Opinion

Tapping Our Wild Rivers Can't Fix Climate Change

Veteran enviro says no to Tzeporah Berman's 'PowerUp' logic.

By Michael M'Gonigle, 20 Apr 2009, TheTyee.ca

Michael M'gonigle

M'Gonigle of UVic: 'Power down!'

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

A week into the provincial election the person grabbing headlines is not a politician but an environmentalist. Tzeporah Berman helped lead the Clayoquot protests of '93 and then protect the Great Bear Rainforest but lately she's been slamming the NDP for opposing the carbon tax while throwing her weight behind a huge new energy strategy embraced by the Liberals: run-of-river (RoR) power production.

And she's pulling a lot of others with her -- while getting many others fired up in disbelief and anger.

Berman and her influential allies want us to believe that only by harnessing renewable "green" energy can we reduce global warming. And that the time for debate is past; now we must just do it.

I'm one long-time environmentalist who couldn't disagree more.

As one of the founders of Greenpeace International, EcoJustice, Smart Growth BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and other B.C. groups, I embrace real solutions to our environmental challenges, including climate change, and the movement to make them happen.

But in pressing for run-of-river, Berman and allies are only accelerating us down a doomed path that will destroy precious natural ecologies in British Columbia without making any significant dent in global warming, and undermine the work of many environmentalists in the process.

There is a far better course of action, however, that would not divide environmentalists but excite them and motivate the larger citizenry. Let me explain.

Climate myopia

At first glance, run-of-river power seems pretty benign. Without recourse to large dams, RoR diverts stream water into turbines, and then returns it to the river downstream. In many rural areas, such projects have been in operation as small-scale sources of power for generations.

But as proposed in B.C., RoR is on a far larger scale. And its numerous side effects are now well known: Destructive construction in wild rivers and intact habitats, new roads and penstocks carved through wilderness areas, long transmission lines.

The list of concerns for RoR in B.C. goes on: the potential privatization of up to 500 streams and rivers, the realization that the systems will work well only during spring run-off, the gold rush mentality that has identified some thousands of potential sites across the province, the industrial scale of most of the projects, and the government/industry push that eschews careful planning by removing local decision-making authority.

Recently Berman's new organization, PowerUp, held a well-attended meeting in Vancouver to promote RoR on a massive scale in B.C. Berman gets lots of support from power companies, political leaders and climate scientists, including UVic's Andrew Weaver who, in a Vancouver Sun article, attacked "so-called environmentalists" (like me, I guess) who don't agree with "what science shows to be necessary." He dismisses as "outlandish" and "insidious" our concerns for protecting wilderness rivers and aesthetic viewscapes. We haven't done "the math"; proposed policies "are very well understood."

I would call this state of mind climate myopia -- where climate change is essentially treated as the only environmental issue we face that, if we could somehow solve it, would allow us to get back to business as usual. Old growth forests, overfishing, fish farms, wild rivers? Back burner issues. We have to focus on climate change or else it's all over.

All right then, let's focus on really solving climate change -- and why Berman and her allies are dead wrong.

Don't raise supply, lower demand

As a "solution," an important distinction must be made here, for RoR is a so-called supply-side solution, one to produce more energy. And even here, B.C.'s green energy won't displace existing local sources of carbon-emitting energy because the power is destined for export to California. Despite this, a group of high profile environmentalists wrote in The Sun of the need for this new power because "our electric cars are going to have to get juice from somewhere." These advocates do acknowledge the need to promote solutions on the demand side by conserving energy. They note approvingly that the province plans to meet "more than half of BC's new electricity demand with efficiency."

Supporters of "alternative energy" also argue that it will create new "green jobs." But what jobs? Construction workers in remote camps blasting rights-of-way through grizzly habitat to build RoR facilities on undeveloped rivers to provide seasonal power for export to Los Angelites who can now crawl in their electric cars guilt free along the freeway?

Environmentalists have long been fond of saying that the economy is a subset of the ecology. But not Berman's brigade whose RoR strategies take the economic growth trajectory (and its accompanying energy trajectory) as a given. At best, Berman calls for "more sustainable development."

But wait. Is "more sustainable development" about new electric cars, new power supplies, new energy exports, efficiency to meet new demand? Is there not a problem here? In a country with some of the highest per capita energy usage levels on the planet, where is the discussion of seriously reducing energy demand overall and doing it for the long term?

Increasing efficiency and generating new "alternative" sources of supply will never get us past the climate crunch because they confront a central contradiction: continuous economic growth that will just swallow up whatever gains are made, all the while upping the environmental impacts.

Can someone please explain how we can get past this contradiction except by reducing total energy demand, and developing economic strategies that will allow us to do so permanently?

Naming the problem

Taking the problem of economic growth seriously will not make you popular with the mainstream. But doing so actually offers tangible lessons. Here are three obvious ones:

1) We should not embark on destructive new supplies until demand reductions have been exhausted -- to death.

2) We should not look at just simple efficiency gains in existing processes but at whole new ways of designing our economy that inherently reduce energy flows.

3) We should consider new sources of supply only later and only where each renewable watt is directly tied to retiring an old carbon-based one.

So the climate emergency may not be about building more river utilities after all. Maybe we would do better to work together to stop new infrastructure investments like the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge, a bridge for more cars, and without light rail. And to do this as part of a full-on campaign to refashion the whole face of urban transportation not just in the Lower Mainland but worldwide.

But this doesn't fit with the one truth that all political leaders agree on: we must keep the growth machine on stimulants.

A new model of development

These leaders have successfully exported this ideology to places like China, the most populous place on earth. With China's commitment to a coal-fired future of ever increasing production and consumption, exports and trade, a car for every household, one must ask: What have we unleashed here? Is there any vision of development that is both as universal and as inappropriate to the survival of the planet as this?

Talking about how we might get past this ideology and its contradictions is a taboo. But no one was talking about Wall Street's duplicity a year ago either. It took a collapse for that.

For B.C., this contradiction has a very specific import: given China's growth trajectory, what sense could it make to compromise one of the great river regions on the planet for minimal practical effect? It IS one atmosphere after all.

Climate scientists do not like to think about this. But when you do, you see the second, and more difficult, "inconvenient truth" of climate change -- the limits of a model of development that depends on always more growth, and more energy to fuel it. That is to say, the PowerUp strategy.

Just as global warming was until recently marked by widespread denial, so too denial of the problematic of growth economics is omnipresent today.

Confronting the tough truth of economic limits by actually trying to think and work past the growth paradigm opens up great possibilities. Call it the strategy of "growing into no-growth."

Instead of blasting in new supply projects to fuel electric cars, why not talk about how to build "car-free" cities? Here we might start to save the earth, and save money too. After all, if a car costs about $10,000 per year to own and run, a "demand reduction" strategy could reduce not only energy needs, but financial burdens on people. A strategy with a "double dividend," long term.

Instead of seeking more profits from power exports to California, why not work like crazy to reduce our food imports from that distant state with a massive commitment to enhance local food production right here? The same energy reduction benefits would result, and creating a true green economy (literally).

Who's being 'realistic'?

The retort, of course, is that such ideas aren't politically realistic.

Not so, says one of the gurus of energy planning, Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba. On the contrary, he argues that the history of creating new energy supply systems has shown that the challenges are so enormous that "none of the promises for greatly accelerated energy transitions will be realized." Message: it's the renewable energy folks who aren't realistic.

Meanwhile, the distinguished American geographer David Harvey points out in an April 2 interview in DemocracyNow! that the global economy was worth $4 trillion in 1950 and is now at $56 trillion. With all hands on deck to stimulate it way past even that, and to do so for as far into the future as anyone can contemplate, we are hitting the "limits environmentally, socially, politically…. In other words, we have to think about a zero-growth economy." Message: it's the whole economistic agenda that's unrealistic.

In the competition of unrealities, I will throw my lot in with those who would create new political possibilities. At least we would be working with the feedback we are getting from nature, not continuing to work against it.

Environmental politics for this century

To ensure the success of avowedly green energy projects, governments in British Columbia and Ontario now promise to pay big subsidies for more power, and they have rewritten provincial legislation to prevent local communities from deciding whether they want these development proposals. In contrast, in the United States, the federal government is looking at new forms of neighbourhood governance that might refashion all forms of resource and energy use at the community level.

Actually empowering citizens to try out new things where they live entails a form of what Harvard law professor Roberto Unger calls "democratic experimentalism." DemocracyNow! calls it "deep democracy." Not here.

For citizens in this province, a choice presents itself. Does climate change demand an impossible technological response to "power up" new sources of energy to fuel an impossibly expanding political economy?

Or does it demand an active democratic response that can inspire a new movement to "power down" into a calmer economy, and a livable future?

When you push past our collective denial, most people know the answer here. But they don't know how to do it. As the climate clock ticks, this is the real work to be done.

PowerUp? No thanks.

PowerDown? Sign me up!

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Michael M'Gonigle is EcoResearch Professor of Environmental Law and Politics at the University of Victoria.

216 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • AI

    2 years ago

    Michael M'Gonigle

    I don't want to make too big a deal about this article, but basically I love you.

  • seth

    2 years ago

    Hi tech electric cars

    Charge them up late in the spring when the rivers are running - batteries will just be running down a year later. Its that type of artsie environmentalist thought process that makes these folks so dangerous.

    The best and cheapest alternatives to gateway, carbon taxes, energy and transit builds, alternatives that actually save instead of costing money are telecommuting and 3 day work weeks. Unfortunately until government/corporate execs are forced out their dinosaur butts in a seat mentality little will change.

    We need to force our government organizations to institute mandatory telecommuting plans then add corporate carrot/stick incentives later. To illustrate the effect on energy/traffic/. US GTA has marked 40% of US federal civilian employee jobs are telecommutable that includes us forest and postal services I would assume the BC government is more or less the same. A Carlton university survey found 60% of those surveyed would telecommute if they could. Stats Can has it that that institutions under the control/purview of the BC Government ie hydro ferries municipals control more than 350,000 employees. Gordo could end rush hour almost overnight.

    On the energy side only nuclear power has the cost and greenhouse gas reduction potential to make any difference to global warming. Only when the environmental movement finally recognizes that fact, will we be able to do something to shut global warming down.

  • beavertoad

    2 years ago

    put them back

    well put... but I think this fundamental solution has been floating for a while and it seems no one is taking it seriously essentially because it means we would have to give up our beloved plasmas or computer. I say turn the externalities back in and start teaching in all economic theory.

  • funniously

    2 years ago

    I agree and disagree

    He's right; building RoR generation systems could cause more ecological damage than they're worth in CO2 reductions. However, looking for ways to curb economic growth is to effectively ask people in the developing world, like China, to accept poverty and subsistence living as unchangeable -not very likely. Better to find ways to encourage sustainable growth and concomitant power production such that they can avoid our mistaken dependence on fossil fuels for the past century.

    BTW, NASA and a variety of corporate interests are already examining solar panels in low space orbit as a serious option (the electricty would be microwaved down to receptors on the Earth). Richard Branson and Virgin aren't really interested in "space tourism", eh. Something to keep an eye on...

  • Urbanismo

    2 years ago

    RoR

    "Don't raise supply, lower demand"
    Oh yes, oh yes oh yes . . . God Bless you Michael M'Gonigle

  • Hughes

    2 years ago

    Climate Change Hysteria

    I'm disappointed in the climate change hysteria that Berman and others use for political gain. Of course it's the right thing to do develop alternative sources of energy; however, I'm not convinced CO2 is soley the culprit (check out the following URL: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/)

    Regardless, run of the river, private power is an ineffective give-a-way of this provinces' rivers and streams for the benefit of a few of Gordo's corporate buddies at this time. A few years back it was the NDP giving away our rivers to private interests. Shame on them both. Anything for a buck. Ever wonder how much $ these corporations have donated to both parties over the years? Would be an interesting number to know.

  • Grumpy

    2 years ago

    Want to reduce CO2, pollution.............

    ....... the 300 km. solution - for the same cost as the Gateway highways and bridge project.

    http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/the-300-km-solution-an-affordable-way-to-reduce-gridlock-and-pollution/

    Berman is a legend in her own mind and her stand for run-of-river power is puzzling, so puzzling in fact, I wonder what she gets out of it!

  • Gary

    2 years ago

    Homework

    Looks like someone here is doing their homework. And it's not Berman. And surprisingly not Suzuki.
    The new home I am building will be totally powered by Solar and/or wind. But in the planning stages I have discovered that the "grid tie" system is apparently only for city folks. the grid system is where you feed your excess solar, or wind,power back into the grid that is feeding high energy users. And in some cases it could even reverse your meter. It's fairly costly to install but if you eliminate your hydro bill it could only take 3 or 4 years to pay for itself.
    At any rate I am doing this because I forsee a huge increase in my hydro bill. If the Liberals get in again I'm pretty confident that the lower of the two rates on our hydro bills will be scrapped. That's how they will get around jacking the prices through the roof.

  • Gary

    2 years ago

    Correction

    should read "it is Berman"

  • van_man

    2 years ago

    Hydro rates

    "If the Liberals get in again I'm pretty confident that the lower of the two rates on our hydro bills will be scrapped."

    Government does not normally choose rates for BC Hydro: these are set in a process between the BC Utilities Commission and BC Hydro. In terms of the stepped rate for residential customers: everyone commenting here appears to support more conservation rather than investments in new supply. What better way to achieve that than stepped rates for residential customers, in which the first block of energy is low cost, and for a larger amount of consumption the price goes up (this is the system that was recently implemented in BC). Without price signals (like this new BC Hydro rate or the carbon tax), people will talk about conserving but not actually make any changes. Yet - a paradox I find funny - even those who support conservation seem to dislike this type of pricing measure.

  • NicS

    2 years ago

    "Berman's" choice, Run of Rivers not Tar Sands

    It seems that Berman in her haste to save the world has chosen to support the Run or Rivers projects over the Tar Sands. A calculated gamble and one she might well lose.

    The saying, "only fools rush in", comes to mind.

  • telus employee

    2 years ago

    Andrew Weaver and Tzeborah Berman

    I think Andrew Weaver and Tzeborah Berman have been drinking the 'free-market' and 'corporate' Kool-Aid.

    Berman says that everyone against IPPs is against green energy.

    Weaver says that we should build private power for export while ignoring the huge ghg contribution that exporting oil/gas/coal.

    Doesn't even make sense. Neither want to cut back on the unprecedented extraction of carbon in BC (since the BC Liberals took over) but both want to export private (not public) 'green energy' to address GHGs production elsewhere.

    My dog has more critical thinking skills than these two combined. (and is more of an environmentalist)

  • Joan Russow

    2 years ago

    tapping our wild

    Michael McGonigle is seriously addressing the issue of myopia and the failure to advocate limits to growth.

    At the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in 1992, every member state of the United Nations, thus including Canada, recognized that the global problem was the over-consumptive model of development.
    The emphasis at UNCED was on conservation and prevention of harm.
    At UNCED, every state adopted the precautionary principle which states that where there is the threat of irreversible damage to the environment the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent the threat. The so-called run- of – rivers project will be creating irreversible environmental damage. Also at UNCED, Canada signed and subsequently ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, whose objective was to conserve biodiversity. Concurrently, Canada signed and subsequently ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was absolutely evident that the two Conventions were to be seen as complementary and not to be used in any way to undermine the other. The BC government, under the NDP, endorsed both Conventions, at the Cabinet level, and even placed on the floor, of the meeting of the ministers of the environment in Alymer Quebec, a resolution calling for the Federal Government to ratify both Conventions. Thus the BC government is bound by both conventions, and bound not to compromise one of them for the sake of the other. In 1992, the Conservative government under Mulroney, issued a report on an environmental assessment of NAFTA. In this assessment, Canada stated that all international agreements would take precedence over NAFTA. Even under NAFTA, there is a clear statement that states should not relax environmental standards to attract industry. Canada cannot be compelled to relax environmental standards to attract industry and serve US wants. Rather than sacrifice principle, and compromise, all environmentalist should apply for an injunction to prevent the run of the rivers project, and to support the important principle, of limits to growth, as advocated by Michael McGongile, and by Bill Rees who initiated the principle, of reducing the ecological footprint -- adopted by all member states of the United Nations in 1996 at the Habitat II Conference.

    While, Berman attempts to distinguish herself from Patrick Moore by saying she does not work with industry, she must acknowledge that her support for the Liberals is indirectly if not directly working with industry.

  • michael maser

    2 years ago

    Thx Michael - & Tidal (current) Energy

    Bravo, Michael - very well defined and thoughtful essay. Berman and others' arguments for RoR is essentially a license to 'plunder and party on!'. That she and her organization have staked this out under the guise of 'green energy' is mendacious-to-the-max.

    Massive RoR power projects, as planned, are utterly repugnant to me - a long-time advocate for conservation, public stewardship of resources, and Tidal (current) energy.

    I understand our energy calculus very well, and especially the regrettable impetus to (now) 're-start the party', characterized by myopic obsession with profligate economic development. The party demands electricity and the sooner we implement means of creating this electricity that don't contribute to increased GHG emissions, the better, certainly. But trading off GHG emissions for trashing precious habitat (and other serious issues with RoR) is NOT part of the solution. Degrading biodiversity to save a few tonnes of carbon emissions is lousy trading, period.

    Tidal (current) energy offers much promise of large-scale, emission-free energy generation for many countries, worldwide. In BC we have our 'Alberta Miracle' flowing through Discovery Passage nearby to Campbell River and the transmission grid each and every day. That we are not tapping this energy source - which has been endorsed by Greenpeace UK and the Sierra Club of BC - is a travesty.

    To learn more about marine energy options, check out 'Ocean Renewable Energy Group' [OREG], based in Nanaimo, at www.oreg.ca.

    - Michael Maser
    Blue Energy Canada
    www.bluenergy.com

  • puppyg

    2 years ago

    Clear at last

    I see the fog lifting. Thank you for this.

    Too many Campbell's "babies" (Province-backed private enterprises) simply add up to:

    "Hey-it-may-wreck-BC-but-investors-will-make-scads-of-money".

    Expanded fish-farming might destroy wild salmon, but investors will make scads...

