Vancouver Power Grid Thread

[Migrant_Coconut]

I'd be interested to learn how they're crunching the numbers for solar. Maybe they're excluding the cities?

See, because of our high latitude and cloud cover, Canada has an average solar capacity factor of 6%; America has 15% (page 91); statistically, BC Hydro would have to install 2.5x the panels to get the same yield as Arizona. Even the NEB thinks it'll only make up 1-2% of the national grid by 2040.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Being connected, and being able to load share in a significant way are two different things. There are interconnects with BC down to California, but we can't supply them a ton of power or vice versa.

We sell plenty of power to California. Yes, they're a long way away but what happens is that power generated in BC gets exported to Washington State, which can then export their power to Oregon and so on down the line. Like a tube filled full of balls - put a ball in one end and a different one pops out of the other end.

Originally Posted by casper

You also need to be able to take generating stations out for maintenance from time to time.

BC's hydroelectric dams typically have many turbines and they regularly take individual units out of service for maintenance without having to shut down the others. The powerhouse at the WAC Bennett dam has 10 turbines, for example.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I'd be interested to learn how they're crunching the numbers for solar. Maybe they're excluding the cities?

See, because of our high latitude and cloud cover, Canada has an average solar capacity factor of 6%; America has 15% (page 91); statistically, BC Hydro would have to install 2.5x the panels to get the same yield as Arizona. Even the NEB thinks it'll only make up 1-2% of the national grid by 2040.

BC Hydro say it would take about 25 years to pay back an investment in a 1Kw solar system at today's prices. That's apparently still a better deal than in many other provinces, even though "British Columbia has the 11th highest potential to produce solar energy in all of Canada, receiving less solar irradiation than most other provinces and territories". That's partly because British Columbia is the only province with a provincial sales tax exemption for solar power.

It's a better idea in locations that currently generate power with a generator. "In remote locations where there is no grid to tie into for power, off-grid solar PV systems can be used to store power in batteries which can be used throughout the day or even at night. In B.C., off-grid systems make for a sound investment when installed in locations where alternative power sources such as diesel generators are required." There are already examples of that happening in First Nations schools. And we do have a few larger systems too, again, First Nations projects. (Large for BC, not internationally, obviously).

The costs of panels has been falling, costs of batteries are falling and efficiency is increasing, and BC Hydro prices are likely to increase over time, so the switch to solar in remote locations, or the more wide-spread use elsewhere will be a very different calculation in a few years time than it is now.

There are also hot water systems that also cut costs and make sense for some people. I had an evacuated solar tube array over 30 years ago that provided all my hot water for half the year, and raised the tank temperature quite a bit in the other half. The same sort of system is used on a larger scale in the Olympic Village to add hot water to the District Energy Utility.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

... It's a better idea in locations that currently generate power with a generator. "In remote locations where there is no grid to tie into for power, off-grid solar PV systems can be used to store power in batteries which can be used throughout the day or even at night. In B.C., off-grid systems make for a sound investment when installed in locations where alternative power sources such as diesel generators are required." There are already examples of that happening in First Nations schools. And we do have a few larger systems too, again, First Nations projects. (Large for BC, not internationally, obviously).

The costs of panels has been falling, costs of batteries are falling and efficiency is increasing, and BC Hydro prices are likely to increase over time, so the switch to solar in remote locations, or the more wide-spread use elsewhere will be a very different calculation in a few years time than it is now.

There are also hot water systems that also cut costs and make sense for some people. I had an evacuated solar tube array over 30 years ago that provided all my hot water for half the year, and raised the tank temperature quite a bit in the other half. The same sort of system is used on a larger scale in the Olympic Village to add hot water to the District Energy Utility.

Not entirely disagreeing; why build a giant plant for every 2,000-person town in BC when a small 50MW one will do just fine?

The point I'm trying to make is that for the 70-80% of provincial demand in the Lower Mainland and Nanaimo-Victoria, microgeneration and waste heat may be useful, but they're very likely not going to be enough.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not entirely disagreeing; why build a giant plant for every 2,000-person town in BC when a small 50MW one will do just fine?

The point I'm trying to make is that for the 70-80% of provincial demand in the Lower Mainland and Nanaimo-Victoria, microgeneration and waste heat may be useful, but they're very likely not going to be enough.

