Yes, we’re fixated on hydropower – the use of water to satisfy the requirements of all forms of energy: Heat, light, mechanical and electrical power- Cheap, clean and naturally replaced.
And hydro potential is everywhere, not just where you see those big dams – although they do a great job. The true and great hope for the future is the fact that small hydro equipment is now available that can be used anywhere – and everywhere – without any harm to the ecology or air or water.
The magic lies in the development of Small Hydro. Small Hydro is defined as “the development of power on a scale serving a small community or an industrial plant.” This definition is not fixed but a generating capacity of up to 10 megawatts (MW) or 10,000 kilowatts is the generally accepted size of a SH plant. In some areas in the United State and Canada the upper limited is raised to between 25 and 30 MW.
In contrast the big dams, such as Hoover Dam generate 2,074 MW of electricity.
Small Hydro is further subdivided into Mini Hydro which is defined as less than 1,000 KW and Micro Hydro which is less than 100KW. One can easily see that Small Hydro or its offspring could be used almost anywhere – and it is and will be more and more in the future.
The beauty of small hydro is that plants may be connected to conventional electrical systems as a source of low-cost renewable energy OR they can be built in isolated areas where it would not be economical to connect to the grid or even where there is no grid.
While we will give examples of the small hydro equipment available to all in a future message, suffice it to say that small hydro equipment together with currently available solar equipment can most certainly replace coal, oil and natural gas as our “prime movers” whenever people decide to make the change AND the governments involved decide to let them.
A neighbor of ours has a small stream running across his back yard. There is running water in the stream for at least 6 months out of the year. And those six months can be broken up into separate weeks or groups of days depending entirely on the current rainfall or snowmelt.
In any event he can reduce his electric and heating costs by half by installing a small turbine and a solar panel. Happy event – solar panel works best when the sun is out – no rain!
With Hydro there’s nothing but good news!
Showing posts with label hydropower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hydropower. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Cap and Trade – Again?
Unfortunately this subject is topical again because what appears to be a fraud to be committed against the American people may have turned out to be exactly that! And let’s get to the truth without attracting any libel or slander lawsuits!
Can that be done?
Not only can it be done – it is being done – and we will quote only a few of the many voices – some quite sane and some very much otherwise – being raised on this issue.
Well for the sane, how do Wall Street Journal, U S News & World Report, the George C. Marshall Institute and The National Center for Public Policy Research sound to you?
And for the “happy” group you might include Neal Boortz, Carolyn Tacket’s Closet and a few others who don’t need mentioning.
All of these however agree that Cap and Trade is another government movement going in the wrong direction. Its cost will be staggering and the result will be to delay the eventual reduction in the burning of fossil fuels to the detriment of not only the ecology but – more important – our children’s lungs!
If you’re not familiar with “Cap and Trade” – shame on you – our edition entitled “Cap and Trade – Duck and Cover!” was issued in April (this year) and tells the story pretty completely.
The point of all the objections is twofold; (1) The delay in reducing the airborne pollution and (2) the high cost of this permitting of what we call “indulgences” for the benefit of large polluting corporations.
We must remember that we are talking about atmospheric pollution measured in Billions of Tons of Carbon Dioxide or equivalent heat-trapping gasses!
In our opinion and that of many others. Including, but not limited to, those listed above, is that the program is flawed, perhaps fatally, and should not be enacted.
Once again we refer to our April report when we quote an attorney who said,”Companies should have to abide by laws which limit the pollution or shut down! Any company which is producing enough products to cause that pollution is financially able to upgrade their equipment to control what they spill out into the air.”
Amen.
Hydropower is the answer and always will be.
Tell your congressman to get to work.
Can that be done?
Not only can it be done – it is being done – and we will quote only a few of the many voices – some quite sane and some very much otherwise – being raised on this issue.
Well for the sane, how do Wall Street Journal, U S News & World Report, the George C. Marshall Institute and The National Center for Public Policy Research sound to you?
And for the “happy” group you might include Neal Boortz, Carolyn Tacket’s Closet and a few others who don’t need mentioning.
All of these however agree that Cap and Trade is another government movement going in the wrong direction. Its cost will be staggering and the result will be to delay the eventual reduction in the burning of fossil fuels to the detriment of not only the ecology but – more important – our children’s lungs!
If you’re not familiar with “Cap and Trade” – shame on you – our edition entitled “Cap and Trade – Duck and Cover!” was issued in April (this year) and tells the story pretty completely.
The point of all the objections is twofold; (1) The delay in reducing the airborne pollution and (2) the high cost of this permitting of what we call “indulgences” for the benefit of large polluting corporations.
We must remember that we are talking about atmospheric pollution measured in Billions of Tons of Carbon Dioxide or equivalent heat-trapping gasses!
In our opinion and that of many others. Including, but not limited to, those listed above, is that the program is flawed, perhaps fatally, and should not be enacted.
Once again we refer to our April report when we quote an attorney who said,”Companies should have to abide by laws which limit the pollution or shut down! Any company which is producing enough products to cause that pollution is financially able to upgrade their equipment to control what they spill out into the air.”
Amen.
Hydropower is the answer and always will be.
Tell your congressman to get to work.
Monday, August 10, 2009
North America – Wet or Dry?
No, we’re not talking prohibition or state laws involving the sale of liquors.
But there are serious problems in parts of the country that involve serious dry spells resulting in drought conditions that impact on everything in the area – including energy supply.
We have reported earlier that the most serious areas of drought are along the Pacific and Gulf coasts – which are, surprisingly areas where the desalination of sea water could be most feasible. (See our blog entitled “Desalination and Geothermal – Ideal Marriage?”)
