Jump to content

      













Photo

Site "C" Dam Project


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#1 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,641 posts

Posted 28 April 2010 - 11:20 AM

An excerpt from Tom Fletcher's report in todays Oak Bay News

Of the 5,340 hectares that would be flooded, more than 80 per cent is Crown land. BC Hydro has been buying up private land over the years, and now owns 662 hectares.
Another 360 hectares is privately owned, in about 20 separate parcels. The portion that’s actually farmed grows mostly hay, the cheapest way to keep cleared land from being taken over by fast-growing aspen forest. If there is a single household supporting itself by farming in this area, I’d like to know where it is.
As soon as the decision to proceed with environmental assessment of Site C was announced, urban environmentalists began posturing about “food security” and the need to preserve what amounts to four per cent of the Peace region’s arable land, much of it never farmed.
Why don’t more landowners produce those bumper crops of vegetables? As someone who actually has farmed in the Peace country, I can think of a few reasons.
It’s remote. Winters are long. Crops fail. People in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek are much like the rest of us, buying most of their produce cheaply at the supermarket.
Take a drive through the Fraser Valley, where immigrant labourers do the intensive hand-work on vegetable crops, to sell to a huge urban market less than an hour away. That, along with California and China, is the competition.
It’s no surprise that Site C property owners are biding their time, waiting to be bought out.
The engineering advantages of Site C are undeniable, and the full plan for B.C.’s clean energy development is big and complex. I’ll deal with those in a subsequent column.

Tom Fletcher is legislative reporter and columnist for Black Press and BCLocalnews.com.

for the full report
http://www.bclocalne...n/92182569.html


#2 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 28 April 2010 - 02:16 PM

I can hear WAC Bennett again:

My friends.......................

#3 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,404 posts

Posted 28 April 2010 - 08:21 PM

A nuclear plant would be better than the Site C dam. It would cost less, and have less environmental impact.

#4 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,306 posts

Posted 29 April 2010 - 05:56 AM

Every major city should have one from a mass-produced standardized design. Small towns could have those new Toshiba(I think) self contained mini-reactors you just bury under town square.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#5 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 29 April 2010 - 06:05 AM

A nuclear plant would be better than the Site C dam. It would cost less, and have less environmental impact.


I agree. Someone* screwed up when they called nuclear reactors by the same name as nuclear bombs.

The sun is one big nuclear reaction and everybody loves solar power. We ought to rejig nuclear reactors to create "small suns" right here on Earth, then call it solar power type II.

* Probably the same guy that named "laser eye surgery". Moron.

#6 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:24 AM

A nuclear plant would be better than the Site C dam. It would cost less, and have less environmental impact.


I agree about the impact, but would it really cost less? Hmmm. Site C is suppose to be 900 MW, and cost $6 billion so $6.5k/kW?

Nuclear is about the same (wiki) or a bit more, and the operating costs are higher.

So, while I'm a supporter of nuclear power, I also think good hydro projects are worthwhile. Yes they flood land, but if its under-utilized land that may not be so important. Coal is cheaper if you don't pay for any of the externalities, but that is very short sighted.

#7 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,226 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:50 AM

Nuclear power plants have a number of economic problems. The cost to build is very expensive, the cost of insurance is effectively unaffordable, and the cost of fuel is rising dramatically.

To build a nuclear plant with the same generating capacity as Site C is estimated to cost about $6 to $8 billion at the moment.

The operating costs of a nuclear power plant is about the same as a coal fired plant.

All in end cost per Kw/h for a nuclear powerplant is from $0.09 to $0.16 per Kw/h. For Site C the cost will be about $0.05 to $0.08 per KW/h - roughly the same as the cost of private sector green power.

Nuclear makes sense in areas where you do not have access to hydro power, in BC it is not cost effective. For the record, wind is roughly the same cost profile as nuclear.

#8 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,226 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:54 AM

I should have added, if the government did not offer insurance for the nukes, the insurance cost would add another couple of cents per Kw/h

#9 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,641 posts

Posted 29 April 2010 - 08:29 PM

Long-term storage of nuclear waste is difficult.

And not only from a geological standpoint. Where to store it is difficult in a world where political stability cannot be guaranteed for 50 years, let alone for 10,000. No-one can predict who will access this waste in future generations and for which purposes. Ground water contamination would be a deadly nuclear legacy.

Take Germany, where its previous Social-Democrat/Greens government resolved to phase out nuclear energy and its present Conservative government has put it back on the agenda. But nuclear waste is now a big headache.