BC Hydro don't agree with you. They seem to think they have existing and committed capacity to meet demand, and having met some of their engineers, that's probably based on a robust modeling exercise that's pretty conservative. They also downplay solar, but it could play a bigger part, especially in remote or sunnier areas like the Okanagan, although it would mean less income for them.

The potential for solar in the Lower Mainland isn't huge, but if more warehouses and production plants (or film studios) with big, flat roof areas follow the lead of Snow Cap Enterprises in Burnaby (which is expected to generate half a gigawatt of electricity a year) then it could add quite a bit of locally generated power. That's a recent installation, and the costs have come down to the point that the company should break even on the investment in about ten years.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

BC's hydroelectric dams typically have many turbines and they regularly take individual units out of service for maintenance without having to shut down the others. The powerhouse at the WAC Bennett dam has 10 turbines, for example.

i have always wondered if W.A.C. Bennett/G.M. Shrum station could just be expanded as well. the reservoir is so huge, i don't see why they couldn't install more.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Changing City

BC Hydro don't agree with you. They seem to think they have existing and committed capacity to meet demand, and having met some of their engineers, that's probably based on a robust modeling exercise that's pretty conservative. They also downplay solar, but it could play a bigger part, especially in remote or sunnier areas like the Okanagan, although it would mean less income for them.

The potential for solar in the Lower Mainland isn't huge, but if more warehouses and production plants (or film studios) with big, flat roof areas follow the lead of Snow Cap Enterprises in Burnaby (which is expected to generate half a gigawatt of electricity a year) then it could add quite a bit of locally generated power. That's a recent installation, and the costs have come down to the point that the company should break even on the investment in about ten years.

If we are going to dump money into solar I would rather see it go to public service building. Community centers and schools. Especially if the equipment can be setup so the solar system can be disconnected from the grid and run standalone during an emergency. Those are frequently the locations we would look at to house people during an earthquake. If we can provide some minimal level of power during the first 24/48 h that would be good. For the rest (majority of time) it can supply the school with electricity and dump excess power on the BC Hydro grid in some type of net-zero meter arrangement.

What I am less supportive of is subsidies for solar for private individuals and industry.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As I've come to understand it, BC's got room for one more dam on the Peace River (Site E), then it's either nuclear or dams on the Fraser - both politically toxic. Wind is a decent peak load source, but we shouldn't rely on it for baseload.

The other big proposal considered back in the day (other than the Fraser, Columbia, and Peace) were dams on the Liard River.

There is the possibility dams higher up on the Fraser (not the Moran Dam on the Fraser Canyon) could provide power and flood control without killing the salmon runs. The threat of floods are still a major problem on the Fraser.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Brought that up in a few earlier threads. Turns out there's not enough wind energy near the dams to make it practical:

Also, there's only so much you can pump back up into the reservoir until you straight up run out of water downriver.

BC is rainy AF. This isn't California. Sure, there are limits, but pumped hydro allows much more peak energy production- there are a lot more sites suitable for pumped hydro that aren't suited for normal hydro.
https://www.todayinbc.com/news/major-pumped-storage-hydro-project-proposed-north-of-revelstoke/

Not to mention, you can just pump water between a lower and upper resevoir.


This is a good link, very pro-wind.
https://www.docdroid.net/TpK0Bm6/bc-energy-market-profile-pdf#page=5

While British Columbia has been
characterized as having excellent
wind resources, the province was
slow to introduce commercial
development until 2009, when
the first turbines became
operational. Today several large
wind projects exist producing at
least 100 MW each. Estimates put
British Columbia’s land-based
wind capacity at 16,425 MW (BC
Hydro), with 5,250 MW
economically feasible with costs
less than $105/MW by 20205
(CanWEA). The Peace Region,
Kootenays, Okanagan, and
Vancouver Island are identified
as favourable for wind
development as each
experiences appropriate wind speeds, are fairly remote, and thus likely to receive public approval and
connect to a provincial power grid.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i have always wondered if W.A.C. Bennett/G.M. Shrum station could just be expanded as well. the reservoir is so huge, i don't see why they couldn't install more.

