vehicles and thus we will require the power.

2. Hydro is the greenest way to generate electricity (lower GHG emissions than solar).   Even if there are a few years where we don't need the power yet, we can export it and reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere.  There are no borders to global warming

3. There is no such thing as an energy project with zero impact.   The impact of Site C is very small compared to alternatives. 

[lanforod]

Oct 11 you mean?