Screw U Sumas 2

[Dru]

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=news_home&articleID=1543211

 

Sumas 2 rejected.

[willstrickland]

Here's the thing though...If they (Sumas) can find a way to sell the output of that plant, say to B-ham or Northern ID or somewhere, you Canyukers will still get the pollution in the airshed, and presumably have to pony up (through rate hikes or other means) for the cost of more power generation infrastructure to supply your needs.

 

Keeping the cash-flow within Canada would be desirable, so I can dig that angle, but the pollution angle is questionable. Natural gas fired plants are a relatively clean source in the grand scheme.

 

I'd think the wise thing would be to approve it with a shitload of special conditions that would dictate the pollution control equipment, allowable emissions, and a means of enforcement by Canadian officials rather than allowing the US EPA to be the enforcement authority. This could be difficult because of the physical location of the plant being in the US. However, the spec conditions could simply have the supply shut off at the Canandian substation if the plant failed to meet the conditions.

 

I'm also curious as to the details of this pollution loading. Specifically a breakdown by pollutant and mass. I've seen enviro groups cite many things as "pollutants" which are arguably not. I work in the environmental regulatory field, and am pro-enviro, but there is hype from both sides.

[catbirdseat]

The only pollutant of consequence from natural gas fired plant is nitrogen oxides. The multi ton(ne) figure they cited probably includes carbon dioxide. Coal has a lot of sulfur oxides, but natural gas generally doesn't.

[Dru]

i was gonna build a trebuchet on the office roof and see how far into WA I could fire our office garbage

[fenderfour]

Dru is going to start throwing poo?

[catbirdseat]

I have a small trebuchet at home, large enough to fling poo about one block. Would you like it Dru? It's yours if you come and get it.

[murraysovereign]

Here's the thing though...If they (Sumas) can find a way to sell the output of that plant, say to B-ham or Northern ID or somewhere, you Canyukers will still get the pollution in the airshed, and presumably have to pony up (through rate hikes or other means) for the cost of more power generation infrastructure to supply your needs.

 

Our domestic needs are already being met, with significant capacity to spare. In fact, we are a major exporter of Hydro-electric power to the U.S., most notably California.

New generation plants currently being built in B.C. are almost entirely aimed at this export market, rather than meeting domestic needs.

 

Keeping the cash-flow within Canada would be desirable, so I can dig that angle, but the pollution angle is questionable. Natural gas fired plants are a relatively clean source in the grand scheme.

 

The problem here isn't the type of facility: in fact, B.C. Hydro is currently looking at plans to build an identical plant on Vancouver Island. The problem is the location of the plant in an air-shed that is already choking on airborne pollutants. Sure, it would only pump out a few tonnes of nitrogen oxides, but it would do it in a valley that is already absorbing all the emissions of Greater Vancouver, and that has poor venting most of the year. Add to that the fact that the valley would be asked to absorb all the negative consequences while deriving no direct benefit (and only miniscule indirect benefit - if any), and it becomes pretty much impossible to justify.

 

I'd think the wise thing would be to approve it with a shitload of special conditions that would dictate the pollution control equipment, allowable emissions, and a means of enforcement by Canadian officials rather than allowing the US EPA to be the enforcement authority. This could be difficult because of the physical location of the plant being in the US.

 

No Shit.

 

However, the spec conditions could simply have the supply shut off at the Canandian substation if the plant failed to meet the conditions.

 

And then what? Sit back and wait for the Cruise Missiles to arrive? Seriously, there's no way in Hell the current U.S. government is going to sign anything that allows any outside agency to shut off any taps.

 

You're quite right that there's nothing to stop the proponents from going ahead and building the plant without access to Canadian transmission lines, in which case we'll still have to absorb the emissions. But there's no compelling reason why we should help them do it, hence the NEB's decision.

[willstrickland]

This could be difficult because of the physical location of the plant being in the US.

 

No Shit.

 

I said this because it would be difficult, but not impossible. Provisions like I suggested where the Canadian authorities could deny access to their transmission infrastructure (essentially by disconnecting/shutting it off from the Canadian substation where it ties in) if the environmental constraints were not achieved would be possible.

 

 

And then what? Sit back and wait for the Cruise Missiles to arrive? Seriously, there's no way in Hell the current U.S. government is going to sign anything that allows any outside agency to shut off any taps.

 

And exactly why is that? If the tie-in is on Canadian soil, and permit conditions provide for it as a consequence of not meeting enviro standards, there is no way the US could stop them from removing/shutting off the connection. Cruise missles? Don't be a melodrama queen!

[crazyjizzy]

The natural gas for both SE1 and SE2 comes from Canada. When SE1 was built, there were signs all over southern BC against it. I truly think that since the death of Darrel Jones, SE2 will not be built, although those Haskell raskells keep trying

[Dru]

This could be difficult because of the physical location of the plant being in the US.

 

No Shit.

 

I said this because it would be difficult, but not impossible. Provisions like I suggested where the Canadian authorities could deny access to their transmission infrastructure (essentially by disconnecting/shutting it off from the Canadian substation where it ties in) if the environmental constraints were not achieved would be possible.

 

 

And then what? Sit back and wait for the Cruise Missiles to arrive? Seriously, there's no way in Hell the current U.S. government is going to sign anything that allows any outside agency to shut off any taps.

 

And exactly why is that? If the tie-in is on Canadian soil, and permit conditions provide for it as a consequence of not meeting enviro standards, there is no way the US could stop them from removing/shutting off the connection. Cruise missles? Don't be a melodrama queen!

 

You mean like the way we can turn off the taps on the Columbia Dams? Hey Iain how would you like to be able to walk across to Washington