HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2023, 7:51 PM
mcj mcj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: New West
Posts: 1,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
(slow chant) S-M-R, S-M-R, S-M-R...
I wish. One can dream that we'll actually develop reliable nuclear power in Canada outside of Ontario.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2023, 11:27 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Where do you get your information?

Burrard Thermal has been decommissioned for years.
Yeah, I know it's 'decommissioned.'
BC Hydro is still holding onto it though, and the idea of recommissioning it for its peak role comes back up now and then to support intermittent renewables:
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/277...-of-discussion

Also, it's still semi-operational by BC Hydro (though not producing power).

If we go fill wind + solar, that plant is going to eventually have to be fired up again for peak loads.

Quote:
Grid battery systems don't necessarily use lithium, and they're generally not intended to 'store large amounts of power'. There are examples of big systems already built around the world, and there are several new technologies being developed. Sodium batteries already represent a cheaper alternative to lithium. China has an 800 MW battery farm with redox flow batteries with vanadium electrolyte. Yukon has a 20 MW/40 MW-hour battery being built. Alberta is already adding 300MW of storage related to their solar power generation.
They're usually Lithium.
Tech will change, but Lithium is still the best option, and has been for the last 20 years.
It's proven notoriously difficult to take off its throne, since it has a lot of inherent advantages in its chemistry (eg. one of the highest theoretical densities for batteries.)


Also, yeah, they do 2 different things- usually- if you use Wind and Solar.

In BC, we have enough hydro generators that batteries aren't needed.

Other places don't, and wind and solar put such massive pressure on the grid that the ultra-quick power production and storage of batteries are required for grid stability.

Go to mostly hydro-geothermal-nuclear, etc (non-(or at least largely) non-intermittent sources- as we do right now), you don't need those batteries at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2023, 11:35 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
They're usually Lithium.
Tech will change, but Lithium is still the best option, and has been for the last 20 years.
It's proven notoriously difficult to take off its throne, since it has a lot of inherent advantages in its chemistry (one of the highest theoretical densities for batteries.)
Utility storage has different requirements than many other applications such as electric vehicles. Density and weight are much less important, which means other battery technologies can be more feasible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2023, 11:36 PM
fredinno's Avatar
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
Utility storage has different requirements than many other applications such as electric vehicles. Density and weight are much less important, which means other battery technologies can be more feasible.
I know.
That's why I said usually.

The fact Li batteries are used in cars means that there's enormous economies of scale for Li batteries (as well as old car batteries that need to be either reused or recycled.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2023, 12:19 AM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 7,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
Yeah, I know it's 'decommissioned.'
BC Hydro is still holding onto it though, and the idea of recommissioning it for its peak role comes back up now and then to support intermittent renewables:
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/277...-of-discussion

Also, it's still semi-operational by BC Hydro (though not producing power).

If we go fill wind + solar, that plant is going to eventually have to be fired up again for peak loads.



They're usually Lithium.
Tech will change, but Lithium is still the best option, and has been for the last 20 years.
It's proven notoriously difficult to take off its throne, since it has a lot of inherent advantages in its chemistry (eg. one of the highest theoretical densities for batteries.)


Also, yeah, they do 2 different things- usually- if you use Wind and Solar.

In BC, we have enough hydro generators that batteries aren't needed.

Other places don't, and wind and solar put such massive pressure on the grid that the ultra-quick power production and storage of batteries are required for grid stability.

Go to mostly hydro-geothermal-nuclear, etc (non-(or at least largely) non-intermittent sources- as we do right now), you don't need those batteries at all.
Nobody is suggesting BC is going fill wind + solar so that's an irrelevant comment. BC Hydro are looking for providers of wind, solar or other forms of zero emission energy to bid, so clearly they don't think we have enough hydro that other sources aren't worth adding to the mix. (Geothermal and tidal are also possible, but are less developed and so far more expensive).

There are isolated locations in BC where the grid either doesn't reach (Haida Gwai) or is unreliable or needs upgrading, where adding alternate sources like solar or wind make sense. They make even more sense when linked to grid battery storage, and in future, those batteries are more likely to involve technologies that use less toxic, cheaper and more readily available materials - like sodium ion batteries.

The development of those batteries has only recently taken off, but they're already in production. In China and in Europe CATL and BYD have started using sodium batteries in vehicles, so they're really mainstream now. It's a fast moving and changing field, and only some of the developments prove practical, but the much greater adoption of solar, wind and batteries in other parts of the world means that as we add them to the hydro base load, we get the advantage of a lot of r&d that has moved on to more efficient and inexpensive alternatives to burning stuff. (Any stuff).
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2024, 9:50 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,732
Yay, let's all hear it for BC Hydro's green power grid! Where's the details on how this imported power was generated?

