Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
One interesting problem that puts 2030 out of reach is the increase in electricity demand. Has someone run the numbers on how many natural gas / nuclear plants we need to build to support the electric cars and how much additional transmission we need to support say 30-50% electric vehicles. Right now just building the plants to replace the coal we are taking out of the system is a challenging timeline
Not that it can't be done from a technology perspective just the time crunch to do it. 3-5 years for natural gas plants and probably 10 for a nuclear plant leaves really long leads to ramp up the grid. There is no incentive to build these new plants prior to this new demand being proven. So as part of this conversion to electric cars we will see spikes in Electricity rates which push back the economics on cars.
In a 20/50/100 percent EV world what % of electricity would be transportation.
|
Electricity demand in BC has remained flat even with population increases and a steady industrial demand. A big argument for why BCs Site-C dam is not economically viable is the flat growth rate for power demand as a result of energy conservation policies.
The energy conservation policies have been so successful at curbing power demand in BC that the provincial government is now pulling back on conservation efforts to increase the demand for excess power in the grid.
Quote:
“The business case for Site C is far weaker now than when the project was launched, to the point that the Project is now uneconomic,” said Karen Bakker, Canada Research Chair and director of UBC’s Program on Water Governance, which prepared the report. “The good news is that we are not past the point of no return, according to our analysis.”
Supporters of Site C have said the project is a cost-efficient way to meet increasing electricity demand. But the UBC researchers say that their analysis incorporates several key changes since Site C was approved, including a decline in the cost of alternatives such as wind power, and a substantial reduction in BC Hydro’s forecasted need for electricity in 2024 and beyond.
Site C power likely to be exported at a loss
The report— the latest in a series of five— states that, according to BC Hydro’s own forecasts, predicted electricity demand has dropped significantly. Site C electricity will not be fully required for nearly a decade after the project is finished, and if demand growth does not keep up with BC Hydro’s current forecasts, power from Site C could remain in surplus indefinitely, according to the report.
“The surplus energy from Site C will have to be exported at prices currently far below cost,” said Bakker. “Our analysis shows that under some of the most likely forecasts, losses from these exports will total $1 billion or more.”
Proponents of Site C say that demand will increase because of LNG developments and decarbonizing the economy, such as through the use of electric cars. But the researchers say their analysis indicates otherwise.
“BC Hydro's own forecasts show that electricity demand will be relatively modest into the 2030s, even including anticipated demands from LNG and electrification of cars,” said Bakker.
The report also demonstrates that BC Hydro is significantly curtailing its energy conservation programs in response to Site C’s projected energy surplus. Producing new energy with Site C costs three times as much as energy conservation. But energy conservation could meet a significant amount of new demand for several years, said Bakker.
|
Other jurisdictions that promote energy conservation will see similar reductions in demand. Alberta is trying this on for size with their energy retrofit program.