Northern Energy options

Electric Heat:

First off I’m a big supporter of converting the North to predominantly Electric Heat. And the only good alternative to Electric Heat is Natural Gas where available, or Methanol converted from Northern Natural Gas. I am astounded by the absurd statements in the northern Energy Study on Electric Heat. Coming up with some number of $10,000 to convert homes to Electric Heat. Nice round number – where did the author get that from – out of a hat? Here are the facts. Electric Heat occurs when virtually any appliance is used in the household – including lighting, stove, oven, microwave etc. A standard electrical service is 100 amp @ 240 vac which equals 24 kw of electrical energy.

Like many in the North, I live in a trailer. My trailer has used a maximum of 12.9 litres of fuel oil per day in January of 1997. That’s 1032 kwh of heat energy per day or an average of 4.3 kw of heat energy. My service is capable of 24 kw. To maintain heat in this coldest of January’s I need only run 3 of 1.5 kw electric heaters – maybe $50 each for good quality heaters. That is easy & cheap – I certainly don’t need to spend $10,000. If I needed extra fast heat – yeah I could turn on my furnace occasionally. So the REAL TRUTH is it is simple & cheap for homeowners to replace most if not all of their heating needs with electric heat – building heat is also easy & inexpensive to upgrade to electric. Ideally all new homes in the north would be equipped with 200 amp services, and set up for Electric Heat. This would easily happen if the our power company priced Hydro Electricity at its true cost of about 5 cents per kwh, absolute maximum of 8 cents per kwh – thus encouraging people to use CLEAN, GREEN Hydro Electricity to replace, dirty, smelly, environmentally destructive, terrorist funding, Global Warming causing Fuel Oil for heat. Right now at about $1 per litre, burned in an 80% efficient furnace, Fuel Oil is about 12.5 cents per kwh for heat.

We have a situation in the North, where the power company is artificially boosting the price of Hydro-Electricity – most probably by using it for Tax Revenue – while not penalizing the High GHG emitting Fuel Oil. TO PLAY FAIR – TO PUT FUEL OIL ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH HYDRO-ELECTRICITY – what if the power company was given a monopoly over the distribution of all fuel – Propane, Fuel Oil, Wood Pellets in the north. Just like Electricity a monopoly supply. What if the power company bought all Oil Furnaces, Propane Furnaces and Wood Pellet Furnaces from all Business and Homeowners in the north. Additionally the power company was made responsible for all maintenance and installation of all furnaces. The cost of all of the above would be recovered with a surcharge on all the fuel the power company charges to its customers. Any Bets that the Fuel Oil cost would skyrocket to at least $2 per liter and maybe even $3 per liter. That’s 25 cents to 37.5 cents per kwh for fuel oil heat. Now doesn’t CLEAN, GREEN Hydro sound more economical than GHG polluting fuel oil.

To make matters worse, the npower company is actually talking about raising Electricity Prices for Hydro customers, in order to subsidize diesel customers, by 10 cents a kwh. THIS IS A BLATANT REVERSE CARBON TAX!!!

Cost of Hydro in the north

The power company bought fish Hydro for $10 million. That’s about $1600 per kw or equivalent of 1.6 cents a kwh with a 5%, 17 yr bond. I know for a fact that the operating and maintenance cost for fish Hydro was under 1 cent per kwh. Figure it out. Two operators – I believe they only were paid about $60,000 per year each, but say $100,000 per yr each. Maintenance personnel went there infrequently, maybe averaged 10 man-hours a week. Let’s say 20 per week. That amounts to tops $50,000 per yr. Add administration and material, tops $100,000 per year – that’s $350,000 per year. With average 6 MW x 8800 hrs that’s 53 GW-hrs or 0.7 cents per kwh. Even large Hydro plants in the South commonly don’t have any operators, nowadays with automated controls & monitoring – if a fault occurs a service person is called out to the plant. It is simpleminded to make Backup Diesel Power plants automatically come online in a Hydro shutdown. Those units are only worth $250 per kw or about ¼ cent per kwh with the 17 yr, 5% bond. Maintenance is simple-minded – a trained diesel mechanic and electrician services them and test runs them once a week is more than adequate. When nerdcom did the fish Hydro expansion – they only were paying 8 cents per kwh from the power company for power. They expected a quick return on their investment. So how on Earth can the power company claim a cost of 20.5 cents per kwh for Hydro-Electricity?!?

