Site C

[Gone_Fishin]

And where does it go from General Revenue? I guess we'll find out when that audit is done.

The government's accounts are audited every year. Look into the financial statements to find the audited answer to your silly accusations.

[Urban Cowboy]

The BC Liberal fan club refuses to believe it, and continue to spew their sour grape comments all over this forum.

We are forced to post to refute the never ending river of BS that you keep posting.

You don't post opinions as you keep stating, what you do is perpetuate the spread of misinformation, and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.

[erinmore3775]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40527784
World's Largest Battery for Australia

Just a little heads up before this notice is used as evidence to solve all our future energy needs and ensure the abolishment of Site C. The battery complex can store 100 Mwatt of power. Site C can produce 600 Mwatt of power on a low average. However, this is stored capacity. The original power for the Tesla battery must come from somewhere. Currently, BC Hydro has the capacity to store many times this amount of energy as stored water behind its dams and does so daily. At night it purchases low cost power, largely from Washington, and cuts back its hydro production and stores water. Then during the day it releases this water, generating electricity that it sells at a higher price back into the US grid.

The cost of this battery is $540M and it would take at least 6 of these to store the daily energy of Site C. The approximate life span of these batteries is 10 years. Compare that to the 50 year life span of Site C before upgrades MAY be necessary. This may be a short term solution for Australia but it is NOT an good economic or environmental solution for BC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-giant-battery-1.4194515

Edited once for clarity

[Urbane]

More evidence that there's a downside to everything, including solar:

Tuesday, July 4, 2017, 3:51 - America’s growing reliance on solar power may have created a new enemy for environmentalists — a greenhouse gas that’s thousands of times more potent than CO2.
Full article: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/ne ... gas/83751/

Site C is looking better and better.

[Urban Cowboy]

More evidence that there's a downside to everything, including solar:

Tuesday, July 4, 2017, 3:51 - America’s growing reliance on solar power may have created a new enemy for environmentalists — a greenhouse gas that’s thousands of times more potent than CO2.
Full article: https://www.theweathernetwork.com/us/ne ... gas/83751/

Site C is looking better and better.

Can't wait to see what spin the anti site "C" side put on this news which shoots their green argument all to H E double hockey sticks and back.

Remember that's also just a final manufacture side effect, and doesn't include the other aspects such as mining all the materials required for the production of the solar panels, nor their disposal 25yrs down the road. They are looking less and less green all the time.

[Smurf]

Wow what a shot across the bow of the solar industry. All the jobs creating serious greenhouse gases. I also have to wonder about all the LED lighting they are pushing sooo hard. Are we going to find out it is actually a bigger problem than the lighting it is replacing? Nothing is perfect and it sounds like that is being proven again. Would be really interesting to know just how serious it is. Is it low like hydro dams or high like burning coal?

[maryjane48]

One study co-authored by industry representatives suggests that the contribution of the NF3 emissions to the overall greenhouse gas budget of thin-film Si-solar cell manufacturing is overestimated. Instead, the contribution of the nitrogen trifluoride to the CO2-budget of thin film solar cell production is compensated already within a few months by the CO2 saving potential of the PV technology.[20]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trifluoride


NF3 is used as a chamber cleaning gas in the manufacture of semiconductors, flat panel displays and other electronic devices. When compared with competing products, NF3 offers customers significant reductions in emissions, throughput increases of up to 30%, longer chamber life and faster clean rates.

NF3 is also stable and non-flammable, making it a safe gas to transport, store and deliver to customers around
the world.

Nitrogen trifluoride is also used in the plasma and thermal cleaning of CVD reactors, while it is used as a source of fluorine radicals for plasma etching of polysilicon, silicon nitride, tungsten silicide and tungsten for example.


you plan on giving up your electronic devices urb? because if the solar panel companies stopped using it it wouldnt matter.plus the co2 thats saved by solar panels more than makes up for small amounts used. plus site c requires fish to be trucked to tune of 30 mill a year and releases all sorts harmfull exhaust in the process, nice try but fail

[maryjane48]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40527784
World's Largest Battery for Australia

Just a little heads up before this notice is used as evidence to solve all our future energy needs and ensure the abolishment of Site C. The battery complex can store 100 Mwatt of power. Site C can produce 600 Mwatt of power on a low average. However, this is stored capacity. The original power for the Tesla battery must come from somewhere. Currently, BC Hydro has the capacity to store many times this amount of energy as stored water behind its dams and does so daily. At night it purchases low cost power, largely from Washington, and cuts back its hydro production and stores water. Then during the day it releases this water, generating electricity that it sells at a higher price back into the US grid.