    A liquified natural gas terminal (LNG) on Texada Island might blow up communities across Georgia Straight, but investors will make scads...

    Run-of-river projects might shoot roads and power-lines across the BC wilderness and begin the kind of incremental destruction we see all around us, but investors will make scads...

    Enough, Folks. Enough, Mr. Campbell.

    Most of the power generated by run-of-river will go south to power-hungry California while we, in BC, get stuck with the environmental consequences.

    The proposed LNG terminal for Texada would also serve southern markets while dumping all the risk on local communities.

    We are suckers here in BC if we give Gordon Campbell any more time in office.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    Saving our souls

    The concept of the ecosystem and systems thinking in general reminds one of the multi-layered complexity, fragility, and interweaving of all life on earth. And as a native of British Columbia, I have lived to see rivers where many happy childhood hours were spent dammed and profoundly changed, an incalculable personal loss. Perhaps it is the bias towards the poetic and a sense of wonder that most seriously impairs my ability to look upon the works of humankind with an undiluted fervour of enthusiasm. The words of Eileen Delehanty Pearkes may illustrate this point:

    "I knew I was standing not only at a drainage divide in a narrow valley along an abandoned rail line at the origin of a minor river called the Salmo, but also as a witness to one of the Earth’s central landscape functions: the movement of melted snow or rainwater into a welcoming, but distant ocean. Like a point on a gothic arch, this branch of the vast Columbia River watershed begins at a precise point, representing the apex of twin drainage systems that drop with great elegance and complexity from the mountains to the plateaus and then to the ocean. Unlike a gothic arch, this river locus had no pretences, no heavenly aspirations. It was on the ground, placed as such to remind me that authenticity has its source in the Earth, the personal terrain, the place of truth." (The Inner Green)

    In a very real way, run of river projects also threaten this “central landscape function”, threaten to alter the workings and works of the watersheds in their job of carrying silt and nutrients downriver, threaten to allow humans to meddle in the very creation of the metaphorical bedrock of the province.
    It seems to me that when we destroy the authenticity of the earth, the very place of truth for all humankind, that we are, indeed, destroying our own souls. Somehow, I fail to see that driving an electric car will comfort me for that loss.Thank you, Michael M'Gonigle, for pointing out the clear and obvious road not taken...mapping the way is the starting place.

  • southdeltawalker

    2 years ago

    B. C. Liberal "plants" sprouting up.

    We had a "Save Our Rivers" event here in Ladner Friday night.
    There were there two Liberal "plants" in the audience.

    One was very disruptive and wouldn't shut up until many in the the audience of over 100 were calling out for her to sit down and shut up.
    The other "plant" had a clip board of misinformation that he was trying to spout off.

    Ms Berman is just another Liberal "plant".

    She is not the environmental movement-she is just one person.
    She has discredited herself-just like the two "plants" Friday night.

    For the real story of the river destruction from these projects, please visit the Save Our Rivers site: http://saveourrivers.ca/

  • Fiat lux

    2 years ago

    Nobody seems to mention that

    Nobody seems to mention that the vast majority of that increased energy demand is not going into houses, but to industry to replace 1/2 hp of human energy with huge increases of electric and oil energy, counted as GDP and Growth, not to mention "increased efficiency" and "cost cutting".

    This is the price we have to pay for fraudulent monetary economic calculations.

    Human labour doesn't cost anything to an economy, but outside energy costs scads in environmental damage, exploitation, depletion and other automatic reactions caused by increased energy inputs.

    All this has been licenced by deregulated money creation that permitted an international special interest mafia to take control of the world's resources and economic distribution sectors through artificial overcapitalization.

    Our mills are now controlled by about a half dozen of the corporate mafia. The human labour in the mills and mines has been reduced to half, or one third of what it was 30 years ago, while the investment and energy consumption skyrocketed into 60-70 wage years per job and thousands of horsepower of outside electric
    and oil energy to replace workers.

    So why doesn't somebody mention this obvious crime wave against the Earth and humanity at large? Why don't our so called "economists" and "environmentalist" start
    accounting real physical economic costs, instead of the infinitely variable and fraudulent monetary costs that mean absolutely nothing on the long run, except leading the world from one disaster into another?

    Ed Deak.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    IPP Facts

    Independent Power Producer (IPP) Run-of-the-River Technology FACTs:

    IPPs using run-of-the-river technology can produce green renewable electrical energy at about half the cost of BC Hydro.

    IPPs generate power at about $50 to $85 a MWh. Ashlu Creek IPP is selling its power to BC Hydro for $55 for the next 40 years (term of the BC Hydro contract). IPPs pay $25 a MWh in taxes, water license rental fees, and first nation royalty to governments – mostly to the local government. BC Hydro pays only $8 a MWh in dividend and taxes to the government.

    On the other hand, BC Hydro is a very high cost producer - $110 a MWh, from its own Aberfeldie run-of-the-river project that it has just completed. The cost of production at the proposed Site C mega-dam on the Peace River will be about $160 a MWh.

    BC Hydro has extremely high internal overhead and costs. Although BC Hydro can produce some power at less than $6 a MWh from our gigantic heritage dams paid by BC citizens (in the 1960s) with no interest expense remaining – BC Hydro then sells this power at 13 times the cost ($80 a MWh) to BC citizens who own these dams. The average salary and benefits at BC Hydro is $100,000 per employee per year. This is 2.5 times the average private salary in the province of $40,000. The average salary at BCTC, a unit of BC Hydro is $130,000 per employee.

    BC Hydro charges the ratepayers and taxpayers $1.4 million per GWh in costs to produce non-green power (Site C). Due to high costs, BC Hydro is unable to produce power if the project is less than 50 MW.

    On the other hand, private power IPPs can produce green and clean power at $0.6 million per GWh, none of that charged to ratepayers - and less than half the cost that BC Hydro charges ratepayers. Private power producers can produce power from projects as small as 5 MW by using local talent and labour.

    The cost saving by IPPs is passed on to the consumer when large number of IPPs compete for the few power purchase contracts offered by BC Hydro. 17,000 GWh of power is being offered by about 150 competing IPP projects to a single buyer, BC Hydro – which will only purchase 3,000 GWh. BC Hydro offers on the average only 3 buildable power purchase agreements a year and no more than 2 or 3 IPP projects can be built in a year. Without a power purchase agreement from BC Hydro, no IPP run-of-river project can get built. There are 12,000 major streams and 280,000 minor streams and creeks in BC and only 40 IPP plants in all of BC (10 under construction). The water license held by an IPP terminates in about 25 years and it is up to the government of the day to renew it.

    It is not possible to export power to the US without the authorization of BC Hydro. And BC Hydro and BCTC demand a cut of at least 25% of the sales to allow exports. The price of power in Washington State is generally same as in BC, and the transmission lines to California are all congested.

  • Colleen Fuller

    2 years ago

    Tapping Our Rivers

    Wow, that is a great article, thanks so much.

    I have been wondering where PowerUp is getting its money to organize a high-powered conference and launch itself so vigourously in the limelight. It acts like a prototypical astroturf group - groups that claim to advocate for the public interest but whose positions serve a corporate master. PowerUp doesn't have a single disclosure on its website -- but it's a legitimate question: who funds them? They are getting money -- and lots of it -- from somewhere.

    Astroturf groups are common in the pharmaceutical arena where many patient advocacy organizations are funded by drug manufacturers. There is a lot of criticism of this type of advocacy because it can lead to the inappropriate use of very profitable drugs that can lead to harmful side effects.

    PowerUp should let people know whose paying its tab. Are there financial links between PowerUp and private power producers who will benefit from the "solutions" being pushed? Editors of medical journals in Canada and around the world now demand disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest before they publish articles. It's a simple step that lets everyone evaluate the independence of the information they're receiving.

  • bikesarefun

    2 years ago

    Are you trying to change the world or something?

    Calling Berman on her sell-out is easy and much needed (and done in a respectful non-personal fashion - thanks for that!).

    But calling most of us on our blinders approach to living on this planet is really dangerous. And nothing less will save humans from extinction.

    Guess how Berman and all the others named in this article primarily get around?

    As Daniel Quinn (www.ishmael.org) points out, if something doesn't work this year (climate change, economics, I could go on...and on), only lunatics [my word] do more of it the following year instead of trying something different.

    RoR is NOT different. The packaging is, especially with the GBR defender tying the knot, but the substance, as clearly outlined in this article is more of the same, "technology/civilization will fix whatever problems it creates." This is just unlikely, it has been proven for centuries, if not millenia, to fail.

    Thank you for a refreshing and profound article.

    PS. I can't help but refer readers that have gotten this far to another, albeit interim (i.e., probably decades long), approach to reducing energy use: Fare-Free Transit. The Tyee ran a series called NoFares in July 2007 and can be found here:
    http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares/

  • lynn

    2 years ago

    thanks

    Thanks Michael M'Gonigle for a well -researched and deeply thoughtful article.

    Quote:

    "For citizens in this province, a choice presents itself. Does climate change demand an impossible technological response to "power up" new sources of energy to fuel an impossibly expanding political economy?

    Or does it demand an active democratic response that can inspire a new movement to "power down" into a calmer economy, and a livable future?"

    That is the heart of the matter, especially the three well-chosen words posed within it: "a livable future". It delineates the real environmentalists from the pretenders.

    Our task, that is if we want to continue to live on this planet, is to create that "livable" future. One that most closely mimics the wondrous workings of nature itself....the best textbook for survival on this planet.

    Ms. Berman simply has not done her homework.

    Her "power-up" response to the challenge before us is an earth bursting at the veins with corporate-bought, growth-inducing steroids.... merely causing us to spin faster and faster, before the final collapse.

  • KWD

    2 years ago

    a tough sell

    The “demand reduction” kite (by extension; zero growth strategy) has been hoisted into the political wind many times in the past, and never seems to gain the altitude it needs to be seen clearly by those who would acknowledge and promote its benefits.

    Surprisingly it is shot down, not by economists, politicians or the church, but by the average working man on the street. There are a number of reasons: When push comes to shove, everyone wants to see those double-digit gains on their investments; and that’s really difficult where natural energy (wealth) replacement is occurring at much smaller rate. No one wants to be the first to WILLINGLY accept less and live a more frugal lifestyle. And any politician that tries to build a platform around living with less and zero growth will be laughed out of town.

    Overcoming the “growth is good” strategy is going to be a tough sell. The impetus for such change will likely not come from a sudden eco-awakening of the masses but will be spun off from the spread of conflict and violence that is starting to show with increasing frequency and severity around the globe. Marches, street riots and sabotaging sour gas facilities are just the beginning.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Personal Sacrafice

    "Don't raise supply, lower demand"

    This is a great idea, especially if means no personal sacrifice to me. What we can do is just go tell them pesky Murricans to stop burning coal to light their homes. And they'd better listen, too, cuz I'm gettin' fed up.

    The latest seat projections call for a Liberal landslide. Something is really not getting trough. Picking a fight with Greenies is not a way to win elections. Carole may have "agreed to disagree" but the Greenies have not.

    This piece is partisan cherry picking.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    People deserve a decent lifestyle

    This article is a sham. Like - we wish (or is it force) BC citizens to cut down on their power consumption so to save a few pennies a month - and as result, have a miserable lifestyle.

    One must be quite arrogant and shameless to demand others to live miserably because then a few giga watt hours of electricity can be saved and a few less tons of coal can be burnt. Why are the extremist enviro-fanatics such an unethical and disrespectful bunch to the rest of us?

    The answer to coal is green energy and not miserable lifestyle.

  • dave49

    2 years ago

    Great opinion piece

    Thanks Micheal,

    I'm glad somebody with both academic and intellectual clout, but not hampered by their various consulting and contracting activities, weighed in and said it so well. Bravo!

  • Dermot

    2 years ago

    What about the carbon tax?

    It's a bit ironic that the article fails to mention the carbon tax, the other piece of the current NDP dust up with environmentalists. The tax aims to achieve the precise goal of deep ecologists: to reduce the economic impacts of consumption. Ironically, the cap and trade proposal is based entirely on facilitating economic growth within a regulated limit.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Hydro use = Lifestyle

    YOU MUST BE KIDDING hydrogreen.

    No one's demanding anyone live miserably - except Gordon Campbell - and he demands it of everyone outside of a small circle of friends.

    The Campbell Tax is a complete farce - the enviros who promte it are ignoring its actual terms.

    I suggest you read the bill.. and then learn something about the concept of inelastic demand.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    @G West

    Dont change the subject. Climate change is far bigger than Gordon Campbell.

    Yes, the demand is inelastic at 7 cents a kwh. So why do the fanatics demand that we reduce consumption? Why dont they reduce their own consumption and get off our backs? Why are the enviro-fanatics against green renewable energy?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    enviro-fanatic

    That's funny hydro-green since you're the one declaring that its "green" to push for privatization of BC rivers to feed the US appetite for electricity.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Dermot

    And when exactly will the carbon tax start reducing the absolute amount of actual emissions?

    I guess that depends on how many poor the Liberals can drive out of their cars to make the roads less crowded for the rest of us while calling the whole process "green" eh?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    I'm not changing the subject

    Conservation is a perfectly valid approach to reducing demand for Hydro power, which, in fact, we have more than enough of to meet BC's own needs for at least the next 20 - 30 years.

    You're the one who said it would affect folk's lifestyles and complained about it here:
    This article is a sham. Like - we wish (or is it force) BC citizens to cut down on their power consumption so to save a few pennies a month - and as result, have a miserable lifestyle.

    Now, what was it you said about 'changing the subject?

    As to the inelasticity of demand for gasoline, perhaps you've forgotten how high the price for gas was - and yet consumption through that period (which included the farcical Campbell tax) was actually up 4% over the previous period.

    I suspect you also believe that the only thing that has reduced smoking in this country is the high price of cigarettes...

    To my way of thinking, you're the one who sounds fanatical my friend.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    And why the @? hydrogreen

    Seems to me it's redundant

  • carfreed

    2 years ago

    conservation

    Carbon tax or no carbon tax, cosumers need to DECIDE if they want to contribute to a world gone mad with the over use of automobiles. Even if Climate Change wasnot a threat: what kind of conservative action is it to get in an automobile along with millions of others, make a tremendous amount of noise, poison the air, dirty the streets, kill and injure thousands, vie for parking spaces and spend so much money from individual as well as public funds to use these things?
    Hybrids miht help with emissions but not with all the other problems.
    The only thing Ms. Tzepo Berman has done is: create bad feelings and alienate people.
    The silver lining is that we made get a better more informed discussion and resolution about the picture as a whole.

  • kepstein

    2 years ago

    Come on HydroGreen

    "...to save a few pennies a month - and as result, have a miserable lifestyle....'
    "...to live miserably because then a few giga watt hours of electricity can be saved..."

    I don't know about other people's families but my grandparents weren't miserable and they lived in a way that saved more than a few pennies and more than a few giga watt hours of electricity.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Gigawatts?

    Your grandparents saved gigawatts of electricity? Do have any idea of how huge a sum this is? It is a TRILLION watt/hours, or a THOUSAND megawatt/hours or a MILLION kilowatt hours.

    Over a 12 month period, I average 41 kw/h a day. This in a year, I use 1.4 mw/h. To use a gigawatt hour, I would have to live for approximately 600 years. Did your grandparents live for 600 years? Granted, I conserve electricity any way I can. Maybe your grandparents would have to live only 300 years to save a gigawatt of power

  • Blue Camas

    2 years ago

    BC-STV

    What's a tree-hugger to do?

    Vote for the NDP's cynical Carbon Tax opposition?

    Vote for the Liberal plan - save the environment by plundering rivers and wildlife? (and making lots of money!)

    Can I please vote Green now?

    And lets make those Green votes count for more - direct some votes to those CO2 lovin' Conservatives as well!

    All we need is, um... BC-STV!!

    Unless we can convince Professor M'Gonigle to just agree to become our Premier...

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    Energy and food sustainability

    This is a great article.

    Recently there has been a lot of talk about Global Warming and Climate Change. These are worthy of a lot of thought and action but they are only the beginning of the process to take care of the environment. We must remember plants, as well as animals and people, are part of the environment.
    We need to be concerned about environmental alteration, not just climate change. We must be concerned about all pollutants, not just green house gases (GHG’s.) No chemicals should be used unless they are studied and tested for damage to animals, plants and the environment. These studies must be made public.
    Three things we all need are housing, food and energy. We must get these without damaging the environment too much. Any activity we do will alter the environment. We must be able to get these in such a way so all forms of life can continue to live. We must become sustainable in obtaining all of these three things. We may want more things than the big 3 but sustainability is the key. If we are not sustainable in these, then we will run out of them and we may perish.
    To reduce energy wrt food, we should use local foods as much as possible. We must grow them without harmful chemicals. BC and Canada should be self-sufficient wrt food. We may import food from other places but at no net cost to the environment.

    BC and Canada should be self sufficient and sustainable in energy as well. We have to look at how we are going to get our energy. We must do a complete and thorough study of all ways we can generate energy, whether it be hydro, coal, solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear, wood, biofuels, gas or any other source of energy. All methods must be examined and these results must be public. Only after such a study can we use an energy source. We must do this so our energy sources are sustainable and not harmful to the environment.
    For example, with the Site C Dam project, we would look at the need, if any, the costs to the environment, people displaced, farmland lost, water use downstream and the generation of energy without producing GHG’s.
    No undertaking such as mining, housing developments, highways, etc. can be done without an environmental and sustainability analysis. We must be careful not to remove too many plants or trees, as we need them to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Other wastes must be recycled rather than thrown into landfills or oceans. Recycling must become a major activity in our sustainable culture.

    We must develop a national and provincial energy and food plans so we can look forward and know we can have a healthy life for future generations.

  • KWD

    2 years ago

    Berman a deep green? Make me laugh.

    The deep ecology movement does NOT seek to reduce the economic impacts of consumption, it seeks to oppose economic growth and, by default, reduce environmental destruction. There’s a world of difference.

    Tzeporah Berman’s PowerUp strategy is as far from left biocentrisim or deep ecology as you can get. Deep ecologists that think in terms of carbon taxes and cap and trade are pseudogreens.

    The following is sniped from "Left Biocentrism" by David Orton.

