Site C Dam

[WarrenC12]

Prof Andrew Weaver from UVIC (shared a Nobel prize), is on CKNW right now talking about earth day issues and his support of Site C.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Prof Andrew Weaver from UVIC (shared a Nobel prize), is on CKNW right now talking about earth day issues and his support of Site C.

I'll have to wait till the podcast comes out. I'd like to hear his take.

[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.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

I was told once that VEVA did a study that showed that conservation could handle all the demand from electric vehicles. I can't find it on their website but if anyone wants to contact them they might be able to send you the info.

I don't think people appreciate how much can be achieved through conservation.



or Alberta?
or Coalbed Methane extraction in Northern BC?

I have heard all three theories.

I came across some 2003 Stats Can numbers for BC putting motor gas consumption at equal to 4/5 of total electricity consumption (converted to TJ). I don't think energy conservation measures alone can compensate for the additional demand, if all gas powered vehicles converted to electricity within the next 10 years. (Feel free to correct my understanding of the TJ.)

But the expected share of electric car sales appears to vary between 10 and 60% of the total new car market. So conservation could concievably soak up some of that demand.

My understanding is that Site C will raise BC generating capacity by just under 10%, is that correct? Provincial energy documents talk of potential savings and gains through secondary measures not involving new generating plants of upwards of 20% of 2006 needs.

That is enormous. And does not appear to include plant upgrades and uprating, alternative generating sources, pumped water hydro, etc… It's a significant amount.

Not all conservation measures aim at reducing demand absolutely, they can try to direct demand to off peak hours where BC has capacity to spare.

I don't agree that pricing doesn't have an influence on consumer demand. You may not be influenced by it, but BCHydro certainly seems to believe that their two tier rates have had an impact. The Vancouver Sun article demonstrates that Industrial and Commercial is even more sensitive to cost factors.

[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.

[b5baxter]

Originally Posted by lezard

I came across some 2003 Stats Can numbers for BC putting motor gas consumption at equal to 4/5 of total electricity consumption (converted to TJ). ....

Is that based on a straight conversion of gasoline use to TJ? Remember that electrical cars are significantly more efficient (3-4x??) than ICE vehicles so they would require less energy.

What we really need to see though is a transfer of trips to electrified mass transit which is even more efficient than individual electric vehicles.

On on the subject of conservation I have seen both business and individuals reduce their electrical use by 30-70% through low or no cost projects. The trick is just to convince more people to adopt those strategies.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

Is that based on a straight conversion of gasoline use to TJ? Remember that electrical cars are significantly more efficient (3-4x??) than ICE vehicles so they would require less energy.

What we really need to see though is a transfer of trips to electrified mass transit which is even more efficient than individual electric vehicles.

On on the subject of conservation I have seen both business and individuals reduce their electrical use by 30-70% through low or no cost projects. The trick is just to convince more people to adopt those strategies.

I don't know. The conversion was Stats Can. And it didn't deal with electric vehicles. It was simply a summary of consumption numbers for 1996 and 2003 compared across all primary sources.

A ev would need less energy in J to travel the same distance than its gas counterpart?

[lezard]

Insert Homerian exclamation here.

Physics class lost in mists of time. I see what you mean. Very embarrassing.

[Alex Mackinnon]

If you want that kind of info take a look here. Patrick Condon sent it to me. It's got info on all the energy requirements and CO2 outputs of various transportation methods.

http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_researc...7Transport.pdf

With this stuff info I calculated that my electric skateboard uses 1/3 the energy of a person on the most efficient tram listed. Yay for being a bored engineering student.

Total carbon output = about 0.1g/km. Less CO2/km than a person breathes out in 30 seconds.

[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.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by lezard

I don't know. The conversion was Stats Can. And it didn't deal with electric vehicles. It was simply a summary of consumption numbers for 1996 and 2003 compared across all primary sources.

A ev would need less energy in J to travel the same distance than its gas counterpart?

Yes, according to the law of conservation of energy, energy can't be created or destroyed... just converted into another form. An electric car, assuming it's the same weight and has the same coefficient of drag would be use more of its energy for propelling the car.

