Site C Dam

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That would basically be pointless. The dam height hardly changes the cost if you'd have to build it for the eventual raise. The foundation and generators would all have to be the same, but not properly optimized for either scenario.

It would basically be the same cost, and pay back at however much slower it produces power.

The reduced flooding would result in a short stretch of non-flooded river between a reservoir and the Peace Canyon Dam. Who wins in that scenario?

There's really nobody winning with any scenario. More like how do we lose the least...

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

There's really nobody winning with any scenario. More like how do we lose the least...

I don't know if I'd be that pessimistic. Aside from some partisans, pretty much every engineer I know thinks cancelling this is moronic.

Some gems from the BCUC report.

"BC Hydro states that it has not revised the Current Load Forecast upward to account for electrification initiatives directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions because the timing and magnitude of the increase is uncertain at this early stage.157

"Climate change
• The Municipal City of Vancouver Renewable City Strategy Results indicates that net electricity demand after efficiency measures would almost double by 2050.288"

"Published studies on electrification and GHG Reductions
 In BC Hydro’s 2013 Integrated Resource Plan, the 2011 MK Jaccard and Associates Study concluded achievement of deep reductions in GHG emissions would require significant electrification. Electricity demand could grow significantly, by between 7,000 and 13,000 GWh/year in 2030, and by between 17,000 and 28,000 GWh/year by 2050, relative to the reference scenario.291
 Clean Energy Canada Electrification Study (2016) concludes the leading provincial electrification policies across Canada reduce greenhouse gas emissions by shifting energy consumption from fossil fuels towards electricity while at the same time ensuring that electricity generation comes from zero emission sources. 292"


Or in English:
A modest reduction in CO2 emissions will have the hippies freezing in the dark during winter brownouts.

You can have CO2 Reduction, but there also needs to be electrification going along with it.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That's China though. In the energy coarse I took last year the prof quoted $4-7.5 billion per GW in Canada due to regulations. A dam also has a longer useful life and lower operating costs.

I was working for AECL back in the late 90s. China CANDU and Canadian CANDU are based on the same design. It is not an issue of regulation in that CANDU reactors in China are built to Canadian standards. The same as US designed reactors built in China are built to US standards.

The China builds are cheaper due to lower labour costs and they are newer builds with newer build techniques. More modular units built off site then welded together on site.

The other issue with the price of a CANDU is Heavy water, it is around 20% of the cost of a reactor. It is a strategic asset, the specific size of the Canadian stockpile is not public. However you put a price on this is to some extent arbitrary.

The last nuclear project in CANDU in Canada was Darlington. The problem was Ontario Hydro raised power rates. Industry responded by refurbishing factories and becoming more energy efficient. Ontario Hydro then said, oh that is not good, we don't need Darlington as soon as we planned, lets slow the entire project down. End result is financing costs went way up. Best thing would have been to bring it online as quickly as possible and get it producing electricity even if it is not as profitable as one would like.

Lets not do the same thing with site-C as Ontario Hydro did with Darlington. Build the dam thing, get it into production and starting to pay its way as quickly as possible.

[Migrant_Coconut]

What about investing in thorium-based nuclear? Canada's sitting on a f*ckton of it.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What about investing in thorium-based nuclear? Canada's sitting on a f*ckton of it.

Perhaps in Saskatchewan.

Canada also has no shortage of Uranium.

The only part of the country where Nuclear is a politically acceptable is Saskatchewan, potentially Ontario.

The problem with Saskatchewan is for a CANDU to be cost-effective your looking at a 700 MWe reactor, more likely a larger 1,000 MWe. For grid stability you want any given unit to be a small part of the grid so that if you have a trip you don't have a province wide blackout. That is far to big a power plant for a province the size of Saskatchewan.

Ontairo, well, Ontario Power Generation from its Ontario Hydro days has been a challenging utility to make large capital projects come in on budget and schedule.

[SpongeG]

Number of Site C workers plummeted by over 400 in October

December 8, 2017 Chris Newton


Dredging of the Peace River on the north bank at Site C in October 2017. Photo by BC Hydro

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — The latest employment statistics from the Site C project released by BC Hydro today shows that the number of people working on the dam dropped by 401 from the number of workers one month prior.

In October, there were a total 1,974 people employed working on Site C. The number of contractors on site dropped by 414 compared to the previous month, while there were an additional 13 engineers and project team members. Those totals stood at 1,500 and 474 respectively.


