Site C Dam

[Smooth]

Metro-One, to address a few of your comments...

A large scale dam such as the one proposed at Site C is preferable over wind/solar/tidal etc. because it provides a firm and reliable source of power.

Site C, although it does have it's drawbacks, is on the Peace river which already has two other dams. The damage to the river is already done from those dams so the only real negative impact of Site C is the land lost upstream.

I am of the view that the benefits of this project outweigh the costs. Demand for electricity is only going to become greater as electric cars become more popular and people accumulate more electronics. If given the choice between other sources of firm power such as coal or nuclear, I'm sure most people would opt for the loss of a relatively small area of farmland.

Regarding your comments on damming the Fraser or other rivers in BC. That would never happen because of all the silt that those rivers carry. Just look to China to see what happens when you try and dam a silty river.

[Stingray2004]

An Ipsos-Reid poll from back in June, 2005 with the attitudes of British Columbians toward Site C:

British Columbians are twice as likely to support rather than oppose the idea of BC Hydro building the Site C dam to help meet the future electricity demands in the province (57% versus 28%).

http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/...on_emergin.pdf

[itinerant]

Isn't the trend to many distributed and diverse small-scale power generation sources, rather than relying on a few large-scale plants? So by what logic do fewer large-scale plants provide "firm and reliable" sources of power? Distant hydroelectric power projects serving major metropolitan areas require not just destruction of the immediate vicinity, but also a corridor of land for hundreds of kilometers from source to customer. This doesn't include the percentage of the energy lost in transmission over the wires.

Do a few farms in Northern BC matter? Yes. Its short sighted to systematically sacrifice non-renewable, arable land when its also becoming clear that relying on imported food is both destructive to local agriculture and risky business to rely on vast (and energy consuming) global transportation networks. Northern Europe is finding this out with the (so far) week-long disruption to air freight.

[SpongeG]

I grew up there and this dam has been hated as long as I can remember - its going to affect a lot of people

[Smooth]

It is considered firm and reliable because, unlike micro hydro, you can store water to release at a later date. The trend in North America has been towards small hydro projects because A) most suitable sites already have dams on them B) modern regulations make all the environmental impact studies so comprehensive that it takes decades before a dam is built C) private industry is getting into power generation but can't afford projects that cost billions.

I'm not suggesting that we should return to an era where these massive hydroelectric dams are built anywhere. What I am saying is that the Peace River already has suffered the the negative impacts from the other dams, so we might as well fully harness the power generating potential because Sites A & B are never going to be taken out of service.

The concern about a transmission line corridor would be valid, if there wasn't already one there servicing the other two dams.

As for the loss of agricultural land, from my understanding, much of the land lost could be used for agriculture but is not presently. If the land really was that vital it would have already been used. I don't see how this land could be prime agricultural land when the growing season is relatively short compared to land in southern BC and the US.

[Spork]

Originally Posted by itinerant

Do a few farms in Northern BC matter? Yes. Its short sighted to systematically sacrifice non-renewable, arable land when its also becoming clear that relying on imported food is both destructive to local agriculture and risky business to rely on vast (and energy consuming) global transportation networks. Northern Europe is finding this out with the (so far) week-long disruption to air freight.

It has been shown that small scale local farms are less efficient than large scale, distant farms. Economies of scale show real benefits in this area.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_f...nmental_impact

[jlousa]

My dad worked on both the Revelstoke and Mica dams, and is constantly surprised that we still haven't built Site C. If it was done back then with the manpower and equipment still in the area it would've been done a fair bit cheaper, not to mention it would've already been paid off like the other dams now are.
That said we have learned a lot over the years and any dam built today won't resemble the disaster that some of the previous dams left behind. This dam would produce 30% of the power of it's big brother but with a reservoir only 5% the size. It's the ultimate in efficiency as it's reusing the same water.
As others have said dams are like giant batteries that complement other green sources perfectly. They can be almost instantly cranked up unlike most other powerplants and be shut down just as quickly storing energy when not needed.
I see people complain about the loss of agricultural land up there when it's of less value then any of the land being gobbled up in the fraser valley. We do need to protect Agricultural land, but lets start here.
If the province were to replace that argiculutral land with a equal or greater amount of higher quality would peoples complaints subside?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Wind power and hydro compliment each other very well, but BC hasn't come anywhere close to building out the amount of potential wind we could have online while keeping our grid stable.

