Site C Is a Climate-Change Disaster, Says Suzuki, Mychaylo Prystupa, The Tyee, February 23, 2016:Recommend this post
Flooding valuable farmland to build the Site C dam undermines Canada's commitment to meet international climate-change targets, environmentalist David Suzuki said outside a B.C. courtroom this week.“Fundamentally uneconomic” Site C Dam would lose $350 million a year for taxpayers, Damien Gillis, The Common Sense Canadian:
The farmland is needed to reduce B.C.'s dependence on imported foods, Suzuki said, and eliminate the huge amounts of carbon fuels needed to bring those foods here...
Why is there a debate about pipelines? We shouldn't be putting a penny into pipelines. Why are we building coal-exporting terminals? We shouldn't be doing any of that.
We have to get off fossil fuels, and that means we've got to change everything. We've got to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, and we know we are going to have to leave 80 per cent of our known reserves in the ground...
The retired head of the Association of Major Power Users of BC, Dan Potts, estimates the proposed Site C Dam would lose $350 million a year for taxpayers and BC Hydro ratepayers. The 30-year pulp mill manager told media in Vancouver yesterday that the project, estimated to cost $8 Billion or more, is “fundamentally uneconomic” – based on its outmoded technology and power trading prices that are likely to remain far lower than the cost of electricity produced by Site C...Site C Dam, LNG a Bad Deal for British Columbians, Rafe Mair, Rafe Mair Online
Potts said there are better alternatives if BC needs more power in the future – such as importing some power from our neighbours at off-peak prices. Washington State has accumulated an oversupply of cheap electricity in recent years, Potts noted. At night, when these plants continue running but demand is low, BC Hydro can turn off its Hydro dams and take advantage of cheap, abundant power across the border.
For all these reasons, Potts believes Site C is the wrong project for BC today.
“This whole thing is just totally an economic disaster. It needs to be thrown out.”
We do not need the power, nor will we in the foreseeable future. In a blog sometime many years back, I answered the question, “Isn’t Site C better than so-called ‘run-of-river’ projects?” My answer was if that’s the choice we face, I suppose I would have to agree. Except it’s false premise, since we don’t need either. That was, I believe, about 2008.What happens in the court room, Laila Yuile, No Strings Attached, Feb 26, 2016:
Now I would leave no doubt. These are two separate issues. I am unalterably opposed to so-called “run-of-river” because they not only destroy our precious rivers, they are – if they haven’t already – bankrupting BC Hydro.
Let’s then look at Site C. They say this will cost $8 billion – using the usual margin of error on such matters, we can safely assume it will be at least 25% higher, say $10 billion.
At any price the project would wipe out a large and very important amount of farmland and wildlife habitat.
...BC Hydro acknowledges a point of contention are the changing justifications for the project...BTW, Laila Yuile has much about Site C on her pages and a few hours reading will provide you with a solid understanding of this issue.
I feel strongly that the province of British Columbia has been negligent in exempting Site C from independent review of the BC Utilities Commission, the regulatory agency created to do so. Both the premier and duly elected Liberal MLA’s have failed in their inherent duty to act in the best interests of British Columbians on this project.
In addition,by commencing preliminary site preparation despite several outstanding lawsuits by local First Nations against Site C, the province has failed in its duty to consult and honour Treaty 8 and demonstrated a complete lack of regard for due process...