The continental US has areas of great water supply and others that have become – or are becoming - centers of serious and likely permanent drought.
The Pacific Northwest, mainly the states of Oregon and Washington, are famous for the prodigious amount of hydropower generated there. About 51 percent of all the hydroelectricity generated in the country is made in the Pacific states. (Not including Alaska or Hawaii).
The main dry areas that have developed in recent decades have been found in California and Texas. The electrical requirements of these two states are significant – with continuing “grid” impact.
There is one major area in which conditions are considered “drought” but continue to improve with hope for reclassification to only “dry.” That covers the northern part of Michigan and parts of mid-Minnesota. Weather “eyes” are keeping close watch on this area.
Many of our recent issues have dealt with hydropower which we see as the one major and true “green” source of energy for the future.
A number of our reports have also dealt with the real and the virtual “national” grid systems in place and where seriously needed.
A third component that requires study and application is the population centers located throughout the nation and the electricity requirements in and near them.
All of these factors will come together in our next report that we hope will bring all the components up to date and enable a serious approach for our representatives to study, learn and use in the appropriate legislation and controls required to finally harness the fossil insults to our environment.
And yes, North America is both – wet and dry and the two can be made compatible.
But there are serious problems in parts of the country that involve serious dry spells resulting in drought conditions that impact on everything in the area – including energy supply.
We have reported earlier that the most serious areas of drought are along the Pacific and Gulf coasts – which are, surprisingly areas where the desalination of sea water could be most feasible. (See our blog entitled “Desalination and Geothermal – Ideal Marriage?”)
The continental US has areas of great water supply and others that have become – or are becoming - centers of serious and likely permanent drought.
The Pacific Northwest, mainly the states of Oregon and Washington, are famous for the prodigious amount of hydropower generated there. About 51 percent of all the hydroelectricity generated in the country is made in the Pacific states. (Not including Alaska or Hawaii).
The main dry areas that have developed in recent decades have been found in California and Texas. The electrical requirements of these two states are significant – with continuing “grid” impact.
There is one major area in which conditions are considered “drought” but continue to improve with hope for reclassification to only “dry.” That covers the northern part of Michigan and parts of mid-Minnesota. Weather “eyes” are keeping close watch on this area.
Many of our recent issues have dealt with hydropower which we see as the one major and true “green” source of energy for the future.
A number of our reports have also dealt with the real and the virtual “national” grid systems in place and where seriously needed.
A third component that requires study and application is the population centers located throughout the nation and the electricity requirements in and near them.
All of these factors will come together in our next report that we hope will bring all the components up to date and enable a serious approach for our representatives to study, learn and use in the appropriate legislation and controls required to finally harness the fossil insults to our environment.
And yes, North America is both – wet and dry and the two can be made compatible.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Vermont, Small State With Some Pretty Good Big Ideas
The state of Vermont was the 14th state to join the union. Its citizens have always exhibited that firm independence that has made America the tower of freedom it has become.
It all started back when explorer Jacques Cartier claimed the St Lawrence River Valley for France. It was later claimed by the colonies of New York and New Hampshire. But as the area called Vermont was developed, the people of Vermont decided not to be controlled by either New York or New Hampshire and Vermont was declared an independent republic in 1777. As time passed, the United States was formed and Vermont asked to join the union. In 1791 Vermont was approved as the 14th state.
The development of New England as the manufacturing center of the U.S. in the 1700’s and 1800’s was based on the water resources available and the beginning of the use of “hydropower” as a major source of energy.
Ultimately, the discovery and use of oil and natural gas replaced much of the famous water wheels and dams that became landmarks and in some cases, curiosities.
But somewhere in the state consciousness remained that natural feeling for water as the great power not only of the past but of the future. And that feeling began to influence some very important planning – that provides an example all states should be following.
In 2008 the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources sought to increase the development of renewable energy in the form of small hydro power projects. It is now working closely with developers so that they understand the feasibility of their potential sites and the permits that will be required to enable their developments.
Vermont also has a Water Supply Division which is charged with the protection of the public health by assuring safe drinking water and managing the sources of water. In addition, the Division contains a Support and Planning Section that is responsible for managing both the short-term and long-term planning, strategic and financial, of the continuing development of the supply of water for the state.
In our next edition we’ll show some of the ideas Vermont has put into action and how those processes will have great impact on a national basis if followed by the other states, in, we hope, rapid recognition of the need for and the feasibility of hydropower vs. the fossil fuel giants.
It all started back when explorer Jacques Cartier claimed the St Lawrence River Valley for France. It was later claimed by the colonies of New York and New Hampshire. But as the area called Vermont was developed, the people of Vermont decided not to be controlled by either New York or New Hampshire and Vermont was declared an independent republic in 1777. As time passed, the United States was formed and Vermont asked to join the union. In 1791 Vermont was approved as the 14th state.
The development of New England as the manufacturing center of the U.S. in the 1700’s and 1800’s was based on the water resources available and the beginning of the use of “hydropower” as a major source of energy.
Ultimately, the discovery and use of oil and natural gas replaced much of the famous water wheels and dams that became landmarks and in some cases, curiosities.
But somewhere in the state consciousness remained that natural feeling for water as the great power not only of the past but of the future. And that feeling began to influence some very important planning – that provides an example all states should be following.
In 2008 the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources sought to increase the development of renewable energy in the form of small hydro power projects. It is now working closely with developers so that they understand the feasibility of their potential sites and the permits that will be required to enable their developments.
Vermont also has a Water Supply Division which is charged with the protection of the public health by assuring safe drinking water and managing the sources of water. In addition, the Division contains a Support and Planning Section that is responsible for managing both the short-term and long-term planning, strategic and financial, of the continuing development of the supply of water for the state.
