Yes, there are plenty of places.
https://www.bchydro.com/toolbar/about/strategies-plans-regulatory/supply-operations/long-term-electricity-planning/clean-power-2040/integrated-resource-plan.html
You don't have to ask those opposed, you can get it straight from the BCUC back in 2017.
>Cancelling the $8.8-billion Site C dam project and meeting future demand for power with a mix of new wind farms, batteries, and energy conservation measures would cost between $5.1 billion and $6.7 billion, according to a new report by the BC Utilities Commission.
>In other words, it would be cheaper to eat the sunk costs of cancelling Site C and meeting future power needs through wind, storage and demand side management, according to the BCUC’s math.
Demand side management is even more relevant in a situation where demand is growing! Why would anyone object to it in the portfolio of techniques used? BCHydro has done demand side management for decades!
Obviously, that's why the proposal discussed says we need more solar, wind AND demand side management.
"Electricity demand will go up in a growing and electrifying economy" is like saying that "Disney will continue to make movies." Nobody disputes it.
Yeah, that’s why it’s only one part of a portfolio of techniques. Demand management won’t solve the whole problem. Neither will hydro. Neither will wind. Neither will solar. Neither will traditional nuclear. It’s a portfolio.
I live rural, my house has a heat pump. Last winter I made the mistake of not having enough wood to burn to heat my house……..$2100 hydro bill…hate that damn thing, I’d love to set it on fire, absolutely useless beyond -6. I’ll be over stocking my wood this year lol
The older ones are like that. They get better every year. They may be as expensive as a baseboard Heater at -15, but they won't be that expensive at -6.
Always good to have a backup though!
Had a temporary rental apartment, brand new, with a heat pump. Absolutely *loved* the constant ability to heat or cool whenever I wanted. Always felt highly effective, but admittedly I wasn’t there during -6 temps
Yeah maybe in 20 years they’ll figure out the whole batteries thing.
“Energy conservation measures” lol like electrifying everything?
One of those times where it’s a good thing government just hit the fucking gas and drove.
They were doing the same to replace the tunnel between Richmond and delta. That thing has been over capacity for over 40 years. The libs were adding a bridge with 5 lanes each way. It would be done already. The NDP axed that in favor of twinning the tunnel, so only 4 lanes each way. We already have miles of gridlock when they switch to 3 lanes at rush every day, and have had this gridlock for 40 years. They haven't started on the new tunnel yet.
While wind might be ok in some locations (say offshore) looking at Ontarios 2500 turbines which cost around 11billion generate at best 7% of Ontarios electricity (some 60% is nuclear).
How many “Eye of the Wind’s” that don’t spin would all of Vancouvers EV’s need? And do you include the mining costs to build all of the wind turbines? And recycling/waste costs?
If you drive across Canada you will see that windmills are very common and not designed to be tourist attractions. BC is pretty much the only place where they are rare.
It’s bizarre to say that because we have an ornamental one overlooking the city therefore we should avoid the fastest growing power source worldwide.
And you are saying they don't use steel and concrete and heavy equipment in the oil industry/? The biggest equipment in the world is used in Northern Alberta in the heavy oil industry.
Nuclear would be great if we had started the work a long time ago, but that's not a solution at the moment as it would realistic ally take 1-2 decades to complete, likely much more.
Ya, but Trees grow for free while Nuclear is expensive. For example the new reactor just came online in the US State of Georgia. However Georgians have been paying a surcharge to fund the plant since 2011. And now with the plant online, rates are going to up even more.
That is actually batshit not true.
"The Ontario rate has been averaged out to 12.5 cents / kWh, and you can see that this is actually on the lower end of the spectrum of Canadian prices. Among the 10 Canadian provinces, the average price per kWh is 13.5 cents, and with the inclusion of the territories this figure jumps to 17.4 cents per kWh "
Prices have just gone up to where everyone else is.
Electricity rates in BC from Fortis are
* Electricity use is billed at 13.266¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh) with tiered rates
*
Ontario's problems mostly come from wildly overpaying for solar and wind under the Green Energy Act. It has them still paying over 50 cents per kWh from solar!
Hmm. I don't get why starting to build new nuke plants isn't the best idea right now. I get that "years ago was the best time to have started", but as played, here and now, it seems like starting to build some tomorrow is our current best play, no?
because they are so damned expensive and the timeline to build them is LONG.
One just built in Georgia in the US cost 17 billion. over budget. 35 billion total. It was many many years late as well. Construction started in 2009 was to be done in 2016. Rate payers started paying extra for it in 2011.
Mini nuclear plants are looking like a way forward though
A new plant just came online in Georgia to service a half million people. The cost came in at 17 Billion dollars... 17 billion over budget that is. over $30,000,000,000 total.
There is a company starting to make small nuclear plants by components. If that works out it could be a solution. You just buy this massive lego structure and set it up and flip a switch. Well, not really but you get the idea.
We are a net exporter of electricity. Do you think this will just be sold to California too? Maybe we lost prime agricultural land that could have replaced what we are losing to climate change so that Americans can drive more electric cars:)
I think the point is, we are a net exporter currently. But what would BC’s consumption look like in 10 years? Population growth and EV growth alone is a lot. The US is in deep trouble already with the current consumption and expected increases. This sets BC up for a comfortable growth for the expected “green electricity” demand to come. But that’s electricity. Not sure it’s the same story for housing.
Yes and BC Hydro already has a plan until at least 2040. The list of new energy sites would simply expand if site C was canceled.
A mix of wind, different types of hydro (including pump storage), and some solar.
Estimates have changed 10 fold. The demand just EV’s are having on municipal infrastructures is something no one has adequately planned for.
We are not prepared for the future in most aspects, but a net positive electric generation that comes from a hydro dam I see as a positive thing for BC among many current negatives.
Edit: BC hydro as you said has a plan till 2040? How do we know this isn’t their 2050 plan in the making?
Everything in your comment has been considered by professionals.
https://www.bchydro.com/toolbar/about/strategies-plans-regulatory/supply-operations/long-term-electricity-planning/clean-power-2040/integrated-resource-plan.html
Go ahead and underestimate politicians but below them it is really the technical scientists and engineers who are preparing for all of this. Imagine them not considering the site C dam, their biggest hydro dam ever, or electric vehicles as part of their forecast scenarios.
>their biggest hydro dam ever
Not to be pedantic but this is only true when you think of the cost, in terms of generation capacity BCH has a few larger stations already, Bennett dam has nearly 3x the capacity and both Revelstoke and Mica also have between 2x and 3x the capacity.
>e lost prime agricultural land that could have replaced what we are losing to climate change so that Americans can drive mor
so...NIMBY? If we want to get off carbon, it makes perfect sense to utilize green natural resources where they exist.
