Gas Prices

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How does a 2-3 week price spike have anything to do with a multi-year several billion dollar pipeline expansion?

Because if the pipeline expansion was already built, we would not have suffered from the supply shortage that caused the price spike in the first place. No more importing fuel in from places like California or Washington State when they are in a midst of a supply crunch caused by multiple refineries going down.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Dumb move. What, now we're doing too well on climate action suddenly? For a government that plans to ban fossil fuel cars in the future, this is pretty hypocritical.

It's one thing to take that money and move it to another emissions reducing subsidy, but to just cut it entirely...

What happens if/when the Cons win in Oct and remove the federal $5k rebate?

Too true. Maybe an email to Andrew Weaver is in order...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Because if the pipeline expansion was already built, we would not have suffered from the supply shortage that caused the price spike in the first place. No more importing fuel in from places like California or Washington State when they are in a midst of a supply crunch caused by multiple refineries going down.

Or if we were all on EVs already we wouldn't care. Either way it's a nonsensical point.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by whatnext

in a retrograde move BC just reduced its EV subsidy to $3k from $5k and lowered the cap to $55k for the vehicle. I don't mind the cap, but reducing the subsidy makes them look like hypocrites.

Maybe it has been too sucessful. I see the Tesla store on West 4th has removed all but one car from the showroom and replaced it with a ton of customer stations, the place was packed last week.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Dumb move. What, now we're doing too well on climate action suddenly? For a government that plans to ban fossil fuel cars in the future, this is pretty hypocritical.

It's one thing to take that money and move it to another emissions reducing subsidy, but to just cut it entirely...

What happens if/when the Cons win in Oct and remove the federal $5k rebate?

my guess is that they have fixed amount of money set aside to the subsidy. probably a couple 10 millions. and the money is draining faster than they thought so to let more people get access to it, they have lowered it to make the funds go farther so to speak.

personally, i am against EV subsidies. they either win on their own merit and cost-benefit, or they don't.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Or if we were all on EVs already we wouldn't care. Either way it's a nonsensical point.

Good luck with that, because the amount of electricity required to fully electrify all transportation is immense.

You are talking about bringing online the equivalent of a Site C dam every year for the next 30 years in generating capacity alone. People are already up in arms about just one Site C dam; imagine 30 Site C dams going up for the next 30 years. And imagine the cost of the dams as well...

In fact, one analysis by David Swan says to fully electrify all of BC's transportation, you are looking at 41 terawatt hours of electricity alone... add in replacing natural gas for heat generation, another 52 terawatt hours to that. Site C is only 5.2 terawatt hours:
https://www.bcuc.com/Documents/wp-content/09/DOC_90187_F131-1_Swan-D_Site-C-Submission.pdf

And to equal one Site C dam, you are looking at 21 million solar panels, at a cost of about $19 billion, and you would not have any electricity at night, and very reduced power during the winter or during heavily cloudy days.

Wind? 700 wind mills to equal one Site C dam, at $5 billion. And this would have to be installed in places in the north, such as the Haida Gwaii or the Northern section of Vancouver Island, on pristine mountain tops, causing significant habitat destruction. Environmentalists will love that...

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Good luck with that, because the amount of electricity required to fully electrify all transportation is immense.

You are talking about bringing online the equivalent of a Site C dam every year for the next 30 years in generating capacity alone. People are already up in arms about just one Site C dam; imagine 30 Site C dams going up for the next 30 years. And imagine the cost of the dams as well...

In fact, one analysis by David Swan says to fully electrify all of BC's transportation, you are looking at 41 terawatt hours of electricity alone... add in replacing natural gas for heat generation, another 52 terawatt hours to that. Site C is only 5.2 terawatt hours:
https://www.bcuc.com/Documents/wp-content/09/DOC_90187_F131-1_Swan-D_Site-C-Submission.pdf

And to equal one Site C dam, you are looking at 21 million solar panels, at a cost of about $19 billion, and you would not have any electricity at night, and very reduced power during the winter or during heavily cloudy days.

