The Leap in B.C. that Naomi Klein & friends should support

Two parts of the Leap Manisfesto that are pertinent. One, the Leap Manifesto, in it's supporting docukmentation, calls for the building of 270 1300MW hydro dams. Presumably that would include such as Site C.

Two, the Leap Manifesto calls for local control. In the two ridings which are closest to Site C, the Liberals won very large majorities. 76% of the vote in one, and 66% of the vote in the other.

Given these two facts, will the Greens now accept that Site C is okay?

From Ken Burch:

If I might ask, is Site C something YOU have particularly wanted all along?

​All along is a long time, because Site C has been in the plan for decades. I don't know that I thought a lot about it over those decades, although I couldn't say that I opposed it, so I suppose one could say I accepted it.

​I do believe it is a 'green' and 'sustainable' source of electricity, which the greens have been asking for. Given that it's on a river that already has two dams, given that it's environmental effect is minimal, given that it supplies base-load power, given that it could supply green power to Alberta, where much of their electrical generation is fossil fuelled (90%), I think it's probably a pretty good idea.

Also given, as I've already mentioned, the support documentation for the Leap Manifesto calls for hydro power in large quantities, one would think the Leapers would be fully behind this project. However, I suspect many Leapers haven't actually read that supporting documentation, and are quite unaware of what it calls for in terms of future energy generation.

The other thing the Leap calls for is local control, and one thing is absolutely clear, that is, the locals of Peace River North and Peace River South, are competely okay with Site C. How else would one explain the massive vote for the Liberals in both ridings when the Liberals are the party most associated with Site C.

As far as the Leap is concerned, Sitc C passes the tests it poses. It's green, it's hydro, it's welcomed by the locals. What more does anyone want?

I think it's a reasonable question.  I assume that "Site C" is not another coal burning plant, yes?

What is it we're supposed to support?  The jump to giant, not-yet-ready photoelectric solar farms?  A holdout for Cold Fusion??

I thought we were actually supposed to prefer hydroelectric.  Even if it's in someone's back yard.

From kropotkin1951:

Peace River North and Peace River South are both Liberal strongholds. They always do really well there.  In Peace River North the Liberal ran on an interesting theme. So according to your local theory any thing polluting just needs to be sited in a Liberal riding and that is proof that it is okay. Site C is the wrong project for the wrong era. We don't need that power and certainly not when my electricity costs are going to rise steeply to subsidize foreign power sales to the US or the LNG industry in Canada.

But presumably, if the local population was utterly opposed to Site C, they would have made their feelings known during the election. What better time to show your opposition to a giant project in your own back yard? But they didn't, not only didn't, but expressed massive support for the party most closely associated with Site C.

​And it's not my local theory. It is part of the Leap Manifesto, that local democracy should have a strong say in what happens in their area. All I'm saying is that given the election results, Site C seems to have passed that test.

As far as where the power is used, that is immaterial. Presumably one could use wind or solar for the LNG industry as well as hydro, but no one ever asks how that power generation is going to be used. In fact, even if all the power was sold into Alberta, that would lower the amount of fossil fuel electrical generation there (currently at 90% of total), and that would be a good thing, right?

​And I'll just point out that, if you're opposed to higher electrical rates, you'd better hope they don't decide to invest in wind or solar. Ontario is investing in those, and their rates are more than half again as much as we pay in BC.

In any case, Site C passes all of the 'green' tests that one could imagine, and yet for some reason that's not good enough. If you applied all the objections to Site C to any other form of electrical generation, you wouldn't build any more.

From kropotkin1951:

The locals affected by the project have shown their displeasure by launching law suits and court challenges. This project though will affect every resident in BC because of its financial implications so the term local must be either those directly affected or the whole province. 

This is a fucking boondoggle that is unaffordable and the money spent could be better spent on many other green infrastructure projects. The good news for people like you is that Christy's corporate backers will make out like pirates and that is what these mega projects are all about.  

