| Author |
Topic |
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 4:21 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
...
Finally, it doesn't take into account the extra supply that industry needs- the mines, and especially, the LNG plants that are being proposed. Shell Oil, which wants to build an LNG facility at Kitimat that will be twice as big as the ENCANA plant that is being built right now. ENCANA has a firm commitment to use B.C. Hydro's hydroelectric power, but Shell does not.
...
Shell's LNG technology uses natural gas powered gas turbines to run the compressors in the refrigeration plant. Given that they would surely be using exhaust heat recovery boilers to run steam generators to provide electricity, I don't think you'll see an agreement from Shell to purchase any significant amount of electricity.
I'm curious to know if Encana plant is using gas turbines, and if the commitment to use hydro power from BC Hydro really presents any significant portion of the total energy consumed by the plant.
I think ENCANA is using B.C. Hydro hydroelectric power from the grid only because it's the cheapest right now! Shell wants the same deal, but they're going to be out of luck; B.C. Hydro doesn't have any excess to sell to them; quite the contrary.
|
Edited by - FrankB on 05/22/2012 4:29 PM |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 4:28 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pmicheals
Ok so back to the main topic. Is it possible the developer of this project would consider funding the developement of a Culiton creek trail system?
My guess is, yes, they are a pretty responsible group (Veresen is the parent company; based in Calgary). Some of them are very active climbers and outdoor enthusiasts- which is why they're in the renewal clean power business in the first place!
I did already disclose that I do some consulting work for them, did I not? They are really a great gang to work with; work is play and play is work! |
|
|
Richmond, BC
Canada
2441 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 4:56 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
quote:
Originally posted by pmicheals
Ok so back to the main topic. Is it possible the developer of this project would consider funding the developement of a Culiton creek trail system?
My guess is, yes, they are a pretty responsible group (Veresen is the parent company; based in Calgary). Some of them are very active climbers and outdoor enthusiasts- which is why they're in the renewal clean power business in the first place!
I did already disclose that I do some consulting work for them, did I not? They are really a great gang to work with; work is play and play is work!
That you did Frank |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 9:27 PM
|
The Sierra Club of Canada, B.C. Chapter is opposed to the development of run of river power projects like Culliton Creek, opposed to the development of shale gas deposits, and also opposed to the building of the Site C hydroelectric project. With regard to the latter, they claim that
quote:
Site C is only being considered now because its energy is needed to fuel the oil and gas industry, including the destructive processes of fracking and the energy-intensive liquification of natural gas. I don't think that taxpayers should have to pay the $8-billion cost for the construction of the dam, essentially subsidizing the oil and gas industry.
So I would ask four questions:
1. Where should we get the electricity needed to provide power to the hundreds of thousands of new residents expected to come into B.C.? Maybe I should ask my new Smart Meter that.
2. Where should any new industries- big and small-, schools, hospitals, get their power to provide the jobs needed for young people or new inhabitants?
3. Are they implying that the oil and gas industry will not be paying for the power they want; they'll be subsidized?
4. Why would a natural gas company not just divert a relatively small amount of their shale gas into a gas fired generating plant next door to their LNG plant, and use that to get the electricity they need?
|
|
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 9:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
The Sierra Club of Canada, B.C. Chapter is opposed to the development of run of river power projects like Culliton Creek, opposed to the development of shale gas deposits, and also opposed to the building of the Site C hydroelectric project. With regard to the latter, they claim that
quote:
Site C is only being considered now because its energy is needed to fuel the oil and gas industry, including the destructive processes of fracking and the energy-intensive liquification of natural gas. I don't think that taxpayers should have to pay the $8-billion cost for the construction of the dam, essentially subsidizing the oil and gas industry.
So I would ask four questions:
1. Where should we get the electricity needed to provide power to the hundreds of thousands of new residents expected to come into B.C.? Maybe I should ask my new Smart Meter that.
That question is easily answered by a Big Brother approach to provincially Legislate a Very Dark Sky Policy incumbent on private and public buildings and facilities.
Not unlike the tough concept of where we will get our fossil fuels in the future if we don't impose strict small footprint legislations now.
I.E who needs gas yard machines this day & age when a battery recharge system for .25 cents a charge exists and hand tools are the most efficient?
