Site C Dam
 

The BC Government is set to make a major announcement on Monday. Most believe it will involve the infamous Site C Dam project.

Justine Hunter
Victoria — From Saturday's Globe and Mail

The B.C. government will make a major energy announcement at the Peace River on Monday, fuelling speculation that it will give a green light to the long-shelved plans to build the Site C hydroelectric dam.

BC Hydro is inviting officials to what is being billed as a "clean energy workshop" at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam on Monday, near the proposed location for Site C on the Peace River. In the town of Hudson’s Hope – the closest community – the airstrip is being prepared for the arrival of Premier Gordon Campbell the same day.

It’s a long way to go for a workshop when the legislature is in session, but Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom was coy on Friday.

“We are going to have an event on Monday,” he said. “We are going to be talking about some things.”

Mr. Lekstrom has promised to announce this spring whether the government will support the construction of the province’s first major hydroelectric dam in decades.

His government has set a target to regain self-sufficiency for electricity, and Site C would help fill the gap with 900 megawatts of capacity.

The proposal for a third dam on the Peace River has been around for at least three decades, and plans have been dusted off and then re-shelved several times.

Last fall, BC Hydro delivered an updated feasibility study to Mr. Lekstrom.

If the government proceeds to stage three, it would still have to pass an environmental assessment that could take two years. If it succeeds, that would be followed by a design phase and bidding process that could result in a $6-billion-plus construction project in the north just in time for the 2013 provincial election.

“Stage three still requires a great deal of consultation and accommodation with first nations,” Mr. Lekstrom noted Friday. “But stage three is saying you wish to go ahead with it.”

Mr. Lekstrom’s Peace River South riding is divided over the project, but the Energy Minister has touted the concept as a clean, renewable energy source. He is expected to bring in a new Clean Energy Act later this spring that aims to build an industry in green power exports.

However, the proposed megaproject faces opposition, particularly from residents of the Peace River, who say the massive dam, which would be 1,100 metres in length with a reservoir 83 kilometres long, would be far from environmentally friendly.

Critics note that the dam would flood a significant swath of Northern B.C.’s prime agricultural land, along with a wildlife migration corridor and numerous heritage sites with significance ranging from fossils to the gold rush.

Hudson’s Hope mayor Karen Anderson said she’ll attend the event at the dam, but she opposes the project. The district council passed a motion two years ago against Site C and, based on the phone calls to her office Friday morning, she said, her community has not had a change of heart.

“My position right now, as always, is that I do not want any negative impacts to our community,” she said. “If they say they are moving forward, our motion can’t stop it. So the bottom line is, we need to have compensation.”

Ms. Anderson fears that the few jobs in the community of 1,100 will dry up as a result of the project. “We will become the end-of-the-road community … that’s not acceptable.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1537772/

:tup: 'Bout time.

Pretty sure they will only be announcing that they are proceeding to the next stage, not that they are actually going ahead. Still I do expect it to be greenlighted before 2013.

Also please include the link to the storey otherwise it needs to be deleted, thanks.

Source: Vancouver Sun

:previous: So Lake Agassiz flooded how much of Canada's land mass before its ice dam burst? Rivers were blocked by landslides etc for hundreds of millions of years. Sure some greenhouse gasses will be created during construction but that is far outweighed by the years of hydroelectric power Site C will create. If California doesn't want the power, we'll use it Canada, thank you very much.

This is one of the few projects I am against, BC is a very rugged, mountainous area. I believe that less than 10 to 15% of the province is suitable for agriculture and/or settlement, we should be holding on to every parcel of lowlands we have, not flooding them.

Even at the cost of energy independence and a multi-billion dollar industry?

Agreed! 100 per cent!:tup:

So we can build nuclear, like the French? How green is that?

The area that will be flooded is a microclimate that you simply do not find in that part of the province and will be opposed by the locals like you wouldn't believe. Especially since the power is all going to be shipped south.

As for energy requirements, if we're going to talk about carbon-neutral power then we need to start talking nuclear if we're not willing to go the hydro route. Think of how many plug-in vehicles we are going to start using in the next ten to fifteen years; where is the power going to come from?

The only alternative to Site C is Nuclear? Strawman alert?

No of course not, there's coal, natural gas, or super high prices and the threat of rolling blackouts. :rolleyes:

This is a no-brainer. Hydro power may not be perfectly green, but it's damn close (pun intended). Environmentalists can't see the forest for the trees. China is building how many coal fired plants every year? And we are bitching about this?

I want this province and this country to enjoy some level of economic success. Why we keep trying to shoot ourselves in the foot is beyond me.

It's such a shame that reading is a vanishing skill. So many misunderstandings might be averted.

The issue here is between Site C and another site, not hydro and nuclear.

