Hwy 99 Fraser River Tunnel (George Massey Replacement) | Proposed

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Exactly, the requirement is much more strategic than profit-based. Same as the George Massey.

Not really, it's actual profit if you can sell the power for much more than the typical spot price.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Not really, it's actual profit if you can sell the power for much more than the typical spot price.

3.5x?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Exactly, the requirement is much more strategic than profit-based. Same as the George Massey.

Not really my point. My point is that Site C will produce power for the domestic market at a reasonable cost relative to what we pay today. And we'll need a ton more supply to facilitate a transition to electricity from fossil fuels.

Site C has an ROI in pure $. GMB might have over it's lifetime with tolls, but not now..

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by fredinno

3.5x?

I'm not going to predict the power futures market. Intermittent production and load swings has produced everything from periodic negative power prices to prices well over $1,000/MWh. BC Hydro basically gets to play arbitrage with power prices whenever it suits them.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Not really my point. My point is that Site C will produce power for the domestic market at a reasonable cost relative to what we pay today. And we'll need a ton more supply to facilitate a transition to electricity from fossil fuels.

Site C has an ROI in pure $. GMB might have over it's lifetime with tolls, but not now..

On that note, you can't really compare the cost of an existing depreciated asset to new production, especially if you're looking at any of the Columbia River dams.

The Americans paid us a lot of money to build that infrastructure. They paid for the dams, they pay us to store flood water, and they pay us for the extra power generated downstream thanks to the seasonal storage. BC Hydro essentially only had to pay for the generating stations and distribution.

I'd bet that Revelstoke and Mica Dam would have been very expensive projects if undertaken today.

For GMT, the benefits are all in time saved and economic activity fostered. A much hard concept to measure, but equally as valuable to society. The real discourse should be focused of maximizing this benefit vs. other options; not weather or not tolls will pay for the damned thing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We will need all of Site C and more if the CleanBC plan proceeds and we electrify transportation and heating in this province. It's in a prime spot to sell power to LNG plants so they don't burn NG for their massive energy requirements, and sell clean electricity to Alberta if they ever see the light of climate change.

Right, we're talking about enough maximum power for 50-100 years' worth of growth and tech advancements; solar's useless up north, geothermal causes earthquakes, and nuclear everybody seems to be allergic to, so that means hydro.

Though I still say the Libs should've gone with the three smaller dams instead.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Right, we're talking about enough maximum power for 50-100 years' worth of growth and tech advancements; solar's useless up north, geothermal causes earthquakes, and nuclear everybody seems to be allergic to, so that means hydro.

Though I still say the Libs should've gone with the three smaller dams instead.

That's not enough power for 50-100 years. Site C has a net annual generation capacity of 5100 GWH. If we electrified our entire petroleum consumption, the total BC Hydro Generation Capacity would increase from 56000 GWH to 161560 GWH. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/blair-king/bc-energy-site-c-dam-hydro_b_7969110.html

It's a drop in the bucket. Geothermal is the best choice right now, considering it's basically fracking for renewable energy (tons of experienced people nearby, and knowledge how to deal with NIMBYs), and prime spots fairly near to the consumer are still untapped (Pemberton and the Gaglardi Range).

No renewable energy source is going to be completely free from environmentalist-NIMBY overruns.

The Libs going with smaller dams would basically mean going with more IPPs, which creates a whole new set of issues and concerns.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

That's not enough power for 50-100 years. Site C has a net annual generation capacity of 5100 GWH. If we electrified our entire petroleum consumption, the total BC Hydro Generation Capacity would increase from 56000 GWH to 161560 GWH. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/blair-king/bc-energy-site-c-dam-hydro_b_7969110.html

It's a drop in the bucket. Geothermal is the best choice right now, considering it's basically fracking for renewable energy (tons of experienced people nearby, and knowledge how to deal with NIMBYs), and prime spots fairly near to the consumer are still untapped (Pemberton and the Gaglardi Range).

No renewable energy source is going to be completely free from environmentalist-NIMBY overruns.

The Libs going with smaller dams would basically mean going with more IPPs, which creates a whole new set of issues and concerns.