BC Hydro imported a quarter of the province’s power in the last 12 months
By Amy Judd & Aaron McArthur Global News
Posted November 28, 2024

New numbers show BC Hydro imported a record amount of electricity over the last 12 months.

According to documents filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission, BC Hydro imported 13,600 gigawatt hours of electricity in fiscal year 2024, at a cost of nearly $1.4 billion.

“It’s very disturbing that British Columbia’s now relying on 25 per cent of our electricity to come from outside the province,” Barry Penner with the Energy Futures Institute told Global News.

“Most of that’s from the United States. Just how we got here, I know we’ve had some low water years, but it’s also an indication we just have not been planning ahead and doing what’s really needed to keep pace with the growing demand.”....


https://globalnews.ca/news/10892803/...wer-12-months/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2024, 2:54 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
“Most of that’s from the United States. Just how we got here, I know we’ve had some low water years, but it’s also an indication we just have not been planning ahead and doing what’s really needed to keep pace with the growing demand.”....
I wonder if these are the same folks who were vehemently opposed to the Site C project?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2024, 6:17 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Yay, let's all hear it for BC Hydro's green power grid! Where's the details on how this imported power was generated?

BC Hydro imported a quarter of the province’s power in the last 12 months
By Amy Judd & Aaron McArthur Global News
Posted November 28, 2024

New numbers show BC Hydro imported a record amount of electricity over the last 12 months.

According to documents filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission, BC Hydro imported 13,600 gigawatt hours of electricity in fiscal year 2024, at a cost of nearly $1.4 billion.

“It’s very disturbing that British Columbia’s now relying on 25 per cent of our electricity to come from outside the province,” Barry Penner with the Energy Futures Institute told Global News.

“Most of that’s from the United States. Just how we got here, I know we’ve had some low water years, but it’s also an indication we just have not been planning ahead and doing what’s really needed to keep pace with the growing demand.”....


https://globalnews.ca/news/10892803/...wer-12-months/
A one-sided press release from a fossil fuel lobbyist company disguised as a news story. Call me when there's an unbiased story.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2024, 6:23 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
A one-sided press release from a fossil fuel lobbyist company disguised as a news story. Call me when there's an unbiased story.
Delivered by Global News and drawn BC Hydro's own reports.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2024, 6:30 PM
GenWhy? GenWhy? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 4,664
When does BC Hydro's fiscal year end? Is it August?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2024, 6:59 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 6,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Yay, let's all hear it for BC Hydro's green power grid! Where's the details on how this imported power was generated?

BC Hydro imported a quarter of the province’s power in the last 12 months
By Amy Judd & Aaron McArthur Global News
Posted November 28, 2024

New numbers show BC Hydro imported a record amount of electricity over the last 12 months.

According to documents filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission, BC Hydro imported 13,600 gigawatt hours of electricity in fiscal year 2024, at a cost of nearly $1.4 billion.

“It’s very disturbing that British Columbia’s now relying on 25 per cent of our electricity to come from outside the province,” Barry Penner with the Energy Futures Institute told Global News.

“Most of that’s from the United States. Just how we got here, I know we’ve had some low water years, but it’s also an indication we just have not been planning ahead and doing what’s really needed to keep pace with the growing demand.”....


https://globalnews.ca/news/10892803/...wer-12-months/
I have had a couple of interesting conversations over the years about PowerEx Corp (BC Hydro's for-profit energy trading arm) that might shed some light on the situation.

The short version is that the Columbia River Treaty (currently up for renegotiation, with an Agreement In Principle reached this past summer) establishes obligations and opportunities for BC Hydro.

The obligation side of the coin is that a guaranteed minimum amount of river volume must be continuously sent across the border from the Canadian side to the US side (no Grand Ethiopian Dam situation allowed). In addition to this baseline, whenever they wish, downstream US treaty partners can "request" BC Hydro release X hundred thousand or million cubic metres of water and specify that it must reach US dams downstream over Y period of time, up to a certain treaty limit. BC Hydro must comply and release the required amount of water from its reservoirs to ensure that the required amount of water reaches the US in the set timeframe. Understandably, the whole thing is functionally automated at this point, with many hundreds, if not thousands of release requests sent annually, and BC Hydro uses a tremendous amount of sophisticated modelling to figure out how to optimize the release of water from its system of reservoirs to fulfill its treaty obligations with the least impact - short and long-term - on its generating capacity.