The cost of this battery is $540M and it would take at least 6 of these to store the daily energy of Site C. The approximate life span of these batteries is 10 years. Compare that to the 50 year life span of Site C before upgrades MAY be necessary. This may be a short term solution for Australia but it is NOT an good economic or environmental solution for BC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-giant-battery-1.4194515

Edited once for clarity

this is being tied to a wind farm .that where the power to be stored comes from but you tried to tie it to carbon burning. why? if you cant use facts why make stuff up?. *removed* byw who is more succsessfull bchydro or elon musk

[Smurf]

MJ you do realize that information from industry representative is like asking tobacco if smoking is safe, gun manufacturers if guns are dangerous. First off what are they comparing it's safety to. Are they comparing it to Hydro production or coal production. I have no idea of it's possible dangers as I really have not found any good information on it. I did note however that you forgot to post some very pertinent information from your Wikipedia article.

Since 1992, when less than 100 tons were produced, production has grown to an estimated 4000 tons in 2007 and is projected to increase significantly.[14] World production of NF3 is expected to reach 8000 tons a year by 2010. By far the world's largest producer of NF 3 is the US industrial gas and chemical company Air Products & Chemicals. An estimated 2% of produced NF 3 is released into the atmosphere.[16][17] Robson projected that the maximum atmospheric concentration is less than 0.16 parts per trillion (ppt) by volume, which will provide less than 0.001 Wm−2 of IR forcing.[18] The mean global tropospheric concentration of NF3 has risen from about 0.02 ppt (parts per trillion, dry air mole fraction) in 1980, to 0.86 ppt in 2011, with a rate of increase of 0.095 ppt yr−1, or about 11% per year, and an interhemispheric gradient that is consistent with emissions occurring overwhelmingly in the Northern Hemisphere, as expected. This rise rate in 2011 corresponds to about 1200 metric tons/y NF3 emissions globally, or about 10% of the NF3 global production estimates. This is a significantly higher percentage than has been estimated by industry, and thus strengthens the case for inventorying NF3 production and for regulating its emissions.[19] One study co-authored by industry representatives suggests that the contribution of the NF3 emissions to the overall greenhouse gas budget of thin-film Si-solar cell manufacturing is overestimated. Instead, the contribution of the nitrogen trifluoride to the CO2-budget of thin film solar cell production is compensated already within a few months by the CO2 saving potential of the PV technology.[20]

How come you posted the bit about the co-authored study using industry representatives and conveniently forgot the portion saying findings were significantly higher than has been estimated by industry. Are you willing to let things slip as long it is good for you side?

maryjane48 » Yesterday, 8:01 pm

this is being tied to a wind farm .that where the power to be stored comes from but you tried to tie it to carbon burning. why? if you cant use facts why make stuff up?. *removed* byw who is more succsessfull bchydro or elon musk

I missed the part where erinmore3775 tried tom tie it to carbon burning, could you please point it out. From what I see it was being compared to site C. Comparing the abilities of site c to produce synchronous, green, power at a moments notice, night, day, warm, cold, rain or shine even if there is no wind.. Can be hard to store something that isn't there because there has been a few calm days and production is down or even gone.

[erinmore3775]

I find it interesting that there is a comparison between Musk an BC Hydro. Both are green energy leaders. BC Hydro produces over 90% of its power ftom green, hydro sources. Musk has been a crusader for photo electric generation and EV vehicles. Both are beneficial for clean energy use and the reduction of use carbon based energy.

However, both acknowledge that the is an environtal cost for the reduction of carbon dependence. With hydro there is the production of methane gas from the resevoir (decreasing production over the years until it reaches North American lake averages) and the "cost" related to cement and steel production and carbon based energy used in construction. These "costs" decrease in time. Musk acknowledges the environmental costs of EV and battery production but justifies the "costs" by the reduction in the "usage" carbon footprint.

The California battery project is tied to a wind farm. It is part of the solution. However, as a storage facility it does not have the capacity of Site C, does not have a decreasing environmental production footprint, and the cost over the life span of the projects (50 to 100 years) definitely leans towards Site C.

[Smurf]

The thing that I have noticed continuously is that when comparisons are done they are seldom if ever done against Hydro. In almost all if not all of the comparisons I have seen they compare solar and wind to everything but Hydro. I believe that is because Hydro will continuously in the end show up better. Yes without doubt those alternative sources need to be developed for the future. We are one of the lucky few that still have decent hydro that can be developed. No one is advocating that the alternative sources should not be developed, only that at this time site C is all around the best for BC. It gives us a much more solid base to work from. We should be able to then sit back and develop the new sources as needed and without huge subsidies and problems like other areas are being saddled with.

