An Aquedam for BC Hydro’s Site C ?

pont_du_gard_oct_2007An Aquedam for BC Hydro’s Site C ?
Could a modified design prevent generations of market jitters?

Hydroelectric dam engineers face an incredible dilemma. Hydro dams generate renewable energy but destroy natural ecosystems. Forcing government to make a hard choice, often presented as: ‘developing the renewable energy supply’ vs. ‘protecting and sustaining the ecosystem’. In British Columbia, the contentious “Big Dam/Big Lake” Site C design produces the same dilemma. It will produce irrevocable ecosystem damage, but might go ahead if courts accept the provincial argument that energy supply and future export sales are more important [Note 1]. Objectors are taking the case to higher courts, and the Province is moving forward; pushed by political pressures to force a fait accompli – a locked-in project – on the federal court, despite the court’s demonstrated willingness to block projects of similar magnitude. We could wait to see what happens. But is this prudent?

What if a modified design removes the conflict?
Could it create incentive for a new dam partnership?
Could the partnership – of former opponents – grandfather all approvals done to date?

final-sketch

Aquedam Concept: David Huer
Solidworks Drawings: Matej Borovec https://www.fiverr.com/borohot

An aqueduct atop bridge piers, with penstocks, turbines, and generators located inside each pier. Sourcing water from a higher elevation upstream, through a pipeline, to an elevated feeder pond at the design-height needed to achieve proper head, for feeding down into powerhouses spaced across the river.

site-map2Inspired by Roman aqueducts, British Columbia’s open-lattice railroad bridges, and the magnificent curved structures of London, England’s tidal barrier.

10oct2016-inspired-videosCould this design …
Achieve the same head elevation and power production as a “big wall” design, without destroying the valley economy, treaty lands, businesses, farms, and natural ecosystem?

Aquedam Front ViewRight Angled View


 

 

 

 

 

And elsewhere? Could the design be as10-34-5026useful where dam designers face the same dilemma?

Growing return-on-investment. Avoiding decades of costly volatility – legal, political, and armed conflict – for hundreds of future hydroelectric projects across British Columbia, across Canada and around the world.

* Any engineering company worth its salt understands the business opportunity.
* Insurers, financiers, investors and bond markets will value the minimized risk.
* Local people will save their valleys, their treaty rights, wetlands, forests, and farms.
* Contractors and vendors get their construction jobs, fed by the farmers in the valley.
* And utilities will get their exportable power.

new-rend-962-transparent-flow-through

Aquedam Transparent View

 

 

 

 

 


British Columbia’s challenge, now, is that we may need a particular type of leadership.

Leaders who can switch directions. Leaders who simultaneously lead for the betterment of local ridings and industry and the Province and the Nation. For now, and for future generations.

This may be the biggest challenge – Asking our leaders to put political capital on the table.

But what if they could?


logo-bchydroNote 1: BC Hydro will expropriate and flood 80 km of forests, farms and homes, and 7,000 acres of Class 1 and 2 agriculture land.


meeting-pixels-com-cc0Note 2: Project Management steps could include:

* Site C – site approved;
* Site C – works completed to date – approved;
* Site C – all associated construction and works continue;
* The Court acts as a neutral body managing pre-design negotiations;
* Sheriffs of the Court administer adherence to agreement;
* Dam Re-design & Pipeline Design – pre-agreed by stakeholders with standing;
* All other existing Site C studies and approvals grandfathered into agreement;
* Stakeholders establish Dam & Pipeline “Redesign Delivery” target due date;
* Stakeholders establish Dam & Pipeline “Construction Start” target due date;
* BC Hydro issues new design upgrade contract tenders;
* Construction, with new design, commences at or near Construction Start target date;
* BC Hydro and Destination BC commence world-wide campaign to teach the new design.


Images:

Logos on Dam: Included as part of public policy commentary and assumed to be a fair use application. Please advise with a message through my linkedin page whether a logo should be removed.

