New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBF, it's not confirmed yet. People should wait until the evidence comes in before assigning guilt, because the 'victim' turning out to be fake happens quite a bit.

Innocent until proven guilty.

But that doesn't mean the suspect is off the hook until then. Otherwise, Meng would be sipping a martini in Hong Kong right now.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by misher

Site C is supposed to produce an average of 680MW.

According to https://www.cleanenergybc.org/about/...ors/geothermal there are two geothermal sites that have potential to produce amounts equal to this in BC.



Site C is supposed to be over $10 billion, so producing the amount of power Site C is supposed to produce through geothermal would be less than $2.8 billion.

Clean Energy BC makes Site C look like a huge waste of money.

I assume there must be some math missing here.

BC Hydro's map of the transmission network reveals why:

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/...s/transplt.pdf

The nearest transmission line to Pebble Beach is only a 230kV line, and even then, the line would need to be branched off ran out there (forgetting about the need to upgrade the entire regional network to fully upgrade the area to a redundant 500kV line), and Mount Edziza is in the middle of nowhere, with the nearest line being a 283kV line, with no 500kV line anywhere nearby.

In comparison, Site C is very well connected to the existing BC Hydro high voltage transmission system, and is scheduled for additional upgrades.

[misher]

https://www.vancourier.com/real-esta...ain-1.23646213

Opinion: Think the NDP wants home prices to fall? Think again
For all its talk of the market heading in the right direction, the B.C. Ministry of Finance is betting on an imminent recovery

[Ben Dover]

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBF, it's not confirmed yet. People should wait until the evidence comes in before assigning guilt, because the 'victim' turning out to be fake happens quite a bit.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Nothing would surprise me when it comes to this pompous ass...He was a beady-eyed, shifty, lying SOB when he was in power; if it quacks like a duck...

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

BC Hydro's map of the transmission network reveals why:

https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/...s/transplt.pdf

The nearest transmission line to Pebble Beach is only a 230kV line, and even then, the line would need to be branched off ran out there (forgetting about the need to upgrade the entire regional network to fully upgrade the area to a redundant 500kV line), and Mount Edziza is in the middle of nowhere, with the nearest line being a 283kV line, with no 500kV line anywhere nearby.

In comparison, Site C is very well connected to the existing BC Hydro high voltage transmission system, and is scheduled for additional upgrades.

Furthermore, hydroelectric power is extremely cost-effective to operate and facilities have long service lives, both of which are attractive to BC Hydro as an operator, not just a power purchaser.

With that said, the cost of Site C is truly remarkable compared to the amount of power it will produce. 680MW, if that's accurate, honestly isn't very much production capacity for a facility allegedly to exceed $10B in capital costs. [Edit: the Site C website says that dam will produce about 1,100MW and the estimated construction cost was $7.9B($2011)]

For comparison, the Revelstoke Dam has a production capacity for 2,480MW. Adding the planned sixth turbine would increase that to nearly 3,000MW. That would be roughly comparable to the output of the six CANDU nuclear reactors at Ontario's Pickering nuclear generating station that produce about 3,200MW. For futher comparison, the massive Bruce Nuclear Power Station in Ontario is the world's largest nuclear power plant by number of operational reactors (8) and is the second largest nuclear power complex in the world by installed generating capacity: a staggering 6,388MW(!). But since Japan shut down its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in 2011, Bruce Power has become the world's largest operating nuclear power facility by generating capacity and reactor count.

I would like nuclear power to at least be considered among the range of potential options. There is a strong argument for nuclear in the context of a decarbonizing economy and the generating capacity that will be required to support mass adoption of electric consumer vehicles and commercial heavy transportation. The CANDU reactors in particular are a safe, efficient, and reliable design with the added benefit of being able to use unenriched uranium and a range of spent nuclear from light water reactors, including waste that is being stored on-site until permanent disposal site(s) are established. CANDU reactors can also use the nuclear material from decommissioned nuclear weapons and have the capability to breed thorium fuel for use in potential thorium reactors, should those reach commercial viability.

