I enjoy your articulate arguments but I must bring attention to your use of the word 'cheaper.' While much of research seems accurate, I believe that the sustainable energy options you advocate are actually very small (we will need 50+ projects to sustain the Island's needs) unreliable (ie wind) and costly to the rate payers pockets. Can you please address those arguments?

I’m not suggesting that all alternative energy solutions are both cleaner and cheaper than Hydro’s gas-fired project. Some are cleaner, some are cheaper, and some are both. It’s true that right now, small-scale solar and wind energy is more expensive than coal, hydro or gas-fired power. But other energy options are much cheaper, cleaner and more sustainable than Hydro’s proposed plant. Demand-management, energy efficiency and cogeneration are cost-effective and proven ways of getting more out of existing generation capacity. The BC Utility Commission ruled against the Duke Point proposal precisely because it is not the most cost-effective way of generating new power on Vancouver Island. Lurking behind this is another issue. The cost of non-polluting and sustainable energy sources – traditional sustainable ‘alternative energy’ – has been impacted by cheap fossil fuels, whose cost is kept low by direct subsidies plus the willingness of governments to allow the price to be set by the buyers in an open market. Since Brian Mulroney reinvented the National Energy Board as a mechanism for continentalising energy supply, the notion of preserving at least some of Canada’s dwindling energy reserves for an energy-poor future has been forgotten. As a result, clean, sustainable energy such as solar and wind have had to compete in an energy market dominated by cheap, fossil fuel-based electricity. The economies of scale needed to bring down the price particularly of photovoltaics have not been available, effectively cutting out this choice for the ratepayer. And far from being insignificant, clean sustainable energy has a huge potential. It has been estimated that around 1,000 MW of tidal power opportunities exist on BC’s coast, as well as hundreds of megawatts of wind power. And even more energy that could be made available if every rooftop in BC had a solar water heater and an photovoltaic electrical panel. We wouldn’t need coal or gas power plants. It all comes down to energy policy. Unfortunately, this government is firmly wedded to the joy of burning fossil fuels, despite the growing warnings of global warming. Hydro’s bull-headed defence of its costly and polluting gas plant is a good indication that BC’s mindless and destructive energy policy is not about to change. Stuart Hertzog

There only a few opportunities for co-generation on Vancouver Island. Usually co-gen goes hand in hand with large industrial sites, like Fort McMurray and Sarnia. Its misleading to say co-gen is viable to meet demand for Vancouver Island. Demand side management pays people to shut down their operations. This has an impact on employment. Do you want this?

Co-generation is no longer just for large operations. Recent developments in small gas turbine technology have opened the possibility of efficiency improvements via cogeneration for any medium-size heating plant, such as at universities, highrise buildings, schools, and hospitals. There are many such opportunities on Vancouver Island. And Demand-side management programs don’t just mean shutting down production. It offers a host of possibilities, from load-shifting to Power Smart. So I don’t buy the argument that energy efficiency reduces employment. In fact, by creating a demand for technology and services, it increases economic activity and creates new employment.

You are talking 5 MW co-gen plants. We will need 50 of those just to meet a few short years of new demand on Vancouver Island. That new small gas turbine technology better be real efficient to over come the cost of stringing all those wide-spread plants together. Who should provide capital for the new technologies? Is BC Hydro now a bank at the rate payers expense? Sure it's easy to say that demand side management is a good idea but it won't be the companies that will want to pay for it! So now we are going to pay to upgrade industry on Vancouver Island at the expense of health care?

Small cogeneration units are available in many sizes, from small to large. It’s not a matter of “stringing them together,” they simply supply power to the local network, reducing that institution’s electricity demand from the grid and making more energy available to others. The capital for purchasing these will come from the owners of the power plant putting together a business plan to take to a bank or wherever, the justification being a return on the investment through long-term cost savings. It ain’t rocket science, just good business sense. So we won’t have to “pay to upgrade industry on Vancouver Island at the expense of health care,” as you suggest.

I hope what you are saying is true. If it is so easy to financially justify, we won't need to ask BCHydro/government to finance these type of operations, the private financial industry will already see your "rocket science, just good business" argument." But since they aren't, I think you are glossing over a lot of real issues. There are real costs to many plants as opposed to one or two. And reality has it that there just isn't enough of those type of co-gen opportunities to make it worth while. And while burning hydrocarbons comes with an environmental cost so does hydro electric power (dams etc.), wind power and others. Sorry no sale on your arguments here.

Thanks for your feedback. I enjoyed our discussion.

I am very grateful for your insights, and for your grasp of the big, longer-term picture. Are you able to enlighten us about another related aspect -- the desire of some of these new so-called "green" energy proposals that wish to burn something called "biomass" in their power plants. I'm concerned this might be a catch-all phrase that hides very frightening things that would damage the health of local residents, things like medical waste, old tires, industrial waste, etc. Thanks.

Years ago the Mid-Island Coalition on Energy did a survey of year-round water sources capable of generating dependable energy. None of these projects would have required massive dam construction. There is no need for this huge and expensive dinosaur, it's just another way for the trough swillers to funnel tax money into the pockets of private industry. What that pack of Phillistines is doing to B.C. Hydro is going to cost the tax payers dearly. What they have already done to the natural gas sector ought to be deemed criminal. Anything which brings IN money winds up in the hands (and pockets) of their butt buddies, anything which costs money is still the responsibility of the tax payer. We have been colonized by american controlled imperialist corporations and the incursions continue. Norske-Skog is already burning old tires, creosote soaked railway ties, and now want to burn coal. Next it will be the garbage produced by our cities. Almost anything will burn, and recycling will be deemed too expensive if the plastics, etc., can be used as "biomass" and burned.

Re an above comment "Is BC Hydro now a bank at the rate payers expense?" We keep hearing from the far right wing ideologues via the media that governments cannot go it alone without the help of the private sector involvement ie)P3 projects? in high cost items such as power development and road upgrades. I for one of have never seen any INDEPTH 'for and against' studies on these proposals. My understanding is that the B.C. Government including B.C. Hydro can borrow money at a cheaper rate or the the same rate as the private sector for such projects, so what is the advantage here of going private? As shareholders in B.C. Hydro, we the people of B.C. have done quite well over the years, and I have seen no logical reasoning why that cannot continue.