• We apologize for the somewhat convoluted sign-up process. Due to ever-more sophisticated attacks by chatbots, we had to increase our filtering in order to weed out AI while letting humans through. It's a nuisance, but a necessary one in order to keep the level of discourse on the forums authentic and useful. From the actual humans using WCP, thanks for your understanding!

Run of Rivers

I'm not involved in this discussion Ken -- and I'm not going to argue any of your points with you. I'm merely telling you where the line is. Don't stick things like "you allowed the discussion" in my face or there won't be any more of these discussions -- bottom line is if you can't keep non-topic views out of it, or it becomes more effort on our part to keep it from getting out of hand than it does to simply not allow it to continue, it won't. We're giving a fair bit of latitude in allowing these hotbed discussions so please don't push the boundaries. Read other's posts carefully, accept others points of view, keep it civil, and keep it on topic (i.e., kayak related). Same goes for everyone else in the discussion. Comprende?

Fair enough Dan...I've got no problem with that...but that knife has to cut both ways.

Don't you find it odd that hot election issues (Fish Farming, IPP's) are all of a sudden showing up here?
Both initial posts directly opposing the present Prov. Gov'n.
Some may see them as 'Cloaked' election campaign issue 'Call's to Action' disguised as a Thread Topic's.

You may want to consider something...
With a Provincial election under way...perhaps you may want to consider a moratorium on all political issues until the election is over.
Otherwise...you may be a busy moderator.

I have not, or will not initiate political opinion...but I will not back down if I see it either.

Makes no difference to me...your choice.
Ken B said:
Otherwise...you may be a busy moderator.
As I mentioned above, no, I won't be. Nor will there be reason to prohibit these discussions if people aren't in here looking for argument.

Ken, if you have issue with the way this site is run, or want to discuss the way this site is run, please contact one of the six admins privately -- I'm sure that all the people looking to read about "Run of Rivers" don't want to endure all of these off-topic site policy explanations.

ken_vandeburgt said:
If the local government had no control over the land in question, there would have been no reason to stir the pot to take that control away. Yet the section of the bill in question was specifically based on the Ashlu river issue. Politicians are pragmatic enough not to throw brown matter into the fan unless they have a reason.


Reason enough?

You keep jumping from one un-supported pseudo-fact to the next.
You keep jumping from one un-supported pseudo-fact to the next.

I suppose you have a point there. The fact is the BC government has seen fit to override the desires of the Squamish Lilooet Regional District government.

So the question is why did the BC government do so. I don't know. The short answer seems to be to allow Ledcor to go ahead with its plan to devastate the landscape.

That's not the big picture though. The big picture is:

-There is a growing demand for electricity in BC. Even if the use remains traditional industry and domestic use, the demand will rise. The electricity will have to come from somewhere. (Put another outlet in the wall he said)

-The Province is committed to reducing energy demand, particularly energy associated with the green house gas phenomenon, by a significant amount in a relatively short period of time. (what was it 50% in twenty years or some such ambitious target) The Province can't achieve that aim without alternatives. (The 'Green' solution of freezing in the dark is not an acceptable solution)

-Peak oil (again) You saw the price shock last summer. I'll go so far as to say the price shock has more responsibility for the economy going bust than the US housing market ever could. Last time (mid 70s) the price shock was a scare and people started exploring alternate fuels. This time its got people mad and there are technologies that can wean us off oil. The most promising are Bio Fuel, Hydrogen, and Battery solutions. Both the Hydrogen and the Battery solution will require significant electrical infrastructure to support them.

-The link to the 'psuedo fact' indicates that right now the way to bet is Battery. That means demand for electricity isn't just going to go up in accordance with the BC Hydro study posted earlier in this thread, its going to SKYROCKET.

-The Premier and his peers were elected to forsee this kind of trend and make provision for it. If I cannot heat and light my home because you need the power to run your car there will be riots. If you think people are mad about run of river just wait until there are brownouts and rolling blackouts. We're talking about a civilization that is dependant on electricity.

So you are correct in that the link I posted is a 'psuedo fact'. I don't know what goes on in what we can loosely refer to as the minds of our political leaders but I can guess. Maybe I have it wrong.
Ken V, I agree with most points you just made. However I am not sure if charging cars will have as much draw on the power grid as some predict.
The change to electric will be slow and gradual. At this moment, I don't think technology really exists for building practical to use electric commercial trucks, and they do take a good chunk of what's on the road and what drinks fuel. Electric cars have been around for well over 100 years and still haven't caught on. Hopefully soon.
Also I wouldn't count out the hydrogen/fuel cell technology as the fuel of the future transportation.
Frankly I think there's more to the relationships between Liberals and companies they hand out big contracts to than they'd be willing to admit. But that is speculation. But it would make sense, environment and power production aside. Think of it as another big money maker contract, wouldn't you be tempted to force it in,if you know you could.
In my opinion, run-of-river is one of the least-suited power production methods to hand to private companies, if environment is indeed a priority. Too many ways to bend rules to squeeze more out of it than the area can sustainably handle in my opinion.
Now, solar power and wind power on the other hand,( in my opinion as a dilettante on the subject) seems very suited for IPP. You give them permit to suitable land they can build on,after thorough research, and if they try more power they squeeze out of the resource,great. Long as all done safely and waste is treated properly.
was reading something a little while ago, that big flat screen tv's are using up more energy then electric cars when charging. And guess what, nobody complains about having a bigger tv in their house, but for some reason the issue with the possibility of electric cars overloading the electrical grids pops up all the time.
The change to electric will be slow and gradual.