    “Left bios believe that the Earth belongs to no one and should be a
    non-privatized Commons. They call for a global redistribution of wealth, oppose economic growth and consumerism, and practice voluntary simplicity. There is a bioregional not a global focus. Social ecology, eco-Marxism, and eco-feminism have important insights, left bios believe, but are nevertheless seen as unduly human-centered in orientation.

    “Left biocentrists believe that, in order to try and turn around the ecological "Armageddon" and to prevent the coming social disaster, a profound transformation is required in our relationship to the Earth. This will include re-sacralizing Nature so that people come to see the Earth as alive and part of themselves. A future Earth-centered
    society will need to be organized around an ecocentric morality that has an essential spiritual or sacred dimension and is not based on economics."

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Naomi Klein

    Naomi Klein is also a member of PowerUp because she too realizes the advantages of Green Power.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    @Frank

    "That's funny hydro-green since you're the one declaring that its "green" to push for privatization of BC rivers to feed the US appetite for electricity."

    Wrong Frank - only BC Hydro is allowed to export power. IPPs dont have authorization to export. And IPPs can only sell power to BC Hydro and nobody else. Your knowledge on IPPs is short - but you are long on rhetoric and mythology.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Make sense please

    G West - you dont make sense. Smoking is addictive, and comparing it to electricity consumption is a category mistake. Besides if electricity was 40 cents a kwh like in Germany instead of 8 in BC, a lot of people would be conserving. This is simple law of economics. Nobody is going to save 25 cents a month and lead a miserable lifestyle that you fanatics want to force on them.

    I am all for conservation - but to each his own. You want to conserve, go ahead, and I will defend you to conserve. But dont impose your ideology on me by force.

    Its not fanatical to say to each his own. But it is fanatical of you to try to force people into a miserable lifestyle just so they would save 25 cents a month. That is up to them and it aint your business. You are welcome to turn in or turn off your fridge, which consumes 50% of your power during the month - and suffer - I will defend you to do that.

    Enviro-fanatics: Keep your ideology and fanaticism to yourself please.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    More IPP Facts

    Independent Power Producer (IPP) Run-of-the-River Technology FACTs:

    Independent Power Producers pay 3 times more social benefits to government than BC Hydro does.

    Private power IPPs pay $25 per MWh in taxes, water license rental fees, and community benefits to the government. About half of that is paid to the local government as property tax (while BC Hydro pays no local property taxes for 25 billion dollars of assets that it owns).

    BC Hydro, on the other hand, pays only $8 per MWh as dividend and taxes to the government (2008) while most of that power is produced by dams that have permanently altered the Columbia River and Peace River basins with cumulative environmental impacts. To meet our current energy shortage, BC Hydro wants to build yet another dam (Site C) at 3 times the cost per MW, compared to low-cost low-impact private run-of-the-river technology.

    A small 10 MW run of river IPP plant pays about $1,400,000 a year to various levels of government, most of it to the local government. BC Hydro pays only $420,000 for the same amount of power to the Province, including an infinitesimal “grant-in-lieu” to the local government.

    No IPP run-of-the-river project is on a salmon bearing reach of a stream, and the environmental impact is minor and can be compensated. Run-of-the-river technology can co-exist and share the habitat with fish and other wildlife. IPPs do not build dams – but low weirs or taps on generally a steep stream that has little or no resident fish. The impact is far less than dams built by BC Hydro, logging, mining, oil and gas, coal, real estate development, transportation, pulp and paper, pipelines, utility telephone and cable poles, etc. And unlike mining, oil and gas, coal, transportation and real estate – run of river technology is sustainable, renewable, clean and significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

    IPPs using run-of-the-river technology can produce green renewable electrical energy at about half the cost of BC Hydro.

    While a run-of-the-river plant is producing energy, BC Hydro fills up its gigantic dams, so that the energy production can be shifted to the winter. Run-of-the-river production complements BC Hydro's mega-dams. Energy is stored behind BC Hydro dams for low-water periods, and many IPPs also have lakes for winter storage. Furthermore, BC Hydro is not obliged to buy snowmelt power that exceeds 25% of the annual production.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    @ Kepstein

    Cut the nonsense Kepstein. You would not last for 5 hours living like your grandparents without electricity - no fridge, no laptop, no microwave, no washer, no electronics, no clean heat.

    You idealists are the most hypocritical bunch out there. You criticize Canada all the time and tell how great things are in Cuba, but none of you wants to vote with their feet.

    No wonder the enviro-fanatics are considered to have the lowest form of moral standards - and are the laughing stock of the intelligent and rational classes.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Hydrogreen

    Please don't confuse us with the facts. This is an idealogical issue, not an environmental or an issue of effective power generation and wealth generation. The people posting here are going to oppose anything a non-NDP government does (except if their party gets hijacked by a turncoat like Mike Harcourt or Gary Doer). This is the same group that opposed the Columbia River project and lobbied for coal fired plants near major urban centres.

    They have divided their vote extremely effectively, thus guaranteeing a landslide to the BC Liberal Party, whose seat projections are now anywhere between 70 and 78. Unless Campbell drops a baby on its head, he is going to go ahead with one of the best and greenest power generation projects there has ever been. The voters will speak on May 12 and Carole's campaign is in a shambles.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Wilfred

    heh - ooops my apologies - yes facts will confuse these "pseudo" environmentalists (label according to the First Nations).

    These ideological fanatics want state monopoly capitalism (they call it public power) - in other words they want Socialism - so they think they wont have to work as the government will subsidize their BMWs and MACs and electric power.

    Its despicable how little these fanatics know about clean power - but they love to see dirty coal fired power and global warming that it produces, as long as they can live on government handouts while the economy is tanked.

    None of these enviro fanatics have ever had a productive job in their whole life. Always worked for government, the municipality, for NGOs, or they were students, artists, social activists, or jobless or most likely couldnt find a job. Who would hire someone who says "my grandparents conserved a gigawatt hour". None of them have productive jobs. That is why they envy those people who through hard work can afford ample 8 cents a kwh power, and have a decent and enjoyable lifestyle.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    hydro-green

    "Wrong Frank - only BC Hydro is allowed to export power."

    English not your first language? If my 25 word post was too complex for you perhaps you could point out what part it was you didn't understand?

    "And IPPs can only sell power to BC Hydro and nobody else."

    So what's the point then since we don't need the power? Or as Seth says is this so we can all power up our many electric cars in the Spring for the coming year?

    "Your knowledge on IPPs is short - but you are long on rhetoric and mythology."

    25 words was too long for you was it? I guess you're short on attention span as well as knowledge of hydro.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    YOU don't make sense hydrogreen -

    You're the one who posted the utterly selfish and self-centered comment, remember?

    As for claiming you believe in conservation – that’s a little hard to take given the way you started this conversation – not to mention the angry and utterly irrelevant and off-topic (CUBA?) direction you’re taking it in now>

    The fact is that BC produces enough electricity for its own needs NOW and, with a little planning and conservation, can continue to do so for quite some time.

    IPPs are mostly concerned with generating for profit power to sell across the border not to meet British Columbians domestic needs - any suggestion otherwise is absurd.

    The fact of the matter is that demand for goods like gasoline and cigarettes is inelastic. Smoking consumption has gone down very slowly over the past 25 years - mostly because of education and - wait for it - DEATH.

    I don't want anyone imposing their bankrupt ideology - exactly the bankrupt and purblind selfish philosophy of Gordon Campbell and his lying friends.

    That's the real problem in this province. People are afraid of the truth - the Campbell Tax spins money and we don't need more hydro power. Until 6 months ago (when the ministry determined it was time to take down the data) Hydro was projecting on its own website that conservation was all that was necessary to meet domestic needs until 2027.

    Of course, Accenture, when it isn't helping the PAB manipulate the Premier's messages, is busy spinning dreck into gold for BC Hydro.

    Oh, and by the way, using gasoline is addictive too - particularly when the stupid government of this province thinks spinning money creates viable transportation alternatives.

    As I've said several times before, there are at least 35 good reasons for sending Gordon Campbell and his corporate kleptomaniac puppet masters to the woodshed - if the carbon tax had been designed to funnel tax revenue into positive change and affordable options for the hundreds of thousands of home owners and commuters and workers who don’t have any other choice there would still be 34.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Hypocrite

    Mr Hydro-Green claims to be saving the environment by bulldozing BC and that this is important to do because we need more and more growth otherwise he will be unable to survive.

    What are you going to do for energy when you run out of rivers? Do a rain dance? Start channeling solar energy through your tin-foil hat?

    The only thing you're not short of is hypocrisy.

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    Even More IPP facts

    Independent Power Producer (IPP) Run-of-the-River Technology FACTs:

    IPPs contributed to the BC Economy. In fact, from the years 2001-2008 IPPs helped fund cashed starved BC Liberals with $800,000 and expected nothing in return.

    http://www.publicpowerbc.ca/ipp-political-contributions-bc-libs-exceeds-800000

    IPPs provide jobs in BC for BCers. In fact, the industry employs many under-privileged BC Liberals and their friends.

    http://www.publicpowerbc.ca/insiders-move-ipp-industry

    IPPs contribute to the BC tax base. Although BC Hydro pays six times more for water rentals, the $60 million saved by IPPs goes to needy shareholders, some who live in BC (I think)

    http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/
    water_rental_rates/cabinet/
    new_rent_structure_waterpower.pdf

    IPPS contribute to BC Hydro's bottom line by providing power for Californians when they need it most, in the spring sand early summer. BC Hydro will pay $120 MW hour (Expected price for 2008 Energy call) and sell it for between $20-60 in an innovative new BC Liberal economic strategy called "Buy High and Sell Low"

    In fact, this new strategy allows IPP companies to provide energy security and export electricity to the US without having to go though enormous amounts of 'red tape.' (Because we all know how bad red tape is!!!)

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    More hypocrisy

    "That is why they envy those people who through hard work can afford ample 8 cents a kwh power, and have a decent and enjoyable lifestyle."

    Didn't take long to cut through the "green" bs did it?

    Just another loser happy to do no work while investing in a company that is happy to wreck rivers it doesn't own so that he can enjoy his 42'" plasma tv.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Desparation

    Seems that a tone of desperation among the faithful is setting in. Fact is if the government of BC were to give free milk for babies, the Faithful here would oppose it. This absolute opposition is purely dogmatic.

    It is getting increasingly shrill now that Carole has so totally flubbed her campaign from the start. The platform announcement on the day before the longest holiday weekend of the year, picking a fight with the Greenies and preaching to the choir have made for an even more pathetic show than in 2005.

    Really, we should be discussing who the next NDP leader should be. I would suggest Mike Farnsworth but is a male allowed to take the party leadership?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Wilf

    I see you're still crying about Gary "Mr Union" Doer kicking the bajeezus out of you and your Reform Party buddies for 3 straight elections in Manitoba. Try and get over it.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Gary Doer

    Actually, in my opinion, Gary Doer is one of the best premiers in Canada. He must be since he can get get a majority government every time he runs. He can attract enough voters to win. This is unlike Carole James.

    Is there something to be learned here, Frank? your party is about to get a good old whoopin' and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

    http://www.trendlines.ca/electbc.htm

    But of course you cannot learn from this,which is why Gordon Campbell is whomping you right now and is on his way to a landslide. You'll get more shrill, resort to more personal attacks, tell us the sky is (still and again) falling and then be very quiet of election night.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Laurier

    By the way, if you google up your favourite prime minister you'll be able to see how his parents spelled his name and how its different than the way you do it.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    "Bulldozing the rivers" --

    "Bulldozing the rivers" -- BC Hydro awards only 3 buildable contracts a year. That is how few that is built.

    And no river gets bulldozed. Just a small powerhouse the size of a cabin and a wier that is like a 10 meter wide wall. The existing road is re-used.

    Otherwise you are not allowed even to get close to the river, as per government regulations.

    You have never seen one of these 10 MW IPPs - have you? Ignorance doesn't stop the fanatic from spewing nonsense.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Frank

    See my "personal attack" comment above. Sticks and stones.

    This seat projection calls Liberal 74 NDP 11. This is not good for you, Frank. I want to see a bigger opposition than 11 members.

    http://www.nodice.ca/elections/britishcolumbia/projections.php

    Frank, would you agree that Farnsworth would make a better leader? Can you clarify if he can actually be NDP leader for me or does the gender rule apply here too?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Wilf

    "Actually, in my opinion, Gary Doer is one of the best premiers in Canada."

    Good for you, when he runs for PM we look forward to seeing you vote for him.

    "Is there something to be learned here, Frank? your party is about to get a good old whoopin' and they have nobody to blame but themselves."

    I realize you've been drinking champagne every morning for breakfast since the Mustel poll but I remind you we live in a democracy and if the people want to vote for more child poverty that is their right.

    "You'll get more shrill, resort to more personal attacks, tell us the sky is (still and again) falling and then be very quiet of election night."

    I thought it was you making the personal attacks? I know you've been posting the exact same paragraph every day since 2005.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    G West nonsense

    >> "The fact is that BC produces enough electricity for its own needs NOW "

    Shows your general ignorance. BC Hydro has been a net importer of power in 7 of the past 10 years. Its right there on BC Hydro website. This year it will also import power because the interior of BC saw little snow.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Hydro-Green

    "And no river gets bulldozed. Just a small powerhouse the size of a cabin and a wier that is like a 10 meter wide wall. The existing road is re-used."

    I guess you've never seen one then. Go to save our rivers and look at the photographs and video although I'm sure you'll claim the pictures are doctored.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Wilf

    "See my "personal attack" comment above. Sticks and stones."

    So pointing out that you misspell your own handle is a personal attack is it? That's jsut the sort of thing I would expect a fan of our crying drunken premier to say.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    G West nonsense

    >> "IPPs are mostly concerned with generating for profit power to sell across the border not to meet British Columbians domestic needs - any suggestion otherwise is absurd."

    IPPs cannot sell to anyone but BC Hydro.

    Name me one IPP that sells to someone else in BC or is exporting power to America. You just make up lies as you go. Its not nice to be ignorant.

    Fortis BC is not an IPP, neither is Teck Cominco.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Not a bad idea

    "Good for you, when he runs for PM we look forward to seeing you vote for him."

    I would for one applaud Gary Doer entering the federal political arena. I doubt the federal party would have him.

    Anyway, we are in a provincial election. Maybe Carole can get a few tips from Gary on how to win. She needs them. Her campaign is in a shambles.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Hydro-"Green" and his 42" plasma

    "Shows your general ignorance. BC Hydro has been a net importer of power in 7 of the past 10 years. Its right there on BC Hydro website. This year it will also import power because the interior of BC saw little snow."

    And of course the National Energy Board who says BC has been a net exporter for 9 of the last 11 years doesn't know what they're talking about eh.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Wilf

    "Anyway, we are in a provincial election."

    Which explains I guess in some weird way why it is you brought up Gary Doer.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Frank's nonsense

    >> "Go to save our rivers and look at the photographs and video although I'm sure you'll claim the pictures are doctored."

    I have seen all the pix. No river is getting bulldozed. What is your source? Give me the link. But you cant.

    The existing road far away from the river will get dug up to bury the pipe, and then covered. So what is wrong with that?

    Besides Save Our Rivers is paid by COPE 378 union, and the ultra rightwing Raif Mair from the fascist Socred party is a known liar.

    Take Ashlu River. It is like 200 kilometers long with its tributaries. Then the intake is like 40 meters long. That is all. That is 40/20,000 = 0.2% percent of the river !!!

    And the ignorant fanatic calls this "bulldozing the river".

    Waiting for your link to picture of river getting bulldozed. You dont have one.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Like I said

    How much power did we sell south of the border in each of the last 10 years hydrogreen?

    You're not aware of this I guess:

    UBC forestry prof George Hoberg and co-author Christopher Mallon reviewed import-export stats and came up with some interesting conclusions.

    Hoberg and Mallon noted that Hydro could lessen its dependence on IPP sources of power by using more of the cheap power available from British Columbia's entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty instead of building new supply.

    Apparently your knowledge of these issues stops at reading BC Hyrdo's Accenture produced Annual Reports.

    Shades of Enron and Kenny Lay I guess. I wonder if he really DID die - or just moved to BC.

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Well, not exactly....

    "Raif Mair from the fascist Socred party is a known liar."

    Well, not exactly, they settled out of court and he got fired from his job and this is the last stop. Did make a public apology, though.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Bias

    Its okay HG, we hear here all the time how the NEB, Stats Can and BC Stats are left-wing mouthpieces and their data can't be trusted. Not when there's some right-wing blogger out there with the "real truth" eh?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Oh, and by the way

    Hydro's import-export numbers, showing the crown corp. in a net import position for seven of the last eight years, are derived from its annual report, which is audited.

    Stats Can numbers include B.C.'s other power utility, Fortis, as well as exports by Teck Cominco and Alcan.

    Now what was it you were saying?

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Bad Math

    Sorry a little lapse in my math.

    The amount of Ashlu river that is affected by the IPP is 40 meters of 200 kilometers which is 2% of 1% of the river: 0.0002 !!!

    And then some ignoramus says "the river will be bulldozed".

    Frank - what do you do for a living besides firing comments from the basement of your parents?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    I do find it kind of amusing though Frank

    That, when confronted with some facts and a little logic, our interlocutor(s) so rapidly resort to that kind of remark.

    You know the lying fascist thing!

    Strange - but it always happens - and, of course, provides a very nice coda to the tune they've been singing.

    3 - 0 for the Canucks over the Blues - now that IS good news though.

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    MORE IPP FACTS

    BC is a net exporter for 7 of the last 11 years. IPPs and BC Liberal shills always say "BC Hydro is a net importer" but electricity produced in BC is considered imported (not EPA).

    BC Hydro is not BC, and the justification for IPP power by the BC Libs is to attain Electricity Self sufficiency in BC. This isn't eh same as BC hydro being "self sufficient

    IPPs would be out of business if they didn't have EPAs with BC Hydro, because no one would pay their high prices, and they wouldn't be viable in many cases without BC Hydro being forced to buy from them.

    http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/trade/trade-elec.asp

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Hydro-"Green" and his 42" "green" plasma

    http://www.ourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/327-bute-inlet-multimedia

    "I have seen all the pix. No river is getting bulldozed. What is your source? Give me the link. But you cant."

