BC's Billion-Dollar Wind Power Giveaway
We're heavily subsidizing private power developers. Will Californians profit big?
Public dollars gone with the wind.
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell recently had a tête-à-tête to discuss how B.C. could assist California in dealing with its energy crisis. At the same time, the California Utilities Commission gave Pacific Gas and Electric US$14 million to explore renewable energy sources in B.C. and the feasibility of a new transmission corridor stretching from B.C. to the Golden State.
Conspicuously absent from the self-congratulatory press releases about co-operation between the jurisdictions in pursuing a "green" agenda was the most important issue: Who will own -- and benefit from -- the development of B.C.'s renewable energy?
A closer look at the B.C. government's wind energy policies reveals an enormous giveaway of literally billions of dollars in wind farm assets and future public revenues to private power developers. Yet there has been virtually no public discussion of the scope and cost of the government's wind energy policies.
A clean breeze
Global warming has highlighted the need to develop new energy sources that do not release additional greenhouse gas emissions. For many environmentalists, a major part of the answer for solving B.C.'s future energy needs is clear: tap into the enormous amount of wind energy that is available along B.C.'s coast and in the high mountain ranges in the Interior.
B.C. is blessed with some of the best sites for wind farms in the world. Sea Breeze Power Corp., one of B.C.'s most prominent private sector promoters of private wind energy development, describes this province as "an ideal location for utility-scale wind farms."
Non-polluting, renewable wind energy avoids the serious drawbacks of conventional generation alternatives. Unlike fossil fuels, wind energy does not release greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike nuclear, it avoids the worrisome -- and as yet unsolved -- problems of decommissioning reactors and disposing of their spent radioactive fuel.
This is not to ignore the significant drawbacks associated with the impact of wind farm developments -- and their related roads and transmission corridors -- on wildlife, First Nations' traditional hunting and ceremonial grounds, tourism and community use of the land base.
For this reason, some locations that may potentially be able to generate considerable wind energy should not be developed because their negative impacts outweigh the energy benefits. However, others are not as intrusive and under the right regulatory and environmental framework may be developed in a way that ensures that their net benefits outweigh the social and environmental costs.
Increasingly, energy from wind farms, like energy from run-of-the-river hydro projects, can be certified as "green." This means it can command a higher price in jurisdictions -- such as certain U.S. states -- where customers wish to purchase this form of energy for environmental reasons or where state governments have mandated that a specific percentage of energy sold within their jurisdictions must be "green."
That's why many of the same private energy developers that have acquired water licences at bargain basement prices have recently been scrambling to acquire land tenures on the very best wind farm sites in B.C.
Friends helping friends
Just as it has subsidized small hydro projects across B.C., the provincial government has been helping its developer friends in the wind power business. While B.C. Hydro set up the first wind monitoring as early as 1981 and has accumulated a great deal of research on B.C.'s wind potential, the government's Energy Plan prevents our public utility from developing this resource.
Instead, the government has decided that private interests will build -- and own -- all of B.C.'s future wind farms. And to help them do so, it has been giving them land tenures on vast tracts of Crown land for next to nothing.
The government has further sweetened this arrangement by helping private interests raise the capital to build their projects. It has done so by getting B.C. Hydro to purchase their energy at premium prices through long term contracts that guarantee developers a public revenue stream of 15 to 40 years.
But when these generous contracts expire, B.C. ratepayers will have no wind farm assets, no price protection and no guarantee that this renewable energy will be used to supply the province's future needs.
Given that many of the companies now involved in such projects are U.S.-owned or have significant U.S. financing, the government's policies are transferring ownership and control of the very best of our future renewable energy assets to foreign investors, with little or no benefit to B.C. citizens.
This approach contrasts sharply with Saskatchewan, for example, where SaskPower, the province's Crown utility, is the owner and operator of the largest wind farms in the province. Instead, the B.C. government has opted to have wind energy developed exclusively by private interests, just as it has reserved the construction of small hydro projects to private power developers.
A helping hand to developers
Wind energy remains much more expensive than most other options at this time. Consequently, private energy developers have been placing considerable pressure on the B.C. government to subsidize wind farm projects, arguing that this is a way to stimulate economic development and jobs in this emerging energy sector.
Under the guise of promoting "green energy," wind farm developers have been energetically lobbying the government for a variety of subsidies, including:
- Virtually free access to the best sites in B.C.
