Vancouver Power Grid Thread

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Changing City

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.

Fair points. Let's hope academia produces a more objective study with recent cost/benefit numbers... though I suspect it still won't make large-scale PV viable in most of Canada. And I believe the nuclear discussion involves what to do after 2041.

Originally Posted by Changing City

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.

Thanks for clarifying - the number of people I've encountered who do argue such is disappointingly high. One particularly egregious example thought the Arbutus Greenway would be great as a Solar Freaking Bikeway.

Kamloops and the Okanagan could work. Given the harsher winters though, it'd have to be coupled with significantly more advanced energy storage than we have right now; lithium-ion isn't particularly efficient or sustainable on a macro level.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

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.

As we got more and more of the kind of record-breaking summer heat waves we've started to see over the past decade, and as more and more people start to rely on air conditioning to deal with them, that may change. Although even summer solar efficiency is going to suffer, what with all the wildfire smoke...

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Changing City

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.

The "energy that goes into building it" is only one factor. You also have the carbon footprint of its construction. Hydro electric dams use a lot of concrete, and the chemical reaction that occurs during the manufacturing of cement (a key ingredient in concrete) produces a lot of CO2.

The other issue people often overlook is methane production (a potent, though short lived greenhouse gas). The resevours that are created for hydro electric dams release a lot of methane as the organic material slowly decomposes. The CO2e produced is still small compared to coal or natural gas generation, but it can't be ignored either. (http://www.energybc.ca/largehydro.ht...e%20mitigated.)

I am not trying to say that hydro power is bad, and shouldn't be built, but we need to consider all of the factors when making a comparison of other electrical generation technologies.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

As we got more and more of the kind of record-breaking summer heat waves we've started to see over the past decade, and as more and more people start to rely on air conditioning to deal with them, that may change. Although even summer solar efficiency is going to suffer, what with all the wildfire smoke...

And as more and more buildings get heat pumps for heating, more buildings will be air conditioned (heat pumps can work in both ways to heat and cool). Granted, in BC, more energy is required to heat a building than cool it.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

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.

Well, TBF, the study you linked has mono-Si at a similar EOREI to other studies. Note that mono-Si is the industry standard (others are too expensive), so that answers the inconsistency.

Yeah, but that raises the question as to why you'd even bother encouraging it. No one is going to stop people from putting solar panels on their roofs, but BC Hydro shouldn't be using its resources to push it. There's no lack of other energy resources in BC.

There are a lot of other ways to ensure large buildings are cool during heat waves - like white/light-reflecting paints and heat pumps.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The "energy that goes into building it" is only one factor. You also have the carbon footprint of its construction. Hydro electric dams use a lot of concrete, and the chemical reaction that occurs during the manufacturing of cement (a key ingredient in concrete) produces a lot of CO2.

The other issue people often overlook is methane production (a potent, though short lived greenhouse gas). The resevours that are created for hydro electric dams release a lot of methane as the organic material slowly decomposes. The CO2e produced is still small compared to coal or natural gas generation, but it can't be ignored either. (http://www.energybc.ca/largehydro.ht...e%20mitigated.)

I am not trying to say that hydro power is bad, and shouldn't be built, but we need to consider all of the factors when making a comparison of other electrical generation technologies.

Which is why they razed everything in Site C's way when building the dam.
Solar also produces a ton of GHGs when being produced, and toxic waste when disposed.
Wind uses aluminum and concrete, both very GHG/energy intensive.

No renewable energy source is free of issues.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Yeah, but that raises the question as to why you'd even bother encouraging it. No one is going to stop people from putting solar panels on their roofs, but BC Hydro shouldn't be using its resources to push it. There's no lack of other energy resources in BC.

Yeah I would agree with this. What they should do (and they are for the most part), is push people towards using electricity instead of fossil fuels for transportation, heating, cooking, etc.

Let them worry about the supply, which is already extremely clean. I don't think there's any danger of BCH having to suddenly spin up a dirty generating system to cope with some sudden spike in demand.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Let them worry about the supply, which is already extremely clean. I don't think there's any danger of BCH having to suddenly spin up a dirty generating system to cope with some sudden spike in demand.

Even if they had to (and were able to) recommission the Burrard Thermal Plant to handle peaks, the overall mix of electricity in the province is still far cleaner than any other alternative.

[casper]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Even if they had to (and were able to) recommission the Burrard Thermal Plant to handle peaks, the overall mix of electricity in the province is still far cleaner than any other alternative.

Wikipedia says there are a few more thermal plants in BC beyond that old decommissioned unit. Most of these are co-generation some are burning natural gas but others are bio-mass (waste wood product).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...itish_Columbia

Given the majority of these are associated with wood processing plants of one form or another it is an open question what happens to the unit if the mill shutdown and the user of steam is not their anymore.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Even if they had to (and were able to) recommission the Burrard Thermal Plant to handle peaks, the overall mix of electricity in the province is still far cleaner than any other alternative.