    I guess you can't see the bulldozers in the video? Perhaps you think the NDP drew them in with yellow crayon?

    "The existing road far away from the river will get dug up to bury the pipe, and then covered. So what is wrong with that?"

    How about there was no reason to do it?

    "Besides Save Our Rivers is paid by COPE 378 union, and the ultra rightwing Raif Mair from the fascist Socred party is a known liar."

    Of course of course, and you're a nameless blogger with no actual data at all who is standing tall against the lies and deception of the unions. Everything you don't like is an evil trick isn't it HG? Life would be so wonderful if it wasn't clouded with data eh?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Hydro-Green

    "Frank - what do you do for a living besides firing comments from the basement of your parents?"

    Why? Feeling inadequate?

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    G West nonsense

    Statscan's numbers are wrong because it only considers "ticketed" power. BC Hydro imports more power than is reported by statscan which only looks at some of the statistics.

    Alcan does not export any power.

    Fortis and Teck are not required to sell power to BC Hydro and will export when the price is high in the states - and that is why BC Hydro needs to be self sufficient. Otherwise it will continue to import coal power from Alberta.

    BC Hydro’s 2008 Annual Report states: “Prior to fiscal 2008, BC Hydro was a net importer of electricity for seven consecutive years due to average or below average system water conditions every year. Fiscal 2008 was an exceptional inflow year, with inflows well above normal, resulting in BC Hydro being a net seller of electricity. The outlook for fiscal 2009 is for a return to average inflow conditions and, as a result, it is expected that BC Hydro will once again be a net importer of electricity.”

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    A question for the tin-foil hat brigade

    How many times do you have to chant "left-wing plot" before you're able to sleep at night?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    HG and his short attention span

    "Statscan's numbers are wrong because it only considers "ticketed" power."

    Gee, how did I know in advance you'd claim StatsCan was wrong?

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Frank nonsense again

    >> "I guess you can't see the bulldozers in the video? Perhaps you think the NDP drew them in with yellow crayon?"

    There was no bulldozing of rivers in this video. The only bulldozing was Ashlu IPP building a 40 meter diversion weir.

    Wow!!! That is 2% of 1% of Ashlu River!! My god, they are bulldozing the Ashlu, and the sky is falling!

    Did you fail science and math in school Frank? 2% of 1% ? Is this illiteracy or what? So meanwhile we cook the planet through coal fired plants because 40 meters of Ashlu should not get bulldozed.

    What a shameful and regressive ideology.

    But of course if BC Hydro were to raze 10% of Ashlu, like they did on the peace and columbia and bridge and seton and Site C, and etc. etc., all is honky dory - according to the enviro-fanatic.

  • ANDYV

    2 years ago

    NOT EITHER OR...

    So many opinions... so much passion. When the dikes fail and Richmond disappears underwater, maybe then people will agree that some major changes are needed to our greedy, excessive lifestyle.

    "In times of crisis, idealists are the only realists." Lama Govinda

    Bless you Michael M'Gonigle

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    HG

    "So meanwhile we cook the planet through coal fired plants because 40 meters of Ashlu should not get bulldozed."

    Coal fired plants? Are there hundreds of them in your imaginary BC?

    "What a shameful and regressive ideology."

    Unlike the boy who admitted here that claiming "green" is only for selling it to the rubes, its in fact all about "lifestyle".

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    >> >> "The existing road

    >> >> "The existing road far away from the river will get dug up to bury the pipe, and then covered. So what is wrong with that?"

    >> How about there was no reason to do it?

    You mean burning unsustainable coal and polluting the atmosphere with SOx and NOx and toxics and causing global warming is "no reason".

    The moral bankruptcy of the union directed enviro-fanatic with ultra-rightwing racist heroes like Raif Mair. Its shameless. And so is your reactionary ideology.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    IPPs pay $25 a MWh in taxes, water license rental fees, and first nation royalty to governments – mostly to the local government. BC Hydro pays only $8 a MWh in dividend and taxes to the government.

    Please provide a reference.

    Quote:
    On the other hand, BC Hydro is a very high cost producer - $110 a MWh, from its own Aberfeldie run-of-the-river project that it has just completed.

    You are lying. According to BC Hydro:

    Quote:
    Adjusting the levelized cost to reflect the energy output profile, transmission losses to the Lower Mainland, and additional factors to allow comparison to the 2006 Call For Energy results in a levelized cost of energy of $81/MWh. [$78 - 84/MWh] This compares favorably to the weighted average of accepted energy prices under the Call, which was $88/MWh for all energy types.

    Emphasis mine. It's on page 15 of 333.

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/
    pdf/bc_hydro_aberfeldie_application_for_
    cpcn.Par.0001.File.bc_hydro_aberfeldie_
    application_for_cpcn.pdf

    Quote:
    The cost of production at the proposed Site C mega-dam on the Peace River will be about $160 a MWh.

    You are lying again. According to John Calvert, the actual cost could be "as low as $42 per MWh."

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

    Quote:
    Due to high costs, BC Hydro is unable to produce power if the project is less than 50 MW.

    You are lying AGAIN! Frist, there is a moratorium on small hydro construction by BC Hydro put in place by the current provincial government. Second, the Alberfeldie redevelopment disproves your statement about costs being higher for BC Hydro.

    Quote:
    The average salary and benefits at BC Hydro is $100,000 per employee per year.

    First, please provide a source for this, or at least how you calculated it, and be a bit more specific than the BC Hydro annual report.

    Quote:
    This is 2.5 times the average private salary in the province of $40,000. The average salary at BCTC, a unit of BC Hydro is $130,000 per employee.

    What a remarkable dishonest statement! The average salary at an engineering firm will be much, much higher than the average "private salary" in BC.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Frank and nonsense

    >> "Coal fired plants? Are there hundreds of them in your imaginary BC? "

    BC Hydro is net importing power 8 of the past 11 years and its mostly coal fired power from Alberta.

    You are simply too ignorant for debate. Sorry. Learn about this industry and then come back to comment.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    To HG with his beer and plasma tv

    See you later, some of us volunteer to run activities like baseball for our kids. When you reach adulthood you might see neighbours of yours doing the same.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    Although BC Hydro can produce some power at less than $6 a MWh from our gigantic heritage dams paid by BC citizens ...

    And BC Hydro buys from IPP at well over ten times this, for example $88/MWh in the 2006 Call For Energy.

    Quote:
    IPPs using run-of-the-river technology can produce green renewable electrical energy at about half the cost of BC Hydro.

    As I pointed out inmy last post, this is a lie, nothing more.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    HG and his coal fired plants

    What? You couldn't find any? How about that because I thought you just claimed otherwise.

    As for hydro, you have demonstrated a remarkable ignorance about your province.

    But I did find the "Fox News" view of groups like Stats Can entertaining.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Quote:
    Jimmy >>Please provide a reference.

    The skimpy $8 a MWh social benefit by BC Hydro can be found in:
    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/pdf/info_annual
    _report_2008.Par.0001.File.info_annual
    _report_2008.pdf

    The $25 a MWh social benefit by IPPs are: $3 mill rate for industrial property tax per $100 assets, Water Rental on Capacity: $4/KW, Water Rental on Energy: $1.2/MWh, First Nations at 5%, Corp. Tax rate at 35%, Personal tax rate at 43% .

    Add them up for a 10 MW project selling power at $85/MWh, and it adds up to $25/Mwh.

    I will be happy to lead you through the calculations because unlike Frank, you don't appear as a fanatic.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Frank the ignorant

    OK, tell me which minute of the video is showing a river getting bulldozed over.

    And Statscan says that BC Hydro is a net importer, even though its not including nonticketed sales which BC Hydro includes.

    BC Hydro is very clear: 7 of the last 10 years has been net importer (from Alberta and US). Make it 8 years with 2009.

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/pdf/
    info_iep_challenges_and_choices.
    Par.0001.File.info_iep_challenges_and
    _choices.pdf

    What is the name of the river getting bulldozed over and which minute of the video is it Frank?

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Quote:
    Adjusting the levelized cost to reflect the energy output profile, transmission losses to the Lower Mainland, and additional factors to allow comparison to the 2006 Call For Energy results in a levelized cost of energy of $81/MWh. [$78 - 84/MWh] This compares favorably to the weighted average of accepted energy prices under the Call, which was $88/MWh for all energy types.

    Jimmy can't you read? Levelized prices are about 20% to 25% below energy prices, and includes the NPV of the price ans seasonal firmness etc. So to get the Aberfeldie average price you must UNlevelize it: 81 / 0.8 = $101. Then Aberfeldie cost did not include a dam (because it was already in place) and transmission lines (because it was already in place). Aberfeldie was an UPGRADE.

    Building a dam from scratch is a HUGE cost. The total cost easily goes above $110 - and you can compare that to Ashlu IPP at $55 (its on their website) or $88 average (unlevelized price) for 2006 Call.

    Have I made it clear? I beleive I explained this to you before.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Quote:
    The cost of production at the proposed Site C mega-dam on the Peace River will be about $160 a MWh. ---- You are lying again. According to John Calvert, the actual cost could be "as low as $42 per MWh."

    John Calvert is a 3rd rate liar and that was easily shown by the peer review of his drivel of a book that was paid by COPE 378 (BC Hydro union).

    Site C will cost $6.6 billion dollars WITHOUT transmission according to BC Hydro, and close to $8.5 billion with transmission, for a cost of $9 million a MW.

    Now go and figure the interest costs and other costs to arrive at the per MWh cost. IPPs capital costs are about $3 million a MW. Site C is THREE times more expensive. How is it that IPPs average $88/MWh, but Site C is $42 a MWh?

    Do you know how to do an accounting Jimmy? Have you had math/economics/finance? Or are you one of those literature or cultural anthropology majors who failed science and is blinded by enviro-lefty ideology?

    What John Calvert is saying is as fantastic as saying water travels uphill. No accountant can make $9 million / MW become $42 a MWh. Not even Arthur Anderson or ENRON. If you can do that, send me the calculation for a critique.

    3 times the capital cost means generally 3 times the production cost for a renewable energy project, as there is no feedstock cost. 3 x 88 is certainly over $160/MWh.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    The skimpy $8 a MWh social benefit by BC Hydro can be found in...

    I could not find that figure anywhere in the source you quoted. Please provide a page number in the report.

    Quote:
    The $25 a MWh social benefit by IPPs are: $3 mill rate for industrial property tax per $100 assets, Water Rental on Capacity: $4/KW, Water Rental on Energy: $1.2/MWh, First Nations at 5%, Corp. Tax rate at 35%, Personal tax rate at 43% .

    Where did you get this calculation from? Please provide a reference.

    Quote:
    Name me one IPP that sells to someone else in BC or is exporting power to America. You just make up lies as you go.

    BC Hydro must buy electricity from the IPPs no matter what, due to the contracts it signed. If it has more than it needs, this electricity will be exported, and the high development costs of IPP power will be subsidised by the BC ratepayer.

    Quote:
    BC Hydro charges the ratepayers and taxpayers $1.4 million per GWh in costs to produce non-green power (Site C).

    Reference? Not that I think you have one :)

    Quote:
    To meet our current energy shortage, BC Hydro wants to build yet another dam (Site C) at 3 times the cost per MW, compared to low-cost low-impact private run-of-the-river technology.

    Yet another in a long string of lies. It's hard to keep up with all of them!

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Quote:
    You are lying AGAIN! Frist, there is a moratorium on small hydro construction by BC Hydro put in place by the current provincial government. Second, the Alberfeldie redevelopment disproves your statement about costs being higher for BC Hydro.

    You aren't smart enough to read? When I say they cannot build under 50 MW it obviously means BUILD ECONOMICALLY.

    Aberfeldie (25 MW) upgrade is at $110/MWh.

    Ashlu or Cranberry (8 MW) is at $55/MWh.

    Of course Bc Hydro can build a Cranberry, but do you want to subsidize it from your own money?

    You can't fight numbers, Jimmy and take the ideological blinders off.

  • ecotrustcanada

    2 years ago

    Ian Gill speaks on run-of-river IPPs

    Watch a video of Ian Gill, President of Ecotrust Canada, weighing in on the debate about run-of-river independent power projects. http://www.ecotrust.ca/climate/gill-on-ipps

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Quote:
    What a remarkable dishonest statement! The average salary at an engineering firm will be much, much higher than the average "private salary" in BC.

    BCTC with $130,000 average salary and benefits is not an engineering firm. Only 10% I think have engineers degrees. The rest are your busy body middle managers, bean counters and paper pushers. They are overbloated.

    They are a public company - meaning NO accountability. The money gushes in and they dont have to compete with others in the market. They are a monopoly.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    For BCHydro skimpy $8 a MWh social benefits: In BCH 2008 annual report, take taxes paid and Payment to Province Page 73, and divide them by total GWh produced you will get $8.

    For IPP huge $25/MWh social benefits: Find the mill rate from the regional district such as Powell River. Multiply by assets. Find the water rental rates from the MOE (its on their website). For First Nations contact Squamish or Douglas FN, for corp. tax rates checkout Revenue Canada, and also for personal taxes.

    You need to do your homework before saying "it is a lie that BCH pays only 8 while IPPs pay $25".

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Hydro Green

    You actually haven't got anything left but calling people liars - some debater.

    The fact is, British Columbia produces (from several sources) more power than we need and THERE IS NO EARTHLY REASON to sell any more of our energy future to private for profit friends of Gordon Campbell.

    That's the truth and, in my view it ought to be a major issue in this election.

    There is NO ENERGY Shortage - the reason for the IPP and Run of River panic is to create profits - not to address British Columbians' needs or to continue to provide BC consumers and businesses with the competitive advantages we've enjoyed for several decades.

    Like off-shore raw log sales and the carbon tax, bargain basement oil and gas royalties and lumber company real estate developments - nothing the CEO's hegemony has wrought has anything to do with the well being of our citizens.

    And that's why, jimmy, these guys will lie through their teeth despire the fact they haven't got a leg to stand on.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Quote:
    BC Hydro must buy electricity from the IPPs no matter what, due to the contracts it signed. If it has more than it needs, this electricity will be exported, and the high development costs of IPP power will be subsidised by the BC ratepayer.

    Wrong Jimmy. BC Hydro does not have to buy more than 25% of the freshet power, and does not have to buy nonfirm power. And IPPs cannot sell this power to others, even though BCH does not buy them.

    IPP power costs are way lower than what BC Hydro can generate. Ashlu and Cranberry are $55 and 2006 Call is $88. Then BC Hydro's own Aberfeldie is at least $110 and BCH own Site C is $160 a MWh.

    So the consumers benefit when IPPs sell (by force) their power to BC Hydro because they generate power way BELOW what BCH can generate (due to wastage and overhead and fat union salaries).

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    Jimmy can't you read? Levelized prices are about 20% to 25% below energy prices, and includes the NPV of the price ans seasonal firmness etc. So to get the Aberfeldie average price you must UNlevelize it: 81 / 0.8 = $101.

    What a load of sh*t! Why would you unlevelise them? The whole point is to make meaningful comparison possible. BC Hydro was comparing levelised cost of the Alberfeldie Redevlopment with the average cost of post purchased from IPPs in the 2006 Call For Energy, those prices also being levelised, of course.

    Quote:
    Aberfeldie was an UPGRADE.

    Wrong again! It's called the " Aberfeldie Redevelopment Project", not the "Aberfeldie Upgrade".

    http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/regulatory/aberfeldie_project.html

    And it involved the replacement of nearly every component involved in generation (from the report linked to above, page 159 of 333), including dismantling and replacing the powerhouse, penstock, and switchyard.

    Quote:
    Building a dam from scratch is a HUGE cost.

    What a joke! The cost of the dam is irrelevant as it is effectively a run-of-the-river project. From the project description (page 29 of 3333):

    Quote:
    Due to the continued siltation of the headpond, the storage capacityof the reservoir is significantly reduced and the plant operates essentially as a run-of-river facility with water flowing over the spillway about 80% of the year.

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/pdf/bc_hydro_
    aberfeldie_application_for_cpcn.Par.
    0001.File.bc_hydro_aberfeldie_application
    _for_cpcn.pdf

    Quote:
    The total cost easily goes above $110

    You are lying again. I defer to BC Hydro here (they state $81/MWh), since I trust them just a bit more than I trust you :)

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Whatever you may think of BC Hydro

    Its employees are a lot more productive than the 233 fellas in the public affairs burear who are doing all the spinning on this and every other BC Liberal lie - they cost the taxpayer more than $28 million per year and they don't produce a single Kw of light.

  • jcolvin

    2 years ago

    why either / or?

    This article seems logically fallacious; as if the only choice is between ROR or conservation. But of course there is no reason not to do both; generate power as cleanly (and greenly) as possible, which ROR does, *AND* conserve as much as possible so that dirty generators can be turned off permanently. The "side effects" of ROR mentioned are pretty minimal, compared to building dams or fossil fuel power plants.

    Not impressed.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    G West

    G West learn from Jimmy as he is dealing with numbers (rather than rhetoric) and is looking to get the facts.

    I may not agree with Jimmy but I have respect for him. But G West - you are simply uneducated and not in the same class.

    Statscan says BC Hydro is a net importer of power 7 out of the last 10 years (or 8 of the last 11 years).

    We also want to replace coal plants with renewable energy plants for the benefit of all Canadians. BC Hydro wants to export green power to Alberta and they are not against it. In fact it makes a lot of sense to kill coal, and petroleum. So why do you hate green power that will reduce global warming?

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    Aberfeldie (25 MW) upgrade is at $110/MWh.

    BC Hydro disagrees. I'm not sure who to trust... BC Hydro, or or the unsourced statement of an anonymous commenter on the internet who has already lied copiously. Tough choice.

    Quote:
    BCTC with $130,000 average salary and benefits is not an engineering firm. Only 10% I think have engineers degrees. The rest are your busy body middle managers, bean counters and paper pushers. They are overbloated.

    Whether this is true or not, it's a red herring. My point was about using the "average private salary" in BC to compare to BC Hydro salary. The salaries of Plutonic or Ledcor employees are no doubt much much higher.