​Yes, a small minority of Peace River people are opposed to Site C. That doesn't alter the fact that the large majority or for it. The term 'local' is what it is in the Leap Manifesto. Of course it's true that any project, of any size will affect people beyond the 'locals'. Perhaps they should remove that reference from the Leap.

​As far as the money being spent on 'green infrastructure', Site C is green infrastructure. Again, the Leap Manifesto accepts hydro power as being green, and for sure it is infrastucture. As far as Christy's corporate backer making out like pirates, that would be (and is) true of any project. Governments don't build things, they pay for things to be built. That is just as true of windmills, public transit, public housing, what have you.

​If indeed you are opposed to corporations reaping the benefits of government projects, that is tantamount to saying you don't want the government to build anything (which would include that green infrastructure you talk about). You can't have it both ways.

As far as whether we need the power now, again that's kind of irrelevant. We will need the power, that is almost as certain as the sun coming up in the morning. The problem is that such projects take years of planning. In fact in the case of Site C it has been on the drawing board for decades. If one waited until the power was needed, you would end up with natural gas fired generators, because they're the only quick way of adding base-load electricity to the system.

And you can trust me on this. Your electrical rates are going to go up no matter what happens. Infrastructure has to be maintained, and that is not free. It costs, and those costs keep rising. That is especially true as infrastructure ages. In a sense we have been living in a dream world. We have amongst the lowest electrical rates in North America. If you'd like to know what those rates are, take a look at this document from Hydro Quebec.

Major Cities Electrical Rates

Take a look at page 9 for a comparison based on residential customers using 1000 kWh per month. Interestingly, the cheapest rates in North America are all in places where the bulk of electricity is from hydro generation. Quebec has the best rates, but that's because of an old deal they made with Newfoundland.

Bear in mind also that we're talking about base-load power. Even if other alternatives, like windmills, were just as cheap (they're not), they cannot generate base-load power. In many places they build fossil fuelled  generators as a backup system to their 'green' electricity.

From epaulo13:

..fptp elections are not consultations with communities.

​It is true that elections are not consultations with communities. It's also true that elections give communities the chance to send a message to the politicians.

​If there were widespread opposition to Site C, I doubt the Liberals would have achieved such large majorities of the popular vote in the two ridings where Site C is situated. It is certainly an indication of local sentiment.

Rev Pesky wrote:

Take a look at page 9 for a comparison based on residential customers using 1000 kWh per month. Interestingly, the cheapest rates in North America are all in places where the bulk of electricity is from hydro generation. Quebec has the best rates, but that's because of an old deal they made with Newfoundland.

Churchill Falls is 5,428 MW out of Hydro-Québec's 36,912. Three times as much power comes from the James Bay dams. We have the best rates due to political decisions to keep prices low and to keep Hydro-Québec in public hands instead of selling it off like Ontario's doing, not because we're ripping off NL.

What a ridiculous excuse for bad public policy. The city of Fort St. John is the centre of BC's oil and fracked gas industry. Its too much of a leap for me to think that they get to determine whether we spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 Billion dollars of public money on a bad project.

I don't care what exactly is in the Leap Manifesto because it was always meant as an starting place for discussion not some sort of revealed word of the goddess. I find it irksome that the right wingers like to use it as a gotcha tool. 

..the document rev refers to is a theroretical projection showing that transition is possible by 2050. it's true the document uses in some cases dams. rev has been trying to elevate that to the level of a demand or master plan in order to discredit leap. it was never meant to be that.

..while while doing so rev ignors the bigger picture painted by the leap as an inspirational plus document. the leap's focus begins with the rights of indigenous folk. and of course no community has the right or is justified in bringing harm to another in order enrich itself.

..magoo here's one of many posts in the site c thread that you can find here

Liberal pals plundering BC Hydro for tens of Billions

quote:

The goose that lays the golden egg

More recent opponents of Liberal power policy assume that, beyond grabbing the profits to be made flipping IPP contracts, political operatives aimed to cripple BC Hydro to make its privatization palatable. The writer believes that, while this was the initial plan, the guiding parties decided they could gain more another way.

