Global climate change against the environment

I wonder if BC citizens have a sense of responsibility to combat global climate change. While conservation is the primary imperative (as emphasized in recent Bolivian grassroots climate conference), there is a general consensus that new electricity should be developed. You can disagree with this point, but assuming that this is the only way forward, let me continue. While the new Act might make it easier for RoR projects, what about wind projects? It is an interesting dilemma facing the holders of renewable electricity (i.e. BC) and the consumers of electricity (i.e. California and AB). The UK is considering ways they will meet their GHG reduction targets, and building solar electricity farms in north Africa has been suggested. Could you imagine Californian companies setting up new wind or small hydro projects all over BC so they can use it? (I suppose AB is doing that already...) A new EU green electricity grid is also being proposed as a solution to moving renewables from the 'have not' countries to those who have the renewables. If some wind and other renewable power in BC can allow another jurisdiction to close coal fired power plant, is that not in the interest of all BC citizens? Local environmental concerns, though, are important, especially with respect to RoR and salmon. But what about wind?

I think you forgot the read their news release

Just take a second to read their news release: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010PREM0090-000483.htm
I think you will find that the majority of this bill has nothing to do with power exports, and it clearly states that exports will not cost the rate payers of BC: "It will provide a new model to secure long-term export power sales to other jurisdictions seeking clean power by partnering with renewable power producers without risk or cost to B.C. ratepayers"

Crap, I can't even say that without worrying that someone might actually take me seriously. This is the BC Liberals we are talking about; BC Hydro and the rate payers of this province will pay dearly for this act (just like the last one and the one before that).

But don't worry everyone, you want to pay more for power that is green right. GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN. It gets greener if I say it more right?

he dost protest too much

Remember the other vote we had last election Mr. Schreck?

Clearly you're not as bothered by the bill and the gov't as you make out. In fact railing against the the legislature is a good living for some.

Your electoral system. Your government. Your bill.

There are so many potential alternatives

So why aren't any of them being explored?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/04/26/a-new-strategy-for-cheap-solar-power-in-africa-pokeberries/?utm_content=rpw@shaw.ca&utm_source=VerticalResponse&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=Discoblog%3A%20A%20New%20Strategy%20for%20Cheap%20Solar%20Power%20in%20Africa%3A%20Pokeberries&utm_campaign=The%20Gulf%20Oil%20Spill%3B%20Museum-Worthy%20Garbage%3B%20and%20More

No talk of BC Hydro's dividend?

Power export to California pays BC Hydro's dividends to the government (people) of BC. In 2006 it was $300 million. Where 'clean' energy will surely experience significant increases in the demand over the next 80 years (the life of a new damn) Where is the talk of that trade-off?

The choice to export is not to help Californian's air condition their homes, it's to make money for the province. That false dichotomy is frankly so inane that it belongs on the trash heap of political sloganeering.

Finally, the BCUC is an entity of the provincial government. It is a figment of legislation meaning that it is at the whim of provincial priorities. The BCUC as an institution is only 15 years old. It is not bigger than the government. Think what you will of the role of the BCUC but it isn't scandalous to dramatically alter its mandate or responsibilities. It is not a sacred cow but an instrument to guide policy objectives from arms length.

Arnold

The minute a saw the steroid king Arnold hobnobbing with an apparently drunken Campbell at the Olympics...I thought something was brewing. Then Site C and I was, and still am , positive we will be producing power for California. Please...please...there must be someway to get rid of this government now. I am so afraid we cannot afford to wait!

Ronald Pagan

If the rules are made and working well, why change them? They LIbERalS only changed them to limit and reduce public scrutiny!

Oh God NO

We don't want an independent regulatory commission with the power to actually police these things for the public interest.

Nothing must get in the way of profit for Campbell's friends...remind me, how many high lever BC Liberals are in the energy business?

How can these people have the temerity to face the public?

"Gutting the BC Utilities Commission's authority"

Others prefer "emasculated" to describe what has happened to the BCUCs powers. But "gutted", while may it is an accurate description, sounds so harsh. The government prefers the term "modernized".

Vaughan Palmer notes that all new projects and power purchase agreements are "approved by cabinet fiat through this legislation. All the utilities commission can do is double-check the math and green-light whatever rate increases are necessary to pay for the works."

Ronald

When you look at the guaranteed contracts to the IPP producers (many of them ex-BCLiberal people) how exactly will it "make money for the province" to sell that power for less than we're paying for it?

