Site C

[twobits]

[
Manghani believes Tesla’s April announcement that it would produce batteries at $250 per kWh is pushing other battery manufacturers. They are not likely to get to that price point this year, Manghani said, but it will come in the near future.

This will make battery storage equal to the cost of wind installations and quite a lot cheaper than site C damn.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/why-bat ... ff/407096/

Have you considered what elements are required for these batteries, where those elements come from, and the environmental impact of extracting those rare elements? Lithium is the big one. I believe Bolivia has the world's largest reserves. To make a quick transition (not possible) would make the Canadian Oil Sands developments look like an Eden Park compared to the strip mining of Bolivian salt flats for Lithium. Then to that you could add the Chinese and every other third world country stripping the land for the "new" oil. Is that any better when you consider the processing to pure Lithium?

[twobits]

We heat our hot tub with wood, no electricity just a solar powered vacuum to clean any debris out of the water.
Heat our cabin with 90% wood, will heat the house with wood with gas back up.
Much of our lighting is solar powered.
Our main use of the grid is for charging the battery powered tractor, and running power tools to build house.
Wood is a very good heat source for those of us in BC. cheap, available and ecologically friendly if done right.

Good for you. Now convince someone that lives at 12th and Burrard St in Vancouver that wood energy is viable for him. That is the part that eludes you and others that think along the same lines. Where is the condo dweller in Vancouver going to put up his solar array that even matches his footprint in the building? Even that footprint would not be enough in that weather climate. Nor are wind speeds ever rarely high enough for wind turbines.
Nothing you propose is a solution to 90% of even the BC population. You are standing on a false pulpit preaching something that cannot be duplicated by the masses. You need to realize you are fortunate that you have an easy and ample wood supply nearby, the land space to exploit some solar power......and as a convenient backup, have the electrical grid and a natural gas service to back you up. Those conveniences actually make you a false prophet of green living and an absolute hypocrite. Disconnect your natural gas service and your hydro electric service backups and come back in a year and tell us how comfortable your life was. Am thinking your wife and kids would have moved out in two weeks.

[twobits]

Off the main topic
Its been about decade now that downsized and moved into smaller in town place, frees up my personal time to do other things. i.e. travel, be available to older siblings etc… etc

If I still had the house, I would be doing everything I could to be completely off the grid. Say to hell with Fortis

Added: of course my location would be away from to many neighbours, so I could use wood to heat my home. To be truly off the grid.

And that is an enviable goal I think most would jump all over. The reality however would quickly sink in when they realized that a chainsaw is a vicious piece of gas powered equipment and they still had to split and stack the wood lol. And then handle it again to stoke the stove 24/7.

[pentona]

And that is an enviable goal I think most would jump all over. The reality however would quickly sink in when they realized that a chainsaw is a vicious piece of gas powered equipment and they still had to split and stack the wood lol. And then handle it again to stoke the stove 24/7.

I love the feel of wood heat, however several of my close neighbours heat with it and with all this low cloud we have in the wintertime in the Okanagan, it makes for very unhealthy air. Our Electrical rates are fairly reasonable compared to some parts of the world.

[I Think]

Two bit writes;

You are standing on a false pulpit preaching

Dont be daft. The post you glommed onto is a response to GordonH's post and not any sort of recommended ideal set up for anyone living in an urban setting. You are using Nirvana logic to make a silly post.
In the City wood heat is not practical, nor is trying to live off grid. Solar PV is not currently cost effective this far north, as set out in my earlier posts. Wind turbines should only be sited in high wind locations where no one lives.
I have set out in this thread that wind turbines are very effective when coupled with hydro electric dams. I have also set out that batteries are cheaper per unit power, in some instances than new generating facilities.
It is clear to me that you have never visited a lithium mine, there is a huge mine near Musk's new battery plant, you can drive right through the mine site, it is kind of ugly, but there is no environmental degradation visible, of the oil sands sort. Lithium in batteries can be readily recycled, but there are other materials that can be used instead of Lithium, aluminum shows great promise.
Do try to use your brain when posting.
PS there is a wood fired generating plant just North of Vernon, some of your electricity may well come from it.