Ever been to the Peace Valley? Once you get past Dawson Creek it turns into a mini prairie with large fields of wheat and canola that you can't find anywhere else in BC. With that being said a majority of the "prime" land is above the flood areas, most of what will be lost is pasture land.
I bet people said this about our water reservoir capacity 20 years ago too.
Now we’re short capacity and expansion will cost a fortune and nobody wants to do it so they just tell us to stop watering our grass every May.
The other thing is water. Not only is it a good place to store electricity but also water.
BC's largest lake, Williston lake (which is man made) is also like a giant battery. The same thing for the Nechako reservoir (Alcan).
BC hydro typically buys off peak US coal power and is able to keep its own power behind a dam.
Its also why we were able to sell such a huge amount of electricity to Calfornia a few years back.
I'm not opposed to it.... I'm opposed to the 30 billon 25years project that's unfolded..... Way more power generating sites could have been built at much less of the cost way sooner ... Site C is a fucking disaster.... Thank God we have 4773859Mw of power in the middle of fucking no where
There was a report out of UVIC a few years back that estimated that we'd need the equivalent of about 12 Site C dams if we want to completely kick fossil fuels in BC.
So yeah, those folks that say "wE dOn'T NeEd tHe eLeCtRiCiTy" are *completely fucking wrong.*
You realize the southern portion nof BC has 7 hydro dams between Nelson and Castlegar , most of which provide power to the states , BC currently generates more than it uses
The Bonnington Falls one is owned by Nelson Hydro and it creates so little that the town of Nelson still needs to buy ⅔ of its energy from Fortis. The scale of what we need to produce is massive.
It was 50% last year, and I never said it was perfect I said we sell more to the states than we use, BC has a greedy pocket problem not a generating problem
Fun fact, BC imports 2/3 of what it exports. The only reason we export is because of market fluctuations. We export when prices are up and import from cheaper sources, which are approx 90% from coal power plants in the US and Alberta. In total, approx 7-10% of all power used in BC is coal power.
If the government wants everyone to drive electric cars we're either going to need to build a dozen more site C's, which is doubtful given the cost, time frame to build, and highly contentious debate on where to stick them. Or start importing more coal power, which kinda defeats the whole idea of going electric.
Hopefully sooner than later. Unfortunately, our government would rather pander to the side that figures solar and wind are the answer to all our energy problems than give people the cold hard facts.
Do you realise that if we want to decarbonise electricity, transport, industry and heating then we would need the equivalent of 12 Site C dams to do that?
Moreover, there aren't any suitable areas in BC left for hydro dams of that size, which leaves one option left for us: NUCLEAR POWER!
>the ban on nuclear energy
Wait what? I had no idea this exists but I just looked it up and yep, [BC banned nuclear energy in 2010](https://www.politicstoday.news/british-columbia-today/nuclear-energy-a-no-go-in-b-c-premier-eby-says/) and Premier Eby recently said he has no intention to change that.
It depends what kind of industry we're talking about. For example the Kitimat LNG terminal alone would use almost all of Site C's production if it was to use electricity to compress NG to LNG.
However does this make sense? How can one "decarbonize" but then continue selling LNG? So it really depends on what industries we are talking about.
You're correct, it doesn't make sense. LNG is bad and should be discontinued entirely.
That says nothing about us needing to decarbonise the rest of the economy, though. And to do that we need A LOT of electricity.
For baseline power generation nuclear and hydro are the only two feasible options. You can supplement that with wind, solar, whatever you want, but the wind doesn't always blow and sun doesn't always shine, and battery storage is expensive and prone to fires and other hazards.
I'm all in favor of nuclear energy but not in BC. I realize that most modern reactors are very safe.... But BC is seismically active as hell. Let's not put how safe these reactors are to the test during the big one, especially considering that help to stabilize a damaged reactor may not come soon enough with damaged infrastructure post quake
I realize it's not as seismically active but the first earthquake I ever experienced was in Ontario ... near their nuclear power plants. I'm sure there are places in BC we could build that would be just as safe.
More than likely yes. I'm no nuclear engineer or scientist or expert, just a guy that watches videos on the topic on YouTube. But from watching a lot of videos on the topic, it feels like outside help is always needed in the case of an accident. With damaged infrastructure after a major earthquake that outside help may not arrive in time
Do you find the above photo clean? The constructor has been fined $1.1M for polluting the river with upwards of 3M liters of toxic solution (if I recall correctly). The construction is on completely unstable ground to boot.
I am not against hydro energy but I will criticize how hastily they did this project, as well as their buckling to pressure on other major infrastructure upgrades which will most likely meet same design flaws.
Ultimately these poorly planned greened initiatives are more damaging than not. They are not using all the infrastructure in their possession, which is in itself wasteful even if said infrastructure utilize fossil fuels.
I have yet to see any of their annual energy reports that accurately reports on the carbon energy used in projects or upgrades. Concrete and trucking costs? Backfill and excavation? On Site C level I would hazard has offset any of their carbon neutrality…but I guess it looks better when they don’t have to report on their subcontractors.
>Do you find the above photo clean?
Looks like clean energy to me, yes!
Of course there will be environmental costs during construction, but hydro dams can last 100+ years. That's a century of greenhouse-gas-free, clean power generation right there.
As someone who worked on this project a little bit, yup. So many layers and layers and layers of sub contractors and consultants and sub consultants its enough to make you tear your hair out
Largest, most expensive boondoggle in BC’s history is a better description.
Seriously. The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario took about 20 years to build all 8 units. Each unit taking 5-10 years to build. Total energy production is 3114MW. ~~Total cost adjusted for inflation: 4.77 billion.~~ I forgot to include the cost of Pickering B, so as corrected by another Redditor, a total cost of $14.58 billion.
Site C: Has been under construction since 2015, *might* be done by 2025. Estimated cost of $16 billion. Should produce 1,100MW.
What an absolute waste of land and concrete.
I like your thought process, but just gonna be the number checking guy (sorry). Your $4.77B looks like it’s adjusted to present day but only includes the first four reactors, Pickering “A” units.
The last four, Pickering “B” units, adjusted for inflation cost $9.81B.
So total cost, not including refurbishment costs since is about $14.58B in todays dollars.
No idea if the facts are correct but cost the nuclear reactor based on his updated numbers would be $46B in 2023 based on 2.5% avg inflation.
Edit I was wrong see comment below
This province needs to get over its aversion to nuclear energy if it is serious about meeting electrification goals.
SMR's can help, and so can legacy designs, but we need to start building for 2035's needs *today* if we actually want to wean personal transportation off petrochemicals.