Nuclear produces no GHGs and can readily replace coal, oil, and gas for base-load grid power, complimenting intermittent production from renewables. With that said, I doubt that we will ever see a new nuclear power plant built in Canada, let alone BC. The real untapped renewable resource will be the steam shooting out the ears of environmental activists should nuclear power be proposed along the most seismically active parts of the coast.

[misher]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Furthermore, hydroelectric power is extremely cost-effective to operate and facilities have long service lives, both of which are attractive to BC Hydro as an operator, not just a power purchaser.

With that said, the cost of Site C is truly remarkable compared to the amount of power it will produce. 680MW, if that's accurate, honestly isn't very much production capacity for a facility allegedly to exceed $10B in capital costs. [Edit: the Site C website says that dam will produce about 1,100MW and the estimated construction cost was $7.9B($2011)]

For comparison, the Revelstoke Dam has a production capacity for 2,480MW. Adding the planned sixth turbine would increase that to nearly 3,000MW. That would be roughly comparable to the output of the six CANDU nuclear reactors at Ontario's Pickering nuclear generating station that produce about 3,200MW. For futher comparison, the massive Bruce Nuclear Power Station in Ontario is the world's largest nuclear power plant by number of operational reactors (8) and is the second largest nuclear power complex in the world by installed generating capacity: a staggering 6,388MW(!). But since Japan shut down its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in 2011, Bruce Power has become the world's largest operating nuclear power facility by generating capacity and reactor count.

I would like nuclear power to at least be considered among the range of potential options. There is a strong argument for nuclear in the context of a decarbonizing economy and the generating capacity that will be required to support mass adoption of electric consumer vehicles and commercial heavy transportation. The CANDU reactors in particular are a safe, efficient, and reliable design with the added benefit of being able to use unenriched uranium and a range of spent nuclear from light water reactors, including waste that is being stored on-site until permanent disposal site(s) are established. CANDU reactors can also use the nuclear material from decommissioned nuclear weapons and have the capability to breed thorium fuel for use in potential thorium reactors, should those reach commercial viability.

Nuclear produces no GHGs and can readily replace coal, oil, and gas for base-load grid power, complimenting intermittent production from renewables. With that said, I doubt that we will ever see a new nuclear power plant built in Canada, let alone BC. The real untapped renewable resource will be the steam shooting out the ears of environmental activists should nuclear power be proposed along the most seismically active parts of the coast.

I believe 680 is the avg we're looking at while 1100 is around the maximum number I've heard floating around.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

I would like nuclear power to at least be considered among the range of potential options. There is a strong argument for nuclear in the context of a decarbonizing economy and the generating capacity that will be required to support mass adoption of electric consumer vehicles and commercial heavy transportation. The CANDU reactors in particular are a safe, efficient, and reliable design with the added benefit of being able to use unenriched uranium and a range of spent nuclear from light water reactors, including waste that is being stored on-site until permanent disposal site(s) are established. CANDU reactors can also use the nuclear material from decommissioned nuclear weapons and have the capability to breed thorium fuel for use in potential thorium reactors, should those reach commercial viability.

Nuclear produces no GHGs and can readily replace coal, oil, and gas for base-load grid power, complimenting intermittent production from renewables. With that said, I doubt that we will ever see a new nuclear power plant built in Canada, let alone BC. The real untapped renewable resource will be the steam shooting out the ears of environmental activists should nuclear power be proposed along the most seismically active parts of the coast.

Fusion's technically still on the table, once the physicists finally figure out how to make it economical.

Then again, activists are f**king idiots.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

https://www.vancourier.com/real-esta...ain-1.23646213

Author: Joannah Connolly of Glacier Media Real Estate.

The housing market is based on confidence, and so is her job. That itself doesn't indicate bias, but an entire article that's just cherry-picking parts of a speech and inserting a spin with zero facts or figures - and a headline that says "opinion" - does.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Author: Joannah Connolly of Glacier Media Real Estate.

The housing market is based on confidence, and so is her job. That itself doesn't indicate bias, but an entire article that's just cherry-picking parts of a speech and inserting a spin with zero facts or figures - and a headline that says "opinion" - does.

The NDP is forecasting rising home prices and reduced home construction in its budget.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Furthermore, hydroelectric power is extremely cost-effective to operate and facilities have long service lives, both of which are attractive to BC Hydro as an operator, not just a power purchaser.