The only people getting rich here are the IPPs and they're doing it by abusing a resource they don't own.

Gordonomics

Buy $65B in Pirate Power at 12.5 cents a kwh and export on the spot market for a little as 0 cents per kwh in off peak periods and less than 4 cents peak.

Now add $10B for Site C at 11.5 cents a Kwh to sell at the same price.

With current US nuke power cost at 3 cents a kwh (OECD data) and new nuke power dropping to under one cent in the ten year time frame, most of the entire $75B in IPP purchases/Site C investments will be worthless. One $3B Candu complex at Burrard Thermal would produce the same amount of power but of the much more valuable baseload type saving hundreds of square miles of BC forest, farmland and rivers.

Stupider on the surface than even what Dolton McWhinney is doing in Ontario.

Then you look at the millions the fascist cadre will make post politics on board of director appointments, lobbying and consulting fees, and corporate speaking engagements and it all makes sense. The last energy minister sold out cheap and is now one of our esteemed Senators.

Climate F'in CRISIS

Remember a few years ago when you saw An Inconvenient Truth, and you left the theatre with a sense of dread and worry and had the thought, "what can we do" endlessly running through your head on a loop?

Well, one thing we can do, is start acting as a global entity and forget about getting our knickers in a twist about exporting power to the US. The bulk of American power comes from coal. Coal mining and burning is an unequivocable environmental disaster, much more so than run-of-river water diversion projects (and dams as well). Americans don't have the same water resources, or land resources that we do here in BC. If we can sensibly and sustainably (this is key) generate power here, and send it over the border at fair and reasonable prices (also key), then there will be less coal burning and perhaps some resistance to the impending death of our planet.

It's kind of like triple bottom line economics, but the BCUC has missed this, and unfortunately, Campbell has silenced them instead of fixing their mandate. The best interest of British Columbians should include actions BC can take to mitigate global environmental devastation. Delivering power to a region that will prevent c02 from being generated elsewhere benefits us as British Columbians and Earthlings.

Endless wants on a finite Earth!

When the lease is up there is no other planet!

shabbaranks

We don't have enough rivers to cover the energy needs of America's expanding population.

Nor do I see any reason to dam BC rivers so that Phoenix Arizona can be air conditioned.

shabbaranks two

I agree we can sell the Yanks billions of dollars - hell as much as they want - of clean and green nuclear power.

We'd save thousands of American lives from coal pollution.

Good plan.

How-to?

Adam, "How about reducing demand for power by, for instance, not living in deserts and expecting to be kept cool 24 hours a day, or sharing resources instead of everyone having their own this and their own that in a giant McMansion. Oh no, that would involve sacrifices, and hard solutions to complex problems, not just neat little intellectual packages that absolve us of responsibility and meaningful local action!"

So what exactly are your solutions to get people to make decisions that will achieve the end results that you describe? Please elaborate.

Ronald Pagan

People need to stop thinking in terms of a choice between "the environment" and the economy, or anything else for that matter.

Your question, of course, is a bait question, and considering your history here, I'm not surprised - I can't imagine you choosing the environment over profit. Yeah, sure thing Ron, I'll give you all the solutions to this complex polymorphic, time-sensitive series of environmental and energy problems in the space of a Tyee comment! Just give me a minute!

Wasn't I just lambasting people - perhaps a tad cruelly - for thinking in an overly conclusive, simple-minded fashion?

Here's a few nice starter solutions anyway:
- Mandatory evidence-based environmental assessments of any and all major industrial activity including all forms of energy generation. If this pushes production offshore, bring in tariffs. We are the consumer countries, after all!
- Major increased punitive measures for gross environmental negligence. No more accidentally poisoned rivers. Whoops, poison! Whoops, your company assets have been seized!
- Greatly enhanced, legally binding recycling programs for any and all waste materials. Wasted materials = wasted energy.
- Major new rules on building new structures, including densification, energy efficiency and self-sufficiency, and streamlining of waste disposal to make recycling and intelligent water use easier.
- Major restrictions on the use of materials in new products, including mandating efficiently recycled materials for new products (especially plastic), and outlawing non-degradable and excessive packaging, period.
- Mandating much higher efficiency and quality standards in the production of goods to increase product life, reduce energy waste, and lengthen the product cycle. Again, import tariffs if necessary - we have all the raw materials we need right here if foreigners don't want to play ball. Sorry, lazy industry, no more crap thanks!