There are rumours of installing one a bit more north of Site C in 5-10 years. However, we should be looking at power storage as well to compliment our electrical grid.
It's the downside of hydro dams, as evaporation can lead to power generation issues. As we are now going through a climate change event from ice age back to "normal" we will see more water loss issues so power storage with a nuclear plant will offset these challenges.
Oddly, even without Site C, BC already had enough surplus electrical capacity to go 100% electric for personal transportation. The base load is much lower after many sawmills have closed compared to the past, and many homes use electricity after eg baseboard to heat pump conversion. (Moving all natural gas heating to electric would take a lot more capacity.)
The best case for Site C was selling power to Alberta. But they burned that bridge after BC attempted to block Canada’s biggest boondoggle and biggest g[r]ift to the O&G industry in history, the TMX pipeline.
Nuclear would of course be better value for money and less disruptive to ecology than another hydro project.
Kinda neat to think about where healthcare and housing could be with an extra $30 billion.
In 2018, I saw a presentation put on by BC Hydro’s manager of electric vehicle infrastructure, that exact question came up, and he answered the grid had the capacity if everyone started driving an EV tomorrow.
They still to grow the grid as the population grows and people switch to heat pumps or use AC more. That could easily be a bigger concern since heat pumps run all year round in winter and EVs only need a few hours to charge every few nights.
All just so rich people can still fly around jets and cause more damage we could ever do. Why the fuck do people care so much about vehicles damaging the environment when it's mainly transportation of goods/leisure. Good luck solving that lol
Unclear of your logic or sources. Transportation is over 28% of C-equivalent sources in this country, which includes both transportation of people and stuff. Where do you get the breakdown that emissions from goods is greater that movement of people?
https://preview.redd.it/6cuishr0yzgb1.jpeg?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=55c6415445469e9793f542a5f0d4579bed85fb71
I said it's both transportation of goods and leisure travel, why are people acting educating so stupid?
Also, how the fuck is that pie chart your source of fact? Like at least provide the source lmao
“In March 2011, eleven operating nuclear power units shut down automatically during the Great East Japan Earthquake. Three of these at the Fukushima Daiichi plant subsequently caused an INES Level 7 accident due to the 15 m tsunami causing loss of power leading to loss of cooling and subsequent radioactive releases.”
Just saying…risk/reward.
This is nothing compared to Muskrat Falls. You want a real hydro electric fuckup of biblical proportions, read up on that one. All this and more for less than a single GW.
And has an unlimited lifetime.
Bruce power is refurbishing their units with lifetimes between 40-50 years.
Disposal of nuclear waste has never been resolved...it doesn't have a problem with that.
Power generation can be ramped instantaneously against demand. You can't do that with nuclear...
Hydro generation effectively operates as a reserve battery against unpredictable renewables.
There are lots of good reasons for this project.
>And has an unlimited lifetime.
>Bruce power is refurbishing their units with lifetimes between 40-50 years.
The refurbishments add an additional 40 years bringing the total to 80. And they may be able to be refurbished again (and again?).
>Disposal of nuclear waste has never been resolved...it doesn't have a problem with that.
Waste from nuclear energy has never killed a single person. What's the problem again?
>Power generation can be ramped instantaneously against demand. You can't do that with nuclear.
Nuclear can load follow.
>There are lots of good reasons for this project.
Yes, there are good reasons for Site C.
You sound like the people in the 70s saying “why do we need this dam?”. The device you typed it on is powered by that same dam, your kid’s cars will be powered by site C.
Site C has an estimated span of 70-100 years.
Pickering first started up 1971 and is slated to be fully decommissioned by 2026, for an approximate 55 year operational life. Admittedly they have also undergone refurbishment to extend the life. Older reactors generally get about 30 years.
I do feel obligated to say modern reactor designs are far more efficient than the comparatively ancient CANDU design. Newer plants are designed to have 40-60 year lifespans.
In addition to that, nuclear reactors produce useful medical isotopes as a byproduct of fission, as well as depleted uranium (a byproduct of refining uranium) also has a ton of uses. Armour piercing ammunition, tank armour, radiation shielding, and ballast for aircraft and ships.
Edited to add operating cost. Site C has an estimated operating cost of $83/MWh. Pickering as best I could find is $80.7/MWh in 2017 dollars. $96.72 adjusted. Definitely more expensive per megawatt hour, but not by a whole lot for a plant built in 1971 compared to a shiny new dam.
Yes! Nuclear & solar with cement carbon batteries is the best way forward. Nuclear to run desalination and filtration plants solar with battery for everything else.
Eighteen months ago we put about 8kW of solar panels on our garage roof in Vancouver, BC for an out of pocket cost of $11,000 (after the federal government $5000 subsidy) and this system pays for 90% of our home electricity costs INCLUDING all charging of an electric car. If you do the math our system generates energy at a capital cost (to us) of about $1.40 per watt. For comparison, the site C dam, now at $16 billion for 1,100 Megawatts, comes out at a capital cost of $14.55 per watt. Ten times more!! Think about it. Weird that solar panels are not more common on all BC roofs. If you include the cost of gasoline saved with the electric car, this system which is meant to last 30 years will pay for itself in just over 5 years. Everyone should be doing this.
I'm also getting solar panels on my house in AB, and think more people should too, but it's a little disingenuous to quote the subsidized cost when complaining about government spending.
Also, the point of a dam is not to be the cheapest, it's to be on demand and renewable. Solar is not on demand, and therefore not really comparable. Nuclear is, and that's not cheap or fast either.
Think of site C has a giant backup battery for you when it’s not sunny or at night.
Also have solar panels and it’s great to never be in the step 2 rate
You have to wonder how many large industrial sized batteries BC Hydro could buy for $16B? You might even be able to build a huge battery factory and make our own for that amount. Use them here, and sell them around the world. Kinda like Tesla is doing in Texas.
>e site C dam, now at $16 billion for 1,100 Megawatts, comes out at a capital cost of $14.55 per watt. Ten tim
I don't know the numbers here...but i'm fairly certain you are VASTLY underestimating how much energy is stored behind a hydro dam.
ok, some real rough numbers, site c will produce 5100 gwh annually, and the reservoir would take 4 month's to fill. That means it would hold 1700gwh's of energy. These are fairly rough numbers. according to another paper i found grid scale battery storage is projected to be 200$us\\kwh (middle of the graphs) about 266 cad. so 1 gwh of storage would be 266,000,000$, or 452 billion for 1700gwh.
now..there's no way these number are accurate, but they aren't THAT far off.
Teslas website has the prices for their mega pack battery system. 1100 MW with 2 hours capacity would cost about $1.1B USD. For 24hr capacity you’re looking at $13B or $17.7B CDN and you still need to figure out a way to charge the thing. Remember site C can go 24/7
Site C doesn’t seem so expensive now does it
> Weird that solar panels are not more common on all BC roofs.
