"In the Peace valley, more than 16,000 hectares (or more than 80 per cent) of Class 1 to 5 lands would
remain available."
OK … the worst case scenario - 3800 ha Class 1 agricultural land in the Peace River region ends up underwater. How much Class 1 quality agricultural land lies under Metro Vancouver's 300,000 hectare spread, and why is that more acceptable?
OK … the worst case scenario - 3800 ha Class 1 agricultural land in the Peace River region ends up underwater. How much Class 1 quality agricultural land lies under Metro Vancouver's 300,000 hectare spread, and why is that more acceptable?
i'm not saying that it's more acceptable, but that it could be held up as part of an argument against the damn. i don't think it would be enough as the sole reason however to forgo the dam considering the benefit to the public that the dam represents.
in a broader sense, i would wonder at what point do we set a limit on the loss of these lands or areas. how much of our public lands are we willing to sacrifice to development? if we only consider these things on an individual basis and don't at least consider the broader context then somewhere along the way it potentially becomes a case of death by a thousand cuts.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
in a broader sense, i would wonder at what point do we set a limit on the loss of these lands or areas. how much of our public lands are we willing to sacrifice to development? if we only consider these things on an individual basis and don't at least consider the broader context then somewhere along the way it potentially becomes a case of death by a thousand cuts.
What would you consider an acceptable alternative to a renewable resource like running water? Consider the greenhouse gas emission savings equivalent of 9 million cars over the life of the dam, supply-and-demand flexibility, consumption pattern adaptability and relative price stability, for the cost of 40 fast ferries?
What would you consider an acceptable alternative to a renewable resource like running water? Consider the greenhouse gas emission savings equivalent of 9 million cars over the life of the dam, supply-and-demand flexibility, consumption pattern adaptability and relative price stability, for the cost of 40 fast ferries?
well first i'd start by asking what other possible sites exist for similar levels of power generation and what the potential costs (monetary [HTML_REMOVED] environmental) would be.
with the section of the peace river valley that's in question here, once it's flooded it's gone and it's not coming back. there may be other options that provide equivalent generation but cost more money yet have fewer environmental impacts. are you willing to spend more money on a different project if it means less environmental impact?
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
this is interesting:
The Joint Review Panel Report was clear: while Site C would provide relatively low-cost energy that BC may need at some point in the future, BC Hydro has not proven that need is imminent, there are a number of uncertainties about BC Hydros assessment of the projects costs and need that should be better understood before any decision is made, and other clean energy sources with less devastating impacts could potentially meet BCs future energy demands, but for the provincial policy constraints that prevent BC Hydro from exploring those options.
from here:
the whole thing is a great read.
as well, i also find the first comment very insightful:
MartinC 7 months ago
Geothermal requires exploration, research and engineering. How long will that take? In the interim if BC requires more firm power, a gas fired power plant can be built in 1/2 the time and for 1/4 the capital cost of Site C. Yes GHG's are produced, but Canada has no problem exporting coal, oil or LNG. Unless our fossil fuels remain in the ground, we are kidding ourselves if we think we are helping the environment by not burning our fuels here so that others can burn them elsewhere instead. Natural gas burned domestically does not have to be liquefied, which is energy intensive. The Petronas plant in Rupert will require 1,100 MW, to be produced locally with 30% efficient simple cycle gas turbines. NOx emissions will be 3,400 tonnes/yr. If Hydro built a 50% efficient combined cycle gas turbine power plant instead of Site C (880 MW, 6,500 GWh/yr like Calgary's), CO2 would be 40% less than Petronas and NOx only 400 tonnes/yr. In 20 years other technology such as fusion, thorium reactors (Google "Terrestrial Energy") or fuel cells may take over to provide clean firm power. No need to build Site C which needs 100 years to pay off to justify its $8 billion capital expense
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
the more i look into this the more i see that this project has more questions than answers.
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/five-reasons-why-bc-doesnt-need-site-c-dam
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Build the dam. We'll need the electricity.
BC Hydro is spending over a billion dollars to replace the John Hart facility.
how do you know this ?
what are the alternatives?
how much is this really going to cost?
What are the figures?
Does spending [HTML_REMOVED]7 BILLION that YOU and I are on the hook for actualy make sense from a financial POV?
Do you/we really trust Christy or was this just a great photo op and she is making it up as she goes along?
Well, the existing dam worked out pretty good.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
well first i'd start by asking what other possible sites exist for similar levels of power generation and what the potential costs (monetary [HTML_REMOVED] environmental) would be.
Site C is the 3rd of the something like 8 sites that were studied back in the 80s when it was first on the agenda.
There is a little on the history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_C_dam
How many gates are at Mica? Do they all have turbines or are capable of having turbines? When was that dam built?
I ask since it seems like its taken quite some time to install turbine 6
Why slag free swag?:rolleyes:
ummm, as your doctor i recommend against riding with a scaphoid fracture.
Site C is the 3rd of the something like 8 sites that were studied back in the 80s when it was first on the agenda.
There is a little on the history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_C_dam
nothing on the alternate sites though.
i'm curious to see what the other options are in terms of dams.
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
nothing on the alternate sites though.
i'm curious to see what the other options are in terms of dams.
There are not very many places you can build a big dam like that. The Columbia already has several dams on it. These are the Mica Dam, Revelstoke Dam , and Hugh Keenleyside Dam (no power generation on this dam though due to a treaty with the US) in BC. The Peace River has 2 now (WAC Bennett Dam and the Peace Canyon Dam just below it). There is no way that there will be any dams built on the Fraser River. I think those are the 3 largest rivers in BC.
Of course there are lots of smaller hydro projects around BC. Just in the Lower Mainland there is the Ruskin Dam, Buntzen Lake, Stave Lake, plus others. Run of the River stuff is popping up all over the province as well. But these are all dwarfed by the proposed generating capacity of Site C.
Do we need the extra capacity of the Site C dam or can we get by with upgrades to existing infrastructure AND building many smaller generating stations (hydro, thermal, renewable, etc)?? Is it better to build 100+ small generating facilities vs one Big One? Will solar and wind power become economical enough to compete with hydroelectric in BC? I don't know. Lots of questions, but I don't have many answers.
any reduction is going to be good, so just because china continues to pee in the pool it doesn't mean that we should as well.
No, that is not true at all.
People in Canada have to be very careful in accepting the notion that our 'sacrifices' will be worth it and actually make a difference.
Knock on someone's door. Tell them that Canada has to do it's part to stop global warming, that we will increase gas prices, increase food prices, increase the cost of electricity. That winter trip to Hawaii? May not be able to afford it any more. Their overall costs of living will go up, their quality of life will go down. Now, tell them that China is adding 1 coal plant every 3 weeks. Any sacrifice that Canadians make will be negated almost immediately by China.
Effectively you are asking Canadians to pay more, get less, not make any difference overall and allow others a free pass.
See how much the average Canadian agrees with that 'solution'.
I think North Americans have peed plenty into the pool already, and continue to do so.
It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.
- Josiah Stamp
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.
- H.G. Wells
How many gates are at Mica? Do they all have turbines or are capable of having turbines? When was that dam built?
I ask since it seems like its taken quite some time to install turbine 6
http://bb.nsmb.com/showpost.php?p=2851202[HTML_REMOVED]postcount=16
Forum jump:
