New BC Political Discussion - POST BC Election 2017

[misher]

Originally Posted by Sheba

We tax the dead? Oh no next thing you know it'll be illegal to die!

Edited. Lol. And we do tax the dead through probate fees.

Man, almost all of these ideas are bad, but cancelling site C? Seriously? Why stop there, why not dynamite the existing dams? After all, we won't need much power after people leave when you drive the province into bankruptcy cutting every tax in half...

Site C is a large investment and that much power is not currently needed. I'd prefer a small facility to give us a margin for growth and once we anticipate needing more we can building another facility.
Geothermal seems very promising, it allows us to make a much smaller investment to get something built faster. Site C will likely be 9+ billion dollar project for 900MW. It will take about 5 years to build and occupy much of our workforce at a time we are building other large projects such as the Broadway extension, I honestly don't know where were going to get the workers from and I suspect wages will skyrocket costs (doing all these massive projects that require the same workers at once is insane!). A 100MW geothermal plant is about $400 million and will take us two years. Its a much smaller investment, thus less risk. Also we can scale up and build more geothermal plants when we need power instead of building a giant site C that current numbers predict we probably do not need as our power use isn't increasing. Geothermal is likely more reliable than a dam as well and is likely much better for the environment as it doesn't destroy a habitat or dam a river. I don't want to make accusations, but the main driver of Site C seems to be to funnel a huge amount of money to NDP backers that is paid for via a huge loan. I admit there's some personal preference here. I hate large projects, there unpredictable and high risk as your putting your eggs in one basket. A bunch of smaller, more manageable projects makes sense unless there are huge savings as projects scale. Right now it seems like there's more savings from building smaller geothermal plants.

https://www.cleanenergybc.org/about/...ors/geothermal

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.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by misher

Edited. Lol. And we do tax the dead through probate fees.


Site C is a large investment and that much power is not currently needed. I'd prefer a small facility to give us a margin for growth and once we anticipate needing more we can building another facility.
Geothermal seems very promising, it allows us to make a much smaller investment to get something built faster. Site C will likely be 9+ billion dollar project for 900MW. It will take about 5 years to build and occupy much of our workforce at a time we are building other large projects such as the Broadway extension, I honestly don't know where were going to get the workers from and I suspect wages will skyrocket costs (doing all these massive projects that require the same workers at once is insane!). A 100MW geothermal plant is about $400 million and will take us two years. Its a much smaller investment, thus less risk. Also we can scale up and build more geothermal plants when we need power instead of building a giant site C that current numbers predict we probably do not need as our power use isn't increasing. Geothermal is likely more reliable than a dam as well and is likely much better for the environment as it doesn't destroy a habitat or dam a river. I don't want to make accusations, but the main driver of Site C seems to be to funnel a huge amount of money to NDP backers that is paid for via a huge loan. I admit there's some personal preference here. I hate large projects, there unpredictable and high risk as your putting your eggs in one basket. A bunch of smaller, more manageable projects makes sense unless there are huge savings as projects scale. Right now it seems like there's more savings from building smaller geothermal plants.

https://www.cleanenergybc.org/about/...ors/geothermal

Site C IS needed for future power requirements. Right now, BC is a net importer of electricity, especially electricity from jurisdictions that produce their power from high carbon sources (such as coal):

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd...rsstm-eng.html

While there is theoretically enough generating capacity within BC to be self-sufficient, the issue is that as BC's generating capacity is mostly hydroelectric, that depends a lot on water availability, in‐stream requirements and Treaty obligations related to flood control and power generation in the US as per the Columbia River Treaty.

So, while on paper, there is enough electricity generation capacity (and at times, we do have enough generation capacity), in reality, we do not have enough consistent power generation capability as it is, and with future load expected to increase due to population growth and increased electrification of transportation, eventually even demand will outstrip the current theoretical generating capacity right now.

And geothermal is actually a higher risk situation; because geothermal has a high upfront cost to drill the wells, plus the risk that the wells you do drill might not work out (meaning you could be spending millions to drill empty wells before you actually get a good well), it makes investment in geothermal a fairly risky situation:

https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic...ity-in-canada/

Even assuming a P50 situation, the amount of investment necessary for a successful geothermal well is very high, compared to the lower risk of hydroelectric.

[whatnext]

Andrew Wilkinson has a "Rich Coleman problem":

During a legislature session with more low points than highs for Opposition Leader Andrew Wilkinson, one of the lowest was provided by former deputy premier Rich Coleman.

