BC Election - May 9th, 2017

[rubecube]

I will say though that commissioning this study, getting a result that sort of agrees with their platform, and then proceeding to not kill the project because it would piss off their union crowd would be such a classic NDP move.

[Regorium]

I agree with the Site C cancellation at this point.

They've destroyed their natural resource industry to the point that Site C isn't needed.

They can continue flipping houses since that's really their only true wealth generating industry at this point.

[SebC]

How is Vancouver going to eliminate fossil fuels without huge increases in electricity production?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

How is Vancouver going to eliminate fossil fuels without huge increases in electricity production?

You could try reading the article but the general consensus is that BC could generate enough power from their current infrastructure plus increases they're expecting from wind and geothermal.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You could try reading the article but the general consensus is that BC could generate enough power from their current infrastructure plus increases they're expecting from wind and geothermal.

I read the article. It did not say that that was accounted for. You could try not being condescending all the time.

[opendoor]

It's right in the first 2 paragraphs:

BC Hydro's independent regulator says British Columbia could obtain power equivalent to that generated by the Site C dam from the province's existing hydroelectric infrastructure, at a savings of billions of dollars.


The B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC), in its final report on the Site C dam, swept aside BC Hydro's long-standing objections to reclaiming the power it currently sells to the United States under the Columbia River Treaty.

Essentially they're arguing that if BC used the power that they're entitled to under the treaty rather than selling it they'd have access to as much power as Site C would generate without having to spend $10+ billion on a megaproject. And that's basically correct. Site C is estimated to provide about 5100 GWH of power annually with a capacity of 1100 MW. Under the Columbia River Treaty Canada is entitled to about 4400 GWH of power annually with a capacity of 1250 MW from US producers on the Columbia River. Right now they sell most of that at pretty low price, but they could just as easily use that power in the province. The only real cost would be a loss of revenue and the capital costs required to upgrade the grid which are a pittance compared to what Site C will cost.

The only problem with that is that the treaty can be terminated with 10 years' notice, so it's not necessarily a reliable source of power when looking decades into the future. If they spend hundreds of millions upgrading the cross border transmission capacity only to have the treaty cancelled 10 years from now, then there'd be a problem. But if the treaty continues, it provides a much cheaper source of power than what Site C would generate.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's right in the first 2 paragraphs.

That does not say what is being included in the demand projections.

[spuzzum]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Are the BC NDP and Greens totally hell bent on any economic development in their province? These guys are so detached from reality it is insane.

Imagine had they been more hospitable to the various LNG projects & pipes, Transmountain Exp, Northern Gateway, Site C.....they'd have the hottest jobs market this side of Dubai.

My dislike for the NDP increases my stress levels. It's best not even to mention their idiotic policies. It's the same in AB as it was in BC - piss pour management of the economy and development and leads to years of debt and recession. They've dropped 2 billion on Site C only to have a change in government - let's stop and have another f*ing study. You can guarantee the pipelines are toast until a change in government and what irks me the most is they didn't even win.

[rubecube]

What a bunch of children.

http://timescolonist.com/news/local/...ure-1.23087193

Speaker Darryl Plecas upbraided his former Liberal colleagues Tuesday for using fake titles to identify NDP ministers in the B.C. legislature.

Plecas, who was tossed from the Liberal party in September for agreeing to serve as Speaker, denounced the name-calling and ordered it to stop.

The dispute began a few weeks ago when the Opposition began referring to NDP ministers by mock titles. Transportation Minister Claire Trevena became the “minister of taxis,” Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology Bruce Ralston the “minister of job loss” and Agriculture Minister Lana Popham “minister of intimidation.”

Plecas tried to halt the practice at the time, but Opposition House Leader Mike de Jong appeared to win the day by insisting that nothing in the house rules prevented such antics.

The hostilities resumed Monday when Jas Johal, the Liberal MLA for Richmond-Queensborough, referred to Trevena as the “minister of consultation paralysis.”

This time, Plecas instructed Johal to rephrase his question and address Trevena by her proper title. The Liberals objected, but Plecas refused to hear their arguments until later.

[opendoor]

While I think that kind of thing is pretty ridiculous, it's certainly not something that's exclusive to the BC Liberals. The NDP did the exact same thing when they were in opposition and Horgan readily admitted that he was guilty of that kind of behavior. Unfortunately heckling is pretty common during Question Period.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by opendoor

While I think that kind of thing is pretty ridiculous, it's certainly not something that's exclusive to the BC Liberals. The NDP did the exact same thing when they were in opposition and Horgan readily admitted that he was guilty of that kind of behavior. Unfortunately heckling is pretty common during Question Period.

Yeah, I was referring to everyone involved. It happens in the HoC too and I think it's pretty embarrassing.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I will say though that commissioning this study, getting a result that sort of agrees with their platform, and then proceeding to not kill the project because it would piss off their union crowd would be such a classic NDP move.

So you guys will never guess what happened...

[burn_this_city]

Having spent 40% of the cost they were already committed. $4B is a lot of dead money not earning a return.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Having spent 40% of the cost they were already committed. $4B is a lot of dead money not earning a return.

Bit of a sunk cost fallacy though when there's still $11B or more remaining to go on the project.

[burn_this_city]

The total is pegged at 10.7 and they've spent 4.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The total is pegged at 10.7 and they've spent 4.

So they only have to find 12 or 14 billion then to finish

[SebC]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The total is pegged at 10.7 and they've spent 4.

Yeah, so the question was "is it worth 6.7 to finish it", to which the answer was apparently close enough that opinions vary on what conclusions should be drawn. They could've killed it but chose not to.

Note that this suggests that the Liberals threw away the first 4.

[rubecube]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37664479/

Obviously a massive bluff by Weaver but this whole situation is absolutely hilarious on so many different fronts.