[hobbyguy]

MJ - the key concept you are missing is that a reservoir, in energy terms, is a "battery".

Perhaps in a better way to sell site C, the marketing should read "BC Building 1,100 Megawatt Battery". Site C is more than that, but it would certainly get the attention of those who somehow seem to think that Elon Musk is a demigod.

This editorial is only related to site C in a casual way, but it points out a couple of key concepts: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-why-subsidies-for-electric-cars-are-a-bad-idea-for-canada/article35610283/

Political reality:

"Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst."

What we see with site C is exactly that situation. Disingenuous politicians and IPP producers hooked up with Solar Manufacturers and Wind Turbine Manufacturers (who depend on sales of Wind Turbines and PVs etc for making $$$) and permanent protest bloggers who make their $$$ (including advertising $$$ from Solar PV makers) by putting an unrealistic and non factual spin on everything.

Wind and Solar usage have been around for 100s, even thousands of years. Why then when wind mills could be built anywhere, did activity center around rivers and water wheels? Because water wheels are a reliable source of power 24/7 every day. The wind blows sometimes, and sometimes not. The sun does not shine 24/7, and is weak seasonally just when you need it most.

All that said, wind and solar power have become "California trendy fashionable". Given a choice, for whatever reason, a portion of the population will listen to what is said by a celebrity over what science and logic tell us. Thus we see politicians jumping on the bandwagon and often changing their positions, smart business people like Richard Branson who while running a business that consumes 100s of thousands of tons of fossil fuel, promotes wind and solar (good for Richard's pocket!).

And we get politicians who will use that misdirection and misguided placement of faith in celebrity to their personal advantage. Not because the opinion is correct, but because it buys them votes, and power (deserved or not).

[Urbane]

I'd like to know exactly what the BCUC will be reviewing. The Site C Clean Energy Project was not taken to the BCUC because it was part of the "Clean Energy Act" and the idea was that even if the cost turned out to be higher than other forms of energy the cost was worth it because hydro power is low-GHG power. I'm in the camp that says the science is NOT settled on the issue but it does make sense to me to go with a form of energy that has low GHG emissions.

That's presumably why people like Andrew Weaver and John Horgan favoured construction of the Site C dam and in fact Weaver criticized the government for not building it sooner. Now we're here with the whole issue, at this late date, being referred to the BCUC. What EXACTLY will they be reviewing. Their mandate is to get the best value for consumers but will they be looking at the big picture??

[hobbyguy]

BCUC does not have a mandate that can make decisions on inter-generational investments. That's what we vote politicians in to do.

Referring site C to the BCUC was a sop that Horgan threw at looney tunes Lana to stop her hissy fit tantrum. Horgan didn't have the .... to tell her to grow up.

[hobbyguy]

erimore - it is important to recognize that both methane production and methyl mercury production in reservoirs are highly dependent on context and pre-filling handling.

Methane production in reservoirs is temperature dependent (higher temperature reservoirs will produce more), dependent on the type of vegetation in the drainage basin and its growth rate, and the amount of residual vegetation in the reservoir.

Methyl mercury production is tied to the same factors. (CH3Hg)

In terms of site C:

1. It is a cold water reservoir
2. It is in a coniferous relatively slow growing drainage basin, with low levels of underbrush etc.
3. Site C preparation includes removal of all vegetation from the area to be flooded.

Without organic material from which to manufacture CH4, there is no methane production.

No reservoir ever receives water without some residual organic matter, however the Peace is from a drainage basin with minimal vegetative material that ends up in the river. (Amazonian reservoirs are the opposite, lots of deciduous and broadleaf vegetation shedding into the rivers, and high rates of vegetative growth). The cold Peace waters are very slow to decay residual vegetative material, and so the bulk of what is there flows through.

In terms of methyl mercury, the bulk of methyl mercury in the BC context comes from trees. In the past, the practice was to simply flood the reservoirs with the trees left standing. (The old Alcan project reservoirs were logged for submerged timber in the 1990s). Site C engineers have learned from past mistakes, and by removing the trees and vegetation from the flooded area, minimize the methyl mercury production to background levels.

It is important to realize that no lake or body of water is methyl mercury free. Okanagan lake is being polluted with methyl mercury as I write this - from forest fire smoke. Forest fires are a major source of methyl mercury.

Overall, site C will produce very, very little methane and at worst, background levels of methyl mercury.