Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mykisscrazy]

I am someone who flip flops on this subject.

So in lets say 50 years - on the Ashlu - yes some darn fine Kayaking water will be gone, but more importantly how has the aquatic life fared....If it has improved since the logging days and is comparable to years past - Then is there a problem?

The Kokish is  one of my favorite rivers to fish on Vancouver Island. Here is the web site where one can find the Map that Nicole posted. I really think if you are interested have a look at it

http://www.kokishriver.com/

A lot of what I am reading is just plain NIMBYISM -
Development will occur - Power is required, there is a demand, but as in the Upper Pitt project the voice of the concerned was heard and that is on hold for the time being until they are able to figure out how to get around a provincial park.

I too feel we have to believe in our regulatory agencies, but at the same time are having a hard time with that. Problem here is with the elected ones, not with ones who entered public service to honestly make a difference.For some crazy reason our Provincial elected officials   are in the majority...I didn't vote for them and it seems that (at least on this site) no one voted for them....but how did they get a majority govt?

Rafe's article was interesting, we need people like that...It keeps the govt on it's toes. Somewhere there is a middle ground - How many more people are expected to live in BC in the next 50 to 100 years? We will need power...but at what cost. I would rather have Run of River Projects , over more large scale Hydro projects, coal fired plants, or nuclear!

[Bavarian Raven]

We will need power...but at what cost

correct me if i am wrong (and i easily could be, i am half asleep)
but is BC not a NET power EXPORTER?
so are these projects not just for pure profit vs not just to serve the needs of BC??

[Big Sinker]

I look at it this way.  Not all run-of-river projects have been marvels of environmental management, obviously.  There are some projects, however that have managed to stay out of the press, and why?  Because they were well-managed and that makes boring news.  It wouldn't be right to expect the steelhead fishery in the Vedder to be shut down because one person who has a blatant disrespect for the ecosystem bonks a wild steelie.  It would be more reasonable to hope that the other anglers who see this take the appropriate steps to make sure it didn't happen again through education and enforcement.  The same can be said for IPP's.  The companies that build these projects don't want to have them shut down because a competitor takes shortcuts and breaks the rules.  They have too much invested to take that chance.  Not all rivers are good candidates for these projects and as long as they are properly managed, they will, in my opinion, take a smaller toll on the environment than any other means of power generation that I have seen.  If we don't export power from British Columbia, projects like SE2 will go ahead just south of the border and unfortunately the environment doesn't stop at the 49th parallel.

Just out of curiosity, for the opponents of IPP's, what other means of power generation would you rather see?

[VAGAbond]

Take a look at the number of recent proposals from BC Hydro's web site:   

http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/clean_power_call/Proposals.html

This site doesn't identify the streams but some you can find out from the proponents web sites and many other you can guess.   The shear number is a problem.

The government loudly proclaims that all of these projects have to meet the environmental regulations.  True but the legislation exempts projects under 50 MW from review to determine if they actually do meet the regulations.   50 MW is a big plant, larger than most run-of-river projects.

In general I have assumed these projects really are above fish habitat but I am beginning to really doubt it.   Previously I had taken note of the map at the Tenderfoot Creek hatchery that shows the Ashlu to be a Chinook stream to well above where the water gets returned to the stream.    I am distressed about what Nicole has posted in respect to the Kokish, it is worse than I had imagined.

[skaha]

--What means of power generation would I like to see?

--How about we allocate and work within our existing power budget.
--We should explore technological efficiencies in transmission and generation from existing dam and flood control sites.
--More efficient means of utilizing the power...I'm sure we are willing to use energy conserving lights etc.
--I don't' see offering such bad alternatives that we reserect the site C project.

--We cannot just keep raising the limit on our electrical credit card without realizing we are going broke.
--I do not want to see IPP Independent power projects which I presume to be operated by the private sectare confused with run or river projects which could and should if necessary be built by at least a crown corporation such as BC Hydro as part of an integrated and comprehensive plan for all of BC including reasonable export of power to help fund the projects.
--In my view IPP's should be used for specific off the grid projects such as private ranches or industrial users such as a saw mill in a small town that produces energy for immediate consumption and some provision for selling of excess power in a specific geographic area.

--I do not want any of the power exported that is generated, transmitted or controlled by the private sectare.


 

[Big Sinker]

I agree with almost everything you say Skaha.  The only thing I see a problem with is letting BC Hydro build the projects as BC Hydro is already buying the power from the IPP's and selling and transmitting it for profit.  BC Hydro is a business and with all businesses $$$ can lead to poor decision making.

[Dave]

I don't mean to hijack this thread as it may be the most important and topical environmental subject I have read at this site, but, I'm curious why nuclear power is never considered an option for BC.

I am of course aware of the famous breakdowns, ie Chernoble (sp?) and the problem of radioactive waste disposal and the hot water produced .... but safe nuclear energy is common and accepted throughout the world, including Eastern North America.   How do other countries manage these environmental issues?    Why can't BC?

