Site C - Page 2 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 2Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of (permalink) Old 04-13-2018, 02:49 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Qualicum Beach, BC, Canada.
Interest: general mountaineering/ hiking/ backpacking/ skiing/ kayaking
Posts: 1,704
Default

Under the Columbis River Treaty, BC can take about the same equivalent of the energy that Site C will produce. Presently we don't need it or use it, but it's ours when we want and the transmission infrastructure is already in place to get it to our cities, or send to Calif.

From what I understand, the power created by Site C will cost us more to produce than we can sell it for and the difference will be born by BC taxpayers. We will be paying for this fiasco for generations to come.

As far as solar, wind and geothermal sources of energy go, they can be more easily placed near the areas using the power, than can a dam. They can be installed right on the buildings using the power. Storage research is quickly gaining on ways to store excess energy and this may soon become a non-arguement.

The rest of the world seems to be imbraceing alternate energy, while Canada lags behind desperately clinging to petroleum. Site C is a white elephant that should be put to rest.
prother is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of (permalink) Old 04-15-2018, 10:41 AM
High on the Mountain Top
 
xj6response's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sunshine Coast, BC, Canada.
Posts: 2,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prother View Post
The rest of the world seems to be imbraceing alternate energy, while Canada lags behind desperately clinging to petroleum. Site C is a white elephant that should be put to rest.
Look at some 'green' energy darlings. The UK, Sweden, Ontario for example. In the UK coal pwr was eliminated and replaced largely by NatGas. In Sweden 85% of pwr is Nuke/Hydro. In Ontario, coal is gone but 60% of pwr is Nuke+20% Hydro. In time, perhaps NatGas and hydro will be phased out too, but that day is decades away. In the meantime, eliminating coal power worldwide would not only lower GHG's but eliminate vast amounts of NOX, SOX, heavy metals and fine sooty particulates. The latter, the sooty stuff, is a badly overlooked contributor to atmospheric warming as it ever so slightly darkens ice surfaces in the arctic and northern glacial regions. This is a primary driver behind glacial ice recession and has been since the industrial revolution.

________________________________
xj6response is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1