In our next edition we’ll show some of the ideas Vermont has put into action and how those processes will have great impact on a national basis if followed by the other states, in, we hope, rapid recognition of the need for and the feasibility of hydropower vs. the fossil fuel giants.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Why All This Water Talk?
Why indeed. We here are, after all, an energy organization that goes back to 1908. And from that time to this energy has mostly meant electricity, gasoline, home heating oil and all the products connected with those forms of energy.
When asking a consumer today what services to his home are the most essential he would probably say heat, water and light. And like so many, he would expect the switch on the wall to turn on the lights at any time without thinking about it. And the water to flow when turning on the tap.
So the prospect of any of those services not being available is unthinkable. One may expect occasional “blackouts” or slow delivery of oil. And of more concern on a daily basis is the cost of those services and the impact on the family budget.
However the real fact is the growth of availability of fresh clean water is not matching the growth of the earth’s population. It is also true that there are parts of the world where the clean water supply is not adequate today and the resulting loss of life in some areas is terrible.
What is the answer? We have been offering solutions in many of our reports and they all boil down to the need for a total worldwide commitment, including financial, to the development of hydropower, water treatment (desalination, purification) and removal of all systems which add to the pollution of water – and air.
We have discussed the fact that while electricity provides the most efficient use of energy, it is the most expensive because it is generated by burning fossil fuels - that pollute both air and water. The full development of hydropower from both falling and flowing water would provide electricity costs mere fractions of cost of the fossil generators.
But cost is not the major consideration – reduced as it may be. The concern was so well put by Jacques Cousteau - air and water are the two essential needs for the survival of humanity. They must be protected at all costs.
And once again it falls to the governments of the world to rise to the needs of the people. It probably will not be easy to get all world organizations to cooperate or in some cases to even talk – the effort must be made.
And the American people have the voice. Let us hope and pray it is used.
When asking a consumer today what services to his home are the most essential he would probably say heat, water and light. And like so many, he would expect the switch on the wall to turn on the lights at any time without thinking about it. And the water to flow when turning on the tap.
So the prospect of any of those services not being available is unthinkable. One may expect occasional “blackouts” or slow delivery of oil. And of more concern on a daily basis is the cost of those services and the impact on the family budget.
However the real fact is the growth of availability of fresh clean water is not matching the growth of the earth’s population. It is also true that there are parts of the world where the clean water supply is not adequate today and the resulting loss of life in some areas is terrible.
What is the answer? We have been offering solutions in many of our reports and they all boil down to the need for a total worldwide commitment, including financial, to the development of hydropower, water treatment (desalination, purification) and removal of all systems which add to the pollution of water – and air.
We have discussed the fact that while electricity provides the most efficient use of energy, it is the most expensive because it is generated by burning fossil fuels - that pollute both air and water. The full development of hydropower from both falling and flowing water would provide electricity costs mere fractions of cost of the fossil generators.
But cost is not the major consideration – reduced as it may be. The concern was so well put by Jacques Cousteau - air and water are the two essential needs for the survival of humanity. They must be protected at all costs.
And once again it falls to the governments of the world to rise to the needs of the people. It probably will not be easy to get all world organizations to cooperate or in some cases to even talk – the effort must be made.
And the American people have the voice. Let us hope and pray it is used.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Water, Desalinated
So the world is covered in water – at least 75% of it is. And of all that water, 97% is in the oceans – saline – undrinkable and hardly usable except for growing fish, clams, oysters, mussels, mollusks, octopi and all the other things we are used to seeing grow in water.
The balance of 3% is considered “fresh water,” and this category is broken into subgroups such as Ground Water, Icecaps, Glaciers, Lakes, Swamp Water, Rivers and Atmosphere.
What all this boils down to is the hard fact that of all the water on earth only 1% is actually usable by humans.
Now it would seem that one of the major, if not the one essential effort being made to obtain clean water would be to work on extracting the priceless product from all that seawater surrounding us.
Unfortunately there are several conflicting arguments regarding the safety and feasibility of cleaning up ocean water. We will study the “anti” positions today and in our next issue we will set forth a program that might be the desired answer.
Some argue that since “enormous amounts of energy” are needed to force ocean water through the membrane filters at high pressure, there could be an increase in emissions adding to the global warming problem. They further argue that the facilities required would have the potential to induce “urban sprawl which could mean increased air pollution from car commuters.”
They further argue that along the coasts fisheries and marine environments “will be threatened.” They compare the desalination plants to the “once-through intake structures” that use ocean water to cool conventional power plants.
The other point they stress is that desalination is much more expensive than the cost to produce water from traditional supplies. Some say three or more times more expensive.
All of these statements are presented today in the spirit of offering a fair viewing of opposing positions on a vital subject affecting the entire world.
While regular readers will understand that our purpose, even mission, is to promote the development of hydropower, we will next show that there are some realistic and fascinating answers to the worries about desalination that can contribute safe clean water in some very needy locations.
The balance of 3% is considered “fresh water,” and this category is broken into subgroups such as Ground Water, Icecaps, Glaciers, Lakes, Swamp Water, Rivers and Atmosphere.
What all this boils down to is the hard fact that of all the water on earth only 1% is actually usable by humans.
Now it would seem that one of the major, if not the one essential effort being made to obtain clean water would be to work on extracting the priceless product from all that seawater surrounding us.
Unfortunately there are several conflicting arguments regarding the safety and feasibility of cleaning up ocean water. We will study the “anti” positions today and in our next issue we will set forth a program that might be the desired answer.
