Site C Dam

[BCPhil]

I just have to point out the fact that for many, the cost of the hydro bill doesn't determine how much they "waste". Hydro rates can be tripled and it will still be the cheapest bill most people have. I do leave my main computer on 24/7, doing that costs a fraction of what my cell phone costs me for 100 minutes. Power conservation is a personal choice, it's an ethical choice (I might have my computer on 24/7 but my lights stay off almost all day, and I don't own an AC). To raise rates enough to force people to conserve power would probably just end up bankrupting many businesses instead of helping the cause. It's like recycling or using reusable bags, most people do it because they feel good about doing it. I can't remember the last time I bought a normal light bulb (and I haven't replaced a single CF yet either).

That said, as we head to electric cars we are going to need more electricity. The good thing about that is here we can get electricity from green sources while getting internal combustion engines off the roads. 20 years from now we might be using more electricity, but we can significantly reduce our carbon footprint. In Germany, I've even heard that the batteries in Electric cars are going to be used to put energy back into the grid when needed. So if a community is powered by a solar facility, their off peak usage at night can actually come from micro discharges from the batteries in their cars. Or if hydro isn't enough during peak hours, energy can be drained from unused cars and devices and recharged during the night.

If we build site C now to feed our current need, and in the future, because of smarter grids and conservation, it's too much, we can sell off that capacity to places where they don't have access to such great resources. I don't mind sacrificing a valley or two if in the future a bunch of coal or gas generators are taken offline because of it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

If we build site C now to feed our current need, and in the future, because of smarter grids and conservation, it's too much, we can sell off that capacity to places where they don't have access to such great resources. I don't mind sacrificing a valley or two if in the future a bunch of coal or gas generators are taken offline because of it.

Prof Weaver said much the same thing. Is it worthwhile to build Site C and take some natural gas or coal plants out of service in Alberta? No doubt.

He was also open to Nuclear. Interestingly they discussed how Site C and hydro plants are about $4b per gigawatt, whereas Nuclear is anywhere from $1b to $2b per gigawatt. China is building them for $1b now.

[Alex Mackinnon]

That's China though. In the energy coarse I took last year the prof quoted $4-7.5 billion per GW in Canada due to regulations. A dam also has a longer useful life and lower operating costs.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That's China though. In the energy coarse I took last year the prof quoted $4-7.5 billion per GW in Canada due to regulations. A dam also has a longer useful life and lower operating costs.

That seems to be a huge disparity. Weaver mentioned the last CANDU reactor built in 2005 I think was $2b per GW.

Regarding your most recent post, Condon has authored many articles that are suspect. He has an agenda with respect to transit in Metro Vancouver.

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'm very well aware of that agenda. Hence this.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That's China though. In the energy coarse I took last year the prof quoted $4-7.5 billion per GW in Canada due to regulations. A dam also has a longer useful life and lower operating costs.

I was working for AECL back in the late 90s. China CANDU and Canadian CANDU are based on the same design. It is not an issue of regulation in that CANDU reactors in China are built to Canadian standards. The same as US designed reactors built in China are built to US standards.

The China builds are cheaper due to lower labour costs and they are newer builds with newer build techniques. More modular units built off site then welded together on site.

The other issue with the price of a CANDU is Heavy water, it is around 20% of the cost of a reactor. It is a strategic asset, the specific size of the Canadian stockpile is not public. However you put a price on this is to some extent arbitrary.

The last nuclear project in CANDU in Canada was Darlington. The problem was Ontario Hydro raised power rates. Industry responded by refurbishing factories and becoming more energy efficient. Ontario Hydro then said, oh that is not good, we don't need Darlington as soon as we planned, lets slow the entire project down. End result is financing costs went way up. Best thing would have been to bring it online as quickly as possible and get it producing electricity even if it is not as profitable as one would like.

Lets not do the same thing with site-C as Ontario Hydro did with Darlington. Build the dam thing, get it into production and starting to pay its way as quickly as possible.