The internal combustion doesn't transfer all the energy in the gasoline to the wheels.
Some of the fuel's energy gets transferred into:

• heat energy ( electric cars usually need a separate electric heater as they don't generate as much heat)
• sound energy ( electric cars are quieter )
• kinetic energy ( more moving parts, more energy lost to friction... causing heat and sound, mind you )
• light energy ( spark plugs ;-) )
• byproduct production ( creating new gases like CO uses up energy )

You're trying to harness explosive power. Thousands of micro-explosions per minute. We've become quite good at it, but yes... if everything's the same, they use less energy.

We use electricity to refine oil to create petroleum. We blow up petroleum and harness the kinetic energy to move a piston which turns a crankshaft which spins other parts of the engine to eventually turn the wheels. We have oil, just because we produce too much heat. That's a system which we don't even need to think about with an electric car ( at least not in the sense of cooling ). As well, we have the possibility of having things like four micro electric engines directly connected to the wheels.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by b5baxter

On on the subject of conservation I have seen both business and individuals reduce their electrical use by 30-70% through low or no cost projects. The trick is just to convince more people to adopt those strategies.

A trip computer has made me a much more efficient driver. I'll often see how low I can get the average L/100km on a given trip and my driving habits changed somewhat so that I'm driving within a narrow band of efficiency.

There are times when it's at 0.0 L/100km... because it shuts off the fuel intake when your foots off the gas (as far as I can tell). I thought that was really smart (must be that German engineering), so when you're going down a hill, for example, as long as you're engine stays above 2000rpm and your foot's off the accelerator, you're not using any fuel at all.


source

[lezard]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yes, according to the law of conservation of energy, energy can't be created or destroyed... just converted into another form. An electric car, assuming it's the same weight and has the same coefficient of drag would be use more of its energy for propelling the car.

The internal combustion doesn't transfer all the energy in the gasoline to the wheels.
Some of the fuel's energy gets transferred into:

• heat energy ( electric cars usually need a separate electric heater as they don't generate as much heat)
• sound energy ( electric cars are quieter )
• kinetic energy ( more moving parts, more energy lost to friction... causing heat and sound, mind you )
• light energy ( spark plugs ;-) )
• byproduct production ( creating new gases like CO uses up energy )

You're trying to harness explosive power. Thousands of micro-explosions per minute. We've become quite good at it, but yes... if everything's the same, they use less energy.

We use electricity to refine oil to create petroleum. We blow up petroleum and harness the kinetic energy to move a piston which turns a crankshaft which spins other parts of the engine to eventually turn the wheels. We have oil, just because we produce too much heat. That's a system which we don't even need to think about with an electric car ( at least not in the sense of cooling ). As well, we have the possibility of having things like four micro electric engines directly connected to the wheels.

Thanks for the refresher! It has been a few decades.

[Alex Mackinnon]

You also have to compare the efficiency of the motor itself. A good gas motor is 30%ish efficient. Typical electric motors are 90%ish efficient.

[EastVanMark]

BCUC report is out:

Site C dam unlikely to be on time or on budget: BCUC report

"The report said that the commission is not persuaded that the project can meet its initial completion date of 2024, and warns that costs could climb “in excess of $10 billion,” possibly exceeding it’s original $8.3 billion budget by 20 to 50 per cent.

The panel found that cancelling the project and re-mediating the site will cost about $1.8 billion, on top of the cost of finding alternative power sources."

Looks like an expensive proposition either way

https://globalnews.ca/news/3837135/s...t-bcuc-report/

[csbvan]

This project has been a disaster from day 1.

[retro_orange]

Is there any way to build the dam to only half the size with the potential ability to raise the height of the dam to flood more land if more power is needed from it in the future?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by retro_orange

Is there any way to build the dam to only half the size with the potential ability to raise the height of the dam to flood more land if more power is needed from it in the future?

That would basically be pointless. The dam height hardly changes the cost if you'd have to build it for the eventual raise. The foundation and generators would all have to be the same, but not properly optimized for either scenario.

It would basically be the same cost, and pay back at however much slower it produces power.

The reduced flooding would result in a short stretch of non-flooded river between a reservoir and the Peace Canyon Dam. Who wins in that scenario?