- Generous energy supply contracts from B.C. Hydro (including tenders specifically targeted at wind energy independent of its cost)
- Assistance with fast-tracking environmental and other land use approvals
- Subsidized access to the transmission grid
- Access to energy storage in B.C. Hydro's reservoirs
The government has given them most of what they have requested.
Perhaps the most significant policy has been the ban on B.C. Hydro developing, owning and operating its own wind farms. The government's Energy Plan has effectively cleared the field of any potential public ownership in this area.
Yet while B.C. Hydro cannot benefit from developing its own wind energy projects, the government has directed it and, more recently, the B.C. Transmission Corporation to continue to fund research on the most promising wind farm locations, examine their transmission requirements and assess what other related technology and infrastructure will be required to facilitate the development of new wind farms.
Land, lots of land
To be viable, wind farms require access to Crown land -- large amounts of land. The scope of the land give-away is staggering. Literally hundreds of thousands of hectares of the best wind farm sites have already been assigned to private developers. Yet because most of this land is in remote locations, the average British Columbian has no idea of the extent of the land giveaway.
As with the sale of water licences for run-of-the-river hydro projects, the province has been treating Crown lands suitable for wind farms as virtually a "free good." The government's position is that private investment is the key to the development of the province's wind resources.
To do this it is giving investors access to the best sites in the province on the basis of 30-year licences of occupation. This arrangement effectively gives developers virtually all the rights of private property. Once their power plants are up and running, developers can be expected to demand either a permanent right of occupation, or fee simple ownership to secure their assets.
Wind energy is still more expensive than other alternatives and the government believes that it has to keep costs down for the proponents if it is going to be able to stimulate the growth of this sector. This means charging very low land occupancy fees and minimizing other related development charges.
Under a policy announced in 2005, the government will not charge any "participation rents" (i.e., rents for use of Crown land) for the first 10 years that a wind farm is in commercial operation. After that, the rental will be variable, ranging from one per cent to three per cent of the wind farm's gross annual revenues.
Although this rental arrangement for the most promising wind farm locations may suit the private developers of these farms, it is not clear how it squares with the interests of the public.
While wind farm energy is still expensive, its relative price in relation to other energy may eventually drop, giving the owners of these highly subsidized wind farms significant windfall profits -- profits that the government intends to remain in the hands of the private developers.
To further encourage the development of wind farms, the government has also encouraged B.C. Hydro to adopt a "diversified" energy portfolio. This means that even if wind energy is more expensive than other alternatives, B.C. Hydro will try to reserve a block of energy in its future "calls" specifically for wind farms.
Few ownership restrictions
As with water licences for small hydro projects, there are few ownership restrictions on wind power developers. The prospective investor must be a Canadian citizen or resident in B.C. for 10 years, or be a B.C.-registered company.
Given that any Canadian, or foreign, investor willing to pay the $350 fee can obtain registration as a B.C. company, there is no effective restriction on foreign ownership of wind farms. Not surprisingly, U.S. investors are now putting money into B.C.'s wind farm projects.
Foreign ownership of wind farms -- and particularly ownership by NAFTA-based investors -- raises important public policy issues that have not been widely discussed in B.C.
One of the most important issues, in addition to the question of ownership, is energy self-sufficiency. Restrictions on private wind power exports may be very difficult to impose, regardless of B.C.'s own needs.
Yet instead of taking steps to secure B.C.'s future energy supplies, recent government policy changes, such as Bill 40 -- which abolished the requirement for an energy removal certificate -- have done the opposite, by opening our transmission grid to private energy exports.
Additionally, the unfettered right to export will also enable private developers to demand California prices if B.C. customers want their energy.
An ill wind
The possibility that B.C.'s renewable energy may be headed south is no longer a theoretical issue. New legislation in California requires utilities to increase the share of renewables in the energy they sell. Consequently, they are very interested in locating new supplies of "green" energy to meet their obligations.
The California Public Utilities Commission recently authorized the payment of up to US$14 million to the Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation (PG&E) for the purpose of studying the feasibility of acquiring wind and other renewable energy from British Columbia and the related costs of a new transmission system for the purpose of moving this energy to California.
Given the B.C. government's obsession with promoting private power generation, the interest of PG&E in a new transmission corridor along the coast is perfectly understandable.
Such a corridor could, perhaps, start as far north as Kitimat, then run down Vancouver Island, proceeding south to California. It could result in virtually all of B.C.'s coastal renewable energy, including energy from small hydro projects, being committed to satisfy the power-hungry demands of California.
