Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

As an aside, I get really confused at the opposition to more NG and Hydro projects. They are some of the cleanest forms of energy we have on this planet.

Hydro especially, I support. I don't have a very strong objection to LNG - burning it releases carbon but not as much as from petroleum - so its use in buses is a good thing as long as the associated costs aren't too great. But I'd love to see expanded use of trolley buses. They're clean, last a lot longer, and perform better with full loads and on hilly routes. Yes, it costs money to install overhead wiring, but it's a pittance compared to the cost of grade-separated transit or even LRT.

[MIPS]

I think Hydroelectric projects are more a case of the backwoods hippies thinking that the government is taking their land.

[SOSS]

Hydro dams vs run-of-the-river projects take expansive amounts of arable land. At a current budget of $20,000/house in cost of site-C, what were the other options investigated? I don't think BC is very well set up for solar (except some southern interior locations) but wind or run-of-the-river may produce the same power for less cost.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Hydro dams vs run-of-the-river projects take expansive amounts of arable land. At a current budget of $20,000/house in cost of site-C, what were the other options investigated? I don't think BC is very well set up for solar (except some southern interior locations) but wind or run-of-the-river may produce the same power for less cost.

The best places for solar in BC are the Gulf Islands, around Victoria, The Thompson Valley, and The Rocky Mountain Trench. Sadly, these are all our most endangered ecosystems in BC, and big solar farms would also destroy lots of sage brush and Gary oak habitats.

The problem with run of the river is that instead of disturbing one river / valley, you out tens if not hundreds of smaller rivers at risk (for fish and other animals that use the rivers).

All these energy forms have drawbacks, and to manufacture solar panels you need to do lots of open bit mining for the REE.

That being said, I do wish the Site C was a few km further up stream.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The best places for solar in BC are the Gulf Islands, around Victoria, The Thompson Valley, and The Rocky Mountain Trench. Sadly, these are all our most endangered ecosystems in BC, and big solar farms would also destroy lots of sage brush and Gary oak habitats.

The problem with run of the river is that instead of disturbing one river / valley, you out tens if not hundreds of smaller rivers at risk (for fish and other animals that use the rivers).

All these energy forms have drawbacks, and to manufacture solar panels you need to do lots of open bit mining for the REE.

That being said, I do wish the Site C was a few km further up stream.

Very good points. What about wind or tidal?

[Metro-One]

Winds big draw backs are aesthetics (which isn't a problem for me, but it sure gets some people angry), reliability (there are relatively few places that are always windy), and killing birds (I have heard that they can kill many birds, especially in migration routes, hence having them in shallow tidal flats is a bad idea) Personally I feel you must be a pretty dumb bird to be killed by those, but thats nature, and we have all had the bird fly right into our window.

Tidal and geo thermal I have always thought are the best options, they are always occurring, would have relatively little habitat destruction, and are generally out of sight. But I am sure they have their own problems as well.

[Millennium2002]

Geothermal may seem like a good option for the coast, but there are few places in the world that can take advantage of the unique conditions required. It's probably safe to say that the volcanic activity in the areas around Vancouver is minimal and doesn't generate enough heat for efficient cost-recovery.

[WarrenC12]

Are there any large scale tidal power generation systems in the world? I've only seen theoretical models.

[red-paladin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Are there any large scale tidal power generation systems in the world? I've only seen theoretical models.

Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia is the first one in North America, 20MW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Royal_Generating_Station
It's the third most powerful in the world.

There are two much larger ones in South Korea and France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_Station 254 MW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station 240 MW

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Geothermal may seem like a good option for the coast, but there are few places in the world that can take advantage of the unique conditions required. It's probably safe to say that the volcanic activity in the areas around Vancouver is minimal and doesn't generate enough heat for efficient cost-recovery.

http://www.cangea.ca/bc-geothermal-resource-estimate-maps.html

All the best areas already have natural or commercial hot springs. Good ol' subduction-zone volcanism near the coast.

IMO, site C is a hit and miss depending how long into the future you look. We don't really need it, nor do we need the LNG industry for domestic use, so selling the energy generated by site C as LNG (or hydrogen) is clearly an export target. But without the pipelines.... Uh do we want a lac megantic event in BC?

All of this stuff needs to happen in concert or not at all. Without the LNG the only export target for BC electricity is California. The BC Hydro can't sell Electricty below cost. LNG without Site C means that it has to be taken from the Columbia River Treaty sources or imported, driving up Electricty cost in BC and everyone who buys energy (remember Enron?) Alberta buys from us during peak periods and sells to us during off-peak to lower hydro-electric use (remember that reservoirs have a fixed capacity akin to a battery.)

But long term, we may regret destroying more farmland. That topsoil is gone forever the minute the flooding begins.

Ultimately I think that hydrogen buses may be a better long term investment if safety concerns can be overcome (people associate hydrogen with the Hindenburg. But CNG is nearly the same in this respect.)

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by allan_kuan

Geothermal may seem like a good option for the coast, but there are few places in the world that can take advantage of the unique conditions required. It's probably safe to say that the volcanic activity in the areas around Vancouver is minimal and doesn't generate enough heat for efficient cost-recovery.

I'm no expert in this by any means, but I did read a recent article which claims that BC has enough geothermal resources to produce Site-C-equivalent energy at competitive costs.

And, to keep this tangentially on-topic, that energy could be used to power an expanded trolley bus system.

[SOSS]

There is no guaranty that the LNG industry is going to use electricity from the grid. It is likely they'll just use NG to create the needed energy on site at the LNG facilities.

