hydro power

Jon is right on. The world is far to complex today for simple, ideologically bounded solutions, and what claims to be a more sophisticated newspaper must get beyond them.

stop pulling punches

I wish Rafe would stop pulling punches and call it like it is...

When electricity is produced by hydroelectric power, it causes the very atoms in plants and animals to explode like little nuclear bombs. We are risking the very existence of the universe here. No less.

All I know is

Yesterday at Bear Creek Park in Surrey there was a massive fish kill, hundreds of dead fry and yearlings.

Cause, a fire 4 blocks away at an electrons factory sent the firefighting water into the storm drains which led to the creek and killed the fish.

This scenario, of the fish being killed whenever a fire is near the creek is negligence and mismanagement on behalf of the City of Surrey.

Nuclear is the answer

As Rafe mentions Pirate Power king Plutonic's Bute projects will provide us with about 4000 annual gigawatt/hours of low value sometime in late spring in some years power which will have to exported at a massive loss. Cost to taxpayers 16 billion dollars. At current export rates losses to the taxpayer will exceed 12 billion dollars.

The 10 cents a kwh average we are paying for the 31 billion in run of the river power we've already bought, and the 12 cents a kwh in bids rejected by the BCUC, will almost all be exported at rates currently in the 2 cents a kwh range.

Westinghouse is beginning construction on 4.8 gigawatts of new generation nukes it sold to China for $5.5 billion. With China there no billions needing to be spend on teams of hundreds of attorneys, endless environmental reviews and bureaucrats at nuclear regulatory boards. If BCHydro had instead purchased these it could have replaced Burrard thermal generating 40000 annual gigawatt hours of dependable high value always on baseload power. This would almost double BCHydros capacity and provide plenty of power to move us into electric/hydrogen vehicles and electric heat almost eliminating our carbon fuel consumption.

That's 10 times the power at 35% the cost folks. The BCUC is not going to hear about this.

Climate scientists tell us we may have as little as ten years before we fall over a global warming precipice. Ocean acidification is developing apace. Only nuclear power has any possibility of saving us in that time frame.

Both Alberta and and Saskatchewan have concluded that that nuclear power is the only green energy growth alternative available to them. Alberta has had to put a stop to wind energy development and immediately build a new 1 billion dollar low efficiency fast spooling gas plant to balance the load from all its unreliable wind systems.

There has been a massive and extremely well funded campaign by big coal/oil against nuclear for many years and those funds are used to finance well meaning fools in the Green movement.

Generation 4 reactors like LFTR produce a tiny fraction of the waste that the 1950's nukes produced and can as a bonus burn up the old technology waste. They can use abundant thorium as a fuel and produce no weapons grade materials.

For what little waste is left, safe storage for in mid Pacific clay deposits geologically stable for hundreds of millions of years, has been proven in.

Even if we had to destroy a few square miles of the planet forever as a storage dump for nuclear waste better that than losing the entire planet. Note that the tars sands project has already made Moonscape of hundreds of square miles of land forever. We could store the waste there and nobody would ever notice.

Run of the River projects like Bute ruining 45,000 hectares of land to produce low value springtime power at 6 times the kwh cost to taxpayers of nuclear power plants fitting nicely on Burrard Thermal site, just aren't the answer.

Nuclear is part of the answer

Seth,

There is no single answer for these issues. Alberta and especially Sask do not have an abundance of river energy, which is why nulcear is being looked at there.

What you miss in your accounting is that fissile material is mined, often in jurisdictions with lesser environmental regulations than BC. You send up building a dam, just one for toxic tailings sludge rather than one for water.

It's genocide...

..on the environment, wildlife habitat and wildlife.
If we don't don't stand up and fight back, who will?

Nuclear power is old

Nuclear power is old technology and they still haven't figured out how to properly get rid of the waste. How about cold fusion?

we don't need run of river projects in B.C.!!!!!