Couple this with foreign ownership of these projects -- and all their profits -- protected by NAFTA rights, and we may witness one of the biggest energy giveaways in Canada's history.
Premier Campbell may feel he can successfully arm wrestle "Terminator" Schwarzenegger and get a good deal for B.C.'s renewable energy. But you don't need to watch the movie to know in advance who is likely to win this match.
Related Tyee stories:
- BC Hydro's Amazingly Bad Deal for Ratepayers
We give big firms $15 billion. We get higher prices, no assets, no guarantee of supply. - The Politics of Wind
Wind power is in vogue, but is B.C. failing to set sail? - Huge 'Green' Boondoggle?
Critics claim $300 million will be wasted on BC 'clean energy' project.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Gary
14-05-2007
By the People
Governments in Canada are elected by the people. Not big business or the USA.
I think its time we looked at ways to oust this government. Any suggestions?
The people of this province have the right to pay reduced rates for their water and energy. Not to subsidize corporations first by higher taxes then by higher energy rates. This is not serving the people of this Province (nor this country for that matter) best interest. So I would say the public should have no confidence in this government.
mopled
14-05-2007
Quote:The people of this
Sorry, but ever since the FTA, that is not so.
Given that the whole Global Warming thing is a scam anyway, why is anyone surprised by the chicanery around energy. For those consesus thinkers out there who haven't yet figured out that CO2 is not only the basis of life, it is a minute part of the atmosphere and and the human contribution to it is itself miniscule. Water vapour is THE greenhouse gas and was never accounted for in the climate models.
Please watch:Global Warming: A look behind the curtain, a critical analysis of the science.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4685639012310643460
mopled
14-05-2007
It's all about a new market
The Governator is making deals with everybody.
From the Sacramento Bee:
Nunez and some environmentalists believe the deals are promotional for the governor. Schwarzenegger's agreement with the United Kingdom last year led to two major photo opportunities with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His office sent out photos of his Victoria signing with Australian, American and California flags in the backdrop. Deep within the Victoria agreement was the disclaimer that it "is not intended to create any legally binding rights or obligations."
skeptikool
14-05-2007
Label it green, then sock it to 'em!
You can cut the stench with a knife.
Ontario's largest electricity supplier has just completed a deal that has the contractor win a twenty-year agreement to sell photovoltaic- produced power at a seven-times higher rate.
Guess who's laughing all the way to the bank.
At least, those Ontario bumpkins, may claim to have had a nuclear gun held to the head. Following any sweetheart deals, what will our excuses be? And what sort of bumpkins will we be seen as?
shabbaranks
14-05-2007
Benefit?
Won't we, and by WE, I mean the citizens of the Earth all benefit due to the development of renewable energy? We are at a crisis here, if all the daily reports on global warming are to be believed - and I think most of us sane and rational people believe them - so now is not the time to be bickering over who will make money off of this. There is no wind power in BC right now, but we have an incredible resource for it. California does not have the same resource that we do. Let's get the damn things up and start phasing out coal, gas and nuclear. Sorry, John - I sympathise with the socialist plight you're setting out, but we have to get our priorities straight. The WORLD is burning up - and the WORLD has to respond to this problem. Borders shouldn't make a lick of difference if we are to cope with this impending disaster.
Cycling Commuter
14-05-2007
Local investment would be nice, but foreign better than nothing.
30-year licences of occupation
A 30-year license is definitely better than offering outright ownership of the land or 999 year leases. Governments should try to limit land/resource contract lengths to within the average remaining lifetimes of current voters and let the next generation decide for themselves what to do with their resources.
It would be nice if the Ontario Teachers Union invested some of their $100 Billion pension fund in clean energy generation north of the border instead of using it to buy mercury-spewing coal power stations south of the border. Better yet if the B.C. Teachers Federation invested their fat pension funds in local clean energy generation. But if the union bosses prefer to always invest their trillion dollar pension funds where it will make the most profit instead of investing where it will do the most good, I'm prepared to accept investments from elsewhere to get the clean energy ball rolling.
That's speculation, and it sounds fairly unlikely. Developers won't be in a very good bargaining position after the wind farms have been built!