Come back when you have read the post properly.

Sigh.

If California won't take power from Site C because its too large to qualify as a green source, the alternative is to use that power locally in the north, and have any/all of our new smaller green projects used to supply power to California, starting with the new wind turbine atop Grouse.

What to do with the Site C power? Sell it to Alberta to cook the oil sands to get our needed gasoline &tc. There was an article in The Guardian a few years ago that laid out the argument that Alberta / Saskatchewan could build one or more nuclear plants in the northern parts of their provinces to supply electricity and steam for use in the oil sands. Alberta had the need to exploit the Oil Sands, and Saskatchewan has the uranium that can be upgraded to nuclear plant grade.

Apparently the various nuclear construction firms from the US and Europe have made trips to Fort McMurrray, Edmonton, Regina and Calgary to check out the situation.

Experts asked to probe nuclear plants
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/Art...true&e=1829360

Really? And what is "another site" for a dam capable of producing as much power as Site C?

The patrimony of cheap, clean power BC inherited as a result of WAC Bennet's foresight has allowed this province to prosper.

Site C has been on the books since the 1970's but was shelved due to the early 1980's mini-depression, public opposition, and the Revelstoke dam coming on-stream in 1984. Site A (Bennett Dam) and Site B (Peace Canyon dam) have already been built along the Peace.

The lead-up time to completion for Site C will take at least another decade.

We have Manitoba Hydro building new dams with multi-billion power export agreements with the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Ditto Quebec Hydro. These long-term power purchase agreements provide the revenue to pay back the capital costs. Just makes good business sense.

Time for BC Hydro to also embark on a similar strategy.

I'm with Pat McGeer on this one:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...3-b7aad7684cac

ETA: Looks like that will never happen:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...river-dam.html

Go Gordo Go!

Wow, this forum seems to get worse every month.

Why dont we just dam the Fraser while we are at it as well! Because we all know these river's and their lowlands have no economic, environmental or cultural value besides producing "clean" energy.

Also the fact that many on here refer to dams as "clean energy" implies they actually know very little about their environmental impacts.

I far more support small run of the river projects (if handled properly in regards for fish access) than more of these mega dams.

Also, why no localize energy far more than we have? Seriously, there is so much potential for solar, wind, geothermal, even tidal that we seem so reluctant to explore.

How many wind farms do we have in BC? 1 non operating turbine?

How many rooftop solar panels to kick in during sunny days? Only 1 or 2 locations?

Yes these technologies are not perfect, but neither were fossil fuel based technologies when they were first being explored and implemented.

Do people here even understand how much usable land has already been lost in BC due to dams?

Also, do they even understand how much of the energy generated in the Peace is lost due to the long trip the electricity has to make to any populated areas along the transmission lines? It is incredibly inefficient.

Seriously, we only have a small percent of land that is suitable for agriculture and general living, why don't we just flood it all! (as some far right wing American politicians have suggested, creating the world's largest reservoir in the Great Basin).

If we must build more dams (which I really don't think we do) then how about building them in high terrain areas, away form the mild, low lying warm micro climate valleys we have, such as the Peace River.

I have a feeling this is one topic where I am going to be disagreeing with the majority on this forum.

Going to be fun!

Don't worry Metro, you are not alone. I also think this is crazy. They biggest knock against most of the truly “clean” sources of power is that they are not consistent enough, that is when it isn’t sunny or windy you don’t get enough power. People forget that we have all of these dams already that can act like batteries to store energy (water) when we have electricity flowing in from other sources and then release energy when needed.

In fact the whole myth that we are energy importers is based around this concept. Hydro imports energy from the US at night when it is cheap so they can preserve water in their reservoirs to produce power in the daytime when it is expensive and sell it back to them at a profit. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is smart that they do this , and it means cheaper power for me, but why not expand the practice to allow for an expansion of lower impact technologies.

It's not. However, France lies in a non-seismic zone (i.e.) in the middle of a tectonic plate, far from a fault line, and there is very low risk of an earthquake cracking it open.

Interestingly enough, Japan is 100 per cent powered by nuclear, too, and as you know, lies in a VERY seismic region. Shortly after I left living there, an earthquake (fairly mild, no more than a 5.5) DID crack a reactor open not far from Tokyo. Fortunately everything was contained, and the steam got out, though containing radioactivity didn't seem to harm anybody. .... Nevertheless, that's cutting it rather fine.

However, on principle, I am against the site C dam if it buries agricultural land in any way.

And look at Williston Lake now. Not having been properly logged off before the dam, the submerged portions have petrified trees poking through the water, rendering it unsuitable even for recreation. Perhaps my views are simplistic. I won't deny it. But growing up in BC I saw too many lakes and valleys destroyed by hydro-electric projects.