With that said, the cost of Site C is truly remarkable compared to the amount of power it will produce. 680MW, if that's accurate, honestly isn't very much production capacity for a facility allegedly to exceed $10B in capital costs. [Edit: the Site C website says that dam will produce about 1,100MW and the estimated construction cost was $7.9B($2011)]

For comparison, the Revelstoke Dam has a production capacity for 2,480MW. Adding the planned sixth turbine would increase that to nearly 3,000MW. That would be roughly comparable to the output of the six CANDU nuclear reactors at Ontario's Pickering nuclear generating station that produce about 3,200MW. For futher comparison, the massive Bruce Nuclear Power Station in Ontario is the world's largest nuclear power plant by number of operational reactors (8) and is the second largest nuclear power complex in the world by installed generating capacity: a staggering 6,388MW(!). But since Japan shut down its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in 2011, Bruce Power has become the world's largest operating nuclear power facility by generating capacity and reactor count.

...

Nuclear in general would be more expensive than Site C for the same amount of power. It's basically the most expensive option available for generation of low-carbon power.

Currently if you have a renewable resource that you can utilize, chances are you'll get away cheaper than building and operating a nuclear generating station. Designing something to fail-safe in basically every scenario gets really expensive. Nuclear also has the problem of having a very limited amount of experienced builders which have experience building specialized works.

France for instance had a huge industry that developed around nuclear construction. That experience however mostly dissipated when they built out their fleet, and became an operations staff. Now that they're starting to build new reactors again, that construction experience is missing and they're having to re-learn expensive lessons.

Regarding your points about Revelstoke's new generator, they might be adding more peak capacity with that generator, but it's not like they'll get that much more power out of it. Everything with hydro is frequently limited by the available water. If there's storage and the system has been reasonably optimised, the amount of GWh produced is mostly controlled by the amount of water available, rather than the capacity of generators present.

Hydro will be able to produce power at a faster rate than previous, but in terms of power quantity they'll only gain any power that they would otherwise have lost to spilling when the reservoir is full. From what I hear, Revelstoke doesn't spill very often.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

The NDP is forecasting rising home prices and reduced home construction in its budget.

Got to read the whole article, not just the headline. The NDP said no such thing. The NDP's finance minister said:

“I’m feeling cautiously optimistic about the direction we’re taking so far … And I want us to see that continue.” She added that “there’s more work to be done,” and that “while B.C. is “starting to see moderation in the market, I don’t think we are at a stage where we can say that housing is affordable.”
...
First, Carole James also said on Budget day, “I don’t believe we’re going to see a crash in the housing market.”

In other words, the market hasn't tanked yet, it's just trending down - nothing Carole James said indicates any kind of uptick at all. But no, the author (literally Glacier Real Estate's PR girl) read in between the lines, put two and two together, and for whatever reason came up with twenty-two. If I had to guess, the real estate companies are trying very hard to stall a bear market right now.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Got to read the whole article, not just the headline. The NDP said no such thing. The NDP's finance minister said:



In other words, the market hasn't tanked yet, it's just trending down - nothing Carole James said indicates any kind of uptick at all. But no, the author (literally Glacier Real Estate's PR girl) read in between the lines, put two and two together, and for whatever reason came up with twenty-two. If I had to guess, the real estate companies are trying very hard to stall a bear market right now.

Your going by what they said which is mostly bullshit. They made several lies. Follow the numbers please.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

Your going by what they said which is mostly bullshit. They made several lies. Follow the numbers please.

If there's bull, the smell's from the other side of the aisle. Property transfer tax revenue is down. Residential tax revenue is predicted to go up. That's it. Even the comments section thinks she's reaching.

We're expecting thirty thousand new arrivals a year, just in Metro Vancouver. More people living here means more tax money, right?

The predicted decline in housing starts, and corresponding concerns over supply, could well play into this scenario. The 2019 Budget forecast a drop in housing starts of up to 30 per cent across B.C. over the next three years. If this comes to pass, and housing demand starts to outweigh supply once more, we could see a return of the FOMO factor that drove up home sales and prices between 2015 and 2017.

