Getting with the program LOL

I agree with you 300%, Tired. I can't for the life of me see what good all that oil is doing if we just leave it in the ground, since it's really big money.

Same too with all that water running uselessly to the sea. We should put in as many dams as we can, generate hydro and where we can, divert water to the US who will pay us big bucks for it.

We know that the world demand for salmon is increasing and with that the price. We should recognise that wild salmon are doomed anyway and expand fish farming bigtime. Lotsa money there, too.

And since the lumber market is hooped because our wages are too high, we should cut our forests as fast as we can while we can still sell them. The Province could also make millions selling the land to developers.

There are all kinds of opportunities out there Tired, and in no time at all we could all be rich. Just think about it - no more taxes, since all our services would be paid for. No more homeless, no more doctor and emerg waiting times !!

Lets stop wasting all those unused resources and let's all get rich - just like the Albertans.

Oh my, Tired - and they've got so many people believing all this BS.

The mysteries of the grid....

The deal between BC to resell Alberta power is typical of the complex market relationships in the continental power supply, which is one of those self-constituted organisms that has its own agenda, even above that of the governments. Like we used to joke about the phone company...differential rates, balance sheets on who "sent" and "received" power (it doesn't actually "travel", it's more like a standing potential in the lines, which you feed into to "send" and tap to "receive". We buy power from California, they buy it from us. It's kind of like Forex, only worse and way too arcane to try to explain easily any further....

Point is that "conservation" ultimately is conceptual, like our discussions elsewhere about metropolitanization/urbanization of rural/tradditional communities re development planning is all about cnetralization. Same here, centralized power. Years ago, as I know I've said here somewhere before, Colorado had a law where the grid [i[had[/i] to buy power if you had a surplus; it caused a boom in home-power generation systems, and a lot of people got off the grid, indeed became part of the grid actually; somewhere along the way the small household sellers were shut out, so I've heard, but for a while the realization that a house can cut its power needs simply by design efficiencies, not all of them expensive, or "novel" (but ancient) technologies like heat exchangers and ground piping and methane-conversion...Linkopping, Sweden (with the umlaut on the 'o') was the subject of a documentary about how the whole town ran on burned garbage; including fuel for cars....a big city, as big as Vancouver....

part 2 '

One reality is that the boom in North American power demand is only about domestic use because of a parallel push of energy-consuming technologies, one of which all of us are sitting in front of right now....but most power generated continues to be for industrial production, particularly aircraft plants and the like, which is of course as Eisenhower explained is the reality of the US economy; it IS the military-industrial complex, and vice-versa. We/the NDP sold out on the downstream rights on the Columbia, and so made power for homegrown technologies and undertakings. Not that I'm a nationalist or anything, I'm just concerned as to what the power is for. We're sold on it being population growth; in reality it's consumerism/produdctoin growth. And all that damned real estate takes a lot of energy to build, as well as to maintain and live in....

Speaking of nationalism, I suppose it was thte FTA that ditched the old foreign ownership laws brought in under Trudeau that raised so much ruckus. Or did they work at all?

The federal Liberals are going to be no help on this; there's all that snakey deal-making that went on in the leadership campaign, as well as the Martin legacy in the Campbell camp. They'll be no more vocal about this than daring to say anything about Ledgegate (have any even NDP politicians said much, I wonder?).

Accenture drives the car, we pay the maintenance and supply the road and gas.....

centralization; summary

What I'm bascially meaning is that the module of power creation/distribution is what's wrong; ordinary conservation may provide 10%, more drastic redesign could make more. Same idea with de-automobilizing North Ameican society as a way to not only cut reliance/vulernability to oil/oil prices but also to not lay out communities based around them, which also have larger energy needs (thte grid loses power by length). Producing power on-site, by whatever means, is always a lot more efficient than "shipping" it hundreds of miles across the liens. Again, "across" isn't quite the right paradigm in pure theoretical terms but it's the prevailing metaphor. thing is the lines have a lot of resistance; by the time Peace River Power reaches the Lower Mainland, it's only 10% of what it was at generation; funny stuff caleld "Resistance".

