In a recent letter to your paper, a BC Hydro spokesman argues that Site C would provide a cost effective source of electricity in spite of the much lower capital cost of construction of a natural gas alternative.
One cannot assume that the only major costs of Site C are in relation to construction. When one figures in the long-term costs of servicing the $8 billion-plus debt, losses of productive agricultural and forestry lands, fisheries and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, etc, Site C definitely loses out in the financial comparisons.
In light of the recent mid-term timber supply review, perhaps someone might want to crank the figures on what would be the current value of that once very productive timber producing land that is lost forever under Williston reservoir.
Can we really afford to flood another 100 km of productive valley bottom land behind the proposed Site C dam? Is this another debt we are prepared to leave future generations?