Home
Site C and the BC Greens
I was disappointed when I first learned that the BC Green Party was
against the constructions of the
Site C hydroelectric dam . The only criticism of the project I
saw at the time was about loss of land and harm to local communities
and environments.
Those are the arguments I would expect from a "tree hugger", not a
factual environmentalist. Looking into it I found out that the BC
Greens actually have a good reason for opposing the project and I would
like to share it.
I think the "tree hugger" arguments are weak because our fossil fuel
dependency and global warming are critical problems. If those are not
solved we risk far greater damage to our society and environment.
To solve these great problems we need renewable energy sources. Gains
in efficiency will not be sufficient. In Canada
the
energyconsumption per capita is about 9.6 \(KW\). As we know
from The Matrix
(and from a 2 \(KCal\) diet), a human body consumes about 100 \(W\),
so about 1% of what we use. We had horses and firewood before
industrialization, but it should be clear that to depend on efficiency
gains is suicidal.
Fortunately in BC most of the electricity is already renewable
(hydroelectric), but electricity is just a part of our energy
consumption. We have to
replace our
use of gasoline and diesel
and natural
gas. With the current technology electrifying transportation and
heating seems the best alternative.
I first realized that the Greens must be thinking about this when I
found that their
platform lists electrification.
Lets see how much electricity we need. I got the energy content of the
various fuels from Wikipedia and the efficiency is an educated guess.
5,770,067 cubic meters of gasoline with 32.18 \(GJ/m^3\) thermal and an
engine
thermal
efficiency of 30% gives 55.7 useful \(PJ\) per year.
1,747,579 cubic meters of diesel with 35.86 \(GJ/m^3\) thermal and an
engine thermal efficiency of 40% gives 25.1 useful \(PJ\) per year.
The natural gas table is already in energy units: 98.1 \(PJ\). To
replace that with heat pumps with
a
coefficient of performance of 4 we need 24.5 \(PJ\) per year.
The total is 105 \(PJ\) per year, which is 3.34 \(GW\) or
29.25 \(TWh\) per year.
Site C is 5.1 \(TWh\) per year. We need 5.73 times what it would
produce to replace our fossil fuel use.
So we need a lot of electricity, but is Site C the best way to get a
part of it? In a reply to an email I sent about it to the Green Party
I was pointed to
a speech
where Andrew Weaver mentions Oregon and Washington. I got curious as
to what they are doing for electricity.
Oregon has a population a bit smaller than BC. In 7 years (2005-2012)
Oregon added 5.6 \(TWh\) per year of
wind power.
It seems possible then for BC to get the equivalent of the Site C
generation from wind in the time it would take to finish Site C. Wind
can also be built incrementally, and Site C will produce nothing in
the next 7 years.
Another advantage of wind is that there is a lot of it. According
to
BC Hydro itself there is a potential for 38.9 \(TWh\) per year
which is more than sufficient for replacing current fossil fuel use.
Which brings us to the real reason to oppose Site C: there are other
ways to get our renewable energy and we should consider their
cost. And the cost of wind
is
very competitive.
And since we are talking cost, why is BC Hydro the one that has to
decide what gets built? Electricity generation is an area that
allows for competition, now more than ever with wind going mainstream.
BC hydro could just buy renewable electricity and let the market
figure out what is the cheapest option. It looks like it would be
wind, but if in the end someone figures out a way to finish Site C at
a lower cost, that would be great.
I was very happy to find out (in the same speech) that that is exactly
the position Andrew is pushing for.
Long story short, my first impression of the party was wrong. I have
decided to join the party and so far I am very happy with that
decision.