A brief, chaotic review of my thoughts:
Projects like this are really just window dressing, even in the unlikely case they are proven to be environmentally sound. Why would we want to experiment with any "green" renewable energy when over 90% of our electricity output in BC is already renewable? And 60% if we consider all of Canada.
If we look at other large economies like Germany and the UK, around 60%of their electricity output comes from burning fossil fuels. Germany is leading the charge to renewable energy with around 25-30% renewable sources to date. It seems they are better positioned for this because electricity costs them far more than us, they rely heavily on fossil fuels(mainly coal), and they can place a renewable project just about anywhere since the grid is never far away.
It is worth noting that Germany considers burning wood for electricity gen.to be part of the renewable mix, and it contributes 25% to the total use of renewable energy.I think we might just look at European countries with envy on how much they are concentrating on renewable energy and conservation and it clouds our better judgement at times.
In addition to conservation which JK discusses, I do think we should concentrate on what we know, and that is
hydroelectric. I also believe that at some point many more rivers will be dammed for hydroelectric use. If this is the case then it would be wise to spend a lot of time and money on figuring out ways to have a minimal effect on biodiversity but at the same time accepting that there will be major losses, particularly among species that will have the least impact on our lives.
Further to the energy debate in Canada and the world-we are definitely stumbling along, not really knowing what to do(see wood burning in Germany for ex.) Closer to home, Alberta mostly burns coal for their electricity. And much of this goes to the oilsands recovery process. With regard to that, much of Ontarios electricity is nuclear based. We have technology in Canada to develop this so maybe we should support building a nuclear plant to extract the oil.
I believe the problem with this is not because nuclear is unsafe. That is largely nonsense. The actual reason is that it is prohibitively expensive. Both to build and finance the construction as well as the cost of clean up in the event of a "spill".
Two more things-take a look at the all important capacity factors for the various sources of electricity generation(particularly in this case, the difference between tidal and hydroelectric)
(Cieedac report)
And look at the possibility that a renewable and safe form of nuclear energy might be possible at some point. Compliments of one of the largest military contractors on the planet-Lockheed Martin
http://www.economist.com/news/business/ ... uel-future
http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-indu ... ation.html
http://www.energybc.ca/profiles/largehydro.html
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/index.html#top
http://wellbeing.research.mcgill.ca/pub ... FT2014.pdf
http://www.ontarioenergyreport.ca/
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/electricity/682.asp
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ear-fusion
http://cieedac.sfu.ca/media/publication ... _Final.pdf