HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2010, 6:22 PM
itinerant's Avatar
itinerant itinerant is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 230
I lost my train of thought a above... on dams being [not] a bad thing, I mean to say I'm actually in favour of hydroelectric power, but I think large 'mega' dam projects like many other types of mega projects, are too destructive and we'd be better off with more, smaller (run of river?) dams. I'm leave in a couple weeks to visit Shanghai, so can't help thinking about the impact of the Three Gorges project to that country and the Yangzhee River.

This is weird coming from me, because I'm awestruck and inspired by the mammoth structures and projects of the recent past.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 12:38 AM
WaxItYourself WaxItYourself is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 268
Lezard: I highly doubt that BC will ever completely use up all it's possible green resources. I mean there are MANY types of power possibilities within BC. I mean 90% of the total energy output for BC is produced from green resources. And many of the green resources in the province have not even begun to be worked on. We have an entire coastline where we could build wave farms and tidal plants, both of which are already being used somewhere in the world. There are current plans to build massive wind farms either offshore or onshore that will produce gigawatts of electricity. Just two of the planned wind farms, when added together, will produce over 700MW of electricity alone.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...182/story.html

http://www.globaltvbc.com/technology...622/story.html

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...1-45c7f9005647

We also have the geothermal possibilities of Harrison Hotsprings and other active areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 1:11 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 39,106
I don't think people down here realize how unique the peace river land and area is compared to the rest of BC its more prarie than any other part of BC and great farming land
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 1:17 AM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
How do you spell L-E-G-A-C-Y?

GC wants his name on something that will outlive him.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 1:46 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is online now
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
I'd say thats a pretty moot point. What else is there, the Olympics? The Canada Line? Gateway? There's a lot of big projects of his that are going to be notable for a long while.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 2:14 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
I don't think people down here realize how unique the peace river land and area is compared to the rest of BC its more prarie than any other part of BC and great farming land
<Shrug> and much of the Fraser River Delta is even better farming land and its built over.

If the world is becoming more globalized we need to accept the fact we are uniquely blessed to be able to provide lots of hydroelectic power, without too much damage to the environment. Rivers are blocked and dammed all the time in nature. Few people complain that we've stopped the Fraser from finding its own natural pathways through the delta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 8:47 AM
lezard lezard is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaxItYourself View Post
Lezard: I highly doubt that BC will ever completely use up all it's possible green resources. I mean there are MANY types of power possibilities within BC. I mean 90% of the total energy output for BC is produced from green resources. And many of the green resources in the province have not even begun to be worked on. We have an entire coastline where we could build wave farms and tidal plants, both of which are already being used somewhere in the world. There are current plans to build massive wind farms either offshore or onshore that will produce gigawatts of electricity. Just two of the planned wind farms, when added together, will produce over 700MW of electricity alone.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...182/story.html

http://www.globaltvbc.com/technology...622/story.html

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...1-45c7f9005647

We also have the geothermal possibilities of Harrison Hotsprings and other active areas.
I was arguing ad absurdam. But you are right.

Site C is not the only alternative left to BC; there are many alternatives that the Province should be looking into to add capacity. None of the alternatives mentioned on this board by you and others involves nuclear or coal generating.

First, BC should be pushing energy conservation with much more vigor. Reduce the amount of energy we waste before making even more available. Lots of available capacity there. Turn off your plasma screens and computers, don't just go on standby. Some reports state approx. 10% of household energy consumption goes to unused appliances on standby! Air conditioners? Vancouver is on the 49th parallel for crying out loud, not the equator. Open a window, take off your tie.

Second, upgrade existing facilities to raise their production capacity. Make what we already have as efficient as possible. I have heard there is a large part of what Site C will produce going unused in Revelstoke and Kitimat. How much capacity goes to waste in existing facilities in the Province; does anyone know? Does Gordo know?

Third, integrate alternative sources into the grid to add incremental capacity. Include sources that could be converted and stored in existing hydro and water reservoirs. Include wave and wind generation offshore. Methane digesters for animal and human waste. Solar on rooftops. Small windfarms on Downtown Skyscrapers. Hook up the gyms for heaven's sake. etc...

