How green power is costing us tens of billions

[Argus]

In his column today Terence Corcoran lists the tens of billions in 'green energy' projects undertaken by the provinces from coast to coast, projects which are putting the finances of the provinces in danger and will loom over their economies for decades to come. Now that Trudeau has required 'green energy' reduction across the country we can expect more massively expensive boondogles like these.

...An $8.8-billion dam known as the Site C Clean Energy Project in northeastern B.C. has been described as a “white elephant” by a former hydro executive.

... A report last year from The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) warned that Manitoba Hydro’s debt could double to $23 billion by 2023, propelling the provincial debt/GDP ratio to 65 per cent. If interest costs rise, Manitoba could become “a province with the highest debt per capita of any in Canada,”

... Under Ontario’s Green Energy Act, the Liberal government of Kathleen Wynne has saddled the province with escalating wind and solar electricity costs that will drain billions from industry and consumers.

...The cost of Muskrat Falls, a giant Labrador hydro project designed to ship “clean” and “cheap” hydro power overland and underwater to Newfoundland, is now said to be approaching $12 billion. Former premier Roger Grimes (whose predecessor, Danny Williams, pushed Muskrat) said recently the project “will haunt all of us, unfortunately, for the rest of my life, my daughter’s life, my granddaughter’s life even.”

 

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-now-up-to-50-billion-canadas-green-electricity-bailouts-make-the-bombardier-giveaway-look-like-peanuts

[The_Squid]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

$8.8-billion dam known as the Site C Clean Energy Project

Nothing to do with Trudeau.  This has been in the works for years.  You're being disingenuous about the reason for these expenditures...    "blame Trudeau". 

[Argus]

Just now, The_Squid said:

Nothing to do with Trudeau.  This has been in the works for years.  You're being disingenuous about the reason for these expenditures...    "blame Trudeau". 

I didn't blame Trudeau. I said it was only going to get worse under his mandated CO2 emissions reductions scheme.

[The_Squid]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

I didn't blame Trudeau. I said it was only going to get worse under his mandated CO2 emissions reductions scheme.

So you're just blaming him for things that haven't happened yet, and have already been happening for years prior to Trudeau...   got it...   that makes much more sense.  

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

...An $8.8-billion dam known as the Site C Clean Energy Project in northeastern B.C. has been described as a “white elephant” by a former hydro executive.

Should we also blame Trudeau for the Darlington nuclear station built in the 80's? It cost far more than that, and will cost far more in the future.

[Omni]

Trying to blame green energy here is just flat ass wrong. The problem with site C is just that it's not needed, at least for some time to come. We have all the power we need simply by tweaking the Columbia River Treaty. 

[Topaz]

Well, unless one wants to go back to basic  candle or lanterns, one doesn't have much choice. I know one can put solar panels on roofs but u have to have the money for that.

[Bonam]

50 minutes ago, Omni said:

Trying to blame green energy here is just flat ass wrong. The problem with site C is just that it's not needed, at least for some time to come. We have all the power we need simply by tweaking the Columbia River Treaty. 

Of course it's needed. There are plenty of nearby jurisdictions getting energy from fossil fuels that we can sell the cheap clean hydro energy to. 

[Omni]

15 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Of course it's needed. There are plenty of nearby jurisdictions getting energy from fossil fuels that we can sell the cheap clean hydro energy to. 

Except the power we'd get from site C would cost roughly twice what it would if we simply redirected power we currently sell to the US.

[Bonam]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Except the power we'd get from site C would cost roughly twice what it would if we simply redirected power we currently sell to the US.

Sounds like we need to cut costs, perhaps by reducing the multi-decade long review and approval and legislative processes that have mired the site C project. 

[Bob Macadoo]

19 hours ago, Bonam said:

Sounds 720.00like we need to cut costs, perhaps by reducing the multi-decade long rereview and approval and legislative processes that have mired the site C project. 

Hydro electricity is appropriate if needed.  Large scale hydro must have a demand.  Problem with both BC and NL is they approved these projects when they thought they could just shunt the power to the states for big money.  Now delay/interest costs are killing them (just like Darlington Nuclear).  $50 oil killed all of it.  They all banked on "Drill baby drill" to be a joke.  It's better to downscale projects;  small river projects....tidal farms....etc.  That way you get what you need....not what you can sell.