Some argue that since “enormous amounts of energy” are needed to force ocean water through the membrane filters at high pressure, there could be an increase in emissions adding to the global warming problem. They further argue that the facilities required would have the potential to induce “urban sprawl which could mean increased air pollution from car commuters.”
They further argue that along the coasts fisheries and marine environments “will be threatened.” They compare the desalination plants to the “once-through intake structures” that use ocean water to cool conventional power plants.
The other point they stress is that desalination is much more expensive than the cost to produce water from traditional supplies. Some say three or more times more expensive.
All of these statements are presented today in the spirit of offering a fair viewing of opposing positions on a vital subject affecting the entire world.
While regular readers will understand that our purpose, even mission, is to promote the development of hydropower, we will next show that there are some realistic and fascinating answers to the worries about desalination that can contribute safe clean water in some very needy locations.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Hydropower – On the Level
Level means many things to many people. In the case of energy generation the moving water used to make electricity through hydropower units can literally be on the level. And now that everyone knows what hydropower is (electricity made by water power, for latecomers) we need to define a new term: Hydrokinetic Generation.
Not all moving water flows as waterfalls, from on high, so to speak. Rivers, streams and tidal waters all flow – horizontally and can, believe it or not, also generate electricity.
So along come the “Free-Flow Hydrokinetic Turbines.” These are turbines shaped like rockets, or bombs, with propellers. Actually they use reverse propellers that rotate or spin using the energy of the water flow passing around it. The rotation then runs the electricity generator –making cheap and clean power.
These units are small and have minimal or no impact “.. on survival and migrations of fish, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, water quality , sediment transport and visual/aesthetic qualities,” according to the DOE.
Also, while not literally on the level, the development of Wave Energy Technologies is also promising power from the movement of water horizontally. This Wave format is still under study and not as likely to be helpful as the Hydrokinetic Turbines.
And all of this renewable energy technology has not been concerned with one major technology- using dams to develop hydropower electricity.
And here is one of the Great Myths presented by those who are Not On The Level:
Myth: “Using hydropower means building new dams.”
Reality: There are 80,000 dams in the United States. Only 2,400 of them are used to generate electricity.
Let’s get going with the 77,600 dams that are already built and either being used for something like running lumber mills or fabric manufacturing or are just sitting there like many that can be found in New England.
Once again, it falls to the government agencies that license the use of dams, existing or new, to generate electricity. And once again it falls to the people to force the separation of the interests of their representative from the financial and political power of the Fossil Fuel Barons and their incredibly widespread operations.
Voting – will count – to make the government proceed on the level - to finally provide clean water and clean air for our grandchildren’s grandchildren
Not all moving water flows as waterfalls, from on high, so to speak. Rivers, streams and tidal waters all flow – horizontally and can, believe it or not, also generate electricity.
So along come the “Free-Flow Hydrokinetic Turbines.” These are turbines shaped like rockets, or bombs, with propellers. Actually they use reverse propellers that rotate or spin using the energy of the water flow passing around it. The rotation then runs the electricity generator –making cheap and clean power.
These units are small and have minimal or no impact “.. on survival and migrations of fish, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, water quality , sediment transport and visual/aesthetic qualities,” according to the DOE.
Also, while not literally on the level, the development of Wave Energy Technologies is also promising power from the movement of water horizontally. This Wave format is still under study and not as likely to be helpful as the Hydrokinetic Turbines.
And all of this renewable energy technology has not been concerned with one major technology- using dams to develop hydropower electricity.
And here is one of the Great Myths presented by those who are Not On The Level:
Myth: “Using hydropower means building new dams.”
Reality: There are 80,000 dams in the United States. Only 2,400 of them are used to generate electricity.
Let’s get going with the 77,600 dams that are already built and either being used for something like running lumber mills or fabric manufacturing or are just sitting there like many that can be found in New England.
Once again, it falls to the government agencies that license the use of dams, existing or new, to generate electricity. And once again it falls to the people to force the separation of the interests of their representative from the financial and political power of the Fossil Fuel Barons and their incredibly widespread operations.
Voting – will count – to make the government proceed on the level - to finally provide clean water and clean air for our grandchildren’s grandchildren
Friday, June 12, 2009
Hydropower Clarified
Clear water – doesn’t that sound wonderful? It’s also a nice name for a town.
But mostly it is a phrase with a great deal of promise. And so far on this planet it is a promise unfulfilled. The good news is that there is what appears to be the beginning of some understanding of the huge benefits of hydropower and it is our main mission to see those efforts multiplied in a major manner.
Once again, there are a number of misconceptions about hydropower, fostered mainly by the fossil fuel mega-corporations using fear tactics we have discussed earlier.
For example, many people only see hydropower as huge towering dams, flooding great areas of land, displacing communities and killing aquatic wildlife. Some see the use of water to make electricity resulting in water that cannot be used for drinking or other healthy purposes. Some also have been led to understand that all the possible hydropower sources have been used up.
So many things that people “know” are very far from the truth and we have explained some of the truths in earlier issues (“More of the Clean Water Story” and “Little Water, Big Energy”) and will continue to the best of our hundred-year-old experience to underline the message that our planet has a limited tolerance for pollution and that limit is rapidly being approached.
Small hydropower – particularly horizontally flowing generation – uses little space, requires no one to move and, if anything, creates a healthier environment for aquatic and other wildlife.(Look for our future issue “Hydropower on the Level.”)
Big hydropower – those large dams that so impress us with their hugeness – constitutes only 8% of the total hydropower population in the U.S. today. There are a myriad of locations where small waterfalls are potential hydropower producers, again without harm to the planet.
We have shown in earlier issues that between the United States and Canada the total of existing hydropower production plus the use of the known potential sources in both countries, hydropower could replace all of the coal burning capacities of both countries and have enough left over to substantially reduce all systems that require the burning of petroleum.