I really don't care what people say ..... i know for a fact that run of river projects is not needed in B.C. when these projects are producing power we do not need the electricity, California needs our electricity however many of our projects are over 30MW and therefore is considered :D I R T Y " according to the California Senate Assembly's resolution passed last month.
RAFE is correct in stating that the plutonic project in Bute inlet will kill the bull trout present in the streams which will be diverted, you can't tell me that these fish can live out of water! which they are facing with the diversion of 17 streams.
"COME ON ALL YOU COUNTRY BUMKINS TIME TO GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL TO LEARN ABOUT BIOLOGY."

do your homework!

Nuclear power!?!? Run-of-river? Windmills? Why aren't we talking about tidal power in BC? Its easily predictable, visually unassuming, can be put in up and down the coast near existing transmission lines, its a made in BC technology that we completely ignore. Combined with existing power generation that can be upgraded to more efficient and more powerful turbines, tidal power has got to be the most cost-efficient and smallest ecological footprint of all our current technologies. Anywhere you see the tide run at only five knots you can produce power. We need some leadership now on this subject, maybe even from our universities (don't expect much from our politicians)

Hyperbole thy name is Jon

Don't worry Rafe, Jon, has a list of all the rivers we don't need anymore so that our population can happily grow forever and drive around the province in electric cars looking at all the cement in our river valleys.

Of course all that cement is "green" because it is made by hand by craftsmen on Hornby Island, there are no emissions.

Assassin of hyperbole?

Well, Jon, perhaps you then are the master thereof. Your statement that a legitimate and passionate case against the destruction of invaluable coastal habitat is, magically, a case FOR fossil fuels, is a leap of spectacular silliness on your part. Ditto the assumption you make that in being against the corporate sell-off of our home and the wholesale destruction of species one must be in favour of mercury poisoning. Perhaps you cannot find a legitimate argument.
You are quite correct that poisoning the place and our fellow species is also a problem. Fortunately, there are answers to these issues without wrecking the place. Some we can't even imagine yet - but it is important to set parameters for options and draw some hard lines. To get to really effective and innovative solutions one has to get out of 19th century industrial thinking about environment and our place in ecosystem community.

Right now, we can use less and use it more efficiently. Some alternative options we do know about are tidal power off the coast that could also potentially provide additional reef habitat. Small personal wind turbines and solar panels, and more. Yes, some of this might mean getting away from corporate energy biz running the show.

And yes again, real solutions cost money, but money is the least problem. Habitat and species loss is far far more costly in the long run (with species loss being permanent).

Miss

Frank,

You miseed the point. I can give you a thousand streams I'd divert before I'd pump another drop of oil... why?

Fossil fuels (any type transportation or electricity) release mercury, carbon dioxide and methane. Run of river hydro plants are the smallest footprint of any power. So, in terms any NIMBY can understand.... if we want power in BC the type with the smallest ecological effect is run of river hydropower.

So close your hospitals, farms and factories, or open your mind to something that is the least bad of all options.

JSP,

In all hydro development there is something called a fish salvage where fish are moved to sections of the river which are unaffected.

Iwannajob,

If people are worried about the 3km stretch of drier river (not dry as a minimum flow is required) they'll certainly worry about the removal of energy from the ocean... How would taking some of the tidal power affect the lowland shrew?

All electricity generation has its drawbacks. It's this reason why we need engineers to make hard decisions, not self interested columnist/fishermen like Rafe Mair.

/Knowledge is power.

Jon

I didn't miss the point at all. You're looking only at emissions, your balance sheet doesn't give any value to leaving rivers alone.

The thing is, a lot of us believe rivers have a value besides the narrow economic one you champion.

"I can give you a thousand streams I'd divert before I'd pump another drop of oil..."

I'd rather burn a drop of oil than divert a thousand streams. And I imagine I'm not alone.

"So, in terms any NIMBY can understand.... if we want power in BC the type with the smallest ecological effect is run of river hydropower."

Only if there is no value in having rivers. Environmentalists, which you're obviously not, would strongly disagree with you.