Once all that is done, then you start adding new massive projects to accommodate new demand. Only then can someone tell me, my opposition to a dam means there is no other alternative than to build a nuclear power plant.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 9:19 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is online now
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by lezard View Post
Second, upgrade existing facilities to raise their production capacity. Make what we already have as efficient as possible. I have heard there is a large part of what Site C will produce going unused in Revelstoke and Kitimat. How much capacity goes to waste in existing facilities in the Province; does anyone know? Does Gordo know?

Third, integrate alternative sources into the grid to add incremental capacity. Include sources that could be converted and stored in existing hydro and water reservoirs. Include wave and wind generation offshore. Methane digesters for animal and human waste. Solar on rooftops. Small windfarms on Downtown Skyscrapers. Hook up the gyms for heaven's sake. etc...

Once all that is done, then you start adding new massive projects to accommodate new demand. Only then can someone tell me, my opposition to a dam means there is no other alternative than to build a nuclear power plant.

Pretty much none of these options make operational or economic sense.

With your first point, we can already dictate where our capacity goes. You can turn a hydro dam on or off with the flick of a switch and keep that potential energy from the water waiting until you want to sell it to someone. Thats why hydro dams are awesome, and how BC hydro makes so much money off the Americans.

Even if we build more capacity into our dams its all dependent on the amount of water entering the reservoir. We largely can't dictate how much power is generated beyond the amount which goes out the floodgates during times of peak runoff. We just get to pick the point in time when we want to generate that amount of electricity. I'd imagine the engineers at hydro probably optimized the amount power we can draw out of a given dam.

In your second point, small windfarms are expensive and provide tiny amounts of power when Vancouver actually has wind, solar in our climate is relatively expensive and still inefficient. With either of these points they don't add meaningful capacity and are likely never to pay off their capital cost during the entire operating life of the equipment. Effectively it would just be burning money.

These alternatives are great until real world things like scalability and money come into play. Conservation on the other hand is a great strategy, but it probably won't be able to fight the tides things like an increasing number of computers or the advent of electric cars. It's really not hard to imagine per capita electricity consumption going up a lot in a couple decades even if society wants to greenwash itself.

As a side note: I wouldn't say your guys argument was particularly childish, but both of you are being pretty reactionary. You should really step up your arguments if you want to be taken seriously.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 9:20 AM
Distill3d's Avatar
Distill3d Distill3d is offline
Glorfied Overrated Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver (Burnaby), British Columbia
Posts: 4,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
I don't think people down here realize how unique the peace river land and area is compared to the rest of BC its more prarie than any other part of BC and great farming land
Well, its about to become a great fishing destination!

That said, I'm all for nuclear energy. I suppose BCHydro would have to change its name to something else then though.
__________________
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: I think so, Brain, but this time, you put the trousers on the chimp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 11:21 AM
lezard lezard is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
Pretty much none of these options make operational or economic sense.

With your first point, we can already dictate where our capacity goes. You can turn a hydro dam on or off with the flick of a switch and keep that potential energy from the water waiting until you want to sell it to someone. Thats why hydro dams are awesome, and how BC hydro makes so much money off the Americans.

Even if we build more capacity into our dams its all dependent on the amount of water entering the reservoir. We largely can't dictate how much power is generated beyond the amount which goes out the floodgates during times of peak runoff. We just get to pick the point in time when we want to generate that amount of electricity. I'd imagine the engineers at hydro probably optimized the amount power we can draw out of a given dam.

In your second point, small windfarms are expensive and provide tiny amounts of power when Vancouver actually has wind, solar in our climate is relatively expensive and still inefficient. With either of these points they don't add meaningful capacity and are likely never to pay off their capital cost during the entire operating life of the equipment. Effectively it would just be burning money.

These alternatives are great until real world things like scalability and money come into play. Conservation on the other hand is a great strategy, but it probably won't be able to fight the tides things like an increasing number of computers or the advent of electric cars. It's really not hard to imagine per capita electricity consumption going up a lot in a couple decades even if society wants to greenwash itself.

As a side note: I wouldn't say your guys argument was particularly childish, but both of you are being pretty reactionary. You should really step up your arguments if you want to be taken seriously.
How do you know they don't make sense? It's your opinion, just as it's my opinion that they do.

To your second paragraph: wrong, that wasn't my first point. I don't know what you are arguing against there. That's all Site C is for? To gouge California?