On the opportunity side of the coin, BC Hydro, by treaty, can 'bank' the equivalent amount of electricity that the released amount of water would have created, as measured in megawatt hours, were it to have gone through a generator. Depending on the situation, BC Hydro might flow the treaty request water through its generators to make power, or, if the grid was running at capacity, it would just open the sluicegates and dump water over the top of the dam, so to speak, sending it down river. Regardless, BC Hydro adds X megawatts to its ledger and bides its time.

Through PowerEx, BC Hydro monitors the energy spot market in the US and when it is advantageous to do so, it can compel the treaty partners to buy a certain banked amount of megawatt hours from the BC grid at the US spot market prices for the 'buyers' region. PowerEx times its sales to achieve the highest possible yield, which it pays out to BC Hydro. BC Hydro flows the required amount of water through its dams to generate the amount of purchased power that is sent to the US (this is over and above whatever BC Hydro would normally be generating for the BC grid).

Separate from the Columbia River Treaty, PowerEx regularly buys power from US and Canadian markets when the price is low (i.e. late at night) and puts that into the BC grid, allowing BC Hydro to reduce the flow on dams (aka "turning off the dams at night and plugging an extension cord into your neighbour's grid"). This makes a lot of financial sense, especially from producers supplying thermal power (e.g. Alberta coal) and nuclear power (e.g. California) that always have a base load output to the interconnected west coast grid, especially if it means conserving reservoir capacity for peak periods and any Treaty demands.

Other times, the opportunistic sale under Treaty of our power at peak periods compels BC Hydro to be simultaneously purchasing power from Alberta to keep the grid stable, all while making a profit. To preserve adequate reservoir capacity, especially in the dry months, BC Hydro undoubtedly must find itself preferring to conserve its own long-range production capability by buying power from its neighbours at less advantageous times, which costs more money. If the total amount of purchased power is going up, like the article says, then BC Hydro is also undoubtably buying more and more power in absolute terms, regardless of cross-border arbitrage.

Increased purchasing from our neighbours is also likely a deafening canary in the coal mine for climate change, since less snowfall means shorter-lived snowpack storage which means less water in summer for the reservoirs.

Anyway, just wanted to put some perspective on the BC Hydro imports a quarter of its power headline. BC Hydro should still absolutely be installing generators on existing dams where space was left for their installation in the future, retrofitting existing dams with more efficient generating equipment, investing in grid-scale storage (battery, pumped water, etc.), get serious about building the next Site C ASAP, and sign on to be a pilot project for the use of small modular nuclear reactor for a high-demand point-source location like Kitimat, if not committing to a full-scale nuclear reactor as soon as possible, possibly jointly owned and operated with Alberta (locating it in the Peace Region would make a lot of sense).

Incidentally, some among us might remember the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, when Enron, among other wholesalers, and some electrical production companies manipulated the electricity market to create astronomical profits when they spiked the daily spot market prices. PowerEx, holding a treaty ledger full of guaranteed power purchasing, made an absolutely killing compelling its treaty partners to buy BC power at catastrophically high spot market prices. PowerEx got caught up in the ensuing lawsuits from Federal and state regulators and lumped in with Enron as one of the villains. The court cases dragged out for more than a decade, with PowerEx defending itself against more than 3.2 billion dollars in claims on the grounds that the Columbia River Treaty permitted PowerEx's actions. Ultimately it agreed to settle for $750 million, which was actually going to be less than $300 million in real terms because PowerEx was still owed nearly half a billion dollars from its California-based litigants party to the settlement.
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis

Last edited by SFUVancouver; Dec 3, 2024 at 1:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2024, 7:47 PM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
...the Columbia River Treaty (currently up for renegotiation, with an Agreement In Principle reached this past summer) establishes obligations and opportunities for BC Hydro...
Very interesting and informative. Thanks for providing some excellent context for the recent comments!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2024, 10:57 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 7,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
I have had a couple of interesting conversations over the years about PowerEx Corp (BC Hydro's for-profit energy trading arm) that might shed some light on the situation.

...

Separate from the Columbia River Treaty, PowerEx regularly buys power from US and Canadian markets when the price is low (i.e. late at night) and puts that into the BC grid, allowing BC Hydro to reduce the flow on dams (aka "turning off the dams at night and plugging an extension cord into your neighbour's grid"). This makes a lot of financial sense, especially from producers supplying thermal power (e.g. Alberta coal) and nuclear power (e.g. California) that always have a base load output to the interconnected west coast grid, especially if it means conserving reservoir capacity for peak periods and any Treaty demands.

