Site C dam

Posted by: tungsten

Heard Rick Cluff talking to the head of that review board this morning who basically said it's being worthwhile was based on hopeful projections by Hydro.

3 bil in, going forward = 1.8 bil + to remediate or 10 - 12 bil to complete.

Kill it. 

Kill it with extreme prejudice.

As much as I hate the thieving, greedy Liberal bastards, it's important to consider the ramifications of this decision. Do we light $5B on fire or spend the $10B and at least have something to show for it that will serve the people of this province for decades to come? Realistically it should never have started, but we are way past that point. This isn't really a case of throwing good money after bad, there is potential for something with some potential positive to come out of this instead of just a $5 billion hit to the people of this province. 

Either way, Clark and the Liberals who pushed this forwards deserve to burn.

Posted by: syncro

As much as I hate the thieving, greedy Liberal bastards, it's important to consider the ramifications of this decision. Do we light $5B on fire or spend the $10B and at least have something to show for it that will serve the people of this province for decades to come? Realistically it should never have started, but we are way past that point. This isn't really a case of throwing good money after bad, there is potential for something with some potential positive to come out of this instead of just a $5 billion hit to the people of this province. 

Either way, Clark and the Liberals who pushed this forwards deserve to burn.

This is probably the answer, but the eventual solution to this predicament will be as political as the cause so I am prepared for it to be killed.

I disagree.  If the dam is stopped now, that's about 7 billion NOT spent on unnecessary infrastructure that could be diverted elsewhere.  If that 7 billion were directed to some project (or projects) that provides better utility to us as citizens and residents of BC, we'd still have "something to show for it", and arguably something of a lot more value to us.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: tungsten

Heard Rick Cluff talking to the head of that review board this morning who basically said it's being worthwhile was based on hopeful projections by Hydro.

3 bil in, going forward = 1.8 bil + to remediate or 10 - 12 bil to complete.

Kill it. 

Kill it with extreme prejudice.

As much as I hate the thieving, greedy Liberal bastards, it's important to consider the ramifications of this decision. Do we light $5B on fire or spend the $10B and at least have something to show for it that will serve the people of this province for decades to come? Realistically it should never have started, but we are way past that point. This isn't really a case of throwing good money after bad, there is potential for something with some potential positive to come out of this instead of just a $5 billion hit to the people of this province. 

Either way, Clark and the Liberals who pushed this forwards deserve to burn.

Say they do complete it , and it turns into a FASTCAT episode and they are forced to spend more $$$ or pull the plug .

Posted by: KenN

I disagree.  If the dam is stopped now, that's about 7 billion NOT spent on unnecessary infrastructure that could be diverted elsewhere.  If that 7 billion were directed to some project (or projects) that provides better utility to us as citizens and residents of BC, we'd still have "something to show for it", and arguably something of a lot more value to us.

how do you get $7B? They've already spent over $3B and it's going to cost $1.8B or more to stop and remediate so it will be at least $5B to stop and we get nothing. At least with continuing the province will have a major energy supplier that will be in service until your kids are as older or older than you.

I get what you're saying, but I'd like to see some sort of cost/benefit analysis from this point forward comparing the $5B finishing the dam thing (HA!) or spending it on something else. Even though the dam will end up costing $10B, half of that money is gone so the comparison needs to be on the $5B that is yet to be spent. Remember that the "unnecessary" part of the dam rests on spending at least $5B on other renewable sources such as wind, GT, etc.

I'd love to see far more info to be able to make a better decision, but the reality is you or I having informed opinions isn't going to determine how this thing shakes down. It's primarily going to be a political decision by the NDGreeens based on how they can sell that decision to the public and how negatively it may affect them at the polls.

Posted by: DemonMike

Say they do complete it , and it turns into a FASTCAT episode and they are forced to spend more $$$ or pull the plug .

I think the worst case scenario is that we have excess power for a decade or more, I definitely don't see this turning into a fast cat scenario where the dam gets sold for a major loss as Hydro has an aging infrastructure that will need to be updated or replaced. The fast cats did have some benefit though on one of their objectives which was to help stimulate aluminum shipbuilding in BC. What fucks us over on power generation in this province are the sweetheart deals that shithead Gordo gave to his crony friends that has hamstrung Hydro and has them paying to export power. Fuck that asshole Gordon Campbell when it comes to his inside deals surrounding Hydro and the filthy lying shell game they played with Hydro's budgets. I honestly think that the majority of the province has now idea of the level of debt those years of liberal power are going to inflict on this province in the coming decade.