126,000 rusting containers of atomic waste are buried 750 metres down in a disused salt mine in Asse, Lower Saxony. They contain low-grade radioactive waste from nuclear reactors, buried between 1967 and 1978. The waste comprises some 100 tonnes of uranium, 87 tonnes of thorium and 25kg of plutonium. Water is leaking into the mine at a rate of 12,000 litres a day and geologists have warned that the mine could collapse. It now needs to be brought back to the surface to try and stop ground water contamination.

http://www.alternate...ear-energy.html

#10 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,306 posts

Posted 29 April 2010 - 10:10 PM

Nuclear waste isn't dangerous for a long time at all. The shorter the half like, the more ATOMZ coming off it, it's dangerous but lasts a very very short time. Most nuclear waste is made up of gloves, clothing, lab equipment, anything that's had a dose of radiation. The standards are of course ridiculous where if the same standards were applied to x-ray facilities, we'd have to throw away all our cloths and label them "nuclear waste" and people would fret about storing them for millions of years.

You know what france does with a lot of its waste? Put it into roads. The stuff gives off such little radiation that most brick/stone buildings are more radiactive, but we don't demand brick buildings that are torn down have the bricks stored away for MILLIONS of years. Where do we get these millions of years numbers? That's how long it will be 0 radiative. Guess what, everything is radioactive. We just hold the nuclear industry and anything related to unfair double-standards. Most all these "safety concerns" are made up by lobying anti-nuke types, not real scientists.

Actual nuclear fuel waste is tiny, storing it on-site is fine. IT's not a goop or something that can "get into ground water". The stuff is vitrified into glass and encased in steel. The best part is, as technology advances, one generations "nuclear fuel waste" is the nexts "gold mine of fuel". These ideas that we need to shoot it to the moon or design temples that warn future potential future after the fall of civilization humans away is all forced through politically and emotionally, no science to back it up. The horrible thing is that there are industries producing FAR more toxic and horrible things that have very little oversight or laws. We just focus on, sabatoging, and spreading mis-information against something that can save the environment and transform us into green economies all based on hysteria and ignorance.

If we applied some of the same rules for nuclear plants fairly to other equally or more dangerous industries they'd all shut down. These rules wern't designed for safety, they were designed to warp the playing field so severely that nuclear plants became a financial and regulatory nightmare to build. And then the ignorant anti-nuke lobby shouts "see, we told you see, theres's no money in it!"

What we need to do:

  • Standardized and mass produce safe cheap reactors
  • On-site fuel-waste storage (remember this is still extremely valuable fuel, don't hide it somewhere hard to get it)
  • Total review of laws related to nuclear power to separate the valid safety concerns from the fear-mongering sabotage.
  • Create high security government facilities that own all nuclear fuel. Fuel would be leased to plants and must be returned when its time to be re-processed. Think of this as a high-security recycling centre. These centers would have to be tightly government run and UN inspected to prove there's no weapons grade processing going on.
  • Smother everyone against nuclear power in horrible coal smoke, because when it all comes down to it, that's the choice.

"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#11 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,641 posts

Posted 29 April 2010 - 10:49 PM

Nuclear waste isn't dangerous for a long time at all. The shorter the half like, the more ATOMZ coming off it, it's dangerous but lasts a very very short time. Most nuclear waste is made up of gloves, clothing, lab equipment, anything that's had a dose of radiation. The standards are of course ridiculous where if the same standards were applied to x-ray facilities, we'd have to throw away all our cloths and label them "nuclear waste" and people would fret about storing them for millions of years.

You know what France does with a lot of its waste? Put it into roads. The stuff gives off such little radiation that most brick/stone buildings are more radiactive, but we don't demand brick buildings that are torn down have the bricks stored away for MILLIONS of years. Where do we get these millions of years numbers? That's how long it will be 0 radiative. Guess what, everything is radioactive. We just hold the nuclear industry and anything related to unfair double-standards. Most all these "safety concerns" are made up by lobying anti-nuke types, not real scientists.

Actual nuclear fuel waste is tiny, storing it on-site is fine. We just focus on, sabatoging, and spreading mis-information.


Whew! No need to worry and fret any longer about North Korea and Iran, and eating those four eyed fish from the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

#12 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,306 posts

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:41 AM

Nothing to do with north korea's weapons program. But if the fuel-lease and refinement system was international, iran could have its fuel leased by an international body, and collected when finished. And they wouldn't have to have a "nuclear program" they'd just order a few standard reactors that could be delivered almost ready to go.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#13 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 30 April 2010 - 07:00 AM

Three Mile Island comes to mind.

#14 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,306 posts

Posted 30 April 2010 - 10:23 AM

How many people were killed or injured at 3 mile island? Oh... 0. And that was the absolute worst an old-style western reactor could do. Newer ones learned a lot from 3 mile and such events can't happen in newer designs. We could have a three-mile island style event every month and still be making power safer and cleaner than coal. The amount of deaths from coal burning related conditions is staggering. When comparing power generation safety, it's always important to calculate per Mw produced, rather than just total incidents.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#15 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,226 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 30 April 2010 - 10:37 AM

The issue with nuclear plants is not safety, it is public perception of safety. The public is not convinced that nukes are safe, especially not here in BC. Statistically there has been more impact on human health from residual radioactive material in coal than from nukes.

