problem is/was the uproar by the FN communities over damming yet another river in FN territories and flooding their lands. going to cost BC Hydro a LOT of money for future generations to make that happen.
litigation is still ongoing over the construction of this dam/hydro project. I suspect by the time that’s settled, those communities will never have to worry about financial support ever again. hundreds of millions of dollars…
Yes, I am no fan of Site C, for that and other reasons. Pushing ahead with it has more or less wiped out renewable energy investments in BC, and I do a lot of work around that. Run of the river, wind, and solar have all dropped dramatically due to Site C, just about the only places you can do them viably in BC now is remote communities.
Site C isn’t even going to be that cheap, in the end. I appreciate the need to invest in capacity on an ongoing basis to prevent the kind of crisis this thread is about, but BC is a long, long way away from that.
it’s not our capacity that they’re building it for, BC has tons of power. but not everywhere has the ability to product hydroelectric in the volume that we do. Renewable energy during a time where it’s needed.
The wind farms that my cousin maintains at Tumbler Ridge, there’s 48 operating turbines up there in two separate installations and plans to install more from what he’s telling me.
Yes - Tumbler Ridge is able to export fairly effectively into Alberta, so there is still a business case there.
Germany has nationalised Uniper now.
No worries I’m sure some rich bastard will trickle on them.
I would hope that I’m not the only one here who thinks that treating state schools and hospitals as businesses, instead of as essential public services, is fundamentally wrong.
You bloody commie go back to France!
As big a cunt as JRM is, I didn’t take it that way. I thought he was suggesting that the need for help with energy costs is likely still going to be there in a year’s time. But stopped short of announcing today what help will be provided in a year’s time.
Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Brighton, West Ham and Crystal Palace are Living Wage Foundation-accredited employers, which means they pay the real living wage to all staff including those employed by sub-contracted firms such as stewards, caterers and cleaners.
Newcastle United told BBC Sport they are in the process of joining them and are paying the real living wage in the meantime. Manchester City, Brentford, Fulham, Leicester and Wolves also say they pay the real living wage to all staff, including subcontractors.
But Manchester United, Southampton and Arsenal do not currently pay that rate to all their caterers, cleaners and stewards.
Bournemouth pay the real living wage to permanent staff, but have not audited their third-party contractors to see if they comply.
Tottenham also say they pay the real living wage to staff and say it is a key part of their selection procedure for third-party suppliers - but would not confirm if that meant they were paid the same rate.
Aston Villa, Leeds and Nottingham Forest all pay directly employed staff at least the real living wage, but could not confirm if that extended to subcontracted staff.
If I was in the UK I would seriously consider refixing my mortgage with income protection.
Dropping pound=increased interest rates=recession
i contacted my mortgage advisor at the start of July, asking if it was worth ending my mortgage delal early (its a 5 year fixed that ends in March 2023).
I even said i would pay any exit fees, as i felt i could make the cash back due to lower interest rates that what i might get in March
was told no, wait until our deal ends in March, and he’s had a few people contact him asking teh same thing
the bugger better get me a decent deal
I would guess you won’t see that mortgage type available until the New Year, except perhaps at absurd premiums, 2-3% above market or more.
That’s a terrible article. Blames a shortage of natural gas in the headline and most of the article, but has a quote in the third paragraph saying otherwise, attributing the blackout to a cascading transmission failure.
Yes it is, but I think it does discuss in the article that poorer economies are essentially having the rug pulled out from under them with companies reneging on contracts to deliver gas, so that they can sell them to richer economies instead.
Those companies have claimed force majeure, so I guess it is down to the court/arbitration proceeding to determine that. No question that most markets outside North America are seeing a major squeeze on supply - and have been since before the Ukraine war began.
Had a casual look at the article. My feedbacks