Just what does the government expect it’s citizens to use for their heating needs in a future where Peak Oil is almost here and Oil prices could easily reach $300 per barrel? Wind, Solar, Nuclear and Hydro all mean converting to Electric Heat. Right now the utility is upgrading it’s power service – a logical time – to ensure it is sufficient to supply all of our town with Electric Heat – if the north even had a plan of dealing with the inevitable Oil Crash.

Wood Pellets:

The impression I get is that the northern government is burying its head in the sand over its guilt about the runaway Global Warming issue. Invents silly, trivial, insignificant policies like taxing grocery bags and juice cartons AND MOST OF ALL is hiding behind the Wood Pellet Scam. You need to know a bit about Wood Pellets.

First off, they are a severely limited supply. They rely on mostly sawmill waste, otherwise they would not be economical to produce. Already in the Eastern USA and Canada there are shortages, resulting in price increases and hoarding.

The notion that they avoid GHG emissions is untrue. Any burning of the wood pellets releases large amounts of GHG emissions. The best use of the Wood Waste is to make OSB plywood and Particle Board. My Trailer is mostly made of those materials. Using the Wood waste on wood pellets will push up the price of these inexpensive building materials so trees will have to be cut to produce lumber. This removes carbon sinks from the environment. The wood in homes will trap carbon for maybe 75 years, afterwards it will likely end up in a landfill where it will decay very slowly, some of which will become humus and eventually Coal or Oil – where do you Coal and Oil came from? The Global Warming – GHG emissions problem is a make-or-break issue for the next 20 to 75 years. After that, if we are not in a state of catastrophe, Nuclear Energy will virtually certainly resolve the issue permanently. So claiming that at some point, 100 years from now that trees will grow and trap the carbon released by burning the wood pellets – is just plain deceptive and wishful thinking.
The most efficient way to use the Wood Products Waste, other than converting it into building materials, is to burn it in a Thermal Power Plant, preferably at the Wood Products plant or at a regional Power Facility. I worked once at a Wood Products plant that took all of their Wood Scraps, and burned them in a Thermal Power plant at the facility, producing power, hot water, building and process heat for the factory. When you convert wood waste to Pellets, and transport them long distances you take about a 45% energy hit right off the top. About half of that being fossil fuels. Add to that the gasoline burnt by homeowners when they transport their cumbersome Wood Pellets. Then either with a CHP power plant or a home wood pellet furnace you take an additional 20% energy loss. Makes much more sense to burn the wood waste in CHP power plants.
Wood pellet stoves release 15 times the particulate emissions of Oil Burners. These emissions are known to cause cancer, lung ailments and even deaths of children due to asthma and allergy attacks. They are definitely not environmentally friendly. At least as bad as Second Hand Smoke – probably worse. And a real stupid fact is – Thermal CHP power plants are required to have scrubbers to remove particulate and other environmental toxins – but home wood pellets are given a free ride – don’t need those pollution controls. This comparatively, and unfairly adds to the cost of the Wood Waste Thermal CHP Power Plants. And yet the CHP power plants are usually located in Rural Areas, whereas the Wood Pellet furnaces are located inside Cities where there pollutants are much more destructive to the health of citizens. The infamous Brown Smog that blankets much off South Asia has been found to be due to word burning. Because of this many progressive Cities ban wood furnaces.
The Wood / Biomass scam is becoming an attractive method of reducing GHG emissions on paper – due to a false accounting of their true carbon cycle – that in areas with Carbon Taxes they are eagerly used by Governments and Industry. So what’s to say the state government (under a lot of flak already over the extreme GHG emissions Tar Sands) might not decide to suddenly burn all of there wood waste in existing Thermal Power plants – just like Germany is doing – thus claiming a reduction in their GHG emissions. So much for the norths supply of Wood Pellets.
Encouraging Wood Burning has had dire consequences in many cities. Especially as in my town, where people are charged for Garbage disposal. End result, people have a tendency to burn all kinds of scraps in their wood furnaces, including rubber, plastic, metal & plastic coated paper, food scraps etc. Many of these substances release noxious and toxic compounds into the City Atmosphere – thus many cities ban all Wood Burning.

