While announcing the $130 million federal contribution to build the Northwest Transmission Line in British Columbia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper puffed up its green credentials.
“Our government is supporting environmentally sound infrastructure and initiatives that promote cleaner, greener energy,” the government's press release quoted Harper saying. “The Northwest Transmission Line will facilitate the development of green energy and help provide British Columbia’s northern and remote communities with more sustainable and affordable power.”
But as the the Tyee has reported, the project long pushed by the province has only the slimmest claim on being good for the environment.
An April, 2007 Tyee story found the province's stated goal of getting northern residents off “dirty diesel” could be achieved through small scale electricity projects for a fraction of what the transmission line will cost.
The project was more likely a sop to the Northwest Powerline Coalition, an industry-led group that wrote a 2005 brief noting how the transmission line would be near upwards of a dozen potential mines, the story said.
And in November, 2008, the Tyee followed with a story noting that even the proposed mines were more of a “wish list” than a likely reality.
“It's not green if you consider the impact of developing the transmission line,” said New Democratic Party energy, mines and petroleum resources critic John Horgan.
With no money budgeted for the province's contribution and with energy, mines and petroleum resources minister Blair Lekstrom and finance minister Colin Hansen contradicting each other on where the money is likely to come from, Horgan said, “This ain't happening any time soon.”
Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee’s Legislative Bureau Chief in Victoria. Reach him here.
8
Login or register to post comments
seth
2 years ago
BCHydro rates to double by 2013.
This line is designed solely to enhance Gordo and henchman's future employment prospects (See Carole Taylor at the TD) by putting a bunch more super expensive Pirate Power built by party hacks on line at no cost to the Pirates.
According to BC Hydro's 2009 annual report between 2008 and 2009, it increased its IPP purchases buying 609 gwh for $63 million or 10 cents a kwh. In the same report, it has owned up to contracting for 14,400 gwh for fiscal 2012 an increase of 6600 gwh over 2008. Projecting the current 10 cents a kwh to 2012, and 12 cents thereafter, we see BCHydro will require a 50% rate increase by 2012.
Our energy guru Lekstrom has indicated he will direct BCUC to accept BCHydro's additional 3000 gwh buy at 12 cents a kwh adding $360 million annually to BCHydro's costs and an additional 40% rate increase by 2013 or so. This line will carry some of it.
Alberta and Saskatchewan are planning on electricity growth using cheap green and clean baseload nuclear at 2 cents a kwh. BC is stuck with this incredibly expensive 12 cent a kwh Pirate Power to be sold on the spot market at 2 cents a kwh - a huge loss.
All this green nonsense from the green tax to Pirate Power while enhancing Gordo and henchman's campaign war chest and guaranteeing their future employment is really just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic We are heading for both a peak oil and a climate tipping point in as little as ten years with permafrost methane emissions and ocean acidification forming the leading edge of a very steep slope.
If we are to eliminate BC's green house gas emissions and prepare for peak oil, we would need to triple our electric capacity by adding around 15 new gigawatts of baseload 24/7 nuclear power and do it now before any more treasure and time is wasted.
Canada needs to develop a comprehensive plan to prepare for our energy future. It will require ordering over a hundred gigawatts of nuclear plant hopefully from AECL. An enormous job boosting domestic and export market would be created.
The estimated cost for mass produced nuclear is predicted at about a billion a gigawatt, and it is by far the cheapest energy source available to Canadians. As electric car usage slowly builds, BC's vehicles would be fueled by BC's abundant supplies of cheap natural gas. Like the gas utility in Utah, Terasen could easily sell natural gas vehicle fuel at your home delivery rate of 30 cents a liter equivalent instead of the usurious 75 cents now available from an American Company with sweetheart deals in place. Almost all of BC's gasoline/diesel usage would be eliminated saving billions annually financing nuclear construction, auto gas, service station and home electric heat conversions. Nuclear produced methane would gradually replace natural gas making that product increasingly available for export as well.
Lets put corruption and bone stupidity aside and do something useful now while we still can.
kootenay
2 years ago
Nuclear Power
Seth you constantly make reference to Sask being in favour of developing nuclear power.
