Site C

[Glacier]

Good post, hobbyguy. The best way to store electricity from intermittent power sources like wind and and solar is by hydro electric dam. This is exactly why BC Hydro's rates are as low as they are. BC Hydro reduces the power at night, and buys cheap power from Alberta and elsewhere that have mostly thermal generators (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and even geothermal), and then during the day, BC Hydro opens the flood gates, and sells the power back at a much higher rate. The citizens of BC reap the benefits.

We need base load, and that's what hydro provides. In addition, hydro acts as a battery, storing energy at off peak times, only hydro energy storage is far more efficient than the most efficient battery on the market today.

Diversity is good, and on that point wind and solar should be part of the complete puzzle, but they will never make up a significant portion of the market. The leader in wind power in North America is Texas (ironically), but it's only in the 5% range. Because most of their electricity is generated by thermal sources, they have no way to ramp up or reduce power production in any significant way (you can't just shut down or turn on thermal power plants throughout the day), therefore, during a cold snap a few years back that cut wind to pretty much zero, they had to implement rolling blackouts because they didn't have the capacity to make up the difference for the short fall.

By contrast, a place like BC, where the majority of electricity comes from hydro, has the luxury being able to produce far more than 5% of the total power from wind and solar without causing potential blackout problems since the hydro dams act as batteries (energy storage devices).

Big dams are good for wind and solar production.

[maple leaf]

Diversity is good, and on that point wind and solar should be part of the complete puzzle, but they will never make up a significant portion of the market. The leader in wind power in North America is Texas (ironically), but it's only in the 5% range. Because most of their electricity is generated by thermal sources, they have no way to ramp up or reduce power production in any significant way (you can't just shut down or turn on thermal power plants throughout the day), therefore, during a cold snap a few years back that cut wind to pretty much zero, they had to implement rolling blackouts because they didn't have the capacity to make up the difference for the short fall.

By contrast, a place like BC, where the majority of electricity comes from hydro, has the luxury being able to produce far more than 5% of the total power from wind and solar without causing potential blackout problems since the hydro dams act as batteries (energy storage devices).

.

Geo thermal power plants are a constant source of energy,it doesn't matter how cold it is or what the weather conditions are .There is no problem with having to ramp up power as you say .it is all part of the same grid as BC Hydro and no matter what the source, BC Hydro has the same amount of power ,Geo thermal plants can provide as much electricity to the grid as site C would.
Read the report I posted.
This is how it works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjpp2MQffnw

[Glacier]

Geothermal is good, but it is not as cost effective as hydro electricity. Plus, hydro turbines can be shut down much quicker than geothermal turbines. Geothermal should be part of the picture as well, but how much are willing to pay for electricity?

[maple leaf]

Geothermal is good, but it is not as cost effective as hydro electricity. Plus, hydro turbines can be shut down much quicker than geothermal turbines. Geothermal should be part of the picture as well, but how much are willing to pay for electricity?

From the report posted earlier,Not only would it be comparable ,it wouldn't cost 9 +billion dollars to build,and would provide more long term jobs than site C would,And wouldn't be providing way more electricity than needed for 15-20 years before it would be needed,which would be dumped on the market at a loss.

The graph shows very clearly that using the updated data, BC’s geothermal potential has an enormous potential to supply the province’s electricity needs, at a cost that is very competitive with any other source, including Site C.
The 14 updated binary plants charted have the potential to supply 2,300 GWh/yr at costs under $81/MWh, and there are many more such plants possible given the geothermal power potential in the northeast area of BC, as well as spread around the remainder of the province.
The 5 updated flash plant sites that have already been identified, have the potential to supply another 4,200 GWh/yr, at costs of $80 to $90/MWh, and there are many other potential sites spread around the province as well. It’s a matter of government (and the Crown utility) having the will to drive that development forward.
CanGEA’s preferred portfolio, however, based on our research, shows that there are other possible geothermal projects that are useful for the purposes of comparison to the Site C project. Using only binary plants, which includes the 8 conventional binary plants from the RODAT with 28 HSA plants, 5,100 GWh/yr could be generated at an average cost of only $73/MWh, and a total capital expenditure (CapEx) of only $3.3 billion. Notably, this portfolio would be $10 less costly than the RODAT Site C estimate of $83/MWh. Furthermore, it would be less than half as costly, given Site C’s CapEx is stated at $7.9 billion.

