Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: hammer on January 12, 2010, 08:00:09 PM
-
On Monday night there was a meeting involving stakeholders and various groups in regards to "Run of the River" power projects in B.C. As outdoor enthusiasts, the development of these is something to know about. I am not an expert, but I as I understand it, licensing rights and the right to develop infrastructure like roads and related developments is being alloted to private as well as foreign investment groups. Craig Orr from Watershed Watch has alot of information as well as concerns (google "watershed watch" + "Vancouver Sun") in several articles as well on the Watershed Watch site. Here is a link from BCTC with existing and proposed projects
http://www.bctc.com/NR/rdonlyres/85300512-02FD-4948-A720-2F5F1835CD2D/0/ILM_EA_fig10_1.pdf
What struck me was how many there are on the north side of Fraser in the Harrison area, particularly on systems that have fragile number of wild stocks (Examples, Cogburn, Big Silver, Statlu). I would like to know who the regulatory body is for these projects. I also understand that projects under a certain size (production) will be operating under less stringent regulations (whatever that means). Water Licensing information is available by googling B.C. water license report. It indicates that many of these sites are designated for "storage" and "general power". At any rate, a network of roads, developments, access control, and powerlines will probably affect my experience and fish I fish for.
I am not usually political and I don't have all the facts, but I think this is worthwhile knowing. I would like to note that Eagleeye brought this up on Nov. 25, 2009.
Thanks, Hammer
-
Thanks for this post hammer.
As you state, IPP's are poised to be BC's next major environmental concern, mainly due to the infrastructure involved to move this energy from source to user. It is my understanding ALL major tributaries to the Chilliwack River watershed are being considered or have been approved for "Run of the River" pp's (pending environmental reviews). Obviously, all animals that depend on these watercourses will be affected.
IPP's have been touted as the great green alternative and perhaps in some cases this is correct, but let's hope public input will at least have some weight in the approval procedures that will soon be coming.
-
Unfortunately from the experience we have encountered with the gravel removal projects on the Fraser River if a government wants a project to go ahead it will no matter what. On many projects the proper environmental studies are not done properly or at all. These days in many cases the civil service fear for their jobs so they just do want they are told to do and say. Try getting information by Freedom of Information. It not only can cost money, it takes a long time to get answers and in many cases so much of what you receive is blacked out.
The only way things can be changed if you get a huge public outcry, like happened on the Pitt project a while back. What governments have on their side is public apathy and if they wait long enough some groups get burnt out and fade away.
It is so sad as we enter another decade our environment, waterways, fish and other wildlife are still being destroyed on so many fronts by a government that puts money ahead of preserving what many of us hold so dear to our hearts.
-
If the BC Liberals could harness energy from force marching grannies on treadmills they would. :P
-
Hello all. I am new to this forum and I have to say that I am a little bit intrigued by this thread. I am currently working on a run of river project. I am an avid fisherman and outdoorsman and I have to say that I am proud of the environmental consideration that goes into the building of one of these projects. Please, voice your concerns, but make sure you are educated in the environmental impacts before we go and bang our drums too loudly. Never before have I worked in the woods of BC and been so happy with what I see in regards to environmental controls and measures.
-
Well Ok... here is a great video to educate yourself on independent run of river power projects, its worth a watch - Any project that changes a river from its original state is NOT green.... especially these
http://www.downstreammedia.net/TheRangeLife/Video/49megawattsweb.mov (http://www.downstreammedia.net/TheRangeLife/Video/49megawattsweb.mov)
-
Let's see... we can take some of the water out of the river (above a waterfall so there are no fish), run it through a pipe and make electricity, then put the water back in that same river. You are right, not green at all. Perhaps my next job can be building a natural gas or coal burning power plant.
-
Welcome to the forum Big Sinker and for your input, more responses will be coming I am sure. ;D
-
Welcome big sinker.
I looked for your profile , but did not find it. you should forward your profile, if not done.
One pipe along a big river would probably not make a big splash, well, until you look at the video posted prior to your response. Have you looked at the video???
There is a lot of damages done by the roads and all the set up. How significant is that ??/ There is a lot more than just laying a pipe.