There are many, many more common-sense steps to take. Fundamentally, though, people at large need to stop thinking in terms of simple solutions - grasping at straws - and get down to the nitty gritty. There is no magic bullet. This will take sacrifice and effort, and the immediate results will be intangible, especially if you live in the artificial suburban or city environment. We need to be collectively patient and work towards a common goal of greatly reduced consumption of energy and materials and greatly increased environmental protection. We need to occupy ourselves with new things, compete for prestige in new areas - the creation of ideas, science, even athletics, etc - not just accumulation of shallow material wealth and titles. It will pay off in the long run.

Ha ha yeah right! Cultural change takes generations, and is rarely permanent. How much of our wasteful, materialistic ways are unchangeable, endemic to our species? Could you answer that question, Ron?

If no news is good news...

If no news is good news, then this news from the Liberals is bad. Or should I say, BAD. British Columbia is in serious trouble, unless "Best Place on Earth (TM)" is referring to some third world backwater. Who would vote for that???

"Green" conservation myth

Science shows that we may be less than ten years from a civilization ending Global warming/Peak Oil/ Ocean acidification crisis. Nuclear can stop it, not so renewables and certainly conservation efforts have no hope.

With the entire world using fossil fuel for 75% of its energy and the entire 3rd world wanting stoves, refrigerators, lighting, air conditioning and cars, it is madness to think that even an impossible of conservation effort in developed countries culture will have any effect whatsoever on the approaching climate precipice.

Not only do we have to provide for exponentially growing 3rd world power needs, but we need to switch 75% of our energy to electricity from fossils. The only way to do that is a massive conversion to nuclear power paid for by eliminating the use of very expensive fossil fuels.

With current nuclear power under 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour (OECD figures) and new nuclear quotes and forecasts under 1.5 cents, there are virtually no conservation measures which payback over using nuclear power.

Once again BCHydro exporting nuclear power to California to get them off coal, power electric cars, and air condition,refrigerate, and desalinate away will have BC, like Al Gore, making a fortune saving the world.

I'm not too worried about power exports

Just as the pipeline bombings in Tomslake seem unstoppable, so would be knocking down a few transmission towers. It's inevitable. Just let the Lower Mainland feel the bite of power rationing even once and they'd all give aid and shelter to anyone taking direct action. Stupid, stupid the whole thing and easily avoidable.

Ummmm...

"With current nuclear power under 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour (OECD figures) and new nuclear quotes and forecasts under 1.5 cents, there are virtually no conservation measures which payback over using nuclear power."

Current nuclear varies between 2.5 cents and 7.7 cents depending on what country and how old the reactor is. No new reactors have been built in quite some time in OECD countries, so figures for newer energy are not available.

http://www.nea.fr/pub/egc/docs/exec-summary-ENG.pdf

Where the 1.5 cents comes from I don't know.

What surprised me in this report was how cheap wind power was. For a flaky technology, it has something to recommend it, especially when one considers the cost of carbon capture in traditional energy generation. In partnership with hydro for base load, there is much to recommend it.

Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet

Bill McKibbin says in part that our problem is we are looking for THE ONE SOURCE to replace fossil fuels. We should instead be looking for tens or hundreds of new sources, in much the same manner as the internet works
http://www.billmckibben.com/eaarth/eaarthbook.html

Good move forward

BC used to be self-sufficient in energy before the days of the NDP. WAC Bennett built a great legacy that David Shreck's party squandered by failing to grow it.

It's good that we will be self-sufficient again. Buying dirty power from coal-fired plants in the USA isn't green at all.

Wind vs nukes

Actually Zalm the best report I can find on the cost of running older reactors gives Canadian nuke costs at 2.6 cents and US at 3.0.

http://www.egea.eu/congresses/wrc08/content/pages/congress/workshops/1/The%20Economics%20of%20Nuclear%20Power.pdf

For modern energy systems I avoid "studies" as they contain many assumptions and political bias's that aren't detailed.

I prefer actual construction costs, contract costs, or firm sales quotations.

The best example of a recent nuke costs applicable to Canada is a twin Candu 6 build in China finished in 2004. While labor is a small portion of nuclear costs, the cost of importing and shipping from Canada balances the lower labor cost.

http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx

With moderm O&M systems and the Candu's low fuel cost that $2B/Gw comes to less than 2 cents a kwh.