Another thing to keep in mind is that photovoltiac electricity is usually more expensive than large-scale wind power at the moment, but the cost of photovoltiacs has been dropping fast. See http://www.powertripenergy.com/pvhistimages/pvpricegraph.jpg and http://www.powertripenergy.com/pv_hist.htm Multibillionaire founders of google.com and ebay.com have invested in a company that expects to get the price of photovoltiacs down to the point of being competitive with natural gas within a few years.
30 years from now, it's quite likely that a large photovoltiac panel on every building rooftop and localized compressed-air energy storage (see http://www.ewi.uni-koeln.de/ewi/content/e266/e283/e3047/EWECPaperFinal2004_ger.pdf) will produce extremely reliable electricity at less cost than either large wind turbines or hydro, and without the expense of building/maintaining long-distance transmission lines. If that happens, some wind turbines and hydro dams may be decommissioned after they have paid for themselves.
In the meantime, as long as wind power is displacing coal or nuclear power anywhere in the world, we all come out ahead. Mercury pollution and radioactive pollution don't respect political borders. Thousands of people in Sweden are dying of cancer as a result of radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Mercury emissions from Chinese coal-burning power plants are being carried over to formerly pristine Arctic areas through various means, including the droppings of migratory birds.
mopled
14-05-2007
PULEEZE look at the fraud
That is just the problem. Most of us need only hear or see something 3-5 times and we believe it. We have been subjected to a media blitz the likes of which have never been seen before. We are also told that those who decry the corruption of science on such a large scale are being paid by the Petroleum Industry when in actuality most of those speaking out do so at great risk to their livlihoods... which is why most are Prof.s Emeritus.
Here's criticism from the Left for a change.
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070514&s=cockburn
kootenay
14-05-2007
Let's not get into Global warming
for the time being. Let's not forget the central theme of this article. This government is giving away our public resources to foreign ownership.
In 20 or 30 years our power resources will be foreign owned and they will have no obligation to sell the power to BC. When their contracts expire, they will have the right to sell 'their' power any place they like.
In the end, we will be held hostage to buy our own power at exorbitant rates. When Campbell is finished, we the people of this resource rich province will have to bow down to multinational corporations and pay through the teeth for what is rightfully ours. A traitor indeed!
Chris Bouris
14-05-2007
Money is "green" - while environment bleeds red
If there ever was a sitting duck post it would be yours, Shabbaranks.
The world is "burning up", and being "eaten up" - and the biggest carnivore is knocking at our door, due south.
You clearly lack an understanding of International trade agreements and their implications (NAFTA) to the citizens of BC (and Canada), and tax laws as they apply (or exempt) multinational interests.
Once an international interest gets its foot in the door, it can – and will – do whatever it feels necessary to maximise – including sue owr own government (they have and have won) – for “potential” lost revenue is you try to restrict them in contradiction of NAFTA.
Only when a citizenry has democratic control over, and full legal clout upon the actions of industry upon the local, immediate environment - and only with public power production that the citizenry actually owns (as in the example of Sask Power) - can a citizenry have a sustainable local environment, and by extension, partner with other countries a sustainable world.
In public power - we are all the shareholders. With private power we are perpetual renters. We have 6 cent kilowatt power today because the citizenry owns the dams. What do you think it’s going to do to your and the citizens of BC’s hydro bill when we start paying between 50 and 80 cents per kilowatt power – guaranteed to the producers – and continue to be renters for that matter.
Private industry does whatever minimum it needs to do to get through the environmental “hoops” (which industry views as impediments) and generate revenue.
For power projects producing fewer than 50 Megawatts of power, the Independent Power Producers (IPP’s), have an easier, less stringent environmental assessment process. Guess who’s coming with projects at 49.7 and 49.4 Megawatts? Do you think that it couldn’t have been built it any bigger?
Projects under 10 Megawatts and the environmental standards are far less. It’s practically a walk through.
Worst of all - have a look at what is happening to our BC rivers in the so-called “run of river” projects. There are literally hundreds of water licenses , all over BC, being practically given away as John Calvert describes. All “run of river” require a dam or a weir – some dams begin to rival some of BC Hydro’s smaller dams. This is not pretty "little propeller operations" turning gently in our rivers. The environmental impacts are massive. And what do you think is happening to the salmon when they reduce flow rates to salmon channels and divert water high water flows to feed the turbines?
“Green”? - It’s the colour of the citizens of BC’s money flying out the door.
And our BC environment bleeding red all the while.
Cycling Commuter
14-05-2007
Overly cheap water and energy causes waste, pollution.
