IPPs around Harrison Lake

[wilder paddles]

Raising the cost significantly will also decrease demand.

You can make things more efficient. But that is a slow process. I'm not going to buy a new refrigerator just because it is marginally more efficeint than the one I have now for instance.

Same same with houses. Its not economical to refit a relatively new house. So the change has to be gradual with housing codes that require homes to be built to a higher standard.

Having considered buying lots to build on, I am put off by builder covenants that require houses larger than 1500 sq feet. I sure don't need that much space. So this is one place to start.

In general, people's energy requirements are not going to change. Hiking the price will just encourage people to convert to other sources. Its like laying wall paper; the bubble that you press down here, migrates over there. So there is a risk that through artificially raising prices that people will convert to an energy source that is worse than the one being replaced.

In Colwood where I used to live we had low taxes partly because services were not included. You had to pay for your garbage pickup. What some people did was burn their garbage in the fireplace. The resulting soot made walking around the streets unpleasant and probably very unhealthy.

how about we legislate that all new construction MUST have solar cells placed on the roof and connected into the grid.

I guess the solar cells are waterproof; it rains a lot here.

I was looking at this when I was living in Kingston. Two solar panels in Arizona would be enough to meet most of the demands of a household. I would need 56 panels to provide the same power in Kingston; the difference due to latitude and cloud cover. Solar is a good idea where there is a lot of direct sunlight which we don't get here.

The other part of the solar equation is the convertor system and storage batteries. Batteries have a shelf life. If you use lead acid they need to be changed every five years.
So we are definately not winning here on the clean and green.

The place to put a solar panel is space. Maybe place an arrangement that spells out 'drink coca cola' on the surface of the moon. The problem then becomes one of how to transmit the power to earth. (or move the industry to space too)

i agree that solar is not a perfect solution, but every bit helps. as for the battery life, which is a huge cost and hassle, they could be eliminated by hooking directly to the grid, removing any need to store the energy produced. but that is thought for another topic.

if we can make 10 percent of household energy from solar here in vancouver (as opposed to 100% in arizona) thats still 10% percent more than we are producing now. Quite frankly if we could produce 10% of all residential power needs from our own rooftops thats a win in my books.

 

[ken_vandeburgt]

Imagine every house with a solar panel roof. Imagine that there is a ten percent reduction in demand on the Hydro system. !Excellent!

Now imagine 10cm of snow blanketing those solar panels in minus 10 when the demand is highest. Oops.

Can you spell 'brownout'?

You'd still need a public mega generator as backup.

 

[wilder paddles]

Imagine every house with a solar panel roof. Imagine that there is a ten percent reduction in demand on the Hydro system. !Excellent!

Now imagine 10cm of snow blanketing those solar panels in minus 10 when the demand is highest. Oops.

Can you spell 'brownout'?

You'd still need a public mega generator as backup.

thanks for making the worst of a good idea. Although you have made my point about ror's. that same snow will cause a run of river project to go dark also.

keep up the good work Ken

Rob

 

[nootka]

One of the nice things about power from hydro-electric dams is that you can turn it off when it is not needed and then turn it on very quickly. The reservoir acts as a big battery (reserve power -get it?). So the rooftop solar panels is very viable & Ken's objection is not valid. In fact, BC Hydro shuts off the dams after midnight & buys cheap power from Alberta (they release just enough to keep the fish wet). Then they sell expensive power to Alberta during the day. (Alberta's coal plants have to run 24 hours a day).

Of course, you can't do this with run of the river.
And conservation of power is something we all can do now (it's a lot more productive than nay-saying).

 

[Dan_Millsip]

Getting this discussion back to the original topic -- tomorrow (Nov 25) is the last day to offer comments on the Harrison Lake IPP projects.

I think it's good to discuss different issues regarding power in BC and I hope that it continues here as it's most interesting. In the meanwhile, time is running out to voice your opinions and concerns about RoR projects at Harrison.