London Barrier: By mattbuck (category) (Own work by mattbuck.) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0), CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/London_MMB_%C2%BB127_Thames_Barrier_and_%22Avontuur_IV%22.jpg

Pont du Gard, Roman Empire: 14 October 2007, 10:07:27, Author: Emanuele. This image, which was originally posted to Flickr.com, was uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC) by Prioryman (talk). On that date it was licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pont_du_Gard_Oct_2007.jpg

CPR bridge (black) in foreground, CNR bridge (orange arch) in background (with CPR train on it): Photo facing upriver. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common/9/92/Canadian_Pacific_Railway_train_crossing_Fraser_River_on_Cisco_bridge_at_Siska%2C_British_Columbia_%282010-Jun-13%29.jpg By Michael Frei (Michael Frei) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Earth image: Astronaut Photograph AS10-34-5026. NASA. Public Domain. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EarthPerspectives/page2.php

Meeting: https://www.pexels.com/photo/meeting-pencils-macbook-notebooks-40120/ via Creative Commons-CC0 License

Parasuits – uplifting humanity, uplifting industry

Parasuit R&D – a competitive edge?

julian-garnier-codepen

The amazingly good CSS 3D Solar System coding at codepen.io is by@JulianGarnier. Click the picture to see the code in action! Use the controls at right to change display options.

When reading about IIT Madras graduate Naga Naresh Karutura, I do not see a “double amputee”. Instead, high potential to be an ISRO astronaut flight specialist candidate.

naresh-karutura-parasuit* Software engineer at Alphabet (aka Google).
* Professional problem-solver.
* Eternally dogged optimist.
* Amputean°

In micro-gravity, Parasuit°-enabled Amputean° and Paraplegian° Astronauts may have the competitive edge. Industries and cultures embracing the perspective shift gain competitive edge, too.

parasuits - enabling r&d


° I’ve coined these words, having noticed they somehow convey a sense of uplifting. Everyone needs an uplift, now and then.


Images:

Codepen.io image by Julian Gardner: http://davehuer.com/bcitfolio/innoprojects/inno-shieldship.html – The basis of this proposal of mine from 1993/4? NEO delta-V is a technically and profitably-usable resource.

Constellation EVA Spacesuit: NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/246726main_ConstellationSpaceSuitSystemBriefing.pdf
(Image modified with removal of lower extremities)

Mr. Naga Naresh Karutura: http://social.yourstory.com/2015/11/naga-naresh-karutura/

A new map of the Coast?

A new map for BC

In the case of Tsilhqot’in First Nation, the Supreme Court of Canada recently decided that aboriginal title never got extinguished. And Premier Clark recently declared that the treaty process is not working–part of her reasoning for cancelling the appointment of the province’s treaty commissioner.

treaties-bc-01-001

Perhaps it is not working because most of BC has returned to First Nations title?

Perhaps the hard truth is that the British Columbia has legally shrunk to a handful of treaty lands covering less than 1/3 of the land area?

Perhaps the new reality is that First Nations do not have to participate in treaties any more?

 

Should First Nations establish a new Province?

treaties-bc-03b-001Perhaps First Nations could in fact create a new Province of the Peoples of the Coast (black outline), with a capital and legislature where First Nations people want it — Prince George? Kamloops? Prince Rupert? Or an entirely new, planned, capital city? And a provincial regime that assets the constitutional rights of the landowners? A capital where foreign embassies for other Provinces, the federal government, Province of BC treaty nations (red) and other States could locate?

 

Should Lower BC become a Megacity-sized Province?

lowerbc

We have a funny situation. Most of BC has nothing in common with the metropolitan area on its lower big toe. But that ‘big toe’ governs everything.

In the face of the Supreme Court decision, is that equitable? In the face of that decision, after the horror of the residential schools, isn’t the right thing self-governance under the United Nations Charter?


Maps:

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-HQ-AI/STAGING/texte-text/mprm_treaties_th-ht_bc_1371839407696_eng.pdf

http://www.bctreaty.net/nations/nation_maps/Treaty-Negotiations-in-British-Columbia-Map.pdf

Rethinking BC Hydro’s Site C

Site C’s “Big Dam/Big Lake” design promises irrevocable damage but might go ahead. Is the civil engineering Code of Ethics a root cause for this wicked dilemma?


site-c-feature-area-rendering-illustration

BC Hydro’s proposed $8 billion dam will expropriate and flood 80 km of forests, farms and homes, and 7,000 acres of Class 1 and 2 agriculture land—ignoring impact to farming, and animal migration corridors, while strip-mining the local tax base that communities need to provide public services.