The people of this province have the right to pay reduced rates for their water and energy.
The trouble with making things too cheap is that you wind up with inefficiency and waste. Also, there's the matter of externalized costs such as health and environmental impacts when people waste underpriced resources. In addition, as long as we import things such as sophisticated medical equipment and supplies that can't be produced locally, we need to export something to pay for what we import.
I used to know someone who obtained "free" air conditioning in the summer by leaving his bathroom door open and letting a cold shower run full blast all day long with no one in it. When I mentioned this to a municipal water engineer, he almost broke down and cried over the waste of such a valuable resource. He said the cost to taxpayers from that sort of thing is massive. This type of waste is inevitable when resources are sold at a flat rate and/or at far below true value.
It would be ok to price water and energy at below market rates if every BC resident was given a fixed ration at the cost of production and permitted to auction off any excess at whatever price they can get, either directly or by proxy. This would give people the motivation to be frugal with their water and energy usage while still providing everyone with the basics at low cost.
Frugal people could use the income generated by auctioning-off their excess resources to buy greywater recycling systems, rainwater storage/filtration systems, extra insulation, drainwater heat recovery systems such as the one at http://www.renewability.com/dhrt.htm, solar/geothermal heating systems, photovoltaic panels, etc. This would reduce their consumption even more, leaving more of their ration to auction-off. After repeatedly re-investing their auction profits in household water/energy conservation and on-the-spot production/storage equipment, they would eventually wind up with a solid revenue stream (a form of guaranteed annual income) from auctioning-off the majority of their ration to lazy, wasteful pig neighbors, industries, etc. at full market value. In effect, wasteful pigs will be voluntarily providing a guaranteed annual income to their frugal neighbors instead of being forced to do so through taxes. This is a politically and ethically palatable way of providing a guaranteed annual income.
The same concept could be applied to deal with traffic congestion. All residents get a basic free space/time ration on the roads and bridges. Those who carpool or work close to home can make some bucks by auctioning-off their excess road ration to single-occupant Hummer H2 drivers who commute over long distances.
Software to automatically handle similar online auctions is already available. I use it all the time.
alive
14-05-2007
Gordonator
We already learned that the ground beneath our properties does not belong to us, but can be "owned" by any speculator with a few dollar and a shovel.
So why be surprised if the air above us now is a commodity?
Windfarms are actually quite a good thing, that has been on hold for many years;
in Denmark they are already on their second generation windmills by now, the first ones deemed too small and ineffective.
What is wrong is these give-aways we experience on every level.
Indeed time to man the barricades while we still have the right walk on the ground!
RickW
14-05-2007
Is Green Green....?
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/02/the-story-you-didnt-read-mexicos-tortilla-riots/
If windpower is developed in BC and shipped to California, will there be some sort of caveat atrtached to any and all agreements requiring Californians to cut their consumption levels?
Or will the shipping of windpower, like the diversion of corn for ethanol, affect the price to BC users, as it did to corn consumers in Mexico.....?
doggone
14-05-2007
air conditioning - the other hand
Cycling Commuter:
I like the airco solution you mentioned. And if your apartment gets too cold you turn the oven to "broil" and leave the door open.
To date most of the human population has proved that they are innovative, selfish and wastefull.Myself included. Given cheap power and water the B.C. citizen is no more "environmentally concious" than any other inhabitant of the planet. In fact because we have so many charge cards we litter our yards with cheap toys "made in China" and every one drives about chatting on the cellphone.
This too shall pass.
But the news that the Haida are dealing with the "Big Boys" to build wind power farms and microwave the power to the grid has me worried: some of my best friends are Haida
panamajack
14-05-2007
Dilemma of cheap power
I hate to say it, but this situation was born out of a decade of under-investment by the NDP government in a future oriented electricity system. Enter the neo-Liberal government, and this has provided the perfect excuse to punish BC Hydro and reward private IPP backers through the outright ban of the public utility to create new generating capacity.
Personally, I don't object ideologically (intially anyways) against IPP's, we just need a government who -- through an empowered BCUC -- ensures that this private investment results in a net benefit to the public. The sad fact is that our hydro system already provides us with the 3rd cheapest juice on the continent, providing little incentive to produce more expensive wind power.
These power purchase agreements, however, like the BC Rail deal, are an afront to democracy and our publicly held assets.
steveleenow
14-05-2007
great article...