They have to maintain flow and a baseline power generation capacity most likely. It also regulates the floodwaters in the Peace River area.

Originally Posted by Changing City

BC Hydro don't agree with you. They seem to think they have existing and committed capacity to meet demand, and having met some of their engineers, that's probably based on a robust modeling exercise that's pretty conservative. They also downplay solar, but it could play a bigger part, especially in remote or sunnier areas like the Okanagan, although it would mean less income for them.

The potential for solar in the Lower Mainland isn't huge, but if more warehouses and production plants (or film studios) with big, flat roof areas follow the lead of Snow Cap Enterprises in Burnaby (which is expected to generate half a gigawatt of electricity a year) then it could add quite a bit of locally generated power. That's a recent installation, and the costs have come down to the point that the company should break even on the investment in about ten years.

Note that solar panels have a limited lifespan, require lots of energy to make, and have nasty ingredients inside that are difficult to recycle.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

WA State has nuclear, I'm not sure why but yes hydro makes the most sense for BC, it's just so flexible.

I do think Site C might be the last mega project we'll see though. We need smaller stuff that can come online faster. How long would an SMR project take?

https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2019EMPR0003-000228

Current prices for the energy from IPPs are significantly higher than the cost of generation from BC Hydro’s heritage assets — like the W.A.C. Bennett or Mica dams — and Site C, as well as projected domestic and export market price forecasts.
The cost of heritage generation is estimated to be $33 per megawatt hour. In comparison, the cost of IPP energy is about $100 per megawatt hour on average (F17-F19).

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

Site C is expected to cost $83 per megawatt hour for firm hydro power.[49]

The economics for small-scale power plants are worse than the large stuff. Which is why BC Hydro stopped buying from IPPs.
Note part of this may be from PPPs, which have bad economics on the long-term in general, as well as most run-of-river plants being located in fairly remote locations, far from any infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Until this thread started up, I wasn't up to date on how BC compares to other provinces and states on power imports and exports. Powerex (the BC Hydro trading company) is easily the biggest electricity trader in Canada - "British Columbia (B.C.) was responsible for 84% of Canada’s electricity imports. Although B.C. has generating capacity to meet internal demand, it tries to maximize the value of its generation by trading with the U.S. During the day, when U.S. electricity prices are higher, B.C. increases its hydroelectricity generation and exports electricity to the U.S. to earn more revenue. Overnight, when U.S. electricity prices are lower, B.C. significantly reduces its hydro generation, letting its hydro reservoirs refill while importing cheap electricity from the U.S." [source]

Powerex currently uses four large export transmission lines "This system is interconnected with the western U.S. by two 500-kilovolt transmission lines on the West Coast between B.C. and Washington state; one 230-kilovolt line connecting B.C. and Washington on the east side; and a 500-kilovolt line to the east, connecting B.C. with Alberta." [source]

In 2021 BC exported 11,430,000 MW.h of electricity, and imported 7,528,000. 61% of our exports went to California, 21% to Washington and 6% to Arizona. We exported to 14 states, and imported from 12. The vast majority of our imports came from Washington (86%) and California (11%). [source].

While 10 years ago we imported power generated by coal (in Montana) and gas (in Washington), now we only import from clean sources (wind and hydro). [source]. We're moving from 93% clean to 100% clean generation, as are California and Washington, our main electricity trading partners. We're currently at 96.5% renewable sources [source]. Alberta has only around 18% renewable electricity, although wind and solar projects are coming onstream rapidly and coal is being phased out (but replaced by gas, which already provides about half Alberta's electricity generation).

This all seems to suggest to me that we have more than enough power for our own needs for some time, and that our imports and exports are all about keeping prices as low as possible. BC Hydro publications confirm that, in effect we are using our hydro facilities as batteries, to supply power when demand is higher, and wind or solar supplies are inadequate. As those sources are expanding fast both across the Rockies, and to the south, we might see even more imports and exports to maintain renewable supply at the cheapest cost. It would seem that Alberta ought to be using all the green power they can generate to substitute for their thermal production, but maybe the efficiency/cost argument (and when their green power is available) would justify adding another 500-kilovolt line.

