site C decision ?

ok , so christie announces the go ahead for site C , but what i don't get is why they don't install that other turbine at the dam near revelstoke first ?

cuz it doesn't sound very sexy

the libs are just making this up as they go along

We totally absolutely undeniably need power from site C …

to sell megapower to the US.

aren't they already doing a refit or upgrades at mica?

Let's wait to build it when it will cost 4 times as much.

We also need a lot of power for those LNG compressor stations … that nobody wants or cares about any more. It's an essential component of the BC Libercon's strategy to balance the budget for the next 5 years and leave nothing behind for the future.

We totally absolutely undeniably need power from site C …

to sell megapower to the US.

All number approximate but based on Interwebz Googles, but should give an order-of-magnitude approximation. Feel free to check the stats.

Lets say the Site C generates 5,000 GWh as claimed.
Suppose we say an electric car currently does 400 Wh/mile (Tesla)
Say the average car is driven 10,000 miles (roughly the average for Canada) per year. (Natural Resource Canada)
Say the number of Cars in BC is about 2 million (Metro Van has 1.5 million registered vehicles total - ICBC).

Also please check my math:

The total number of car-miles driven in BC is about

1 500 000 X 10 000 = 1.5 X 10^10 car miles

Number of Wh consumed if all cars in BC switched to electric

1.5 X 10^10 (car miles) X 4 X 10^2 Wh/mile/car = 6 X 10^12 Wh

6 X 10^12 Wh = 6,000 GWh

So the Site C would barely meet the needs of BC's roads going electric, should that be the case in the next decade or two (not to mention the overall needs of population growth). Chew on that, Tesla Boy! (No points for finding grammatical or spelling errors).

The total number of car-miles driven in BC is about

1 500 000 X 10 000 = 1.5 X 10^10 car miles

Number of Wh consumed if all cars in BC switched to electric

1.5 X 10^10 (car miles) X 4 X 10^2 Wh/mile/car = 6 X 10^12 Wh

6 X 10^12 Wh = 6,000 GWh

So the Site C would barely meet the needs of BC's roads going electric, should that be the case in the next decade or two (not to mention the overall needs of population growth). Chew on that, Tesla Boy! (No points for finding grammatical or spelling errors).

Wait, stop . . . you're being logical and not emotive! Not allowed on the forum.

The great ignored fact about 'clean' electric cars, they are not clean at all. Electricity has to come from somewhere, batteries need to be made and disposed of… nasty things.

The great ignored fact about 'clean' electric cars, they are not clean at all. Electricity has to come from somewhere, batteries need to be made and disposed of… nasty things.

Ah yes, the same tired old arguments that have been debunked many times over.

Over 95% of the material in lithium-ion batteries is recyclable and can be re-constituted into new lithium-ion packs. The so-called "nasty things" are not actually in LiIon batteries. You're confusing that with older nickel-metal hydride (Nimh) battery tech.

There is an environmental cost to building a car. Any car. So to suggest that building an electric car is somehow a greater enviro cost that any other is pure folly.

Electric cars are typically 80% efficient. That is, 80% of the energy pumped into it goes into making the car move. Contrast with any fossil fool car, the best of which touch into about 25% efficiency, but most are no better than 20% efficient. A lot of the energy in the fuel you pump into your tank goes to making noise, mitigating noise, heat, and unburned fuel going out the exhaust pipe.

Your argument is pretty much shit.

The Columbia Valley dam pays out heaps to trail groups every year. Maybe "Site C" will pay out similarly to trail groups in Northern BC?

All number approximate but based on Interwebz Googles, but should give an order-of-magnitude approximation. Feel free to check the stats.

Lets say the Site C generates 5,000 GWh as claimed.
Suppose we say an electric car currently does 400 Wh/mile (Tesla)
Say the average car is driven 10,000 miles (roughly the average for Canada) per year. (Natural Resource Canada)
Say the number of Cars in BC is about 2 million (Metro Van has 1.5 million registered vehicles total - ICBC).

Also please check my math:

The total number of car-miles driven in BC is about

1 500 000 X 10 000 = 1.5 X 10^10 car miles

Number of Wh consumed if all cars in BC switched to electric

1.5 X 10^10 (car miles) X 4 X 10^2 Wh/mile/car = 6 X 10^12 Wh

6 X 10^12 Wh = 6,000 GWh

So the Site C would barely meet the needs of BC's roads going electric, should that be the case in the next decade or two (not to mention the overall needs of population growth). Chew on that, Tesla Boy! (No points for finding grammatical or spelling errors).

Or … spending $15k to put 4 kW of solar on my roof would more than offset my entire power draw for car charging. If the BC gov put that 8.5 billion toward renewable energy incentives … like maybe a $4-5k rebate for household systems, the payback would be almost immediate and there would be no need for another dam.

And before you fools start to argue that "solar is unpredictable" and other bullshit lies, keep in mind that Germany, at a similar latitude and having similar weather, is more than 50% renewable today. The only thing preventing BC from doing the same is the will to do so. Solar may be somewhat unpredictable in that weather affects the output of a single site, but the aggregate production from an entire province of small sites is very predictable. Power supplied from the hydroelectric sites can be modulated to provide the difference.

Also, keep in mind that BC's problems aren't related to total power capacity, but rather ability to meet peaks, especially during summer when rainfall is low and dam levels drop. Golly gee, that's when our best solar would be! Dams could use a lot less water in summer, keep levels up, and just increase output during evening/overnight hours.

But that would be too logical.

What about solar roads?

CBC News story on Dutch tests

Or … spending $15k to put 4 kW of solar on my roof would more than offset my entire power draw for car charging. If the BC gov put that 8.5 billion toward renewable energy incentives … like maybe a $4-5k rebate for household systems, the payback would be almost immediate and there would be no need for another dam.

And before you fools start to argue that "solar is unpredictable" and other bullshit lies, keep in mind that Germany, at a similar latitude and having similar weather, is more than 50% renewable today. The only thing preventing BC from doing the same is the will to do so. Solar may be somewhat unpredictable in that weather affects the output of a single site, but the aggregate production from an entire province of small sites is very predictable. Power supplied from the hydroelectric sites can be modulated to provide the difference.

Also, keep in mind that BC's problems aren't related to total power capacity, but rather ability to meet peaks, especially during summer when rainfall is low and dam levels drop. Golly gee, that's when our best solar would be! Dams could use a lot less water in summer, keep levels up, and just increase output during evening/overnight hours.

But that would be too logical.

yup….and besides, site C isn't for us consumers, it's to give more power to the alleged fracking producers that will allegedly be fracking us to prosperity, right after they suck all the benefits out to maximize their profits….

ok , so adam tells me they are putting in another turbine at mica ?

truth , and if so , why aren't we hearing about it ?