We understand that everyone will need to see a lot of proof of these arguments before the major changes are made to happen. We intend to provide just that– from some very impressive sources. Please stay tuned.
But mostly it is a phrase with a great deal of promise. And so far on this planet it is a promise unfulfilled. The good news is that there is what appears to be the beginning of some understanding of the huge benefits of hydropower and it is our main mission to see those efforts multiplied in a major manner.
Once again, there are a number of misconceptions about hydropower, fostered mainly by the fossil fuel mega-corporations using fear tactics we have discussed earlier.
For example, many people only see hydropower as huge towering dams, flooding great areas of land, displacing communities and killing aquatic wildlife. Some see the use of water to make electricity resulting in water that cannot be used for drinking or other healthy purposes. Some also have been led to understand that all the possible hydropower sources have been used up.
So many things that people “know” are very far from the truth and we have explained some of the truths in earlier issues (“More of the Clean Water Story” and “Little Water, Big Energy”) and will continue to the best of our hundred-year-old experience to underline the message that our planet has a limited tolerance for pollution and that limit is rapidly being approached.
Small hydropower – particularly horizontally flowing generation – uses little space, requires no one to move and, if anything, creates a healthier environment for aquatic and other wildlife.(Look for our future issue “Hydropower on the Level.”)
Big hydropower – those large dams that so impress us with their hugeness – constitutes only 8% of the total hydropower population in the U.S. today. There are a myriad of locations where small waterfalls are potential hydropower producers, again without harm to the planet.
We have shown in earlier issues that between the United States and Canada the total of existing hydropower production plus the use of the known potential sources in both countries, hydropower could replace all of the coal burning capacities of both countries and have enough left over to substantially reduce all systems that require the burning of petroleum.
We understand that everyone will need to see a lot of proof of these arguments before the major changes are made to happen. We intend to provide just that– from some very impressive sources. Please stay tuned.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Let’s Get Serious with Hydropower
Actually we need to get serious with Hydropower and serious about Hydropower. And we say that because Hydropower is the answer to the ultimate correction of global warming, carbon gases and water and air pollution.
We have been repeatedly told that coal, oil and natural gas provide millions of jobs.
We have repeatedly said that full use of the hydropower sources would employ millions.
We have repeatedly said that coal, oil and natural gas are pollutants.
We have been repeatedly told that coal, oil and natural gas are getting cleaner.
To this we have repeatedly and correctly said – Are You Kidding???
It has been proven that “Money talks, everything else walks.”
The facts remain that the coal and oil industries have tremendous power.
Power that reaches into the financial industry, troubled as it is; the banking industry, troubled as it is; the political activities field, conscienceless as it is.
Ok enough...
We have repeatedly said that hydropower with geothermal power (where it exists) can totally eliminate the need for coal, oil and natural gas.
No one can deny this.
Sadly it seems we must remind everyone that electricity is the most efficient form of energy use for all processes: heating , lighting, air conditioning, running automotive units, running trains, desalinating sea water, in fact for all things that require energy.
The only reason electricity is not used for everything everywhere is IT’S COST!
The only reason its cost is so high is that the coal, oil and natural gas industries have forbidden the development of Much Cheaper Hydropower –
Once again political power and financial power can be shown to be incestuous siblings. And Financial is the Big Brother.
Is there a parallel to the tobacco industry when we see how tobacco products have been proven to cause disease and death and provide no benefit to humanity? Thanks to that industry’s financial power –it too still exists.
We’re not finished repeating the facts – as you will see if you stay tuned.
We have been repeatedly told that coal, oil and natural gas provide millions of jobs.
We have repeatedly said that full use of the hydropower sources would employ millions.
We have repeatedly said that coal, oil and natural gas are pollutants.
We have been repeatedly told that coal, oil and natural gas are getting cleaner.
To this we have repeatedly and correctly said – Are You Kidding???
It has been proven that “Money talks, everything else walks.”
The facts remain that the coal and oil industries have tremendous power.
Power that reaches into the financial industry, troubled as it is; the banking industry, troubled as it is; the political activities field, conscienceless as it is.
Ok enough...
We have repeatedly said that hydropower with geothermal power (where it exists) can totally eliminate the need for coal, oil and natural gas.
No one can deny this.
Sadly it seems we must remind everyone that electricity is the most efficient form of energy use for all processes: heating , lighting, air conditioning, running automotive units, running trains, desalinating sea water, in fact for all things that require energy.
The only reason electricity is not used for everything everywhere is IT’S COST!
The only reason its cost is so high is that the coal, oil and natural gas industries have forbidden the development of Much Cheaper Hydropower –
Once again political power and financial power can be shown to be incestuous siblings. And Financial is the Big Brother.
Is there a parallel to the tobacco industry when we see how tobacco products have been proven to cause disease and death and provide no benefit to humanity? Thanks to that industry’s financial power –it too still exists.
We’re not finished repeating the facts – as you will see if you stay tuned.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
More Government Dams
(Or more dam government?)
Following the case of Vermont’s Community Hydro and all the problems of getting permits to do the right thing- that is to develop enough hydropower to replace the pollution generated by the oil and coal industries- we started looking around.
And we found that there are locations throughout the nation where small hydroplants can be created and we didn’t have to look far for a perfect example of a lost – or at least delayed - opportunity to activate such a plant.
This one is in Connecticut, a few hours away from Vermont’s abundant hydro potentials.
The Collinsville section of Canton, CT is a typical New England factory town most of which was built to house the Collins Company which operated from 1826 to 1966. Like so many other factories in the northeast, water power was the main driving power.