To be fair, Blair makes his money working for natural gas companies.

Certainly BC will require more electricity, but that leaves how much more efficient electricity is, certainly for transportation. Fossil fuel engines are still very inefficient, despite the gains we've made in over a century with the internal combustion engine. It really speaks to how energy dense crude oil is.

Other clean sources of heat will be required, like renewable natural gas, corn based ethanol, biomass fired heat systems, etc. We also have a long ways to go on efficiency and conservation measures, so much less energy is required to maintain building comfort and get to where we need to go.

BC Hydro keeps forecasting increasing demand, yet despite the influx of population, and our electronic lifestyles, actual usage has remained relatively flat for years. Hydro can further curb demand with time of use charges, escalating rates, etc.

We will need Site C of course, and perhaps another large project, although the Green party thinks we can make do with a lot of smaller, clean generation.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Geothermal is the best choice right now, considering it's basically fracking for renewable energy (tons of experienced people nearby, and knowledge how to deal with NIMBYs), and prime spots fairly near to the consumer are still untapped (Pemberton and the Gaglardi Range).

Again, earthquakes.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

the fact of the matter is this:

no matter how the power is generated, there is an anti-environmental aspect to it.

• wind turbines - take a lot of land, kills birds, the sound they make, and needing batteries to store it.
• solar - takes a lot of space, cooks birds as the fly over, manufacturing of the mirrors isn't good using lots of resources such as toxic chemicals and water, also needs batteries to store it.
• tidal - coastal erosion, impact to marine habitats from space and sounds from turbines, very expensive
• geothermal - still some greenhouse gas emissions, earthquakes, expensive and if it is sustainable such as removing energy from earth faster than it is replaced.
• hydroelectric - takes up a lot of space for the reservoir, animal habitat changes such as fish having problems getting to spawning grounds

there are other types, but no matter what the type is. they all have environmental impacts. the key is to look at each type specific to BC and see what is the best value for rate payers to create the cheapest power, longest lasting system, as well as environmental impact.

my personal view is that hydro-power is the best for BC. there is a lot of experience with the technology, it is very proven in BC, and it is known to create fairly cheap power with low maintenance costs. we have basically the lowest power rates in North America along with Quebec, both of us using lots of hydro-power.

the other types are more experimental, and even the own governments report about Site C said the other types most likely wouldn't be any cheaper and possibly more expensive.

i would rather stick with proven, tried and true to BC, which BC Hydro knows what to do with.

i know many people say Site C isn't needed, but with everything wanting to go electric, we are going to need the power one day. better to have it for the future than need it ASAP and it takes 10yrs to build.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the fact of the matter is this:

no matter how the power is generated, there is an anti-environmental aspect to it.

• wind turbines - take a lot of land, kills birds, the sound they make, and needing batteries to store it.
• solar - takes a lot of space, cooks birds as the fly over, manufacturing of the mirrors isn't good using lots of resources such as toxic chemicals and water, also needs batteries to store it.
• tidal - coastal erosion, impact to marine habitats from space and sounds from turbines, very expensive
• geothermal - still some greenhouse gas emissions, earthquakes, expensive and if it is sustainable such as removing energy from earth faster than it is replaced.
• hydroelectric - takes up a lot of space for the reservoir, animal habitat changes such as fish having problems getting to spawning grounds

there are other types, but no matter what the type is. they all have environmental impacts. the key is to look at each type specific to BC and see what is the best value for rate payers to create the cheapest power, longest lasting system, as well as environmental impact.

my personal view is that hydro-power is the best for BC. there is a lot of experience with the technology, it is very proven in BC, and it is known to create fairly cheap power with low maintenance costs. we have basically the lowest power rates in North America along with Quebec, both of us using lots of hydro-power.

the other types are more experimental, and even the own governments report about Site C said the other types most likely wouldn't be any cheaper and possibly more expensive.

i would rather stick with proven, tried and true to BC, which BC Hydro knows what to do with.

i know many people say Site C isn't needed, but with everything wanting to go electric, we are going to need the power one day. better to have it for the future than need it ASAP and it takes 10yrs to build.