...
Excellent summary; thanks. Just an update that whatever power we acquire opportunistically from Alberta won't be generated by coal, as their last coal-fired power station closed in January.

Under Alberta's NDP government in 2015, the province aimed to phase out coal by 2030. That was thought to be almost impossible, but in fact it's happened six years sooner. The Alberta electricity sector accounted for around 41 million tonnes of emissions in 2015. That's down to roughly 19 million tonnes in 2022, the latest year for which there is a complete inventory. It's partly a shift to gas (with 50% less emissions than coal) and partly adding a lot of wind, solar and battery capacity to the grid (despite premier Smith's attempt to slow that down).
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 6:45 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
I have had a couple of interesting conversations over the years about PowerEx Corp (BC Hydro's for-profit energy trading arm) that might shed some light on the situation.

The short version is that the Columbia River Treaty (currently up for renegotiation, with an Agreement In Principle reached this past summer) establishes obligations and opportunities for BC Hydro.

The obligation side of the coin is that a guaranteed minimum amount of river volume must be continuously sent across the border from the Canadian side to the US side (no Grand Ethiopian Dam situation allowed). In addition to this baseline, whenever they wish, downstream US treaty partners can "request" BC Hydro release X hundred thousand or million cubic metres of water and specify that it must reach US dams downstream over Y period of time, up to a certain treaty limit. BC Hydro must comply and release the required amount of water from its reservoirs to ensure that the required amount of water reaches the US in the set timeframe. Understandably, the whole thing is functionally automated at this point, with many hundreds, if not thousands of release requests sent annually, and BC Hydro uses a tremendous amount of sophisticated modelling to figure out how to optimize the release of water from its system of reservoirs to fulfill its treaty obligations with the least impact - short and long-term - on its generating capacity.

On the opportunity side of the coin, BC Hydro, by treaty, can 'bank' the equivalent amount of electricity that the released amount of water would have created, as measured in megawatt hours, were it to have gone through a generator. Depending on the situation, BC Hydro might flow the treaty request water through its generators to make power, or, if the grid was running at capacity, it would just open the sluicegates and dump water over the top of the dam, so to speak, sending it down river. Regardless, BC Hydro adds X megawatts to its ledger and bides its time.

Through PowerEx, BC Hydro monitors the energy spot market in the US and when it is advantageous to do so, it can compel the treaty partners to buy a certain banked amount of megawatt hours from the BC grid at the US spot market prices for the 'buyers' region. PowerEx times its sales to achieve the highest possible yield, which it pays out to BC Hydro. BC Hydro flows the required amount of water through its dams to generate the amount of purchased power that is sent to the US (this is over and above whatever BC Hydro would normally be generating for the BC grid). It's a classic sell high-buy low arbitrage situation.

Separate from the Columbia River Treaty, PowerEx regularly buys power from US and Canadian markets when the price is low (i.e. late at night) and puts that into the BC grid, allowing BC Hydro to reduce the flow on dams (aka "turning off the dams at night and plugging an extension cord into your neighbour's grid"). This makes a lot of financial sense, especially from producers supplying thermal power (e.g. Alberta coal) and nuclear power (e.g. California) that always have a base load output to the interconnected west coast grid, especially if it means conserving reservoir capacity for peak periods and any Treaty demands.

Other times, the opportunistic sale under Treaty of our power at peak periods compels BC Hydro to be simultaneously purchasing power from Alberta to keep the grid stable, all while making a profit. To preserve adequate reservoir capacity, especially in the dry months, BC Hydro undoubtedly must find itself preferring to conserve its own long-range production capability by buying power from its neighbours at less advantageous times, which costs more money. If the total amount of purchased power is going up, like the article says, then BC Hydro is also undoubtably buying more and more power in absolute terms, regardless of cross-border arbitrage.

Increased purchasing from our neighbours is also likely a deafening canary in the coal mine for climate change, since less snowfall means shorter-lived snowpack storage which means less water in summer for the reservoirs.

Anyway, just wanted to put some perspective on the BC Hydro imports a quarter of its power headline. BC Hydro should still absolutely be installing generators on existing dams where space was left for their installation in the future, retrofitting existing dams with more efficient generating equipment, investing in grid-scale storage (battery, pumped water, etc.), get serious about building the next Site C ASAP, and sign on to be a pilot project the use of small modular nuclear reactor for a high-demand point-source location like Kitimat, if not committing to a full-scale nuclear reactor as soon as possible, possibly jointly owned and operated with Alberta (locating it in the Peace Region would make a lot of sense).