Nuclear Energy:

No use pretending, Small Nuclear Reactors are coming. The Fossil Fuel Interests are doing their damndest to prevent it from happening. But the reality is IT WILL HAPPEN – and there IS NO OTHER CHOICE for many regions of the World – who are not blessed with ample Hydro and NG resources that the north has. So far it is looking like the costs of the small Nuclear Reactors will be much less than any Energy Supply in the north. The northern energy review would be Naive, Shortsighted and Foolish to not take into account this option for future northern Electricity and Heat Energy supply. For a good discussion on Small Nuclear Reactors see:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

Methanol:

The book by the Nobel Prize Winning Chemist: Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy by Olah, Goeppert & Prakash is a must read for anyone involved in north Energy.

Some References:

http://epa.gov/otaq/presentations/sae-2002-01-2743-v2.pdf>EPA 43% Efficient Methanol Engine, with a wide Island of High Efficiency
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html - moremeth> Environmentally Friendly & Safe Methanol
http://www.refuelnet.de/content/refuelnet/pdf/CO-CO2_98.pdf> CO2 Neutral Synthesis of Methanol
http://www.refuelnet.de/content/refuelnet/pdf/IJHE1998.pdf> Comparison with H2 & Methanol with Gasoline
http://www.refuelnet.de/content/refuelnet/pdf/SOMFB_99.pdf> Synthesis of Methanol from Biomass
http://www.methanol.org/pdf/ZSWMethanolCycle.pdf> Methanol as a Green Transportation Fuel
http://www.nyserda.org/programs/pdfs/vol3sc3.pdf> Methanol in Heavy Duty Vehicles
http://epubl.ltu.se/1653-0187/2006/54/LTU-PB-EX-0654-SE.pdf> Methanol vs H2

Production Cost

http://www.eng.utah.edu/~whitty/blackliquor/colloquium2003/pdfs_handouts/3.6.Berglin-BLG_with_Motor_Fuels_Paper.pdf> Forest Products Waste production of Methanol Analysis

uranium mines versus tar sands

If you think Uranium Mining is bad or Uranium Ore is severely limited, consider the following. I will take a good look at that by comparing the Tar Sands with Northern Saskatchewan Uranium Mining. Coincidentally North America’s two biggest Energy Resources are located in adjacent Canadian Provinces – Uranium in Northern Saskatchewan and the Tar Sands in Northern Alberta.

The Athabasca Tar Sands is the North American Petroleum Industry’s dream. When you see that lady in Oil Association Ads on prime time news claiming there is enough Oil in North America to supply are needs for the next 70 years – she is talking The Athabasca Tar Sands. The economically recoverable reserves from the Tar Sands are 75% of North America’s entire Oil Reserves and 97% of Canada’s Oil Reserves. The U.S.A. for example has 21 billion barrels of reserves vs the Tar Sands 173 billion barrels. All the press and hype is about the Athabasca Tar Sands. Very little is mentioned about Northern Saskatchewan’s Uranium production, which is about 25% of World Uranium Production.

456,250,000 barrels = Tar Sands Oil (Bitumen) production 2006

9465 Tonnes = Northern Saskatchewan Uranium production 2007

427 TWh = Thermal Energy Value of Tar Sands production 2006

1,007 TWh = Thermal Energy Value of N.Sask. Uranium prod. 2007, processed to 1392 Tonnes of 3.5% enriched Uranium and burned in standard LWR

2.4X = Amount Thermal Energy Value of the N.Sask. Uranium production 2007 is greater than the Tar Sands 2006 production value

63,000 million USgal/yr = Canadian Tar Sands approx water consumption

83 million Usgal per yr of water to produce the Tar Sands 2006 Crude Oil Energy production used in a 1% grade uranium ore mine - using thermal output of Uranium burnt in a LWR - no reprocessing

750X = more water needed to produce same amount of energy by Tar Sands than 1% grade Uranium (most N.Sask Grade is 21 % - some is 1.1%, 2.4% & 2.6%, thus uses approx 20X less water again, or about 3 million Usgal per yr)

Exploration expenditure in 2004 in all of Canada was C$ 44 million, mostly at established projects. However, the C$26 million of this on grassroots exploration in Saskatchewan - double the 2003 level - represented a major proportion of world uranium exploration. These are amounts that the Tar Sands Companies would call “Pocket Change” or “Coffee Money” or “Chicken Feed”.