[Bavarian Raven]

because hydro is much cheeper and the waste product is not deadly...

I don't mean to hijack this thread as it may be the most important and topical environmental subject I have read at this site, but, I'm curious why nuclear power is never considered an option for BC.

I am of course aware of the famous breakdowns, ie Chernoble (sp?) and the problem of radioactive waste disposal and the hot water produced .... but safe nuclear energy is common and accepted throughout the world, including Eastern North America.   How do other countries manage these environmental issues?    Why can't BC?

[Dave]

Hi BR.  I acknowledge the risk of nuclear power but again I ask, how do other countries deal with these problems?  As to cost, how can that be measured?  What is the value of the steelhead pictured so wonderfully by Nicole?  Please understand, I am not arguing, just asking.

[Bavarian Raven]

Hi BR.  I acknowledge the risk of nuclear power but again I ask, how do other countries deal with these problems?  As to cost, how can that be measured?  What is the value of the steelhead pictured so wonderfully by Nicole?  Please understand, I am not arguing, just asking.

i am on your side in this.  i fully agree about the natural beauty. but i also dislike nuclear power, becuz usually when hydro goes wrong the effects are not as dangerous. usually. that being said, like i have mentioned before somewhere (i think in this thread), the way these run of the river projects is being managed is disgraceful

[patagonia]

Big Sinker... the point is BC does not need anymore power!!! we have more than enough already!!! the province is selling these rivers and exporting the power for profit....

[chris gadsden]

Here is some more reading on the subject.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/08/24/wildassassins/

[Bavarian Raven]

Here is some more reading on the subject.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/08/24/wildassassins/

while i have read up on the bute inlet project, thanks again for this new link. havent read this one before. and it's sickening. ruining a place such as bute inlet (never been there, but from what i have seen online and via a friend who travelled there a while back). now if only the people of the province and canada actually knew how bad these things were, they might just finally stand up and say enough is enough...

[purple monster]

we do not have the equipment to handle nuclear power.  the Candu reactor appears to be a piece of junk.
Or, of course, a nice restoration project , with a stimulus.

[bluesteele]

Here's and idea. I will preface this by saying "from what I have read BC is a "NET EXPORTER" of energy.

BUT lets for arguments sake buy into the propaganda being flung around that we need more power.

Would we not be better off to bump the output of our current infrastructure ? Or if we believe that
our current infrastrucure is too old and out of date to increase capacity why not build a big frickin dam
sacrifices would obviuosly be made but think about this.

One or let me go out on a limb two dams. Or we can have 500 smaller ROR projects...OH WAIT dont include
BUTE INLET as uhh...small doesnt work their folks cause its frickin HUGE !!!!!!!!!!!!

We can build new roads all over hells half acre for these ridiculous projects to be constructed.
We can build more for transmission lines for  HMMMM.... HUNDREDs of small (used loosely) ROR's.

I dont know about you but hundreds and hundreds of small projects makes no sense both financially
or environmentally to BC CITIZENS.

OH YEAH I almost forgot  DUH...ROR's dont have the ability to hold water. Silly me. Lets build hundreds of these
projects so they can pump the power out in the springtime. Cause we all know how much energy we use in the
spring with warm temps. longer daylight. Damn I hardly use any in the winter.

But hey California can get damn warm in the springtime ......with AC's cranking so that would be a great little market to sell to.

I agree with almost everything you say Skaha.  The only thing I see a problem with is letting BC Hydro build the projects as BC Hydro is already buying the power from the IPP's and selling and transmitting it for profit.  BC Hydro is a business and with all businesses $$$ can lead to poor decision making.

Big Stinker I am a little confused. Being a simple guy I really dont grasp what you mean by saying with all businesses $$$$$$$
can lead to poor decision making. Maybe you can explain. Do you mean BC HYDRO ? or do you mean all others.

I am also a little confused with you saying we need to have faith in our regulatory agencies. ?
Lets clear this up... Faith in regulatory agencies you say.. OK... but dont have faith in BC Hydro you say ... OK....
Have faith in the hundreds of co's involved in these projects.....OK...... Hmmmm seems like
you cant make up your mind.

Maybe you can explain why the profits from ROR projects would be better in the pockets of others than BC Hydro ?
Profits that re used to fund healthcare education etc....

How will profits in various public corps pockets be better than BC Hydro's...

How will hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of ROR proj's. be better than a large scale dam that would have the ability
to hold energy use it when necessary.

Our all of our current energy producing dams plants to old to upgrade ?



OH LOOKIE what I found for those that have not been up the Ashlu....This pic tho is only a small part of the
Ashlu project. This is a little ways  above the 50/50 bridge what you dont see is the tunnels bored through the
mountains for this diverted water to run through to the lower river.



Some great Steelhead in that river or their used to be....

Well thats all folks.

Bluesteele