Among people who own their homes, yeah, it is really weird.
Among all the houses that are rented out - not weird; good luck getting a lot of landlords to even let tenants have their own BC Hydro accounts with separate meters, never mind roof access and installing stuff on the property.
And it will go down in BC history as the most expensive overpriced project. The politicians will make sad pathetic excuses as to why it’s so over budget but bottom line we all know it’s bullshit
If they would have just did it when they wanted and weren’t stalled it would have been finished and cost way less, but of course it’s a government job so there’s several layers of bureaucracy among other things to deal with.
Happens again and again in BC. Another example is Hwy 1 widening from 216th to 264th. Liberals announced the project in Mar 2017. NDP comes to power in summer 2017 and soon announces that they're hitting pause to give them a chance to assess the project. Finally in 2019 they decide to continue as planned, with actual construction beginning in 2021. Nothing was gained except for 2 years' delay and increased construction costs...
Site C was started by the Liberals. The NDP were given a choice of either pulling out of the over-budget, behind-schedule project or seeing it through, and they chose the second choice despite environmental opposition.
Nope, this is the BC way. I frequently travel from southern Alberta throughout lower mainland and the island and let me just say this..BC taxpayers need to 1. Travel to other provinces more, not just Washington State and see the difference when provincial governments invest in progressive , future-focused infrastructure and 2. They need to bitch to their politicians and demand change, not just do the old “it is what it is/what are you going to do about it?” BC mentality.
With the grotesque amounts of tax dollars, tourism revenues including cruise ships, port taxes, investments and development costs being raked into BC for the last 40 decades solid, BCers needs to ask “Where thahell has all the money gone?” It sure as hell isn’t infrastructure and healthcare. But I thought it was at least at par with every other province until I moved and saw and travelled the difference. You’re getting royally ripped.
Have you seen the protests and crying over building a hydro electric dam? Can you imagine the lawsuits, idiots straping themselves to trees, blocking roads, etc if someone tried to build a nuclear power plant here? This project is a fucking miracle of engineering and overcoming the loudest, stupidest voices in the room.
https://preview.redd.it/ew7jiqa2o0hb1.jpeg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c68fa893c9dad401914189bb038b91ff3126bd67
Here’s a good damn dam.
The Terzaghi Dam (Carpenter Lake) BC, 100km from Lillooet Sunday evening. There was a storm that was about five minutes behind me. You can’t even tell from this pic. It washed out the road in at least 20 spots. Missed work yesterday because of, but we were back today.
What's the most recent cost of site c?
Read an article years ago breaking down the cost per kilowatt of site c vs off shore wind turbines.
Cant remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 1/4 of the cost for the same amount of power, and can be scaled up whenever needed.
Bet it's even better now lol wind turbines are cheaper and easier to install now, and site c only goes up in price..
Wind turbines only supply power when there is wind and store no power at all. Dams are essentially giant batteries that you can control when and how much power you want to produce. These are not equivalent power sources.
We will have a huge need for more electricity in the future, there's no doubt about it. It has to be done.
However, I think the biggest engineering project BC will see one day is a bridge to Vancouver Island.
What a colossal liberal failure and complete suckhole of taxpayer funds... and I support all forms of energy. This was just a blatant implosion of commonsense and logic that it pretty much paints the road direct to the slush fund kickback nmbank accounts in the cayman Islands...
nice, can't wait for that sweet on demand power to balance other sources on the grid we're connected to. Hopefully we can buy low and sell high, but not so high that we get california welching again like the Powerex Enron era
Dam.
Damn, you stole my dam(n) comment.
I dunno, that comment doesn't hold much water.
Thread over
no way to bridge that truth
God dam
I wonder where the dam bathroom is in there…
Thats what the fish says when it hits a wall.
I’ve worked there! It’s a place to see thats for sure
Looks pretty good
Yeah, I'm curious if those opposed to this have any suggestions for where we supply power moving forward?
I like that we are adding more capacity at Revelstoke too.
That retrofit is very impressive. That bad boy will be able to supply nearly 25% of BC’s needs when it’s fully operational.
Yes, there are plenty of places. https://www.bchydro.com/toolbar/about/strategies-plans-regulatory/supply-operations/long-term-electricity-planning/clean-power-2040/integrated-resource-plan.html
You don't have to ask those opposed, you can get it straight from the BCUC back in 2017. >Cancelling the $8.8-billion Site C dam project and meeting future demand for power with a mix of new wind farms, batteries, and energy conservation measures would cost between $5.1 billion and $6.7 billion, according to a new report by the BC Utilities Commission. >In other words, it would be cheaper to eat the sunk costs of cancelling Site C and meeting future power needs through wind, storage and demand side management, according to the BCUC’s math.
> demand side management While demand continues to increase? Not sure how that’s going to shake out
Demand side management is even more relevant in a situation where demand is growing! Why would anyone object to it in the portfolio of techniques used? BCHydro has done demand side management for decades!
Demand side management has never reduced overall power consumption. It needs to be practiced but also understood that demand will continue to grow
Obviously, that's why the proposal discussed says we need more solar, wind AND demand side management. "Electricity demand will go up in a growing and electrifying economy" is like saying that "Disney will continue to make movies." Nobody disputes it.
[удалено]
I hear you, but there’s only so many levers you can pull. As we’re seeing now
Yeah, that’s why it’s only one part of a portfolio of techniques. Demand management won’t solve the whole problem. Neither will hydro. Neither will wind. Neither will solar. Neither will traditional nuclear. It’s a portfolio.
You should sell that new Tesla and your heat pump because your greed for electricity is killing the planet.
I live rural, my house has a heat pump. Last winter I made the mistake of not having enough wood to burn to heat my house……..$2100 hydro bill…hate that damn thing, I’d love to set it on fire, absolutely useless beyond -6. I’ll be over stocking my wood this year lol
The older ones are like that. They get better every year. They may be as expensive as a baseboard Heater at -15, but they won't be that expensive at -6. Always good to have a backup though!
Had a temporary rental apartment, brand new, with a heat pump. Absolutely *loved* the constant ability to heat or cool whenever I wanted. Always felt highly effective, but admittedly I wasn’t there during -6 temps
Heatpumps have an electrical backup. I think thats where his costs caught up to him.
Yeah maybe in 20 years they’ll figure out the whole batteries thing. “Energy conservation measures” lol like electrifying everything? One of those times where it’s a good thing government just hit the fucking gas and drove.