On May 9, veteran B.C. Liberal Coleman addressed a rally on the front steps of the legislature organized by the anti-abortion, pro-life movement.

“We have a right to life,” he declared. “Because we’re the children of Christ, we’re the children of God. God gave us life. We need to protect it. We need to stand up for it.

“We have to value life at all ages, from birth to its natural end. The fact that somebody wants to do things with the right to life at the end of life, or the right to life at the beginning of life, is totally, totally wrong for me.”...

....Wilkinson lost no time distancing himself and the party from Coleman and Laurie Throness, the other Liberal MLA who addressed the rally.

“While we are a big-tent party that includes many views and faiths, our position as a party has not changed in that we support a woman’s right to choose,” wrote the Liberal leader on his own Twitter account....

...With Wilkinson struggling to establish himself against a popular NDP premier and government, you had to wonder why Coleman would put his party and leader in the position he did. It struck me as the action of a bitter man, angry at being blamed for how the last government botched the housing and money-laundering files, frustrated that the current leader has cut him loose on both.

Wilkinson expects Coleman to retire before the next election. He would prefer he do so gracefully, announcing his intentions soon enough to allow an open competition for the nomination in a seat, Langley East, that is safer than most for the B.C. Liberals. (Coleman won it with 53 per cent of the popular vote in 2017, almost doubling the count over the NDP)....

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/col...rship-problems

[misher]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Site C IS needed for future power requirements. Right now, BC is a net importer of electricity, especially electricity from jurisdictions that produce their power from high carbon sources (such as coal):

https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd...rsstm-eng.html

While there is theoretically enough generating capacity within BC to be self-sufficient, the issue is that as BC's generating capacity is mostly hydroelectric, that depends a lot on water availability, in‐stream requirements and Treaty obligations related to flood control and power generation in the US as per the Columbia River Treaty.

So, while on paper, there is enough electricity generation capacity (and at times, we do have enough generation capacity), in reality, we do not have enough consistent power generation capability as it is, and with future load expected to increase due to population growth and increased electrification of transportation, eventually even demand will outstrip the current theoretical generating capacity right now.

And geothermal is actually a higher risk situation; because geothermal has a high upfront cost to drill the wells, plus the risk that the wells you do drill might not work out (meaning you could be spending millions to drill empty wells before you actually get a good well), it makes investment in geothermal a fairly risky situation:

https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic...ity-in-canada/

Even assuming a P50 situation, the amount of investment necessary for a successful geothermal well is very high, compared to the lower risk of hydroelectric.

Thank you for that.

Exploration wells typically cost approximately $1M and many of these wells may be required. Confirmation wells typically cost $4 to $6M.

This may seem high but its peanuts compared to what we spent on just the plans for Site C. Maybe high risk for a private investor but not for a public one. And there's a reason places over the world including California use geothermal.

[bluefox]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Andrew Wilkinson has a "Rich Coleman problem":

No sympathy. Wilkinson's only had to deal with Coleman for a year and 3 months. British Columbia has had a "Rich Coleman problem" since 1996.

[WarrenC12]

Many thanks to Horgan for lowering gas prices substantially.

What a powerful figure, Wilkinson will no doubt be spending our taxpayer money on some big "thank you" billboards now.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Site C IS needed for future power requirements. Right now, BC is a net importer of electricity, especially electricity from jurisdictions that produce their power from high carbon sources (such as coal)

I thought our imports were mostly from nuclear sources in WA state.

Anyway, Site C is needed, but I think it's also an example of how big hydro projects are a thing of the past. The massive expensive, even over the lifetime per MWh, and the time it's taking to construct are just too high.

Small scale solar, wind, and other renewable sources can be deployed many times faster. A distributed grid is the future IMO, especially with the rapid price decline in storage.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Many thanks to Horgan for lowering gas prices substantially.

What a powerful figure, Wilkinson will no doubt be spending our taxpayer money on some big "thank you" billboards now.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I thought our imports were mostly from nuclear sources in WA state.

Anyway, Site C is needed, but I think it's also an example of how big hydro projects are a thing of the past. The massive expensive, even over the lifetime per MWh, and the time it's taking to construct are just too high.

Small scale solar, wind, and other renewable sources can be deployed many times faster. A distributed grid is the future IMO, especially with the rapid price decline in storage.

No, amazingly, the imports are coming from Alberta, with their coal and gas fired power plants.