Unless there is another price shock at the oil well.

Also I wouldn't count out the hydrogen/fuel cell technology as the fuel of the future transportation.

Neither would I. Problem is hydrogen requires lots of electricity to crack it out of water. Nearest source of pure hydrogen is Neptune where it exists in crystal form... and I'm not sure importing hydrogen from off planet in bulk is a good idea. Battery and Hydrogen both require LOTS of Tesla juice.

Frankly I think there's more to the relationships between Liberals and companies they hand out big contracts to than they'd be willing to admit.

Chretien did one good thing and that was to limit contributions by corporations to federal parties. I am not aware if there are similar limits in the Province. Perhaps we should insist.

Now, solar power and wind power on the other hand,( in my opinion as a dilettante on the subject) seems very suited for IPP.

I've spent some time thinking on this. I used to have a job that involved changing lightbulbs and dipping my fingers into the batteries to test for acidity. So it has been a subject of interest.

If you want wind power look at Denmark. They have to keep a power plant on full idle to absorb fluctuations in power as the wind rises and falls. Some say that the wind power actually contributes to global warming because the coal plants used as backup aren't burning the coal very efficiently.

It'll probably turn out that using wind turbines en masse will interfere with global circulation of air in the atmosphere and contribute to a steep rise in global temperatures. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. (lets start a rumour)

Campbell River and solar power. I wish. Not with our climate. I looked at it when I lived in Kingston Ont. Two solar panels were sufficent to meet an ordinary load if the house was located in Arizona. In Kingston I would have needed 56 panels. Kingston gets more sun, and heat suitable for solar thermal than anyplace here on the WET coast. Solar is not cost effective here, not even if we were paying 20 cents per kWh.

And if you think the footprint from run-of-river is bad how many wind turbines and how many solar panels do you think it would take to generate the 1000 MW that Plutonic is generating. A large wind turbine puts out 1 MW when the wind blows.

I recently travelled in Spain. Those vistas of beautiful hills and the ruins of castles are much spoilt by wind turbines. Yah they're interesting as a curiousity but once the landscape is crowded it's an eyesore. That's why the wind farm on James Island didn't go ahead; nobody wanted them in their viewscape.

We'd be better off putting solar panels on the moon to spell out 'Drink Coca Cola' and fire the power back to Earth via microwave to a rectenna farm.

was reading something a little while ago, that big flat screen tv's are using up more energy then electric cars when charging.
I would suggest reading that article with critical eyes. Basic laws of physics suggest that an electric car will use as much energy as a regular car. 746 watts = 1 hp. I don't own a TV but my cathode ray computer monitor is not a big electric load. I can't imagine it being enough juice to drive my car to the grocers and back.
I wish I was off the grid..... Someday soon I hope.

The idea of being independent of utilities is one of my dreams too; if only to avoid those carbon taxes and administration fees that eat up an ever increasing percentage of my bill.
re/ Alternative Vehicles.

It would appear that Electric Vehicles are the focus.

The hydrogen fuel cell has been in use since the 1960s.
However...Existing hydrogen fuel cell technology is not especially robust. Cars hit bumps, take sharp turns and vibrate as a part of their ordinary functioning. Hydrogen fuel cells cannot endure normal driving conditions for long before breaking down. They also operate poorly under freezing conditions.
Also, Hydrogen fuel cells require extremely expensive materials in their construction, like platinum. Until a design using cheaper components is available, hydrogen fuel cells just can't compete with electric, hybrid-electric, or conventional cars in terms of cost.

So...it would appear that with technology heading towards Electric vehicles, coupled with our increasing electric requirements in our households (electric appliances, lighting, Big Screen TV's, Hot Tubs, et al), and industry requirements...it all points to needing more power generation.
No this does not necessarily mean an end to IPPs.

It does open the door to the worst case scenario where IPP's can sell to the highest bidder. ie California. Just like Alcan does from the Kenney dam. Just like Teck Cominco does from the Waneta dam.

I smell a rat.
Last week I was speaking with a chap who has a cabin just below the Skookumchuck Narrows and questioned him about the tug boat and barge incident (see July 24th posting in General Paddling Discussions). He advised that there are 3/4 such heavily laden barges coming through each day going to the new Run of the River Projects up Narrows Inlet and that they have been constant since early June. He also warned that the wake from these is significant and for a kayaker in either Narrows or Salmon (which is next apparently) it could be hazardous due to the steepness of some of the sections i.e. sheer walls and rebounding wakes.