If you went with various Deep Burn Reactor designs like the IFR, LIFTR, CANDU, Uranium Hydride or some HTPBR’s, or you did Fuel Reprocessing, you would get anywhere from 5 to 250 times more energy from the same amount of Uranium. Absolutely BLOWS AWAY the Tar Sands as an energy source.

Furthermore, go to Google Earth, and take a look at the area north of Fort McMurray, at a resolution of about 2 miles per inch, and check out the torn up Earth and Environmental Destruction. Now do the same to McArthur River in Northern Saskatchewan, which produces double the Energy of the Tar Sands, even burned in the exceedingly low efficiency, once through LWR, with no fuel reprocessing. And compare the environmental damage – at 2 miles per inch you will have a hard time seeing any sign of the Northern Saskatchewan Uranium mines. You will also see that there is lot’s of Water available vs the severely limited water availability in the Tar Sands region.

Pirate Power Ripoff

The Pirate power issue shows that Gordon Campbell may actually have the record as the worst financial manager in Canadian history beating even Joey Smallwood for stupidity by throwing away as much as 50 billion dollars in taxpayers money. That’s four convention centre cost overruns every year for forty years. These rubes couldn't run a lemonade stand.

To start look at Plutonic’s $4 billion Bute inlet project which produces 3000 Gwh annually at an average annual cost of to ratepayers of 400 million dollars or 13.3 cents a kwh . These projects have a negligible ongoing maintenance cost so running that $4 billion through a simple mortgage calculator at the BC Governments 4% 30 year bond issue rate comes out to 200 million a year - half the cost. BCHydro can build pirate power projects at half the cost saving the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars. This Plutonic contract alone represents a 8 billion dollar loss to the ratepayer.

Compare Bute to BCHydro's Site C which for $5 billion produces approximately 4,600 GWh a year. Using the methods above that comes to 5.4 cents a kwh less than half Plutonics price. Site C produces high value baseload power available year round unlike Butes low value freshette power that BCHydro has to sell on the spot market for a fraction of its cost. Site C unlike Bute is not covered by Gordo's innovative new fast track environmental assessment scheme and will spend years looking for approval.

Of course Westinghouse just started construction on 4 gigawatt class nuclear reactors it sold to China with a 2013 in service date. Those reactors at about the same cost as site C will produce 35000 gwh's of baseload capacity ever year - 9 times the electricity at the same cost.

Campbell’s innovative Buy High Sell Low power policies buying power at 12 cents a kwh (8) and selling it at 2 cents(1) will force our power rates to almost triple (10) over the next three years to cover BCHydro's up to 53 billion (3) in IPP losses. Our power competitors in Washington State will enjoy green nuclear power at much lower rates than our soon to be uncompetitive industry here in BC. And Gordo promises to keep buying. Will that 60 billion be 120 billion by the next election?

Some comments that quote Hydro commitments at 30 billion are based on a doubling of John Calverts Appendix 1 in his paper 'Stick Shock" to account for additional purchases in the 2008 power call. So far 31 billion(16) are accounted for but the 2008 power call is not completed. Hydro officially has reduced the power call to 3000 gwh's firm but the energy minister indicated disagreement with that change. The 2006 power call resulted in much more power being purchased than the original call asked for. If we account for the 5000 gwhs in the original 2008 power call being somewhat higher than the 4200 in the 2006 call the 30 billion is more likely 37 billion. Calvert's Appendix 1- is also based on BCHydro's estimates of how much of its contracted power commitments it will actually have to pay for assuming that some of its contractors will be unable to deliver. In the 2006 power call it purchased around 7000 gwh's in annual power deliveries but in has stated that it assumes only 4200 will survive the financing and construction process. The original 2008 call asks for another 5000 in "firm" power. Given how lucrative the contracts are it could be the entire 7000 survives. With these two factors included BCHydro could be on the hook for the entire 60 billion dollars ..