I understand also that each project is individually studied for their environmental impact, and that there is not complete study for all the pipe projects planned on one river. I would like to see your comments with regards to the damages and removal of pristine areas for the laying of the pipes. Just a little pipe , here and there, that all.
-
Let's see... we can take some of the water out of the river (above a waterfall so there are no fish), run it through a pipe and make electricity, then put the water back in that same river. You are right, not green at all. Perhaps my next job can be building a natural gas or coal burning power plant.
--I agree: not all run of river projects are bad, given the alternatives, some projects should be considered. My concerns are with the gold rush mentality and privatization of water in BC. With run of river projects and new water licensing procedures our once public resource is now in the hands of private companies and individual's.
-
Did u watch the video??? Have you been to the Ashulu??? I have both fished and kayaked that Ashulu before and after the project and what was slated to be a green project COMPLETELY changed the river and its landscape... huge destruction... yes they put the water back into the river but the destruction to do that is hardly green and without impact!
-
this sounds just like our development mentality in our immediate surrounding. We rush to cash in on new urban development, analyzing each individual impact on each individual project surrounding, but never as a whole. so , we end up with lost of agricultural land, congested roads, increased noise and pollution and so on. Each little project take their toll, and end up as a bigger mess.
all that, from quick cash developers or river barons, all the same.
-
this sounds just like our development mentality in our immediate surrounding. We rush to cash in on new urban development, analyzing each individual impact on each individual project surrounding, but never as a whole. so , we end up with lost of agricultural land, congested roads, increased noise and pollution and so on. Each little project take their toll, and end up as a bigger mess.
all that, from quick cash developers or river barons, all the same.
Exactly, as Rafe Mair said in his recent book "What The Bleep Is Going On Here" what seem as relatively minor abuses of our environment by the government and others in time these "relatively minor" abuses add up in time to a catastrophe.
He also writes our oceans did not become close to fishless because of minor environmental sins but by the accumulations of many.
A book worth reading by anyone interested in how governments get what they want as he of course was in Provincial politics for a term as well as Social Credit Cabinet Minister.
-
Anyone who thinks there is a way to make electricity without impacting the environment is being naive. Thee important thing to consider is trying to find the way to create the least impact. For everyone who is opposed to Run of River power, what suggestions do you have for a less-destructive alternative? I watched the video of the Ashlu, and I believe that most of the land clearing you see is from the construction of the transmission line. It does not matter where we make the power, we still need to get it to the grid. By no means is every waterway a good candidate for a power project. We need to put some faith in the regulatory agencies and their abilities and interest in doing the proper studies and regulating this industry. We know for sure the effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment, we know for sure the environmental impacts of wind farms and their reliability, we understand the destruction caused by hydro dams. Don't let the video of the Ashlu lead you to believe that all projects are the same.
-
Well what are we supposed to believe. Taking a look at the Ashlu, how could we possible think they are doing any better on any other rivers? You are the naive one my friend. Don't think you are helping anything, because you are making it worse.
-
We need to put some faith in the regulatory agencies and their abilities and interest in doing the proper studies and regulating this industry.
Wow I can not believe you actually typed this. You want people to put faith in an agency that constantly cuts staff to the point where it is impossible for them to regulate anything. An agency that says it is ok to remove gravel from a river for flood control when it is proven that it will not do anything. An agency that says this is green power but even California can not buy the power from it because they say it is not green power ( and they buy more power from us then anyone). An agency that allows water to be pumped out of our rivers at an alarming rate when rivers are at their lowest and killing fish. How can anyone put faith in that.
-
An agency that doesn't limit leader lengths... good point.
-
An agency that doesn't limit leader lengths... good point.
We don't discuss this subject at this time of year. ;D
-
C'mon guys, hear Big Sinker out. We may all learn something from this - understand, these IPP'S will happen and knowledge regarding them is a good thing. Hey BS (sorry about that!) I'm with Chris in welcoming you to this forum but be prepared to catch a lot of s**t. Which project are you involved with? What is your background?
