Massachusetts Institute of Technology publishes MIT Climate Portal, a useful site for important matters of science. It warns that hydropower may not live up to the expectations of clean energy advocates.

Poorly planned hydropower can also cause more problems for the climate than it prevents. Hydro plants need large reservoirs to provide a steady stream of water. When these reservoirs are built, plants and other organic matter get flooded. This material decays over time, releasing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. According to [John Parsons, an energy economist with MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research], there hasn’t been much research measuring these emissions…

Why aren’t we looking at more hydropower?

Hydroelectric facilities are dependent on consistent supplies of water to keep the turbines working. By updating and adding to generating facilities, BC Hydro has increased its hydroelectricity capacity by 20 percent in the past 25 years.

But electricity produced at hydro dams for each megawatt of capacity has steadily declined. According to BC Hydro’s Annual Reports, output in the first period charted below was 22 percent higher that in the most recent period.

Site C was conceived when output per MW of capacity was higher than it has been in recent years. BC Hydro has regularly claimed that 1,100 MW capacity at Site C will annually produce 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity. That would be 4.64 GWh per MW of capacity, almost a quarter more output than BC Hydro’s dams have collectively produced in the last five fiscal years.

Site C has the extra disadvantage of being constructed on unstable land. Because of that, energy produced will be the costliest large source of electricity in BC. If Site C produces only 4,100 GWh of electricity each year, the energy will be unconscionably expensive. But then, engineers never make mistakes, do they?

If Site C fails, it will be western Canada’s greatest financial disaster since, um, the decision to go ahead with the Trans Mountain Pipeline.

The public cannot know the levelized cost of Site C power since we do not know the end cost of the the facility. Its budget has not been updated since it was almost doubled in early 2021. Another problem is that the life span of the new dam is unknown since it is being constructed on unstable ground.

When Site C was budgeted at $7.9 billion, estimates said it would produce electricity at a cost between $87 and $95 per megawatt hour at the point of interconnection. With the cost now expressed at $16 billion, a quick calculation suggests electricity from Site C will cost $130/MWh to $160/MWh, or more if the final cost turns out even higher than the 2 1/2 year-old budget admitted to by BC Hydro. The utility also faces huge cost for transmission lines to deliver power to LNG companies. Sarah Cox reported:

The B.C. government wants taxpayers across Canada to pay half the $3-billion bill for a new electric transmission line supplying power to the province’s LNG industry, including projects owned by some of the world’s most profitable oil and gas companies, according to a confidential briefing note obtained by The Narwhal. 

LNG Canada wants to go electric. The B.C. government wants taxpayers to cover the cost

When Site C was given a green light by BC Liberals and approved by BC NDP in 2017, alternative power sources were already less expensive than the Peace River project. Since then, renewables have gone down in price and Site C power has gone up.