Be thankful. Nikola Tesla wanted to transmit the stuff through the air...and somme of y'all are worried about cellphone magnetic and powerline magnetic fields - hah! Even more fun, pumping it into the earth itself to "distribute it globally".

A lot of damn fine rivers are gonna get screwed up from this; and we screeed up some damned nice valleys already (Bridge, Stave, Cheakamus, Columbia, and more).

Centarlized power production to distributed consumers is the problem; it's THAT that needs to be redesigned and rethought. Like they did in Linkopping, or on-site geothermal like the buildiing on 4th and another one lately near Willingdon on Hastings; at Madison I think.

If we'd stop either the oil,

If we'd stop either the oil, or any other energy exports, we'd be invaded and occupied with our generals ordering out the welcoming brassbands and getting their US uniforms out of the closets.

Under NAFTA and WTO rules nothing can be stopped until the last drop.

But NAFTA can be cut off in 6 months. This is why we now have the secret SPP and NAU talks, permanently colonizing Canada and Mexico, which will be sold to the jubilant and welcoming Canadian public as "borderless shopping", and to the Mexicans, ruined by NAFTA, as "jobs".

After all, the human race was "created 7 thousand years ago", for the enjoyment of limitless shopping. It is written in the appropriate scriptures, as "Free to Choose".

Ed Deak.

NAU & SPP???

Ed Deak, SPP is nothing more than an effort to harmonize regulations to make it easier to move good across the border. And unfortunately, the SPP initiative has been allowed to stagnate and die due to lack of interest and political will on the part of the Canadian and American governments. Oh, they still have further talks scheduled, but the initiative is basically dead on the order paper.

North American Union, and it's fantasy devil spawns the NAFTA Superhighway and the Amero currency, are just figments of overactive imaginations. They don't exist, except in the nightmares of people like Maude Barlowe and Mel Hurtig.

For crying out loud, Raging,

For crying out loud, Raging, what world do you live in?

Does anybody still believe the Tom d'Aquino lies and propaganda that there're no such things as the NAFTA Superhighway, the NAU and the Amero? What the hell has the Fraser and other cheesy advertising agencies have been propagandizing for for years?

What is the EU is not the colonization of the Eastern parts of Europe and now used as example for the NAU ?

What the hell is the North American Competitiveness Council, that gives orders to governments and what are their long range plans?

What are the Spanish companies planning to build across the USA, to bring Chinese products from a Mexican ports, avoiding US and Canadian unionized ports, if not he NAFTA hwy?

I have a map, marked by an engineer friend, formerly in government service, working on the plans of the Alberta extension of the NAFTA hwy. from Coutts, to Dawson Creek, with limited access, no traffic lights and stops around major cities. What for?

Here in BC, HWY 97 is planned for the same purpose.

The USA is bankrupt and needs the resources of Canada and Mexico to keep on top. We already had several B52 overflights today, obviously practicing to bomb somebody. They're over our heads all the time, every day.

Wake up man, some of us have seen and lived under the most criminal ideologies, held up by propaganda and can smell the same rot and racket engulfing us here and now. The predators are always the same, regardless of the ideology or flag they're operating under.

Mexico has been ruined by the NAFTA, but people are beginning to wake up. Let's hope it may happen here in Canada, one day.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9057

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

Yes, Skookum

Brilliant, Skookum:
"I'm just concerned as to what the power is for. We're sold on it being population growth; in reality it's consumerism/produdction growth. And all that damned real estate takes a lot of energy to build, as well as to maintain and live in..."

Same story here in Hellberta where all that extra power is in the works - new gas-fired plants (not windfarms of course) - in service of new oil industry jobs and all the related industry workers who'll be moving here to support the 4X ramp up development.

We're desecrating the province (1/4 to be exact) and destroying our water supply for the almighty buck and the American "non-negotiable lifetstyle." What pure greed in the blood our voters and politicians have. But because all of this will play out in the decades-far-off future it carries no meaning for the average hockey-stunned citizen, whatsoever.

