Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation - Page 134

Alex Mackinnon · #**2661** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 3:36 AM**

Transportation won't need that much power to completely electrify. A couple Site C's at most. Going from gas or diesel to electric also comes with a big jump in efficiency.

Switching gas heated buildings to electric on the other hand is a MUCH larger load. Like 5-7x Site C's output.

The peak output of the generators also isn't that significant. Hydro needs to have water in the reservoir to make power, so only so much can out of a given plant in a year due to the available water resource, regardless of the generators rated peak power. Even if there's 18 GW of peak capacity available, it's not like you can count on it being available.

BC actually is actually a net importer of power currently, so we definitely could use more generation here, but it's not like adding a few trains in the mix would change much.

swimmer_spe · #**2662** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 3:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

BC actually is actually a net importer of power currently, so we definitely could use more generation here, but it's not like adding a few trains in the mix would change much.

The thing that some may not want to see is that with being a net importer, that does mean that as demand is added, it is only getting harder. That is why capacity should be added now, when it is not as critical, as apposed to when CN or CP announce the switch to electric freight engines.

Alex Mackinnon · #**2663** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 4:29 AM**

There's a bunch of IPP projects that could start back up on a year or two's notice. It's not like it's an impossible problem to solve. The government just hasn't been looking at doing any independant power projects since Site C went forwards.

When they need more beyond what Site C can provide, there's a bunch of companies waiting to jump into the fray.

swimmer_spe · #**2664** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 4:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

There's a bunch of IPP projects that could start back up on a year or two's notice. It's not like it's an impossible problem to solve. The government just hasn't been looking at doing any independant power projects since Site C went forwards.

When they need more beyond what Site C can provide, there's a bunch of companies waiting to jump into the fray.

It is the problem that is happening across the country. The biggest problem we are facing to decarbonize our lives is the electricity generation needed is not there. No one is building new power plants or much of any other type of power generation.

Alex Mackinnon · #**2665** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 4:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is the problem that is happening across the country. The biggest problem we are facing to decarbonize our lives is the electricity generation needed is not there. No one is building new power plants or much of any other type of power generation.

I'm telling you, that's a political problem, not a technical one.

swimmer_spe · #**2666** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 5:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm telling you, that's a political problem, not a technical one.

What is the difference? Lack of supply is still a lack of supply.

casper · #**2667** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 6:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm telling you, that's a political problem, not a technical one.

We will have to see how this works out in BC.

The problem with BC Hydro was until Site-C it had been years since it build a large scale project. Everyone involved in the older mega project were gone. Cost overruns and running behind schedule should be expected. Now with Cite-C under their belt (and the belt of their suppliers and contractors) they should be in a better position to deliver another site-C.

Until Site-C the liberal government was very much into public-private-partnerships and small scale projects.

We probably need both. A mix of small scale project and another one or two site-C type projects in the pipeline.

Migrant_Coconut · #**2668** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 6:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What is the difference? Lack of supply is still a lack of supply.

Still enough supply for one HSR line. California's is highballed at 3 TWh/year; assuming an even split between BC, WA and OR, that's at most 1 TWh/year for us; Site C alone is estimated to produce over 5 TWh annually.

swimmer_spe · #**2669** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Still enough supply for one HSR line. California's is highballed at 3 TWh/year; assuming an even split between BC, WA and OR, that's at most 1 TWh/year for us; Site C alone is estimated to produce over 5 TWh annually.

Doesn't California experience rolling blackouts occasionally in the summer?

cganuelas1995 · #**2670** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 6:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Doesn't California experience rolling blackouts occasionally in the summer?

Yeah but that probably has to do with increase in air conditioning use.

Changing City · #**2671** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Doesn't California experience rolling blackouts occasionally in the summer?

Not really. There were two evenings in August 2020 during a heatwave when there were rolling blackouts for about 2 hours duration across the state. They were the first in 20 years, and they've come up with a solution to ensure it doesn't happen again. In part that will mean not exporting electricity in a high demand period like a heatwave - which California was doing in 2020.

swimmer_spe · #**2672** Posted **Jan 24, 2022, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Yeah but that probably has to do with increase in air conditioning use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not really. There were two evenings in August 2020 during a heatwave when there were rolling blackouts for about 2 hours duration across the state. They were the first in 20 years, and they've come up with a solution to ensure it doesn't happen again. In part that will mean not exporting electricity in a high demand period like a heatwave - which California was doing in 2020.

Well, if the peak demand is not able to be absorbed with no issues, that speaks to a lack of power generation.

casper · #**2673** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Changing City

Not really. There were two evenings in August 2020 during a heatwave when there were rolling blackouts for about 2 hours duration across the state. They were the first in 20 years, and they've come up with a solution to ensure it doesn't happen again. In part that will mean not exporting electricity in a high demand period like a heatwave - which California was doing in 2020.

That setup is idea for BC Hydro . Not certain if they still do it be for years BC Hydro was making a killing on exporting power to California and buying it back. At the end of the year it was near wash.

California has a lot of baseload that is not easy to ramp up or down. In the day time demand is high. They would buy power from BC Hydro at a premium.

In the evening BC Hydro would reduce flow (conserve water for day time operation) and buy back surplus power from California for cheap. If a few days a year BC Hydro is selling in the evening to that is a positive especially if they get a good premium.

Migrant_Coconut · #**2674** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 1:17 AM**

So would I be correct in saying that BC and Cali both have more than enough juice, and it's just more profitable to not use it?

madog222 · #**2675** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 1:22 AM**

Our lack of high speed rail has nothing to do with cost or supply of electricity.

swimmer_spe · #**2676** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 1:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

Our lack of high speed rail has nothing to do with cost or supply of electricity.

That is true. However, it does need to be considered in the plans.

DirectionNorth · #**2677** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is true. However, it does need to be considered in the plans.

Haha, funny. Do we also consider the electricity usage of the new amenities (restaurants, gas stations, oil refining for the new traffic) when we build a highway?

madog222 · #**2678** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 2:08 AM**

I don’t think was posted yet. Canada Infrastructure Bank solicited a study on the needs of the New Westminster Bridge. RFP was posted in February last year and shows delivery was due in November.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/biens-property/construction/new-westminster-eng.html

swimmer_spe · #**2679** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

Haha, funny. Do we also consider the electricity usage of the new amenities (restaurants, gas stations, oil refining for the new traffic) when we build a highway?

They do look at the extra costs of maintenance and other things like that.

The amount of electricity bump from a new highway is negligible. Not so with the end of ICE in new cars, or a new electric train line. When the Skytrain extensions are built, do you not think they ensure they have the additional power available?

Migrant_Coconut · #**2680** Posted **Jan 25, 2022, 3:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The amount of electricity bump from a new highway is negligible. Not so with the end of ICE in new cars, or a new electric train line. When the Skytrain extensions are built, do you not think they ensure they have the additional power available?

They didn't need to ensure jack, because SkyTrain is a drop in the bucket: 141 GWh/year out of 74,200 is less than 0.002% of BC's energy; the Broadway extension adds maybe another 10-20 GWh. Retiring ICE is a problem. Trains are not.