Even looking for uranium in BC is not politically acceptable. In Ontario all the major parties support nuclear power, in BC neither one does.

Long term there is no future for nuclear power as various other green power technologies will become economic. Nuclear power will be hard pressed to ever reduce their capital costs. As more nukes are built, the cost of fuel will rise, it has already risen dramatically. Great for Brad Wall and the Sask govt, not great for utilities.

The only country that has managed to have cost effective nuclear power is France and even there the majority of the public is opposed.

Back to Site C - the dam has to make it through the EA process. I have been involved and reviewed numerous EA processes, I can not see how they will manage to get through the process and still be able to afford to build the dam. The EA process will require no net loss of agricultural land and no net loss of riparian habitat. I can not think of how the first will be done and the second will cost a fortune.

#16 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,509 posts

Posted 30 April 2010 - 08:17 PM

This is a site by Dr. Bill Wattenburg who is radio broadcaster from KGO in SFO, scientist, researcher etc. etc. about nuclear power vs coal or other means. I find him to be very credible and easy to listen to.

http://pushback.com/issues/energy/
Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#17 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,641 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 07:18 PM

 

Site C dam report says benefits of project are clear
 

 

"B.C. will need new energy and new capacity at some point," the report said. "Site C would be the least expensive of the alternatives."

 

The report was delivered earlier this week to the federal environment minister and the head of the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office. It was released to the public on Thursday.

The provincial and federal governments have six months to make a final decision on whether the dam proposed by B.C.'s Crown-owned utility company can proceed.

 

The dam proposed by BC Hydro would be the third on the Peace River in northeastern B.C.

It would create a 9,330-hectare reservoir along 83 kilometres of the river, flooding about 5,550 hectares of land.

The dam is estimated to generate up to 1,100 megawatts of capacity -- or enough to power the equivalent of 450,000 homes a year.

 

BC Hydro said it is a clean, cost-effective source of much-needed electricity for the province, but opponents say it will cause irreparable harm to an important agricultural region.

 

Provincial Energy Minister Bill Bennett noted that among its recommendations, the panel suggested the federal and provincial governments do more First Nations consultations.

He said both governments must decide whether the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts cited in the report.

 

Construction would take eight to 10 years. If all goes through, ground could break in January


Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca...0#ixzz31BVwxkHo
 

 

 



#18 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,641 posts

Posted 18 May 2014 - 04:52 AM

Unprecedented melt of B.C. glaciers seeps into U.S. climate change concerns

 

 

“Most glaciers in Alaska and British Columbia are shrinking substantially,” said the U.S. National Climate Assessment, released last week to much fanfare south of the border.

“This trend is expected to continue and has implications for hydropower production, ocean circulation patterns, fisheries, and global sea level rise.”

According to the report, glaciers in the region are losing 20 to 30 per cent of what is melting annually from the Greenland Ice Sheet, which has received far more worldwide attention.

That amounts to about 40 to 70 gigatons per year, or about 10 per cent of the annual discharge of the Mississippi River.

Glacial water is a thermal regulator in mountain headwater streams, Menounos said. Their loss will affect water temperatures, fish and the annual snow pack. That will affect the water supply and agriculture.

There could be greater potential for flooding in wet seasons and drought in dry, a particular problem in B.C., which relies on hydroelectricity to meet its energy needs.

The glacial decline in western Canada and Alaska significantly contributes to sea level rise, said the U.S. report. That’s happening around the world and will only get worse, Menounos said.

“Even 40 centimetres of sea level rise will cause annual flooding for 100 million people on the planet,” he said.

Glacial loss can be slowed, Menounos said. The biggest issue is human consumption of fossil fuels.

 

 http://www.theglobea...rticle18738264/

 



#19 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,641 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 10:47 AM

 Site C dam granted environmental assessment approval

 

The federal and B.C. governments have issued an environmental assessment certificate to B.C. Hydro for the Site C Clean Energy Project, located seven kilometres southwest of Fort St. John.

In a statement issued Tuesday, the B.C. forest and environment ministers said they had decided that Site C, a proposed $8-billion hyrdoelectric dam on the Peace River in Northern B.C. is in the public interest and that the benefits provided outweigh the risks of significant adverse environmental, social and heritage impacts.

The provincial government says it must still decide whether to proceed with the project based on "an investment decision."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...roval-1.2798543

 

 

 



#20 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,509 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 07:03 PM

Well apparently it's an either/or scenario between Site C and LNG.

 

I think I would go with Site C then we don't have to go cap in hand to PETRONAS.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.