Here's a link to a Google Earth file that will display potential "green power" locations.
http://www.phas.ubc.ca/~swebster/bcwaterlicenses.kml
I don't think this means that each one will get a power plant; it's more likely that each location will be investigated for it's potential, but like in the mining industry, a company must have a claim first. If you click on a location, the company information will be displayed.
Other than the privatization issue (which I'm strongly against), in some places it makes sense, but not in parks or fish spawning habitat. BC Hydro runs one near Bella Coola at the base of a waterfall on Clayton Creek; the creek isn't disrupted below the area that fish can reach and fish spawn along the entire length of the creek up to the base of the falls. It's a local solution that works well to supply a few thousand people with electricity. I don't like the idea of putting them in pristine wilderness areas nowhere near towns.

Just a question I wanted to throw out there... anyone want BC Hydro to spark up the gas-fired plant in Burnaby on a full-time basis? My guess is no.

Anyone want to see Hydro's Site C plan go to fruition in the Peace? My guess is, if you know about it, probably not.

Anyone switch over all their lights and appliances to high efficiency? Probably many of us, but not enough.

Our society creates the demand for consumable energy and the government and utilities by their very nature are obligated to provide it to us. Small hydro is a step in the right direction - yes there is an impact, there is ALWAYS an impact, but it's not to the same scale as something like WAC Bennett Dam at Williston Lake or Mica Dam near Revelstoke or like Alcan's Kemano Project.

That being said, I am biased. I am a practicing river engineer and I'll admit that these projects put loonies in my pocket. (I also do river restoration work, so I'm not the grand destroyer of rivers and streams).

Now that my defence of small hydro is through, I hafta say that I don't agree with a) developing such projects in provincial parkland; b) areas that are so remote that the infrastructure/transmission impact exceeds the footprint of the project; and c) developing in areas of high ecological value (and yes there are varying degrees of value, but that is very subjective and ideological).

And one final note to the guy that said lets start spiking trees. You are an idiot. I've seen the end result of spiking trees on Vancouver Island - dead and maimed family men who were just doing their jobs... and guess what... the logging didn't stop because of that. Give your head a shake, there are better ways.

C

[V]
...and people wander why they put up gates and ask for ID.

Thanks for the the Google Earth link magnetite. That is quite an overwhelming picture, but I am sure your mining claim analogy is correct. The only public company I know of which is actively developing ROR is Plutonic Power Corp. I certainly hope Dan Gerak can mobilize public support against development in Pinecone Burke Park. There should absolutely be no development within Park land.

...yes, but they could build more dams on the river columbia or rivers the such that are already ruined by dams and not on undamed rivers..

That WAS supposed to be a joke...

We were taking about this last year at this time in the CC forum

https://www.clubtread.com/sforum/topi...TOPIC_ID=19520

It is good to see that it is now getting some more media attention.

The ultimate catalyst for reducing our energy consumption is an increase in cost resulting from a reduction in the supply.

Why do some northern European countries i.e. similar climate and similar standard of living, have almost half the energy consumption per captain as we as Canadians do?

Mostly because they are smaller countries and the people live closer together and don't drive as much.

So, a "green power" project that requires land to be removed from a park for a powerline R/W...that's an oxymoron!

Like many, I'm not opposed to ROR power projects per se. I'm familiar with one such project at Frog Falls that was built 30 years ago for the Three Valley Gap resort. Most involve steep rugged reaches of streams where there is little or no possibility of affecting fish habitat. So from that aspect they're reasonably benign.

But I draw the line when a project require a substantial negative tradeoff, like building powerlines that affect parks and across large areas of wilderness. And because of their remoteness, the majority of these ROR projects involve exactly that. Plutonic Power and Glacier Power are just 2 familiar examples that are raising controversy lately, now this.

So far it seems only Yarnellboat is asking the right question, where should we get our power from? As far as power generation goes Hydro is one of the cleanest there is and we here in BC are blessed even to be able to take advantage of it, really Quebec is the only other province with substantial Hydro resources.

If the question were to come down to either building another coal fired plant (super critical or not) or, a nuclear generating station.. I'd pick the Hydro development.

The problem with all of this is the privatization factor.Independent power produces are being given, essentially for free, what rightfully belongs to the people of this province. BC Hydro, thanks to the Liberals, is not allowed to create any new generating capacity, rather it must purchase any new supplies from these independents.

http://www.citizensforpublicpower.ca...rySept2006.pdf

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it we need more more dams, hydro projects &/or coal fired generation when BC is already exporting electricity?
Another corporate cash grab at the expense of future generations?

http://www.dontsellusout.com/01issue/index.html
http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/exp/exp0105.pdf
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/30/BCHydro/
http://policyalternatives.ca/Monitor...itorIssue1594/

or just Google BC Hydro export

So instead of privatization, you'd rather see things run/controlled by one huge gov't company?

BTW, if you think the politics in our gov't are bad, get involved in kids sports. yikes!!!

Sure, though nuclear is a relatively clean industry if you don't take into account the bit of radio-active waste that nobody knows what to do with. It appears to be coming to Western Canada anyhow, in the Alberta Peace River Country.
http://www.wcpipeline.com/article_1939.php

And BC Hydro may be "clean" but as far as I'm concerned, that's mostly incidental because of the mega hydro projects of the past. They certainly haven't stayed on the front lines of renewable and green electricity production. Instead, they're looking for Site C on the Peace River, which has as only benefit that it generates less carbondioxide than coal-fired plants.

But, as a coastal province, why does BC still have no wind park for example? Although the people in the Peace (Again: the Peace) are trying to get one going. (http://www.peaceenergy.ca).

Truth is, BC is still very much behind the times.
(http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/07/05/Gr...BC_Low_Marks_/)
Why do we still build homes without sufficient insulation, poor passive solar placement and no solar electricity-generating capability? Why don't we utilize geo-thermal heating to its full potential?

Despite PowerSmart, only little inroad has been made into the vast potential for energy conservation, which should be every jurisdiction's prime source for meeting energy demands. For that to happen, I suspect, energy rates need to increase substantially. We'll all be paying for it in the end. Hurray for the big-screen TV!

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Biffybee. The value of land, imo, lies not in its buried minerals, its stands of timber, or its flowing waters.

Hands off, please, off the hard-fought-for parklands in our fair province.

Monster, the issue isn't so much that IPPs are being developed, but rather the processes that regulate the creation of these projects. For example, bill 30 strips local governments of pretty much any say in the matter:
http://www.slrd.bc.ca/siteengine/act...wsID=55&bhcp=1

It seems like pretty much a free for all with no long term planning whatsoever.