The problem is that solar and wind are both intermittent sources of electricity; they don't provide a constant load throughout the day that would allow them to be the backbone of a power grid. That means you have other sources of power available, either via natural gas fired power plants, hydro, or the ability to import electricity from other jurisdictions to quickly backup solar and wind.

And because the power output can be highly variable, it creates planning problems to anticipate the amount of power being generated, and the ability to rapidly adjust to the changes in power supply from solar and wind to ensure that there's a balance in the power grid to prevent a brownout or an overload.

Because solar and wind create such problems in the power grid in regards to consistency, it also creates a demand for more reserve power availability to respond at a moment’s notice to ensure the grid remains balanced; this often means more natural gas fired power plants or hydro.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

No, amazingly, the imports are coming from Alberta, with their coal and gas fired power plants.

The problem is that solar and wind are both intermittent sources of electricity; they don't provide a constant load throughout the day that would allow them to be the backbone of a power grid. That means you have other sources of power available, either via natural gas fired power plants, hydro, or the ability to import electricity from other jurisdictions to quickly backup solar and wind.

And because the power output can be highly variable, it creates planning problems to anticipate the amount of power being generated, and the ability to rapidly adjust to the changes in power supply from solar and wind to ensure that there's a balance in the power grid to prevent a brownout or an overload.

Because solar and wind create such problems in the power grid in regards to consistency, it also creates a demand for more reserve power availability to respond at a moment’s notice to ensure the grid remains balanced; this often means more natural gas fired power plants or hydro.

Conventional hydro works great with intermittent sources. The reservoirs act as a big battery and the generators can be adjusted rapidly compared to thermal. Hydro systems are ultimately dependent on how much water can go through the turbines, so those intermittent sources allow for the water use to be deferred.

Most of our hydro dams only average something like 50% of the peak capacity. They would run out of water if they tried to produce their peak capacity all the time. Using wind/solar/whatever to satisfy some of the demand just means you get to save that peak capacity for when you need it.

Wind, RoR and solar could be expanded many times over in BC before we get into peaking issues. Even after our current system is maxed out, there's probably more pumped storage potential in BC than in most other parts of the world.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Conventional hydro works great with intermittent sources. The reservoirs act as a big battery and the generators can be adjusted rapidly compared to thermal. Hydro systems are ultimately dependent on how much water can go through the turbines, so those intermittent sources allow for the water use to be deferred.

Most of our hydro dams only average something like 50% of the peak capacity. They would run out of water if they tried to produce their peak capacity all the time. Using wind/solar/whatever to satisfy some of the demand just means you get to save that peak capacity for when you need it.

Wind, RoR and solar could be expanded many times over in BC before we get into peaking issues. Even after our current system is maxed out, there's probably more pumped storage potential in BC than in most other parts of the world.

Correct in that hydro is great at reacting to demand, but natural gas power plants are just as quick. Most new natural gas power plants these days are in effect a jet engine bolted to the ground, where the gas turbine provides the bulk of the power, but the hot exhaust gas is at times used to provide heat for additional energy production by generating steam.

Gas turbines are a preferred power plant design for a natural gas power plant these days because it's so easily scalable (you can bring in additional generation capacity by literally plop down a new gas turbine power plant on the ground in a shipping container), are incredibly efficient (and this is always improving as new jet engine designs and technology always makes it down to other applications), and cheaper to build compared to traditional thermal natural gas.

[WarrenC12]

Great for people building natural gas plants, but that's not us.

As mentioned, hydro is a perfect "storage" system for power as we add more intermittent generation to the system. I didn't realize we had more peak power capacity there too. It's even better.

If we have massive intermittent power, we can even do pumped hydro storage at our large dams.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Great for people building natural gas plants, but that's not us.

As mentioned, hydro is a perfect "storage" system for power as we add more intermittent generation to the system. I didn't realize we had more peak power capacity there too. It's even better.

If we have massive intermittent power, we can even do pumped hydro storage at our large dams.

Right. Natural gas is fine, but it can't reuse its fuel like hydro can. The reservoir's like a battery - no more intermittency problems, instead have solar/wind/etc pump water upriver and back into the reservoir to run through the turbine again when we need it to.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Great for people building natural gas plants, but that's not us.

As mentioned, hydro is a perfect "storage" system for power as we add more intermittent generation to the system. I didn't realize we had more peak power capacity there too. It's even better.

If we have massive intermittent power, we can even do pumped hydro storage at our large dams.

