BC hydro exposed

[maryjane48]

https://www.desmog.ca/2017/05/16/we-jus ... oversupply


well like people have been saying it seems to be true .

[Keith Duhaime]

Site C is going to be yolk around the neck of BC taxpayers for years. Accenture also put North American power producers on notice some time ago too (https://www.accenture.com/t20150523T024 ... uption.pdf). I was involved in re-licencing SCE's Big Creek system in the Sierra Nevadas about 15 years ago too. It was pretty apparent then that what the BC government should have been doing is getting smart meters and TOU billing in place ASAP, splitting production and distribution into two wholly separate entities within BC Hydro, and preparing for the day to divest themselves of the production side.

[flamingfingers]

I believe you meant 'yoke':

https://www.google.ca/search?q=yoke+def ... e&ie=UTF-8

On this point, I agree fully!!

[erinmore3775]

I find it interesting that those who oppose the energy use projections of BC Hydro always fail to produce their own energy use predictions. Their opposition is based solely on the fact that the consumers of BC Hydro electricity did not use the "predicted" amount. Therefore BC Hydro is wrong. They do not provide their own predictions based not on ideology but on ststistical facts.

I also find it interesting that those who oppose Site C always call for increased government, taxpayer incentives and rebates to spur alternative "green" energy sources. There is only one source for money, the BC taxpayer/consumer. It is false to on one side to demand incentives, tax breaks, and changes in IPP purchase prices and on the other side say that Site C should be stopped because it is too expensive. Future electricalmuse is going to cost everyone dearly. The choice is not the cost but how we produce this electricity needed for our EV cars, EV transport, and the necessities of our new electronic lifestyle.

Site C will allow BC to produce green electricity for BC citizens and export. The development of Site C should not be done to the exculion of solar and wind development and continued conservation initiatives, but in conjunction with them.

[maryjane48]

its the very people who clark and hydro are counting on to sell power to so me and you can keep on paying higher rates .

[Urban Cowboy]

Well stated.

[hobbyguy]

The detractors of site C fail to see that BC Hydro dams, and site C enable the expansion of non synchronous sources like wind and solar as both necessary and economic. That is because they can not get past their ideological (NDP) block, and understand the differences and true cost variables associated with alternative energy sources. Nor do they choose to understand the difference between peak power demands and average power demands.

The primary cost point that the solar-windy dreamers is that all solar and wind power in North America is being subsidized. An energy source without storage capacity to allow use when needed is not a true reliable energy source. Every jurisdiction that allows solar/wind to over develop without mandating storage capacity runs into reliability problems. Yet that is what is happening in North America. We are forcing other grid suppliers like BC Hydro, private power plants in the US, to subsidize wind/solar installations that have no built in storage capacity.

Peak power supply is the most expensive portion of demand to meet. We rely on synchronous suppliers like BC Hydro and Fortis to provide that synchronous power. Off peak power sales help the synchronous suppliers to offset the costs of peak power production. Yet when peak power is demanded, the wind/solar/tidal producers are very likely not able to participate in alleviating the peak power demand. They have no way to ramp up production, and worse yet, may not be able to provide any power at all during peak periods (e.g. solar generation on a cold dark January evening). Thus without forcing windy-solar suppliers to provide storage capacity and participate in peak power supply, we raise the costs (and therefore consumer rates) for peak power.

Compounding this problem is the fact that windy/solar producers have minimal operating costs when they are producing. They have no fuel costs and that allows them undercut coal and natural gas generating plants when they are producing. The financial incentive for windy-solar producers is to grab whatever revenue they can when they are producing, at whatever price. The result is that the windy-solar producers destroy off peak spot prices, further pressuring the costs of synchronous suppliers - and driving many out of business.

The end result of the windy-solar producers in effect "gaming" the grid, is that governments are having to invest in storage capacity (E.g. the city of of Los Angeles is building a 100 MW battery bank) AND pay the significant maintenance costs. Private profits, socialized costs - not the least of which is much higher electricity costs.

There are many that say that wind and solar are now cost competitive with conventional sources. On the surface, that may appear to be the case, however, if you include the deeper look at peak power capacity, which should require them to provide storage (and not leech off others), then wind and solar are not cost competitive. That shows up in grid jurisdictions that have gone all windy-solar. California pays more than 2-1/2 times what we do for electricity - and relies on imports to supply much of their peak power demand.

On top of that, wind and solar are inefficient sources. A couple of simple examples. Ever notice that in the heat of the summer here the wind is light and inconsistent? (Having had a sailboat on Okanagan lake, I have.) So right when you want to run an air conditioner - the wind power isn't there. Every notice how brightly the sun is shining on a cold January evening when you want the lights on, the oven baking a lasagna, and the space heater running in your basement office?

To get a clear view of that, the stats out of China tell the story. 8.8% of China's theoretical electrical generation capacity is wind - yet only 3.3% of China's electricity consumption is supplied by wind. So in real terms the generation capacity of wind is 8.8/3.3 = 2.67 times more expensive than it appears to be. No wonder China shifted gears in their latest 5 year plan and are building a raft of nuclear plants.

Much to the chagrin of environmentalist ideologues, modern nuclear plants are safe, and will soon be able to recycle their waste. Those modern nuclear plants are synchronous suppliers, and at prices much lower than the true costs of solar and wind (China, the world's largest producers of solar panels and wind turbines sees that!). But "Noooo" say the ideologues, nuclear is nasty!