    Quote:
    They are a public company - meaning NO accountability.

    Are you referring to BC Hydro? They are a crown corporation, in case you didn't know, and are thus ultimately accountable to the citizens of BC.

    Quote:
    The money gushes in and they dont have to compete with others in the market. They are a monopoly.

    And the result is the third (or is it second?) lowest hydro rates of any jurisdiction on the continent.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Quote:What a load of sh*t!

    Quote:
    What a load of sh*t! Why would you unlevelise them? The whole point is to make meaningful comparison possible. BC Hydro was comparing levelised cost of the Alberfeldie Redevlopment with the average cost of post purchased from IPPs in the 2006 Call For Energy, those prices also being levelised, of course.

    OK Jimmy I am through with your blindness.

    You CANNOT compare LEVELIZED prices with UNLEVELIZED prices. Apples to oranges.

    The AVERAGE IPP price of $88 is UNLEVELIZED you idiot. It says: "average accepted price" - does not say average levelized price.

    The LEVELIZED IPP price for 2006 is $72 (not $88).

    So BCH is comparing levelized price $81 of Aberfeldie to unlevelized hydro price of $88.

    Get it? that is why you need to $81/0.8 = $101.

    Quote:
    Wrong again! It's called the " Aberfeldie Redevelopment Project", not the "Aberfeldie Upgrade".

    Look at the picture - Aberfeldie has got a 50 meter high dam that was built in the 1930s. Aberfeldie DID NOT build a wier or intake, it was there! They just put in a new penstock and generators and made it ROR. A ROR can easily use a dam, and there are advantages, but IPPs are environmentally conscious and build only wiers, unlike BC Hydro (Site C, or could have removed the Aberfeldie dam).

    Page 1 Attachment B: "The only portion of the existing facility that will be retained is the existing dam structure."
    That dam costs 20 to 30 million dollars to build from scratch!

    So much for respect.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    John Calvert is a 3rd rate liar...

    If you think he's lying, then provide a source of your own.

    Quote:
    Site C will cost $6.6 billion dollars WITHOUT transmission according to BC Hydro, and close to $8.5 billion with transmission, for a cost of $9 million a MW.

    BC Hydro seems to disagree. They state:

    Quote:
    Site C would be publicly owned. Early interim project estimates indicate that Site C could cost between $5 billion and $6.6 billion.

    And this includes all costs.

    Quote:
    If built, Site C would be a mid-size facility with a significant upfront capital cost, a long operating life and low operating costs.

    Also, as you no doubt know, the "$9 million a MW" figure is totally meaningless. But you then go on to compare Site C and IPP costs using this figure:

    Quote:
    IPPs capital costs are about $3 million a MW. Site C is THREE times more expensive.

    Quote:
    How is it that IPPs average $88/MWh, but Site C is $42 a MWh?

    Clearly BC Hydro is more efficient.

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    HydroGreen

    WOW Hydrogreen, you call everyone a liar who doesn't agree with you but they seem to back up what they say with facts and you seem to be about assertions that are half-truths at best.

    For example that "BC imports from coal fired jurisdictions" mantra you keep repeating. The only largely coal fired jurisdiction BC trades with on a substantial basis is Alberta. We (BC Not just BC Hydro) has not been a net importer from there since 2003 and only 2 of the last 11 we have net imported from there. (interprovincial trade is Alberta-Check NEB and you will see that by far most electricity trade between BC occurs with Washington state largely hydro 65% and Alberta)

    http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/trade/trade-elec.asp

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy wrong again ... yawn

    Page 1 Attachment B, Exhibit B5 submitted to BCUC by BC Hydro: "The only portion of the existing facility that will be retained is the existing dam structure."

    Page 10: "Contract Scope: demolition and removal of all existing facilities, with the exception of the existing intakes and dam - construction of modification to the existing Aberfeldie dam intakes".

    The BC Hydro low hydro rate is because taxpayers financed the destruction of Columbia and Peace rivers by BC Hydro and now its amortized so it generates power at $6 (thanks to tax payers), but sells it at $80 ripoff price to the same people who financed the dams, and take average $100,000 salaries for themselves and their union buddies. This is graft.

    Building a dam today is like Site C - $9,000,000 a MW, while IPPs do that for $3,000,000 a MW.

    these are facts Jimmy and no matter how a true Believer and Kool Aid drinker you are - facts says it all and you cannot change it.

    Now go and do your homework before you meanly call others you disagree as liars.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    RandyH

    You are wrong as usual.

    You are calling BC Hydro a liar !!!

    BC Hydro says:

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/pdf/info_iep
    _challenges_and_choices.Par.0001.
    File.info_iep_challenges_and_choices.pdf

    B.C. Hydro's annual report states: "Prior to fiscal 2008, BC Hydro was a net importer of electricity for seven consecutive years....The outlook for fiscal 2009 is...that BC Hydro will once again be a net importer of electricity." B.C. Hydro is to eliminate net imports and become self-sufficient by 2016.

    Statscan (NEB) includes export by Fortis and Teck Cominco who received permits from NDP to export power to US and does not include Alberta imports so its incomplete. BC Hydro cannot force them to keep the power in BC.

    BC Hydro is a net importer of power 7 of last 10 years:

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/pdf/info_iep
    _challenges_and_choices.Par.0001.File.
    info_iep_challenges_and_choices.pdf

    http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=70fe0b5d-4e05-4fda-beff-0fa78f6d2a6b

    "BC is now a net importer of electricity. BC Hydro has imported
    electricity from neighbouring jurisdictions in each of the
    last five years;1,700 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2001,
    5,200 in 2002, 1,700 in 2003, 5,100 in 2004, and 7,400 in 2005."

    1700 GWh in 2001 imported
    5200 GWh in 2002 imported
    1700 GWh in 2003 imported
    5100 GWh in 2004 imported
    7400 GWh in 2005 imported

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    BC Hydro faces higher water rental rates

    Another cost that BC hydro faces that is not addressed and gives them an uneven playing field is the higher water rental fees they face. All but two IPPs are charged the $1.104/MWhour rate. (I checked with Min of Finance)

    BC hydro has to pay the$6.197/MWhour rate. This means that if BC Hydro was to build the proposed Plutonic/GE run-of-river at Bute Inlet they would have to pay about $44 million more in water rental fees than Plutonic Power Or other IPPs for a similar size project (This is bigger than Site C)

    http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_
    rights/water_rental_rates/cabinet/new
    _rent_structure_waterpower.pdf

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Obviously you know little about ROR technology.

    A ROR plant needs a dam or a weir, and its the 2nd most costliest component after the penstock.

    For you to claim that Aberfeldie is ROR and does not need a dam, weir and intake, is total ignorance of the technology.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    You CANNOT compare LEVELIZED prices with UNLEVELIZED prices. Apples to oranges.

    Yeah, that was my point.

    Quote:
    The AVERAGE IPP price of $88 is UNLEVELIZED you idiot. It says: "average accepted price" - does not say average levelized price.

    Do you understand that $88/MWh is the price paid by BC Hydro for IPP electricity? This means over the entire life of the contract. This is why BC Hydro was using it to compare. When BC Hydro wrote "average price", they meant the average of the different IPP contracts.

    Quote:
    The LEVELIZED IPP price for 2006 is $72 (not $88).

    BC Hydro disagrees. But I'd like to see you provide a source!

    Quote:
    They just put in a new penstock and generators and made it ROR.

    Which is pretty much everything in a ROR project.

    Quote:
    Aberfeldie DID NOT build a wier or intake, it was there! They just put in a new penstock and generators and made it ROR.

    A wier is not the same thing as a dam, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost.

    Quote:
    A ROR can easily use a dam

    No. If it uses a dam, it's not ROR.

    Quote:
    That dam costs 20 to 30 million dollars to build from scratch!

    The dam is a red herring. The Alberfeldie Redevlopment does not use the dam for its intended purpose, since the reservoir is silted up, as I pointed out above (and provided a quote from BC Hydro). They did not remove it since they felt it would be too costly.

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    Jimmy

    Great fact checking!

    I just want to point out that you shouldn't get caught in the BC Hydro importing trap however. The BC Energy Plan is based on BC being 'self sufficient' as a province. BC Hydro is a large part but not the whole picture.

    This is the Argument. (for the BC Liberal and IPP industry)

    1) BC needs to be self sufficient in electricity
    2) BC Hydro is a net importer of electricity
    3) therefore we have to build more IPPs to achieve 'self sufficiency'

    3 does not logically follow from 1 and 2. Because they are two different things. They are not lying, but they know they are misleading.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Randyh

    Quote:
    Another cost that BC hydro faces that is not addressed and gives them an uneven playing field is the higher water rental fees they face. All but two IPPs are charged the $1.104/MWhour rate. (I checked with Min of Finance). BC hydro has to pay the$6.197/MWhour rate. This means that if BC Hydro was to build the proposed Plutonic/GE run-of-river at Bute Inlet they would have to pay about $44 million more in water rental fees than Plutonic Power Or other IPPs for a similar size project (This is bigger than Site C)

    So what? All the taxes and water rental rates and dividends BC hydro pays the governments still totals to only $8 a MWh.

    IPPs pay a total of $25 a MWh to governments - THREE TIMES higher.

    So BCH may be paying higher water rates, but little taxes and no First Nations fees, and NO local PROPERTY taxes which is the BIGGEST tax.

    Fact is that IPPs pay a total of $25 /MWh while BC Hydro pays only a total of $8 a MWh to governments, including water rental fees.

    Again you shamelessly tried to obfuscate randyh through rhetoric.

    You enviro-fanatics are so anti-enlightenment and obscurantists. No wonder Berman and dauncy dont trust you kool-aid (check rev. Jim Jones) drinkers.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    Building a dam today is like Site C - $9,000,000 a MW, while IPPs do that for $3,000,000 a MW.

    Apparently you do not understand the difference between power and energy. A MW is a unit of power. Power is totally irrelevant. The only meaningful comparison is the cost of energy. Here are some links, so that you can learn:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

    Quote:
    Now go and do your homework before you meanly call others you disagree as liars.

    I called you a liar because youare a liar.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ randyh

    Quote:
    Great fact checking!

    Thanks!

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy the juvie

    Quote:
    A wier is not the same thing as a dam, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost

    Heh -- going by ideology again?

    The weir and intake costs at least 20 % of the project - and I know. I have detailed construction costs for many projects. Transmission costs about 10% of project (depending on length and voltage).

    So Aberfeldie is underpriced by about 25% to 30%.

    Get your facts straight, juvie.

    You guys want to debate an expert here loaded with numbers and facts with mere rhetoric and ideology and sayings of your supreme leaders. Sorry, but aren't you a bit embarassed?

    You sometimes sound like a Gender Studies major trying to debate technology with an Engineer. Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of physics?

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    Hydrogreen

    Facts are stronger than ad hominem attacks, and most of your facts are not facts but opinions.

    I am glad you posted the Lekstrom letter, because he is lying in the letter (or doesn't know the difference between BC and BC Hydro which is incompetent for a Minister)

    Look at it again:
    http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/letters/story.html?id=70fe0b5d-4e05-4fda-beff-0fa78f6d2a6b

    And now look at the facts:

    http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busind/trade/trade-elec.asp

    You can say the earth is flat all you want but repeating it over and over will not make it true. (and does it really matter if Frank is posting from his parents basement. I get the feeling you are financially compensated for posting disinformation in some way, or maybe from your end-of-days bunker surrounded by guns and Ted Nugent posters.)

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Randyh the idiot

    Site C construction costs:

    $9,000,000 / MW
    $1,780,000 / GWh

    IPP Cranberry construction costs:

    $3,000,000 / MW
    $ 640,000 / GWh

    Now what is it about power and energy that you have confused, idiot?

    Site C is a peaking plant. Of course cost per power is relevant.

    Jimmy - you haven't done your homework. You were begging me to show you how to calculate the $8 a MWh benefit and the IPP $25 a MWh benefit. You had NO IDEA. And then you go around calling people a "liar" in total ignorance.

    With ignoramus like Jimmy and RandyH, the NDP has no chance of winning.

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    Hydrogreen is a shill

    This is hilaroious

    Hydrogreen says "The weir and intake costs at least 20 % of the project - and I know. I have detailed construction costs for many projects." AND

    "You sometimes sound like a Gender Studies major trying to debate technology with an Engineer."

    So Hdyrogreen works for IPP consulting firm (Kn*** Pei**ld) and stands to make a lot of money spewing half truths and false claims.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    randyh

    BC Stats does not include Alberta imports, and it mixes exports by Teck and Fortis with that of BC Hydro. BC Hydro cannot stop Fortis or Teck from exporting their energy.

    BC Hydro says 8 of the past 11 years it has been a net IMPORTER of power.

    BC Hydro was a net importer of electricity for seven consecutive years due to average or below average system water conditions every year. Fiscal 2008 was an exceptional inflow year, with inflows well above normal, resulting in BC Hydro being a net seller of electricity. The outlook for fiscal 2009 is for a return to average inflow conditions and, as a result, it is expected that BC Hydro will once again be a net importer of electricity. BC Hydro manages energy cost risk through its flexible hydroelectric system, which allows water to be stored in large reservoirs and used when it is most economic, and by hedging the cost of imported electricity.
    http://www.straight.com/article-201857/steve-davis-independent-producers-generate-green-energy-and-jobs-bc

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/pdf/info_annual
    _report_2008.Par.0001.File.info_annual
    _report_2008.pdf

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    For you to claim that Aberfeldie is ROR and does not need a dam, weir and intake, is total ignorance of the technology.

    Thank you for making my point :) As I point out above, I agree that ROR does not need a dam.

    Quote:
    IPP power costs are way lower than what BC Hydro can generate.

    Depending on how it's interpreted, this is wither wrong or very, very wrong. If you mean to compare BC Hydro's single ROR project ($81/MWh) to the 2006 Call For Energy ($88/MWh), then certainly BC Hydro's costs are lower than the price for IPP electricity. Costs for the Site C ($42/MWh) are far lower than the price of IPP power ($88/MWh), and BC Hydro's costs vastly lower still for electricity produced from BC Hydro existing dams.

    Quote:
    2006 Call is $88.

    You just wrote that it wasn't! Now you're contradicting yourself!

    Quote:
    Then BC Hydro's own Aberfeldie is at least $110 and BCH own Site C is $160 a MWh.

    You lying again! I just posted a BC Hydro source stating it was $81/MWh. As for the Site C figure, go ahead and provide a source! I've only asked about ten times.

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    Hydrogreen needs 'critical thinking'

    Hey Hydrogreen.

    WOW you are not exactly rational. Latest unstable argument is:

    1) Jimmy and RandyH are ignoramus'

    2) therefore the NDP won't win

    This is about as solid as your reasoning for everything else IPP related here. Maybe it explains why the IPP power costs so much more than BC Hydro power. (unless you are doing Engineering work for BC Hydro as well, maybe on the Aberfeldie project)

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    randy [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

    You haven't been able to challenge any of my facts.

    Sorry, neither do I work for [EDITED. -MODERATOR.] nor do I make money from IPP.

    Is this how you arrive at your facts - through wild speculation?

  • randyh

    2 years ago

    BC and BC Hydro

    Hydro-[EDITED. -MODERATOR.]-green

    What part of this don't you understand? It shouldn't be too hard for an IPP Engineer like yourself.

    "The BC Energy Plan is based on BC being 'self sufficient' as a province. BC Hydro is a large part but not the whole picture.

    This is the Argument. (for the BC Liberal and IPP industry)

    1) BC needs to be self sufficient in electricity
    2) BC Hydro is a net importer of electricity
    3) therefore we have to build more IPPs to achieve 'self sufficiency'

    3 does not logically follow from 1 and 2."

  • Yeoman

    2 years ago

    Hydrogreen [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

    "No IPP run-of-the-river project is on a salmon bearing reach of a stream, and the environmental impact is minor and can be compensated. Run-of-the-river technology can co-exist and share the habitat with fish and other wildlife. IPPs do not build dams – but low weirs or taps on generally a steep stream that has little or no resident fish."

    THIS is the big lie that the industry hides behind. How about an 8m high dam in endangered bull trout habitat? Or reducing a river to 10% of its flow in a coho area. Or releasing thousands of tons
    of gravel down the channel every few months?

    So how much money are you making spouting these lies?

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy - Wrong Again !!!

    look at the BC Hydro filing for the 2006 Call for tenders at the BCUC, dated 9/21/2006.

    Page 7: LEVELIZED IPP price for plants over 10 MW is $74.

    Page 7: LEVELIZED IPP price for plants below 10 MW is $69.9.

    Aberfeldie is $81.

    Page 18: Price paid in dollars in 2012 is $88 (i.e. unlevelized).

    So you see the $88 you quoted was UNLEVELIZED while the levelized is $70 and $74, way below Aberfeldie.

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.] to compare apples to oranges.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    Site C construction costs:
    $9,000,000 / MW
    $1,780,000 / GWh
    IPP Cranberry construction costs:
    $3,000,000 / MW
    $ 640,000 / GWh

    Please provide a source for this.

    Quote:
    Site C is a peaking plant. Of course cost per power is relevant.

    This is just insane. First, do you understand that Site C is a Hydro facility, not a thermal plant? Second, electricity is priced per unit energy, not power, so no, power is not relevant in the slightest. Third, where do even get this "peaking plant" business from?

    Quote:
    You were begging me to show you how to calculate the $8 a MWh benefit and the IPP $25 a MWh benefit. You had NO IDEA. And then you go around calling people a "liar" in total ignorance.

    Regarding the "social benefit", I asked for a source for this information (which you never provided). I called you a liar, correctly, because you were lying about (1) the cost of Site C, (2) the cost of Alberfeldie, (3) that BC Hydro's cost were too high to build ROR.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Yeoman

    Quote:
    How about an 8m high dam in endangered bull trout habitat?

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.] - bull trout is not a salmon.

    jeez -

    Besides bull trout are not natural - they are mostly introduced and fish ladders can take care of them nicely. they also love the headponds.

    IPP weirs are not 8 meters. You are confusing that with a dam.

