Re: “Site C is ideal clean-energy option for B.C,” comment, March 7.
Further to Bob Evans’ commentary on Site C, his would be a good argument if not for the uncomfortable facts that there’s no market for the power, and Site C is anything but the lowest-cost alternative.
Demand is flat, and has been for more than a decade. With rising prices, demand is likely to stay low. And prices are already guaranteed to rise, even without Site C, because B.C. Hydro needs billions in new capital just for the renovation of existing facilities.
Building Site C just means having to flog the excess power into a flat U.S. market at spot-market prices, perhaps one-third of the cost of generation.
Evans says we have enormous storage capacity in our existing reservoirs, but can’t absorb cheaper intermittent sources such as solar or wind because we haven’t got enough storage capacity. He’s half right. It’s precisely because we have so much storage that (as Hydro says) we can integrate so much inexpensive renewable energy.
More, the renewables can be built in smaller packets as demand evolves, instead of in one multi-decade, multibillion-dollar loss. And large environmental and social costs can be avoided.
Harry Swain
Victoria
