New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's an interesting map, what is the source?

Are the transmission lines relevant to "potential" or just there for illustrative purposes?

Looking at the scale of that map (which is a mess), we wouldn't need 4 times as many, likely something like 1.5 times in the Okanagan area.

Looks like we have tons of wind potential too.

At the end of the day, transmission lines cross provincial borders. You could argue we're better off buying Alberta solar than building our own damns.

I think small scale / local solar production in BC would be great (such as on rooftops, above parking lots, and even vacant lots within urban areas) but I really don’t want to see any major solar farms in BC.

Now, hear me out, the reason for this is because in southern BC the two regions that receive the most sunshine are also the two regions with the most critically endangered ecosystems, the Gary Oak / Douglas Fir biom of the south coast and the bunchgrass / Ponderosa bioms of the southern interior. These eco zones are also very limited in area in our province and are already among the most developed and urbanized regions. We don’t need to have another pressure put on them (I would hate to see large areas of sagebrush in the Thompson Valley for example be plowed over for a massive solar plant).

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You saying "we" as in BC here? I'm not sure BC is going to be exporting much to Alberta if they keep getting rates like that.

And if CleanBC is going to happen, we need all the MW we can get. Site C goes hand in hand with LNG, using electricity to compress instead of the gas itself.

We export/import MWs with AESO every hour of every day.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sure, I'm not suggesting BC become a Solar powerhouse, I'm just trying to illustrate how cheap Solar is getting, even in regions that aren't ideal for it. Prices and technology have changed dramatically in the last 10 years, and will continue to do so. Small scale projects can showcase the technology quickly. If we need another Site C's worth of power, we're going to spend another 40 years getting a damn approved.

Yeah, I think this is the last megadam we're ever going to build.

Point I'm making is that solar in BC doesn't scale as well, regardless of what Klein, Suzuki, et al are saying. Metro's right - keep it limited to rooftops and farms and bike rentals and other things that don't necessarily need to be 100% on-grid.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

We sell power all the way down the west coast to California. I know line loss is an issue, but obviously we can deal with it and still make some money.

Maybe I'm explaining it wrong. You suggested buying from Alberta. I'm saying that (let's say) 100 GW means us paying upkeep plus profit margin, and ending up with 96 GW; generating our own means that we only pay upkeep.

[misher]

What about harvesting tidal power? Perhaps if we're going to be rebuilding the whiterock pier we could build a small concept with it (note that it would still have to be decently long to work as the longer they are the more efficient they are)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_tidal_power

I feel like it would be dumb to build large solar facilities in BC, a place that has rain and clouds. But we do have a ton of water and coastlines.

Plus if we wanted to be crazy ambitious, we could build condo towers ontop of the tidal facilities. Maybe it could pay for itself if this was attached to downtown.

PS: Super super ambitious, maybe we could connect it to Stanley Park and create a ring road around downtown so people could get to North Van without going through downtown gridlock.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, I think this is the last megadam we're ever going to build.

Point I'm making is that solar in BC doesn't scale as well, regardless of what Klein, Suzuki, et al are saying. Metro's right - keep it limited to rooftops and farms and bike rentals and other things that don't necessarily need to be 100% on-grid.

Rooftop installations limit the required transmission wires if power is being locally produced and used. But you do get some economies of scale having larger installations, say "community sized."

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Maybe I'm explaining it wrong. You suggested buying from Alberta. I'm saying that (let's say) 100 GW means us paying upkeep plus profit margin, and ending up with 96 GW; generating our own means that we only pay upkeep.

I was using the 4.8c/kWh of that solar contract in Alberta vs the expected ~10 c/kWh price of Site C over its lifetime. Ultimately the market should help decide what happens, but with BC Hydro, BCUC, and whatever government is in power, they could force us to buy our own expensive power.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

What about harvesting tidal power? Perhaps if we're going to be rebuilding the whiterock pier we could build a small concept with it (note that it would still have to be decently long to work as the longer they are the more efficient they are)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_tidal_power

I feel like it would be dumb to build large solar facilities in BC, a place that has rain and clouds. But we do have a ton of water and coastlines.

I don't think tidal is really commercially viable at this time. Wind is commonly used off and onshore, and we have lots of good sites for it.

Saying solar doesn't work when it's cloudy or cold is Trumpian.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't think tidal is really commercially viable at this time. Wind is commonly used off and onshore, and we have lots of good sites for it.

Saying solar doesn't work when it's cloudy or cold is Trumpian.