Deak's comment that the SPP will be pushed through as soon as possible to eliminate the NAFTA time-out clause is dead-on. Watch the Canadian voters rush to vote this new agreement in - New jobs! Cheaper goods! Milk and honey paved roads for you and your family! And best of all? No-passing-through customs on your way to Las Vegas and Mehico!

Remember kids, you too, can live like Hollywood stars! (that is, if you only let us cashmere-suited beancounters rape and pillage your land and resources to the point of extinction).

Don't Believe Everything You Read

Stage 1. Hydro is one third sold now. In essence it is now run by an American outfit called Accenture.

A bit of an over-simplification. Hydro outsourced management of human resources and billing to Accenture. Arguably, none of these are core processes in the generation, transmission or distribution of electricity. No electricity assets were transferred, so what was sold?

Nice try. Even Campbell won't sell BCTC because it would be political suicide. Separating tranmission from generation/distribution is a mechanism to encourage private participation in the BC power market, which is, and always will be, dominated by Hydro.

This is very misleading. Hydro pays IPPs for power through fixed price contracts, not market prices. Hydro makes profit by selling fixed-price non-firm energy (energy generated but not needed domestically) to California/others.

What dictates the price of new power is the cost of construction and financing. Hydro will pay IPPs a premium for firm energy according to a specified formula, but this is because we have a shortage of firm energy.

Infrastructure management in all sectors is at a crucial turning point right now. Hydro has a large inventory of deteriorating assets that produce power at a very low cost because they were constructed many years ago. It is only now that the cost of depreciation of these assets is starting to overtake debt servicing as the primary driver for the cost of delivering power. New construction would require Hydro to take on more debt that is less servicable because of lower margins (in fact negative) as our power pricing is regulated (as it should be).

The jury is still out on the electricity projections. I for one don't believe that conservation will meet 50% of our needs by 2020, especially if we plan or are forced to ease our dependence on fossil fuels. Electricity will take their place, thereby increasing electrical demand. It's not a question of Run-of-River vs. Site C, the solution will be both, plus whatever else.

the price of non-negotiability

Alda:

Non-negotiability will be costly; immovable objeccts shatter or are buried in face of greater force/mass, point of fact. That lifestyle is in defiance of reality, inherently unworkable over the long term; especially with increasing population; we are, in fact, in the Malthusian crisis (actually we have been for quite a long time...). For those whom that lifestyle is "non-negotiable", it's more than a gamble they're taking; it's headlong into the oncoming train, and whether they like it or not that lifestyle's days are numbered; except for a select few, perhaps....

As for power colonialism, it's worth remembering that the first hydro developments in BC - which were for public tarnsit primarily, in fact - were Scottish money and in some cases (e.g. Jordan River) American....

Note to Ed Deak re NAFTA

We give six months notice and it is over.....except for the energy agreement part, which says we have to continue for 19 years afterward to supply them with the same proportion of energy produced before we gave notice. The same proportion rule applies in case of energy shortage.

How well I remember Rafe saying those of us who saw what a trap the FTA was were nuts.

No, I do not want Rafe to stop writing for Tyee, he's learned a great deal in the intervening 20 years.

IPP Politics... and the Business Case

In a 1992 speech, former NDP energy minister Anne Edwards praised IPPs for offering a “source of expertise and innovation to keep B.C.’s electricity sector efficient and competitive.”

She went on: “British Columbians expect reasonably priced power, with no rate-shocks or unnecessary new projects . . . and long term sustainability in their energy sector.

In governance, the NDP certainly acts differently than when in opposition.

Ohhhhhh the hypocracy/politics of it all.

The IPP business case... a tough nut to crack...

And in more remote areas of the province, where towns like Golden, Valemount and Bella Coola have long suffered from unreliable electricity supply, smaller IPPs offer an effective means of reinforcing regional power grids.

But private power producers face a host of logistical and financial hardships simply getting these projects through their fetal stages.

Before being able to formally submit a bid to BC Hydro, producers spend vast amounts of time and money carrying out research and development.

Usually by the time it’s all over and you get your water licence, two to three years have gone by.”

And if construction costs go up – which they inevitably do – producers must anticipate this and factor it into their bid. Once BC Hydro has agreed to purchase power from them, the IPP can’t pass the increases on to taxpayers.