There was no need to privatize Hydro’s assets and liabilities. Instead, they privatized its profits and left Hydro and the public with all the financial risks.

One example is Site C, which will create more unneeded and unaffordable power. No private investors in the world would fund a hydroelectric dam with environmental issues, First Nations conflicts and near zero prospects of profitable operations. But, if the public pays for the dam and sells power to the private sector at a fraction of cost, there are private profits to be made.

..you asked about site c i assumed because that is what is being discussed. do you assume that all hydro dams are green? you have to look at upstream and down to figure this out. you need to understand what makes this dam not a green one. i provided you with enough info for you to determine that. but you have to work for it.

..yes i did because what is happening to hydro forms an important part of why site c is not a green project. the snipet i posted says that the power is not needed. so you have this huge construction project that is impacting the enviroment and it's not necessary..unless you consider that it's meant to power the lng industry. it's also flooding land that is being used as a food source. more investment in expanding this source is what locals are calling for.

..i apologize that my last post came across as cranky.

cco wrote:

Churchill Falls is 5,428 MW out of Hydro-Québec's 36,912. Three times as much power comes from the James Bay dams. We have the best rates due to political decisions to keep prices low and to keep Hydro-Québec in public hands instead of selling it off like Ontario's doing, not because we're ripping off NL.

Thanks for the reality check, cco. Public ownership and consequent low rates are one of the great gains of the Quiet Revolution which have not yet been dismantled.

The costs of the Site C are reflected in the 2014 joint review panel examining its financial, environmental, food, and forgone opportunities of developing alternative renewable energy forms. 

It could also be said that they are short-sighted, sacrificing 80 kilometres of river habitat and 13,000 hectares of farmland for cheap energy. A dam changes a river, disrupting ecosystems that have developed over millennia in harmony with changing seasons and fluctuating water flows and temperatures. A dam stops fish from spawning and messes with the complex interaction of flora and fauna in and along the river.

As food production declines in drought-stricken California, should we be taking valuable agricultural land out of production? The Peace country doesn’t raise many oranges or almonds, but the rich soil and the long northern summer days can produce excellent crops there.

The joint review panel that studied the project fell short of endorsing it, expressing concerns about B.C. Hydro’s estimates. Although the panel noted Hydro has been working on the project for 35 years, it “cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of the project cost estimates because it does not have the information, time or resources.”

The panel was also worried about B.C. Hydro’s financial condition and the utility’s immense deferral accounts, which raised alarms in the auditor general’s office several years ago.

The government coyly pretends that Hydro’s debts are not provincial debts, but British Columbians bear that burden, regardless of where the bookkeeping assigns the debts. The panel said B.C. Hydro failed to prove that the province will need the electricity soon. In its first four years of production, the dam is expected to sell its surplus power for a third of what it costs, leaving ratepayers to pick up the $800-million loss.

The joint review panel chastized the government for not considering alternatives, such as geothermal energy resources, even as B.C. Hydro noted that geothermal resources could be developed to economically produce two-thirds of the power that will be produced by Site C.

A lot could change during the eight years it will take to complete the dam. In the last decade, the cost of solar and wind energy has dropped dramatically. Building the dam is a gamble.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-count-all-cost...

 

Many believe that Site C will cause enormous increases in BC Hydro rates.

BC Hydro’s most recent demand forecast, submitted in January to the BC Utilities Commission, predicts a 30 per cent increase in demand over 20 years. But critics say the corporation has got it wrong. BC Hydro is counting on electricity demand to increase at the same pace as population growth, something Harry Swain — who chaired the only recent independent review of Site C — has criticized. “The growth in efficiencies is outpacing growth of population,” he said in a recent presentation. New technology reduces power use, and demand per person decreases, he says.