To your third paragraph: of course a dam's capacity is dependent on the reservoir level. But that is exactly my point. We can influence reservoir levels by pumping water back up to store it again. Windfarms are ideally suited to provide the energy necessary.

To your fourth paragraph: Windfarms do make their capital costs back when applied intelligently. And they do provide significant amounts of capacity. In the EU, windfarms of all types contribute to about 4% of total generating capacity. And they are pushing for even more of them, the fools. Do they know nothing of scalability and money?

Conservation can provide significant amounts of spare capacity. Whether it will be enough to compensate for rising demand is open to debate. But combined with all the other options that have proposed on this board, it may very well suffice and maybe even allow us to rip California off again and again. Conservation measures would have to apply to new demand. Reducing how many computers we use, reducing individual transit in favour of mass transit. Giving up poptarts. Etc...

I don't care if you take me seriously, I do care that you read what I write if you're going to rip me a new one. In any event, my voicing opposition to Site C has made it impossible for Gordo's fellow travelers on here to take me seriously. I believe in Unicorns, don't you know.

Last edited by lezard; Apr 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 1:51 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by lezard View Post
To your fourth paragraph: Windfarms do make their capital costs back when applied intelligently. And they do provide significant amounts of capacity. In the EU, windfarms of all types contribute to about 4% of total generating capacity. And they are pushing for even more of them, the fools. Do they know nothing of scalability and money?
Do you know what they pay per kWh? It's a heck of a lot more than we do. High prices open up your options to many other forms of energy generation.

The only remotely green technology (not coal, NG or Nuclear) that can come close to providing power at a rate that we are used to paying, is hydro dams.

Question: How much wind farm generation would $6B realistically create in BC? I'm going to guess less than a third of what we get for Site C. Waste of money.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 2:02 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
I'd say thats a pretty moot point. What else is there, the Olympics? The Canada Line? Gateway? There's a lot of big projects of his that are going to be notable for a long while.
Not really. The Olympics were a Jack Poole / John Furlong thing. The Canada Line has Ottawa all over it and is more translink than anything. Gateway perhaps, but you can't put your name on a highway and when it comes down to it... no one will remember. After all, it's not a new project and people will just remember that they added a few lanes.

Does anyone remember who it was that added the HOV lanes to the highway? Nope. How about the guy who

No no... it you want a legacy, then you need something future generations can look back at and say... wow... I'm sure glad he had the guts to do that! You need something BIG.

Stanley Park big. World-class ferry system big. Dams that power the future big. High speed rail big ( not that I think we need one within BC, just an example ).

Besides, I think he wants there to be some place that says "Campbell Dam" instead of the other way around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 2:45 PM
lezard lezard is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Do you know what they pay per kWh? It's a heck of a lot more than we do. High prices open up your options to many other forms of energy generation.

The only remotely green technology (not coal, NG or Nuclear) that can come close to providing power at a rate that we are used to paying, is hydro dams.

Question: How much wind farm generation would $6B realistically create in BC? I'm going to guess less than a third of what we get for Site C. Waste of money.
The rates in Europe are higher by a factor of 2 to 4. Higher prices encourage conservation. Higher prices allow the use of other sources. I believe Danes have a similar or even higher standard of living than British Columbians. Despite the Tyrannical high costs of electricity oppressing them.

Duh! I am not arguing the cost factor. Did you see me arguing it was cheaper? Reading really helps, trust me.

I put a higher value on conservation than you do. I'm willing to spend more for less if it means we don't build Site C.

So you keep saying. Your opinion. I have mine.

Last edited by lezard; Apr 21, 2010 at 2:46 PM. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 3:28 PM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 22,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by lezard View Post
How do you know they don't make sense? It's your opinion, just as it's my opinion that they do.

To your second paragraph: wrong, that wasn't my first point. I don't know what you are arguing against there. That's all Site C is for? To gouge California?

To your third paragraph: of course a dam's capacity is dependent on the reservoir level. But that is exactly my point. We can influence reservoir levels by pumping water back up to store it again. Windfarms are ideally suited to provide the energy necessary.

