Talk:Site C dam

Update

 * http://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc2035/Editorial+Promise+Site+still+distant/7902177/story.html I will increase the cost estimate in the info box. Is any material from the article worth adding yet?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect lower-caseing
I moved this to its usual real-world name "Site C Dam" in June 2011. I just tried the "undo" on the later name-change by CKatz, I really don't understand the Wikipedian obsession with lower-caseing things like this; it's often been applied to wildly wrong things; once this dam is built its name will be capital-D Dam, also.......Skookum1 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Generating capacity
At present. the lead paragraph ends: "Designs call for an estimated capacity of approximately 900 MW and an annual output of 4,600 GWh of electricity.[5]"  The footnote points to "Province announces Site C Clean Energy Project". BC Hydro. 19 April 2010. Retrieved 26 April 2010. I don't know when or how the numbers changed, but BC Hydro now claims at http://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/site_c.html that the dam "would provide 1,100 megawatts (MW) of capacity, and produce about 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity each year." I don't like just to switch figures, as if the new estimate had been forever thus. I hope someone else can write an update with more historical context (when, why?) for this change. Is it just because our rivers run fuller in decades while glaciers are liquidating? Did Hydro change the plans? Could someone be seeing the project through a rosier set of glasses, to make it look more appealing to decision makers? Have turbines grown up to 22% more efficient in four or five years? --Egmonster (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with annual volumes and everything to do with selling peak power to Alberta, witness the extra turbines installed at revelstoke and mica.


 * 189.188.220.139 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Reservoir Size
The current page's infobox gives 9,330 hectares as the reservoir size, in the "Opposition" section of the article it states "5,550 hectares of land would be flooded". Unless half of the river valley is currently flooded, there is a mistake here.Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't like this obsession with hundreds 'are', as square kilometres are so much more comprehensible. So, take 85 km by maybe 500 m of existing riverbed, and that accounts for 43 square kilometres or 4300 hectares.
 * 189.188.220.139 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

deleting whole sections
Revision as of 23:36, 26 June 2016 User:Sunray With the comment "Removed original research", removed the sections "Loss of agriculturally productive land" and "Environmental impact" totaling 3500 characters with nine references. I for one don't appreciate such heavy handed editing nor the misleading summary. Dougmcdonell (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising this, Dougmcdonell. I regret that my edit seemed heavy handed. Probably it would have been better to discuss it here first. The problem I spotted with many of those references was that they were not specific to the Site C Dam. Thus, the way they are used makes it original research. Here's one example:
 * ""Flooding land creates methane increasing global warming. (refs 1, 2) A two-year study of carbon dioxide and methane release from reservoirs in northern Quebec concluded that, hydroelectric reservoirs are substantial emitters of greenhouse gases, in the order of 1 g of CO2/sq meter/ day, plus methane." (ref 3)"


 * The references given are good ones, however they do not mention Site C. Thus they could be used to back up points raised about Site C, but not on their own. Now, I am pretty sure that climate change has been discussed in connection with Site C and that there are reliable sources to support that. So if editors want to include that information they need to find directly related sources. Would you be able to help with that? Sunray (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternatives
The Alternatives section currently reads: "The forecasted cost of the project makes the unit capital cost exceptionally high. At an annual average output of 580 MW means that the per kilowatt cost exceeds $15,000, which is far outside the economically viable cost[citation needed]. This is higher than almost any existing or planned power plant apart from research projects, and much more than geothermal, or solar and wind power when corrected for the intermittent nature of those resources.[23][24]"

However, source [24] is behind a paywall and source [23] (EIA report on capital cost estimates) is explicitly not corrected for capacity factor. Thus the statement "when corrected for the intermittent nature of those resources" is appears to be incorrect and the first sentence would also be at least misleading, and possibly outright false. -User:Lommer | talk 20:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Tone
Should a link to the Site C poll be included? The article, as written, seems to imply widespread lack of support, when the polls show widespread support, with support rising for people who live closer to the affected area. Should it get significantly rewritten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:FACB:DA00:C46D:8595:221E:41A (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) https://www.bcbusiness.ca/Site-C-Poll-The-results-may-surprise-you

Article say "the Bennett Dam began operation in 1968 and formed Williston Reservoir, which is 95% larger than the Site C reservoir will become."

The Site C reservoir will be 5% the size of the Williston Reservoir. ie. The Williston Reservoir is 1900% larger than the Site C reservoir will become. 2604:3D09:857F:F9A0:2825:FD4F:A9D4:57A5 (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

hey, all you phenomenal wiki policemen!
Get your motors running, someone has corrupted this article.

Great job, cadets!

201.114.193.91 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC) baden k.