You can comment on the Environment Assessment Office website. This link is specifically for the Statlu Creek project, links are on the left side of the page for commenting on the other Harrison Lake projects:

http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/public_comment ... _form.html

*****

 

[ken_vandeburgt]

that same snow will cause a run of river project to go dark also.

There are two run-of-river projects in Strathcona Park operated for many years now by NVI mines. My understanding is they draw on the reservoirs all year; it doesn't matter how much it snows. The big problem is when you get long dry periods.

You're right though in that run of river mainly takes advantage of spring freshets. That works with the fact that most of our power is big hydro which is more flexible in meeting changing loads than other generators.

It just points out that there needs to be enough large scale power projects in place to meet peak load demands when minor sources can't provide at all.

This week BC Hydro is on the radio asking people to cut back on even the most minor loads which suggests that they are running near peak capacity. A scary thought because site C is years away. The dam might be full of water but without a generator to run it through....

 

[nootka]

BC Hydro is in the process of adding 2000MW to Revelstoke & Mica Dams.
http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulat ... nit_5.html
http://www.bchydro.com/planning_regulat ... grade.html
http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/106556588.html

These dams currently supply roughly 1/3 of BC's demand. When all 4 turbines are added, the number of turbines will increase from 8 to 12. With this increase of 10% of peak demand, wouldn't it be smart to also acquire an additional 10% of non-peak demand?

Trouble is, sheep are very dim. Once they get an idea in their heads, there's no shiftin' it.
Monty Python

 

[Tootsall]

An extremely interesting discussion. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts from the “other side of the mountains”. By 2012 Alberta will have a total of 514 wind turbines with a combined generating capacity of approximately 650 mW. http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php Drive through the Crowsnest Pass now and you'd be surprised at how many of those towers have been constructed: it seems like every time I make a trip through there are more and more fields being covered with them and there is a constant stream of semi-trailers carrying turbine components headed west. If you build enough turbines, spread out over a sufficiently wide geographic area, you might be able to "almost" guarantee that you can baseload off of them...but never completely. And at what cost?

The Alberta Government has just (in the last year) forced through the construction of a H.V. Transmission line to connect our grid to that in Montana...ostensibly to “allow us to source power from other generating regions in periods of high demand”. Interesting statement but flies in the face of what the Mayor of Shelby Montana told me a couple of years ago when I was down there on other business. He said that they could not wait to get the line built so that they can buy “cheap Canadian power”! One was immediately forced to wonder how much our power rates are to go up once the generating, transmission, and “brokerage” companies (NOT owned by the taxpayer) had access to a market where the prices were higher. But in spite of landowner resistance, the line went through...and we'll now get to pay not only for the construction of the line but also be forced to “match” the US prices for electrical power. So... if someone tells you that they are connecting our power grid to that of the US to “ensure a stable supply for us”... as Richard said, “follow the money”. (Besides, if BC is going to buy emergency "peaking power" from Alberta, who will Alberta buy it from if we're selling all of ours to BC and Montana?)

The discussion concerning the different types of electrical power generation is also interesting and the observation that some types of plant offer much more flexibility when required by demand peaks is spot on. The problem with wind power (even though it seems to blow most of the time here in Southern Alberta) is that the wind cannot be “programmed” to match peak demand periods. Last year I visited some relatives in the Netherlands Antilles (Curacao) where they have a number of wind turbines along the north-east coast (about 14 if I remember right). In spite of the sea breeze blowing almost constantly and the only alternative source being (expensive) diesel-powered generation, not a single one of those turbines was running! Apparently the problem was exactly that...the diesels work most efficiently when they are base loaded and one or two “spare” generators can be brought online quickly and used for “peaking” power. The wind turbines don't provide enough power to baseload for the population of ~140,000 and can't be brought on and off line to be used for “peaking” with a sufficient guarantee of reliable wind. So...another bit of “green power” that, in practice, wasn't working the way it was intended. Say what you will but to the extent of the reservoir and turbine capacity to “store and produce power”, hydro and fossil-fuel fired and (that “nasty” one), nuclear plants do have the ability to “flex” to meet demand where solar and wind do not. So...big plants have the capacity and flexibility to handle load variations, big plants will also produce power cheaper per kw than small plants. Perhaps some small, rural areas can have their power supplies augmented by ROR, wind, or solar but these are limited to an extreme degree by the amount of rivers, (locally they even produce power with "low head" dams on irrigation ditches!), sunshine or wind availability.