Surprising how much things change.
https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/defau...0Review%20of%20Project%20Feasibility.pdf
https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHy...t-plan/integrated-resource-plan-2021.pdf

Back in '05, the expectation was that we'd hit 80,000 MWh in 2025. Now it's that in 2038, under the high-end electrification plan (which I think we should be aiming for).

Wonder how that happens.

Originally Posted by Changing City

They've done better than that; there's a 20 year plan already published. They aren't concerned about Vancouver Island any time soon. "The Vancouver Island capacity Load Resource Balance before planned resources, shown in Figure 4-4, indicates that additional capacity resources are not required for the Vancouver Island region until fiscal 2034".

As I read it, through a combination of reduced demand from existing customers, improvements to the transmission system and limited new generation, they seem to think they can manage to supply the likely demand to 2041.

They say that "Based on BC Hydro’s high-level analysis of comparative unit energy costs, onshore wind resources are likely the lowest cost supply-side energy resource in the near-term. While difficult to predict decades out, large-scale solar resources are expected to become more competitive over the long-term.

Utility-scale batteries are a newer capacity resource with a relatively short lead-time, which can be deployed on a flexible and scalable basis, and are expected to see cost declines over the next 10 years."

They specifically address the additional demand from the switch to EVs, and are intending a management program (through cost benefits from charging off-peak) to manage the requirement for more power.

Note that projections for the use of utility-scale batteries and solar rely mostly on projections of the continued trends for reduced costs- which are far from guaranteed.

Also, looking at the graph, it's actually 2030. 2041 is reached by adding 'future resources'- basically IPP power.









I would link to my post previously on the other thread:
https://www.skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9535076&postcount=2714

Site C+E might get us to around ~72-4GW/y, so you'd need another ~8-10GW/y.

We could hit that with wind across the Okanagan and Peace River Areas.

Or just 1 of the Liard River Dams (https://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/Susitna/SUS/3/SUS380.pdf)- probably the "Devil's Gorge" Project- which would be equivalent in size to the WAC. Bennett Dam in capacity.
The other 2 projects (Beavercrow and Hell's Gate - would be the Liard's Site C and Peace Canyon, respectively) which have comparable capacities.

This option is probably the safest to go by, and it gives us a clear roadmap on what to do next if we need the power, like the Peace River Project once did.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Surprising how much things change.
https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/defau...0Review%20of%20Project%20Feasibility.pdf
https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHy...t-plan/integrated-resource-plan-2021.pdf

Back in '05, the expectation was that we'd hit 80,000 MWh in 2025. Now it's that in 2038, under the high-end electrification plan (which I think we should be aiming for).

Wonder how that happens.

That's kind of my point though, related to Site C among other things.

The NDP scrapped IPP. It was over priced, yes, but also a BC Liberal plan they could throw in the trash and pat themselves on the back.

Site C's costs have kept going up since the beginning, and it's taking forever. It stood at $9B during construction start around 2015. It ballooned to $16B, and that was pre-COVID/inflation/supply chain. No surprises if it tops $20B now, look at what happened with TMX.

Here's what wikipedia says about alternatives:

When BC Hydro buys power from independent power producers they set a price as low as $76.20 per megawatt hour for intermittent power from wind farms, and as high as $133.80 for firm hydro power. The average price paid, as of 2010, was $100 per megawatt hour.[48] Site C is expected to cost $83 per megawatt hour for firm hydro power.

Again, this is somewhat dated information.

I want to love big hydro projects, but like any massive infrastructure project, they don't often pan out.

Set a rate you think private companies can achieve, and let them deal with the hassle of providing it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

TNote that solar panels have a limited lifespan, require lots of energy to make, and have nasty ingredients inside that are difficult to recycle.

Nothing that generates electricity is perfect. Wind, solar and nuclear have the lowest lifecycle energy inputs, (but a we've discussed above, nuclear comes with other potential problems). They're all much better than anything involving burning fossil fuels. Panels usually have a 25 year warranty, and may last longer.

Wind turbines also have a limited life, and take energy to manufacture and install, but have the best EROI (embodied energy use) of any power generation.

The amount of energy needed to manufacture panels is a fraction of the power they generate over their lives - about 4% on average (Solar PV’s life cycle carbon emission intensity is around 40 grams of carbon/kWh). They have the second lowest EROI of generation methods after wind, and that's falling as newer panels have greater efficiency and longer lives.