[twobits]

Do try to use your brain when posting.
PS there is a wood fired generating plant just North of Vernon, some of your electricity may well come from it.

I would suggest the same to you. Musk's lithium mine for his few Tesla's is an absolute nematode on an elephant's azz. Get a grip on scale man! And as far as the co gen plant in Vernon is concerned that might supply me with power.......do you even comprehend that this type of power generation is heavily subsidized by the mere fact that it is a solution to mill waste. It is not scaleable at all. Bee hive burners for waste have been gone for decades. The costs for wood waste disposal from mills and secondary wood re manufacturers is significant per tonne. That cost to them is the subsidy of wood powered electrical generation. It would not exist if it were not for mill waste. I would challenge you to list even one north american wood burning generator of electrical power whose business model was totally dependent on harvesting their own wood fiber supply. Don't waste your time....there are none because the cost per kilowatt generated would exceed that of even solar.
Now, having said that, yes it is a good thing that waste wood can be converted to electrical power. It is cheaper for the waste product manufacturers to do so. With waste created on site. The harvesting and transport has already been expended.
Your flaw however, and why you should be using your brain when posting, is that the utilization of a waste wood product to generate electricity extends to the use of any wood being cost efficient. It definitely is not. It is not even close. Many studies and trials of hogging waste branches, tree tops, and incidental and undersized saw log harvest at the harvest site and transporting for co gen power production have been conducted for not just power generation but also for general biomass steam heating. Not one has proven to be economical. That is where my brain is at when posting. Where is yours except for buying into and regurgitating some unproven greenie's simple solution for cost effective energy generation.

[Glacier]

old growth boreal forests. The flood plain is all junk aspen, and spruce trees.

The land in question happens to be some of the best agricultural land in northern BC, with the only class one soil north of Quesnel.

Not true. Again the flood plain is mostly junk trees, with little to no agricultural land.

There's no links to actual studies that this website claims, Its just someone's theories and opinion's

The Peace River region is some of the best farmland in BC. The soil is good, and the frost-free period in the summer is longer than 95% of the province, hence the title, "bread basket of BC." This includes the land that will be flooded. This is excellent farmland, and is definitely a huge negative. I there this summer, and saw first hand the land that will get flooded.

The question is really this: Is the loss of farmland worth the extra power? In other words, are the benefits greater than the costs (both financial and environmental)?

[GordonH]

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mi ... N7VY&hl=en

[I Think]

I will bother just one time to set two bits straight.

Musk's lithium mine for his few Tesla's

Last I heard it is not Musk's mine, and it is not only for Teslas, its lithium is for batteries for many uses.
and it is about as unsightly as one of the many oil field well heads nearby.

And as far as the co gen plant in Vernon solution to mill waste. It is not scaleable at all.

The plant runs on wood chips mostly derived from logging. Who even implied that it is scale-able?

Bee hive burners for waste have been gone for decades.

daft

The costs for wood waste disposal from mills and secondary wood re manufacturers is significant per tonne. That cost to them is the subsidy of wood powered electrical generation. It would not exist if it were not for mill waste. I would challenge you to list even one north american wood burning generator of electrical power whose business model was totally dependent on harvesting their own wood fiber supply. Don't waste your time....there are none because the cost per kilowatt generated would exceed that of even solar.
Now, having said that, yes it is a good thing that waste wood can be converted to electrical power. It is cheaper for the waste product manufacturers to do so. With waste created on site. The harvesting and transport has already been expended.
Your flaw however, and why you should be using your brain when posting, is that the utilization of a waste wood product to generate electricity extends to the use of any wood being cost efficient. It definitely is not. It is not even close. Many studies and trials of hogging waste branches, tree tops, and incidental and undersized saw log harvest at the harvest site and transporting for co gen power production have been conducted for not just power generation but also for general biomass steam heating. Not one has proven to be economica

Bit of a diversion above, due to a simple mention that there are wood burning generating sites, I do not recall advocating more of them.

