Author Archives: innovadmin

T-minus 10 and counting . . .

Posted on by

(My Land Rover/Virgin Galactic “Go To Space” competition entry)

contest-notice

I’d prepared a video, but technical glitches at the entry website led Jaguar Land Rover to extend the deadline to mid-November 2014. Now, after the SpaceShipTwo accident on 31 Oct, LandRover has suspended the contest until further notice. Sir Richard Branson rightly says: “Space is hard – but worth it. We will persevere and move forward together.”

And I’m still game to go.  Here is my entry + the 90 sec draft:

The background music is a favourite, and for this video for me each pluck references the flecks of stars across the sky; as if every time the guitarist’s fingers fleck the strings a spray of diamond water droplets lays a necklace of stars across the inky black of the universe.

The spirit of adventure in less than 30 seconds!

And the 90 second draft . . .

by David Huer

 

Credits:

Album: “Arc” – Track 2: “Spring” (clip) Thomas Handy, Ravi Naimpally, Oliver Schroer ©2008.  Thomas Handy Trio: http://thomashandy.com/ Used with permission.

Portrait: ©Mona Kayello, 2013. Used with permission. http://www.monakayello.com/

Portrait: ©Nancy Moelaert, 2009. Used with permission. One of BC caving’s leading lights – her courage is boundless!

Images #1, 2, & 4: ©David Huer 2008-2014.

Creative Commons permissions:

Aurochs in a cave painting in Lascaux, France. Photo by Prof saxx ©2006. CC-SA3.0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs#mediaviewer/File:Lascaux_painting.jpg

Re-entry of Progress Spacecraft 42P. NASA Earth Observatory ©2011. Public Domain. Modified aspect ratio. CC2.0. http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Milky Way over Black Rock Desert, Nevada. Photo by Steve Jurvetson ©2007. CC2.0. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Milky_Way_Night_Sky_Black_Rock_Desert_Nevada.jpg

 

 

 

Rethinking BC Hydro’s Site C

Posted on by

Site C’s “Big Dam/Big Lake” design promises irrevocable damage but might go ahead. Is the civil engineering Code of Ethics a root cause for this wicked dilemma?

site-c-feature-area-rendering-illustration

BC Hydro’s proposed $8 billion dam will expropriate and flood 80 km of forests, farms and homes, and 7,000 acres of Class 1 and 2 agriculture land—ignoring impact to farming, and animal migration corridors, while strip-mining the local tax base that communities need to provide public services.

Could a new conversation solve this wicked dilemma?

BC Hydro is chock-full of iron-ringed civil engineers who pride themselves on being able to create a great solution.  Could we challenge them to find new thinking and the latest technologies to build a better solution?

And then to ask…if BC Hydro can get equivalent power value with a sustainable solution, but refuses to change the existing Site C plan, are civil engineers being required to focus on a Big Dam solution vs. a Sustainable Energy solution (energy in all its forms)?

Premier Clark courageously introduced the Community Contribution Company (C3) framework to give companies a legal framework to pursue a “wider-society” approach: “Designed to bridge the gap between for-profit businesses and non-profit enterprises, this innovative business model is the first of its kind in Canada. C3 status allows entrepreneurs in B.C. to pursue social goals through their businesses while still generating a profit and providing investment opportunities to like-minded investors.” 

Should BC Hydro become BC Energy? And can we require all Crown Corporations to follow the C3 framework? Can we find the same all-Party courage to reflect these new responsibilities – with an upgraded APEG Code of Ethics for C3 Corporations?

For example, using the C3 Code of Ethics option, could one option be a revised Site C in the Moberly River side valley?  Are there better civil engineering solutions? 

Moberly River marine aqueduct

Concept: Moberly River marine aqueduct across the Peace Valley (Google Earth x3 vertical exaggeration)

sir-adam-beck-stationOntario’s Sir Adam Beck Station obtains water through a canal from the upper Niagara River.  Could Site C obtain sufficient head supplied with a pipeline or canal from the Peace Dam to a Moberly River head-pond?

  • • Separating industrial/commercial traffic from Peace River’s ecology
  • • Aqueduct connection between Fort St. John and the headpond
  • • Creating a riverboat/rail tourist season with access to Williston Lake
  • • Using daily-night cycle of demand fluctuations to:
    • o Move water at low cost to top-of-slope reservoirs
    • o Supply irrigation waters to river terraces
    • o Supply barge locks

dhuer-peace-river-ror-canal-oct2014-001

Or do we need Site C, if it makes more ecological sense to obtain the same hydro-electric production . . . by building a reservoir in the headland depressions east of Williston Lake’s W.A.C. Bennett Dam; with hydroelectric spillways falling to the Peace River above and below the lower Peace Dam?

— Dave Huer

CONCEPTS 1, 2 & 3 ILLUSTRATED BELOW:

dhuer-site-c-revisioning-c1-july2014-001

 

 

dhuer-site-c-revisioning-oct2014-p1

 

 

dhuer-site-c-revisioning-oct2014-p2Original behance.net PDF concept here

A $120 Million Win-Win for the Arbutus Corridor?

Posted on by

workers-destroyObservers to a negotiation must sometimes think the parties go back-and-forth like hamsters in a Ferris wheel–running without moving; going round-and-round; ink never stopping. Thus it is with the Arbutus Corridor railway line property fight. But there are good business reasons for the Railway to get good return.

The property covers approximately 20 hectares.

Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) wants $100M for it. The City of Vancouver (COV) has offered $20M. CPR has reactivated the line so it can earn its keep. And the City has conceded it may want to profit from future sales.

$80M is a hard gap to bridge.

Rare Stamp Discovered 20130810But there may be a neat twist; a relatively simple way to resolve the impasse, so both parties win.

The original statute setting out the CPR assigns lands to carry out the  “…perpetual and efficient operation…” of the railway: Clause 3: 44 Victoria, Chapter I, An Act Respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway (Assented Feb 15, 1881).

1st) Would this suggest that CPR can also lease lands in perpetuity (in practical terms, forever)? Making a lease-in-perpetuity to COV for $20M functionally equivalent to a sale?

2nd) It appears that Air Estate values cannot be transferred or sold by government. If this is correct, the AE value is lost if the COV buys the property.  By retaining ownership, CPR is able to sell &/or leverage the Air Estate.

Could we combine these two ideas to create a mechanism that works? Could the parties split the air rights (20 hectares of Air Estate: AE) from the real property (20 hectares of Real Estate: RE)? Could this produce a reasonable solution to the impasse, or a spark to bring the parties to the table? Could this create a win-win for everyone?

  • * CPR leases RE to COV in perpetuity for $20M
  • * CPR obtains the right to recover unneeded parcels for future sale
  • * CPR sells or leases AE for $100M to Bondholders (Ledcor, OMERS, CPPIB)
  • * Bondholders tranche the AE Bond and everyone takes a % of Leveraged Net
  • * Net Pre-Leveraged Sale: $120M

3rd) Could this mechanism be used across Canada, for every disused railway line with continuing property asset value but under-performing operations’ asset values?  Could it be used globally, in every jurisdiction where property rights include air rights?

dhuer-arbutus-solution-aug2014-2

 

abandoned urban railway lineWill this spark a run on disused urban railway lines, I wonder?

By Dave Huer

Images:

Backhoe: the Province here

Queen Victoria stamp here

Diagram – personal artwork, using Board of Innovation business model tool. [PDF version here]

Abandoned railway line here by Elliott Brown (CC BY 2.0)