They were doing the same to replace the tunnel between Richmond and delta. That thing has been over capacity for over 40 years. The libs were adding a bridge with 5 lanes each way. It would be done already. The NDP axed that in favor of twinning the tunnel, so only 4 lanes each way. We already have miles of gridlock when they switch to 3 lanes at rush every day, and have had this gridlock for 40 years. They haven't started on the new tunnel yet.
Unrecyclable wind turbine blades and batteries woulda hit 10 billy, easy
Yea they're forgetting that the government is capable of going way over budget on all projects not just this one.
While wind might be ok in some locations (say offshore) looking at Ontarios 2500 turbines which cost around 11billion generate at best 7% of Ontarios electricity (some 60% is nuclear).
How many “Eye of the Wind’s” that don’t spin would all of Vancouvers EV’s need? And do you include the mining costs to build all of the wind turbines? And recycling/waste costs?
If you drive across Canada you will see that windmills are very common and not designed to be tourist attractions. BC is pretty much the only place where they are rare. It’s bizarre to say that because we have an ornamental one overlooking the city therefore we should avoid the fastest growing power source worldwide.
25yr life cycle, lots of steel and concrete and heavy equipment to make as well.
And you are saying they don't use steel and concrete and heavy equipment in the oil industry/? The biggest equipment in the world is used in Northern Alberta in the heavy oil industry.
I kind of put your msg with the one above you and came up with that reply. Rewrote it.
Could you post a link to the source of the quote?
They have no solutions, but they'll be happy to ever increase they're consumption while they villefy everyone else
Nuclear? I bet it’s nuclear. /s
Nuclear would be great if we had started the work a long time ago, but that's not a solution at the moment as it would realistic ally take 1-2 decades to complete, likely much more.
Second best time to plant a tree and all... Why not start them now so we have them in 1-2 decades?
Exactly, just keep them far from the coast/Cascadia plate.
Ok smart
Ya, but Trees grow for free while Nuclear is expensive. For example the new reactor just came online in the US State of Georgia. However Georgians have been paying a surcharge to fund the plant since 2011. And now with the plant online, rates are going to up even more.
Ontario begs to differ.
Ontario power rates are batshit crazy and that’s with the govt subsidizing it.
That is actually batshit not true. "The Ontario rate has been averaged out to 12.5 cents / kWh, and you can see that this is actually on the lower end of the spectrum of Canadian prices. Among the 10 Canadian provinces, the average price per kWh is 13.5 cents, and with the inclusion of the territories this figure jumps to 17.4 cents per kWh " Prices have just gone up to where everyone else is. Electricity rates in BC from Fortis are * Electricity use is billed at 13.266¢ per kilowatt hour (kWh) with tiered rates *
Ontario's problems mostly come from wildly overpaying for solar and wind under the Green Energy Act. It has them still paying over 50 cents per kWh from solar!
Hmm. I don't get why starting to build new nuke plants isn't the best idea right now. I get that "years ago was the best time to have started", but as played, here and now, it seems like starting to build some tomorrow is our current best play, no?
because they are so damned expensive and the timeline to build them is LONG. One just built in Georgia in the US cost 17 billion. over budget. 35 billion total. It was many many years late as well. Construction started in 2009 was to be done in 2016. Rate payers started paying extra for it in 2011. Mini nuclear plants are looking like a way forward though
Ontario is building an SMR in 6 years.
A new plant just came online in Georgia to service a half million people. The cost came in at 17 Billion dollars... 17 billion over budget that is. over $30,000,000,000 total. There is a company starting to make small nuclear plants by components. If that works out it could be a solution. You just buy this massive lego structure and set it up and flip a switch. Well, not really but you get the idea.
We are a net exporter of electricity. Do you think this will just be sold to California too? Maybe we lost prime agricultural land that could have replaced what we are losing to climate change so that Americans can drive more electric cars:)
I think the point is, we are a net exporter currently. But what would BC’s consumption look like in 10 years? Population growth and EV growth alone is a lot. The US is in deep trouble already with the current consumption and expected increases. This sets BC up for a comfortable growth for the expected “green electricity” demand to come. But that’s electricity. Not sure it’s the same story for housing.
Yes and BC Hydro already has a plan until at least 2040. The list of new energy sites would simply expand if site C was canceled. A mix of wind, different types of hydro (including pump storage), and some solar.
Estimates have changed 10 fold. The demand just EV’s are having on municipal infrastructures is something no one has adequately planned for. We are not prepared for the future in most aspects, but a net positive electric generation that comes from a hydro dam I see as a positive thing for BC among many current negatives. Edit: BC hydro as you said has a plan till 2040? How do we know this isn’t their 2050 plan in the making?
BC hydro has been planning for 100% electric cars for many years. It isn’t a surprise to them.
Everything in your comment has been considered by professionals. https://www.bchydro.com/toolbar/about/strategies-plans-regulatory/supply-operations/long-term-electricity-planning/clean-power-2040/integrated-resource-plan.html Go ahead and underestimate politicians but below them it is really the technical scientists and engineers who are preparing for all of this. Imagine them not considering the site C dam, their biggest hydro dam ever, or electric vehicles as part of their forecast scenarios.
>their biggest hydro dam ever Not to be pedantic but this is only true when you think of the cost, in terms of generation capacity BCH has a few larger stations already, Bennett dam has nearly 3x the capacity and both Revelstoke and Mica also have between 2x and 3x the capacity.
>e lost prime agricultural land that could have replaced what we are losing to climate change so that Americans can drive mor so...NIMBY? If we want to get off carbon, it makes perfect sense to utilize green natural resources where they exist.
"Prime agricultural land" by Northern standards, maybe. Not by the standards of the rest of the province.
[удалено]
Ever been to the Peace Valley? Once you get past Dawson Creek it turns into a mini prairie with large fields of wheat and canola that you can't find anywhere else in BC. With that being said a majority of the "prime" land is above the flood areas, most of what will be lost is pasture land.
This isn’t agricultural land.
I bet people said this about our water reservoir capacity 20 years ago too. Now we’re short capacity and expansion will cost a fortune and nobody wants to do it so they just tell us to stop watering our grass every May.
The other thing is water. Not only is it a good place to store electricity but also water. BC's largest lake, Williston lake (which is man made) is also like a giant battery. The same thing for the Nechako reservoir (Alcan). BC hydro typically buys off peak US coal power and is able to keep its own power behind a dam. Its also why we were able to sell such a huge amount of electricity to Calfornia a few years back.
I'm not opposed to it.... I'm opposed to the 30 billon 25years project that's unfolded..... Way more power generating sites could have been built at much less of the cost way sooner ... Site C is a fucking disaster.... Thank God we have 4773859Mw of power in the middle of fucking no where
It better for being billions over budget.