Hydro has a higher EROI because of the amount of energy that goes into building it. Site C is taking a huge amount of energy to create, and most of it is burnt fossil fuels for heavy equipment, concrete manufacture etc.

Panel recycling is a thing, now that there are panels starting to come to the end of their useful life (or are getting replaced by newer, even more efficient panels). The nasty chemicals are generally lead (in the solder) and cadmium (in the film). Both are being successfully recycled already in Europe and the US, but not yet in Canada. (Canadian panels are sent to the US for recycling).

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's kind of my point though, related to Site C among other things.

The NDP scrapped IPP. It was over priced, yes, but also a BC Liberal plan they could throw in the trash and pat themselves on the back.

Site C's costs have kept going up since the beginning, and it's taking forever. It stood at $9B during construction start around 2015. It ballooned to $16B, and that was pre-COVID/inflation/supply chain. No surprises if it tops $20B now, look at what happened with TMX.

Here's what wikipedia says about alternatives:


Again, this is somewhat dated information.

I want to love big hydro projects, but like any massive infrastructure project, they don't often pan out.

Set a rate you think private companies can achieve, and let them deal with the hassle of providing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public%E2%80%93private_partnership

The effectiveness of PPPs as cost-saving venture has been refuted by numerous studies.[36] Research has showed that on average, governments pay more for PPPs projects than for traditional publicly financed projects.[32][33] The higher cost of P3s is attributed to these systemic factors:

The private sector's higher cost of capital: governments can typically borrow capital at an interest rate lower than any private company ever could. This is because governments have the power of taxation, which guarantees that they will be able to repay their debts. Since lending to governments almost always come at a lower risk than lending to private entities, governments get better credit and cheaper financing costs for building large infrastructure projects than private finance.[37][38][39]
Transaction costs: P3 contracts are much more complex and extensive than contracts made in traditional publicly financed projects. The negotiation of these contracts require the presence of lawyers on all sides of the table and can take months or even years to finalize.[40] Barrie Mckenna reports that "transaction costs for lawyers and consultants [in P3s] add about 3 percent to the final bill."[41]
Operating profits: Private companies that engage in P3s expect a return on investment after the completion of the project. By financing PPPs, they partner engages in low-risk speculation. Over the course of the contract, the private partner can charge the end-users and/or the government for more money than the cost of the initial investment.[6]: chapter 4 
Sometimes, private partners manage to overcome these costs and provide a project cheaper for taxpayers. This can be done by cutting corners, designing the project so as to be more profitable in the operational phase, charging user fees, and/or monetizing aspects of the projects not covered by the contract. For P3 schools in Nova Scotia, this latter aspect has included restricting the use of schools' fields and interior walls, and charging after-hours facility access to community groups at 10 times the rate of non-P3 schools.[6]: chapter 4 

In Ontario, a 2012 review of 28 projects showed that the costs were on average 16% lower for traditional publicly procured projects than for PPPs.[32] A 2014 report by the Auditor General of Ontario said that the province overpaid by $8 billion through PPPs.[42]

Site C has ballooned above that cost (so let's say $100/MW/h, which is actually on parity with IPPs, BTW), but future plants can be cheaper (adjusted to inflation).
Covid is an issue, but also loss of institutional knowledge, as well as the fact Site C became a focal point for environmentalist protests.

IPPs run under fixed-contracts, existing IPPs are not going to get cheaper regardless of future improvements.

It's unlikely they would accept $50/MW/h. The source you cites says the lower-end of the cost for IPPs are $76.2/MW/h, and that probably assumes the wind is blowing.


Maybe BC Hydro could build run-of-river directly, but they're generally more expensive than large hydro anyways, but it's probably not worth it (yet.)

Originally Posted by Changing City

Nothing that generates electricity is perfect. Wind, solar and nuclear have the lowest lifecycle energy inputs, (but a we've discussed above, nuclear comes with other potential problems). They're all much better than anything involving burning fossil fuels. Panels usually have a 25 year warranty, and may last longer.

Wind turbines also have a limited life, and take energy to manufacture and install, but have the best EROI (embodied energy use) of any power generation.