The new Westinghouse AP1000 is begin built in China for $1.2/Gw which is around 1.5 cents a kwh. Both AECL and Westinghouse are claiming 3 year builds at under $1B/Gw once orders get into the scores and factory production begins.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0

Recently AECL quoted OPG $2.3/Gw for two of their new 1.2 Gw ACR-1000 units and extended their bids to $26B to cover all costs including O&M and fuel for 60 years or 2 cents a kwh.

Insiders say this incredibly good deal was rejected because Harpo refused to cover continguencies. I believe it was because both Harpo and Dolton Mc Whinney are wholly owned by Big Oil and are under orders to shut down nuclear in Canada at all costs. MCWhinney is paying Samsung and other Big Oil operations between 13 and 19 cents a kwh for wind plant and is spending billions of taxpayers money building transmission line and NG burning GHG and radioactive radon spewing low efficiency gas plant to load balance them. He knows he's out in 2011 and needs to bank up some million dollar a year corporate directorships and consulting contracts.

Korea recently won a $40B all costs included on a 60 year contract for 5.6 Gw of nukes for the UAE. Works out to 1.35 cents a kwh.

Latest Chinese built Texas wind farm - 56 sq miles of concrete, roads and steel, $1.5 billion. 125 Mw(avg), excluding storage, transmission, plus millions annually for load balancing natural gas. $12B/Gw.

Check the news on Cape Wind - $2B producing a claimed but unlikely 180 Mw or $11B/Gw.

An Australian study has shown that replacing windmills and their associated fast spooling low efficiency load balancing gas plants with high efficiency slow spooling gas plant, actually produces less green house gases at a lower cost. Waste of time and treasure even building them.

While BCHydro can balance wind with dam dumps it is in practice very difficult to do without wasting a lot dam power output just in case the wind drops off too suddenly for the dam to pick up the slack.

dirty power

Instead we will we buying cheap 2 cent a kwh clean and green nuclear power from the US and Alberta and as a joke trying to sell Gordo's 12 cent a kwh not green at all hydro back at em.

New outrages from the Gordo.

New outrages from the Gordo.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Industry+pleased+with+power+export+outcome/2967934/story.html

Scott Simpson puts something like this out without comment? I guess he's be fired if he said what he thinks.

"...and Hydro’s industrial customers are promised an additional buffer with a new opportunity to lock in their electricity rates at fixed, long-term prices.."

Committed IPP projects double BC Hydro domestic expenditure by 2013 but the commercial and industrial customers that use 65% of its power will be protected with long term contracts

Simple math says UnoWho's power rates will have to triple to pay.

"..which means there is no compulsion upon Hydro to report how much it’s paying for new electricity supplies..."

While the Gordo's regime is no doubt the most ethically disabled in Canadian history this simply can't stand up to court challenge.

The Dam

The last thing we need is to flood good farmland so the Americans can have more power. We need to look after BC first. If we don't need the power then no one else does either. The last time we did a deal like this we had the Columbia project what a lousy deal that was. We flooded BC to make benefit for the State of Washington. They were assured lots of water that they used to irrigate the orchards and wipe out our own orchard industry.
Of course Gordo would make such a deal he could care less about agriculture in BC, well he could care less about anyone who isn't on his friends list for benefit. The last thing we need is a 7 billion dollar dam to make life better for Americans. The opposition would be wise to announce that if elected they would outright cancel the project without paying anyone beyond what work is done, and that will be the day after the Liberals leave office.

Takuan

A good read (if you can find it):
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5113229-canada-s-water
Canada's Water: For Sale?
by Richard C. Bocking

bless the VPL and all who toil therein

http://ipac2.vpl.ca/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=pac&menu=search&aspect=basic&index=.TW&term=canadas+water+for+sale&x=5&y=6&oper=and&aspect=basic&index=.VFMT

Real run of the river hydropower!

Over in Europe they have been busy converting old mill sites to real run of river.
In BC they have teraforming and huge things that are definitely NOT run of river.
I will put in a few links.
One is reverse archemedian screw and the other, I do not know what it is called. Hydrodynamic screw is the first one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bDxfsJPx0w
An Austrian guy got an award for his thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J87lzqMEnI
they might have subtitles or an english language version.
And my pulser pump (doesn't make electricity) is being researched in Queens University Ontario and in California.
http://www.appropedia.org/Pulser_pump
All 3 of these things could be considered run of river. I do not think that piping rivers through culverts can be defined as run of river.
Brian