Even electricity is not always required. Just learn to live without or have it imposed in Law. |
|
|
north shore, bc
Canada
94 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 10:30 PM
|
OK pmicheals, back to the main topic:)
However, you are inquiring about a new trail route into the area, which is exactly what I am arguing we should not do without careful consideration. I had the luck of starting to climb in the 70s where roads were opening up frequently and access was easy. Of course, there were only a few hundred of us crazy mountaineers. But now the impact of many trails and backcountry ingress access roads coupled with the outdoors surge will have a lasting and (in my opinion) detrimental impact.
I have European friends who truly understand the total uniqueness of our area: we can, unlike the Alps, go for hours/days without seeing anyone else (other than large man-threatening animals). All within a 2 hour drive from a major metropolitan area.
If I want to get into an poorly accessed area-I work for it. I don't believe in building a trail that will draw many folks into a wilderness area unless that is specifically planned for. We certainly need areas for many enthusiasts to have great outdoor experiences, but this should be planned to some extent. |
|
|
Langley, BC
Canada
1078 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 10:58 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
The Sierra Club of Canada, B.C. Chapter is opposed to the development of run of river power projects like Culliton Creek, opposed to the development of shale gas deposits, and also opposed to the building of the Site C hydroelectric project. With regard to the latter, they claim that
quote:
Site C is only being considered now because its energy is needed to fuel the oil and gas industry, including the destructive processes of fracking and the energy-intensive liquification of natural gas. I don't think that taxpayers should have to pay the $8-billion cost for the construction of the dam, essentially subsidizing the oil and gas industry.
So I would ask four questions:
1. Where should we get the electricity needed to provide power to the hundreds of thousands of new residents expected to come into B.C.? Maybe I should ask my new Smart Meter that.
2. Where should any new industries- big and small-, schools, hospitals, get their power to provide the jobs needed for young people or new inhabitants?
3. Are they implying that the oil and gas industry will not be paying for the power they want; they'll be subsidized?
4. Why would a natural gas company not just divert a relatively small amount of their shale gas into a gas fired generating plant next door to their LNG plant, and use that to get the electricity they need?
Fracking is done at well sites that are remote and often not near sufficient transmission capacity to provide energy for the fracking operation. The short duration of the fracking operation does not justify the cost of making a connection to the electrical grid. The size and cost of temporary transmission systems, portable switchgear and transformers, VFDs, and electric motors far exceeds the size and cost of a diesel engine.
The massive amounts of energy required for natural gas liquefaction comes exclusively from gas turbines, as far as I am aware. The turbines operate in combined cycle where the exhaust gas heat boils water to create steam to run steam turbine generators to produce electricity. Most large industrial plants are designed to be electricity self sufficient. A connection to the grid is beneficial to provide lighting and general purpose power when the plant is shutdown, and for starting the plant up (the starter motor for a large industrial gas turbine can consume 500kW or more). They may even dabble in the spot market and sell power to the grid when prices are high and there is available capacity, or buy power when it can be purchased for less than onsite generation costs.
|
|
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 11:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by oldmatt
OK pmicheals, back to the main topic:)
However, you are inquiring about a new trail route into the area, which is exactly what I am arguing we should not do without careful consideration. I had the luck of starting to climb in the 70s where roads were opening up frequently and access was easy. Of course, there were only a few hundred of us crazy mountaineers. But now the impact of many trails and backcountry ingress access roads coupled with the outdoors surge will have a lasting and (in my opinion) detrimental impact.
I have European friends who truly understand the total uniqueness of our area: we can, unlike the Alps, go for hours/days without seeing anyone else (other than large man-threatening animals). All within a 2 hour drive from a major metropolitan area.
If I want to get into an poorly accessed area-I work for it. I don't believe in building a trail that will draw many folks into a wilderness area unless that is specifically planned for. We certainly need areas for many enthusiasts to have great outdoor experiences, but this should be planned to some extent.
I'm with you there. |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 11:14 PM
|
Yes- I never implied that fracking requires a connection to the grid; it is done with local diesel generation on the drill rig.
