Power for BC: Site C vs gas

It almost pains me to say it, but on May 12 Vaughn Palmer (the Vancouver Sun's compliant provincial politics columnist) wrote a useful column that probably deserves more attention than it got from the commentariat.

In it he talks about one of the several significant questions posed by the just-released report of the “Joint Review Panel” tasked with evaluating BC Hydro's proposed Site C hydro project on the Peace River. Essentially, that question is: Why are Hydro and the Province determined to go ahead with the (present estimate) $7.9 billion dam option in a province experiencing a glut of natural gas which could easily be used to generate an equivalent amount of electricity for much less cost?

Here's his lede:
Among the more provocative passages in the report from the joint review panel on Site C are those challenging the B.C. Liberal government’s weirdly hypocritical attitude toward the use of natural gas to generate electricity.

And later, getting to the heart of the matter:
“Why, for example, was it permissible to produce, compress, send by pipeline, liquefy, and ship B.C. natural gas as LNG to Asia, where it would be burned, thus adding to the global GHG burden, while burning it here would at least save the enormous costs of liquefaction and transportation?” was how the panel framed the key question in its report released last week.
“This artificial limit was seen as especially galling in face of the (2012 cabinet decision) allowing the LNG developers to use as much gas as they wanted.”
 
Unlike many the critics of the dam option, I'm not very opposed to a third dam on the Peace. We've driven that  valley many times, and have seen the signs pointing out the potential water levels of the reservoir. It's obvious there would be forest cover and agricultural land lost. But most of the land is already cleared, and most of the agriculture presently consists of hay fields. Besides, there's apparently so much potential agricultural land available in the area, outside the valley, that Bill 24, presently before the legislature, proposes to alienate large chunks of it as well in the service of industry, development, and natural gas extraction.

Besides, the Peace River itself is already far from natural.

But $7.9 billion is serious money. Given the overruns that inevitably happen to the large public projects in this province, it's almost certainly an impossibly-low estimate. Most of us would have to be convinced that there's a good case to be made before we collectively embark on it; the enormous economic activity that would result from building it only makes sense if the power can subsequently be sold at a price we and our economy can support.

That case hasn't been made by either the government or BC Hydro.

When the Campbell government started touting it, Hydro was going to sell the power from Site C  to Americans, who, the government claimed, were sufficiently desperate to pay high prices for it.

More recently, and particularly during the first year of Christy Clark's tenure, that plan morphed into Site C powering the LNG revolution that was about to overtake us and pay for everything.

Now those markets are off the table. Apparently we'll need the power, but for what is far from clear.

However, let's assume we will need it. According to sections of the Joint Review Panel's report quoted by Palmer, one or more natural gas-powered generating plants would be both much less expensive to build and would produce significantly cheaper power. I'm going to suggest we could even absorb the cost of CO2 capture and sequestration, and still beat the Site C price for power!

Thus the only advantage Site C appears to have is a much longer lifespan: 100 years compared to 30. But who knows what our power needs will be in 30 years, never mind 100?

So that seems a dubious benefit; let's not do it. Let's let BC Hydro build a few gas plants, as and where needed instead.