How about nuclear?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

How about nuclear?

Not as long as the poster child of the industry is this guy:



Seriously, there's too many environmentalists in BC - with way too much misinformation - for any kind of nuclear to ever get off the ground. Which is a shame, because there's a sizeable chunk of thorium under Prince Rupert.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

How about nuclear?

i am anti-nuclear myself. we don't need it, it is risky, and this is a very active earthquake zone.

but it also has negatives as the waste caused needs to be stored forever, they are expensive, and they require tons of water to cool them, such as a river. and if anything were too happen, .

we just don't need it here, so to me it isn't worth the risks.

[misher]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i am anti-nuclear myself. we don't need it, it is risky, and this is a very active earthquake zone.

but it also has negatives as the waste caused needs to be stored forever, they are expensive, and they require tons of water to cool them, such as a river. and if anything were too happen, .

we just don't need it here, so to me it isn't worth the risks.

The breeder reactor allows waste to be reduced dramatically (99% after 100 years) and fuel used to be reduced 99%. It’s just more expensive as uranium is cheap.

But yes we have tons of resources here that allow us to use hydro dams and possibly harness sea waves instead of nuclear here.

[WarrenC12]

Nuclear is no longer cost effective due to the waste created and excessive safety requirements. Look at the cost of the recent failed projects in the US. It makes Site C look like chump change, and they didn't even operate(!).

[dharper]

Directions for: Shortbread Cookies
INGREDIENTS
Shortbread Cookies
1 cup unsalted butter at room temperature

½ cup plus 2 Tbsp icing sugar

¼ cup cornstarch or rice flour

1 ½ cup all purpose flour

½ tsp salt

1 tsp vanilla extract

Chocolate Nougat Shortbread
Chocolate nougat candy

DIRECTIONS
Shortbread Cookies
1. Preheat oven to 350 °F. Beat butter until light and fluffy. Sift in icing sugar and beat again until fluffy, scraping down sides of the bowl often. Sift in cornstarch or rice flour and blend in. Sift in all purpose flour and salt and mix until dough comes together (it will be soft). Stir in vanilla.

2. Spoon large teaspoonfuls of cookie dough (or use a small ice cream scoop) onto an un-greased cookie sheet, leaving 2 inches between cookies and bake for 18 to 20 minutes, until bottoms brown lightly. Remove from cookie sheet to cool.

Chocolate Nougat Shortbread
1. Prepare shortbread recipe as above and spoon onto an ungreased baking sheet. Press a triangle piece of chocolate nougat candy into the center of each cookie and bake for 18 to 20 minutes, until bottoms brown lightly.


from foodnetwork.ca

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the fact of the matter is this:

no matter how the power is generated, there is an anti-environmental aspect to it.

• wind turbines - take a lot of land, kills birds, the sound they make, and needing batteries to store it.
• solar - takes a lot of space, cooks birds as the fly over, manufacturing of the mirrors isn't good using lots of resources such as toxic chemicals and water, also needs batteries to store it.
• tidal - coastal erosion, impact to marine habitats from space and sounds from turbines, very expensive
• geothermal - still some greenhouse gas emissions, earthquakes, expensive and if it is sustainable such as removing energy from earth faster than it is replaced.
• hydroelectric - takes up a lot of space for the reservoir, animal habitat changes such as fish having problems getting to spawning grounds

there are other types, but no matter what the type is. they all have environmental impacts. the key is to look at each type specific to BC and see what is the best value for rate payers to create the cheapest power, longest lasting system, as well as environmental impact.

my personal view is that hydro-power is the best for BC. there is a lot of experience with the technology, it is very proven in BC, and it is known to create fairly cheap power with low maintenance costs. we have basically the lowest power rates in North America along with Quebec, both of us using lots of hydro-power.

the other types are more experimental, and even the own governments report about Site C said the other types most likely wouldn't be any cheaper and possibly more expensive.

i would rather stick with proven, tried and true to BC, which BC Hydro knows what to do with.

i know many people say Site C isn't needed, but with everything wanting to go electric, we are going to need the power one day. better to have it for the future than need it ASAP and it takes 10yrs to build.

