Jump to content

      













Photo

Site "C" Dam Project


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#21 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 48,067 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 07:44 PM

Petronas could use two brand new World's Tallest buildings. Their towers in Kuala Lumpur have slid considerably down the line since being built in 1998.


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#22 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 7,070 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 16 October 2014 - 07:34 AM

The either/or situation is given the First Nations threat is it not? I'm sure the BC gov't will take it back to court regardless if the First Nations try to flex their new found muscles. If they do it enough times, someone with the power to do something about it will.



#23 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 24 October 2014 - 09:27 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.

 

Once all the LNG is used up and all the fracked oil has f****d up the ground water, then we will be needing a renewable source for electric power,

and by that time the SITE C Dam project will be there to power the electric cars we will all be driving.

I don't see the argument that we will be flooding valuable farmland since we are already not making the best use of our farmland.


  • Bingo likes this

#24 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 02:05 PM

At about 2:30pm today B.C. Premier Christy Clark will announce the government is moving ahead with construction of the Site C dam.
 

<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#25 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,164 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 02:34 PM

I know this displaces a few people and inundates land, but  hydroelectricity like this really is the way to go in BC. It's low emission, renewable, lasts a long time, etc. 

 

Quite ingenious to have three generating stations in succession. Here's a good summary of the project.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-know-1.2874998

 

At 900mW, Site C would be the fourth largest generating station in the province.


Edited by jonny, 16 December 2014 - 02:36 PM.


#26 Mr Cook Street

Mr Cook Street
  • Member
  • 924 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 02:44 PM

Approved.



#27 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 11,278 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 02:49 PM

Approved.

 

Woah. That might conflict with the Isitt/Helps/Loveday manifesto.



#28 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,812 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 03:17 PM

...That might conflict with the Isitt/Helps/Loveday manifesto.

This project is completely outside the jurisdiction of Victoria City Council therefore expect them to devote a great deal of time making proclamations against it. I would imagine Mr. Isitt has already drafted his first diatribe to be presented on Thursday's council meeting and Ms. Helps is writing her latest apology to affected groups (be they animal, vegetable or mineral) in the Site C region on behalf of all the concerned citizens of Victoria.


  • jonny likes this

#29 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 03:23 PM

 Here's a good summary of the project.

 


  • Matt R. likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#30 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 16 December 2014 - 03:53 PM

I am very concerned about the cost estimate for the project.  I think it is optimistic.   What I would like to know is if the government will walk away from the project if the costs rise.

 

Site C is the most expensive capital project ever for the government of BC or any Crown Corporations.   It will increase the long term debt of BC Hydro by around 45%



#31 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 04:08 PM

I like mega-projects.


  • Matt R. likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#32 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,812 posts

Posted 16 December 2014 - 04:17 PM

Do you think it will be constructed out of Mega Bloks?

mega.jpg



#33 Urbanistco

Urbanistco
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 08:45 AM

I am very concerned about the cost estimate for the project.  I think it is optimistic.   What I would like to know is if the government will walk away from the project if the costs rise.

 

Site C is the most expensive capital project ever for the government of BC or any Crown Corporations.   It will increase the long term debt of BC Hydro by around 45%

 

BC Hydro is a dumping ground of all other ministry debt so it's hard to get an accurate picture of the long term debt outlook...



#34 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,164 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 08:49 AM

BC Hydro is a dumping ground of all other ministry debt so it's hard to get an accurate picture of the long term debt outlook...

 

What do you mean?

 

BC Hydro has signaled many times that their long term debt is going to have to increase big time to maintain all that old infrastructure built in the 60's, 70's and 80's. They do this every time they announce a big rate increase.



#35 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 08:50 AM

I like mega-projects.

 

Me too.

We need to "prime the pump" once in awhile.


  • Bingo likes this

#36 Urbanistco

Urbanistco
  • Member
  • 172 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 11:44 AM

good read:

 

http://www.langleyti.../206832711.html

 

 

in addition to this, often times, through creative "Reallocations" ministries that cannot balance their budgets hide there debt in BC Hydro's ongoing long term debt.



#37 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,164 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 12:48 PM

 

I stopped reading at "Today if BC Hydro were in the private sector, it would be bankrupt." No it wouldn't. BC Hydro is a well run operation. Why do you think our electricity rates are so cheap? Most of North America would love to have our rates.

 

in addition to this, often times, through creative "Reallocations" ministries that cannot balance their budgets hide there debt in BC Hydro's ongoing long term debt.

 

Not trying to be a jerk, but please prove this. I don't understand how a government ministry operating budget can be balanced by somehow allocating it to another legal entity's financial statements (and in with long term debt, no less).



#38 Mr Cook Street

Mr Cook Street
  • Member
  • 924 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 12:57 PM

From my understanding, the bigger issue for Hydro's debt, is the huge dividend the prov gov't pays itself compliments of BC Hydro. Regardless of the investments Hydro has to make in its infrastructure.


  • thundergun likes this

#39 jonny

jonny
  • Member
  • 9,164 posts

Posted 17 December 2014 - 01:25 PM

From my understanding, the bigger issue for Hydro's debt, is the huge dividend the prov gov't pays itself compliments of BC Hydro. Regardless of the investments Hydro has to make in its infrastructure.

 

Agreed.



#40 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 09:29 AM

You know, listening to a guy on CFAX tis morning, he says all projections show power usage will not climb high enough to warrant building it.

 

Do any of the projections consider we pretty much all might be driving electric cars in 2030?


  • Bingo likes this
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

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