374 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Our system is a whole lot more complicated than that. I've got some direct experience in this with Powerex. In general, Powerex provides income for BC by buying power at low cost and selling at higher. BC both imports AND exports electricity, but has been a net exporter most years. I don't think we discriminate on where that electricity comes from/is produced, as long as the price we import it at is low.

 

 

 

Oh, I know it's complex.  We are also lucky we have options, to import and export to and from at least two neighbours, and between the three of us, we have a whole variety of generation methods, which all have pros and cons, but can be used at different times to best advantage.    Hawaii, Alaska and Florida are not so rich in options.

 

And I agree from a strictly business perspective, you should not discriminate on where you get power from.   But I'm pretty sure BC Hydro would not import power from a US power plant that burns live bunny rabbits for thermal generation.  That's of course an extreme example (but then again, we did send aborted babies to Oregon to power homes).  But more and more British Columbians are likely uncomfortable about importing power from coal plants in Alberta (since BC bans coal plants) and gas plants in Washington (you can stick it to Trump by not buying US power).  For those people, Site C is a better alternative.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 06 June 2017 - 07:29 AM.

[lanforod]

I agree from a strictly business perspective, you should not discriminate.   But I'm pretty sure BC Hydro would not import power from a US power plant that burns live bunny rabbits for thermal generation.  that's of course an extreme example.  But more and more British Columbians are likely uncomfortable about importing power from coal plants in Alberta (since BC bans coal plants).  For those people, Site C is a better alternative.

 

They may be uncomfortable about it, but as the article points out, even if we stopped buying that coal power, the CO2 from it likely won't reduce, as its too costly to reduce that production when demand is low. So we'd have no benefit to the environment (or perhaps worse benefit, as that power still has to come from somewhere), and we'd lose revenue opportunities. 

[VicHockeyFan]

They may be uncomfortable about it, but as the article points out, even if we stopped buying that coal power, the CO2 from it likely won't reduce, as its too costly to reduce that production when demand is low. So we'd have no benefit to the environment (or perhaps worse benefit, as that power still has to come from somewhere), and we'd lose revenue opportunities. 

 

Well, that's the whole thing about climate change too, right?  Canada's contribution to warming is minuscule, and we lose competitiveness by imposing regulations, and us reducing will not stop China and India from continuing almost unabated.  But believe it or not, many people want Canada and BC to cripple ourselves with carbon taxes and destructive policies anyway, including our Boy Wonder PM and our twin BC leaders.  Go figure.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 06 June 2017 - 07:34 AM.

[jonny]

The better question is: is Horgan dumb enough to shut this 25% completed project down?

 

Horgan is in a lose-lose situation, assuming he actually is premier for a decent period of time. Cancel the project, and risk a career ending boondoggle. Not cancel the project, and risk backlash from those on the left who oppose the project.

Edited by jonny, 06 June 2017 - 07:38 AM.

[VicHockeyFan]

I think he has some wiggle room, even if BCUC says the project is a loser.  He can say that it should not have been done (as BCUC now points out) but with it "25% completed already, it would be irresponsible to end construction.  However, we now have the opportunity to refine the project to make it the most green hydro plant in the world, a learning centre for other jurisdictions to see, while at the same time providing (insert some type of cockamamie scheme of regional development tax money to the area)".

 

No charge, NDP speech-writers, you can have that.

 

Now, that's not likely to please Weaver though.  Seems not much does anyway though, short of ending all resource extraction anywhere.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 06 June 2017 - 07:47 AM.

[jonny]

I dunno. The "Stop Site C" crowd seem pretty hardened, much like the "Stop Kinder Morgan" crowd.

 

Site C is murdering farmer's families, didn't you know?

[VicHockeyFan]

Site C is murdering farmer's families, didn't you know?

 

Oh I did not think it was that bad.  I thought it was just destroying millions of acres of the most fertile farming land in the entire world.  Who knew Northern BC had that eh?

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 06 June 2017 - 08:04 AM.

[nagel]

I don't think Site C has the same level of hate to it.  I'm pretty anti-pipeline but I'm not against Site C.  I just think we should actually have a reasonable review of it before continuing on.  I agree we should consider future electricity needs especially as our transportation system is getting electrified.  I don't agree with building Site C for an LNG pipedream.  Let's see what the results of the review are and then see what should happen.

[jonny]

Oh I did not think it was that bad.  I thought it was just destroying millions of acres of the most fertile farming land in the entire world.  Who knew Northern BC had that eh?

 

I thought it was billions of acres. My mistake.

[Cassidy]

Anybody who has traveled the Peace River country would note that this is some of the most beautiful country in B.C, as well as some of the most agriculturally productive.

I've flown down the river in the area being flooded, and it would be a huge mistake to not clearly understand what B.C. is about to lose.

To call this part of the Peace River valley stunning would be an understatement.

 

Having said that, does anybody here really believe that one of the "A", "B", "C", and the canceled "D" B.C. dam Peace River mega-projects can actually be stopped?

 

Along with the industries like forestry, fishing, and mining, large scale projects like dams and highways have literally defined modern B.C.

 

Besides the loss of the agricultural land and the sheer beauty of this part of the Province, I think Site "C" is a total waste simply because the electricity isn't needed, and there's no study to indicate it will ever be needed ... but I also think it's a done deal.

The mechanics of this province run far too deeply for me to believe that First Nations, and our new Green/NDP cabal could ever hope to stop this project.

Here in good old B.C. - you don't just "cancel" dams and highways once they're under way, no matter what party you happen to be.

 

But make no mistake about it, from a landscape point of view, this is equal to, or a greater disaster than the Hetch Hetchy project in California, a project in which supposedly intelligent politicians of the day dammed and flooded a valley that was spoken of, by those who had seen it - as at least twice as beautiful as Yosemite.

They're even making serious efforts to try and get it back (cool idea, but it will never happen).

http://www.hetchhetchy.org/

 

The site "C" section of the Peace River Valley will soon be gone ... agree or disagree, long time British Columbians already know it's a done deal.

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm unclear how so many people think clean green electricity will never be needed.   Or at least the same people that say we must stop using oil.  Even Harper agreed to no more use of fossil fuels by 2100.  Site C is designed to more or less still be producing on that day we ban oil.

Edited by VicHockeyFan, 06 June 2017 - 09:16 AM.

[jonny]

Looks like they made a pretty sweet lake at Hetch Hetchy.

 

[jonny]

I'd rather a couple new lakes than hideous windmills that kill thousands of birds all over the place...

 

Who doesn't like going to the lake?

 

For example, the windmills around Palm Springs are a blight.

Edited by jonny, 06 June 2017 - 09:33 AM.

[spanky123]

One ecosystem is replaced by another. The earth has been doing this for 4 billion years now. It is not like water and lakes and fish are not valuable.

[spanky123]

I'm unclear how so many people think clean green electricity will never be needed.   Or at least the same people that say we must stop using oil.  Even Harper agreed to no more use of fossil fuels by 2100.  Site C is designed to more or less still be producing on that day we ban oil.

 

Power generation has been occurring at Niagara Falls for nearly 130 years now. I don't see how people seem to think that these projects are only viable for 20-30 years.

[nagel]

Who cares about the lakes and the farmland and the birds.  I care about whether this makes sense financially, and I want to hear it from someone other than the BC Liberal Party or their former head of the BC Public Service Agency.

[lanforod]

The view that we don't need the electricity is incredibly shortsighted. On one hand, folks are pushing for electric cars, and for a move away from coal and gas, both of which will increase our electricity consumption, yet think we wouldn't need the 900 MW of power site C will give (which isn't a lot by the standards of some of the other hydro power plants we have that are over 2000 MW!).

[lanforod]

Who cares about the lakes and the farmland and the birds.  I care about whether this makes sense financially, and I want to hear it from someone other than the BC Liberal Party or their former head of the BC Public Service Agency.

It doesn't make sense financially as long as we can buy cheap power from elsewhere. That includes coal power...

[nagel]

It doesn't make sense financially as long as we can buy cheap power from elsewhere. That includes coal power...

News to me that we do that.  Do we now?

 

But the general principle of what you're saying is right.  As part of that is the risk that the electricity we need in future will also come from other cheaper sources, like solar panels.  If solar panels ever do get so cheap that everyone has them, and they're using them not only to run their homes but also to charge their cars, who is going to pay for Site C then?

 

Is it really too much to ask to just have an independent analysis?  I'm being quite honest here that I am not against Site C.  As a hydro customer and BC resident I just want something more reliable for a business case and when I hear of reputable universities offering contrarian financial analysis I want proof that this makes sense even more.

[LeoVictoria]

Who cares about the lakes and the farmland and the birds.  I care about whether this makes sense financially, and I want to hear it from someone other than the BC Liberal Party or their former head of the BC Public Service Agency.

 

Bingo.  Not sure what all the hubbub is about here.  Deferring to the BCUC seems like a good plan to me.  Maybe it makes sense to build it, maybe not.   Maybe it makes sense to leave it for 10 years and build it then.   

 

I think in general it's a good idea to build it.   Electric vehicle transition will happen much more quickly than most people anticipate, so although power usage is flat now, it won't be for long.   Also City of Vancouver is pushing through green building standards that will make it difficult to use gas to heat, so again more power usage.   Not sure on the economics of using that SiteC power in the lower mainland though.