The Hook

flood BC

This project would flood 20 entire square miles. They're saying the river gets a little wider. What are we going to do with a stupid fat river? What do we need 460,000 homes worth of electric power for?

Then I thought about it. If I take the tax breaks McCain promised me, all the savings I would have had under Obama's plan invested at compounded interest, blow it out a wind tunnel, carry the two, divide by fifteen, and I figure, if we flood all of British Columbia, that's 365,000 square miles say, we get enough power for more than 8 billion homes.

If BC was under water Campbell couldn't govern here. Get rid of Campbell. Flood the entire province.

The greens are really not

The greens are really not very important so why listen to them? They can't get elected and the only way they seem to get money lately is from the 1.81 a vote. I listened to sterk and the deputy leader on TV one eveiing as they talked about shutting down all old growth logging on Vancouver Island. I guess they prefer the trees fall down eventually.
I figure if the public got the real reasons for Site C and the benefits if any to the public, the public might be educated enough to say yes or no. But with King Gordo running the shop we will end up with what he and his merry bunch of plunders want. Time to send his out of the province and keep him out

go solar

If you cover 70 square miles of desert with mirrors aimed at pipes with fluid in them you can run a turbine to replace this dam and get the same amount of power. All you'd have to do is tow 70 square miles of BC down to Arizona. Its a no brainer.

These big hydro projects are dinosaurs. What are you going to do with 20 square miles of flooded land? Canoe down it?

Go solar.

Now Ya See It Now Ya Don't

Let me get this straight. In 2000, BC Hydro under the NDP wants green micro-hydro and issues proposals to potential IPP's to construct that power.

They sign IPP contracts and provide a list of 600 rivers for IPP micro hydro.

Now, CPP and SRS wants only BC Hydro to develop hydro power, whereby their forte is large-scale.

Now people don't want BC Hydro to develop large scale hydro-electric development.

Only in BC.

PS

For instance. Mojave Solar Park is supposed to cost $2 billion. Its 553 MW. Guessed capacity factor 20%. So 10 square miles of mirrors puts out 110 MW.

Compare this dam: Cost $6.6 billion. 900MW PR size. What, 80% capacity factor? 100%? All previous data is out the window as climate changes. Call it 80%. 720MW.

To replace the dam, it would only take $13 billion worth of mirrors, pipes, and generating plant, or twice as much, and a teeny 65 - 70 square miles of mirrors, or three and half times as much land.

Obviously, solar is the way to go. When we tow the 70 square miles down to Arizona, we tack on 30 square miles or so for Canadian vacation homes, sell them and cover the cost of licenses, insurance, fuel, etc. If we cut out the land from the Lower Mainland, we'd get a cool climate but when we get there its the sun of Phoenix.

ban it all

no private small hydro + no private big hydro + no public big hydro + no public small hydro + no coal fired inside BC + no gay hydro + no straight hydro + no crooked hydro = we don't need no more nuthin

no power no jobs no schools no hospitals no taxes no government no roads no cars no boats no nuthin

ban it all

What, me worry?

Its almost a run of the river project because the reservoir for it is already built. Where do people think they're going to find low carbon emission power?

Nuclear could be good. Some climatologists think it could be possible to design one to use the waste from the old generation plants where at present they are discarding 99% of the energy contained in the uranium. New designs could use just about all of that. There's a very much reduced waste problem and you wouldn't need to mine new uranium for several centuries.

You can think you can be safe snorting your organic locally grown brocolli as you take a walk in your Class A pristine wilderness park but as the existence of the entire biosphere is jeopardized by the ongoing disintegration of the climate system it is a bit hard to see how that park doesn't die and that brocolli gets a bit hard to snort.

The propaganda is always

The propaganda is always about how many "homes" such projects would light, but never about the incredible extra power inputs needed by the lords of the universe to automate resource extraction and fire workers, as "efficiency measures".

30 years ago the mills were employing twice the number of workers with good pay and a fraction of the energy inputs and we could by a 2x4 stud for a buck.

So, where are the benefits of these huge energy wasting inputs to the public?

Where are the politicians with guts to point out the obvious ? All shut up by their brainwashed backroom "economic advisers"

Ed Deak.

Who's to Stop Campbell from P3ing Site C?