“Trying to hold construction costs firm while you go through a bidding process is unnerving,” says Gemmill. “The costs go up after you put in your price, and the rate of return on your project goes down.”

This points to another advantage of private producers: they determine whether or not a project is viable, and assume the financial risk if it proves not to be.

And the hoops to go through....

In total, there are 67 items of criteria involved in the bodies above that must be met in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/businessexaminer/fraser_valley/news/19414234.html

Rafe has it right.

"...half of the IPPs operating in B.C. today were built under the previous NDP government."

Name them Luke and how much of that power was sold to BC Hydro?

Oh the hypocrisy of it all. The suggestion that this sell-off of our resources would have happened regardless of who is in Victoria is pure spin to put it mild.

Rafe is right on in the method that will be used and if anyone needs to be on the shelf it is the deniers and liberal apologist here. And uncivilized engineer if you think Campbell is motivated by concern for the future of this province then you must buy into the neocon ideology. Campbell will be gone after one more election. Then he will be off to Maui living on a dozen directorships on companies he made rich and his fat pension he gave himself.

"Let them eat cake and pay higher power costs."

Skywalker...

Name them Luke and how much of that power was sold to BC Hydro?

Okayyyyyy.... this should suffice...

From BC Hydro's March 31, 2001 annual report (when the New Democrats were still in power):

Already existing IPP's:

And more....

In 2000 we asked B.C.’s independent power producers (IPPs) to submit green energy project proposals.

To date we have heard from approximately 50 producers, with most proposals involving ...small hydro.

We have already signed agreements with local power developers to buy energy produced from small hydro... These projects will begin immediately.

And even more...

We are also working on a handbook that outlines standards and procedures for developing and installing micro hydro projects.

Another 600 potential Run-of-the-River Sites province-wide for IPP's under the New Democrats.

Imagine that!

Skywalker:

Man, I couldn't have said it better myself! ;)

http://www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info1567.pdf

"Oh, yes, I nearly forgot.

"Oh, yes, I nearly forgot. When all the fish are gone, what's to stop us selling our water to our thirsty neighbours to the south?"

Bingo. DFO has intentionally (I say) ruined the fisheries on two coasts. In BC, fish farms are allowed to flourish while they diminish natural wild stocks. Destroy the Fraser salmon run and why not dam it? The engineering studies have already been done. See NAWAPA. One version involves damming the Fraser and Thompson rivers, lifting the water over the continental divide to Lake Sacajawea in North Dakota to feed a canal system to the SW US. The Ogillala aquifer is a fossil aquifer that will eventually run out. When it does and if Canada refuses to send our water to the US, prepare to wave your little US flag in welcome to the US military.

Arrrgh

If what Luke S wrote above is correct, now I have anther reason to know why I hated Glen Clark's union boys so much.

BC Hydro - newspeak

I don't know when BC Hydro changed (for themselves) the definition of micro-hydro. Micro-hydro for all the world (except BC) refers to projects that produce between 1 and 100 KW. BC Hydro now considers micro-hydro to anything less than 2 MW or (2,000 KW). There is a huge difference in possible environmental impact between the two amounts.

It would be more than interesting to know when and who made the change in definition and who authorized BC Hydro to re-write the definition. Perhaps it was done under Clark when the IPP numbers were first explored. Perhaps the change was done a bit clandestinely. Nothing like a definition change to alter public's grasp of a situation.

Perhaps Luke, with your insider information, you could find out for us when the definition of micro-hyro was put to be at 2 MW by BC Hydro.

The same situation is

The same situation is developing here with the demands of the multinational corporate mafia controlling governments.

Interesting remark in the article, about no changes possible within the EU, also run by mega corporations.

Translate this into the SPP and the NAU.

"Profits, Profits Ueber Alles"

BCTV is now running a week long series on the fantastic market opportunities in China.

Yep! Selling more of our resources and welcoming more "wealth creating foreign investment", with China getting rid of their $3. trillion worthless US Dollars, and our Reform Party governments, under various disguises, eagerly selling off the country for nothing.