Rafe then guesses that BCHydro may be able to sell its pirate power surplus at half its cost ie half of 10 to 12 cents a kwh on the average. However the firm/nonfirm spot price today is under 2 cents a kwh (1). The paper described below shows new technology such as Solar PV power in the California desert at 1.7 cent dropping to .8 within a few years, nuclear Power at 2 cents dropping to one cent in five to ten year time, and to a tiny fraction of a cent with nuclear fusion in ten to fifteen years. Remember these are 40 year contracts.

BCHydro must sell its surplus power during the spring freshette and will now have the added burden of dumping up to 9500 (3) gigawatthours of spring freshette generated IPP power that it buys at as much as 12 cents and must sell at 2 cents(1) for an estimated loss of $750(3) million every year. The other 5700 gwh (3) through the rest of the year that it will be buying from pirate power, it could have been trading for on the off peak market at less than a penny a kwh and using its dams during the day for peak hours. This increases its annual losses by another 575(3) million.

Recently the Joint Industry Electrical Steering Committee -the industry group representing big industrial buyers of BC Hydro power like pulp mills produced a report (9) on BCHydro’s IPP commitments.. These are Big Liberal campaign donators and certainly no friends of the NDP. The report states that the BCLiberal’s have forced BCHydro to sign contracts to export Run of the River Power at an annual loss of 400 million dollars for the next 40 years. The report uses the DOE estimate for power costs instead of the new generation nuclear/solar rate environment and firm instead of total power commitments.

Certainly rates fluctuate and when the 21st century depression ends there will be a lot of price pressure but look at some year or two down the road options the California market has.

Solar PV power in the California desert at 1.7 cent a kwh(11) dropping to .8 within a few years, nuclear power at 2 cents dropping to one cent in five to ten year time (12) (13)(15), and to a tiny fraction of a cent when nuclear fusion (14) might just rear its ugly head in the ten to fifteen year time frame. Remember IPP contracts run over 40 years.

Today the spot market reflects fuel saving energy producers can realize by buying off the spot market and slowing or shutting down coal and natural gas generators. With a nuclear/wind/solar environment in the US there are no fuel savings so producers will be a lot less likely to buy off the spot market. Spot prices will drop to almost nothing over the near/long term making it likely BCHydro will be unable to sell any of its IPP power in the five to ten year time frame of its 40 year contracts.

You can argue and some do that prices will be much higher than the New Tech prices quoted above (US DOE at 5 cents over next 10 years). However, should New Tech costs quoted in this document be eventually proven optimistic, with the current recession and short lead time required by run of the river power BCHydro could wait quite a few years before embarking on a building extravaganza. What the Campbell is doing is like promoting gold mining jobs by committing taxpayers to contracts for 300K ounces of gold annually for 40 years because some predict gold at $5000 an ounce. If Campbell took such a contract to sell on the commodities future market at today’s $900 or so gold spot price he'd be lucky to get 15 percent of our investment back. Similarly if he tried to sell BCHydro's forty year 10 and 12 cent a kwh contracts into the market with spot prices at 2 cents and good possibility of much lower to come he'd be lucky to get 10 percent of our money back. Essentially he has already lost almost our entire investment.

By waiting a few years until we are closer to a strong need for power for electric cars or geothermal heating, BCHydro can keep its options open and buy into technologies like Generation 3.5 nukes or solar PV which will have a few years of building operating experience behind them and costs much better established. Or perhaps a new technology like Pulse Fusion may have emerged by then and would be viable alternative. Failing all that BCHydro has 50000 gwh's in possible dam construction if needs be all at a lower cost than Pirate run of the river.

So in the last days "Get on it" Start shouting these numbers from the rooftops, in political speeches, in newspaper radio and TV ads. Gordo Campbell couldn't run a lemonade stand.