Wind? 700 wind mills to equal one Site C dam, at $5 billion. And this would have to be installed in places in the north, such as the Haida Gwaii or the Northern section of Vancouver Island, on pristine mountain tops, causing significant habitat destruction. Environmentalists will love that...

Do you know how much we export in power? We easily have enough generation to serve BC Load 10 times over right now

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by libtard

Do you know how much we export in power? We easily have enough generation to serve BC Load 10 times over right now

He says... not knowing that BC is net importer of power.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Good luck with that, because the amount of electricity required to fully electrify all transportation is immense.

You are talking about bringing online the equivalent of a Site C dam every year for the next 30 years in generating capacity alone. People are already up in arms about just one Site C dam; imagine 30 Site C dams going up for the next 30 years. And imagine the cost of the dams as well...

In fact, one analysis by David Swan says to fully electrify all of BC's transportation, you are looking at 41 terawatt hours of electricity alone... add in replacing natural gas for heat generation, another 52 terawatt hours to that. Site C is only 5.2 terawatt hours:
https://www.bcuc.com/Documents/wp-content/09/DOC_90187_F131-1_Swan-D_Site-C-Submission.pdf


And to equal one Site C dam, you are looking at 21 million solar panels, at a cost of about $19 billion, and you would not have any electricity at night, and very reduced power during the winter or during heavily cloudy days.

Wind? 700 wind mills to equal one Site C dam, at $5 billion. And this would have to be installed in places in the north, such as the Haida Gwaii or the Northern section of Vancouver Island, on pristine mountain tops, causing significant habitat destruction. Environmentalists will love that...

BC Hydro is on record stating that it will be no problem.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mo...ids-ready-for-an-electric-vehicle-surge/

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

He says... not knowing that BC is net importer of power.

We buy when it’s cheap and sell when it’s expensive. It’s one of the benefits of having on demand hydro generation with massive reservoirs. We import because it’s financially beneficial not because we don’t have enough generation to serve our local load. Like I said we have enough power for 10 BC’s

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by libtard

We buy when it’s cheap and sell when it’s expensive. It’s one of the benefits of having on demand hydro generation with massive reservoirs. We import because it’s financially beneficial not because we don’t have enough generation to serve our local load. Like I said we have enough power for 10 BC’s

As I said before:

The main issue is the Columbia River Treaty and the ongoing renegotiation; while BC does have access to the power via an entitlement from the Libby dam in Montana as per the Treaty; in general, BC Hydro prefers to sell the electricity from the Libby dam into the US market, while very sparingly using it for domestic purposes.

The American position going into the renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty is that they want to cancel our entitlement under the treaty. The best case scenario out of the renegotiation is a vastly decreased entitlement, which means Site C is more than needed to make up for the shortfall.

Also, we can't run the hydro dams at full all the time; per our obligations under the Columbia River Treaty, we manage the water flow from our side of the border on the Columbia River to benefit the Libby dam, and for flood control measures on both sides of the border. There's also a need to manage water levels for fisheries management, irrigation, and channel navigation along the entire Columbia River, and that takes priority over power generation.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by whatnext

BC Hydro is on record stating that it will be no problem.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mo...ids-ready-for-an-electric-vehicle-surge/

Yeah, only a partial electrification:

In British Columbia, for example, there are currently about 17,000 EVs on the road and BC Hydro is predicting there will be around 350,000 by 2030, Fish said.

“This is estimated to add an additional 1,050 gigawatt hours of electricity load per year and is something we’ve been planning for and will be able to supply,” Fish said. To put that in perspective, BC Hydro sold nearly 58,000 gigawatt hours of power in 2017.

So, only an additional 1.81% in additional electrical load for only a partial electrification of the total vehicles on the road today.

To put it in comparison, per ICBC's statistics, there's about 3.2 million vehicle insurance policies in effect in BC:

https://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Documents/vehicle-insurance-policies-in-force.pdf

Statistics Canada says in 2018, there were 3.8 million vehicles registered on the road in BC:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310006701&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.11

So, roughly 350,000 EV's on the road in 2030 means that if the total number of vehicles on the road remains the same, just 9.2% of vehicles on the road are EV's. Total electrification would require the wholesale replacement of all 3.8 million vehicles on the road.

And the power requirement for that would be immense; even using the numbers presented in the Globe and Mail article you referenced, you are looking at an increase of power requirements in BC by about 11,500 gigawatt hours on the extremely optimistic side (ignoring other transportation methods, all small passenger electric vehicles, no increases in population size, power density, or vehicle numbers)... going to need at least 2 Site C dams to equal that amount of additional power generation capacity required.

This is not a trivial amount of power generation required to replace all of the road vehicles with EV's, unlike some claims.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Good luck with that, because the amount of electricity required to fully electrify all transportation is immense.

You are talking about bringing online the equivalent of a Site C dam every year for the next 30 years in generating capacity alone. People are already up in arms about just one Site C dam; imagine 30 Site C dams going up for the next 30 years. And imagine the cost of the dams as well...

Not sure where you're getting that information. Electric transportation is far more energy efficient than fossil fuels. By a factor of 3-4. Do you realize the energy potential in most EV batteries is equivalent to about 2 gallons of gasoline? Plus there's the extraction and transportation factor for fossil fuels. EVs are flying off the lots and there's nothing to indicate BC Hydro has even noticed yet from a power usage perspective.

Wind? 700 wind mills to equal one Site C dam, at $5 billion. And this would have to be installed in places in the north, such as the Haida Gwaii or the Northern section of Vancouver Island, on pristine mountain tops, causing significant habitat destruction. Environmentalists will love that...

$5 Billion? Wow. So... half the cost? And probably half the time to build.

Why the fuck are we building dams then!?

Do you think about what you spout before writing, or just shill for oil & gas non stop?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

And the power requirement for that would be immense; even using the numbers presented in the Globe and Mail article you referenced, you are looking at an increase of power requirements in BC by about 11,500 gigawatt hours on the extremely optimistic side (ignoring other transportation methods, all small passenger electric vehicles, no increases in population size, power density, or vehicle numbers)... going to need at least 2 Site C dams to equal that amount of additional power generation capacity required.

This is not a trivial amount of power generation required to replace all of the road vehicles with EV's, unlike some claims.

We're talking about a 20% increase in electricity generation in order to convert 100% of transportation to electricity, over the next ~20 years or more. Totally doable.

There's a ton of inefficiency in the system. Solar, Wind, other renewable sources can be combined with TOU billing.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by libtard

We buy when it’s cheap and sell when it’s expensive. It’s one of the benefits of having on demand hydro generation with massive reservoirs. We import because it’s financially beneficial not because we don’t have enough generation to serve our local load. Like I said we have enough power for 10 BC’s

That's not what you said.

Hydro might currently have enough power to load balance many other areas, but as electricity only accounts for ~16% of energy consumption in BC. We're entirely under-equipped to get off oil or natural gas unless we probably double or triple the amount of renewable generation in BC.

No amount of scrimping and efficiency upgrades will get reduce net energy consumption by 84%. Optimistically we'd need 7x the additional power that Site C produces, but likely more.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Yeah, only a partial electrification:



So, only an additional 1.81% in additional electrical load for only a partial electrification of the total vehicles on the road today.

To put it in comparison, per ICBC's statistics, there's about 3.2 million vehicle insurance policies in effect in BC:

https://www.icbc.com/about-icbc/newsroom/Documents/vehicle-insurance-policies-in-force.pdf

Statistics Canada says in 2018, there were 3.8 million vehicles registered on the road in BC:

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2310006701&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.11

So, roughly 350,000 EV's on the road in 2030 means that if the total number of vehicles on the road remains the same, just 9.2% of vehicles on the road are EV's. Total electrification would require the wholesale replacement of all 3.8 million vehicles on the road.

And the power requirement for that would be immense; even using the numbers presented in the Globe and Mail article you referenced, you are looking at an increase of power requirements in BC by about 11,500 gigawatt hours on the extremely optimistic side (ignoring other transportation methods, all small passenger electric vehicles, no increases in population size, power density, or vehicle numbers)... going to need at least 2 Site C dams to equal that amount of additional power generation capacity required.