Incidentally, some among us might remember the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, when Enron, among other wholesalers, and some electrical production companies manipulated the electricity market to create astronomical profits when they spiked the daily spot market prices. PowerEx, holding a treaty ledger full of guaranteed power purchasing, made an absolutely killing compelling its treaty partners to buy BC power at catastrophic spot market prices. PowerEx got caught up in the ensuing lawsuits from Federal and state regulators and lumped in with Enron as one of the villains. The court cases dragged out for more than a decade, with PowerEx defending itself against more than 3.2 billion dollars in claims on the grounds that the Columbia River Treaty permitted PowerEx's actions. Ultimately it agreed to settle for $750 million, which was actually going to be less than $300 million in real terms because PowerEx was still owed nearly half a billion dollars from its California-based litigants party to the settlement.
very good post.

i was thinking it had something to do with the Powerex trading arm. it can be misleading when you add in these facts. its not so cut and dry. "buy low, sell high" as you said.

though i do agree, we should be building Site E. im a die-hard supporter of hydroelectric power. we are going all electric (so the NDP wants) and we will need more power. i am still surprised BC Hydro postponed their Metro North transmission line project to 2035.

disagree on your points about nuclear, though. more hydroelectric! we could/should be building more, upgrading more, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 8:43 AM
aberdeen5698's Avatar
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Changing City View Post
Under Alberta's NDP government in 2015, the province aimed to phase out coal by 2030. That was thought to be almost impossible, but in fact it's happened six years sooner. The Alberta electricity sector accounted for around 41 million tonnes of emissions in 2015. That's down to roughly 19 million tonnes in 2022, the latest year for which there is a complete inventory. It's partly a shift to gas (with 50% less emissions than coal) and partly adding a lot of wind, solar and battery capacity to the grid (despite premier Smith's attempt to slow that down).
The big argument that's always trotted out against solar and wind power generation is the fact that the're intermittent. But even if they don't provide power 100% of the time they still displace greenhouse gases from dirty power. Every kilowatt generated by wind and solar is a kilowatt that came without any emissions. The more gigawatts we generate that way, the better off we are, even if some of the power generation is still dirty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 9:20 AM
jollyburger jollyburger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 14,659
It'll be interesting to see if stopping coal exports will happen by 2030.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 2:05 PM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger View Post
It'll be interesting to see if stopping coal exports will happen by 2030.
Not really relevant to the power grid discussion, all our exported coal is metallurgical coal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 6:39 PM
Changing City's Avatar
Changing City Changing City is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 7,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by madog222 View Post
Not really relevant to the power grid discussion, all our exported coal is metallurgical coal.
I agree, it's not relevant to the BC electricity generation discussion. Partly because Alberta stopped burning thermal coal, some is exported from Canada from coal mines in that province.

"Statistics published this month by the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert show 19.5 million tonnes of thermal coal were exported through their terminals last year.

That's up from a little more than 18 million tonnes in 2022 and is almost twice the amount Canada exported in 2015 when the Liberals took power.

In 2022 more than half Canada's exports were coal produced in the United States, mainly Wyoming and Montana, that is shipped by rail to Vancouver and then across the Pacific. Most U.S. west coast ports won't allow thermal coal exports anymore." [CTV]
__________________
Contemporary Vancouver development blog, https://changingcitybook.wordpress.com/ Then and now Vancouver blog https://changingvancouver.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 7:09 PM
WarrenC12's Avatar
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 24,341
I wonder if that thermal coal exporting will come up in our impending trade dispute with the USA. Tell those red states to shove that coal up their ass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2024, 9:13 PM
Migrant_Coconut's Avatar
Migrant_Coconut Migrant_Coconut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kitsilano/Fairview
Posts: 9,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
The big argument that's always trotted out against solar and wind power generation is the fact that the're intermittent. But even if they don't provide power 100% of the time they still displace greenhouse gases from dirty power. Every kilowatt generated by wind and solar is a kilowatt that came without any emissions. The more gigawatts we generate that way, the better off we are, even if some of the power generation is still dirty.
Yes and no - Germany put all their money on solar and onshore wind in the 2010s, and they ended up with brownouts (and subsequent increased dependency on coal and gas). They're decent for peak load, but we'll need more baseload generation too; Site E, offshore wind, run-of-river dams and SMRs seem to be the way forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:57 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.