That being said the economics of large scale projects like Site C blow away smaller scale projects and wind power. Even if we can't sell this power to California at special green power rates we can't charge a small fortune due to the variable power output hydro affords us.

I think anything we can do to increase our peak output and maximize other cheap forms of base load should be done. It just makes too much economic sense. Even if site C gets built, we should continue to add generating capacity to existing dams then start to bring on wind to offset the amount of draw on the hydro plants in off peak hours, selling as much of our power as peak load to the Americans as we can.

[mooks28]

The other thing to remember is that wind power isn't reliable. The nice thing about a damn is you can store water behind it and run the water through when power demand surges and hold it back when it doesn't. With wind turbines, it just goes when there is wind. They're great for adding onto the grid, but any engineer will tell you that you need a stable base. Site C gives you that.

You'd have to convince BCers to cut their demand for electricity by a huge amount in order to avoid bring on another supply like this on stream. People might pay lip service to that, but watch the public squeal when you raise hydro rates to force people to conserve.

[dleung]

Article in the paper today was just saying how this dam might not fulfill some of the underlying goals of the project - that is to be an exporter of power to our southern neighbours. California buys green energy only from sources no bigger than 30 MW. Site C will be 900MW, and is considered "Big Hydro", so to California, the environmental impact of these large projects undermines the greenness of the energy itself...

I'm too lazy to search the actual article, someone plz post link =)

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'm pretty sure that just means they don't pay an extra surcharge for green power rather than normal power. We still get to screw them by making them pay for peak power spikes in demand.

[jlousa]

I'm unfamaliar with how power exports work between BCHydro and California, but it's possible that we still leverage site C by simply stating all the power they are buying comes from the small ipps and the site C power is used locally.

I know the Calgary C-Train used to brag that it's 100% powered by windmills but obviously it simply had a contract to buy all the power it required from that supplier, where the power actually came from would've be impossible to tell and most likely not always wind powered.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lezard

It's such a shame that reading is a vanishing skill. So many misunderstandings might be averted.

The issue here is between Site C and another site, not hydro and nuclear.

Come back when you have read the post properly.

Sigh.

Thanks Carole James. Come back when you have an alternative solution, not more whining.

Unicorn farts aren't going to power this province.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Smooth

It is considered firm and reliable because, unlike micro hydro, you can store water to release at a later date. The trend in North America has been towards small hydro projects because A) most suitable sites already have dams on them B) modern regulations make all the environmental impact studies so comprehensive that it takes decades before a dam is built C) private industry is getting into power generation but can't afford projects that cost billions.

I'm not suggesting that we should return to an era where these massive hydroelectric dams are built anywhere. What I am saying is that the Peace River already has suffered the the negative impacts from the other dams, so we might as well fully harness the power generating potential because Sites A & B are never going to be taken out of service.

The concern about a transmission line corridor would be valid, if there wasn't already one there servicing the other two dams.

As for the loss of agricultural land, from my understanding, much of the land lost could be used for agriculture but is not presently. If the land really was that vital it would have already been used. I don't see how this land could be prime agricultural land when the growing season is relatively short compared to land in southern BC and the US.

Its not that the land can't be used for agriculture, but the land has already been grabbed by the gov't decades ago when Site C was a 'sure thing'. Then when Site C wasn't going to happen, the gov't offered to lease the land back to the farmers (the previous owners of the land) on annual-renewal basis. Anyone who understands farming knows that you don't use the land on a seasonal or annual basis - good farmers have cyclical plans for using their land that can last five, ten or more years. Without knowing whether they will be able to use the land again next year, who would want to invest in a multi-year cycle of agricultural land use when the gov't can cancel the annual lease mid-cycle?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I'm unfamaliar with how power exports work between BCHydro and California, but it's possible that we still leverage site C by simply stating all the power they are buying comes from the small ipps and the site C power is used locally.

I know the Calgary C-Train used to brag that it's 100% powered by windmills but obviously it simply had a contract to buy all the power it required from that supplier, where the power actually came from would've be impossible to tell and most likely not always wind powered.

