Site C Decision Premature Without Thorough Review

VICTORIA, BC—The BCSEA is calling for a thorough public review and discussion of the complex issues surrounding the proposed  Site C dam project, in light of the risk that the dam will flood too much valuable agricultural land, and other renewable energy options such as BC’s enormous wind power potential have not been considered, says Guy Dauncey, President of the BC Sustainable Energy Association.

“Site C would enable us to electrify our vehicle fleet and cut fossil-fuel use, but it would also destroy 4,700 hectares of the best farmland in northern BC, which will be urgently needed in a likely future with no food coming out of California by 2050 due to climate change melting the Sierra Nevada snowpack,” said Dauncey.

“For the same $6.6 billion,” Dauncey said, “BC could commission 2,200 MW or more of wind energy, generating 7,000 GWh or more a year of power, at least 50% more than Site C’s 4,600 GWh a year.”

“There has been no process to show that Site C’s power is needed and how it would fit into BC’s overall energy plan, especially given BC’s ambitious conservation plans,” said Tom Hackney, Vice-President for Policy. “Many questions remain before we can say that the extensive impacts on First Nations, local residents and the environment would be justified by the broader benefits.”

“The environmental assessment of Site C must include a thorough assessment of the greenhouse gas impacts of the reservoir, including methane, and the full agricultural impacts of the loss of the potential farmland, including the carbon emissions created by trucking that much food up to the Peace region,” said Dauncey.

“We need a full and transparent process to determine if the project is really the best energy option,” said Hackney. “This goes beyond the capability of the environmental assessment process, which is effectively limited to mitigation. At the Utilities Commission, the parties can thoroughly examine all the options and evidence. Another option would be an independent inquiry, empowered both to assess the technical and planning issues and to hear the views of those affected.”

Site C would generate some 4,600 Gigawatt-hours a year of electricity, adding about ten percent to BC Hydro’s existing hydroelectric supply. Roughly 80% of British Columbia’s total energy use is through fossil fuel combustion, of which motor vehicle transportation contributes about half. Electrifying BC’s vehicle fleet would increase electricity demand by some 10,000 Gigawatt-hours per year. BC Hydro forecasts its energy savings from conservation to be 10,900 GWh/y by 2020. BC Hydro’s preliminary estimate of the cost-effective renewable energy potential in BC is 79,000 GWh/y (based on information in the BCUC long-term transmission inquiry).

Site C would flood 4,700 hectares of agricultural land, a fifth of the Peace Valley’s agricultural total, which includes the best quality land in northern BC. It would also threaten the microclimate that allows the valley its high productivity, and flood much of the valley-bottom wetlands that provide critical habitat for moose, deer and other wildlife. It would also disrupt wildlife migration corridors, and disrupt local fisheries.

The Site C dam would also impact the rights of First Nations in the Treaty 8 group, including the West Moberly and Salteau First Nations, who have communities in the Peace Valley.

For more information, contact:

Tom Hackney 250-381-4463

Guy Dauncey 250-881-1304

 

Notes:

Wind data: The European Wind Energy Association estimates the current price of wind energy at Euros 1.227 million per MW ($1.64 million). For $6.6 billion, you could buy 4,000 MW of wind energy. See www.ewea.org/index.php?id=1639. The cost in BC may be closer to $3 million per MW, yielding 2,200 MW for $6.6 billion.

 

Site C’s capacity factor is 58%, expected to produce 4,600 GWh a year with a capacity of  900 MW. Modern wind energy capacity factor in sites with good wind (of which BC has many) is around 35%. 4,000 MW at 35% capacity would produce some 12,000 GWh a year. If wind energy costs $3 million per MW, $6.6 billion could build 2,200 MW of wind energy, which would generate 6,800 GWh/yr, 50% more power than Site C.

 

Methane: When agricultural land is flooded, the carbon stored in the soil is released as methane, which traps 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over 100 years, and over 100 times more during the 8.4 years before the methane breaks down into its constituent molecules.

See www.internationalrivers.org/node/1398

 

Solar data: For $6.6 billion, at today’s installed price of $7.50 per peak watt, you could buy 825 MW of solar energy. With a capacity factor of 20%, (assuming 2,000 hours of sunshine a year) this would generate 1,445 GWh a year.

 

Solar PV can be planned and installed in three years, compared to ten years for Site C. By 2020, the installed price of Solar PV will likely have fallen to $5.00 per peak watt, enabling $6.6 billion to purchase 1,300 MW, generating 2,300 GWh a year. This would still be less than 50% of Site C’s power production.