Details

1) Spot price Apr 24 1.4 cents

from

http://www.energywindow.com/price/mc-full.shtml

BCHydro standing offer program info_-_20090224_sop4.Par.0001.File.20090226_SOP_Program_Rules_Clean.pdf

"...HLH or Heavy Load Hours means the hours commencing at 06:00 Pacific time and ending at 22:00

Pacific time Monday through Saturday inclusive but excluding British Columbia statutory holidays. "

HL for California (6*52*16-7*24)/(365*24) or 55%

Run of the river power power comes 45% at off peak (7.9) and 55% on peak (19.8) gives 1.4 cents a kwh. for april 24, 2009

2) Need to export in freshette

From BCHydro annual report 2008

".....By the second quarter, however, persistent high inflows into the large basins resulted in high volumes of energy sales to avoid the need to spill. By the fourth quarter, Columbia River Treaty constraints restricted the seasonal volume available for release at Mica, resulting in BC Hydro purchasing about 1,500 GWh of energy to meet domestic load requirements. Overall, BC Hydro was a net seller of 1,161 GWh primarily due to above average inflows. Total reservoir storage on March 31, 2008, was about 600 GWh above average levels and 400 GWh above the previous year’s storage level, increasing the amount of energy available for future years.

3) Spring freshette 60% of power flows

Martin Shaffer Lost in Transmission: A Comprehensive Critique of the BC Energy Plan pg 47,48 out of 55

Total power in freshette and low flow seasons from 7)

(7000*+5000*/.6)*.6/1.077 = 9542

Freshette power purchase price (7000*.1+5000*.12/.6)*.6./1.077 = 947 million

Freshette power sale price 9542*.02 = 191 million

Loss = 756 million

Total power in low flow seasons

(7000+5000/.6)*.4/1.077 = 5694

Freshette power purchase price (7000*.1+5000*.12/.6)*.4./1.077 = 631 million

Freshette power sale price 5694*.01 = 57 million

Loss = 574 million

Total loss over 40 years (756+574)*40 = 53 billion

4) Price over next ten years US DOE 5 cent a kwh

5) Price paid 2006 tender calls 10 cents a kwh

From:

John Calverts 2007 report "Sticker Shock:

" The US Energy Information Administration (EIA), part of the US Department of Energy, predicts that prices will be about $50 per MWh at the BC border until 2018 with throughout this period the indexed price to be paid under the BC Hydro contracts will average nearly $100 per MWh."

CLA - Contact Length Adjustment as some contracts are not 40 years

Total 2006 power call per Appendix 1 in sticker shock ($15595) adjusted to 40 years at 4200 gwh per annum at $100 per Mwh BCHydro 2007 annual report (6)

CLA = 40*4200*.1/15595 = 1.077

6) 2006 tender calls

John Calvert’s 2007 report "Sticker Shock:

" --- the results of the 2006 call in July, the amount of energy it had committed to purchase had risen dramatically, from the 2,700 GWh originally tendered, to 7,125 GWh."

From the Appendix A: that energy will not hit the system until 2009.

From 2007 BCHydro annual report

"...the summer of 2006 that resulted in 38 Electricity Purchase Agreements (EPAs) with independent power producers throughout the province for approximately 1,500 MW of capacity and over 7,000 GWh/year of energy (4,200 GWh/year of fi rm energy net of attrition and outages). In its 2006 Integrated Electricity Plan/Long-Term Application Plan, BC Hydro identified the need to proceed with a 2007 Call for Powerto acquire 5,000 GWh/year of firm energy for delivery by Fiscal 2015."

7) 2008 tender calls more doubles Calvert totals to at least 37 billion and as much as 63 billion.

From 2008 annual report

" The Clean Power Call will target up to 5,000 GWh a year of clean energy from larger projects using proven technologies, such as hydro, wind, solar and geothermal energy, with extended in-service dates of 2016 or earlier. We have changed "

At the time Calvert wrote that his report BCHydro had committed to 4200 gwh of firm power . IF we update that with the 2008 tender call that grows to 9200 gwh per year.." More than doubling Calvert’s original number.