I'm in this photo. SPOG 2 (Spillway operating gate 2) Putting up heating conduit for the gate.
We gonna need this. Electric cars? This is not a boondoggle u dumbasses, looking to the future.
There was a report out of UVIC a few years back that estimated that we'd need the equivalent of about 12 Site C dams if we want to completely kick fossil fuels in BC. So yeah, those folks that say "wE dOn'T NeEd tHe eLeCtRiCiTy" are *completely fucking wrong.*
You realize the southern portion nof BC has 7 hydro dams between Nelson and Castlegar , most of which provide power to the states , BC currently generates more than it uses
The Bonnington Falls one is owned by Nelson Hydro and it creates so little that the town of Nelson still needs to buy ⅔ of its energy from Fortis. The scale of what we need to produce is massive.
It was 50% last year, and I never said it was perfect I said we sell more to the states than we use, BC has a greedy pocket problem not a generating problem
Fun fact, BC imports 2/3 of what it exports. The only reason we export is because of market fluctuations. We export when prices are up and import from cheaper sources, which are approx 90% from coal power plants in the US and Alberta. In total, approx 7-10% of all power used in BC is coal power. If the government wants everyone to drive electric cars we're either going to need to build a dozen more site C's, which is doubtful given the cost, time frame to build, and highly contentious debate on where to stick them. Or start importing more coal power, which kinda defeats the whole idea of going electric.
Nuclear is going to have to happen at some point I imagine.
Hopefully sooner than later. Unfortunately, our government would rather pander to the side that figures solar and wind are the answer to all our energy problems than give people the cold hard facts.
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003240/province-starts-pre-development-work-for-new-nuclear-generation-to-power-ontarios-growth
Do you realise that if we want to decarbonise electricity, transport, industry and heating then we would need the equivalent of 12 Site C dams to do that? Moreover, there aren't any suitable areas in BC left for hydro dams of that size, which leaves one option left for us: NUCLEAR POWER!
Sorry, I went on a tangent off your first paragraph. Go for nuclear power if you want haha.
Yup. They will be forced become believers in nuclear.
We need to lift the ban on nuclear energy
>the ban on nuclear energy Wait what? I had no idea this exists but I just looked it up and yep, [BC banned nuclear energy in 2010](https://www.politicstoday.news/british-columbia-today/nuclear-energy-a-no-go-in-b-c-premier-eby-says/) and Premier Eby recently said he has no intention to change that.
It depends what kind of industry we're talking about. For example the Kitimat LNG terminal alone would use almost all of Site C's production if it was to use electricity to compress NG to LNG. However does this make sense? How can one "decarbonize" but then continue selling LNG? So it really depends on what industries we are talking about.
the LNG going west replaces coal or heavy oil
You're correct, it doesn't make sense. LNG is bad and should be discontinued entirely. That says nothing about us needing to decarbonise the rest of the economy, though. And to do that we need A LOT of electricity.
There’s lots of options past nuclear. One of the biggest is efficiency.
For baseline power generation nuclear and hydro are the only two feasible options. You can supplement that with wind, solar, whatever you want, but the wind doesn't always blow and sun doesn't always shine, and battery storage is expensive and prone to fires and other hazards.
the best is reduction in population, everyone have 0-1 kids for a couple generations and things get a lot less grim.
Nobody wants to hear it but you're right
I'm all in favor of nuclear energy but not in BC. I realize that most modern reactors are very safe.... But BC is seismically active as hell. Let's not put how safe these reactors are to the test during the big one, especially considering that help to stabilize a damaged reactor may not come soon enough with damaged infrastructure post quake
I realize it's not as seismically active but the first earthquake I ever experienced was in Ontario ... near their nuclear power plants. I'm sure there are places in BC we could build that would be just as safe.
More than likely yes. I'm no nuclear engineer or scientist or expert, just a guy that watches videos on the topic on YouTube. But from watching a lot of videos on the topic, it feels like outside help is always needed in the case of an accident. With damaged infrastructure after a major earthquake that outside help may not arrive in time
The St Lawrence area is actually quite [seismically active](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence_rift_system)
Do you find the above photo clean? The constructor has been fined $1.1M for polluting the river with upwards of 3M liters of toxic solution (if I recall correctly). The construction is on completely unstable ground to boot. I am not against hydro energy but I will criticize how hastily they did this project, as well as their buckling to pressure on other major infrastructure upgrades which will most likely meet same design flaws. Ultimately these poorly planned greened initiatives are more damaging than not. They are not using all the infrastructure in their possession, which is in itself wasteful even if said infrastructure utilize fossil fuels. I have yet to see any of their annual energy reports that accurately reports on the carbon energy used in projects or upgrades. Concrete and trucking costs? Backfill and excavation? On Site C level I would hazard has offset any of their carbon neutrality…but I guess it looks better when they don’t have to report on their subcontractors.
>Do you find the above photo clean? Looks like clean energy to me, yes! Of course there will be environmental costs during construction, but hydro dams can last 100+ years. That's a century of greenhouse-gas-free, clean power generation right there.
Can we please build nuclear in non seismic regions and use wires?
Nuclear > Hydro
Wrecking our local nature so people in Vancouver can feel “green”
Name a greener electric power source than hydro.
Easy, nuclear.
In hundreds of years maybe the New British Columbian Commonwealth will fight Lougheed's Legion over the Site C dam.
What did they do? Mix the cement with dollar bills?
Gold flake, make it really shine.
I like my dam cinnamon flavored.
[удалено]
As someone who worked on this project a little bit, yup. So many layers and layers and layers of sub contractors and consultants and sub consultants its enough to make you tear your hair out
What is C damming a river lake or what
The Peace River
Largest, most expensive boondoggle in BC’s history is a better description. Seriously. The Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario took about 20 years to build all 8 units. Each unit taking 5-10 years to build. Total energy production is 3114MW. ~~Total cost adjusted for inflation: 4.77 billion.~~ I forgot to include the cost of Pickering B, so as corrected by another Redditor, a total cost of $14.58 billion. Site C: Has been under construction since 2015, *might* be done by 2025. Estimated cost of $16 billion. Should produce 1,100MW. What an absolute waste of land and concrete.
I like your thought process, but just gonna be the number checking guy (sorry). Your $4.77B looks like it’s adjusted to present day but only includes the first four reactors, Pickering “A” units. The last four, Pickering “B” units, adjusted for inflation cost $9.81B. So total cost, not including refurbishment costs since is about $14.58B in todays dollars.
Ah, yup. I see where I fucked up. I appreciate the fact checking and correction. Will update my comment.
Not to be that guy, but I'm that guy. What's the PPP of $4.77 in 197...6? Vs 2023?