[hobbyguy]

Geothermal has a lot of potential.

It also is not without downsides. The biggest one being that the most effective use of geothermal energy, and the most cost effective, is when it can be developed in areas close to the energy need. Not too many spots like that in BC. http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/Disadvantages_GeothermalEnergy.php

That said, I am still a fan of developing EGS Enhanced Geothermal Systems, which give you more of an advantage in picking the site, but that is infancy technology and has its own downsides (like causing earthquakes).

It would indeed be nice to see some geothermal energy development in BC. It may in fact be an energy niche where First Nations could be leaders and major beneficiaries.

However, and this is just an opinion, I think that for the foreseeable future, site C is the best option. Geothermal plants have environmental footprints that are not insignificant.

[flamingfingers]

hobbyguy wrote:

That said, I am still a fan of developing EGS Enhanced Geothermal Systems, which give you more of an advantage in picking the site, but that is infancy technology and has its own downsides (like causing earthquakes).

That I am not aware of. Can you provide a link that supports this?

Actually there are a great many sites in BC that have the potential for geothermal energy production and I would far sooner see some government initiatives in that regard proceed rather than flooding of a food producing valley at ever increasing costs to provide electricity that we presently don't need when Unit 6 will be on line in 2019.

[maple leaf]

The map at the beginning of the report that I had provided a link to earlier shows many hot spots for geo thermal plants.
It is to bad that Christy Clark would not allow the B.C. Utilities commission to do the very job that they were set up to do and be able to do analysis of both site c and the geo thermal proposals.But instead this government is acting irresponsible and is going to spend 9+ billion based on what? There is no clear business plan that lays out the reasoning behind spending 9 + billion.The most open and transparent government ever, would not keep that hidden if it existed.

http://www.cangea.ca/uploads/3/0/9/7/30 ... ite_c_.pdf

[Smurf]

Glacier wrote:

Good post, hobbyguy. The best way to store electricity from intermittent power sources like wind and and solar is by hydro electric dam. This is exactly why BC Hydro's rates are as low as they are. BC Hydro reduces the power at night, and buys cheap power from Alberta and elsewhere that have mostly thermal generators (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and even geothermal), and then during the day, BC Hydro opens the flood gates, and sells the power back at a much higher rate. The citizens of BC reap the benefits.

We need base load, and that's what hydro provides. In addition, hydro acts as a battery, storing energy at off peak times, only hydro energy storage is far more efficient than the most efficient battery on the market today.

Diversity is good, and on that point wind and solar should be part of the complete puzzle, but they will never make up a significant portion of the market. The leader in wind power in North America is Texas (ironically), but it's only in the 5% range. Because most of their electricity is generated by thermal sources, they have no way to ramp up or reduce power production in any significant way (you can't just shut down or turn on thermal power plants throughout the day), therefore, during a cold snap a few years back that cut wind to pretty much zero, they had to implement rolling blackouts because they didn't have the capacity to make up the difference for the short fall.

By contrast, a place like BC, where the majority of electricity comes from hydro, has the luxury being able to produce far more than 5% of the total power from wind and solar without causing potential blackout problems since the hydro dams act as batteries (energy storage devices).

Big dams are good for wind and solar production.

A little off topic Glacier, but a number of years ago I toured a hydro plant at the base of a mountain in Scotland. It was very interesting in that it took it's water flow from a lake at the top of the mountain. At night when demand was low it ran the generators backwards and pumped the water back up to the lake to be used again the next day. It was the only time I have actually seen that concept used but it worked extremely well.

[Smurf]

Geo thermal is definitely good power and should be investigated and probably used. I still believe Site C should go ahead. In any case I believe we should follow the lead of Manitoba Hydro and get contracts with the US to cover at least the period we are not in need of all the power. It has and is working very well for Manitoba Hydro. It would also give us the benefit of not buying thermal power from AB which is dirty power. In the long run site C will be very beneficial. Hopefully we could also somehow break those ridiculously expensive run of the river contracts.


EDIT TO ADD:

We could also use DC distribution where long distances are involved. Manitoba Hydro has been doing that for years with great benefits. In fact they are currently in the process of increasing the size of their DC distribution.