Two dams were built in Collinsville in the 18th and 19th centuries to provide that power.
While the dams are now owned by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) FERC issued licenses to a private company, Summitt Hydropower, to update the dams to generate electricity. So far so good.
However Summitt’s license stipulated that construction begin by 2005 and when Summitt failed to proceed with the construction the license was rendered “moot.” Now in order to extend the license to the town, federal legislation is required.
Congressman Christopher Murphy has taken on the challenge to obtain the appropriate legislation so that the dams, when properly retrofit would produce enough electricity to power about 2,000 homes.
The congressman’s effort began in January of this year and so far no results. And it should be no surprise that general opinion is that getting the government to act is only a sure thing if a war is concerned.
The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of small potential hydropower locations to be found all across the nation. And perhaps we can find more legislators, federal and state who will get involved in the way that Congressman Murphy and CEO Barg or Vermont have and that they work to get the government “red tape” and unnecessary controls over the development of clean energy removed. We can only hope.
Following the case of Vermont’s Community Hydro and all the problems of getting permits to do the right thing- that is to develop enough hydropower to replace the pollution generated by the oil and coal industries- we started looking around.
And we found that there are locations throughout the nation where small hydroplants can be created and we didn’t have to look far for a perfect example of a lost – or at least delayed - opportunity to activate such a plant.
This one is in Connecticut, a few hours away from Vermont’s abundant hydro potentials.
The Collinsville section of Canton, CT is a typical New England factory town most of which was built to house the Collins Company which operated from 1826 to 1966. Like so many other factories in the northeast, water power was the main driving power.
Two dams were built in Collinsville in the 18th and 19th centuries to provide that power.
While the dams are now owned by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) FERC issued licenses to a private company, Summitt Hydropower, to update the dams to generate electricity. So far so good.
However Summitt’s license stipulated that construction begin by 2005 and when Summitt failed to proceed with the construction the license was rendered “moot.” Now in order to extend the license to the town, federal legislation is required.
Congressman Christopher Murphy has taken on the challenge to obtain the appropriate legislation so that the dams, when properly retrofit would produce enough electricity to power about 2,000 homes.
The congressman’s effort began in January of this year and so far no results. And it should be no surprise that general opinion is that getting the government to act is only a sure thing if a war is concerned.
The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands of small potential hydropower locations to be found all across the nation. And perhaps we can find more legislators, federal and state who will get involved in the way that Congressman Murphy and CEO Barg or Vermont have and that they work to get the government “red tape” and unnecessary controls over the development of clean energy removed. We can only hope.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
All That Water – Behind a Government Dam
We have looked for the water needed to make enough power to replace all that burning coal that pollutes the atmosphere as well as the ground. We have found enough to do just that and more – such as provide clean drinking water at the same time.
But what about the statement that the government is getting in the way of using the hundreds of thousands of water sources that could be used to generate power? Let’s take a look at a few examples.
Lori Barg, Chief Executive of Community Hydro in Plainfield, Vermont, has been encouraging developers to use the small hydropower techniques for harvesting energy from moving bodies of water – especially horizontal movement. She states that these methods should be a priority for every state.
She reports that her state hasn’t had a new grid-connected hydroelectric facility built in 20 years because of the “….slow, expensive permitting process that makes projects economically unfeasible.” She calls this problem “a project killer.”
And we submit that the combination of the oil/coal self-interests and the ignorance of the subject displayed by those portions of the government, federal and local, that should be on top of the problem are committing a serious, if not criminal, action against the health and safety interests of all the people.
Further, according to Barg, “Obtaining federal and state permits can add $2,000 per installed KILOWATT for a small hydro system.” She further states, “Obtaining the necessary permits is such a deterrent. It’s important to have regulations, but I find myself having to go through 12 different agencies just to get a project off the ground. It doesn’t make sense and it’s not allowing Vermont to develop its abundant hydro resources.”
And this is true all over the country.
As we have pointed out before, there is at least a 100 Gigawatt source of power out there, undeveloped and whose development would threaten no one.
All this reminds us of the argument that the government should create a program to cure cancer. To that came the answer that “if the federal government had been made to be responsible to develop a cure for polio, you would have a 21st century first class iron lung but not a vaccine.” Who said that? The president of the American Cancer Society.
There are some things the government should have no business meddling in
The replacement of dirty energy with clean energy is one of them.
But what about the statement that the government is getting in the way of using the hundreds of thousands of water sources that could be used to generate power? Let’s take a look at a few examples.
Lori Barg, Chief Executive of Community Hydro in Plainfield, Vermont, has been encouraging developers to use the small hydropower techniques for harvesting energy from moving bodies of water – especially horizontal movement. She states that these methods should be a priority for every state.
She reports that her state hasn’t had a new grid-connected hydroelectric facility built in 20 years because of the “….slow, expensive permitting process that makes projects economically unfeasible.” She calls this problem “a project killer.”
And we submit that the combination of the oil/coal self-interests and the ignorance of the subject displayed by those portions of the government, federal and local, that should be on top of the problem are committing a serious, if not criminal, action against the health and safety interests of all the people.
Further, according to Barg, “Obtaining federal and state permits can add $2,000 per installed KILOWATT for a small hydro system.” She further states, “Obtaining the necessary permits is such a deterrent. It’s important to have regulations, but I find myself having to go through 12 different agencies just to get a project off the ground. It doesn’t make sense and it’s not allowing Vermont to develop its abundant hydro resources.”
And this is true all over the country.
As we have pointed out before, there is at least a 100 Gigawatt source of power out there, undeveloped and whose development would threaten no one.