If, if if. That's why it's an op-ed and not an article. I'd expect this crap from DailyHive, but not the Courier.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

If there's bull, the smell's from the other side of the aisle.

Explain the small business tax reduction from 2.5% to 2% in the 2019 budget announcement even though the tax has been 2% since 2017? The smell of shit is strong with this one.

http://www.summit107.com/news/east-k...from-2-5-to-2/

The BC Government says the small business corporate income tax rate will be reduced by 20%, retroactive to April 1, 2017.

https://www.bcndp.ca/latest/budget-m...-jamess-speech

Mr. Speaker, our government is working to set the stage for B.C.’s future economy. To this end, we are helping small business and entrepreneurs get ahead. We’ve cut the small business corporate income tax from 2.5% to 2%, making it the second lowest small business rate in Canada. And, as of April 1st this year, we are fully eliminating the PST on non-residential electricity.

[Changing City]

[QUOTE=misher;8490851]Explain the small business tax reduction from 2.5% to 2% in the 2019 budget announcement even though the tax has been 2% since 2017? The smell of shit is strong with this one./QUOTE]

You're probably too young to remember, but the 2017 Liberal budget was never passed. The Government never had the chance to pass it, because the NDP/Green government were sworn in, and they then introduced the reduction in small business tax that the Liberals had proposed, and backdated it to April 2017.

[misher]

[QUOTE=Changing City;8490882]

Originally Posted by misher

Explain the small business tax reduction from 2.5% to 2% in the 2019 budget announcement even though the tax has been 2% since 2017? The smell of shit is strong with this one./QUOTE]

You're probably too young to remember, but the 2017 Liberal budget was never passed. The Government never had the chance to pass it, because the NDP/Green government were sworn in, and they then introduced the reduction in small business tax that the Liberals had proposed, and backdated it to April 2017.

Yes but they announced that there doing it in the 2019 budget, just relying on voters short term memory I guess?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're probably too young to remember, but the 2017 Liberal budget was never passed...

Ouch, burn!

[Changing City]

[QUOTE=misher;8490893]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Yes but they announced that there doing it in the 2019 budget, just relying on voters short term memory I guess?

That's not how I read it. They announced that they were fully eliminating the PST on non-residential electricity. They also reminded you that they had also cut the small business corporate income tax. As the party that is accused of being "anti-business" they're keen to remind voters of all the wonderful things they've done for small business (and they'll obviously not mention any other tax changes that might have gone up). If they keep referencing it in their 2025 budget, it'll be a bit dodgy - even for politicians.

[misher]

[QUOTE=Changing City;8490998]

Originally Posted by misher

That's not how I read it. They announced that they were fully eliminating the PST on non-residential electricity. They also reminded you that they had also cut the small business corporate income tax. As the party that is accused of being "anti-business" they're keen to remind voters of all the wonderful things they've done for small business (and they'll obviously not mention any other tax changes that might have gone up). If they keep referencing it in their 2025 budget, it'll be a bit dodgy - even for politicians.

https://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2019/...tegic_Plan.pdf

I can't copy and paste the part but they list it as part of their 2019 fiscal plan as part of their $800 million in tax cuts. Interesting that suddenly the tax cuts from 2 years ago are now included in their plan for 2019....

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's not how I read it. They announced that they were fully eliminating the PST on non-residential electricity. They also reminded you that they had also cut the small business corporate income tax. As the party that is accused of being "anti-business" they're keen to remind voters of all the wonderful things they've done for small business (and they'll obviously not mention any other tax changes that might have gone up). If they keep referencing it in their 2025 budget, it'll be a bit dodgy - even for politicians.

Yes, it was a reminder. 2017 was a debacle after the election so they didn't get a chance to pass a budget until September 2017, where they retro-actively reduced small business tax from 2.5% to 2.0%, while increasing corporate tax rates from 11% to 12%.

See here:

https://www.taxtips.ca/bctax/bc-2017-sep-budget.htm

Regardless, we still line up favorably with other provinces:

https://www.taxtips.ca/smallbusiness...rates-2019.htm

And yes, misher was probably not born, or at least not old enough to read in 2017.