BC Hydro’s forecasts also ignore basic economic principles, Swain says. As electricity rates rise, people and businesses will use less and invest to increase efficiency. And Swain is confident Site C’s high cost will mean significant rate increases. 

“If you think prices have gone up, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” he said. ...

Site C is scheduled to be complete in 2024; BC Hydro says its electricity will be surplus to needs for at least its first 10 years of operation. That leaves lots of time to look at alternative energy sources. When BC Hydro reviewed supply options recently, it found that the cost of on-shore wind electricity had dropped by 20 per cent and is expected to drop by another 20 per cent by 2030. It’s now the cheapest supply option. ...

When Site C’s turbines start spinning sometime around 2024, the power will flow into the existing grid, adding up to 5,100 gigawatts per hour. One BC Hydro projection shows that B.C. won’t need the power from Site C until 2036. In the meantime, electricity produced by Site C will likely be sold on the exchange market at daily spot prices. ....

The official budget is $8.775 billion, which includes almost $1 billion in contingency funding for unexpected costs or overruns.  But is $1 billion enough? Comparable modern dams in Canada have run way over budget. Manitoba Hydro’s Keeyask dam is 34 per cent over budget — $2.2 billion. Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls project costs have almost doubledfrom the original announced price to $11.4 billion. Both are still under construction and behind schedule. More cost overruns are still possible. ... Site C also faces the same challenges in building on difficult ground. ...

On top of the immediate financial costs, there is the lost farmland (in the region’s distinct microclimate even watermelons grow), damage to endangered species and harm to First Nations who will lose a large part of their traditional territory. 

And there is the effect on BC Hydro debt, officially at $18 billion before Site C (though critics of BC Hydro’s accounting practices says the actual debt is much higher). Moody’s credit rating service says BC Hydro’s growing debt, guaranteed by BC, could hurt the province’s credit rating and increase government borrowing costs. And BC Hydro does not expect the project to cover its costs for 70 years, meaning decades of interest payments that will be paid for by BC Hydro customers. 

And critics warn Site C will flood the market with surplus energy, killing demand for alternative energy development.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/05/03/Do-We-Need-Site-C-Dam/

 

..the tsleil-waututh nation has been very involved in doing this re kinder morgan

The Race to Stop Tar Sands Pipeline Financing

On Monday, a coalition of Indigenous leaders and other climate activists took over 12 JP Morgan Chase branches in Seattle for a day of protest against the financing of tar sands projects, including the newly revived Keystone XL pipeline. All 12 branches were shut down for at least part of the day, as was as a 13th branch that activists found already locked down when they arrived. Twenty-six activists were arrested.

Over the past year, tribes and cities, as well as individuals, have divested billions of dollars from banks funding the Dakota Access pipeline. Monday’s direct action was part of a new defund campaign that builds on that one but specifically targets the financing of tar sands pipelines. The campaign is coordinated by indigenous groups including Mazaska Talks and the 121 tribes and First Nations that have signed the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion, as well as by the environmental group 350 Seattle.

This new campaign targets the dozens of banks that are directly financing at least one of four proposed tar sands pipelines: TransCanada’s Keystone XL, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain, Enbridge’s Line 3, and TransCanada’s Energy East. Seventeen of those banks are listed as “primary targets” at MazaskaTalks.org because they fund all four tar sands pipelines as well as the Dakota Access pipeline, or they’re leading multibank loans to the pipelines.

Yes Magoo you could presume that I have an affinity for syndicalism and believe that mutual aid is human nature at its finest. 

Really you think I post a lot about Russia? Please if you disagree with things I say about Russia then respond to something I actually posted. I think that out of subjects I respond to Russia is not even in the top ten if you look at the number of posts. But please go right ahead and show me that Russia is actually one of my main concerns but please use actual facts not alt-right truisms that you produce out of thin air.

Drive by smears of lefties is rather short sighted but it is certainly your style.