[WarrenC12]

I think electricity is the future of virtually all ground transport. Private cars, commercial trucks and transit, and even long-range train travel, or hyperloop or whatever comes up next. Trolley buses or straght-up electric is what Translink and others should be looking to buy.

I was recently in Southeastern California. I saw at least a dozen wind farms, a few solar farms, and solar panels on ~10% of homes in the area. That's the future for them.

It's all good news, but BC (and Canada) needs to generate it's own clean power. For us that means hydro. Does Quebec have any of these same issues building dams?

[WaxItYourself]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Winds big draw backs are aesthetics (which isn't a problem for me, but it sure gets some people angry), reliability (there are relatively few places that are always windy), and killing birds (I have heard that they can kill many birds, especially in migration routes, hence having them in shallow tidal flats is a bad idea) Personally I feel you must be a pretty dumb bird to be killed by those, but thats nature, and we have all had the bird fly right into our window.

Tidal and geo thermal I have always thought are the best options, they are always occurring, would have relatively little habitat destruction, and are generally out of sight. But I am sure they have their own problems as well.

Wind farms are not set up in migration routes any longer. There have been a few in the past that kill a large number of birds. These are the ones that receive the most media attention from certain outlets. The newest turbines use several techniques to further limit bird deaths such as providing perches. There are more offshore wind farms being built recently, some even proposed for BC.

http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EAED/InvestmentInfo/Documents/Wind27May2010.pdf

Of course some still stand in the way.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/naikun-headaches-hold-lessons-for-offshore-wind-projects-1.992837

I would think that geothermal would be the most accepted source of energy for small scale ventures such as the new Surrey Central district energy system. I have not really looked into run of river but do know that tidal is a large untapped energy resource that many countries are now beginning to use as their generators come online.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia is the first one in North America, 20MW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Royal_Generating_Station
It's the third most powerful in the world.

There are two much larger ones in South Korea and France:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_Station 254 MW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station 240 MW

Neither of those stations generate much power. While they have high peak outputs, the capacity factors are quite low, near 25%. So, that 250MW tidal barrage would only produce about 1/16th the power of Site C.

The reservoir for Site C, Peace Canyon Dam and WAC Bennett can provide power with near constancy for up to 2 years at a time. Maintenance and lack of demand are really the only things dragging down production.

By the way, all 3 of those plants involve making a dam on a river, they're just at the mouth.

Geothermal interests me greatly as well, but BC Hydro doesn't have much experience with geothermal. Geothermal is an all or none proposition like oil wells. Either you hit geothermal resource and produce power or you end up with a lot of useless steel in the ground and a big bill. Bureaucracies really doesn't like that kind of uncertainty. Also, they can cause lots of little earthquakes.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Neither of those stations generate much power. While they have high peak outputs, the capacity factors are quite low, near 25%. So, that 250MW tidal barrage would only produce about 1/16th the power of Site C.

The reservoir for Site C, Peace Canyon Dam and WAC Bennett can provide power with near constancy for up to 2 years at a time. Maintenance and lack of demand are really the only things dragging down production.

By the way, all 3 of those plants involve making a dam on a river, they're just at the mouth.

Geothermal interests me greatly as well, but BC Hydro doesn't have much experience with geothermal. Geothermal is an all or none proposition like oil wells. Either you hit geothermal resource and produce power or you end up with a lot of useless steel in the ground and a big bill. Bureaucracies really doesn't like that kind of uncertainty. Also, they can cause lots of little earthquakes.

Funny how you mention little earthquakes. Dams also can create earthquakes. Three Gorges Dam (although larger than approved site-c) caused 3000 earthquakes between 2003 and 2009. A 30-fold increase in frequency from pre-dam era.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Funny how you mention little earthquakes. Dams also can create earthquakes. Three Gorges Dam (although larger than approved site-c) caused 3000 earthquakes between 2003 and 2009. A 30-fold increase in frequency from pre-dam era.

Ooh I didn't know about that one. Very cool. I'd imagine that is due to the amount of weight in the reservoir. They would likely dissipate at some point as the area settles in to a new equilibrium.

Geothermal earthquakes are most likely caused by contraction of rock as it cools.

The class I took on geothermal power at UBC said that hydro had investigated geothermal extensively during the eighties, but found that landslide risk at Mt. Meager made it difficult to site the power plant. That was main area of potential near Vancouver.

[MIPS]

We could also try for nuclear power somewhere along the inland Frasier, Thompson or Columbia rivers.

Anyways, I think we are wandering off-topic here.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

so back on topic,

i took the Canada Line and Expo Line the other day and i had a question.

does the Expo Line (Waterfront - Main) run at a faster speed? it felt a lot faster for acceleration, deceleration, cornering and average speed. the Canada Line (Waterfront - Aberdeen) felt a lot slower the whole trip leaving the stations, cornering and just average speed felt a lot slower. i also thought it started slowing down a ton sooner before the stations then the Expo did.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

so back on topic,

i took the Canada Line and Expo Line the other day and i had a question.

does the Expo Line (Waterfront - Main) run at a faster speed? it felt a lot faster for acceleration, deceleration, cornering and average speed. the Canada Line (Waterfront - Aberdeen) felt a lot slower the whole trip leaving the stations, cornering and just average speed felt a lot slower. i also thought it started slowing down a ton sooner before the stations then the Expo did.

I've mentioned this before, I've had the same experience. I had been taking the Canada Line for a while before I ever took the Expo Line for the first time, and I was blown away by how much faster it felt. It's why I've become so retrospectively disappointed we went with Rotem and not Bombardier. Speed is the most important thing to me.