Ed Deak.
======================================

Subject: Desert in Spain

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/02/europe/dry.php

SIG...

BC Hydro utilized both the terms "micro hydro" and "small hydro" in their fiscal year 2001 annual report (my above post).

Today. BC Hydro defines same as follows:

While definitions of the terms "micro" and "small hydro" vary significantly, Hydro considers micro hydro developments as ones with an installed capacity of less than 2 MW (2,000 kW).

We apply the term small hydro to developments with installed capacities between 2 and 50 MW.

By comparison, BC Hydro's largest facility, the G.M. Shrum Generating Station at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam has a capacity of 2,730 MW.

http://www.bchydro.com/environment/greenpower/greenpower1751.html

Micro-Hydro

In the 2001 annual report that Luke linked to, the relevant page is #17.

It says they're looking at 600 potential sites across the province and working on a handbook outlining standards and procedures.

It also says in October of 2000 they announced their first agreement with an IPP for a "small" hydro project that meets their green energy criteria. Its a 25 megawatt run of river facility near Pemberton.

The report is dated June 2001.

Frank...

If you look at BC Hydro's earlier 2000 annual report (page 13), you will also note that for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 there were:

http://www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info1572.pdf

Luke

I read the whole report last night. The thing is, although I could find out the amount of money paid to IPP's I was never able to find out who they were and what they were paid for. The only IPP I found was the Pemberton one.

2000 Annual Report

Do you mean page 12? There it talks about buying power generated by a natural-gas IPP near Campbell River and that it wants to get 10% of its power from "green" sources.

IPPs

Obviously not all "IPPs" are run-of-river.

It also says it will buy power from burning natural-gas as a short-term solution but wants to find alternatives to doing that.

Largest IPP In the Province

Check out the latest revenue requirements application by BC Hydro to BCUC. See Section 3 - power costs.

http://bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info55162.pdf

The largest doling out of electricity dollars to ANY IPP is to the Island Cogeneration Plant in Campbell River (approximately 42% of pre-2000 EPAs, which will be paid out a total of $334 million in 2008, therefore $140 million to ICP). The total payout to IPPs this year will be roughly $500 million, increasing to $650 million in 2010 when 2006 call for power projects come online. The COPE/NDP spin on this is that all of a sudden the run-of-river IPPs will cost us the above-quoted amount, when in actual fact half of the payout is a beast of their own creation (pre-2000 EPAs). And it's DIRTY POWER!

This is a prime example of where the NDP was taking Hydro in the late 90s, and we are lucky they did not go further with their ill-fated plan to expand generation capacity with natural gas.

I won't repeat my above post regarding the case for IPP expansion. But to summarize, BC Hydro should not be expanding their asset inventory when they have a massive renewal program to deal with. Acquisition of new generation assets would cause organizational strain because many new personnel would be required, plus we would still be left with a renewal issue down the road.

The scale of IPP development has to be realized - the run-of-river projects will never replace the large dams. The misinformation campaign by BC Fed/COPE/NDP is the only "power play" going on right now and it stinks. It's not about the environment - it's about trying to beat the Liberals.

Uncivilized engineer

That's crap. The Run-of-River projects weren't even on my or the NDP's radar until other people started to get up in arms about them.

You're trying to paint the NDP as being behind all the anti-run-of-river people because it makes life easier to do so.

If an opposition party takes up the cause of people upset over gov't policy then good for them, its what an opposition in the British Parliamentary system should be doing.

Open Your Eyes Frank

The only reason IPPs are on the radar is because this is an extension the "Hands Off Hydro" campaign circa 2000. Look who's funding all of the advertising (they advertise on this site!).

If you truly believe in a net benefit to the environment you wouldn't oppose RoR as a technology. There is always going to be opposition of any development. This is a concerted effort to thwart private development because COPE is still bitter over the Accenture deal and public jobs aren't being created by IPPs.