-
We don't discuss this subject at this time of year. ;D
Gee sorry Chris...Did I strike a nerve there? :)
As much as I'd like to say who I work for and where I'm working, I think I will stay anonymous for a while at least. With the political microscope directly over our heads I think it may be a bad career move if you know what I mean.
Dave, thanks for the backup... I was thinking I may have fallen into a shark tank here!!!
-
The real insanity of the situation in this- the power is not needed for BC it is being SOLD to the USA... we have enough energy to power this province with existing dams and hydro sources... these new projects are exploiting our resources for sale to the US...
-
First of all, I'm a monster, not a shark. I love to catch one, except the dog shark. Reading this post, and watching the video, reminded me of that song. PARADISE, by John Prine, or is it Steve Goodman? I like it all the way up to this part;
D G D
Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
D A D
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
D G D
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was for- saken
D A D
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
remember the traffic jamb. We all need to go somewhere too. We all know we need the electricity. What most of us don't like is the way they go and get it, and then how they provide it to us, making sure their needs are met as well.
-
I am happy to have generated the concern and, hopefully, some sharing of ideas and politcal opinions. I'm not ready to dismiss "Run of the River" projects as a potential source of energy (that doesn't require burning something or fission). I think they need to be done with extreme caution, especially on local system (perhaps not at all). I say "local" systems because of tremendous value these contribute both culturally and economically. For example, love it or hate it, the Chilliwack River and her fish generate a huge amount of revenue, simply by having fish. Any stream or trib. that has a wild stock of steelhead and is withing 150 kilometer of Vancouver is of tremendous value. My main concerns are summed up in the following points (any enlightenment or commentary would be great).
-As far as having faith in the regulatory bodies, who are they for these projects? We've heard the stories of environmental assessments being stategically done after fry have outmigrated and the tributary is designated "non fish-bearing" (maybe no assessment done at all).
-How much foreign and private ownership is there? Particularly with water and licensing rights?
-What avenues for public input are there?
-Finally, how did we do on Brohm Creek? Thanks, Hammer
-
Hey Hammer... watch that video link that I provided... it answers all your questions.
-
For those that may have missed the editorial on this subject.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/08/10/PrivatePower/
-
Take a look at this image:
(http://www.kokishriver.com/_Global/6/img/content/map_lg(1).jpg)
See the area named "intake location"? Now look for the words above it that say "approximate penstock route"
The area in between these two points is a summer run steelhead over wintering ground, and soon to be re-directed into a pipe, for 9 km down to almost the point where the river enters telegraph cove.
Here is an area right in between these two points:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2427/3971628728_e4541391e7_b.jpg)
Guess what those are in the picture? Take a long hard look past your wallet and you might see.
And what does their environmental assessment suggest? Build a fish ladder so the steelhead can get over the dam weir.
How do you explain this? Above a waterfall my ***!
Lies, lies, greenwashing, more lies. All for a freaking buck.
>:(
Nicole
Let's see... we can take some of the water out of the river (above a waterfall so there are no fish), run it through a pipe and make electricity, then put the water back in that same river. You are right, not green at all. Perhaps my next job can be building a natural gas or coal burning power plant.
-
Well well well. Look what Nicole found. Care to explain yourself Big Sinker?
-
While majority of the participants may disagree with what Big Sinker has to say, I expect all to present their opinions in the discussion respectfully. So far he has done so, you should do the same in return if your objective is to see your point of view.
-
i guess its time to throw my 2 cents in, being as i am a student of environmental studies and all 8) ::)
the theory behind these "run of the river" projects is decent. the idea to take a small portion of water from a river, generate electricity with it, and then return it back to the river. sounds (and is) a great idea, if done in such a way as to not harm the river. now the problem is, us humans are a greedy lot. we want the most bang for our buck, and dont (well most of us anyway) give a damn what it takes or does to our surrounding, so long as we make some profit.