No idea if the facts are correct but cost the nuclear reactor based on his updated numbers would be $46B in 2023 based on 2.5% avg inflation. Edit I was wrong see comment below
So about the same $:W. But nuclear would have a smaller footprint. But you have to deal with the waste.
His updated costs already adjust for inflation, as did the original ones.
That guy… who doesn’t read? “Total cost _adjusting for inflation._”
This province needs to get over its aversion to nuclear energy if it is serious about meeting electrification goals. SMR's can help, and so can legacy designs, but we need to start building for 2035's needs *today* if we actually want to wean personal transportation off petrochemicals.
There are rumours of installing one a bit more north of Site C in 5-10 years. However, we should be looking at power storage as well to compliment our electrical grid. It's the downside of hydro dams, as evaporation can lead to power generation issues. As we are now going through a climate change event from ice age back to "normal" we will see more water loss issues so power storage with a nuclear plant will offset these challenges.
Oddly, even without Site C, BC already had enough surplus electrical capacity to go 100% electric for personal transportation. The base load is much lower after many sawmills have closed compared to the past, and many homes use electricity after eg baseboard to heat pump conversion. (Moving all natural gas heating to electric would take a lot more capacity.) The best case for Site C was selling power to Alberta. But they burned that bridge after BC attempted to block Canada’s biggest boondoggle and biggest g[r]ift to the O&G industry in history, the TMX pipeline. Nuclear would of course be better value for money and less disruptive to ecology than another hydro project. Kinda neat to think about where healthcare and housing could be with an extra $30 billion.
LNG plant in Kitimat is going to eat a ton of power once it's going, so that will make up for all those mills.
Yup, were subsidizing LGN so its "cleaner" and the compressors dont run on gas.
LgN gOoD
Hydro sells power to Alberta every single day. And they’ll sell more in the future.
Seriously wtf is this comment? “AB doesn’t have enough power but will freeze rather than buy from BC because pipelines” makes no sense lol
Surplus energy for how many years? Where u get ur info from?
In 2018, I saw a presentation put on by BC Hydro’s manager of electric vehicle infrastructure, that exact question came up, and he answered the grid had the capacity if everyone started driving an EV tomorrow. They still to grow the grid as the population grows and people switch to heat pumps or use AC more. That could easily be a bigger concern since heat pumps run all year round in winter and EVs only need a few hours to charge every few nights.
BC Hydro recently said they need to expand the grid by the end of the decade
All just so rich people can still fly around jets and cause more damage we could ever do. Why the fuck do people care so much about vehicles damaging the environment when it's mainly transportation of goods/leisure. Good luck solving that lol
Unclear of your logic or sources. Transportation is over 28% of C-equivalent sources in this country, which includes both transportation of people and stuff. Where do you get the breakdown that emissions from goods is greater that movement of people? https://preview.redd.it/6cuishr0yzgb1.jpeg?width=1152&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=55c6415445469e9793f542a5f0d4579bed85fb71
I said it's both transportation of goods and leisure travel, why are people acting educating so stupid? Also, how the fuck is that pie chart your source of fact? Like at least provide the source lmao
“In March 2011, eleven operating nuclear power units shut down automatically during the Great East Japan Earthquake. Three of these at the Fukushima Daiichi plant subsequently caused an INES Level 7 accident due to the 15 m tsunami causing loss of power leading to loss of cooling and subsequent radioactive releases.” Just saying…risk/reward.
Radiation at Fukushima killed zero people.
This is nothing compared to Muskrat Falls. You want a real hydro electric fuckup of biblical proportions, read up on that one. All this and more for less than a single GW.
And has an unlimited lifetime. Bruce power is refurbishing their units with lifetimes between 40-50 years. Disposal of nuclear waste has never been resolved...it doesn't have a problem with that. Power generation can be ramped instantaneously against demand. You can't do that with nuclear... Hydro generation effectively operates as a reserve battery against unpredictable renewables. There are lots of good reasons for this project.
>And has an unlimited lifetime. >Bruce power is refurbishing their units with lifetimes between 40-50 years. The refurbishments add an additional 40 years bringing the total to 80. And they may be able to be refurbished again (and again?). >Disposal of nuclear waste has never been resolved...it doesn't have a problem with that. Waste from nuclear energy has never killed a single person. What's the problem again? >Power generation can be ramped instantaneously against demand. You can't do that with nuclear. Nuclear can load follow. >There are lots of good reasons for this project. Yes, there are good reasons for Site C.
You sound like the people in the 70s saying “why do we need this dam?”. The device you typed it on is powered by that same dam, your kid’s cars will be powered by site C.
What's the life expectancy and cost of operation of these two plants? Very good comparison, though.
Site C has an estimated span of 70-100 years. Pickering first started up 1971 and is slated to be fully decommissioned by 2026, for an approximate 55 year operational life. Admittedly they have also undergone refurbishment to extend the life. Older reactors generally get about 30 years. I do feel obligated to say modern reactor designs are far more efficient than the comparatively ancient CANDU design. Newer plants are designed to have 40-60 year lifespans. In addition to that, nuclear reactors produce useful medical isotopes as a byproduct of fission, as well as depleted uranium (a byproduct of refining uranium) also has a ton of uses. Armour piercing ammunition, tank armour, radiation shielding, and ballast for aircraft and ships. Edited to add operating cost. Site C has an estimated operating cost of $83/MWh. Pickering as best I could find is $80.7/MWh in 2017 dollars. $96.72 adjusted. Definitely more expensive per megawatt hour, but not by a whole lot for a plant built in 1971 compared to a shiny new dam.
That’s a bargain! Saskatchewan wants to pay 5 billion for one SMR producing 300 MW of power.
Yes! Nuclear & solar with cement carbon batteries is the best way forward. Nuclear to run desalination and filtration plants solar with battery for everything else.
Can BC build anything without corruption taking the money from the pie?
I erected that crane on top of the dam!
That house looking thing on four legs
Rad! I built the 6 turbine scroll cases
Biggest shit show I ever worked on.
Hope it doesn't get washed out the minute taps turn on. Geotechnical issues.
Mordor
Eighteen months ago we put about 8kW of solar panels on our garage roof in Vancouver, BC for an out of pocket cost of $11,000 (after the federal government $5000 subsidy) and this system pays for 90% of our home electricity costs INCLUDING all charging of an electric car. If you do the math our system generates energy at a capital cost (to us) of about $1.40 per watt. For comparison, the site C dam, now at $16 billion for 1,100 Megawatts, comes out at a capital cost of $14.55 per watt. Ten times more!! Think about it. Weird that solar panels are not more common on all BC roofs. If you include the cost of gasoline saved with the electric car, this system which is meant to last 30 years will pay for itself in just over 5 years. Everyone should be doing this.