That is where my brain is at when posting

. interesting fantasy.

Where is yours except for buying into and regurgitating some unproven greenie's simple solution for cost effective energy generation.

Fact is sunshine, that wind and solar PROPERLY SITED, are the cheapest sources of electricity out there based on a twenty year life cycle for either.
You can research these simple facts as you will, but do try to stay on point, which is the simple fact that site C may or may not be the best solution.

[Smurf]

Site C is by far the best for a large continuous amount of power for a stable generation system. All the other systems mentioned are too small and not stable enough. You need a constant base supply. I am not familiar enough with BC's total system at this time to know their needs but you do need large units to keep the system balanced and stable. As far as I know this can't be done by solar, wind or even run of the river because they do not have the capacity, to control large fluctuations. Batteries at some time in the future might help to stabilize a system. They use power so are only a real benefit when you have excess power to store. They might be a help at run of the river plants if they are producing excess power, but I have not at this time looked deeply into it. Our run of the river is already excessively expensive and as far as I can see this would just make it more so. I don't believe they will be a major player for some time.

Large battery banks might be good in a place like Arizona, around Yuma where they are going strong on solar. Even in the city they are putting it on the roof of parking lots, at the university, all over town. They could definitely come into play there. The solar comes into play in the daytime peak loading but only supplements the main power grid. The power down there is already expensive so it makes solar a very good alternative.

[maryjane48]

what eludes twobits is oil is finite

[Walking Wounded]

what eludes twobits is oil is finite

Seems to me that the discussion here is about electricity and the best way to generate and store it. Not oil

[Gixxer]

The Peace River region is some of the best farmland in BC. The soil is good, and the frost-free period in the summer is longer than 95% of the province, hence the title, "bread basket of BC." This includes the land that will be flooded. This is excellent farmland, and is definitely a huge negative. I there this summer, and saw first hand the land that will get flooded.

The question is really this: Is the loss of farmland worth the extra power? In other words, are the benefits greater than the costs (both financial and environmental)?

Ive worked up there on and off for 10 years. and have driven highway 29 probably no less than 200 times. So I know that area, and the flood plain very well. I also know a lot of locals up there, and the only ones that are opposed to Site-C are the ones that live in the area that will be affected. There's a few farms along the flood plain, but thats it. Most of the land up there is muskeg anyways.

The frost free period in the summer, what are you talking about? If anything the frost comes sooner, and last longer in the north country.

So yes losing a few farmlands is worth the extra power.

I guess the real question is how much valuable farmland will be lost. At best I bet its only .02% of the total farmland in the peace river area.

[twobits]

what eludes twobits is oil is finite

Fossil oil yes, in maybe 200 years. What eludes maryjane is there is not a transition to alternate energy available at this time that will not result in starvation of half of the planet. That is an undeniable reality and why Countries like India as so reluctant to commit. One quarter of their population would starve if they even adopted our current emmission standards! If every car in North America could become solar electric tomorrow, it would still not change that reality.
I actually agree that we have to move away from fossil energy. The reality however is that it is impossible to do in the time frame you would like to see it done in without catastrophic consequences. Instead of being Henny Penny's, we all need to realize what it is going to take to convert a world society from fossil to renewable. And at the root, that is the problem. The naive think we can transition very quickly and they are the ones throwing stones in protest in Paris today. Fortunately we have world leaders that realize it must be a slow and economically feasible transition so that the most vulnerable in the world are not thrown under the bus as collateral cost of transition.

The Discovery or History channel (don't remember which) produced a show called "The world without oil". Wish I had a link to provide. It is a good watch and drives home how dependent we are on fossil oil. Every greenie out there should watch it and they might just re evaluate how fast we can make an energy transformation.

[JLives]

I really hope this project goes through. While there are downsides in any sort of major infrastructure project, the benefits are far more. This is one of the good ones and I look forward to breaking ground and moving forward with it.