By your own numbers - 12B to complete, so if we compare cost to complete vs. cost to stop and reclaim (5B), then simple subtraction yields 7B left of 12B budgeted.

Yes, I know it says 10-12B to complete, but does anyone really believe that the project would hit the low end of that budget projection?

"Major energy supplier" of energy that has no consumers.  Energy use has peaked.  Homes and business are becoming more efficient.  City of Van has mandated all new residential must be "net zero", and more munis will follow.  Solar, wind, and other renewables are far more affordable and efficient than many think, and are becoming more so every year.  Battery backup and other modes of energy storage are emerging and soon will become very viable.

Alberta can't buy most of the Site C energy because the transmission lines don't link, so billions more would need to be spent to transmit energy that Alberta has already stated that they don't want.

This project was and is a white elephant.  Shoot it and burn the carcass.

Posted by: KenN

By your own numbers - 12B to complete, so if we compare cost to complete vs. cost to stop and reclaim (5B), then simple subtraction yields 7B left of 12B budgeted.

Yes, I know it says 10-12B to complete, but does anyone really believe that the project would hit the low end of that budget projection?

"Major energy supplier" of energy that has no consumers.  Energy use has peaked.  Homes and business are becoming more efficient.  City of Van has mandated all new residential must be "net zero", and more munis will follow.  Solar, wind, and other renewables are far more affordable and efficient than many think, and are becoming more so every year.  Battery backup and other modes of energy storage are emerging and soon will become very viable.

Alberta can't buy most of the Site C energy because the transmission lines don't link, so billions more would need to be spent to transmit energy that Alberta has already stated that they don't want.

This project was and is a white elephant.  Shoot it and burn the carcass.

$12B was tungsten's number, I said $10B. $10B is the current projection which is up from the initial 8.5 so cost overruns have been factored in already to a degree.

I know things are getting more efficient, but if a majority swap over to electric cars that's going to represent a large usage increase. the province's population is still growing so that will also either spur demand or at the least keep it stable. and we have to consider the age of the current system and it's need for replacement. trust me, I hate this thing, but we're so far in now that I don't think it's a slam dunk to say kill it. if expenses and remediation were at the $2.5B level I think it would be a much easier decision to pull the plug, but at the 50/50 point I'm not so sure. I like the fact that the government is taking it's time to hopefully investigate this deeply and consider all the angles before making a decision.

Either way, Clark and the Libs should be ashamed of themselves for the way they handled the whole thing.

Rooftop solar to battery storage can more than accommodate for EV charging needs in BC.   It's brilliant, because we'd get all that solar in summer when the rain is minimal and demand the hydro dams is reduced.  Then in winter months when dams are traditionally spilling due to over capacity, hydro power can be ramped up.

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-site-c-troubles-began-with-last-winters-tension-crack-and-are-far-from-over

Using Hydro’s own math, the additional one-year delay would add another $600 million to the budget, including direct and indirect construction costs, inflation and interest.

“Site C has already exceeded its budget, only two years into a nine-year schedule,” continues the commission in another unflattering assessment of Hydro’s project management. “Given the nature of this type of project and what has occurred to date, total costs may be in excess of $10 billion and there are significant risks that could lead to further budget overruns.”

Coupled with the commission’s findings that Hydro systematically over estimated future electricity demand and under estimated the value of alternative sources of power, the commission’s report added up to a very bad day for B.C. Hydro.

Once can readily understand why, over the years, friendly governments have tried to insulate the Crown corporation from full-blown scrutiny by the utilities watchdog.

To its credit, the commission applied the same level of scrutiny to the option of cancelling Site C and replacing it with alternative power projects. But that is a topic for another day.

[email protected]

Everybody in BC used electricity, and our society is constantly becoming more dependent on it.  But pricing of electricity could be better.

Just finish building it and then sell the electricity to us at a reduced rate.  Everyone will benefit.

wouldn't it ^^ cost out to be really expensive power  if you paid > 10 billion for the dam up front and you have no idea what power might be worth in the furture or if you even need it ... this IS the problem,  christy clarke said forget the math  and build it

can,t see 10 billion being spent and them lowering costs to the consumer , they already have power being purchased by damn near ever household and business in the province . spending 10 billion on a worldwide venture that could see a return in a very short term is one thing , spending 10 billion on a project you already have the market share on is another . remember the public is putting up the money , not a private company selling to the public ,.

Even if  they built the dam &charged the public less for the electricity someone has to pay the cost of building the dam, the money to build the dam  will be borrowed and then you and I will pay that money back including the interest to service that debt

the immediate benifit will be for whomever has anything to do with building the dam ...wages/materials

but it might be expensive job creation