now in my studies i have read some of these 'reports' and 'ecological assessments' that have been done on some of these rivers before dams and other developments have taken place. some of them were well done (when it seemed for the most part, they were done by either local-ish departments or by groups who actually care about the environment). whereas most of the time, the company just wants to develope asap, and the ecological impact surveys are glossed over. and in the end, no one really knows the damage being done, and the companies could care less, for they are making big bucks. >:(
and the problem is, like with that valley shown in the video (which i suddenly cannot remember the name of), once the damage is done. it is done "forever" (in a human point of view). and not only is the river altered, but everything depending on the river and its fish, from green rock slimes up to bears and even the forests benefit from strong fish returns (read up about the impact of salmon on trees and their growth rates).
anyways... what gets me the most is, how the community said NO to the project but the government basically said, too bad so sad, we're gona do it anywhere. its for the best interest of everyone (aka, their own pockets) lol, so much for democracy... :(
anyways rant over... >.>
-
What is the definition of speak your opinion respectfully in this particular topic? It is quite clear a lot of us in this topic strongly disagree with Big Sinker's thoughts. Sorry if my deleted post was "disrespectful", but Big Sinker can't tell us it is anywhere near a green project. What is going on with OUR rivers is nothing but a disgrace. I have yet to see proof of a well run "Run of the River Project." Until then, my opinion is never going to change, because puting one of these projects on any river system surely causes damage one way or another, and absolutely screws with it's ecosystem.
Quote : Big Sinker
"We need to put some faith in the regulatory agencies and their abilities and interest in doing the proper studies and regulating this industry."
By looks of it, it has never happened. A prime example is the Ashlu. How can we put any faith in the regulatory agencies??? :-X
-
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!
-
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??
-
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?
-
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.
-
--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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. 8) 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
-
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....
-
Here is some more reading on the subject.
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/08/24/wildassassins/
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 $$$$$$$
can lead to poor decision making. Maybe you can explain. Do you mean BC HYDRO ? or do you mean all others.
I am also a little confused with you saying we need to have faith in our regulatory agencies. ????
Lets clear this up... Faith in regulatory agencies you say.. OK... but dont have faith in BC Hydro you say ... OK....
Have faith in the hundreds of co's involved in these projects.....OK...... Hmmmm seems like
you cant make up your mind.
Maybe you can explain why the profits from ROR projects would be better in the pockets of others than BC Hydro ????
Profits that re used to fund healthcare education etc....
How will profits in various public corps pockets be better than BC Hydro's...???
How will hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of ROR proj's. be better than a large scale dam that would have the ability
to hold energy use it when necessary.
Our all of our current energy producing dams plants to old to upgrade ?
OH LOOKIE what I found for those that have not been up the Ashlu....This pic tho is only a small part of the
Ashlu project. This is a little ways above the 50/50 bridge what you dont see is the tunnels bored through the
mountains for this diverted water to run through to the lower river.
(http://i496.photobucket.com/albums/rr322/bluesteelefx/P1000768greenpowerhahaha.jpg)
Some great Steelhead in that river or their used to be....
Well thats all folks.
Bluesteele ;D
-
I agree with almost everything you say Skaha. The only thing I see a problem with is letting BC Hydro build the projects as BC Hydro is already buying the power from the IPP's and selling and transmitting it for profit. BC Hydro is a business and with all businesses $$$ can lead to poor decision making.
Sort of let the cat out of the bag with that statement big stinker. What's a IPP, a social club.
-
That is why I say put some faith in regulatory agencies, not BC Hydro or the owners of IPP's. BC Hydro is a business, not a regulatory agency.
-
I dont know about you but hundreds and hundreds of small projects makes no sense both financially or environmentally to BC CITIZENS.
I agree.
It's stupid to build a bunch of small projects with all the environmental damage (roads, soil erosion, water diversion, etc) that goes with it.
What do they call it - "Death by a thousand cuts"?
Build a giant dam somewhere if we need more power.
-
-I just try to do the best I can with the cards dealt. I'm no fan of BC Hydro, in fact I believe I picketed and protested over their site C proposal. We have enough dams. We may or may not... depending on who you believe need more power.
--My house is electric heat. I've upgraded insulation, I use an evaporation cooler rather than air conditioner etc. I'm on Fortis not hydro but that is geographic and not really something I could choose.