    No water is reduced in the salmon bearing reach. If it ever is, then it is triple compensated elsewhere. This cannot happen for more than a few tens of meters below the barrier and no permit is issued if the affected area is more than a few tens of meters. [EDITED. -MODERATOR.].

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    look at the BC Hydro filing for the 2006 Call for tenders at the BCUC, dated 9/21/2006.

    Post a source, then. I posted a source form BC Hydro, and they said $88/MWh for the 2006 Call For Energy. Gee, who to believe... you, or BC Hydro?

    Quote:
    The weir and intake costs at least 20 % of the project - and I know.

    Oh really? Provide a source, then.

    Quote:
    So Aberfeldie is underpriced by about 25% to 30%.

    BC Hydro seems to feel it was a fair comparison.

    Quote:
    You guys want to debate an expert here...

    An expert in what, exactly?

    Quote:
    You sometimes sound like a Gender Studies major trying to debate technology with an Engineer.

    If I am sure of only one thing, it's that there is absolutely no way that you are an engineer.

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    interior of BC saw little snow

    HydroGreen says, "This year it will also import power because the interior of BC saw little snow."
    The interior saw an amazing amount of snow this winter. Some are describing it as the most they have ever experienced. It's time for you to do some research rather than blather on.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Jimmy - wrong again

    I gave you detailed breakdown costs for IPP and BC Hydro construction and benefits. Go look back in previous posts. Obviously you wish to lie, while the record is there for all to see.

    You have no idea how to calculate the costs or the benefits, so you call people liars while begging them for information.

    My construction cost for Site C is fully backed up and is based on BCH's own numbers. %6.6 billion according to BCH plus about $2 billion for transmission. That is a whopping $1.8 million per GWh !!! 3 times higher than IPPs !!!

    And the CF of Site C is 60% so its pretty close to a ROR in terms of CF, even though its a dam that will destroy the environment, and hence it can be compared in unit power.

  • Dr Alexander

    2 years ago

    Well, I think KWD is bring up the real point.

    At some point in time, the population of the Earth will decline and we will be moving through a "steady-state" to "diminishing-output" paradigm shift.

    This is inevitable. If we are to believe economists when they say that the desire of capitalism is for everyone to have prosperity, then everyone will experience the prime signature of prosperity: a birth rate that is below replacement. If it were not for immigration, essentially every "First World Nation" would be in a population decline as is seen in Japan. This is not a bad thing. Japan was considered to have a stagnant GDP whilst its population was declining. That means that per capita domestic productivity was on the increase. Plus national wealth, distributed amongst an ever smaller population means that the individual is more wealthy.

    If one is to believe the World Bank, the IMF etc etc, we are striving to make every single individual on this planet a prosperous one.

    Thus, I don't understand the pooh-poohing of zero-growth economics. It is inevitable and will visit itself upon us whether we like it or not. So, let's get ahead of the curve and look at structuring our social and economic activities beforehand and become the world leaders.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

    Quote:
    Post a source, then. I posted a source form BC Hydro, and they said $88/MWh for the 2006 Call For Energy. Gee, who to believe... you, or BC Hydro?

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.] - I am saying the same thing as BC Hydro. Me and BC Hydro are both saying that $88 is the average tender price and is NOT levelized. See the source BC Hydro document I quoted.

    BC Hydro says it right their in there BCUC filing.

    [EDITED.]

    But you are claiming $88 is levelized. [EDITED.]

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    North of Hope

    Quote:
    The interior saw an amazing amount of snow this winter. Some are describing it as the most they have ever experienced. It's time for you to do some research rather than blather on.

    Heh - BC Hydro says that their F2009 water levels are very low and they are NET importing power for another year where imports are greater than exports.

    So either BC Hydro is an idiot and their experts are wrong - or you 2-bit Cultural Studies graduate or jobless activist knows more about hydrology than BC Hydro.

    [EDITED.]

  • Luke Skywalker Redux

    2 years ago

    Yo Jimmy...

    BC Hydro - Aberfeldie Micro-Hydro Redevelopment

    BC Hydro’s redevelopment of the Aberfeldie micro hydro station in the Kootenays provides a good case study of upward capital cost creep that micro-hydro IPP’s also face.

    Aberfeldie Capital Cost Estimates:

    October, 2004 - $46 million;
    February, 2006 - $65 million;
    October, 2006 - $83 million;

    And that’s for a redevelopment of an existing micro-hydro station.

    No new road/ forestry road upgrade capital costs... no new transmission line capital costs... existing on-site infrastructure already in-place.

    Those are huge additional capital costs that BC Hydro would need to incur if they had developed Aberfeldie micro-hydro from scratch.

    That would certainly have an upward impact upon the final cost of electrical generation in terms of cost per MWh.

    And I've not even included BC Hydro's administrative overhead into that figure.

    Quote:
    Yo Jimmy: Adjusting the levelized cost to reflect the energy output profile, transmission losses to the Lower Mainland, and additional factors to allow comparison to the 2006 Call For Energy results in a levelized cost of energy of $81/MWh. [$78 - 84/MWh] This compares favorably to the weighted average of accepted energy prices under the Call, which was $88/MWh for all energy types.

    Taking all those above described NON capital cost factors into account into BC Hydro's favour, even then, BC Hydro’s cost of generating electricity is still $81/ MWh. And that cost of electical generation is definately high.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that BC Hydro upgraded the facility just like I'm glad that BC Hydro is expending $billions$ to upgrade its existing dated network, be it hydro dams, generating stations or transmission lines (BCTC).

    Back to micro hydro IPP’s. They are not only also susceptible to that same upward capital cost creep risk as witnessed by BC Hydro at Aberfeldie, they must financially eat that capital cost risk themselves.

    In addition, micro hydro IPP’s are not only susceptible to lack of heavy autumn rain-fall risk, but also snow-pack/snow-melt risk (the spring freshet) in terms of operation risk in electrical generation and concurrent cash-flow.

    So much for the so-called "gold rush". One should invest in these companies at their own risk.

    At least the New Democrats of the 1990's recognized these factors in terms of BC Hydro engaging in micro hydro IPPs. Kudos to them.

    They were then taking the same non-ideological approach as the Manitoba New Democrats are with Manitoba Hydro, which is engaged with IPPs on NON large dam electrical generation. Manitoba Hydro is also now building large dams for US electrical generation export.

    Kudos to them to. And people in BC wonder why Manitoba New Democrat premier Gary Doer has a personal approval rating of 66%. Just common sense. Ideology be dammed. (pun intended) :D

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    No accountant can make $9 million / MW become $42 a MWh. Not even Arthur Anderson or ENRON. If you can do that, send me the calculation for a critique.

    No one can do that, because, as I pointed out above, power and energy are different. Try reading these, and maybe you will understand:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power

    Quote:
    My construction cost for Site C is fully backed up and is based on BCH's own numbers. %6.6 billion according to BCH plus about $2 billion for transmission.

    Please provide a source for the "$2 billion for transmission".

    Quote:
    That is a whopping $1.8 million per GWh !!! 3 times higher than IPPs !!!

    For the hundredth time, please post a source for this.

    Quote:
    I am saying the same thing as BC Hydro.

    No. BC Hydro says this:

    Quote:
    Adjusting the levelized cost to reflect the energy output profile, transmission losses to the Lower Mainland, and additional factors to allow comparison to the 2006 Call For Energy results in a levelized cost of energy of $81/MWh. [$78 - 84/MWh] This compares favorably to the weighted average of accepted energy prices under the Call, which was $88/MWh for all energy types.

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/
    internet/documents/info/pdf/bc_hydro
    _aberfeldie_application_for_cpcn.Par.0001.File.bc_hydro_aberfeldie_application_for
    _cpcn.pdf

    This is very, very different from what you're saying (i.e. $110/MWh).

    Quote:
    And the CF of Site C is 60% so its pretty close to a ROR in terms of CF, even though its a dam that will destroy the environment, and hence it can be compared in unit power.

    This is utter nonsense. To quote you,

    Quote:
    Maybe you shouldn't have dropped out of physics?

    Please read the links above about the difference between power and energy.

    Quote:
    Ashlu or Cranberry (8 MW) is at $55/MWh.

    Please provide a source.

    As for "social benefits" you write:

    Quote:
    The $25 a MWh social benefit by IPPs are: $3 mill rate for industrial property tax per $100 assets, Water Rental on Capacity: $4/KW, Water Rental on Energy: $1.2/MWh, First Nations at 5%, Corp. Tax rate at 35%, Personal tax rate at 43% .

    Not that I really believe any of this, as you've [i]still/i] not provided sources, but regardless... I notice you include "personal tax" in the mix, whereas you do not for your calculation of BC Hydro "social benefit":

    Quote:
    For BCHydro skimpy $8 a MWh social benefits: In BCH 2008 annual report, take taxes paid and Payment to Province Page 73, and divide them by total GWh produced you will get $8.

    Pretty sneaky, my friend!

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Got to go

    Of course power and energy are different. That is why you need the CF to convert the two. But of course you Tyee folks have no idea how power translates into energy. You haven't taken the physics.

    I gave you a detailed description of the sources to those numbers. Now if you want to become an IPP, pls. do it the right way - namely by working at it. You seem to want to learn the business without putting in the sweat.

    Personal taxes refer to flow through of tax on income. In the case of BCH, the province does not tax itself!

    You are not reading my posts and I have to repeat myself. This will be the last time.

    Look at the BCUC filing for 2006, at the pages that I listed above. It says the levelized IPP prices were $74 and $69.9. $88 was the unlevelized payments in 2012.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ Luke Skywalker

    You're back! What happened? Did you get kicked off?

    Quote:
    No new road/ forestry road upgrade capital costs... no new transmission line capital costs... existing on-site infrastructure already in-place.

    I assume that when BC Hydro wrote:

    Quote:
    Adjusting the levelized cost to reflect the energy output profile, transmission losses to the Lower Mainland, and additional factors to allow comparison to the 2006 Call For Energy...

    (emphasis mine), they would have taken these costs into account. Their purpose was to compare. But, to be honest, I haven't read the entire three hundred page report. Perhaps you have?

    Quote:
    Those are huge additional capital costs that BC Hydro would need to incur if they had developed Aberfeldie micro-hydro from scratch.

    In addition to my point above, I'd like to mention that BC Hydro has never developed micro-hydro from scratch, so there's really nothing to compare to.

    Quote:
    And I've not even included BC Hydro's administrative overhead into that figure.

    Which "administrative costs" do you mean? Most would probably be the same regardless of whether the electricity is from IPPs or not.

    Quote:
    And that’s for a redevelopment of an existing micro-hydro station.

    The rebuilt the entire facility, hence the term "redevelopment".

    Quote:
    At least the New Democrats of the 1990's recognized these factors in terms of BC Hydro engaging in micro hydro IPPs. Kudos to them.

    How many were approved while the NDP was in power?

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Ideology

    Luke - the problem with these ideological remarks here stems from the fact that IPPs have no huge cost for the feedstock. In the ideological model, there is little cost of capital and if there is no cost of feedstock, then the IPP must be making an obscene profit (gold rush).

    I believe this is what motivates these ideological rants, and their leaders (James, unions, Foy, etc.) just reinforce this with further rhetoric and myths.

    Most left leaning folks have difficulty in understanding market economics where both capital and labour have values and costs. Not to mention that generally speaking they have next to zero experience in a private business environment.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    Of course power and energy are different.

    Well it's not obvious that you realise that, based on your posts.

    Quote:
    That is why you need the CF to convert the two.

    What is "CF"?

    Quote:
    But of course you Tyee folks have no idea how power translates into energy. You haven't taken the physics.

    Well, I know a thing or two. Enough to know that you know nothing.

    Quote:
    I gave you a detailed description of the sources to those numbers.

    You've given no references at all for any of the figures you've stated concerning Site C. Nor, for that matter, have you given any sources for IPP construction costs. And what about this?

    Quote:
    Ashlu or Cranberry (8 MW) is at $55/MWh.

    Still no source?

    Quote:
    Look at the BCUC filing for 2006, at the pages that I listed above. It says the levelized IPP prices were $74 and $69.9. $88 was the unlevelized payments in 2012.

    You provide the sources. The onus is on you to back up what you write.

    Quote:
    Personal taxes refer to flow through of tax on income. In the case of BCH, the province does not tax itself!

    Income taxes! We're talking about income taxes! Can you really be that stupid? Do BC Hydro employees not pay income taxes?

    Quote:
    You are not reading my posts and I have to repeat myself. This will be the last time.

    You've done nothing but lie on this thread, and you refuse to back up what you've written, so I can't say I'll be sorry if you go.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Luke

    Quote:
    Which "administrative costs" do you mean? Most would probably be the same regardless of whether the electricity is from IPPs or not.

    Its quotes like this that shows these ideological folks have absolutely no understanding how the real production world operates.

    The fact that BCH pays $100,000 in average salaries and BCTC $130,000 and they have ad infintum layers of bureaucracy and controls and perks and unions and overhead - as opposed to the cutthroat IPP who works from his garage at no pay and hires his local friends - just shows why the ideological folks are so wrong in their mental model of this industry.

    But no - their supreme leaders have declared there is a gold mine in IPPs and so be it - obviously the leader knows best.

    I can show you any number of people that have gotten filthy rich in mining, finance, brokerage, law, property development, real estate, forestry, film industry, etc. But there is not a single person who has made it in IPPs here.

    But no .... IPPs are making obscene profits because the water drops down for free.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    HydroGreen

    "Most left leaning folks have difficulty in understanding market economics "

    Oh man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. What year did you graduate from economics, physics, engineering etc etc?

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

    By the way buddy, google can't seem to locate those coal fired plants your imagination claims are in BC.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Still here, eh?

    Quote:
    The fact that BCH pays $100,000 in average salaries and BCTC $130,000 and they have ad infintum layers of bureaucracy and controls and perks and unions and overhead - as opposed to the cutthroat IPP who works from his garage at no pay and hires his local friends - just shows why the ideological folks are so wrong in their mental model of this industry.

    Yet another load of sh*t. You think that the average Plutonic or Ledcor employee "works from his garage at no pay"? Haha! Tell me another one!

    Since we're on this topic, it would be nice if you could provide a source for this statement:

    Quote:
    ...BCH pays $100,000 in average salaries...

    It's not that I think you're lying, but... Well, actually it is because I think you're lying.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Luke

    As I said to Wilf earlier before he had to go drinking, Doer keeps getting elected by opposing people like you and your Reform buddies.

    That must hurt eh?

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    Hydrogreen

    You say, "So either BC Hydro is an idiot and their experts are wrong - or you 2-bit Cultural Studies graduate or jobless activist knows more about hydrology than BC Hydro.

    This Tyee place is infested by these semi-wits."

    You don't know much about the spring and melt of the snow in the mountains. The spring run-off is beginning due to the long winter and heavy snow fall.

    It seems the infection of of The Tyee by semi-wits is is cresting today.

    By the way, it is interesting to do a Google search of the first sentence of your comments. we get these authors.

    Terichu Says... The Chief April 3

    Quimby – Vote Smart BC March 26

    Anonymous Vote Smart BC March 26

    DavidYagin Georgia Straight Tue, 2009-04-07

    Renewables (not registered) Georgia Straight Wed, 2009-04-15 22:19.

    Terichu Says... Squamish News April 4, 2009

    Sanider , Prince George Citizen March 13, 2009
    http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20090311180834/opinion/letters/misleading-at-best.html

    GREEN BC Nanaimo Daily News
    Sun, Apr 5, 09 at 11:04 PM

    Green BC The Province March 31, 2009 3:57 PM

    You say, "So either BC Hydro is an idiot and their experts are wrong - or you 2-bit Cultural Studies graduate or jobless activist knows more about hydrology than BC Hydro."

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]You offered a pretence of knowledge but in fact you have none. Firstly to say I am a "Cultural Studies graduate" is spot on. But then again, a graduate with a degree in biology, mathematics or physics or history would be a "Cultural Studies graduate" since they are all part of our culture. [EDITED.] Then you can let us know what field of study you have to make you such an expert in BS. Maybe you were a student of Professor Harry G. Frankfurt who wrote the essay titled "On Bullsh*t." He stated, "On Political spin-doctors, they don’t care about the truth, they care about a certain impression in the mind of people they are addressing. They are engaged in the enterprise of manipulating opinion; they are not engaged in the enterprise of reporting the facts."
    This sounds like you.
    Am I as a taxpayer in BC paying your salary?

  • Wilfred Laurier

    2 years ago

    Frank....

    I will not respond to your personal insult. I was at my son's soccer game. I don't drink, by the way. I have suggested your post as offensive but since you share the editorial bias to site, you don't get booted, only people who have a different view get banned.

    But the fact remains, the Tyee can favour and ban all it wants. The Liberals are walking away with this election and it is the NDP's fault.

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    power and energy

    HydroGreen, says,
    "Of course power and energy are different. That is why you need the CF to convert the two. But of course you Tyee folks have no idea how power translates into energy. You haven't taken the physics."
    You don't convert from on to the other. Even high school physics students know that. Maybe its time for you to do a little studying and spend less time BSing us.

  • KWD

    2 years ago

    Dr. Alexander

    Thanks for transporting me back to reality. For a moment (has it really been eight hours?) I thought I’d been abducted by aliens and dropped off on another planet. It was getting really scary. For a moment I thought I could understand their language, and then all of a sudden … all I could hear was this strange noise that kept repeating unintelligible phrases linked by terms like MWhs, IPPs and ROR, and Site C. And it was being spoken by creatures with strange names like “Hydro-screwloose-green”, “Jimmy the juvie” and” Jimmy idiot”.

    Whew … thanks again. Maybe next time I should brew a pot of coffee and a large bowl of popcorn so I don’t miss Godot.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Wilf

    "I will not respond to your personal insult"

    Yet you did anyway.

    [EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

    "The Liberals are walking away with this election and it is the NDP's fault."

    Proving for the umpteenth time you don't understand how democracy works. Its the people of the province that elect Gordon Campbell. Other parties can put their platform forward but they are certainly not "to blame" if a different party wins.

    [EDITED.]

