Saturday, September 02, 2017

How Soon Until The 'Numbers' Say We Will Be Rolling In Dough If We Put Site C To Bed Forever And Ever Ahmet Ertegun?

AllTheirBillions'R
UsVille


Remember all those proMedia outlets who swallowed that $7.3 billion number of Hydro's whole re: the shutdown of Site C?

Well...

Turns out that number is, also according to Hydro, just a little high and outside according to Energetic City:

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story stated that it would cost BC Hydro $7.3 billion to cancel the Site C project. That cost, according to Hydro’s submission to the BCUC, also included the costs to ratepayers of acquiring alternative generating capacity and resources. The cost, according to BC Hydro’s submission, is actually roughly $3 billion...


Now.

Based on the Jessica M-led Clarklandian crown corp's "Get-It-Past-The-Point-Of-No-Return" track record when it comes to predictions and numbers and all that, one has to wonder if shutting the thing down will actually start refilling the public purse sometime round about Christmastime.

Or some such thing.


_____
A mo' better, snarkolepsy-free analysis of what the real costs are and why can be found in Matt Preprost's Alaska Highway News piece....Here.


.

7 comments:

Keith. said...

Read the article in the Alaska Highway News, one line among many stuck out..

It ( BC Hydro) "also maintains that new energy and capacity resources are needed within the next decade, with or without LNG."


The Danes have had it figured out for quite a while now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

As have the Spanish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Spain

Two countries with very different geography and weather conditions.

Or we could build the odd gas generating plant should we need to, seems there isn't much of market elsewhere despite our recently departed LNG advocate's best efforts.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/breakthrough/meet-the-new-generation-of-power-plants/article13094600/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

RossK said...

Thanks Keith--

Ya, the usual suspects seem to be going with that future need gambit as justification now...

Norm Farrell has pretty much destroyed that argument with, as Norm always does, real actual numbers instead of made-up ones.


.

J MacDuff said...

Gee, having spend many years forecasting weather, I can honestly say that BC Hydro's forecasts are not researched, studied or competent in any way. Plus the MSM carries the "way out" stories and then state a tiny bit about reality and then they let it sit. People forget the small corrections. The Liberals are still engineering the media in BC.

RossK said...

JM--

It's all those PAB-Bot ghosts in the media machine!


.

Armand Bourque said...

We have a totally untapped resource in b.c.,adjacent to vancouver, with several,or several dozen,further site's throughout b.c.,I. E. short transmission lines. Harrison what springs? Geothermal in n. America stops at the border. Thanks ,Gordy &Christy!

e.a.f. said...

even if it cost $7B we would still be ahead of the game to shut Site C down. its going to cost a lot more to build and maintain the monstrosity. $3B to shut it down is a deal. Once the bleeding of money stop for the dam, we can use it for other things, like paying B.C. Hydro's debt down.

now that more correct information is out there, lets hope people pay attention.

G. Barry Stewart said...

I'm amazed that contractors didn't write some cancellation clauses into their contracts… unless the current contracts would actually be fulfilled, before a "shut 'er down" order came.

It's good to know that no further wasted money would be lost, if the shut-down does occur.