All that brings us back to site C. Yes, there are costs to site C. Yes, those costs will indeed put some upward pressure on electricity rates in BC. So the environmental ideologues scream "Noooo" on their web blogs. But do they reference the true costs of wind and solar? No. (Ever notice the solar panel ads on their websites?). Do they mention that no grid jurisdiction that is windy-solar can come remotely close to BC electricity prices without massive subsidies? No.

So yes Virginia, "there is no free lunch". The choice is whether we pay $.01/kWh more, or at least $.16/kWh more for the electricity we need for the future. Site C is renewable energy, and with lower overall environmental cost than solar and wind (see MIT study posted elsewhere).

It is a "no brainer" to choose site C over the alternatives proposed by the environmentalist ideologues.

[maryjane48]

so how about just admit hobby the enviroment is of little concern as long as bchydro enslaves bcers . is that the jist of it ?

[erinmore3775]

Fortunately, MJ, many of the contributors do not have your only solar or wind solutions to "save the environment." Even the Suzuki foundation admits that hydro electric generation over the 100 years of a dam's productive life, has one of the lowest carbon/environmental footprints of any electrical production method. When you consider solar/wind production you must also consider the production/installation footprint when making comparisons. You must also add the 25 year replacement cycle to the comparison.
It remains as BC's best choice the development of Site C as a synchronous electrical producer with solar and wind development to help reduce the load of EV cars and transportation and added industrial and commercial uses over the next 50 years. I find it difficult to understand how your one choice solution offers the best benefits to the environment and to electrical consumers.

[mikest2]

This is a really interesting read on energy in BC:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/blair-king ... 69110.html

[maryjane48]

but erin your forgeting the fact that solar cells are less than 40 percent at converting sunlight to power . even though they been around for awhile they really a4e still in r an d . its going to get alot better and each improvment brings costs down .

and then there is saturation . as self contained units come down in price which they will , they need for utility power is going to drop faster than new users will come online and at some poi t the building code will demand self poer generation . california has over 5 million units with solar and any new place has to have it . what that means is in parts of california the utilities generating power turn off there machines generating power to keep the price up otherwise they would have to give it away .


and last we wont be able to dam our way to energy needs of the up coming robotic electric car truck future . texas gets enough power from the sun everyday to power the whole earth . the choice is clear where we need to get power from .

the only other choice is fusion . but fusion requires a fuel where the sun is fusion already going .

[Smurf]

Excellent article mikest2. Hopefully everyone will read it and take the time to digest and understand it. Someone should lock Horgan and Weaver in a room and force them to study it for a week although I doubt they have the intelligence to understand it.

[erinmore3775]

https://www.rt.com/news/389216-experime ... el-russia/
[urlhttps://www.rt.com/news/389216-experimental-reactor-fuel-russia/url]
Unfortunately, MJ, I and other contributors to this forum do not live in a California dream world or the solar center of the earth, Texas. I live in BC in the year 2017. Lead cooled nuclear reactors that use used fuel and plutonium, cold fusion energy generators, and 60 to 80% solar panels that cost 1/3 of today's panels and are silicon based, using few if any rare earth metals, are all far into the future.
I choose not to base the choices for BC's economic and energy future on what ifs or maybes. The responsible thing to do is to plan for the future using today's technologies and encourage the development of solar and wind technology that suits the BC requirements. Take the time to examine Germany and how they hqve developed their alternative energy sources. The backbone of their system is synchronous power and upto 40% of their power (between the times of 11 & 4) comes from solar and wind. Yet during peak times (4 to 10 and during the winter) they rely on synchronous power. Please do a little research. Do not just rely on headlines. Make your comparisons latitude and topographically similar. The alternative is for you to move to Texas.

[Hurtlander]

Excellent article mikest2. Hopefully everyone will read it and take the time to digest and understand it. Someone should lock Horgan and Weaver in a room and force them to study it for a week although I doubt they have the intelligence to understand it.

The article is interesting, but there's a few things I strongly question. The article claims that BC doesn't produce anywhere near the amount of electricity that it uses, however, BC Hydro has a huge surplus of electricity that it sells on the open market, the surplus is so great at BC Hydro is actually paying some IPP producers to go off line and stop producing electricity.....

Also while I'm having my morning rant LOL ; I really wish some of you would stop blending everyone that's opposed or question site C into one camp, that being a bunch of environmental extremist NDP tooters..
There are two distinct groups, the environmental extremists, and folks like myself that ARE NOT opposed to site C, but strongly question the actual need for it at this point in time strictly based on economic reasons. There isn't a single member of the BC Liberal caucus, or the Liberal appointed fart catcher executive and directors of BC Hydro that have the first clue about electricity generation, distribution, demand etc, yet these non experts claim we need to build site C....On the other hand there's been numerous articles published by people who are actual experts in electricity production, distribution, demand etc that claim site C is not needed at this time, there's also BC Hydro supervisors further down the chain of command that actually do know what's going on who also claim site C isn't needed. Personally I think it's foolish to simply take the word of politicians or political appointees with no real world expertise on the subject at face value, and totally ignore actually experts. An independent body such as BCUC or some other independent body, should've reviewed the need for site C before committing $9-15 Billion on something that may not really be needed.

[hobbyguy]

We have discussed at length the need for more electricity for the future.

So lets just boil down to the simple for the NDP tooters:

Just how do you plan to set things up so that you eliminate or minimize the need for fossil fuels in the future? You need to cover as much as possible of the transportation sector, home heating, hot water supply, industrial supply. That's the 2/3 we haven't touched much in BC.

How are you going to do that?