All this reminds us of the argument that the government should create a program to cure cancer. To that came the answer that “if the federal government had been made to be responsible to develop a cure for polio, you would have a 21st century first class iron lung but not a vaccine.” Who said that? The president of the American Cancer Society.
There are some things the government should have no business meddling in
The replacement of dirty energy with clean energy is one of them.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Cap and Trade?……Duck and Cover!
They’ve done it again! The fossil boys have once again secured the wool firmly over the eyes of America – Democrat, Republican, Independent and NoParty.
Can’t you just see it? Mr. Oil saying to Mr. Coal, “We got’ em again!” And Mr. Natural Gas saying to Mr. Coal, “We even got Obama and McCain, can you believe it?”
Of course they’re happy. They were given a lease on life by being allowed to buy (as in purchase) the right to continue to pollute and the money they contribute is supposed to go to providing cleaner energy. And there are some reasons why playing a game that won’t show results until 2015 is playing right into their hands. Whose hands? Come on!
Well, what exactly is this Cap and Trade?
It is a process in which the government (EPA) sets certain standards that must be met by certain deadlines. In the case of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) there are limits that must be met this year, in 2012 and progressive reductions over the years.
The amount of pollution that is released into the atmosphere is measured in billions of tons of carbon dioxide (or equivalent heat-trapping gasses). The cap is a limit on the amount of such release nationally.
As the limits decrease the theory is that pollution will decrease also – dramatically.
Only there is an escape clause that slows down the process – it’s called Trading.
Permits or “allowances” (we call them indulgences) are distributed or auctioned to the polluting offenders in quantities of one allowance per ton of carbon dioxide (or equivalent). The total of allowances, or permits, must be equal to the cap and a polluter can only emit as much carbon as it has allowances for.
The trading comes when a polluter can reduce its carbon output below the then current cap. It may sell (auction) the permits it doesn’t need to other polluters who can’t make the cap. Most recently allowances went at the price of $3.51 per ton in 2009 and a price of $3.05 a ton for a 2012 allowance. The funds produce in this way are supposed to be used for energy efficiency and clean air projects.
Rocket science is not required to see that this is getting to clean air the hard way. And never to 100%.
As one attorney put it, “Companies should have to abide by laws which limit the pollution or shut down. Any company which is producing enough products to cause that pollution is financially able to upgrade their equipment to control what they spill out into the air.”
We say, WHY NOT JUST CLEAN IT UP!
We have been pleading, begging, shouting even hawking the fact that hydropower is the one true answer to clean energy. With HYDRO there is NO POLLUTION. Even the water used to make electricity can be used again.
The Technology is there. The water is there – and is self-replenishing. The feasibility is there. All that is needed is the will!
Can’t you just see it? Mr. Oil saying to Mr. Coal, “We got’ em again!” And Mr. Natural Gas saying to Mr. Coal, “We even got Obama and McCain, can you believe it?”
Of course they’re happy. They were given a lease on life by being allowed to buy (as in purchase) the right to continue to pollute and the money they contribute is supposed to go to providing cleaner energy. And there are some reasons why playing a game that won’t show results until 2015 is playing right into their hands. Whose hands? Come on!
Well, what exactly is this Cap and Trade?
It is a process in which the government (EPA) sets certain standards that must be met by certain deadlines. In the case of Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) there are limits that must be met this year, in 2012 and progressive reductions over the years.
The amount of pollution that is released into the atmosphere is measured in billions of tons of carbon dioxide (or equivalent heat-trapping gasses). The cap is a limit on the amount of such release nationally.
As the limits decrease the theory is that pollution will decrease also – dramatically.
Only there is an escape clause that slows down the process – it’s called Trading.
Permits or “allowances” (we call them indulgences) are distributed or auctioned to the polluting offenders in quantities of one allowance per ton of carbon dioxide (or equivalent). The total of allowances, or permits, must be equal to the cap and a polluter can only emit as much carbon as it has allowances for.
The trading comes when a polluter can reduce its carbon output below the then current cap. It may sell (auction) the permits it doesn’t need to other polluters who can’t make the cap. Most recently allowances went at the price of $3.51 per ton in 2009 and a price of $3.05 a ton for a 2012 allowance. The funds produce in this way are supposed to be used for energy efficiency and clean air projects.
Rocket science is not required to see that this is getting to clean air the hard way. And never to 100%.
As one attorney put it, “Companies should have to abide by laws which limit the pollution or shut down. Any company which is producing enough products to cause that pollution is financially able to upgrade their equipment to control what they spill out into the air.”
We say, WHY NOT JUST CLEAN IT UP!
We have been pleading, begging, shouting even hawking the fact that hydropower is the one true answer to clean energy. With HYDRO there is NO POLLUTION. Even the water used to make electricity can be used again.
The Technology is there. The water is there – and is self-replenishing. The feasibility is there. All that is needed is the will!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Hydropower 102
We have seen that falling water occurs in nature everywhere in the world. Some of these waterfalls can have their momentum harnessed to generate electricity at costs considerably less than conventional fuel based generation.
And there is another source of hydro power – flowing water.
Flowing as in rivers and tidal waters – any place where water moves naturally.
Of course waterfalls are meant to be harnessed by civilized man wherever possible. But where there is flowing water and that flow happens to pass a constricted area, as in a canyon, man builds a dam to create a lake from which he can develop – falling water.
In a recent survey of hydro projects in the United States, we found 159 hydro plants. Of these 124, or78%, involved dams or other man-made applications. The remaining 35, or 22%, utilized natural water use, falls or flow.
Actually whatever the source of the “hydro” the end result is the cheap and clean generation of electricity. Cheap is important in order to press the use of the power to replace the more expensive products (oil, gas, wind, bio, etc.) and Clean since it results in exactly 0% of GHG or any carbon-pollution.