And, when you connect to someone else's grid, don't believe anyone (especially your own government) when they say it's for YOUR GOOD! You can bet it's only going to be “good” for the shareholders of the companies involved and those others who might benefit from the "income stream" generated.

 

[Rrdstarr]

Would you rather have a hydro plant or a Nuclear power plant? I'd rather have the Hydro plant, thanks!
How about we start limiting families two having only two children? The more damn people we have the more dam power we need! Give your heads a shake!
How about we stop selling power to the states cheaper then we sell it to BC residents!

Enviro-whackos and their lawyers are way out of it!

 

[ken_vandeburgt]

How about we stop selling power to the states cheaper then we sell it to BC residents!

Thats funny! I remember getting a check from Glen Clark's NDP government (excuse me while I go puke), for profits made selling power to California on the order of magnitude of $200/MWhr. (It didn't help; they only got two seats at the next election)

California had this odd problem, see. Everytime someone tried to build a power plant the NIMBY's wouldn't let it get built (remind anyone of anything?).... Brownouts & blackouts... Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric went broke buying power from BC and selling it at a mandated lower price to customers. Enron got implicated and went bankrupt. (I hope history doesn't repeat itself here)

I don't think BC Hydro sells power to the states for cheaper than we buy it at home. Of course no pricing facts on the Powerex corp site. Our government relies on an income stream from Powerex sales and that results in lower taxes for us.
http://www2.powerex.com/Homepage.aspx

 

[KayDubbya]

...

Thats funny! I remember getting a check from Glen Clark's NDP government (excuse me while I go puke), for profits made selling power to California on the order of magnitude of $200/MWhr. (It didn't help; they only got two seats at the next election)

Hydro (also known as B.C. residents) subsequently got sued (for $280 Million) by California for it's participation in Enron's power manipulation schemes (The charges were dismissed, but Powerex paid $1.3 Million to settle the case).

California had this odd problem, see. Everytime someone tried to build a power plant the NIMBY's wouldn't let it get built (remind anyone of anything?).... Brownouts & blackouts... Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric went broke buying power from BC and selling it at a mandated lower price to customers. Enron got implicated and went bankrupt. (I hope history doesn't repeat itself here)

A part of the world with some of the worst air quality on the continent is reluctant to approve more gas fired power plants? Boy, those people are sure stupid, hey? Damn "NIMBY"s!

SOCal Edison and the ENRON power scandal has been well documented. It was a classic example of runaway corporate greed working with a deregulated system. The brownouts & blackouts were engineered by power traders that made millions holding companies & state utilities hostage. To use that example to imply that NIMBY'ism is wrong is simply bizarre. Incidentally, ENRON didn't get "implicated", they got caught. They also tried to cut a deal with California's farmer over water rights. It was an effort to pull the same scheme with people's water supply that they pulled with their electricity. Luckily for California's residents the farmers understood the implications and turned down millions in short term profits for water security.

 

[ken_vandeburgt]

Hydro (also known as B.C. residents) subsequently got sued (for $280 Million) by California for it's participation in Enron's power manipulation schemes (The charges were dismissed, but Powerex paid $1.3 Million to settle the case).

So BC Hydro didn't get sued. Suit not successful.

A part of the world with some of the worst air quality on the continent is reluctant to approve more gas fired power plants? Boy, those people are sure stupid, hey? Damn "NIMBY"s!

Even stupider when it turned out nobody else wanted the gas fired power plants stinking up their neighborhood just to provide California with power. Heck its even a persistant rumour when someone tries to build a power facility here, one that is always mentioned as truth by those who oppose, its to sell power to California.