Some people say we have little incentive to produce more expensive wind power - well if California wants to buy it, isn't that incentive enough? An investment that has a ROI? It would appear that if developed properly and kept within the public domain, you could raise enough money to eventually pay off BC's debt and be in a situation that Alberta is in (thanks to another energy source of sorts - Oil) - debt free and able to make direct investments into the programs of their choice.
And I don't think you can blame this problem on the previous NDP government. Remember that Ottawa in the 1990s under the Federal Liberals dramatically cut funding to the provinces to the tunes of billions. Everyone had to tighten the belt and energy problems and the environment just weren't an issue then.
skumeek
14-05-2007
I went to a wind farm
I went to a wind farm presentation in Chetwynd a couple of years ago.From what I understand our government developed the wind farm projects and then signed them over to private companys. so time frame wise, the development of the wind farm proto types were probally NDP. and being NDP needed to be gotten rid of by the new government.The wind farms are impressive, seems like we have compressed air coming off the Rockies that has more engery the the wind off the ocean.But it needs to be ours
dave49
14-05-2007
Lots of hot air, but power?
According to an expert in venture capital and green technologies I talked to, BC is not one of the best places in the world for wind power. Pardon the pun, but that is puffery. Too many mountains. Yes, there are some good sights, but distant and isolated so transmission is very expensive (again, all those mountains that make us Super, Natural). This person claimed we should be looking at wave and tidal, something BC Hydro has adamantly ignored over the years because for many years they were a large civil engineering company that built hydroelectric dams and the related transmission infrastructure.
I'm convinced Gordo & Co. would have sold off BC Hydro if they could have got away with it. The room of pollsters sitting in front of telephones they inherited when they took office discovered the electorate would grind them into little pieces at the polls and hold their party in disdain for decades if they did so. So, they concocted this contract with a foreign-based consulting company to handle about 30% of BCH's activity. That salves some of the ideological wound of public power.
It's common to use more expensive power for short periods to meet peak demand, but beyond a weird industrial/economic development policy, I don't understand why Gordo & Co. are willing to pay such a premium.
Finally, keeping BC Hydro out of alternative and green power production does create opportunities for the private sector. However, does it have anything to do with the deeply-entrenched organizational culture still dominated by old-time engineers?
zalm
14-05-2007
Help me out here... part I
How is providing wind energy when nobody else has been willing to step into the breach a violation of the public trust? Surely no matter who builds it, it's a win-win for us?
If California can afford to pay more for power (as they can right now) then they will, regardless of whether it's wind-generated or hydro-generated. Mulroo already sold us into the private market with NAFTA and we're not getting out of it, not with all the complaints in the world. So let's come up with constructive solutions.
California won't always be able to afford such high prices for power. As the American economy stretches thinner and thinner, eventually its purchasing power will decline, and eventually, others, including BC residents, will be able to pay more for power than they will. Oh, rue the day!
There is no greater waste of a resource than that provided by a low price. GAs should be $15 a litre and electric power should be $0.25 per kwh, and more for industrial/institutional users to cover the additional cost of their strain on the distribution system. If there are poor who cannot afford such necessities, then they should be provided with tax relief including funds flowing from negative income tax if necessary, and that's something to bug this government about. But demanding cheap power simply because we've always had it is ludicrous.
zalm
14-05-2007
Help me out here....part II
In less than 30 years, the oldest of our major dams on the Columbia will begin to silt up beyond usefulness, and within a hundred years, all our dams on all rivers will. What will we do then? We'll have to embark on major remediation projects to reclaim our hydro-power resources, and judging on the complete lack of maintenance going on in these areas right now, we're going to need dozens of years and billions of dollars to do that.
Power supply is a dynamic market full of complexity and piecemeal engineering solutions. There's no one way to guarantee our energy security for all time. I've tried to interest BC corporations in wind power on the north coast of the Island for a dozen years, and I've not had any success. Not even with Hydro, and that was when I worked for them for a year.
So now we're going to castigate American corporations for taking advantage of this opportunity when our own corporations wouldn't? When Hydro itself wouldn't? Hell, Hydro always pretended to want to buy power from you, the private producer, as long as you first purchased and installed the 15,200-volt transformer and switch station at a cost of tens of millions of dollars to feed your power back into the grid. If that's not wilful obstruction, I don't know what is.