Firm power:

4200 gwh (6) at an average of .10 cents (5) in the 2006 power call and 5000 (6) at an average(6) of .12 cents in the 2009 power call and adjusted using the CLA (5)

40*(4200*.1+5000*.12)/1.077 = $37 billion

Total power

However, if the contracted amount and not what BCHydro considers as firm power is delivered it appears that costs would be as high as 63 billion dollars

7200 gwh (6) at an average of .10 cents (5) in the 2006 power call and 5000/.6 at an average of .12 (6) in the 2008 power call with the .6 representing an extrapolation of the total/firm ratio in the 2006 power call and adjusted using the CLA (5)

40*(7000*.1+5000*.12/.6)/1.077 = $63 billion

Also

http://www.ourrivers.ca/latest-news-mainmenu-38/183-powerplay-producer-questions-bc-hydro-chair-on-conflict-of-interest

8) 2009 tender calls 12 cent a kwh

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/energy/archive/2009/04/09/power-producers-attack-new-democrat-party-campaign-platform.aspx

9) Large BCHydro power customer report JIESC

http://courses.forestry.ubc.ca/Portals/129/JIESC%20Brief.pdf

10) Double and almost tripling of rates

From 2008 annual report (millions)

Total Firm

Energy costs 2008 2012 2012

Hydro generation $318 $318 $318

Independent Power $477 $1974 $1375

Other $152 $152 $152

Gas $ 64 $ 64 $ 64

Transmission $ 63 $ 63 $ 63

Subtotal $1074 $2571 $1972

From 6} above BCHydro considers 60% or 4200 Gwh's of its 2006 call to be firm ie the bidders can actually meet their commitments.

Independent power 2012 is Current + total firm and non firm 2006 from Calvert appendix 1 + total firm and non firm extrapolated from 2009 5000 gwh call with 2006 firm/nonfirm ration , ref 8), and CLA above

477 + (7.000* 87.5 + 120*5.0/.60)/1.077 = 1974 total

477 + (4.200* 87.5 + 120*5.000)/1.077 = 1375 firm

11) Solar PV

How about solar PV down to below 1 cent a kwh peaking at the same time BCHydros 12 cent a kwh does. Currently production costs have dropped below $1000 a kw and promise to hit $500 a kw soon.

http://investor.firstsolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=201491&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1259614&highlight=

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=plan-b-for-energy-8-ideas&page=5

Put that in the Southwest American desert and you get

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/Texas/El_Paso.html

Gives 3000 kwh per annum for a large high efficiency array. Put that in your trusty public power mortgage calculator and you get 1.7 cents per kwh dropping to .8 soon

12) Nuclear

How about nuclear power at 2 cents a kwh dropping to 1 cent with thorium reactors and a tiny fraction of a penny with pulse fusion.

Westinghouse has just started construction on four gigawatt class nuclear reactors for 5 billion to China.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06351/746789-28.stm

Using the calculation in

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/news_room/worldview1002.pdf

with Public Power's trusty public power mortgage calculator at 4% over 40 years and you get less than 2 cents a kwh.

Another source for 2 cents a kwh is

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

This is not science fiction construction started this month..

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_621526.html

13) Gen 4 Thorium Reactors 1.2 cents a kwh

Use wastes from previous Generation Nukes as fuel and spits out much less radioactive ash

Generation IV thorium reactors. 200 Million for a 100 mw reactor with Public Power's trusty public power mortgage calculator at 4% over 40 years at 90% baseload and you get around than 1.2 cents a kwh.

http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh

14) Nuclear Fusion .001 cents

First attempt goes hot at Los Alamos next year.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/31/nif-scientists-set-the-controls-for-nuclear-fusion/2

For pulse fusion power example costs can be between $200,000 and $300,000 for a 20 MW plant or a tiny fraction of a cent per kwh.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Focus_Fusion

15) Small Nukes 1.9 cents a kwh

Hyperion has firm orders for 6 and options on 12 small 70 mw, 25 mwe reactors at $25 Million each for deliveries starting in 2013.

This units can run between 5 and 10 years depending on power output then are rebuilt. Assuming 70% utililization 3% 10 year money we get.

25000*.116/(.7*25*365*24) or 1.9 cents a kwh

16) 2008 Power call at 31 billion

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2009/05/13/ItHurts/

http://www.plutonic.ca/s/Media.asp?ReportID=345924&_Title=CKNW-Sean-Leslie-Show-with-John-Horgan-BC-Energy-Critic-and-Blair-Lekstrom-...