Justifying Site C easy, thanks to reports

Re: “Site C back in Horgan’s lap,” editorial, Nov. 3.

For Premier John Horgan, making the Site C decision might be hard, but justifying continuation is easy. The B.C. Utilities Commission experts have provided the rationale, and he can simply point to their report.

Those experts say they believe that the alternatives — wind, geothermal and industrial curtailment — could result in equal or lower unit energy costs.

Consider: Wind is intermittent and requires alternative power to fill gaps. What is the best alternative? Hydro power.

Geothermal is not only untested in B.C., it is not even properly explored.

Iceland, the world leader in the technology, has vast resources of active volcanoes to call upon. It heats nearly all houses and provides heat to industry using geothermal steam and hot water.

But what does it use to generate electricity? Hydro for 75 per cent, geothermal for only 25 per cent.

What do they know that the believers do not?

As for “industrial curtailment,” the widely anticipated expansion of electric vehicles will require extensive industrial expansion. And it is a development dear to the hearts of many environmentalists. It is hard to see how that can be curtailed.

So, for the premier, the alternatives are: Hope for hugely expanded wind power (with backup). Hope for totally untested geothermal power. Hope to find ways to curtail energy use while growing the economy. Hope that the costs are less than Site C would be.

And at the same time, charge the taxpayers $4 billion up front.

Or, of course, continue with Site C.

A.G. Beck Sidney