To a limit, as imposed by the Columbia River Treaty, along with flood mitigation, fisheries management, irrigation, and channel navigation. As long as these obligations are being met, we can generate as much power as desired from the existing dams, but up to a limit.

And the Columbia River Treaty is currently up for renegotiation, and the Americans are arguing that they want to reduce the amount of electricity BC gets from American dams as per the treaty entitlement on the Columbia River.

The worst case scenario is if the Americans move to pull out of the treaty; if that happens, Site C is going to definitely necessary to completely replace our power generation entitlement from American dams under the treaty, and that situation even holds true if the Americans do get their wish of reducing our power entitlement.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Correct in that hydro is great at reacting to demand, but natural gas power plants are just as quick. Most new natural gas power plants these days are in effect a jet engine bolted to the ground, where the gas turbine provides the bulk of the power, but the hot exhaust gas is at times used to provide heat for additional energy production by generating steam.

Gas turbines are a preferred power plant design for a natural gas power plant these days because it's so easily scalable (you can bring in additional generation capacity by literally plop down a new gas turbine power plant on the ground in a shipping container), are incredibly efficient (and this is always improving as new jet engine designs and technology always makes it down to other applications), and cheaper to build compared to traditional thermal natural gas.

I think (not having actually worked on a turbine) that NG peakers still generally have a running cost even if they're idle. From what I know, most thermal generators generally keep at set temperature to avoid thermal cycling and fatigue.

That being said, peaker plants are likely to be replaced by batter storage in the near future anyways.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I think (not having actually worked on a turbine) that NG peakers still generally have a running cost even if they're idle. From what I know, most thermal generators generally keep at set temperature to avoid thermal cycling and fatigue.

That being said, peaker plants are likely to be replaced by batter storage in the near future anyways.

Except the new generation of natural gas power plants aren't thermal systems; they are gas turbines. In essence, they are jet engines bolted to the ground, and hooked up to a generator. Starting and stopping these type of engines is a lot easier than older thermal plants are, and these power plants are much more efficient than older thermal units; the more simpler units can achieve a thermal efficiency of 30%, while units that include thermal recovery systems can achieve efficiencies in excess of 60%, which is significantly better than traditional thermal power plants can achieve.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WestCoastEcho

Except the new generation of natural gas power plants aren't thermal systems; they are gas turbines. In essence, they are jet engines bolted to the ground, and hooked up to a generator. Starting and stopping these type of engines is a lot easier than older thermal plants are, and these power plants are much more efficient than older thermal units; the more simpler units can achieve a thermal efficiency of 30%, while units that include thermal recovery systems can achieve efficiencies in excess of 60%, which is significantly better than traditional thermal power plants can achieve.

Wouldn't the system still fatigue from being turned on and off? The turbine is hot when it's on, and cool when it's off, so it's still a thermal cycle, is it not? I know a good chunk of the turbines are titanium, but I'd imagine there are other parts that age and fatigue based on that cycle.

[WarrenC12]

Natural gas is also subject to price spikes. We are near historic low gas prices right now, set to increase significantly when LNG is online.

Using a technology that doesn't have a commodity input like wind, solar, and hydro has much better predictability.

[Migrant_Coconut]

While we're on the subject of efficiency, hydro averages 90%.



(Courtesy of Electropaedia)

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Wouldn't the system still fatigue from being turned on and off? The turbine is hot when it's on, and cool when it's off, so it's still a thermal cycle, is it not? I know a good chunk of the turbines are titanium, but I'd imagine there are other parts that age and fatigue based on that cycle.

It depends on the exact layout of the plant, but typically, the peaking units are usually smaller, more simpler gas turbines that are often derived from aircraft engines. These units usually achieve full power within 10 minutes, and are meant for peaking.

The more thermodynamically efficient turbines generally do take longer due to the warm up constraints as these engines run especially hot (in excess of 2,800 deg. F). These engines have complex regeneration systems, plus intercoolers, reheaters, water injection, plus the ability to capture exhaust heat in a combined cycle system to drive a separate steam turbine.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Natural gas is also subject to price spikes. We are near historic low gas prices right now, set to increase significantly when LNG is online.

Using a technology that doesn't have a commodity input like wind, solar, and hydro has much better predictability.

Natural gas is less capital intensive and easier to scale to demand, and it is expected that natural gas production will continue to outstrip demand in North America for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, natural gas usage for power production in Canada is set to increase, at the expense of nuclear, coal and oil, while wind and solar barely make a blip in total generating capacity.