A governement report in released in April suggested they should develop nuclear power, but follow up consultation with the public indicates they are strongly opposed.
Here is the link to that story.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gv_Vf0a_nJaevOEG3ScYo21oIMYg
freebear
2 years ago
More sustainable?
What the hell does that mean?
Is that like more dead?
'We' are either sustainable, or not sustainable!
'We' can not be more sustainable.
seth
2 years ago
Sask nukes
The government is pushing nukes.
They held the public forums and a lot of a nonukes activists attended going from meeting to meeting. Means nothing.
There is so much Big Oil/Coal money going into anti nuke propaganda and "Green" organizations that one wonders how there is any support at all.
Future power options is a highly technical discussion requiring many hours of study - the average citizen doesn't have the time or the inclination. Really the only accurate test would be a citizens assembly process where all points of view were soberly pondered and a consensus was agreed upon.
Of course all that changes when a heat wave kills 1000 people in Regina and another dust bowl happens.
kootenay
2 years ago
Nuclear is Green?
Whether the general population understands the complexities of future power options or not is irrelevant.
What they do understand is mining Uranium is dangerous and causes the release of Radon gas. They also clearly understand that there is no safe storage method for spent fuel from a nuclear reactor.
Where will the spent fuel be safely stored for next thousands of years? Think the citzens of Albera and Saskatchewan will be wanting to store that in their backyard?
One other thing missing from this article and a similar one on CBC; where is the electricity for this powerline coming from? Some speculate IPP's, but I doubt that would be sufficient for such a major powerline?
seth
2 years ago
nuclear waste
Kootenay just made my point. Knows nothing about the energy issue.
Like most voters, Kootenay doesn't know that we need to convert the baseload fossil fuel energy to green at gigawatt a day over 30 years just for us to survive. That's one nuclear plant a day taking up a couple of acres, 1500 giant windmills in farms occupying 5000 sq miles of land, or 50 sq miles of desert destroyed with solar panels.
Given that all mining produces radon gas, the massive amounts of copper, iron, and concrete needed for wind and solar would release far more mining radon than nukes.
The Nuclear waste problem is blown well out of proportion by propaganda from Big Oil/Coal. All of it can be reused as reprocessed fuel in Gen 3.5 nukes,or as fuel in generation four nukes like Sandia's new product. The tiny bit of Gen 4 nuclear waste is no more dangerous than the original uranium. Mid Ocean clay deposit storage has also been proved in as more effective than ground storage except for the reuse factor.
Of course we could just take all the waste to the nearest coal plant and meter it slowly into the smoke stack. The nuclear waste would increase the coal plants already radioactive emissions by only a tiny percentage and wouldn't add any more lead, arsenic or mercury to the air.
Or lets store the nuke waste under a half acre or so of the thousands of square miles of desert solar greenies were planning destroying forever by covering them with toxic solar cells.
Karen D.
2 years ago
The promise of $130 million
The promise of $130 million towards this powerline is hugely a political maneuver during the threat to Harper's control in Ottawa.
The total cost of the project is estimated at $404 million. In 2007 the provincial government offered up $250 million but has since reduced that to $10 million. There is no indication that the mining industry is still committing to their original offers either.
The federal Conservatives may get away with never having to follow through with this $130 million commitment if cash-strapped B.C. and industry fail to produce the rest of the money needed for the project.
kootenay
2 years ago
Nuclear Power Information
Here is a link a web page sponsered by the World Nuclear Association. It provides a very comprehensive explaination of nuclear power generation and storage of waste products.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/intro.htm
You might try giving it a read Seth. I hope to god that you are not a nuclear waste disposal technician. Your suggestion that nuclear waste could simply be incinerated at coal plant is insane.
In Ontario, where there are several nuclear plants, waste is stored in water for 10 years while it cools down and is then stored in concerete and steel containers. A new container for additional storage is required every 5years. The half life of spent fuel is thousands of years.
The only product incinerated is the low level waste, which is then stored in large concrete containers, a new one required every 2years for additional storage.
Be careful who you try to discredit Seth. As a enthusiastic BC Liberal and Nuclear Energy Supporter, one has to wonder where your motivation comes from.