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    North of Hope

    [COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ KWD

    Quote:
    And it was being spoken by creatures with strange names like “Hydro-screwloose-green”, “Jimmy the juvie” and” Jimmy idiot”.

    :) I think I'm going to change my handle to "Jimmy idiot".

  • doggone

    2 years ago

    finaly a ray of sense

    There is an old saying about "environmentalist":
    "Once you discard the Fruits and Nuts all you have left is Flakes" (actually we (environmentalists) used to be called "Granolas")

    So as "Country Joe" used to say: "What ARE we fighting for?"
    Don't ask me I don't give a Dam

    Next stop is Toba Inlet I know it does not rhymme or scan but:
    The son of a friend was killed there in Feb. His brother watched him die
    Gonna be a few more sacrificed to that particular PPP and others around this province before this is over.
    Can you say "Gold Rush?"

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Quote:You don't convert from

    Quote:
    You don't convert from on to the other.

    Depends what you mean by "convert". From a power source you can derive the amount of energy it generates using certain physical formulae and the CF.

    [EDITED.].

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    Nice Post, KWD

    But I was kind of hoping a gender studies major would show up to add to the surreality of the debate...

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Come on, no love for me? Still no sources?

    Quote:
    I think you cultural studies lightweights...

    What is your academic background in? I'm dying to know.

    Quote:
    ...who incidentally are doing a service to their kind by producing clean, green and renewable energy.

    You mean just like BC Hydro (but costing more)?

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    Depends what you mean by "convert". From a power source you can derive the amount of energy it generates using certain physical formulae and the CF.

    What is "CF"? Please explain.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Frank

    Quote:
    By the way buddy, google can't seem to locate those coal fired plants your imagination claims are in BC.

    Heh - BC Hydro says 8 of the past 11 years, it was a net importer of power.

    A lot of that came from Alberta which is mostly coal fired power.

    No wonder you are so confused when IPPs say their power will replace dirty coal - because you are googling that in BC!

    From BC Hydro's annual report 2008:

    "Prior to fiscal 2008, BC Hydro was
    a net importer of electricity for seven
    consecutive years due to average or
    below average system water conditions
    every year."

    http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/info/pdf/info_annual_report_2008.Par.0001.File.info_annual_report_2008.pdf

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    You've got stamina

    jimmy_laroux.:)

    Is the popcorn ready, KWD?

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    That's what she said!

    Sorry, couldn't resist :)

  • Luke Skywalker Redux

    2 years ago

    Wilfred Laurier...

    Quote:
    The Liberals are walking away with this election and it is the NDP's fault.

    THEY KNOW. :D

    BTW, you are one of the reasonable federal Liberal voices on this site. The same ones that Frank always alleges will mostly vote NDP provincially. ;)

    doggone:

    Quote:
    Next stop is Toba Inlet

    Toba Inlet received its environmental assessment certificate on April 6, 2009.

    Based upon environmental assessment... politics be dammed (pun intended again) :D

    http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p302/d29413/1239044752139_afd8d0ff6013d93592b154723050a6d3fefed17aa28b2f508a424456b26289c6.pdf

    Still a VERY RISKY proposition. I even have my druthers if it will ever get built.

    Again Manitoba premier Gary Doer would be a smilin' upon Manitoba BC Hydro. :D

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    HydroGreen blah, blah

    HydroGreen says, "Depends what you mean by "convert". From a power source you can derive the amount of energy it generates using certain physical formulae and the CF.

    Only a BS cultural studies type would think that power is of the same unit as energy."

    I'll number these questions so you don't get mixed up.

    1. What is a "BS cultural studies type?"

    2. Convert and derive don't mean the same thing. [EDITED.]
    Again you say, "From a power source you can derive the amount of energy it generates using "certain" physical formulae."
    The formula is P = Et. There is nothing magical about it, but then again every secondary science student is familiar with it. They also know they have different units.
    3. What is this CF you keep introducing?
    [EDITED.]

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    HG

    So in other words, there are no coal plants in BC. As for Alberta, perhaps they should go nuclear.

    "Prior to fiscal 2008, BC Hydro was
    a net importer of electricity for seven
    consecutive years due to average or
    below average system water conditions
    every year."

    I notice you keep saying "BC Hydro" whereas I keep saying "BC".

    So I found this :

    "Hydro's import-export numbers, showing the crown corp. in a net import position for seven of the last eight years, are derived from its annual report, which is audited. Stats Can numbers include B.C.'s other power utility, Fortis, as well as exports by Teck Cominco and Alcan."

    So BC is in fact in a surplus position.

    There's also this :

    "Hoberg and Mallon note also that Hydro could in theory lessen its dependence on new, independent sources of power by using more of the cheap power available from British Columbia's entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty instead of building new supply."

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Give it up Jimmie Juvie

    Quote:
    You mean just like BC Hydro (but costing more)?

    heh - go and read Luke again.

    Aberfeldie does not include the cost of the dam construction, does not include transmission, and already has much of the site infrastructure in place (roads, etc.).

    And when they compute their GWh, be damned sure that they are using the dam storage to arrive at their GWh, and not a weir. But of course you dont know the difference between a dam GWh and a weir GWh, being a gender studies guy (thanks for vivian for the timely reminder).

    IPPs generate power at $55 a MWh, unlevelized (Ashlu, Cranberry), and BC Hydro generates power at $110 unlevelized (Aberfeldie normalized with a dam and transmission and roads).

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Luke

    [EDITED.]

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    more BS artistry

    Quote:
    "Hoberg and Mallon note also that Hydro could in theory lessen its dependence on new, independent sources of power by using more of the cheap power available from British Columbia's entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty instead of building new supply."

    heh - first off, the treaty does NOT entitle BC to power, but to revenue. And BC is receiving $250,000,000 from Bonneville annually.

    So you are saying, lets use this money to buy power. That is so idiotic and lame because 1- you will not be receiving the money anymore, and 2- your power imports will be going through the roof, and 3- you will be buying mostly coal (Washington, Idaho, Montana) fired dirty power and gas fired GHG power.

    It will cost you one way or another. No such thing as free lunch you know. BC will be getting poorer while encouraging coal fired production in Idaho.

    To frame that as "we own the green power" is as lame as saying if my dad pays me an allowance, then our family will get richer.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    heh - go and read Luke again.

    I did. Did you read my response?

    Quote:
    Aberfeldie does not include the cost of the dam construction...

    Which is irrelevant, as it's effectively a ROR project, which I've pointed out about ten times on this thread.

    Quote:
    And when they compute their GWh, be damned sure that they are using the dam storage to arrive at their GWh, and not a weir. But of course you dont know the difference between a dam GWh and a weir GWh...

    Uh, there's absolutley no difference.

    Quote:
    ...being a gender studies guy

    Nothing wrong with that. But tell me, what's your academic background?

    Quote:
    IPPs generate power at $55 a MWh, unlevelized (Ashlu, Cranberry)...

    For the hundredth time, provide a source.

    Quote:
    ...and BC Hydro generates power at $110 unlevelized (Aberfeldie normalized with a dam and transmission and roads).

    Now you're magically adding "dam and transmission and roads"? Haha! You're all over the place, aren't you? I'm still going to have to stick with th BC Hydro figure.

    I'll ask again, what is "CF"? Or did you just invent it? I'm starting to think you did.

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    Spring melt and run-off

    I said, "You don't know much about the spring and melt of the snow in the mountains. The spring run-off is beginning due to the long winter and heavy snow fall."
    This melt will last, as it always does, for the spring and into the summer. How long it lasts depends on the amount of snow and how warm the spring and summer is. Since this year, there was a very large snow fall, the run-off will probably be quite large. It off course depends on the temperature. But if the temperatures are normal, the the run-off will be large. BC Hydro may have to spill some water so the levels don't get too high.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    North of Hope

    [EDITED]

    For you to take a literal interpretation of the word "convert", when the context is very clear as how the energy calculation is derived from the power figure, just shows what a small minded buffoon one can be.

    Talk substance, or get out of the debate. This is not a lowly cultural studies class debating literal semantic bullshitry, you know.

    And its E = Pt, and NOT P = Et. But hey for a BS cultural studies type, physics is all cultural and the laws of physics are social constructs.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    [EDITED.]

    Quote:
    Which is irrelevant, as it's effectively a ROR project, which I've pointed out about ten times on this thread.

    You still need a weir or dam and an intake to divert the flow for ROR. Aberfeldie is a ROR with a dam. The cost of a weir is not so much less than a dam, and the energy output of a weir is far less than a dam. You get better cost per unit energy with a dam, than a weir.

    In any case since they are using Aberfeldie as a dam based ROR, for storage and head, they have to include the cost of constructing the dam, transmission, and roads and infrastructure from scratch as well, or they would be lying.

    So you keep on repeating stuff you just make up that ROR dont need weirs and intakes, and weirs and intakes are cheap, and you dont need transmission and roads etc. [EDITED.]

  • Luke Skywalker Redux

    2 years ago

    Doesn't Anyone Remember the NDP's Agreement With Alcan in 1997??

    Quote:
    "Hoberg and Mallon note also that Hydro could in theory lessen its dependence on new, independent sources of power by using more of the cheap power available from British Columbia's entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty instead of building new supply."

    You know, Alcan expended around $500 million for the Kemano Completion Project.... the NDP stopped the project... Alcan sued the BC Government... and the then BC NDP government settled with Alcan allowing Alcan access to the future downstream benefits to be provided by the Columbia River Treaty?????????????????

    Quote:
    What really turned the tide in the fight between the province and Alcan was the availability of downstream benefits from the Columbia River. Without those benefits that now flow back to British Columbia, the government would have been hard-pressed to find the power Alcan needs to operate the new smelter.

    http://www.hubertbeyer.com/Archives/1997/August_03_1997.htm

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    E = Pt, and NOT P = Et

    Oops a typo but you still have not answered my questions.

    You say, "For you to take a literal interpretation of the word "convert", when the context is very clear."

    With you the "context" is not clear unless you work in the PAB for Campbell. Since you ask for a background, it would be best if you provided your own.

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    North of Hope

    [EDITED.]
    I said BC Hydro is short of water in F2009 and is net importer in F2009. F2009 for you CS BS types ends on March 31, 2009 - its ended, there is no snowmelt. The snowmelt freshet was in June/July/August 2008.

    [EDITED.]

  • HydroGreen

    2 years ago

    Got to go

    Sorry but really have to go. thanks for the lesson in physics P = Et, but I need to get the bulldozers ready for tomorrow so we can bulldoze over another river. Maybe we will bag a half dozen grizzlies and have sturgeon for lunch. Then marbled murrelet eggs for desert.

    Will let you know if we managed to bulldoze extinct a red-listed species for the fun of it.

    Jimmy, dont forget your homework. ROR's need dams. How else can we destroy the bull trout?

  • laurentm

    2 years ago

    Defining priorities and stopping the in-fighting

    With all due respect for salmons and rivers, one should keep in mind that there wouldn't likely be much of the fish left if we reach the most pessimistic (and highly likely) climate scenarios. If we keep going on today's path, the forests may not survive large scale forest fire either. So all in all, I feel we must address climate first.

    Second part of the debate these days is how to get at it: reduce? generate green power? ... Well, we must do BOTH, not one or the other.

    1. Reduce:
    what's the most direct way to get this? Increase the cost of Carbon intensive products and activities: this can be implemented by BOTH a carbon tax And Cap and Trade. How so? Start with Campbell's Carbon Tax, make it better, tweak the known issues with it, make it more equitable so that the most vulnerable families do not get hit. This can be done via the income tax system, and more tax shifting measures. Cap and trade is also necessary, it'll take more time to implement, and runs the risk to have many loopholes, but it can be done.
    Education and changing out societies core values towards a more less energy intensive society is part of the solution, but education takes a long time to produce results, and time is something we do not have if we expect to get out of this.

    1. Green power:

    Michael M'Gonigle says:
    -------
    1) We should not embark on destructive new supplies until demand reductions have been exhausted -- to death.
    -------
    I think he's wrong here: demand reduction appears to me a slower process than the current rate of CO2 emission increase underway, so it is critical to replace any KW or power from a CO2 intensive source to a non-CO2 source. The only way to do that is to start building renewable energy infrastructure NOW! And I am not talking about ROR. Let's boost wind, solar, geothermal, and last but not least tidal power.
    Another reason for this, is to address the rise in power consumption in developing countries. Weaver addresses this issue very well in discussing various paths to zero-carbon emission per country group: Western countries must peak very soon and then set on a path where emissions are reduced drastically, while developing countries can keep increasing their output enough so they lift their poorest citizens out of poverty. So in essence, they are not going to use less energy in the first place at all, so we must learn how to generate green power at large scale, so that these technologies are transferable. And to learn how to do that, we just need to get to it.

    Next question is: do we generate this power in BC via BC Hydro ownership or IPP?
    Since it is such a good deal, apparently, I don't see why the Province would not engage on BC-own renewable energy production. At least the proceeds would stay in the province.

    So to get back to M'Gonigle's article, I'd say we actually need to Power up Now, to better Power Down further down the road.

  • KWD

    2 years ago

    VivianLea

    A gender studies major would have a field day with this one.

    Obviously the tone of some of these outbursts indicates a strong likelyhood of childhood abuse … it could have been from both parents, but the fact that the dialogue contains very few allusions to loose women, or parts of the female anatomy … although there is an occasional reference to tunnels, spillways and stamina … suggests that it was the mother.

    It’s not uncommon for mothers to re-inflict their personal abuse on to their own children. If the child was a male the symptoms are specific … catastrophizing, over-generalization, selective abstraction, dichotomous thinking, time distortion, misassessing causality, irresponsibility or excessive responsibility and circular thinking … and they always manifest themselves when two or more males are in conflict.

    I’ve finished the popcorn. It’s time to turn to a good book.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    HG

    Clearly you never took a class in logic. No doubt it was because you felt it was "cultural studies BS". This also perhaps explains why you were unable to do simple multiplication above, math was probably something you considered beneath you.

    If you had taken a few courses you would probably know what a source is and why your inability to list one discredits you.

    Inability to write or comprehend the posts of others, an inability to logically build an argument and an inability to do multiplication. Face it, you're not really much of anything are you?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    laurentm

    "So all in all, I feel we must address climate first."

    Sacrificing rivers and forests will cure the rise in CO2 and make us better off? Why do I have trouble with that?

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ HydroGreen

    Quote:
    You still need a weir or dam and an intake to divert the flow for ROR.

    Sure, but they're not the same thing. You do realise that, don't you? The purpose of a dam is to store water, unlike a weir. Dams are much, much larger and much, much more expensive. Since you apparently do not know, here you go:

    http://www.ashlucreek.com/what-is-run-of-river.html

    Quote:
    The cost of a weir is not so much less than a dam...

    This is nothing but a shameless lie.

    Quote:
    You get better cost per unit energy with a dam, than a weir.

    Yet another load of sh*t.

    Quote:
    In any case since they are using Aberfeldie as a dam based ROR, for storage and head

    Do you even know what ROR is? I'm beginning to wonder. According to BC Hydro:

    Quote:
    Due to the continued siltation of the headpond, the storage capacity of the reservoir is significantly reduced and the plant operates essentially as a run-of-river facility with water flowing over the spillway about 80% of the year.

    So the dam is not functioning as a dam.

    Quote:
    So you keep on repeating stuff you just make up...

    I'm the one making things up? Not like Site C costs, or IPP costs, or just about everything else you've posted on this thread.

    Quote:
    ...that ROR dont need weirs and intakes, and weirs and intakes are cheap, and you dont need transmission and roads etc.

    I said none of those things. I dare you to prove it.

    Quote:
    Talk substance, or get out of the debate. This is not a lowly cultural studies class debating literal semantic bullshitry, you know.

    Oh, someone here is full of bullsh*t :)

    I case you didn't understand what I meant in that last sentence, it's you that is full of bullsh*t. But of course you knew that, didn't you.

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    BC Hydro imports

    HydroGreen, you still haven't answered my questions.
    BC Hydro imports electricity because it is cheaper. They can buy electricity from Alberta when it is cheap and sell it to the US when they need it, at a much better rate. Because Alberta produces it with coal-fired plants, they cannot alter their production without a major alteration in their production and subsequent cost. BC Hydro, because it uses dams, can change its output with the flick of a switch so to speak.
    BC Hydro still can get cheap electricity from the US because of the Columbia River Treaty. However it is more beneficial to BC Hydro to sell the electricity to the US at their high energy prices.
    By the way Campbell has promised to build Site C. How does that fit with your backers?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    HG

    "Hoberg and Mallon note also that Hydro could in theory lessen its dependence on new, independent sources of power by using more of the cheap power available from British Columbia's entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty instead of building new supply."

    "heh - first off, the treaty does NOT entitle BC to power, but to revenue. And BC is receiving $250,000,000 from Bonneville annually."

    You can go argue with Hoberg himself if you like
    http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/

    "So you are saying, lets use this money to buy power."

    Actually, its that comprehension thing again, the quote says "Hoberg and Mallon". So you see, you are in error again unless you think I'm one of them.

    "To frame that as "we own the green power" is as lame as saying if my dad pays me an allowance, then our family will get richer."

    Strange, because I believe that is in fact your argument in favour of Run-of-river.

  • laurentm

    2 years ago

    Frank

    I am not saying we have to sacrifice rivers and forests. I am saying that these will not make it if we fail to address the climate issue. Which is why both reduction and green power generation are required. ROR is not a panacea, but having none if probably not an option either. Considering better alternative is certainly the right thing to do.

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    BS class

    HydroGreen says, "I think you left your brains behind in cultural studies CS BS class."
    I left the class but you are still in the BS class.

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ Luke Skywalker

    Aberfeldie Redevelopment was built by Western Versatile Construction Corporation, who also built the Miller Creek Upper Mamquam, and Soo River IPP facilities. So the construction costs are no doubt very similar.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    laurentm

    Its a chicken and egg argument because I believe the climate will not make it if rivers and forests aren't protected.

    How many rivers are required to serve our needs? According to the Liberals, all of them. Yet the Liberals are also in favour of both economic and population growth which means eventually we'll need a few hundred more rivers but there won't be any that don't already have a project on them.