The Site C employment statistics in October 2017. Photo by BC Hydro

...

https://energeticcity.ca/2017/12/num...d-400-october/

[Waders]

B.C. government to announce Site C decision on Monday

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by casper

That is far to big a power plant for a province the size of Saskatchewan.

If only grids were interconnected and power could be exported to other provinces or south of the border...

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Jebby

If only grids were interconnected and power could be exported to other provinces or south of the border...

Was that sarcasm?

This one's a tough call. IMHO the BC Libs railroaded this through to get their desired outcome, not necessarily what was best for BC. But now the landowners are evicted, the land stripped and billions of our money already sunk into it, it seems crazy to pull the plug.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Jebby

If only grids were interconnected and power could be exported to other provinces or south of the border...

Saskatchewan's neighbours are Manitoba, Montana, North Dakota and the NWT - I doubt any of them consume enough energy to want to import. Alberta, maybe, but it seems they want to go with in-province LNG and renewables.

[excel]

B.C.’s New Democrat government will continue building the Site C dam, choosing to finish the contentious project started by the previous Liberal government rather than pull the plug during mid-construction.

http://vancouversun.com/news/politic...-on-site-c-dam

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Saskatchewan's neighbours are Manitoba, Montana, North Dakota and the NWT - I doubt any of them consume enough energy to want to import. Alberta, maybe, but it seems they want to go with in-province LNG and renewables.

Well Saskatchewan is part of the Eastern Interconnection so it could, in theory, sell excess electricity to a huge portion of the US.

More specifically, it's part of the Midwest Reliability Organization which includes Minnesota, North Dakota and Nebraska, portions of the states of Montana, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan plus Manitoba.



According to wikipedia, it also has four of the six high-voltage direct current ties which connect the Eastern interconnection to the Western Interconnection, and also has ties to non-NERC systems in Northern Canada.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Well Saskatchewan is part of the Eastern Interconnection so it could, in theory, sell excess electricity to a huge portion of the US.

More specifically, it's part of the Midwest Reliability Organization which includes Minnesota, North Dakota and Nebraska, portions of the states of Montana, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan plus Manitoba.

(image)

According to wikipedia, it also has four of the six high-voltage direct current ties which connect the Eastern interconnection to the Western Interconnection, and also has ties to non-NERC systems in Northern Canada.

Sure, but "man in the middle" doesn't necessarily translate into "middleman." If anything, the Eastern/Western Interconnections would likely sell to Saskatchewan.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by excel

B.C.’s New Democrat government will continue building the Site C dam, choosing to finish the contentious project started by the previous Liberal government rather than pull the plug during mid-construction.

http://vancouversun.com/news/politic...-on-site-c-dam

Thankfully, sanity prevailed here. Got to give them credit. Maybe this government isn't as dumb as they seemed.

[zahav]

This was definitely a smart decision by the NDP, good for Horgan for looking at this from a practical standpoint, as opposed to pandering to his base. Could cost him some votes for sure, but he did the right thing for the province.

[Migrant_Coconut]

It could even steal Horgan some Liberal votes - they've been campaigning on the idea that the NDP will wreck the economy, which is now demonstrably not the case.

[WarrenC12]

This is the right choice. I was a bit surprised to see the NDP do it, to be honest.

[SpongeG]

West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations to seek Injunction and launch Treaty Infringement lawsuit in wake of Site C proceeding


An undated photo that was tweeted by West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson showing NDP leader John Horgan posing with locals that are opposed to construction of the Site C dam. Photo by Roland Willson/Twitter.


FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. – The West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation have announced their intention to obtain a court injunction to halt construction of the Site C dam and to commence a lawsuit for Treaty Infringement in response to the NDP Government’s decision to push ahead with the $10.7 billion project.

“It was John Horgan’s NDP that demanded a Site C inquiry by the BC Utilities Commission, and the results they received from it were clear: no need for the power, better alternatives once we do, and no advantage to ratepayers to proceed. With those findings, the only responsible choice was to immediately stop destroying the Peace River valley,” said Chief Roland Willson.

...

https://energeticcity.ca/2017/12/wes...-c-proceeding/

[Metro-One]

It is nice to see a wise decision being made here.

My Facebook newsfeed is already lighting up with pissed off environmentalists.

I also find it funny that people never publicize the natives who support these projects and actually work in the industry / other related trades.

I was at site C and around the Peace Region working on a video project for an industrial company (won’t say which one) and there sure seemed to be many natives working for / with them...