To your fourth paragraph: Windfarms do make their capital costs back when applied intelligently. And they do provide significant amounts of capacity. In the EU, windfarms of all types contribute to about 4% of total generating capacity. And they are pushing for even more of them, the fools. Do they know nothing of scalability and money?

Conservation can provide significant amounts of spare capacity. Whether it will be enough to compensate for rising demand is open to debate. But combined with all the other options that have proposed on this board, it may very well suffice and maybe even allow us to rip California off again and again. Conservation measures would have to apply to new demand. Reducing how many computers we use, reducing individual transit in favour of mass transit. Giving up poptarts. Etc...

I don't care if you take me seriously, I do care that you read what I write if you're going to rip me a new one. In any event, my voicing opposition to Site C has made it impossible for Gordo's fellow travelers on here to take me seriously. I believe in Unicorns, don't you know.
As fellow posters can vouch, I'm about as far from a "fellow traveller" of Gordo as you can get, but I support Site C wholeheartedly.

Conservation will only get us so far, in the face of an increasing population with an increasing amount of electronic devices. Its amazing the legacy of the 1950's and 60's has brought us so far in the light of things such as server farms for instance. We also stand on the threshold of the time when electric cars are a reality to replace the internal combustion engine for many drivers. Far better to be ahead of this curve than behind it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2010, 3:41 PM
lezard lezard is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
As fellow posters can vouch, I'm about as far from a "fellow traveller" of Gordo as you can get, but I support Site C wholeheartedly.

Conservation will only get us so far, in the face of an increasing population with an increasing amount of electronic devices. Its amazing the legacy of the 1950's and 60's has brought us so far in the light of things such as server farms for instance. We also stand on the threshold of the time when electric cars are a reality to replace the internal combustion engine for many drivers. Far better to be ahead of this curve than behind it.
We'll just have to disagree on that.

The growing use of electric cars will certainly be more than conservation can handle, but that is where other alternatives must come into play. After that I'll consider Site C.

I'm starting to wonder whether Site C is in fact only meant to supply the US market.

Last edited by lezard; Apr 21, 2010 at 5:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2010, 12:30 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is online now
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by lezard View Post
How do you know they don't make sense? It's your opinion, just as it's my opinion that they do.

To your second paragraph: wrong, that wasn't my first point. I don't know what you are arguing against there. That's all Site C is for? To gouge California?

To your third paragraph: of course a dam's capacity is dependent on the reservoir level. But that is exactly my point. We can influence reservoir levels by pumping water back up to store it again. Windfarms are ideally suited to provide the energy necessary.

To your fourth paragraph: Windfarms do make their capital costs back when applied intelligently. And they do provide significant amounts of capacity. In the EU, windfarms of all types contribute to about 4% of total generating capacity. And they are pushing for even more of them, the fools. Do they know nothing of scalability and money?

Conservation can provide significant amounts of spare capacity. Whether it will be enough to compensate for rising demand is open to debate. But combined with all the other options that have proposed on this board, it may very well suffice and maybe even allow us to rip California off again and again. Conservation measures would have to apply to new demand. Reducing how many computers we use, reducing individual transit in favour of mass transit. Giving up poptarts. Etc...

I don't care if you take me seriously, I do care that you read what I write if you're going to rip me a new one. In any event, my voicing opposition to Site C has made it impossible for Gordo's fellow travelers on here to take me seriously. I believe in Unicorns, don't you know.


Again, we don't need to pump power back up into the dam, we can just cut the flow to the generators when were not using it. Most of our power infrastructure has minimum required allowed flow rates for environmental reasons. Besides that you can't just pump river back into a dam, you'd need a downstream lake. As far as I know most dams in BC don't have this.

A good chunk of our power would go direct to California regardless of the source. Since we can turn our generators on or off whenever we feel like it, we can sell the states expensive power, and buy back more off peak power while still making money off the transaction. That's how BC hydro makes money and main reason why hydroelectric dams are so economical. The addition of Site C would let us actually produce as much power as were using. We currently use more power than we produce, hence why BC is a net importer of power right now.

You didn't mention wind farms. You mentioned using wind as an add on to other infrastructure and buildings. The economics with wind power is all related to scale. With wind, big is cost efficient. 3MW was huge a few years ago, now 10MW generators are coming online. These things are 500' tall and require tonnes of room.