I'm unsure tidal would be viable but who knows, if a dam is viable why not tidal? This article seems to hint the tech is may be there to make it viable https://inhabitat.com/is-tidal-power...e/?variation=d



As for solar, let me just look outside, yeah I think there's better places for large scale solar generation. Its not denying anything, its just being practical as per the below map. Small scale may make sense in areas that don't need much power but large scale would be stupid.



Wind map

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by misher

What about harvesting tidal power? Perhaps if we're going to be rebuilding the whiterock pier we could build a small concept with it (note that it would still have to be decently long to work as the longer they are the more efficient they are)?

Tidal ruins coastal habitats though. We already had a giant brouhaha over upgrading Tsawwassen because it'd screw with the eelgrass - the province kinda depends on salmon.

Originally Posted by misher

Plus if we wanted to be crazy ambitious, we could build condo towers ontop of the tidal facilities. Maybe it could pay for itself if this was attached to downtown.

PS: Super super ambitious, maybe we could connect it to Stanley Park and create a ring road around downtown so people could get to North Van without going through downtown gridlock.

The average tidal plant looks like this. Only Hollywood CGI can balance a condo on top of those, Mister President.

I'm not seeing any way to build a ring road across English Bay. Either you wreck the beaches and force a whole lot of traffic down Denman, or wreck Stanley Park and force a lot of traffic down Park Lane. Both options involve a 4+ lane road at Burrard & Cornwall which splits Vanier in half.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Rooftop installations limit the required transmission wires if power is being locally produced and used. But you do get some economies of scale having larger installations, say "community sized."

True, no point in hauling power all the way to Kamloops when a moderate solar farm will do. My concern is Greenpeace nuts thinking that Site C's power can be replaced entirely by panels because "good for SoCal, good for us..." and due to the fact that we're not friggin' SoCal, clearing an area the size of the reservoir anyway.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I was using the 4.8c/kWh of that solar contract in Alberta vs the expected ~10 c/kWh price of Site C over its lifetime. Ultimately the market should help decide what happens, but with BC Hydro, BCUC, and whatever government is in power, they could force us to buy our own expensive power.

Yeah, but then we're dependent on Alberta for our power, when we've got some right here. They've already cut our oil off, just as a bargaining chip. What about population growth or market changes?

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Wind is commonly used off and onshore, and we have lots of good sites for it.

Saying solar doesn't work when it's cloudy or cold is Trumpian.

Offshore or mountain wind's good. Solar does work when it's cloudy, but the output drops by 75-90%; wouldn't rely on it that much in non-Interior BC.

[Jalapeño Chips]

Geothermal is probably the alternative energy source with the most potential in BC. Solar is not really going to go much beyond remote, rooftop and lamppost applications. Wind maybe, but Geothermal, if done right, would be more consistent.

[misher]

Originally Posted by Jalapeño Chips

Geothermal is probably the alternative energy source with the most potential in BC. Solar is not really going to go much beyond remote, rooftop and lamppost applications. Wind maybe, but Geothermal, if done right, would be more consistent.

Site C is supposed to produce an average of 680MW.

According to https://www.cleanenergybc.org/about/...ors/geothermal there are two geothermal sites that have potential to produce amounts equal to this in BC.

Pebble Creek at North Meager (est. 300–700 MW) Mount Edziza in northwest BC (est. 200–800 MW)

The capital cost of a 100 MW generating plant and associated facilities is estimated at some $400 million, including expenditures on the initial resource confirmation program.

Site C is supposed to be over $10 billion, so producing the amount of power Site C is supposed to produce through geothermal would be less than $2.8 billion.

Clean Energy BC makes Site C look like a huge waste of money.

I assume there must be some math missing here.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, but then we're dependent on Alberta for our power, when we've got some right here. They've already cut our oil off, just as a bargaining chip. What about population growth or market changes?

I'm just saying if the market is allowed to play out, companies will invest in Solar in Alberta to sell it to us. Regulation (and transmission capacity) could prevent that, but then we are paying artificially high prices. Hydro is excellent in gaming the spot market because it doesn't have the sun requirement, nor the requirement to be on all the time (like Nuclear). But if Site C is an example of it's future, it's not going to be as cheap as some of those sources.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Offshore or mountain wind's good. Solar does work when it's cloudy, but the output drops by 75-90%; wouldn't rely on it that much in non-Interior BC.

