I read the article about Site C written by Vaughn Palmer in the Citizen newspaper. Vaughn presented his opinion on the details of the review but missed the big picture. Here is the excerpt from the Site C review on the lead page:
"The benefits are clear. Despite high initial costs, and some uncertainty about when the power would be needed, the Project would provide a large and long-term increment of firm energy and capacity at a price that would benefit future generations. It would do this in a way that would produce a vastly smaller burden of greenhouse gases than any alternative save nuclear power, which B.C. has prohibited. The Project would improve the foundation for the integration of other renewable, low-carbon energy sources as the need arises. The Project would also entail a number of local and regional economic benefits, though many of these would be transfers from other parts of the province or country. Among them would be opportunities for jobs and small businesses of all kinds, including those accruing to Aboriginal people."
Vaughn's point was not without validity - just the focus was lost on the small print.
Hydro energy is the cleanest and least expensive for significant long term energy needs. Delaying the construction further will only increase the price. The cost of electricity in BC today is one of the lowest in the world, almost exclusively hydro. Most people's cell phone bills are greater than the home electricity bill. Site C will be more expensive than other dams and long term rates will need to increase, like everything else. It"s called inflation - check you food bill.
Energy is the cornerstone of a strong economy. Clean energy like hydro is the ultimate. The best example of hydro influencing industry/economy is Alcan at Kitimat. Alcan is there because of the availability of hydro electricity. Today, the Northwest Transmission line is providing electricity to develop the area north of Terrace. Industry needs good dependable energy.
Every hydro dam built in BC had its issues and dissention but today, which hydro dams would one choose to shut down to reclaim the land? I suspect none! The dissension disappears when the benefits appear.
Instead of opposing hydro dams, BC should be focussed on locations where construction of dams would both improve the land and provide electricity. I am sure there are locations where the spring run-off (flood plain) is such that building a dam might provide for better farm land or wildlife areas - such as the two previous Peace River dams did to create the now contentious valuable Site C farmland.
A strong economy is driven by a good supply of reasonably priced energy. Hydro energy provides the cleanest practical energy. BC has the topography and precipitation most countries would envy. We can provide a good and secure lifestyle for generations to come. We need to get beyond the fine print and politics.
Build the dam.
Gerry Lundquist
Prince George
