Once again Mr. Fletcher has failed to disappoint in his effort to play a lap dog for the current government. It is rather dispiriting, as the very premise of his column is to attack the BCUC (British Columbia Utilities Commission) while unquestionably favoring the governmental position. In other words, Mr. Fletcher is all woo willing to denigrate this consumer protection institution while lionizing the brave politicians that the BCUC is actually designed to protect us from. If this is the case, what is the point of the BCUC’s existence in the first place?
However, I do not believe that Mr. Fletcher is absolutely in favor of limiting democracy. It is only convenient to attack the BCUC when his Liberal pals require it - no wonder - nearly half of Mr. Fletcher’s column was spent quoting his impartial friends. Now, let’s consider the facts - a strange notion Mr. Fletcher does not seem to be well accustomed to.
The Burrard Thermal fulfills a vital role in system support operations considering that the bulk of BC Hydro generation is remote to most of the system load. In the absence of Burrard, many millions of dollars of new investment will be required to substitute in this role.
The energy back-up Burrard Thermal provides can in no way be adequately addressed by low value run-of-the river projects, as these deliver most of their power precisely at the wrong time of the year (freshet) when BC Hydro’s own dams are awash in frequently excessive inflows. When Burrard is fired during a December cold snap there is virtually no generation available from the run-of-the-river plants.
These days the decision to run Burrard Thermal in the summer is also of tremendous financial benefit to the rate-payers as this “low efficiency kettle” can crank out power at $35 per MWH (due to the currently low gas prices) while many of the run-of-the-river projects are contracted at nearly three times the amount.
To be fair, Burrard Thermal does pollute, however it is only a fraction of the overall local particulate emissions picture due to virtually brand new catalytic converters employed at the plant. As far as comparing Burrard to the failed Sumas II project, there are certain points that require clarification. Yes, Sumas II was going to be about 50% (not twice as suggested by Mr. Fletcher) more efficient than Burrard. However, the capital costs of that project were yet to be amortized, while Burrard has long been paid for. In addition, Sumas II required substantial transmission upgrades. Finally, Sumas was a third party project with lesser long-term benefits to the BC Hydro rate-payers.
The facts, Mr. Fletcher, are clearly required when arguing a position. In the absence of such, all I can say to you Mr. Fletcher is “Here boy, here’s a nice cookie”.
However, I do not believe that Mr. Fletcher is absolutely in favor of limiting democracy. It is only convenient to attack the BCUC when his Liberal pals require it - no wonder - nearly half of Mr. Fletcher’s column was spent quoting his impartial friends. Now, let’s consider the facts - a strange notion Mr. Fletcher does not seem to be well accustomed to.
The Burrard Thermal fulfills a vital role in system support operations considering that the bulk of BC Hydro generation is remote to most of the system load. In the absence of Burrard, many millions of dollars of new investment will be required to substitute in this role.
The energy back-up Burrard Thermal provides can in no way be adequately addressed by low value run-of-the river projects, as these deliver most of their power precisely at the wrong time of the year (freshet) when BC Hydro’s own dams are awash in frequently excessive inflows. When Burrard is fired during a December cold snap there is virtually no generation available from the run-of-the-river plants.
These days the decision to run Burrard Thermal in the summer is also of tremendous financial benefit to the rate-payers as this “low efficiency kettle” can crank out power at $35 per MWH (due to the currently low gas prices) while many of the run-of-the-river projects are contracted at nearly three times the amount.
To be fair, Burrard Thermal does pollute, however it is only a fraction of the overall local particulate emissions picture due to virtually brand new catalytic converters employed at the plant. As far as comparing Burrard to the failed Sumas II project, there are certain points that require clarification. Yes, Sumas II was going to be about 50% (not twice as suggested by Mr. Fletcher) more efficient than Burrard. However, the capital costs of that project were yet to be amortized, while Burrard has long been paid for. In addition, Sumas II required substantial transmission upgrades. Finally, Sumas was a third party project with lesser long-term benefits to the BC Hydro rate-payers.
The facts, Mr. Fletcher, are clearly required when arguing a position. In the absence of such, all I can say to you Mr. Fletcher is “Here boy, here’s a nice cookie”.
2 comments:
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
I'm the kind of hombre who loves to seek radical things. Right now I'm fabricating my personal pv panels. I am doing it all by myself without the assistance of my men. I am using the internet as the only path to acheive that. I stumbled upon a really awesome site that explains how to create photovoltaic panels and wind generators. The website explains all the steps involved in solar panel construction.
I'm not really sure bout how accurate the data given there iz. If some people over here who had xp with these things can have a look and give your feedback in the thread it will be awesome and I'd highly treasure it, cause I really passion [URL=http://solar-panel-construction.com]solar panel construction[/URL].
Thanks for reading this. You people rock.
Post a Comment