I agree, except that building more hydro basically means buying run-of-river power from IPPs, since the BC Clean Energy Act prevented BC from building large dams in any other sites proposed other than Site C.

Run-of-River is seasonal, and the large dams are multi-purposed as batteries, so geothermal could provide more base capacity. Also, Run-of-River itself is limited due to environmental reasons.

Also, IPPs are like P3 contracting in that the costs are spread out long-term, and often would cost more on the long term. Also, how much energy run-of-river can realistically provide is another question.

If we need to double our power production due to electrification, we need more than just run-of-river, due to storage capacity limitations, if nothing else.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Again, earthquakes.

4.5 on the Ritcher Scale is comparable to a very fat man walking though town...

But seriously, they're probably not going to even build it near Pemberton itself. Meager Creek is near Pemberton. https://dogwoodbc.ca/news/south_meager_geothermal_project/
Fracking also causes minor earthquakes, it's not as big of a deal as the flooding new hydro dams entail.

Run-of-River has the potential to destroy fish stocks without strict regulations on location and how much water can be taken out of the system.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I agree, except that building more hydro basically means buying run-of-river power from IPPs, since the BC Clean Energy Act prevented BC from building large dams in any other sites proposed other than Site C.

that can always be changed, takes a stroke of a pen in the Legislature.

no need to rely on IPP's; we didn't used to, and we don't need to. that was just 1 governments idea, that doesn't mean it cant/wont be changed. i don't see us needing another huge power project in the near future anyways. many of our dams can still be upgraded and expanded without a ton of work. on-top of that, there is constantly new technology that is taking more power out of existing capacity by replacing the equipment at the end of its life with new equipment.

in the end, the issues of IPP is easy to change, and with Site C, i don't see us needing a large capital project in the future. the NDP i am sure will be pro BC Hydro vs outsourcing such as with IPPs.

i am not arguing large dams are the best thing, but, if you want a power grid such as what BC has built, then i say stick with what we know, stick with the proven technology, and don't reinvent the wheel. upgrade the dams we have as much as possible, then maybe look at the other sites BC Hydro has on the books. there are more than Site C that were original identified.



but, we probably really should get back on topic with the bridge.


i say lets not touch it. i don't like the idea of ruining tons of ALR land and keeping the tunnel. it'll be so convoluted and environmentally harsh. we should do it once, and get it done right so we don't have to do it for 125 years. instead of this "oh its been 50yrs, due to shortsighted plans we need to fix it." time to fix the record before it goes around again.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by officedweller

But did you see what the report says is sufficient for the Steveston Hwy interchange?

Would a 3+1 configuration be strange? 3 Vancouver Lanes + 1 Stevston Lane?

I agree with the report that with a 8 lane bridge, a massive interchange structure would be out of place. With a 10 lane bridge and collector lanes, the impact of a backup on the interchange would be significantly reduced on the through lanes.

I'm sure we have numerous examples of this phenomenon on the Port Mann bridge over the past few years.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i am not arguing large dams are the best thing, but, if you want a power grid such as what BC has built, then i say stick with what we know, stick with the proven technology, and don't reinvent the wheel. upgrade the dams we have as much as possible, then maybe look at the other sites BC Hydro has on the books. there are more than Site C that were original identified.

I just said that they can't. Technically, the Clean Power Act could be modified to allow for them, but it'd almost certainly be an unpopular move to 'unprotect' those rivers, and I doubt the political will exists.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Would a 3+1 configuration be strange? 3 Vancouver Lanes + 1 Stevston Lane?

I agree with the report that with a 8 lane bridge, a massive interchange structure would be out of place. With a 10 lane bridge and collector lanes, the impact of a backup on the interchange would be significantly reduced on the through lanes.

I'm sure we have numerous examples of this phenomenon on the Port Mann bridge over the past few years.

I think a true C/D system like the PMB would be ideal. 2 lanes for Richmond up until the airport exit or even BC91 and then 2+HOV lanes for Vancouver