site C decision ?

I can agree with that, generally. Nuke is not the pariah power source it's made out to be, and at least the risks can be controlled. Coal, gas … well the only guarantee is that there will be pollution.

Nuclear isn't as easily "adjustable" to changing demands, though. Better suited as a means to generate a constant base load, then use other sources that are more easily varied to make up demand.

I can agree with that, generally. Nuke is not the pariah power source it's made out to be, and at least the risks can be controlled. Coal, gas … well the only guarantee is that there will be pollution.

Nuclear isn't as easily "adjustable" to changing demands, though. Better suited as a means to generate a constant base load, then use other sources that are more easily varied to make up demand.

Damn ! It's awesome when the common ground is found ! I agree that it is reliable base load power, funny enough, I do not necessarily disagree with you on renewables. I just do not think that they are the panacea that they are often made out to be. I am also very concerned about jumping into renewables based on massive governemnt support. Look at Spain and wind power, they had to kill the high subsidies as it was costing the taxpayer too much money. Ontario is also a great example of well intended policy driving up the costs of electricity and contributing to the decrease of a manufacturing economic base.

The other thing that worries me is the inability to have a constructive discussion on these 'big issues'. Not picking on one person or one side, but as an example, for the First Nations chief to call Site C 'stupid' is not helpful to the discussion. It's about as helpfuls as "drill baby drill".

Another positive for nuclear, is that it is apparently the best form of energy for preservation of biodiversity:

http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/12/is-nuclear-power-key-to-biodiversity/

[HTML_REMOVED]#8220;For the least direct harm to biodiversity, the best energy options are those that use the least amount of land and fresh water, minimize pollution, restrict habitat fragmentation, and have a low risk of accidents that have large and lasting regional impacts on natural areas,[HTML_REMOVED]#8221; wrote authors Barry Brook and Corey Bradshaw, both of the University of Adelaide in Australia. Based on reviews of varying scenarios of energy usage in the future, they found that nuclear power is among the best possible options.

I don't know how as a province we could agree to increase our power production capacity? What with all the cancer Smart Meters have caused so far…

As of late it seems nuclear power has fallen from favour based on a few incidents. The social media wildfire of mis and dis information of Fukishima is interesting, considering that the worst nuclear event seldom talked about is right under our eyes yet we fail to look at it.

Not sure where I stand regarding Site C Dam… Sounds like a Christy Clark legacy project, much like her LNG dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJimgNPdE8

Hanford?

havnt looked that close splinks although I do know some of it was for growing wheat. alot of stuff close to rivers is irrigated and used for high quality hay so im sure there is some of that

the farmland in northern BC is pretty shitty, mostly because the growing season is short. but really 30,000 acres is really a drop in the bucket for grain/hay producing land. I loaded more grain on a ship today than that produces.

Ironically from what I understand the future of growing the veggies you want to replace from California are best produced in hot houses…..powered by electricity

re the farmland being shitty, that was the point for this particular land; that it is high quality farmland and pretty much the best the northern region has. it may only be a drop in the bucket but if that's all the good land they have then shouldn't that be even more of a reason not to flood it out?

and yeah, hot houses are a great way to go but from what i read most of our hot stuff is exported.

most of this electricity is really for the hopeful LNG industry.

Instead of taking points off of one another how about getting back to the question whether site C is a good idea, what studies have been done on the costs and benifits cuz they will be borrowing billions which we will all have to pay for

OR did christy just decide that politicaly speaking it was a good idea?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJimgNPdE8

worth the watch, thanks for posting.

edit….and to think that this was over a year ago, and given the things that have gone down (lower LNG prices, projects getting pulled, new lower tax demands, etc.) it seems that Christy is doubling down with the peace hydro project. And if we're actually sitting on the kinds of liabilities he suggest we are, then how do we begin to fix the problem? And further, if we don't fix the problem, the ramifications are rather substantial.

That's a highly dubious claim. While the claim of 50% of German power is at least supportable as "installed" capacity, Myk's claim that Germany's renewable power sources are insignificant, and that coal usage in Germany is increasing are both demonstrably wrong.

Also, most include hydro power as a renewable. And if we add up all "non-emitting" sources (which includes nuke), then Germany is doing quite well as that total approaches 50% of generated power.

those claims are not demonstrably wrong as supported by your own data. and who cares about installed capacity, it's the manner in how electricity is actually being produced that matters. your own data does not even back up your claims:

clean energy = 20% of total output (wind, solar, hydro)
also, there's no way one should include nuclear in that just because it doesn't have traditional emissions of coal, gas,etc. to me that's laughable and poor science.

but, even if you do include nuclear

clean energy = 37.5% of total output, still not near 50%

Is BC Hydros export power sales division not facing legal action from "The Great State of California?"Say it in The Governator voice! Somewhere in the tune of what this project will cost?

Is this project needed to increase our current capacity? Is it needed to start replacing aging infrastructure? Is this being built in hope that additional heavy industry will be green lighted in BC, mines up North, LNG on the coast, oil pipelines to Alberta? Is there a huge market to export power to other areas to cover costs? Is this a Chrissy Clark/Dickie Coleman Legacy mark for the province, much like Gordos LOlympics, which inclueded German Ferries, and the S2S roadway, a new roof for some sports fans to fan sports under etc?

I don't know how as a province we could agree to increase our power production capacity? What with all the cancer Smart Meters have caused so far…

As of late it seems nuclear power has fallen from favour based on a few incidents. The social media wildfire of mis and dis information of Fukishima is interesting, considering that the worst nuclear event seldom talked about is right under our eyes yet we fail to look at it.

Not sure where I stand regarding Site C Dam… Sounds like a Christy Clark legacy project, much like her LNG dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtJimgNPdE8

Well I didn't vote for them.

Well, I'm disputing it. Got facts?

Yes, all that pollution from those hydro generators in BC. Even if the bulk of power for EVs comes from coal, the efficiency still means that the pollution per car per km travelled is much less.

yeah, great for bc where we have abundant hydro, but what about places like california or the us east coast where they have multiple times more vehicles on the road?

i agree with you that electric cars offer a benefit over the ice cars, but in our current situation north america wide they are not the panacea they are held out to be.

now in the case of the site C dam, if we're selling that power south at a decent return, then the argument can be made that it's possibly a net win for the environment and a win for this province's finances.

the engineers started working on it last week, 150 acre clearing and a 7 km haul road, cant remember the cubic meters of fill. apparently 3 contractors are short listed already.

Kiewit and who else?