I agree with the West Moberly Indians and the Peace Valley Environmental Assn that this project causes too much environmental havoc in one place, and in a place that's already been impacted enough by WAC Bennett and Peace Canyon.

Citizens for Public Power have my support on most things but not in recommending this project, which at $5 to $6 billion is not going to produce power significantly cheaper than from wind or run of the river projects.

If they believe that Site C would be built the old fashioned way by Hydro, I think that Citizens for Public Power may be in for a very nasty surprise. Who's to stop Premier Gordon M. Campbell from ordering Hydro to build this dam as a P3, to be owned for the next 'n' years by whichever German engineering company heads up the successful contracting consortium?

Tidal Energy for BC!

BC could and should be leading the world in the generation and develolpment of tidal-current energy technology. Tidal current (NOT tidal dams) energy is renewable, emission-free, 100% firm (i.e. predictable) and abundant in several locations nearby to the grid.

Our 'Alberta Miracle' in BC is in the tidal currents flowing each day along Johnstone Strait and Discovery Passage. To be viable a large-scale energy source needs to have some proximity to an existing transmission grid and population base and be reliable. Tidal (current) energy has this in spades on the lower BC coast and in the Atlantic maritimes, and we should be doing much much more to be developing this resource, for our own energy generation and export of the existing technologies.

How important is this potential energy source? Well, Matt Simmons, of Simmons International, the world's largest energy investment bank, recently announced he is helping to form the 'Ocean Energy Institute' in Rockford Maine to help r & d for ocean-based energy technologies like tidal current, wave and offshore wind.

- Michael Maser; Blue Energy International
www.bluenergy.com

Joe....

Joe the Solar Guy, I don't think that BC Hydro has the mandate to develop solar power in Arizona. And as for doing it here, well, it tends to be rainy a lot of the time.

Just think of what we could do with that rain.......

Reality of Developing New Power Sources

Here's some factual tidbits to work with (I'll try to be non-partisan!) Many on this site discuss costs in terms of the wrong parameters.

Capacity: "Nameplate" capacity of generation plants - ie. the normal power output within safe operating limits, measured in MW (Power = Energy/Time).

Energy: Annual production (kWh) of facilities, and for hydro dependent upon how much precipitation we get. This is what you are billed for, not megawatts.

Firm Energy: Energy that a generating station can supply during historic low-flow conditions in January/February, when demand is at its highest. This is what Hydro is short on, and is being targeted in the current Clean Power Call. When we "net import" electricity, this is the demand period that causes it.

Site C will provide 100% firm energy at a cost estimated to be about 75% of the current firm energy prices from run-of-river. At 900 MW, it will supply almost 8,000 GWh/yr, which is more than the current Clean Power Call of 5,000 GWh/yr.

The 2020 estimate of needs for new generation calls for 20,000 new GWh/yr. Site C alone is not enough, RoR is not enough. Wind provides 0% firm energy for the most part, and the proposed plants are distant from the Lower Mainland load centre. Note that the 2020 estimate does not allow for plug-in hybrid cars, and assumes Burrard Thermal will be kept as a reserve facility.

Burrard is an interesting beast - it produces about the same amount of energy as Site C would, albeit in the load centre. The problem with BT is it is basically held together with chewing gum and haywire, costs a fortune to operate and maintain - and of course adds air pollution to the Lower Fraser Valley airshed. Also causes thermal pollution of Burrard Inlet from cooling water.

Before people go crying about public vs. private ownership they should also think about BC Hydro's organizational capacity. Accenture notwithstanding, they have still lost a large number of technical staff, and really can't afford to run a massive recruiting drive.

Site C makes sense because Hydro owns the rights to the water usage, as well as the lands, and has basically studied this thing to death over the last 30 years.

Hydro venturing into small power development does not make sense because the risk of failure is very high on a RoR project. Even 30% of the sites that were granted EPAs during the 2006 call have gone under due to various factors. Add to this that with the current call and the proposed next call, private ownership will grow from 6% of annual energy to 9%. Hydro still has control of the system, and pushing the risk of development to private interests saves BC ratepayers from additional costs.

Solar guys

WL: I was about to make the same point.

Solar is a great idea for individual generation, but on a commercial scale does not make a lot of sense in BC. I also question the carbon/ecological footprint of PV panel manufacturing.