The Sierra Club is, of course, also opposed to fracking, claiming that it COULD POSSIBLY MAYBE OCCASIONALLY contaminate aquifers hundreds or even thousands of metres below the ground, in very poorly permeable, very dense shale rock that is being fracked BECAUSE it is so dense and tight that not even little tiny gas bubbles can escape!
Maybe we should be closing off every single one of the millions of oil wells in the world because they are located in much more permeable rock, where the oil extracted really COULD migrate to an aquifer and contaminate it with HYDROCARBONS! |
Edited by - FrankB on 05/22/2012 11:18 PM |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 11:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt
The massive amounts of energy required for natural gas liquefaction comes exclusively from gas turbines, as far as I am aware. The turbines operate in combined cycle where the exhaust gas heat boils water to create steam to run steam turbine generators to produce electricity. Most large industrial plants are designed to be electricity self sufficient. A connection to the grid is beneficial to provide lighting and general purpose power when the plant is shutdown, and for starting the plant up (the starter motor for a large industrial gas turbine can consume 500kW or more). They may even dabble in the spot market and sell power to the grid when prices are high and there is available capacity, or buy power when it can be purchased for less than onsite generation costs.
The Apache Energy/ENCANA/EOG Resources Kitimat LNG plant will use hydroelectric power off the B.C. Hydro grid to supply its power- I know, I'm helping them build the transmission line. They hope to be in operation by 2015.
But if all the other LNG plants are built, there won't be enough hydro power available; they'll need to provide their own electricity from gas turbine plants.
It is a boggling situation- imagine, B.C. stands to make billions in revenue from the royalties collected from developing our natural gas resources, the construction of LNG and power plants will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs for years to come, we will be making a major contribution to the reduction of green house gases by allowing countries all over the world to switch to much cleaner natural gas, rather than using coal for power generation, cars (the world's greatest source of pollution) will be able to run off electricity or directly using natural gas, which is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and will reduce our dependence on mid-East oil.
We'll become another Alberta, only richer! Maybe even elect a conservative government for years to come!  |
|
|
3022 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 11:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
quote:
Originally posted by Matt
The massive amounts of energy required for natural gas liquefaction comes exclusively from gas turbines, as far as I am aware. The turbines operate in combined cycle where the exhaust gas heat boils water to create steam to run steam turbine generators to produce electricity. Most large industrial plants are designed to be electricity self sufficient. A connection to the grid is beneficial to provide lighting and general purpose power when the plant is shutdown, and for starting the plant up (the starter motor for a large industrial gas turbine can consume 500kW or more). They may even dabble in the spot market and sell power to the grid when prices are high and there is available capacity, or buy power when it can be purchased for less than onsite generation costs.
...collected from developing our natural gas resources, the construction of LNG and power plants will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs for years to come, we will be making a major contribution to the reduction of green house gases by allowing countries all over the world to switch to much cleaner natural gas, rather than using coal for power generation, cars (the world's greatest source of pollution) will be able to run off electricity or directly using natural gas, which is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and will reduce our dependence on mid-East oil.
!
Just wondering how much energy/footprint is expended in the manufacture of pipes & materials and the effort required to lay and run these pipes to far off points of destinations.
Also recall that Natural Gas is 50 % carbon?, better choice for some home heatings [ ahh more pipes again]. |
|
|
322 Posts |
|
Vancouver
1820 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 12:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB...we will be making a major contribution to the reduction of green house gases by allowing countries all over the world to switch to much cleaner natural gas, rather than using coal for power generation, cars (the world's greatest source of pollution) will be able to run off electricity or directly using natural gas, which is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and will reduce our dependence on mid-East oil.
Do you know that this displacement of dirtier fuels is really going to happen, or is the new/additional natural gas just going to add to overall global energy consumption? Isn't a lot of this natural gas being used to upgrade the goo from the tarsands? |
|
|
322 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 08:12 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sgRant
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB...we will be making a major contribution to the reduction of green house gases by allowing countries all over the world to switch to much cleaner natural gas, rather than using coal for power generation, cars (the world's greatest source of pollution) will be able to run off electricity or directly using natural gas, which is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and will reduce our dependence on mid-East oil.
Do you know that this displacement of dirtier fuels is really going to happen, or is the new/additional natural gas just going to add to overall global energy consumption? Isn't a lot of this natural gas being used to upgrade the goo from the tarsands?