Without economics factored in, we could power 20% (ish) of the grid (at peak wind power production) with wind and not loose grid stability. With the wind production factor taken into account this would only produce about 4-6% of our total power production.

Cheap power is also a huge competitive advantage that we shouldn't be trying to take away from BC industry. A lot of industry we have is sensitive to cheap power. Because BC is not an otherwise cheap place to operate in, taking away this advantage might just drive a lot of employment away. I know some mining operations that are very sensitive to power pricing, and specifically negotiate with hydro because of this. When you're drawing more than 10MW with some industrial machines the costs add up really quickly.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words

Last edited by Alex Mackinnon; Apr 22, 2010 at 12:32 AM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2010, 7:27 AM
lezard lezard is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
Again, we don't need to pump power back up into the dam, we can just cut the flow to the generators when were not using it. Most of our power infrastructure has minimum required allowed flow rates for environmental reasons. Besides that you can't just pump river back into a dam, you'd need a downstream lake. As far as I know most dams in BC don't have this.

A good chunk of our power would go direct to California regardless of the source. Since we can turn our generators on or off whenever we feel like it, we can sell the states expensive power, and buy back more off peak power while still making money off the transaction. That's how BC hydro makes money and main reason why hydroelectric dams are so economical. The addition of Site C would let us actually produce as much power as were using. We currently use more power than we produce, hence why BC is a net importer of power right now.

You didn't mention wind farms. You mentioned using wind as an add on to other infrastructure and buildings. The economics with wind power is all related to scale. With wind, big is cost efficient. 3MW was huge a few years ago, now 10MW generators are coming online. These things are 500' tall and require tonnes of room.

Without economics factored in, we could power 20% (ish) of the grid (at peak wind power production) with wind and not loose grid stability. With the wind production factor taken into account this would only produce about 4-6% of our total power production.

Cheap power is also a huge competitive advantage that we shouldn't be trying to take away from BC industry. A lot of industry we have is sensitive to cheap power. Because BC is not an otherwise cheap place to operate in, taking away this advantage might just drive a lot of employment away. I know some mining operations that are very sensitive to power pricing, and specifically negotiate with hydro because of this. When you're drawing more than 10MW with some industrial machines the costs add up really quickly.
I pointed to other alternatives that had been proposed on this very same board by others, you amongst them brought up windfarms. So, yes, I did.

I have read you all loud and clear on the economics. I just don't agree that our power sales to the US market are worth the damage that Site C will do.

That valley is worth more to me than 8c/KWh. It's that simple.

By the way, as far as companies being sensitive to power pricing. Is this what you meant?

http://www.vancouversun.com/technolo...159/story.html

You can bag on the environmentalists all you want, but this just makes me mad.

Last edited by lezard; Apr 22, 2010 at 7:32 AM. Reason: Added info.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2010, 8:35 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is online now
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,096
They might be wasting power now, but it shows that they're worried enough about power costs to be actively looking for loop holes.

I don't bag on environmentalists. I bag on idealists with no sense of what's economically feasible. There's a huge difference.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2010, 10:56 AM
lezard lezard is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
They might be wasting power now, but it shows that they're worried enough about power costs to be actively looking for loop holes.

I don't bag on environmentalists. I bag on idealists with no sense of what's economically feasible. There's a huge difference.
Good for them, but it also shows there is even more room to save on waste.

I'm flattered you think I'm an idealist. Whether you or I have any sense of what is economically feasible is highly doubtful.

In any event, economically feasible does not equal cheapest. If that's your litmus for what is feasible, then we can stop arguing right now.

I'll accept that Site C is indispensable when all other equally feasible alternatives - economically and practically - have been implemented.

Last edited by lezard; Apr 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2010, 4:07 PM
b5baxter b5baxter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by lezard View Post
The growing use of electric cars will certainly be more than conservation can handle, but that is where other alternatives must come into play...
I was told once that VEVA did a study that showed that conservation could handle all the demand from electric vehicles. I can't find it on their website but if anyone wants to contact them they might be able to send you the info.

I don't think people appreciate how much can be achieved through conservation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lezard View Post
I'm starting to wonder whether Site C is in fact only meant to supply the US market.
or Alberta?
or Coalbed Methane extraction in Northern BC?

I have heard all three theories.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > General Discussion
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.