Self-interest

"It's this reason why we need engineers to make hard decisions, not self interested columnist/fishermen like Rafe Mair."

The engineers are paid are they not? It is in their self-interest to have these projects going because they need jobs.

Rafe on the other hand isn't getting any pay cheques from Mother Nature.

Oil

So Frank,

What you're saying is that you'd rather universally pollute the world with mercury, carbon and methane then see some rivers dammed?

If that's the case we're at an impasse.

You're right though that I'm not an environmentalist. I'd rather be something with a code of ethics, rather than a code of morals.

Engineers are required to "Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public, the protection of the environment and promote health and safety within the workplace". That's #1 on our code of ethics.

There are 100,000+ streams capable of making economic power in BC. It would be nice having sensible environmental people on board when we look at which ones are best to get hospital, farm and vehicle power from.

Jon - either oil and mercury or river dams?

You're still thinking way too narrowly. This is not oil and coal versus rivers. That is simply reductionist - and plain silly.

Resourcism is a huge problem. Nineteenth century resourcism is bigger one.

We don't get out of this mess with the same kind of thinking that got us into it.

Innovation would be far more helpful than the tired and no longer acceptable status-quo.

"Engineers are required to

"Engineers are required to .... That's #1 on our code of ethics."

I guess the marking is pretty subjective then since the environment is in the list but you don't care about it. At least if its something like a river. Of course I imagine wanting to get paid kinda trumps the old "ethics code" too.

"What you're saying is that you'd rather universally pollute the world with mercury, carbon and methane then see some rivers dammed?"

Be specific, you said it would be better to divert 1,000 streams than burn one drop of oil. Which is either rampant hyperbole or sheer idiocy.

"There are 100,000+ streams capable of making economic power in BC"

What is their value if not diverted? Sounds like a lot of cement...

Perhaps one day engineers will learn the value of a livable planet.

Brilliant Language

What separates ho-hum news columns from great writing is the innovative use of language. And what drives innovation? Passion and principles. It always has, and always will. Rafe has both, and remains an inspiring voice against the tyranny of a strong arm government.

Rafe's critics often come from a quasi-technocratic background, who appear to have failed to study the history of authoritarian governments, and mankinds propensity to destroy his own environment.

Excellent article, and excellent use of language to convey the frightening destruction of our wild salmon.

credibility

Rafe, I share your concerns and applaud your fight for preservation, but you seem to be going down the same path that Rex Murphy's been on, with a increasingly narrow, inflamed perspective. Please be careful to be a balanced critic first and an activist or radical commentator second. It's more powerful.

Grumpy

We live in an age where consumption is king. He/she who consumes more shows the rest that they are wealthier. More and more consumption until there is no more to consume, then what?

We live in an age where the destruction of our environment is justified because it is our god (the great god of consumption) given right to destroy to consume.

Do we need all these electrical gadgets? Do we need electric lights on all the time? Do we need to keep homes heated so we can walk around with next to nothing on?

Campbell is nothing more than a mindless automaton, whose sole mantra is to make his friends wealthy because this is good.

I am afraid we are going to hit the wall very soon and when we do look out because it will be the poor, the elderly and the lame which will bear the brunt of our mania for consumption!

The elephant in the room is

The elephant in the room is excessive consumption -- and growth in cosumption. Our per capita energy use needs to be reduced by more than 50% if we are to leave "head room" for poorer societies to catch up AND have a sustainable world economy. And if we don't provide for more international fairness, don't expect the future to be peaceful. Much higher prices on energy use (over minimal life-line consumption) are critical. Our current carbon tax and rising tariff on electricity are right in principle, but fall far short of what's required to change behaviour.

Nuclear at the scale required to produce what's needed for growth (even to substitute for existng fossil fuels) would be prohibitively costly, even before considering the environmental costs.

As for run of river, Rafe is right. Using these rivers for power is obscene from every point of view except one: the profits of the fat cat investors who we will subsidise if we are to get rid of their power.