Wonder why the Burrard Thermal Plant isn't up for redevelopment.

It (along with the Imperial Oil Site) would be a good site for rail/ship based industrial- especially once the David Ave extension is completed.

Maybe they could turn it into a museum (like Stave Lake), but I don't really see any big push for that from an organization not wanting to emphasize thermal power plants.





The original proposals for residential in the area have been blocked beyond the Iona townsite due to lack of road capacity.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i would be curious to know if BC Hydro has looked into the possibilities of exporting even more power the the USA West in their forecasts. i was thinking about Lake Mead/Lake Powell and their generating capacities.

thinking into the future, what should happen if these keep declining and power generation deceases then somehow there will need to be power coming from somewhere. i dont know enough about the transmission interconnects though to even know what the feasibilities are.

just something i was thinking about last night.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Apparently, Glen Canyon has a lifespan of less than a hundred years... that said, it's much easier to supply Arizona (if anybody even still lives there) via California.

[casper]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i would be curious to know if BC Hydro has looked into the possibilities of exporting even more power the the USA West in their forecasts. i was thinking about Lake Mead/Lake Powell and their generating capacities.

thinking into the future, what should happen if these keep declining and power generation deceases then somehow there will need to be power coming from somewhere. i dont know enough about the transmission interconnects though to even know what the feasibilities are.

just something i was thinking about last night.

We should if the numbers work. Hydro Quebec does focus on the export market. If the margin on the export permits BC to recover construction cost over the first 50 years we are ahead the game when that power is needed in our domestic market.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by casper

We should if the numbers work. Hydro Quebec does focus on the export market. If the margin on the export permits BC to recover construction cost over the first 50 years we are ahead the game when that power is needed in our domestic market.

We're also ahead if our green power displaces dirtier power that would otherwise have to be generated at the destination.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by roger1818

And as more and more buildings get heat pumps for heating, more buildings will be air conditioned (heat pumps can work in both ways to heat and cool). Granted, in BC, more energy is required to heat a building than cool it.

Having switched to a heat pump, I can say that my electricity consumption much higher in the winter than in the summer. On the hottest day of the heat dome (35C) I used about the same amount of energy as a winter day when the temperature is around 0C. We have a lot more 0C days than 35C days in Vancouver.

When I heated my home with gas, my electricity bill was fairly constant year round.

Switching to heat pumps will increase the summer peak load for BC Hydro, but it will increase the winter peak load even more.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by scottN

We have a lot more 0C days than 35C days in Vancouver.

So just for kicks I went back through the 2021 data from my indoor/outdoor thermometer. From January 1 to December 31 last year we had 6 days at 0C or below (Dec 26-29 + 31) and 6 days at 35C or above (Jun 25-28, Jul 30, Aug 8)

The times they are 'a changin.

[casper]

Interesting article. Looks like one research group is taking exception to the BC Hydro forecast and suggesting we will have a major gap.

https://www.timescolonist.com/bc-new...xperts-5095017

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by casper

Interesting article. Looks like one research group is taking exception to the BC Hydro forecast and suggesting we will have a major gap.

https://www.timescolonist.com/bc-new...xperts-5095017

It is an interesting report. Unless my math is wrong, they're a bit out of date with the potential from wind generation. They suggest it would take 700 turbines to generate as much electricity as site C. BC Hydro say that should generate 5,100 GWh a year. Current GE turbines in Europe (offshore, in the North Sea) can generate up to 74 GWh a year. If there were locations in BC as productive as Europe, you'd only need 70 turbines. Even with less reliable wind locations, 150 should be sufficient. And these are not theoretical future turbines, they are already being installed. There's even one on-shore in the Port of Rotterdam.

[Migrant_Coconut]

They're right on the money about solar - napkin math says you'd need enough panels to cover Site C's entire reservoir. As for wind, pretty sure they're assuming 1.5 MW turbines like Eye of the Wind; most provincial IPPs use 3 MW turbines, and we'd need about 367 of those to match 1,100 MW of installed capacity.

Bottom line, terrestrial wind energy kind of sucks. Offshore or bust for the South Coast.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by casper

Interesting article. Looks like one research group is taking exception to the BC Hydro forecast and suggesting we will have a major gap.

https://www.timescolonist.com/bc-new...xperts-5095017

Electricity is much more efficient at providing things like transportation. I hate it when these high level reports use a few numbers and don't talk about efficiency, or heaven-forbid, just using less energy by doing things like insulating homes, turning off lights when nobody is there, etc.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

...turning off lights when nobody is there...

According to my children, this is one of the most onerous and demanding tasks known to humanity.