View Single Post
Old 10-27-2023, 10:36 AM   #15692
Cappy
#1 Goaltender
 
Cappy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Exp:
Default

I mean, there is some Trump/Kenny games in that:

Oh, i know an investor...

Oh, i have talked to people..

Sure you did.

Also, she is picking apart a very niche section of environmentalist who look at solely wind/solar. Of course we all know about baseload - but we have come to the conclusion that Nuclear is the option moving forward.

The province actually has the ability to push incentives that way - but, instead lets start mining more coal.

Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say Site "C" took 70 years to make.

The site was officially proposed to the BC Utilities Commission in the 1980's. There were several attempts to bring it back and then it was exempted in 2010 from further review to push it through.

The issue is Hydro is easily the most impactful energy project on the environment (not GHG) considering the extensive flooding etc. There were also massive treaty issues in the area.

Nuclear would not suffer from the same land-use issues.

Last edited by Cappy; 10-27-2023 at 10:39 AM.
Cappy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post: