Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

They didn't need to ensure anything, because SkyTrain is a drop in the bucket energy-wise: 141 GWh total in 2019, and the Broadway extension adds maybe another 10-20. Retiring ICE is a problem. Trains are not.

What is the total GWh for BC's production?

[ssiguy]

Portland/Seattle/Vancouver HSR is a dream that will never come to fruition. Part of this is due to the California HSR fiasco but also just plain economics.........the demand is simply not there to justify the cost. The cost of construction in the corridor {esp Sea to Van} would be huge and the return could not justify it.

Three quarters of the route is in the US and even with the new infrastructure money, HSR is getting almost no money in the US save the Bos-NY-Wash. There are simply too many US cities where the priorities and return would be much higher and when US cities are fighting for the very limited amount of rail dollars, running a route to Canada is not a priority.

Ottawa would also not be in as it's priority is Windsor-QC which they haven't even funded and even if they did, Edm/Cal would be next on the list.

As far as electrifying freight, the ONLY way that could happen is thru hydrogen. I'm willing to bet that even HFR in the Corridor will also be hydrogen the longer it's delayed.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is the total GWh for BC's production?

See previous post, now edited. The entire SkyTrain network ends up being under 0.002% of BC's total output... as opposed to an extra 137% needed to electrify all cars in 2050.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

you need to keep in mind the transmission & substation side of the coin. we may have the generation, but do we have the capability to move it where it needs to go?

one of California's big issues is the forest fires wreak havic on their transmission lines. from over heating/sagging/being in a forest fire/having to be turned off/etc.

if you dont have a reliable and sustainable way to get the power to where it needs to go, it doesn't matter how much generation you have.

without a good transmission system, BC Hydro would not be able to have dams up in the Peace River area.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Somehow I doubt 387 MWh/day is going to redline Vancouver's power grid. If we're talking about future capacity, haven't we been digging up Nelson Park to add a brand new substation?

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Portland/Seattle/Vancouver HSR is a dream that will never come to fruition. Part of this is due to the California HSR fiasco but also just plain economics.........the demand is simply not there to justify the cost. The cost of construction in the corridor {esp Sea to Van} would be huge and the return could not justify it.

There have been studies that directly contradict your statement. Per the WSDOT, just one-fifth of the current inter-city trips making the trip by HSR would result in 3 million annual passengers. With these levels of ridership, farebox revenue could cover operating expenses without government subsidies.

This just leaves the capital cost. While I agree with your sentiment that Cascadia is not a priority for Canada like the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, or for the US like the Boston - D.C. corridor, $50 billion through a private-public partnership is feasible. With strong support from Microsoft and Amazon I could see Washington State politicians pushing very very hard for funding.

IMO, North America really needs one or two great examples of HSR to spur a massive building spree. We've already seen how a successful national railway in Spain has replaced national air lines that were burning through cash. If the Brightline project in Florida or the Texas Central Railway can become successful in conservative, care-centric states, I think progressive regions like Cascadia and the Eastern Seaboard will be clamoring for their own HSR networks.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

See previous post, now edited. The entire SkyTrain network ends up being under 0.002% of BC's total output... as opposed to an extra 137% needed to electrify all cars in 2050.

In terms of electrifying Amtrak's Cascades service, I totally agree that the amount of electricity required is so small that it is really insignificant when compared to amount of electricity generated. The bigger issue is convincing the freight railways (who own the tracks) to allow the catenary to be installed, as it poses a large number of risks to them.

In terms of electrifying all ground transportation, while that 137% sounds scary, you have to understand what it means. That is the increase in total demand, not peak load. Off-peak, most of the generators are turned off, thus there will be some reserve capacity (granted some hydro-electric dams can act like a battery by letting their reservoir fill up, but once it is full, they need to open up the spill ways if there isn't demand for electricity). Since most EV charging is done off-peak, they can create a demand for that excess capacity, especially if a demand response program is used to a adjust the overnight charging rate to match the electricity supply (who cares if your EV finishes charging at 2am, 4am or 6am if you don't need the car until 7am).

The other thing is BC should add wind power to their electrical generation mix. Wind compliments hydro very well as it can fill in the gaps when wind generation is low and "recharge" when wind generation is high. As a result it can significantly move the needle on annual electricity generation and even provide a little more peak generation.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you need to keep in mind the transmission & substation side of the coin. we may have the generation, but do we have the capability to move it where it needs to go?

I agree we can't forget about the transmission & substations; however, electrification of transport won't have as much effect on those as the fossil fuel industry likes to say.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

one of California's big issues is the forest fires wreak havic on their transmission lines. from over heating/sagging/being in a forest fire/having to be turned off/etc.

California is suffering from decades of under investment in their electrical grid (much of which comes from private companies being more concerned about short term profits). AFAIK, BC Hydro has done a much better job at investing in their infrastructure.

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if you dont have a reliable and sustainable way to get the power to where it needs to go, it doesn't matter how much generation you have.

without a good transmission system, BC Hydro would not be able to have dams up in the Peace River area.

I agree, but it isn't as if BC Hydro is unaware of this. The transition to electric transport won't happen overnight. Even if we stop selling new ICEVs in 2035, given how long cars last in BC, it will take a long time for the vast majority of vehicles on the road to be electric. That gives BC Hyrdo time to roll out upgrades to the network.

Getting back on topic, if we really want to live more sustainably, we need to rethink how people get around. A well used train or bus uses a lot less energy per passenger than a car. Targeted investment in routes that will remove a significant number of cars from the road will significantly reduce our energy use.

[casper]

Originally Posted by roger1818

In terms of electrifying Amtrak's Cascades service, I totally agree that the amount of electricity required is so small that it is really insignificant when compared to amount of electricity generated. The bigger issue is convincing the freight railways (who own the tracks) to allow the catenary to be installed, as it poses a large number of risks to them.

I think the US is going to do that for us. Most of the track used by the Cascadia on the Canadian side is owned by Burlington Northern. If they are putting in overhead lines south of the boarder for the route, there is going to be little resistance north of the boarder.

CN and CP have significant operations in the US. The US is investing in electrified passenger rail. That is going to impact them in some areas.

Over time I think that will disappear as an issue.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by casper

I think the US is going to do that for us. Most of the track used by the Cascadia on the Canadian side is owned by Burlington Northern. If they are putting in overhead lines south of the boarder for the route, there is going to be little resistance north of the boarder.

CN and CP have significant operations in the US. The US is investing in electrified passenger rail. That is going to impact them in some areas.

Over time I think that will disappear as an issue.

Do you have any references to show that the US is funding the electrification of freight ROWs for passenger use? Even "Amtrak’s Next-Gen Trainsets" order from Siemens (announced last summer and won't be completed until 2030) includes dual-power (AC catenary/diesel) locomotives so that trains that continue beyond the northeast corridor don't need to switch locomotives when loose catenary when they get off of Amtrak's dedicated track, and battery cars for use in upstate New York. For the Cascades, they are getting new Venture cars to replace the Talgo cars, but AFAIK they will continue to use their existing SC-44 locomotives for the foreseeable future.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

In terms of electrifying all ground transportation, while that 137% sounds scary, you have to understand what it means. That is the increase in total demand, not peak load. Off-peak, most of the generators are turned off, thus there will be some reserve capacity (granted some hydro-electric dams can act like a battery by letting their reservoir fill up, but once it is full, they need to open up the spill ways if there isn't demand for electricity). Since most EV charging is done off-peak, they can create a demand for that excess capacity, especially if a demand response program is used to a adjust the overnight charging rate to match the electricity supply (who cares if your EV finishes charging at 2am, 4am or 6am if you don't need the car until 7am).

The other thing is BC should add wind power to their electrical generation mix. Wind compliments hydro very well as it can fill in the gaps when wind generation is low and "recharge" when wind generation is high. As a result it can significantly move the needle on annual electricity generation and even provide a little more peak generation.

Good point. That said, the study didn't factor in 2050 demand from other sectors, and I wouldn't count on all EVs recharging off-peak; even +25% peak demand is cause to start looking at overall expansion.

Problem is that most of BC's wind sites are up north close to the Yukon: that's useful for pumped storage (since all the dams are up there anyway), but AFAIK any power sent south of Prince George will just get lost in transmission. If they can't find a way to make earthquake-proof geothermal, it might be time to start looking at SMRs.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Good point. That said, the study didn't factor in 2050 demand from other sectors, and I wouldn't count on all EVs recharging off-peak; even +25% peak demand is cause to start looking at overall expansion.

Problem is that most of BC's wind sites are up north close to the Yukon: that's useful for pumped storage (since all the dams are up there anyway), but AFAIK any power sent south of Prince George will just get lost in transmission. If they can't find a way to make earthquake-proof geothermal, it might be time to start looking at SMRs.

We get electricity from Peace River just fine. (Which IMO should be dammed up to Athabasca Lake- it's one of the largest rivers in Canada, and Alberta relies mostly on dirty energy. Makes no sense.) Liard River was also considered a prime target for damming back in the day (as well as the uppermost headwaters of the Fraser.)

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-v...direct_current

Depending on voltage level and construction details, HVDC transmission losses are quoted at 3.5% per 1,000 km, about 50% less than AC (6.5%) lines at the same voltage.[24]

This is about a straight line as the crow flies from Vancouver to the northernmost part of BC, so... a loss of 6% overall seems a reasonable conservative estimate.

Run-of-River is arguably cheaper than wind though:

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

We get electricity from Peace River just fine. (Which IMO should be dammed up to Athabasca Lake- it's one of the largest rivers in Canada, and Alberta relies mostly on dirty energy. Makes no sense.) Liard River was also considered a prime target for damming back in the day (as well as the uppermost headwaters of the Fraser.)

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-v...direct_current

This is about a straight line as the crow flies from Vancouver to the northernmost part of BC, so... a loss of 6% overall seems a reasonable conservative estimate.

Run-of-River is arguably cheaper than wind though:

Man, if the image is too big for the screen, just link it.

For now. If we need another 20 GW of capacity by 2050, three dams may not cut it.

Except most wind farms in Canada are a tenth of Site C's capacity; if we lose 6% of 1,100 MW, we've still got the other 1,034. As for run-of-river, you're getting the same amount of controversy for less storage, so the options are limited.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Good point. That said, the study didn't factor in 2050 demand from other sectors, and I wouldn't count on all EVs recharging off-peak; even +25% peak demand is cause to start looking at overall expansion.

I certainly never meant to imply that the peak demand wouldn't go up, just that it won't go up as much as some like to imply. Certainly additional capacity will be required. Though hopefully we can find ways to reduce that through more efficient use of energy (like increased use of trains and transit to try and keep this post on topic).

Originally Posted by fredinno

Run-of-River is arguably cheaper than wind though:

You do realize that that chart is over 10 years old. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of wind (and even more so for solar PV) has dropped significantly in the past decade as shown in the chart below. I am not convinced that the LCOE of hydro has gone down at the same rate (if at all) as it is a very mature technology and hasn't benefited from mass production the way wind turbines and solar PV have.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I certainly never meant to imply that the peak demand wouldn't go up, just that it won't go up as much as some like to imply. Certainly additional capacity will be required. Though hopefully we can find ways to reduce that through more efficient use of energy (like increased use of trains and transit to try and keep this post on topic).



You do realize that that chart is over 10 years old. The Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of wind (and even more so for solar PV) has dropped significantly in the past decade as shown in the chart below. I am not convinced that the LCOE of hydro has gone down at the same rate (if at all) as it is a very mature technology and hasn't benefited from mass production the way wind turbines and solar PV have.

Not sure how you get the ~32% ish oil slide of the energy pie out of the equation and not expect electricity consumption to spike.


Cost reductions have also levelled out for both wind and solar.
Also, LCOE generally removes the cost of storage.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Not sure how you get the ~32% ish oil slide of the energy pie out of the equation and not expect electricity consumption to spike.

We are talking about BC's electricity generation (and how decarbonizing transit specifically (or transportation in general) will affect it). Less than 1% of that comes from petroleum and 2% form Natural Gas.

BC's Electricity Generation by Fuel Type (2018)

Original Data Source: CER – Canada's Energy Future 2019

Originally Posted by fredinno

Cost reductions have also levelled out for both wind and solar.

They have, but my point is your previous chart was from before they leveled out.

Originally Posted by fredinno

Also, LCOE generally removes the cost of storage.

As I said before, storage is less of an issue in BC as the hydro electric dams can effectively be used as storage by turning them off (letting the reservoir rise) when their is sufficient electricity and turning them back on when you need them. This is already done today, and by adding other types of renewables, you just change when the hydro generators need to be turned on.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by roger1818

We are talking about BC's electricity generation (and how decarbonizing transit specifically (or transportation in general) will affect it). Less than 1% of that comes from petroleum and 2% form Natural Gas.

BC's Electricity Generation by Fuel Type (2018)

Original Data Source: CER – Canada's Energy Future 2019



They have, but my point is your previous chart was from before they leveled out.



As I said before, storage is less of an issue in BC as the hydro electric dams can effectively be used as storage by turning them off (letting the reservoir rise) when their is sufficient electricity and turning them back on when you need them. This is already done today, and by adding other types of renewables, you just change when the hydro generators need to be turned on.

BC uses mostly oil cars and buses. Hence why % of total energy (not electricity) from oil is relevant.
Otherwise, BC Hydro wouldn't be bothering with large dams, and just make PPP Producer contracts like they did in the 2000s.The investment risk of large projects is high, and Site C is a focal point for protests.

Also: global wind geography:


If you can't see the yellow in BC, it's because it's a small area directly bordering the Rockies, as the wind gets pushed down the mountains into the Prairies. This area tends to get exaggerated in most maps.


BC already uses the storage of the dams for exporting their storage capacity (buying electricity when it's cheap and selling when expensive), this will net increase costs by reducing exports.

It has the issue of small hydro (it's distributed) but then you have to carry to South BC with newly built transmission- as well as being less predictable overall. Or you'd have to import the wind power from Alberta.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I certainly never meant to imply that the peak demand wouldn't go up, just that it won't go up as much as some like to imply. Certainly additional capacity will be required. Though hopefully we can find ways to reduce that through more efficient use of energy (like increased use of trains and transit to try and keep this post on topic).

Come to think of it, I'd be worried about what EVs are doing to the baseload as well; we need large-scale plants for those, and we don't exactly have plans past Site C.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Come to think of it, I'd be worried about what EVs are doing to the baseload as well; we need large-scale plants for those, and we don't exactly have plans past Site C.

I have no doubt that BC Hydro is studying this and will propose something if they feel it's needed.

I agree the residential HVAC needs are probably at least as big a concern, if not bigger, than a conversion of automobiles to electric.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Honest question: would ACs in a heat wave count as baseload or peak?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Honest question: would ACs in a heat wave count as baseload or peak?

That is a peak load.