Yes- undoubtedly some of the energy from natural gas generation will be used to produce steam for the tar sands. We'll still need oil for eons to come- but won't it be nice not to have to rely on the Middle East for that.
And yes, overall global energy will increase as the world's population increases, and, hopefully, we who have energy will share that with the have-nots and improve our overall standard of living. Same should go for water- we in Canada, blessed with abundant water, should be sharing that with those who don't have it.
But if you look at all the research on the huge benefits of using natural gas for electrical generation and transportation (cars, trucks, and even trains), you realize that this really has the potential to make a dramatic impact on our world.
Incidentally, the best site to start reading more if you're so inclined is the U.S. Government's Energy Information Administration: http://205.254.135.7/ |
Edited by - FrankB on 05/23/2012 08:14 AM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
874 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 08:47 AM
|
There have been many cheap energy dreams in the past. None have displaced oil. Remember:
* cold fusion
* methane clathrates "aka methane ice"
* hydrogen fuel cells
* nuclear fusion
* thorium fission reactors
* fast breeder fission reactors
* solar cells
etc.
Some of these might become more viable if energy prices rise high enough. But none seem likely to provide the cheap energy utopia once hoped for. And, I suspect fracking will end up on this list too. The problem with fracking is the profits go to the oil companies, and the costs are passed on to the rest of us in the form of pollution. It has already been banned in places like Vermont, Quebec, and France.
Fracking requires the injection of very large volumes of noxious and long-lived chemicals underground. If even small amounts of those chemicals escape into aquifers, permanently polluted ground water is the result. Fracking also causes air pollution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9153228/Fracking-could-pose-health-threat.html
And, what chemicals are injected? Sorry - that is a trade secret.
|
|
|
Langley, BC
Canada
1078 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 09:27 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrankB
...
But if all the other LNG plants are built, there won't be enough hydro power available; they'll need to provide their own electricity from gas turbine plants.
...
The compressors are directly driven by gas turbines fueled by natural gas. |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
1009 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 11:04 AM
|
quote:
we will be making a major contribution to the reduction of green house gases by allowing countries all over the world to switch to much cleaner natural gas, rather than using coal for power generation, cars (the world's greatest source of pollution) will be able to run off electricity or directly using natural gas, which is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel, and will reduce our dependence on mid-East oil.
I dont think you have to look far to find articles that outline the risks of producing methane from the use of natural gas...which is a far worse beast in terms of green house gas emissions.
LNG efficiency in vehicles is also a pretty big point to consider as well.
Solar and Wind thats the way to go :) |
|
|
521 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 11:53 AM
|
quote:
Solar and Wind thats the way to go :)
Solar and wind is a good source to supplement power, but it can not be relied upon as a main source of power with out massive energy storage facilities. Anything over approximately 10 to 15% of generated power that is from renewable energy, will require large storage capacity in order to make it a steady and reliable source of power that can supply the power when it's most needed.
Greater dependence on renewable energy will result in a larger fluctuation in the grid supply. And if storage is not available, this will result in the need to depend on alternate and most likely fossil fuel sources. In BC, hydro could be used, but a heavier reliance on intermittent energy will result in a greater fluctuation in stream and river flows! Not sure what impact that would have on fish?
I'm currently in the gradual process of going off grid and putting in solar panels with battery storage and use of a natural gas generator for backup. A system like that ultimately will have no effect on the power grid other than lessening the over all demand.
|
Edited by - path finder on 05/23/2012 12:02 PM |
|
|
Vancouver, BC
Canada
874 Posts |
|
521 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 12:08 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by weedWhacker
quote:
Originally posted by J Mace
Solar and Wind thats the way to go :)
It still takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than it will ever produce during its lifetime.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99553.htm
That is a myth! Energy payback is achieved with approximately 2 to 3 years of use, and is many times the energy required to produce the panels over it's life time.
http://solarbus.org/documents/pvpayback.pdf
It's also possible to use renewable energy to produce the panels, thus no fossil fuels would be involved! |
Edited by - path finder on 05/23/2012 12:17 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Culliton Creek Hydroelectric Project