Where has the business case for expanding Hydro's generation capacity been published anyway? How do you know that public power development is a better deal for BC? The IPP issue has been studied and the risks have been quantified. Show some REAL facts instead of a bunch of rhetoric about public ownership and NAFTA and neo-cons and I might start to change my mind.

joey smallwood

We need to thank our star walking friend for pointing out why the NDP tore itself apart getting rid that cancerous growth Glen Clark. Given who he works for now, he certainly did some huge favours for his new employer and el Gordos gang before he left.

Our space based friend and his uncivilized helper always skip our the fact that that $30 billion of tax/rate payers future cash flows have already been committed to these private campaign donators. According to recent Tyee articles this is double the cost of equivalent BC Hydro investments.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/30/BCHydro/

50 year commitments at 9c a kw hour to start going to 12c at a time when new low cost technologies such as high efficiency solar and thorium nuclear are predicting costs much lower than todays. These fools make Joey Smallwood look like a financial genius.

Hell of payoff for a couple of million (over time) in party campaign donations. Of course no promises have been made but there are no rules preventing retiring politicians from accepting lucrative board of director positions with favored IPP's. Apparantly the uncivilized fellow and the space person think thats allright too.

Still haven't answered the question Luke.

The comment from Luke was "..half of the IPPs operating in B.C. today were built under the previous NDP government." He said "built" I expected that with 600 IPP's there would be one in every town in BC. Now just because there might have been one cogeneration plant to deal with wood waste that somehow translates into an open fire sale of every free running river in BC? Give me a break! Stop trying to justify the privatization of Hydro power by blaming the opening of the door by the NDP. If BC Hydro thought there were 600 possible sites which might be used to supply power for specific municipalities or business ventures that hardly means a sell-off of the rights to a river for ever.

There is a big difference between a publicly wholly owned BC Hydro looking at run of the rivers projects and the liberals concept of IPP's with the selling of of water rights. It is not even in the same ballpark.

Contrary to uncivilized engineer's assertions, this is about keeping publicly owned BC Hydro building systems and selling power. It's been very good for BC since WAC's day

Peace on the river

RAFE, you got it right this time. Site C would destroy my home, my ranch, and the river where I recreate, but yes I am also concerned for the other rivers under threat. It shouldn't be my river or yours, we need to work together to stop this train, and develop real sustainable solutions for the future. The false assumptions in the energy plan and the shell game re import/export don't justify the destruction of critical river valleys in a mountainous province. BC Hydro is now engaged on Site C "project definition" consultation, with a carefully managed process to get the answers they want. Although you can't find it on their Site C web site, they are apparently having one open house in Vancouver, June 12, BCIT downtown campus from 6-9 pm. Currently 1/3 of our electricity supply is provided by the upstream dams on the Peace, with Site C that would approach 40%. What are the risks of having that much committment in one basket, on one transmission corridor, 800 miles from the demand centre, and what would be the consequences of a series of drought years in the drainage basin,... we have recently had a few. And what about the cost, currently up to 6 or 7 billion, and rising rapidly, would someone wake up and realize that greener alternatives are now coming in at comparable costs. Perhaps we should be using the 40 million we hear is being spent on Site C project definition to explore non hydro options.

energy/money

I'm an American in California who has watched his state get trashed and polluted by people coming in to make a buck and bringing their trashy and wasteful habits with them.

The destruction of your streams hurts me. too, . . maybe as much as it hurts you.

So stop selling us the megawatthours.

UnCivilizedEngineer: Quote:.

UnCivilizedEngineer:

Is it dirty power? It's a cogeneration plant, so the waste heat from generation will be used in some industrial process, the heat being needed no matter what. Had BC Hydro (or some electrical utility, anyway) not bought this electricity, in other words, had this plant not been built as a cogeneration facility, that potential power would have been wasted. Effectively, BC gets electricity with an environmental cost that would have been borne anyway, as a result of the industrial process.

I'd say that promoting cogeneration facilities is a very good idea. If, as you say, "this prime example of where the NDP was taking Hydro in the late 90s", then kudos to the NDP.

They can't do both? Or one after the other?

Give me a break! New facilities should not be built because it would require more employees? Seriously?

So what? In the 1950s through 1970s this did not stop BC Hydro.