--I have a boat with a 4 stroke engine.. 1/2 my friends say great to the 4 stroke, the other half say any engine is just pollution for pleasure and I should be ashamed of myself for using one.
--I am all for run of river projects as part of the power solution, however I got sucked in. I was not envisioning the size and scope of projects currently proposed. I want to see someone please with a comprehensive plan for at least the whole province. It must be debated in the legislature not the board room. I have no faith the current government will do this and very little faith that it will be a priority of any of the other parties. We have to make it a priority, they're supposed to be our representatives. I want to know what we can do not what we can't do.
--Regulatory agencies are not as (in my opinion) effective nor proactive under the current regime of results based. Essentially if the company says they can fix it or are taking reasonable risk there is no reason to stop them. That is why often the only comment from MOE or MOF on a project is to follow current practices and procedures. They cannot give direction on what would be preferred as an option.
-
BC gets relatively low cost electric power because our parents took a risk and had BC Hydro build some large and controversial but economic projects like Mica, Revelstoke and so on. New power will cost more no matter who builds it. The government likes the independent run-of-river plants because they get economic activity with no public investment but the developers get a guaranteed purchase agreement from Hydro for long enough to pay for their plant. So you and me pay for the plant and in the end they own it. If we had Hydro build the plants, it may be costlier or cheaper but eventually our children own the asset.
Can the independent producers build the plants at lower cost than Hydro? Perhaps, possibly by cutting corners like environmental preservation, but the largest project cost is typically the cost of money and near government organizations like Hydro get it at a lower rate than private developers. So we will be paying to the developer the higher financing costs plus his profit and in the end we don't own anything.
When Hydro has paid off the financing on a plant, you and me own it and the continuing output is very inexpensive. This can put our children in a competitive position. When the initial purchase agreement with independent producers ends, the power comes back onto the market at current market rates.
So these independent producers are not a very good buy for Hydro's ratepayers IMHO.
-
Today's Vancouver Sun had a related article on large corporation energy waste in order to maintain rates based on usage. That being said, I contacted and donated to Watershed Watch and got some more information that should be noted by all. Note the links that show pending projects/existing projects, also the contact for Environmental Assessment Office. Anglers should monitor this because the time frame in really short on some of them. I remember the letters I wrote for the Brohm creek issue. Anyway, here it is:
Thank you for both your donation and your interest in the work we have been doing around the impacts of run of river projects. It is an incredibly important issue and one that we have been working on for a while.
In terms of additional information, the first place I would suggest you start is our website (www.watershed-watch.org) and take a look at the publication section for some relevant reports and also take a look at the presentations from the recent Green Energy Conference sponsored by Watershed Watch and Simon Fraser University (http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/coastalGreenEnergy.htm (the full meeting proceedings will be available soon).
A great website that tracks run of river projects in BC can be found at http://www.ippwatch.info/w/. This map is updated regularly and gives an overview of all proposed projects in BC.
Citizen input in these projects has been an ongoing issue. There are opportunities to comment on projects while they are undergoing an assessment by the BC Environmental Assessment Office (http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/), but this is a time sensitive process and one that we have continually called inadequate.
The BC government has also recently launched a comment period on proposed changes to the Water Act and on the implementation of the Living Water Smart program (http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/). Although this is a broad initiative targeting a variety of water issues, we feel that there may be an opportunity to address the run of river issue specifically.
These are good resources and all have links to further sites and additional information. If you need anything else, please do not hesitate to contact us and thank you again for your interest.
Thank you,
Stina Hanson
Administrative Coordinator
Watershed Watch Salmon Society
wwss@telus.net
604-936-9474
-
Please note that I am no Stina Hanson from Watershed Watch but that is simply the informative part of her email to me.
Thanks,
Hammer
-
thanks for the info hammer... 8)
-
I really think the bottom line is get involved... internet rants and bitching is useless without real involvement... this is a time of year most clubs are renewing membership... they advocate for all of us... spend $30 and support these groups which lobby against these types of projects on your behalf because most of us dont have the time or inclination... steelhead soc of BC ... Seymour river society... ect great groups that actually do something...