We could probably do it that way.

The peak power works really well in our favor though. We sell them expensive power during the day during peak demand, then buy back more power at night which is dirt cheap because we can turn our dams off, but they effectively can't. It could be essentially the same thing with the wind power and hydro dam, we bank the wind power into the reservoir system like a giant battery where the energy is simply hydro capacity not used. The we sell if off when they want to pay the most to buy our "wind" power. I don't think they actually care where the electrons are coming from, just that the money is going to the source thats contractually bound to put X number of GWh into the grid.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks Carole James. Come back when you have an alternative solution, not more whining.

Unicorn farts aren't going to power this province.

Come on; make an effort. Where's the whining? Apart from the nostalgia.

The argument that if Site C is not built then we will necessarily have to build coal and nuclear generators is a strawman argument and patently absurd. Try again Gordo. If you had read my post you would have understood that was my point.

Methane generators or digesters produce electricity, so yes, in a small way unicorn farts could contribute to power this province.


Nuff said. It's getting childish.

[WarrenC12]

lezard, you already mentioned that Site C was only one of a variety of sites under consideration. This has been shown to be false, unless you have some information that nobody else does.

I ask again, what's your alternative for the power we will require?

[lezard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

lezard, you already mentioned that Site C was only one of a variety of sites under consideration. This has been shown to be false, unless you have some information that nobody else does.

I ask again, what's your alternative for the power we will require?

Firstly, I did not say that there are other sites "UNDER CONSIDERATION". Again read my post, slowly this time.

Alternatives? Conservation for one. Higher hydro prices to encourage conservation. Tax breaks for home renovations that target badly insulated homes. Mandatory Energy ratings for consumer devices, such as they have in Europe. Banning stand-by mode on all non essential electronic equipment. What? Interfere in my god given right to waste whatever I want? Bolshevik!

How about the use of alternative energy - wind and solar - to pump water back up into already existing reservoirs and using the reservoirs for hydro as well. Nah! To much work!

Finally, the province could identify sites around the lower Mainland that would serve as smaller hydro generating facilities. Scoundrel! That would ruin our pristine playgrounds.

Where does it all end? When every last Valley is filled with water because no one wants to give up their Playstations and Poptarts? You do realise we will then need Nuclear and Coal generators?

We happily consume as much as Germany or France with only half of the population. But no, there's no room for conservation!

But what do I know. Eh? You already know it all don't you?

[itinerant]

Farmland: the best farmland seems to be along waterways (areas along site C being no exception), but certainly putting greater restrictions on building on the Fraser delta rather than farming it would be preferable--should we ask the government to expand the agricultural land reserve in the Fraser delta in exchange for land lost in the Peace? Perhaps doing something radical like making it difficult or impossible to build offices, shops and homes on land that could be used for agriculture? Richmond wouldn't be very happy with this idea.

Storage potential: a dam certainly does have the advantage over say wind power of having huge built-in storage potential. I'm not saying dams are a bad thing, just the scale and

Damage already done: the Peace River already has two dams, so whats the problem with adding another? The problem is this is a large dam with lots of upstream impact. There are many precedents, but again... does fewer large dams equal responsible stewardship and management of resources? Wouldn't more, smaller dams serving local markets be a better approach? This think so, but this is an open question.

There are some really interesting questions and observations at the following page: http://commons.bcit.ca/recovery/history.html; part of a site hosted at BCIT on River Recovery (http://commons.bcit.ca/recovery).

To me, its a question of reversing BC's long-standing history of raping the land and concentrating our intervention and use of the land in productive and thoughtful ways. We live in a beautiful place with an amazing ecosystem and abundance of resources. I think we should localize our impact and use of the land. And to the overall theme of these forums, that may mean concentrating our cities and towns into smaller, more vertical footprints.

Site C may yet be a sacrifice worth making in balance of alternatives--but from what I've read so far, I don't think that is the case here.

[lezard]

About alternatives: what is happening on the Kemano and Revelstoke systems?

Edit

There appears to be a fair amount of unused capacity right there already built. If this is in fact the case, how about completing these first?