UnCivilizedEngineer: Quote:N

UnCivilizedEngineer:

Right now BC Hydro is paying ten times as much for IPP power as for Hydro generation. Even if it wasn't this cheap (~6$ per MWh), I think they could probably do better than 60$ per MWh if they built new generation facilities themselves. Don't you?

http://www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info52808.pdf

BC Hydro - New Production Cost Estimates

$48-$100; May face supply, price risks and greenhouse gas issues.

Coal:

$48-$83; Abundant supply, but potential greenhouse gas and emission issues.

Large hydro:

$43-$62; B.C. has large rivers to dam but there are land-use, fish and wildlife impacts.

Run-of-river small hydro:

$47-$88; Steep terrain good for small hydro development

Wind:

$45-$198; Sites include ridge-based and offshore.

Geothermal:

$44-$60; Potential at a limited number of B.C. sites for geothermal steam generators.

Biomass:

$56-$87; Steam generators powered by wood residue or municipal garbage.

Custom cogeneration:

$63-$87; Limited to industrial and large commercial applications.

Source: BC Hydro

Death and taxes

Yea that about sums it up.

The death of our rivers and taxes in the form of higher hydro rates.

I guess MR. CAMPBELL is so confident that he is leaving the point grey riding to run in a safer riding (one of the nort shore ridings)and thats not me saying that,thats NORMAN SPECTER(long time liberal supporter)saying that(CAMPBELL barely won his own riding in 2005)

Heres my new list of ridings the bc liberals will lose.

POINT GREY--DELTA--CHILLIWAK--3 VANCOUVER ISLAND RIDINGS--WEST END--2 SURREY RIDINGS--PRINCE GEORGE--MAPLE RIDGE MISSION--2 POCO RIDINGS--NORTH BURNABY--BURNABY WILLINGDON--KAMLOOPS-A few more but thats enough.

You have to admit that a party leader to leave his own home riding speaks volumes!

Go ahead put those phony poll results,if they were true premier CAMPBELL wouldn`t be running to a safe haven!

Here is the 2005 results for point grey

CAMPBELLbc (liberals)--11.759 ----- 46.35%

KETTLWELL (green party) 3.758--- 14.81%

KOST (The platinum party) 17--- 0.07%

LEHAN (ndp) 9.557---- 37.67%

MONDS (Libertarian) 42--------0.17%

PEREZ (Marjuana party) 122-------0.48%

Walker(Work less party)114-------0.45%

TOTAL--25.369--------100%

Two Different Kinds of Animals

Excellent point, Skywalker.

IPP's "BC Liberals-style" are a sell-out of our public rights to and control of our rivers and our power. It is also a sell-out of our public right to information.

What's the Diff????

Skywalker:

There is a big difference between a publicly wholly owned BC Hydro looking at run of the rivers projects and the liberals concept of IPP's with the selling of of water rights. It is not even in the same ballpark.

Huhhhhhhhhhhhh?????

To reiterate, during the year 2000 the BC New Democrats/BC Hydro engaged in a "green energy" initiative with a deliberate strategy of IPP development of those Run-of-the-River sites! (among other IPP development opportunities)

50 separate and prospective IP producers responded to the New Democrat/BC Hydro initiative.

BC Hydro signed agreements with those IPP Run-of-the-River projects (micro-hydro, small hydro, whatever terminology one wants to use).

In fact, the New Democrats/BC Hydro went even further and said.... hey, here are 600 potential Run-of-the-River sites for IPP development and ... hey, here is the way to privately develop these sites with our new handbook.

To date we have heard from approximately 50 producers, with most proposals involving ...small hydro.

We have already signed agreements with local power developers to buy energy produced from small hydro... These projects will begin immediately.

To encourage new micro hydro developers, we have put together a list of more than 600 potential sites province-wide.

We are also working on a handbook that outlines standards and procedures for developing and installing micro hydro projects.

www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info1567.pdf

And the subsequent Liberal government continued with the same "green energy" IPP initiative of the New Democrats.

BTW, water rights are issued both to BC Hydro as well as IPP's through the provincial Comptroller of Water Rights.

And you are now sayin' that there's a big diff ?????