I think the Interior is the only place for Solar, really, apart from maybe rooftops south of the fraser. Our land here is too valuable for people to live, or to grow food. The Interior has a lot of sunny dead space IMO.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

Site C is supposed to produce an average of 680MW.

According to https://www.cleanenergybc.org/about/...ors/geothermal there are two geothermal sites that have potential to produce amounts equal to this in BC.



Site C is supposed to be over $10 billion, so producing the amount of power Site C is supposed to produce through geothermal would be less than $2.8 billion.

Clean Energy BC makes Site C look like a huge waste of money.

I assume there must be some math missing here.

Environmentalism protests, lawsuits by First Nations groups, and endless studies and stalling?

Site C used to be 6-7 Billion.

I hoped that Site E might eventually get built, finishing the Peace River dams as originally planned (Site A, B, C, and E), but that's been barred by the Clean Energy Act.

[misher]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Environmentalism protests, lawsuits by First Nations groups, and endless studies and stalling?

Site C used to be 6-7 Billion.

I hoped that Site E might eventually get built, finishing the Peace River dams as originally planned (Site A, B, C, and E), but that's been barred by the Clean Energy Act.

Was site D bad luck so it was skipped?

Also construction costs went way up in BC plus were using union labor.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by misher

Was site D bad luck so it was skipped?

Also construction costs went way up in BC plus were using union labor.

Dunno, I could never find anything on Site D.

Site E would have been right next to the BC-Alberta border, though. I don't think there is space for a 'Site D' that would be useful though, so it might have just been left on the drawing board.

However, the BC Clean Energy Act states two site 'E's, a 'High' Site E, and a 'Low' Site E. So, possibly Site 'D' was merged with Site 'E' as an alternative option.

http://www.bcwi.ca/proposed-peace-river-dams-sites-c-e/

Studies were also conduced for damming the Stikine, the Skeena (I think?), and the Liard in the 80s, though they never got anywhere.


The only other Hydro megaproject I'm aware of that the BC Clean Energy Act allowed by omission was the Kemano Completion Project, which was proposed for an expansion of the associated Aluminum smeltery.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Was site D bad luck so it was skipped?

Also construction costs went way up in BC plus were using union labor.

Site C has other issues that led to the escalating budget. I don't think the new union rules have anything to do with it.

Regarding the geothermal estimates, I believe those were older (like 2015), and maybe don't include transmission lines. However, even if it could be built for double or triple, it seems like a no brainer. I wonder if the construction timeline is faster than a big dam. Those things are like molasses.

[Ben Dover]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Just what the BC Liberals need, to have a connection with another scandal:

A global communications marketing firm says it is suspending its contract with former British Columbia premier Gordon Campbell in light of an allegation in a British newspaper that he groped a woman in the United Kingdom.

Edelman says in a statement that Campbell has served as a special adviser to the firm since last July, and was engaged on a part-time basis as a consultant through a retainer agreement.

However, the company says it and Campbell have “mutually decided to suspend their consulting arrangement” until a police investigation in the United Kingdom is complete...


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...rdon-campbell/

Thanks...this made my day!
Always knew he was nothing but a power-abusing lech!
What I always find amazingly hypocritical about these ex-Socreds is how they constantly call for the heads of the Opposition, but when they are exposed for their own scandals, carry on as if they were "fire-proof".

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving person....

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Ben Dover

Thanks...this made my day!
Always knew he was nothing but a power-abusing lech!
What I always find amazingly hypocritical about these ex-Socreds is how they constantly call for the heads of the Opposition, but when they are exposed for their own scandals, carry on as if they were "fire-proof".

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving person....

TBF, it's not confirmed yet. People should wait until the evidence comes in before assigning guilt, because the 'victim' turning out to be fake happens quite a bit.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[misher]

Originally Posted by fredinno

TBF, it's not confirmed yet. People should wait until the evidence comes in before assigning guilt, because the 'victim' turning out to be fake happens quite a bit.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly and I doubt the customers of any communications firm would be happy knowing that their firm will dump them at the first accusation. Was a dumb and stupid move to do this.

How would you feel if a company you had hired and used for years dumped you right after someone accused you of something. Just goes to show that PR firms are inherently untrustworthy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

Exactly and I doubt the customers of any communications firm would be happy knowing that their firm will dump them at the first accusation. Was a dumb and stupid move to do this.

How would you feel if a company you had hired and used for years dumped you right after someone accused you of something. Just goes to show that PR firms are inherently untrustworthy.

LOL are you for real? PR. It's literally in the title.