This is not a trivial amount of power generation required to replace all of the road vehicles with EV's, unlike some claims.

Why are you talking about 100% electrification of the vehicles in BC? That's an unrealistic goal, even by 2050. I mean Drawdown proposes a shift of 16% of vehicles being switched to electric as being a huge driver (ha!) towards reducing GHG emissions. That's a much more reasonable target and one that's easily achieved in BC.

[SpongeG]

on sunday gas was 131.9 at the Petro Canada on broadway at clarke. At the Esso on north road in Burnaby it was 149.9, RCSS in Coquitlam was 138.9

A lot of different prices, and still the same, most seem around 149.9 some are in the 130's. Just depends where you go.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Not sure where you're getting that information. Electric transportation is far more energy efficient than fossil fuels. By a factor of 3-4. Do you realize the energy potential in most EV batteries is equivalent to about 2 gallons of gasoline? Plus there's the extraction and transportation factor for fossil fuels. EVs are flying off the lots and there's nothing to indicate BC Hydro has even noticed yet from a power usage perspective.

That's the numbers as per Davis Swan, per this submission to the BCUC:

https://www.bcuc.com/Documents/wp-content/09/DOC_90187_F131-1_Swan-D_Site-C-Submission.pdf

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

$5 Billion? Wow. So... half the cost? And probably half the time to build.

Why the fuck are we building dams then!?

Do you think about what you spout before writing, or just shill for oil & gas non stop?

Yeah, where do we need to place the windmills to achieve optimal generating performance? In pristine, untouched ecologically sensitive areas near Haida Gwaii in Northern BC and the northern tip of Vancouver Island, causing significant ecological and habitat destruction:

http://www.windatlas.ca/maps-en.php

Don't forget the need to construct miles of new high voltage transmission lines in said areas as well, to connect your new wind turbines to the rest of the power grid.

Good luck getting that by any of the environmental groups.

Oh, and good luck getting consistent amounts of power on most days... not something one should rely on for a reliable power grid.

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Why are you talking about 100% electrification of the vehicles in BC? That's an unrealistic goal, even by 2050. I mean Drawdown proposes a shift of 16% of vehicles being switched to electric as being a huge driver (ha!) towards reducing GHG emissions. That's a much more reasonable target and one that's easily achieved in BC.

So, double the number of EV's planned by 2030 on the road by even the most optimistic numbers. Still need Site C for that power.

And no where near net zero emissions...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

That's the numbers as per Davis Swan, per this submission to the BCUC:

It's a number with no context. And that report looks like a 7th grader did it.

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

So, double the number of EV's planned by 2030 on the road by even the most optimistic numbers. Still need Site C for that power.

And no where near net zero emissions...

Nobody said Site C wasn't required.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by libtard

We buy when it’s cheap and sell when it’s expensive. It’s one of the benefits of having on demand hydro generation with massive reservoirs. We import because it’s financially beneficial not because we don’t have enough generation to serve our local load. Like I said we have enough power for 10 BC’s

Annual power consumption is about 54.6 terawatt-hours against a generating capacity of 155, or 160 with Site C. Impressive, but only threefold, not tenfold.

EDIT: The NEB also says average RPP consumption is 2,886 litres/person. 1L gasoline = 33.7 KW, so assuming that's all car fuel, 97,258 KW x 3.8M+ registered vehicles = 370 terawatts = ... 0.04 TW/hrs a year? That can't be right.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Annual power consumption is about 54.6 terawatt-hours against a generating capacity of 155, or 160 with Site C. Impressive, but only threefold, not tenfold.

EDIT: The NEB also says average RPP consumption is 2,886 litres/person. 1L gasoline = 33.7 KW, so assuming that's all car fuel, 97,258 KW x 3.8M+ registered vehicles = 370 terawatts = ... 0.04 TW/hrs a year? That can't be right.

Better off to calculate kms driven, most EVs are in the 0.16kWh per km for cars, call it 0.2kWh for SUVs and minivans once they are available. Your best guess for anything bigger.