And I don't agree with Calvert's suggestion that private corporations will want to demand fee simple ownership of the land their wind farms stand on to secure their assets. I need more than just say-so - please show me the mechanism by which this happens. There are dozens of mines, lumber camps and fishing lodges up and down the coast on leased land with no possibility of ownership.
It's that land-ownership issue that must have a wary eye cast on it. If there is ever any application by the Fiberals to change the right of land ownership in the province to one based on highest use, then it's time for a revolution. But until then, just keep your powder dry.
Oh...and don't forget to file for mining claims on the properties leased by the wind farms. Put those buggers on edge for once, instead of them doing it to us all the time.....
freebear
15-05-2007
How Likely Is That?
A previous poster noted:
"And I don't agree with Calvert's suggestion that private corporations will want to demand fee simple ownership of the land their wind farms stand on to secure their assets. I need more than just say-so - please show me the mechanism by which this happens. There are dozens of mines, lumber camps and fishing lodges up and down the coast on leased land with no possibility of ownership."
I would also add that I think First Nations' will have something to say about fee simple for wind farms!
Fiat lux
15-05-2007
I always find it a bad,
I always find it a bad, cruel joke, when governments are making hysterical propaganda and spend billions on "defence", then turn around and give their countries and peoples away to the worst carpetbagger, corporate mafia in human history.
All in the name of, "freedom", "free enterprise", "the free movement of imaginary capital" and "wealth creation".
Then, on top of it, are calling themselves "conservative".
Ed Deak.
mopled
15-05-2007
Energy probe
Energy Probe helped crank up the debate in November when it issued a report that said wind turbines are much less reliable than expected. Data collected from three wind farms near Lake Huron during the summer and fall showed the turbines produced only 22.3 per cent of their potential capacity for electricity generation. Another problem: The wind often died in mid-morning when customer demand was gearing up.Mr. Adams concedes that other data he has seen since that report was completed – from other wind projects across the country – show some wind farms have much higher energy production than those in his study. Still, he said, the output of even the most productive wind farms is never at the level forecast before the projects begin.
The concern over the consistency of wind energy has prompted the Alberta government to put a temporary cap on that province's wind power production. The province doesn't want more than 900 MW of wind – it now has close to 400 MW – because its unreliability could destabilize the power grid at higher levels.
Now that makes me wonder about the BC/California deal. Maybe we should be worrying about the clean-up costs after the 30 year lease period is over. Who knows what new and better energy source could come along in 30 years.
mopled
15-05-2007
quote mix-up
What I said got the quote treament instead of the bit from this:
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=16976
Chris Bouris
15-05-2007
Carole James
I couldn't agree more.
How clever sounding.
Carole who? - Carole James - the NDP Party Leader who's party is not jumping into the same MLA pay trough with the BC Liberals.
Now, you weren't actually expecting any positive sounding words about the NDP Leader from any Can-West news outlet were you?
The only time you'll "hear” - anything - about Carole James the NDP is if they screw up somehow, or, say, someone from their party was to have a deck built by their neighbour. If it isn't NDP bad news, it won't get into private media print, TV, or radio. At all.
As for the subject of this article - energy giveaways - there have been links supplied by other posters, for events of standing room only public forums - facilitated By BC NDP MLA's John Horgan, and Shane Simpson (environment critic) - raising public awareness on this very issue of energy giveaways by the BC Liberals.
I'm posting the links to one relevant event video archive, originally posted in the April 26th Tyee article Huge Green Boondoggle by poster “SaveOurRivers” in the format that they posted it:
For this particular presentation below, please pick an appropriate link that works for your setup:
For "Windows" viewers using "Internet Explorer" (multi-bandwidth supported):
Click Here to play
For "Windows" viewers using "Firefox" (requires "Real Media Player" or "Real alternative" v1.51 player..google it. Real Alternative is for Windows only).
(multi-bandwidth supported):
Click Here to play
For "Windows" viewers using "Firefox", that also have "QuickTime" loaded (broadband only):
Click Here to play
For "Mac" viewers running "OS X" (this presentation can can *only* be viewed via "Firefox" browser for Mac OS X. "Safari" browser is not supported).
(broadband only):
Click Here to play
For "Mac" viewers running "OS X", and "Linux" users and are on dialup modems or broadband..
(can *only* be viewed via "Firefox" browser for Mac OS X. "Safari" browser is not supported. Requires "Real Media Player" for Mac OS X to get dialup modem support):
Click Here to play