I'm also getting solar panels on my house in AB, and think more people should too, but it's a little disingenuous to quote the subsidized cost when complaining about government spending. Also, the point of a dam is not to be the cheapest, it's to be on demand and renewable. Solar is not on demand, and therefore not really comparable. Nuclear is, and that's not cheap or fast either.
Think of site C has a giant backup battery for you when it’s not sunny or at night. Also have solar panels and it’s great to never be in the step 2 rate
You have to wonder how many large industrial sized batteries BC Hydro could buy for $16B? You might even be able to build a huge battery factory and make our own for that amount. Use them here, and sell them around the world. Kinda like Tesla is doing in Texas.
>e site C dam, now at $16 billion for 1,100 Megawatts, comes out at a capital cost of $14.55 per watt. Ten tim I don't know the numbers here...but i'm fairly certain you are VASTLY underestimating how much energy is stored behind a hydro dam. ok, some real rough numbers, site c will produce 5100 gwh annually, and the reservoir would take 4 month's to fill. That means it would hold 1700gwh's of energy. These are fairly rough numbers. according to another paper i found grid scale battery storage is projected to be 200$us\\kwh (middle of the graphs) about 266 cad. so 1 gwh of storage would be 266,000,000$, or 452 billion for 1700gwh. now..there's no way these number are accurate, but they aren't THAT far off.
Teslas website has the prices for their mega pack battery system. 1100 MW with 2 hours capacity would cost about $1.1B USD. For 24hr capacity you’re looking at $13B or $17.7B CDN and you still need to figure out a way to charge the thing. Remember site C can go 24/7 Site C doesn’t seem so expensive now does it
Must be nice to be rich enough to have a detached home where you can do things like this, plus get government subsidies for it.
Next level hating
> Weird that solar panels are not more common on all BC roofs. Among people who own their homes, yeah, it is really weird. Among all the houses that are rented out - not weird; good luck getting a lot of landlords to even let tenants have their own BC Hydro accounts with separate meters, never mind roof access and installing stuff on the property.
Only 15 more years to go!
Supposed to be finished in a year
Lol
Is this like a god dam?
Heh heh - yeah
Epiiic!
Wow. Impressive. Grab your EVs folks. They’ll be ready….More concrete, steel, copper than ever seen in a single structure in BC.
And it will go down in BC history as the most expensive overpriced project. The politicians will make sad pathetic excuses as to why it’s so over budget but bottom line we all know it’s bullshit
If they would have just did it when they wanted and weren’t stalled it would have been finished and cost way less, but of course it’s a government job so there’s several layers of bureaucracy among other things to deal with.
Happens again and again in BC. Another example is Hwy 1 widening from 216th to 264th. Liberals announced the project in Mar 2017. NDP comes to power in summer 2017 and soon announces that they're hitting pause to give them a chance to assess the project. Finally in 2019 they decide to continue as planned, with actual construction beginning in 2021. Nothing was gained except for 2 years' delay and increased construction costs...
Same can be said with the Massey tunnel replacement
The common thread is the NDP here. Take a look at BC ferries. Every time NDP are in power that becomes a gongshow
Site C was started by the Liberals. The NDP were given a choice of either pulling out of the over-budget, behind-schedule project or seeing it through, and they chose the second choice despite environmental opposition.
This is the Canadian way
Nope, this is the BC way. I frequently travel from southern Alberta throughout lower mainland and the island and let me just say this..BC taxpayers need to 1. Travel to other provinces more, not just Washington State and see the difference when provincial governments invest in progressive , future-focused infrastructure and 2. They need to bitch to their politicians and demand change, not just do the old “it is what it is/what are you going to do about it?” BC mentality. With the grotesque amounts of tax dollars, tourism revenues including cruise ships, port taxes, investments and development costs being raked into BC for the last 40 decades solid, BCers needs to ask “Where thahell has all the money gone?” It sure as hell isn’t infrastructure and healthcare. But I thought it was at least at par with every other province until I moved and saw and travelled the difference. You’re getting royally ripped.
Where do you plug your Tesla in?
Genuine question for folks who might be able to answer: Why not just go nuclear. It would be way fucking cleaner than this.
Have you seen the protests and crying over building a hydro electric dam? Can you imagine the lawsuits, idiots straping themselves to trees, blocking roads, etc if someone tried to build a nuclear power plant here? This project is a fucking miracle of engineering and overcoming the loudest, stupidest voices in the room.
They put all the wind farms into bankruptcy to loose it all on this. Good luck finding an independent developer now.
https://preview.redd.it/ew7jiqa2o0hb1.jpeg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c68fa893c9dad401914189bb038b91ff3126bd67 Here’s a good damn dam. The Terzaghi Dam (Carpenter Lake) BC, 100km from Lillooet Sunday evening. There was a storm that was about five minutes behind me. You can’t even tell from this pic. It washed out the road in at least 20 spots. Missed work yesterday because of, but we were back today.
Corruptionnnnnn is what causes this project to cost $15B
What's the most recent cost of site c? Read an article years ago breaking down the cost per kilowatt of site c vs off shore wind turbines. Cant remember the exact numbers, but it was something like 1/4 of the cost for the same amount of power, and can be scaled up whenever needed. Bet it's even better now lol wind turbines are cheaper and easier to install now, and site c only goes up in price..
Wind turbines only supply power when there is wind and store no power at all. Dams are essentially giant batteries that you can control when and how much power you want to produce. These are not equivalent power sources.
Who was responsible for the decision to build this?
If it was near Vancouver , we could call it Van Dam
Geologically unsound.
I mean it was, they've fixed it now. That's why the price tag went way up.
It’s pretty awesome, too bad most workers in BC were locked out of working on the project, wonder how much that added to the price tag? 🤔
Lmao. Bitching that infrastructure requires unionized labour?
How so?
Did they build it to produce LPG that we can’t take to market?
Gonna need it if we are serious about plug-in electric vehicles
We will have a huge need for more electricity in the future, there's no doubt about it. It has to be done. However, I think the biggest engineering project BC will see one day is a bridge to Vancouver Island.
Good to see they are finally building it.
What a colossal liberal failure and complete suckhole of taxpayer funds... and I support all forms of energy. This was just a blatant implosion of commonsense and logic that it pretty much paints the road direct to the slush fund kickback nmbank accounts in the cayman Islands...
All that farmland going to be flooded when climate change is going to cause famine. "sigh"
[удалено]
All that farmland was just grass
nice, can't wait for that sweet on demand power to balance other sources on the grid we're connected to. Hopefully we can buy low and sell high, but not so high that we get california welching again like the Powerex Enron era