[Muzza]

Personally, I would love to see BC take advantage of geothermal opportunities. This is something I know little about, but for discussion purposes, here are some snippets that show that it is not that easy (from http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content ... tive-hydro)

One reason geothermal is being ignored is because it costs so much to develop, and nobody seems to want to foot the bill. The reason it’s so expensive? Many promising geothermal areas that Ghomshei and other investigators found in BC are remote. They require expensive exploration, machinery, and expertise to build, including digging holes kilometres deep to access the reservoirs of hot water needed to run the plant. When the plant is built, the power company still has to supply power lines to connect to the grid if they want to sell any of the electricity they produce. It is a daunting project.

Because of the high start-up cost, junior geothermal companies in BC currently have a Sisyphean task before they can start making money, however lucrative the project may be in the long run. Up-front costs for exploration can be tens of thousands of dollars. “Usually smaller companies can’t do that,” said Ghomshei.

... and this one surprised me:

The findings in­clude a site that Ghomshei conserva­tively estimated has the potential to produce 230 megawatts of electrical power for 30 years before it goes ex­tinct. (Extinction of geothermal en­ergy sites can happen when tectonic forces change the underground en­vironment, or if power plants do not properly replenish their underground reservoirs by reinjecting the hot water they extract.)

Only 30 year lifetime?? I always assumed that geothermal could be tapped indefinitely. With the high costs of hooking up to the grid, I can see why there is hesitation in going this route....

Still I think we should be doing more in terms of bringing online some of the more easily accessible geothermal sites. I don't think it would play a large role in supplying our needs, but could contribute.

[maple leaf]

Personally, I would love to see BC take advantage of geothermal opportunities. This is something I know little about, but for discussion purposes, here are some snippets that show that it is not that easy (from http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content ... tive-hydro)

One reason geothermal is being ignored is because it costs so much to develop, and nobody seems to want to foot the bill. The reason it’s so expensive? Many promising geothermal areas that Ghomshei and other investigators found in BC are remote. They require expensive exploration, machinery, and expertise to build, including digging holes kilometres deep to access the reservoirs of hot water needed to run the plant. When the plant is built, the power company still has to supply power lines to connect to the grid if they want to sell any of the electricity they produce. It is a daunting project.

Because of the high start-up cost, junior geothermal companies in BC currently have a Sisyphean task before they can start making money, however lucrative the project may be in the long run. Up-front costs for exploration can be tens of thousands of dollars. “Usually smaller companies can’t do that,” said Ghomshei.

Yes for a private company to build it, it is going to have an upfront cost that is to much for them to handle.But like the article says the government needs to be involved.They are willing to spend 9+ billion on site c that is not needed for at least 15 to 20 years from now ,maybe.A Geo thermal plant can be built for 300 million in 5 years.

[Muzza]

Yes for a private company to build it, it is going to have an upfront cost that is to much for them to handle.But like the article says the government needs to be involved.They are willing to spend 9+ billion on site c that is not needed for at least 15 to 20 years from now ,maybe.A Geo thermal plant can be built for 300 million in 5 years.

Thanks. I'm just starting to educate myself on this, but for $300 million what output do you get with a typical geothermal plant, as opposed to Site C? Does $300 million include the costs of hooking up to the grid, which is what seems to me to be one of the deal breakers......

I've got some reading to do on this one!

[maple leaf]

Thanks. I'm just starting to educate myself on this, but for $300 million what output do you get with a typical geothermal plant, as opposed to Site C? Does $300 million include the costs of hooking up to the grid, which is what seems to me to be one of the deal breakers......

I've got some reading to do on this one!

The costs for a private company to do this is going to be more than if it is done under BC Hydro .I don't have all the technical answers.It is to bad that this government won't let the B.C. utilities commission do analysis on this opposed to site C, to answer those kinds of questions.This is a report done by the Canadian Geo Thermal Association that may answer some of your questions.
http://www.cangea.ca/uploads/3/0/9/7/30 ... ite_c_.pdf

[maryjane48]

Geothermal is good, but it is not as cost effective as hydro electricity. Plus, hydro turbines can be shut down much quicker than geothermal turbines. Geothermal should be part of the picture as well, but how much are willing to pay for electricity?

dams flood land , wind solar does not, whats more important ? land of canada or your wallet? one answer will be selfish, the other will be humane:)

[GordonH]

^^^ Dam's & wind generation are equally unhumne, dams flood large areas. As noise from wind generation scares off wildlife and props kill birds.