- Aug 27, 2014
- Louisville, KY
I've done research that shows the renewable power generation in the area this is happening is about equal to consumption in the area, if you want to refute that is the case, then you do your research to do so. If you want to expand it to the whole state, go ahead, but that's not relevant to the project. If that still doesn't provide the answer that some people want to see, I have a feeling they will ask for a life story of every single electron involved.How much power is California importing from other states? I think I read somewhere that they wave the green flag while importing coal-generated electricity from elsewhere. Maybe I'm mistaken. But in my former home province of British Columbia, they're promoting BC's clean energy (pretty much entirely hydroelectric) while quietly importing coal-fired power. A quote:
Behind the sheen of its CleanBC program, the province holds back hydro power to instead import cheap electricity from 12 states including Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska and Montana which generate 55 to 90 per cent of their power from coal.
That article is a great example of cherry picking statistics. They include all the numbers that sound scary and leave out the important one - a comparison to total electricity generation.
From your article:
"In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost $360 million. "
I couldn't easily find numbers from 2018 for total power generation in BC, but for 2016 it was 74.5 GWh. Generally, power generation goes up as time goes by, but this should be in the ballpark for 2018. This represents an worst case maximum of 14% of BC imported energy has some dirty sources (9.5GWh/(74.5-8.7)GWh). The report I linked also states that "more than 1%" of BC energy is from petroleum and 1% from natural gas, so let's be generous and call them 3% for a total of 17% ("more than" was used for rounding errors, it's 88% hydro, 9% biomass geothermal, 1% wind), and round up to give it the most pessimistic estimate of 20%. So what's your point here, that 80% clean and renewable is a waste of time and the only acceptable option is an overnight transformation to 100% renewable and clean? This is an impossible requirement, technology advances don't work this way.
Also, the real percentage of "dirty" energy imported is much lower than 14%, the article also states that among the 12 states they import electricity from, they are all lower than 100% coal generating, but they do state that Wyoming at 90% coal power generation, Utah at 70%, Nebraska at 66% (+3% natural gas), Montana at 55%, and Arizona at 23% (+44% ng). They don't mention the other 7 states or the amount bought from each state, but since the rest of the article is trying to scare you with scant information, it's probably safe to say the percentages of the other 7 states are all lower that 55%.
You'll also notice they sold power at peak times (hence the higher price), which means they had to have excess capacity at peak demand, and imported at the off-peak, for $210 million in profit. BC Hydro's total profit for 2018 was $706 million, they didn't do this because then needed to, it was just additional profit. If they needed it, they'd be importing at peak.
Reference used for power generation for BC:
BC Power 2018 annual statement (.pdf link)