    And neither I nor the state of California buys into the view expressed above my Hydro-Green that run-of-river has no environmental impact.

    I simply don't think we can afford more impacts. If we don't have enough energy and can't figure out a way of generating more without wrecking rivers then its time we started planning on how to make do with less.

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    Hydro-Green

    Check out this site, it's just next door.

    http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/04/21/SuzukiRebuke/

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ North of Hope

    HydroGreen is almost certainly some sort of media monitor. His (her?) first few posts are alsmost identical to posts at other news sites in threads relating to IPPs. Consider:

    http://columbiavalleynews.com/news/2009/03/23/call-for-private-power-moratorium/comment-page-1/

    http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=6b575bf3-511d-4653-b21e-c60536d92e19

    http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Hydro+slows+green+energy+development/1148747/story.html

    His understanding of physics is at or below a grade nine level, so don't pay him much heed. Nearly every single statement HydroGreen has made on this thread is either a distortion or a lie.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    North of Hope and jimmy_laroux

    Thanks for joining in!

  • patricia

    2 years ago

    [COMMENT REMOVED]

    [COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

  • jimmy_laroux

    2 years ago

    @ patricia

    Do you know who HydroGreen is?

  • laurentm

    2 years ago

    Frank

    You are right on this that is has some chicken and eggs. ROR is not a panacea, and I a am not a die-hard proponent of them.

    I agree in that we shouldn't create more impact. I don't think it is possible though, at a global scale.

    The point I want to make is that human induced CO2 forcing is the major thing we have to tackle before all. I am not saying we have to dam all rivers. ROR only really produces significant power in spring and early summer, the rest of the time the flow is weak, so I am really not convinced this is the right solution.

    I think however, in terms of green power (and aside from reduction we talked about before), all renewables have some part to play in the game. Look at the
    Stabilization Wedge Theory for this:
    http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/what-is-the-stabilisation-wedge-theory/

    Just protecting rivers and forest will not cut it, we need to replace what is done today to get to a zero-carbon society.

    On making do with less:
    this is relatively easy for us to say in BC, where we waste a lot of energy, we have room to cut ,I agree. The crux is to get China and India on a path to zero emission, and I don't think they can reduce their emission per capita before a while. There are so many people there that live in unthinkable conditions that we can't ask them to just make do with less. Especially when these conditions will be improved when their energy use increases

    Ok. Going to bed now. thanks for the civilized discussion. It is sometimes lacking in these forums.

  • patricia

    2 years ago

    @jimmy

    [COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

  • margot

    2 years ago

    Weaver's agenda

    Bravo, Michael M'Gonigle

    Weaver, like "Dr Hydrogen", has a strong nuclear agenda as the solution to climate change.

    Dr. Hydrogen, as he loves to be called, damn what's his name, David s'thing, UVIC, used to tout "nuclear farms" as the source to planet saving hydrogen. Nuclear farms meant remote nuclear facilities sited near abundant sources of natural gas, so that nuclear power could be greenly used to strip the hydrogen out of CH4. Indeed.

    Nuke money sure buys a lot of trickery.

  • amackay

    2 years ago

    Sensible, but politicans are just too afraid

    For all the talk of greening the economy, politicians (at least the ones we elect) are afraid of running with these kind of sensible ideas. Vested interests - esp business interests - has huge sway with elected and unelected government officials. Even more so now with the recession. The grass roots response to the Gateway project has been deafeningly silent of late. Even the website has gone away.

  • settebello

    2 years ago

    Grand Schemes

    One thing that I have never heard questioned in any detail is the need to develop massive projects in distant inlets. There are many potential run-of- river sites close to the existing power grid or long-established transportation routes. Two of these sites, both adjacent to Highway 4 on Vancouver Island, have been developed and operate virtually unnoticed by the public. Neither was accompanied by public rancour when they were proposed and built.

    Instead, we are faced with prospect of expensive, complicated projects scattered in huge valleys and coastal inlets hundreds of kilometers away from not only population centrees, but any existing power lines. In addition to building generating capacity, we require new transmission lines, in remote areas which are frequently battered by vile weather conditions, avalanches and mudslides.

    Logic would dictate that we develop less expensive, less remote sites first and worry about Bute Inlet later. Even leaving aside the preposterous sweetheart buy back arrangement the province has imposed on BC Hydro, the government has once again embraced the highest cost solution to a problem facing BC.

  • oeanda

    2 years ago

    HydroGreen

    "One must be quite arrogant and shameless to demand others to live miserably because then a few giga watt hours of electricity can be saved and a few less tons of coal can be burnt."

    On the contrary, one must be ignorant and shameless to demand that the people and the environment suffer the consequences of your vulgar need to waste energy. My year-round energy usage costs me about $8 per month. I'm 100% on the grid, and I haven't even made any sacrifices in my lifestyle yet! Am I threatening your "right" to piss away valuable resources without heed?

    It appears that people like Berman are promoting a zero-lifestyle-change model of environmentalism that they must think necessary to get people on-board. Hybrid cars, for example, are the least effective way of helping the environment but they're popular because they imply no personal sacrifice. Plus they're a convenient way to show off one's newfound enviro-status.

    According to National Geographic, by far the best way to reduce energy usage is to upgrade business buildings to more efficient. Maybe the NDP should change its position on the tax and promise to apply it to energy-saving upgrades.

    That would satisfy environmentalists, and put economic pressure on the consumption of fossil fuel. Alas, practical solutions haven't enough sex appeal or controversy to satisfy Berman's personal ambition.

  • Curt

    2 years ago

    Came across this article. The destruction will continue.

    ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – Resource Magazine – April 2009
    In the news by Joel Bainerman

    PLUTONIC POWER AND GE SUBMIT BIDS

    Plutonic Power Corp. [PCC-TSX] has teamed-up with GE Energy Financial Services [GE-NYSE] to submit two bids on hydro electric, power projects costing more than $4 billion. This would make it Canada's largest single private sector hydroelectric generation investment.
    The projects call for the development of approximately 1,200 Megawatts of clean, run-of-river hydroelectric capac¬ity (enough to power 330,000 homes) in the Toba and Bute inlets along British Columbia's southwest coast, where GE and Plutonic Power are already build¬ing a 196-Megawatt hydroelectric project. In June 2008, BC Hydro used a Request for Proposals issued for 5,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) per year of seasonal and hourly firm energy to help make British Columbia electricity self-sufficient by 2016, and meet demand using 90% clean domestic generation sources. These projects will expand GE Energy Financial Services US $4 billion portfolio of renewable energy investments worldwide.
    The two projects that the two companies submitted bids on, are:
    The Upper Toba Valley Hydroelectric Project: This project, with a generation capacity of approximately 166 megawatts, consists of three (3) generation facilities that will connect to the BC Hydro grid through a 230-kilovolt line already under construc¬tion for the Plutonic Power and GE Energy Financial Services East Toba River and Montrose Creek Run-of-River Project. The project is expected to be permitted by the end of the third quarter in 2009.
    The Bute Inlet Project: This project, with generation capacity of approximately 1,027 megawatts, consists of 17 facility sites in three areas: the Homathko, Southgate and Orford Rivers. The first project Plutonic Power is working on with GE, the 196-megawatt, 5660 million East Toba River and Montrose Creek hydroelectric projects, are scheduled to reach commercial operation by mid-2010. The electricity generated from this project is contracted to BC Hydro under a 35-year sales contract.

    Plutonic Power's corporate vision is to create a legacy through the development of renewable, reliable, clean energy. Its pro¬posed Green Power Corridor.", comprised of 39 facilities, including the flagship $660 million, 196 MW East Toba River Montrose Creek Run-of-River project cur¬rently under construction, have the design capacity to generate enough energy to meet the annual needs of about 630,000 homes. Once built, the Green Power Corridor'" could offset an estimated 4 million tons of CO, emissions every year — the equivalent to taking as many as 650,000 vehicles off the road. 

  • G West

    2 years ago

    patricia and c/f: jimmy, Frank et al

    EDITED FOR UNVERIFIABLE ACCUSATIONS.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    Obtuse Question...

    Anonymous or not, why engage with this person, G West?

    What I mean is, what could possibly be gained by encouraging that dysfunction...?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    VivianLea

    I had a discussion with this 'person' yesterday, in what I meant to be a substantive and fact-based dialogue.

    Instead of a rational discussion I was treated to childishness and name-calling.

    As you can see above here - others had a similar experience.

    The person has an agenda which is clear from the details - an agenda which puts his stand, and his attitudes in a certain critical light.

    I think we're in a battle for the future and the survival of this province.

    I believe, when such tactics are used - in my view dishonestly - that citizen journalists have an obligation to disclose them to other readers, people who might have been influenced and who are not aware of the facts.

    As for the level of my 'engagement' with the said individual, I think you'll see (if you look back at the few comments I offered and figures I quoted) that it was a minimal 'engagement'.

    I'm sorry if you think I was encouraging this - I intended to do quite the opposite.

    As events transpire, we'll see.

    Cheers.

  • Name

    2 years ago

    Inconvenient but true

    Thanks, Michael for injecting a healthy dose of of the truly harsh reality that we face.

    Anyone who thinks we can merrily continue our current paradigm by just sticking on some "green" window dressing like new lightbulbs, the odd solar panel and an electric car/SUV in every garage, is promoting a truly dangerous delusion.

    Even if we could achieve the miracle of cold fusion, the planet simply cannot support the other impacts of this model, no matter how efficient, if we add all of Asia, India and then Africa into the equation.

    The incredible myopia of Berman, Suzuki, Weaver & co is doing the cause of environmental awareness a real disservice by encouraging political leaders and ordinary citizens to continue ducking these uncomfortable truths. The further down this road we go, the more of a crisis we will face in the inevitable adjustment to reality.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    Curiosity, not criticism

    Hey, G West, my question was of genuine curiosity and not criticism...as you can see, I followed the thread and interjected irrelevant comments at a couple points. But yes, this person's agenda was clear at the very beginning...
    Cheers to you!

  • freebear

    2 years ago

    Sustainable Growth?

    On a finite planet?

    The followers of the growth religion should be put on a smaller scale spaceship and told to grow sustainably!

    And Berman calls for "more sustainable development."

    Does she aslo call for dead people to be more dead?

    And a great painting to be more great?

    Suzuki pines for a steady stae economy but says nothing about supporting the Green Party?

    I guess we have to wait for that new/undiscovered bacteria/plague; or resource wars, to cleanse the planet down to a sustainable population of 600 million?

  • G West

    2 years ago

    VivianLea

    Hope the answer satisfied your curiousity.

    Till next time.

    I'm off to try and figure out why the NDP has closed access to the package of documents from the BASI VIRK trial for the duration.

    Seems a bizarre and foot in mouth sort of thing to have done.

    Here, I'll show you what I mean:

    http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/bcrailcorruption

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    Yes, well

    do tell when you find out, G West.
    Even curioser.

  • Yeoman

    2 years ago

    Hydrogreen:

    Seems you are the one drinking the kool-aid. If you are not aware of (or admitting to) 8m "weirs" then you have not seen the recent proposals. As for bull trout not being salmon, of course I know that, the two sites I talked about are different ones.

    I have probably seen more diversion proposals than there were turnips in the truck you fell out of. Fourty nine megawatts is not a "cabin sized" powerhouse and coanda screens at a fraction of their peak capacity kill fish.

    Go back to the TSX and Liberal HQ!

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    Our environental melt-down

    I wonder if anyone here knows - or can give a reasnable estimate - what amount of CO2 production is prevented by BC's export of Hydro, and then how much is in turn actually produced by BC's exports of gas?

    I know that concerning particulates etc gas is considered much cleaner than coal, but it seems to me that concerns re CO2 now override those.

    Thus, it looks to me that supporters of Campbell's supposed "greening" and his crocodile tears re CO2 are more than a bit disingenuous when they turn a blind eye to his active subsidisation and promotion of the environentally destructive production of coal-bed methane, his gloating over the finding of new gas wells, and his subsidising of exploration for oil and gas in the North-West.

    Hypocrisy? You bet. Have Suzuki, Berman and Co been bought off? You bet.

    Their silence, or better yet their active cooperation, has allowed Campbell to get away with projecting the illusion that he is a prudent financial manager, whereas the truth is that he is just another resource exploiter, balancing the books by selling off one resource after another.

    This continuing short-sightedness displayed by our reigning envirocrats makes me sick.

  • River Siddhartha

    2 years ago

    Come and join The Paddlers Flotilla for Free Flowing BC Rivers

    Momentum is building on the side of sanity!

    Come down to Kits Beach on Saturday April 25th and join The Flotilla?

    Details are on Facebook:
    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=63583053757

    or on the Upcoming Events section of
    www.saveourrivers.ca

    Hope to see you and your boat there!

    Adam

  • kepstein

    2 years ago

    To Wilfred Laurier

    First off - I wasn't the one to use the giga watt measurement - it was HydroGreen to introduce that. I don't even pretend to know how electricity is measured - thanks for the education (seriously), it is nice to learn something new.

    But wow...way to pick on a detail and completely ignore the point of my comment. I would hope that most people would understand that I was merely pointing out that if we lived in the way that my grandparents (and probably most people's) did that we'd have a much smaller footprint on the earth and that we wouldn't necessarily be miserable for it.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    kepstein

    No worries. Wilf is a well-known troll - you shouldn't worry about him.

    You're right about opting for simpler and less environmentally damaging ways of living - in no sense do those kinds of choices mean a lowering of one's standard of living.

    In fact, quite the contrary.

  • williambd

    2 years ago

    2 Errors

    M'Gonigle makes two errors in his article:

    1) He is dreaming in technicolor if he thinks we can get the reduction in carbon emissions that we need by conservation alone. We need to use all possible means.

    2) Because someone else is emitting more than we are why should we do anything. If everyone adopts that attitude - and many do - nothing will get done.

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    M'Gonigle makes no errors in his article:

    wiliambd writes:

    "2) Because someone else is emitting more than we are why should we do anything. If everyone adopts that attitude - and many do - nothing will get done."

    Wrong. Because every nation's lifeblood is cheap energy, and carbon sequestration is economically impractical, no nation will seriously curtail the use of hydrocarbons until cheap alternatives are available.

    Trying to correct one environental mistake by making another such as RoR is a fool's game. Haven't we learned that by now?

    Conservation and safe alternatives like solar, wind and tidal make sense - even if they do not temporarily assuage guilt like the carbon taxes and cap-and-trade the greenies prefer.

  • Blue Camas

    2 years ago

    well said freebear

    There is only one party that truly makes the environment it's priority.

    The Green Party.

    There is only one way to get them elected.

    BC-STV.

  • idoumenc

    2 years ago

    Insiders move to IPP industry

    [COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR]

    Mark Grant, BC Liberal executive director, resigns December 12, 2008 to join Rupert Peace Power.

    David Cyr, former Assistant to BC Liberal Minister Mike de Jong, is now a director at Plutonic Power.

    Robert Poore, recently worked under the Provincial Revenue Minister of the Province of BC, now is a senior director at Plutonic Power.

    Tom Syer, who has held a variety of senior positions in the BC Government including Gordon Campbell’s Deputy Chief of Staff, is now a director at Plutonic Power.

    Bill Irwin, after holding key positions in the BC Ministries of Land and Water, and Crown Lands, now is a director at Plutonic Power.[4]

    Bruce Ripley spent the last 2 of his 16 years at BC Hydro as VP Engineering, now is President and CEO of Plutonic Power.

    Elisha McCallum (Moreno), after 7 years with BC Hydro as a media relations manager, moved to a directorship with Plutonic Power.

    Bruce Young, has held several high profile positions with the BC Liberal party and lobbied his own party on behalf of Katabatic Power is listed as a director of Atla Energy.

    Stephen Kukucha, former senior policy advisor for the BC Ministry of Environment, is now president and CEO of Atla Energy.

    Bob Herath, former Assistant Regional Water Manager for the BC Ministry of Environment is now with Syntaris Power.[7]

    Paul Taylor, after his work as President and CEO of crown corporation ICBC as well as high level positions in the BC Government, is now President and CEO of Naikun Wind Energy Group.

    Michael J. O’Conner, former President and CEO of Crown Corporation BC Transit, now holds senior positions at Naikun.

    Jackie Hamilton, formerly held various BC Government environmental assessment and regulatory management positions, is now a VP at Cloudworks Energy.

    Michael Margolick, held positions in resource and strategic planning at BC Hydro, now is the Vice President of Power and Transmission planning at Naikun Wind.

    Robert Price, after a 30-year career at BC Hydro and Power Authority which culminated as the utility’s Vancouver Island transmission line construction, supervision and operations manager, now a member of the Hawkeye ‘team’ (website is not clear on Price’s position at Hawkeye).

    Mr. Paul Adams, after a 33-year career with BC Hydro in which he held senior management positions, now is another ‘team’ member at Hawkeye.[13]

    Doug Bishop, formerly 32 years with BC Hydro and Powerex, was contracted in 2004 by Plutonic Power.

    Ron Monk former BC Hydro Engineer, now employed by Kerr Wood Leidal engineering firm used by IPPs.

    Wayne Chambers, a former BC Hydro power plant and substation operator, now a manager at Cloudworks.

    Alexander Kiess, after long career with BC Hydro in management, now works as a consultant to Syntaris Power.

    Geoff Plant, former BC Liberal Attorney General, now chair of Renaissance Power.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    VivainLea

    Reporting back on the "shut-down" website(s)...

    The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer had this to say:

    Quote:
    The Election Act does not require registered political parties to make parts of their websites inaccessible during a campaign period. I am unable to provide any clarification on why some sites may appear to be inaccessible.

  • margot

    2 years ago

    great list

    Thank you idoumenc.

  • River Siddhartha

    2 years ago

    Paddlers Flotilla for Free Flowing Rivers TODAY 3PM, KITS BEACH

    Good discussion happening here!

    Let's keep it going

    Come down to Kits Beach today at 3pm with our without a boat to paddle and take part in the Paddlers Flotilla for Free Flowing Rivers in BC

    The goal is to raise awareness and keep the debate going and reach those citizens who are as of yet unaware of this critical issue facing us all!

    Details here:
    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=63583053757&ref=ts

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.