Could a new conversation solve this wicked dilemma?


BC Hydro is chock-full of iron-ringed civil engineers who pride themselves on being able to create a great solution.  Could we challenge them to find new thinking and the latest technologies to build a better solution?

And then to ask…if BC Hydro can get equivalent power value with a sustainable solution, but refuses to change the existing Site C plan, are civil engineers being required to focus on a Big Dam solution vs. a Sustainable Energy solution (energy in all its forms)?

Premier Clark courageously introduced the Community Contribution Company (C3) framework to give companies a legal framework to pursue a “wider-society” approach: “Designed to bridge the gap between for-profit businesses and non-profit enterprises, this innovative business model is the first of its kind in Canada. C3 status allows entrepreneurs in B.C. to pursue social goals through their businesses while still generating a profit and providing investment opportunities to like-minded investors.” 

Should BC Hydro become BC Energy? And can we require all Crown Corporations to follow the C3 framework? Can we find the same all-Party courage to reflect these new responsibilities – with an upgraded APEG Code of Ethics for C3 Corporations?

For example, using the C3 Code of Ethics option, could one option be a revised Site C in the Moberly River side valley?  Are there better civil engineering solutions? 

Moberly River marine aqueduct

Concept: Moberly River marine aqueduct across the Peace Valley (Google Earth x3 vertical exaggeration)


sir-adam-beck-stationOntario’s Sir Adam Beck Station obtains water through a canal from the upper Niagara River.  Could Site C obtain sufficient head supplied with a pipeline or canal from the Peace Dam to a Moberly River head-pond?

  • • Separating industrial/commercial traffic from Peace River’s ecology
  • • Aqueduct connection between Fort St. John and the headpond
  • • Creating a riverboat/rail tourist season with access to Williston Lake
  • • Using daily-night cycle of demand fluctuations to:
    • o Move water at low cost to top-of-slope reservoirs
    • o Supply irrigation waters to river terraces
    • o Supply barge locks

dhuer-peace-river-ror-canal-oct2014-001

Or do we need Site C, if it makes more ecological sense to obtain the same hydro-electric production . . . by building a reservoir in the headland depressions east of Williston Lake’s W.A.C. Bennett Dam; with hydroelectric spillways falling to the Peace River above and below the lower Peace Dam?

Dave Huer


CONCEPTS 1, 2 & 3 ILLUSTRATED BELOW:


dhuer-site-c-revisioning-c1-july2014-001

 



 

dhuer-site-c-revisioning-oct2014-p1

 



 

dhuer-site-c-revisioning-oct2014-p2Original behance.net PDF concept here

Anticipated Future Value of Public Resources (AFVPR) – a shared resources’ framework

 

The common ground for Oil Sands Float Rights and Hydrological Spread water tax credits . . .is a public resource conservation framework: calculating the AFVPR of a limited resource, so that we can plan for recovery and return of the value of those resources back to their original value, the intrinsic state we all enjoy.  

  • – Using the AFVPR framework, we obtain market incentive to maximize self-interested conservation of the common resources we all depend on as a species and a civilization.
  • – Using AFVPR with Hydrological Spreads . . . we can manage limited supply, drought-induced shortages and over-pumping shortages, and minimize contamination of surface supplies, the water table, and local aquifers.  See the AFVPR water discussion here
  • – We can use AFVPR for . . . liquid water and water vapour for drinking, irrigation, and industrial use; energy supplies (hydroelectric, oil, gas, oil sands, solar), public forests, and topsoil).
  • – We can use AFVPR to . . .  create market incentive to cut industrial waste and contamination to zero (100% Zero Waste),
  • – Using AFVPR, governments offer incentive to create new technologies, such as vapour loss monitoring tools, to incentivize zero waste.
  • – Using AFVPR, entrepreneurs obtain incentive to create that new technologies, and the jobs that go with it.

 

The countries, states, and provinces that put AFVPR in place get market advantage first.

Are there ways that AFVPR could be used in your country?

 

Creative Commons Credit: – Video by Mr. Rain and Thunder