What's missing from the Site C Debate - the future demand for electricity in BC!

10 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2020-10-22 13:16

NorthReport

There is no question there are Indigenous land issues, and there are Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) issues surrounding Site C. And they definitely need to be addressed. But the one issue, and the very reason why Site C is being built, is the huge demand for future electricity that is projected for BC. Not to mention all the good payings jobs. And it is a hydro-electric, and not greeenhouse gas warming fossil-fuel project. If the project is going to be discussed, let's at least have a solid dose of reality in our discussions, eh!

Growing demand for electricity

https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/growing-demand-for-electricity

Thu, 2020-10-22 14:35

NorthReport

Quite the employment stats as well.

https://www.sitecproject.com

Thu, 2020-10-22 17:44

Lidsville

This has been explained over and over. BC is awash in electricity, and cleaner renewables that do not violate Indigenous and treaty rights (let alone all the ecological and agricultural damage) are half the price and falling. BC Hydro itself has admitted we can switch every car in BC to EV on our current grid. Please stop spreading misinformation. As for the jobs argument, BC Hydro is refusing to say where the workers are from but a giant proportion are not for BC workers (from other provinces & countries) and many are just Burnaby Hydro office jobs that are not Site C dependent, and virtually all of them are short term whereas true green jobs are not. Leftists have to stop spreading what are effectively right-wing arguments. We cannot decarbonize if we pump the tires of SNC-Lavalin-benefitting megaprojects that make electricity far more expensive and burden the poor and small businesses and make the choice to switch from gas that much slower. Please.

Thu, 2020-10-22 17:52

NDPP

Thanks for the clarification.

Thu, 2020-10-22 18:02

NorthReport

Site C is a clean energy product, a renewable resource, which will produce electricity for the huge electrical demands that are happening now, and that will be created by another million people coming to BC in the future.

Thu, 2020-10-22 19:59

(Reply to #5) #6

kropotkin1951

NorthReport wrote:

Site C is a clean energy product, a renewable resource, which will produce electricity for the huge electrical demands that are happening now, and that will be created by another million people coming to BC in the future.

It is a very large investment literally built on very shaky ground. I wonder whether it will ever go into operation or whether the cracks will begin to show before it starts producing power.

“At the end of December 2019, a … geological risk materialized on the right bank,” the company reported in twin filings to the overseer, the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Hydro previously had to address geotechnical problems at Site C. Some tension cracks emerged on the left (or north) bank of the Peace River when the B.C. Liberal government was in office, adding construction costs and delaying the river diversion by a year.

But the seriousness of the problem on the right (or south) bank emerged only as a result of “analysis of geological mapping and monitoring activities during construction.”

If not addressed, it threatens the stability of the entire project.

Article content continued

“BC Hydro identified that additional scope and design enhancements would be required to further enhance the foundations of the structures on the right bank including the powerhouse, spillways and earth fill dam.”

Yes: The fix requires shoring up the foundations of the powerhouse, the spillways and the earthen fill dam itself.

Nor is it readily apparent how to fix things, according to Hydro’s far-from-reassuring filings to the Utilities Commission.

Possible solutions include “design changes for the roller-compacted concrete core buttress to enhance the foundation with anchors, additional grouting for the earth fill dam and a shear key for the right bank of the earth fill dam.”

Plus: “Improvements to the spillways and powerhouse roller-compacted concrete buttresses (and) piles, anchors and structural support in the approach channel.”

Also: “Improvements to the drainage within the rock and changes in the design of the approach channel. The benefit of additional drainage would be to reduce the water pressure acting on the roller-compacted concrete structures.”

Hydro doesn’t even try to guess at a cost, except to predict it will be “much higher than initially expected” when the problem was first flagged at the outset of the year.

“Construction costs estimates and constructability reviews are being conducted in parallel to compare the options and evaluate the cost and schedule implications to the project.”

Fri, 2020-10-23 14:03

cco

Planning infrastructure for a future in which climate change doesn't exist is utter fantasy. Realistically, there'll be much lower demand for electricity once Vancouver and Victoria are underwater. And since neither provincial nor federal governments have made any provision for evacuating the people in the area they've sacrificed to keep Jason Kenney and Bay Street happy, the reasonable conclusion is that the plan is for those people to drown. Six million people in BC? The population will be less than a third of that once the sea rises.

Fri, 2020-10-23 14:10

Pondering

Mini-green projects don't benefit the big construction corporations enough. What's Lavalin going to do with little shit?

Fri, 2020-10-23 15:56

(Reply to #8) #9

NorthReport

Ha! Ha!

One thing that has been missing for the past 3.5 years of BC NDP Government - we have had zero corruption scandals. Quite the contrast from before, and the money-laundering inquiry hasn't really even started yet.

cco wrote:
Planning infrastructure for a future in which climate change doesn't exist is utter fantasy. Realistically, there'll be much lower demand for electricity once Vancouver and Victoria are underwater. And since neither provincial nor federal governments have made any provision for evacuating the people in the area they've sacrificed to keep Jason Kenney and Bay Street happy, the reasonable conclusion is that the plan is for those people to drown. Six million people in BC? The population will be less than a third of that once the sea rises.

Fri, 2020-10-23 16:00

(Reply to #9) #10

NorthReport

Ha! Ha!

You forget BC has massive mountains so folks at sea level will just have to relocate half way up the mountains. Mountains in Eastern Canada would barely be moguls in BC. But as a precaution maybe all BCers should take swimming lessons, eh! And I don't believe in paying to try and protect the shoreline dwellers with taxpayer dollars if they have waterfront property they can afford to pay for their own retaining walls, dykes, etc.

cco wrote:
Planning infrastructure for a future in which climate change doesn't exist is utter fantasy. Realistically, there'll be much lower demand for electricity once Vancouver and Victoria are underwater. And since neither provincial nor federal governments have made any provision for evacuating the people in the area they've sacrificed to keep Jason Kenney and Bay Street happy, the reasonable conclusion is that the plan is for those people to drown. Six million people in BC? The population will be less than a third of that once the sea rises.