The amount of energy needed to manufacture panels is a fraction of the power they generate over their lives - about 4% on average (Solar PV’s life cycle carbon emission intensity is around 40 grams of carbon/kWh). They have the second lowest EROI of generation methods after wind, and that's falling as newer panels have greater efficiency and longer lives.

Hydro has a higher EROI because of the amount of energy that goes into building it. Site C is taking a huge amount of energy to create, and most of it is burnt fossil fuels for heavy equipment, concrete manufacture etc.

Panel recycling is a thing, now that there are panels starting to come to the end of their useful life (or are getting replaced by newer, even more efficient panels). The nasty chemicals are generally lead (in the solder) and cadmium (in the film). Both are being successfully recycled already in Europe and the US, but not yet in Canada. (Canadian panels are sent to the US for recycling).

Higher EOREI? EOREI is Ouput/Input, not Input/Output, so higher = better.
Also:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-li...ronment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx
Disputes your claims.

Recycling is not perfect (requires lots of energy itself), and is still in its infancy.
It's better for infrastructure to just last longer.

Wind has better EOREI than Solar in general (especially for BC).
From Peter Zeihan:


Most of BC isn't even Yellow. Certainly not the Lower Mainland.
And Orange is considered the cut-off point for the amount of energy Solar produces to counteract the extra GHGs from production over its lifetime over nat. gas.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i have always wondered if W.A.C. Bennett/G.M. Shrum station could just be expanded as well. the reservoir is so huge, i don't see why they couldn't install more.

All that will do is change the peak power output, and increase the transmission infrastructure requirements.

The same amount of net power would likely stay the same unless they currently spend a bunch of time spilling excess water. I don't think they do at WAC Bennett.

For solar, we have one big disadvantage. Solar production in BC doesn't occur at the same time as people need power. If we had solar power on every house, they would still need almost the same amount of grid power on cold rainy days in the winter when you're using the most electricity.

Places like California are lucky in that their solar panels give them power when they need it for things like AC. All it would do for us is keep the reservoirs a bit fuller in the winter. Still useful, but not as obvious a win.

[libtard]

Currently as I type this the entire load for BC is 8,000 megawatts. BC hydro has a nameplate megawatt capacity of 11,000 megawatts. Why exactly would we need nuclear power?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Higher EOREI? EOREI is Ouput/Input, not Input/Output, so higher = better.
Also:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-li...ronment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx
Disputes your claims.

Recycling is not perfect (requires lots of energy itself), and is still in its infancy.
It's better for infrastructure to just last longer.

Wind has better EOREI than Solar in general (especially for BC).
From Peter Zeihan:


Most of BC isn't even Yellow. Certainly not the Lower Mainland.
And Orange is considered the cut-off point for the amount of energy Solar produces to counteract the extra GHGs from production over its lifetime over nat. gas.

EROI is Energy return on investment. You're right - the higher number is better, but it can be expressed as a percentage, when lower is better.

Wind has an EROI of 44:1 (so 2%) solar 26:1 (so 4%) and nuclear power is twice as good as coal, with the energy embedded in the power plant and fuel offsetting 5% of its output, equivalent to an EROI of 20:1 and Natural gas is about the same as Hydro, with an 8:1 EROI (12%).

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Higher EOREI? EOREI is Ouput/Input, not Input/Output, so higher = better.
Also:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-li...ronment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx
Disputes your claims.

Recycling is not perfect (requires lots of energy itself), and is still in its infancy.
It's better for infrastructure to just last longer.

Wind has better EOREI than Solar in general (especially for BC).

EROI is Energy return on investment. You're right - the higher number is better, but it can be expressed as a percentage, when lower is better.

Wind has an EROI of 44:1 (so 2%) solar 26:1 (so 4%) and nuclear power is twice as good as coal, with the energy embedded in the power plant and fuel offsetting 5% of its output, equivalent to an EROI of 20:1 and Natural gas is about the same as Hydro, with an 8:1 EROI (12%).

I said wind was better than solar, which is presumably why they specifically reference onshore wind as a supply they intend to add in the next few years. But they also mention solar because in certain locations, or where it's easily installed, it has a very reasonable payback and reduces the load they have to supply. It's particularly relevant in south west BC. It's not so good for residential customers, because their demand generally doesn't match solar power production, but it's absolutely appropriate for larger commercial and industrial customers. If battery technology for homes gets cheaper and more efficient, it'll increase flexibility even more. It doesn't replace the grid - it just lowers the demand, so more hydro power is available to meet peak demand and/or when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

EROI is Energy return on investment. You're right - the higher number is better, but it can be expressed as a percentage, when lower is better.

Wind has an EROI of 44:1 (so 2%) solar 26:1 (so 4%) and nuclear power is twice as good as coal, with the energy embedded in the power plant and fuel offsetting 5% of its output, equivalent to an EROI of 20:1 and Natural gas is about the same as Hydro, with an 8:1 EROI (12%).

Where is your source?
According to https://world-nuclear.org/information-li...ronment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx
Nuclear: 43-81
Hydro: 50-205
Gas: 6-28
Solar: 2-12
Wind: 6-35

Note: Solar Thermal is different than Solar PV, the former has higher EROEI but higher overall costs.

Even Wikipedia doesn't support your numbers.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Where is your source?
According to https://world-nuclear.org/information-li...ronment/energy-return-on-investment.aspx
Nuclear: 43-81
Hydro: 50-205
Gas: 6-28
Solar: 2-12
Wind: 6-35

Note: Solar Thermal is different than Solar PV, the former has higher EROEI but higher overall costs.

Even Wikipedia doesn't support your numbers.

There are several papers. Here's one. I wouldn't trust nuclear.org to be an unbiased source.

EDIT - obviously it depends on where the study is taking place, and whether there's any inherent bias from who is carrying it out. I'm not suggesting solar is all we need, or that it should replace wind or hydro, and neither is BC Hydro. They're suggesting it's a potentially useful addition to the mix of energy inputs. As the technology improves, and assuming it continues to get even cheaper, it'll make sense in more locations than it does today. And it doesn't of itself generate GHGs or air pollution, although some will be generated from manufacturing and recycling. That's all.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Here's an independent study, co-authored by UNBC faculty. Granted, it's an old one.

Note that Germany's got twice the solar capacity factor than we do. It's an option for us, but it shouldn't be the first option.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Here's an independent study, co-authored by UNBC faculty. Granted, it's an old one.

Note that Germany's got twice the solar capacity factor than we do. It's an option for us, but it shouldn't be the first option.

First of all, I agree with your final statement. I don't think anybody argues it's the first option, just a useful topup, especially in the south-east of BC where the weather is quite favourable (compared to the Lower Mainland). - check out the BC map here.

That 2013 paper is 'independent' in a limited sense; all the authors are associated with “The Institute for Solid-State Nuclear Physics,” (which is part of an international group, which also includes scientists who are affiliated with Polish and Canadian institutions.)

There were quite a few rebuttals to the study: its numbers are wildly different from the estimates produced by other peer-reviewed literature, and suffers from some rather extreme assumptions. Solar panels, according to Weißbach, generate four times as much energy over their lifetimes as it takes to manufacture them. That wasn't the case even in 2013; most research suggests its likely that solar panels, over their lifetime, generate 10-15 times as much energy as it takes to produce them and their associated hardware. That number now would be closer to 25, and it’s rising over time. However it's true that in Germany, and BC that number would generally be lower.

Without producing a long, boring point by point research paper, it's maybe worth considering that the results in Weißbach's paper assumes that half of all solar power is thrown away (which it isn't), he used 2005 data on energy use for production of silicon, which was much less efficient than today (or 2013), and he assumes that the power created has to be stored for ten days, significantly adding to its costs.

The whole EROI thing is a bit of a red herring, and I wish I hadn't stirred fredino into one of their 'world's longest post' responses. To reiterate my point, and withdraw after having made it, BC Hydro note that solar may be a useful addition to the relatively modest amount of additional power generation they calculate we'll need to 2041. That probably won't be huge commercial solar farms (as there are in Alberta and in the US) but mostly more modest facilities owned by building owners to reduce their private, individual electricity requirements. It's a useful replacement in places currently using generators, and technology (for panels and batteries) is getting more efficient and cheaper over time.