More discussion regarding the next major hydro dam for the Yukon went all day Thursday, the first of a two-day workshop.

It continued into last night’s public meeting, and was underway again this morning.

Questions have been raised about the study design, how population growth and future demand was calculated, what alternative energy sources might be available instead of flooding vast tracts of Yukon wilderness to support a new dam facility.

There was outright opposition from Mayo regarding two of the 16 options being advanced as part of the Next Generation Hydro project with the intent of recommending one or more finalists to the territorial cabinet by the end of this year.

Frank Patterson of the Mayo District Renewable Resource Council said his First Nation is opposed to options located on the Upper Stewart River at Fraser Falls, one for a 300 megawatt facility and another for 100 megawatts. (The Whitehorse Rapids Dam has 40 megawatts of hydro generating capacity, by comparison.)

A dam at Fraser Falls would flood traditional hunting and fishing grounds, and it would add further stress to migrating chinook salmon which are already in trouble, Patterson explained in an interview following his address to the workshop participants.

“We have already developed a hydro facility in our traditional territory and we are going through nothing but problems.”

Patterson said more consideration needs to be given to other forms of renewable energy to meet future energy needs.

As a Northern Tutchone, he is opposed to several dam options outlined for the Pelly River – in Northern Tutchone country – because of the impact on the salmon.

Forest Pearson wanted to know last night why there was not more discussion about the benefits of a new major hydro project, and how it would displace huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel generation.

As a self-described sustainability enthusiast and an engineer by trade, Pearson was one of three panelists during yesterday’s workshop regarding what the future demand picture might look like, and how it may be influenced by changing social values.

Pearson said while there is a move to electric cars, there remains a large question regarding the future for big mining equipment and long haul transportation trucks.

Just 18 per cent of the territory’s total energy usage is provided by hydro and wood; the rest is fossil fuels, largely gas and diesel required for cars and trucks, he said.

Pearson pointed out the amount of fossil fuels burned in the Yukon is equivalent to 11 B-trains of fuel arriving in Whitehorse everyday.

Since the team spearheading the Next Generation Hydro project held its first workshop in November, team members have emphasized that large hydro projects have large environmental and social implications.

With the list down to 16 options from more than 200 potential sites the team initially looked at using past research and studies, the focus now will be drilling down into the finer details to determine which site or sites are the best to pursue, it was explained Thursday.

Project team member Darielle Talarico told 30 or so members of the public attending last night’s meeting it may be that none of the 16 options will be acceptable. It may be the publicly- owned Yukon Development Corporation – parent company to Yukon Energy – and the Yukon government will have to switch up the criteria in their search for meeting future energy demands, she said.

But right now, Talarico explained, the focus over the next year will be to explore each option with a goal of advancing one or more to go forward with and eventually build.

The exercise requires engaging Yukoners and First Nations, it requires transparency and public participation, she insisted.

Talarico said the team will be producing a series of technical papers on economic benefits, environmental impacts and other aspects of a new hydro project.

A technical paper on the viability of long-distance transmission lines to tie the isolated Yukon grid into B.C. or Alaska is scheduled for completion in June.

Sally Wright, a vocal advocate for alternative energy such as wind, wanted to know last night just when the general public will have its opportunity to say “no, no, no” to flooding more Yukon wilderness and yes to pursuing alternatives.

Every option involves flooding areas to create water storage for year-round use, and every option will have significant impact on salmon or other species of fish, it was noted yesterday.

But it has also been emphasized if not big, renewable hydro, then what?

Yukoners have a tough decision to make, the project team has emphasized.

Renewable alternatives such as wind and solar can play a part in the energy picture, but cannot be counted on to provide base load when there is no wind or daylight hours are short, it’s been said. It’s also been argued that at this point in time the only practical, reliable and viable alternative to big hydro for base load are fossil fuels.

During yesterday’s workshop, on the other hand, it was suggested the answer to the territory’s energy future may lie in emerging technology such as smaller run-of-the river hydro generation that does not require damming an entire river.

Battery storage of wind and solar power combined with smaller hydro was mentioned.

But it was pointed out yesterday that population and energy demand forecasts indicate in 20 years the territory’s need for electricity could grow by 25 per cent or more. And while Yukon Energy continues to search for smaller alternatives to fill in the growing gap between demand and the availability of existing hydro generation, finding a new hydro project of no less than 10 megawatts is currently the focus, it was emphasized.

Peter Helland, the project team’s technical expert, explained yesterday many of the 16 options that were explored in past studies were designed much larger than need be, such as the 300 megawatt facility at Fraser Falls. As the team moves forward over the next year to refine the 16 options, there is certainly the possibility of reducing the size of some of the options, and consequently reducing the amount of impact, he said.

Helland said the goal is to deliver a viability study to the development corporation by early this fall, based on technical research and public input. The corporation’s board of directors has been instructed by Premier Darrell Pasloski and his cabinet to recommend one or more options by the end of this year.

The government kicked off the Next Generation Hydro project in May 2013 with a $2 million contribution to do the work.

Public discussion began last November when the project team unveiled the 16 project options, down from the list of 200.

This week’s workshop was held to further discuss the options and a technical paper on the anticipated population growth and increasing energy demands over the next 20 to 50 years.

Six of the 16 options are in the Pelly River watershed, six are in the Liard River and Frances Lake watershed, three are in the Stewart River watershed and one is located on the Teslin River, about 90 kilometres downriver from Johnson’s Crossing.

In their current form – before any adjustments or downsizing – the 16 options are:

• Detour Canyon – Pelly River – 65 megawatts, flooding 135 square kilometres;

• Detour Canyon and Fortin Lake Dam – Pelly River – 100 MW, flooding 215 sq./kms and raising the level of the Pelly Lakes by eight metres and Fortin Lake by nine metres;

• False Canyon – Liard River – 58 MW, flooding 265 sq./kms;

• Fraser Falls – Stewart River – 300 MW, flooding 570 sq./kms;

• Fraser Falls – Stewart River – 100 MW, flooding 240 sq./kms;

• Granite Canyon – Pelly River – 254 MW, flooding 420 sq./kms;

• Granite Canyon – Pelly River – 80 MW, flooding 170 sq./kms;

• Hoole Canyon and Fortin Lake Dam – Pelly River – 40 MW, flooding 105 sq./kms and raising the lake level by nine metres;

• Middle (Lower) Canyon – Liard, Frances rivers – 75 MW, flooding 90 sq./kms;

• Middle (Lower) Canyon – Liard, Frances rivers – 14 MW, flooding 3 sq./kms;

• NWPI – Teslin River – 55 MW, flooding 55 sq./kms;

• Slate Rapids – Pelly River – 42 MW, flooding 136 sq./kms and raising the Pelly Lakes by nine metres and Fortin Lake by 10 metres;

• Two Mile Canyon – Stewart and Hess rivers – 53 MW, flooding 105 sq./kms;

• Upper Canyon – Liard and Frances rivers – 75 MW, flooding 235 sq./kms and raising Frances Lake by 38 metres;

• Upper Canyon – Liard and Frances rivers – 58 MW, flooding 220 sq./kms and raising Frances Lake by 34 metres; and

• Upper Canyon – Liard and Frances rivers – 25 MW, flooding 165 sq./kms and raising Frances Lake by 23 metres.