So how do we get from all this moving water to the electricity we need to light our homes or desalinate seawater?
We all know what a turbine is. Anyway, what a turbine looks like on an airplane. The airplane turbine creates a force which moves the aircraft forward.
The hydropower turbine causes the rotation needed to operate an electric generator with the excellent side effect that it never “runs out of gas.”
At a waterfall the turbine stands vertically and the falling water turns the blades which then turn the generator rotors. In the flowing water generator, such as those planned for the East River in New York City, the turbines lie horizontally and the tides pass through, again causing the needed rotation.
In the winter, don’t waterfalls freeze? As the Niagara people point out, “Yes and No.”
In the case of Niagara Falls, a tremendous amount of water flows and it never stops. However during the winter the falling water and its mists can form ice along the banks of the falls and the river. The resulting ice can be very thick but the power of the water is unstoppable. As is the continuing story of the need for hydropower in this century.
So where is all this hydropower? Stay tuned....
And there is another source of hydro power – flowing water.
Flowing as in rivers and tidal waters – any place where water moves naturally.
Of course waterfalls are meant to be harnessed by civilized man wherever possible. But where there is flowing water and that flow happens to pass a constricted area, as in a canyon, man builds a dam to create a lake from which he can develop – falling water.
In a recent survey of hydro projects in the United States, we found 159 hydro plants. Of these 124, or78%, involved dams or other man-made applications. The remaining 35, or 22%, utilized natural water use, falls or flow.
Actually whatever the source of the “hydro” the end result is the cheap and clean generation of electricity. Cheap is important in order to press the use of the power to replace the more expensive products (oil, gas, wind, bio, etc.) and Clean since it results in exactly 0% of GHG or any carbon-pollution.
So how do we get from all this moving water to the electricity we need to light our homes or desalinate seawater?
We all know what a turbine is. Anyway, what a turbine looks like on an airplane. The airplane turbine creates a force which moves the aircraft forward.
The hydropower turbine causes the rotation needed to operate an electric generator with the excellent side effect that it never “runs out of gas.”
At a waterfall the turbine stands vertically and the falling water turns the blades which then turn the generator rotors. In the flowing water generator, such as those planned for the East River in New York City, the turbines lie horizontally and the tides pass through, again causing the needed rotation.
In the winter, don’t waterfalls freeze? As the Niagara people point out, “Yes and No.”
In the case of Niagara Falls, a tremendous amount of water flows and it never stops. However during the winter the falling water and its mists can form ice along the banks of the falls and the river. The resulting ice can be very thick but the power of the water is unstoppable. As is the continuing story of the need for hydropower in this century.
So where is all this hydropower? Stay tuned....
Monday, March 2, 2009
Hydropower 101
You are at the top of the Empire State Building in New York City. You are at the very top where no one is allowed to go (except maybe King Kong) - 1,250 feet above the street!
And you drop a bucket of water and let it fall to the street. Say the bucket is enclosed so none of the water spills out. And say that fortunately there are no people on the street.
It hits the street level– with a crash you could hear blocks away! Might even go through the sidewalk, from 1,250 feet!
Now picture Niagara Falls – it’s only 176 feet tall.
But instead of a bucket of water, 150,000 gallons of water flow over the falls every second! It’s clear that it’s not so much the height of the falls that counts as how wide they are to permit the largest volume of flow.
There are a number of waterfalls in the continental U.S. that are a great deal taller than Niagara. And in Hawaii there are a number of falls taller than 2,000 feet. Too bad Hawaii is 1,625 miles from the mainland.
As we might expect most tall waterfalls in the U.S. can be found in the west. Washington has 28 falls from 600 to 2,500 feet tall. California has 22 and Montana has 17. How many of these can claim major electricity production – hydropower?
Not many and we can see why by looking at a few of the tallest:
- Colonial Creek Falls in Washington is 2,584 feet tall with average width of 50 feet!
- Avalanche Basic Falls in Montana is 2,320 feet tall with tallest single drop of 1,000 feet and here again, only 50 feet wide.
- Sulphide Creek Falls in Washington is 2,182 feet tall in an incredibly beautiful and inaccessible area with yet another 50 or so foot width.
These are just a few of many such powerful and beautiful water panoramas that are wonderful to see but impractical or impossible to harness for hydropower production.
All the same, there are hydropower plants all around the country. There is at least one in every state including Alaska:
Washington has 34; Tennessee 19; Oregon has 18; Idaho – 16 and California 12.
However, most of these use man-made dams and we will discuss the various components of water based electricity production in Hydropower 102 to follow.
And you drop a bucket of water and let it fall to the street. Say the bucket is enclosed so none of the water spills out. And say that fortunately there are no people on the street.
It hits the street level– with a crash you could hear blocks away! Might even go through the sidewalk, from 1,250 feet!
Now picture Niagara Falls – it’s only 176 feet tall.
But instead of a bucket of water, 150,000 gallons of water flow over the falls every second! It’s clear that it’s not so much the height of the falls that counts as how wide they are to permit the largest volume of flow.
There are a number of waterfalls in the continental U.S. that are a great deal taller than Niagara. And in Hawaii there are a number of falls taller than 2,000 feet. Too bad Hawaii is 1,625 miles from the mainland.
As we might expect most tall waterfalls in the U.S. can be found in the west. Washington has 28 falls from 600 to 2,500 feet tall. California has 22 and Montana has 17. How many of these can claim major electricity production – hydropower?
Not many and we can see why by looking at a few of the tallest:
- Colonial Creek Falls in Washington is 2,584 feet tall with average width of 50 feet!
- Avalanche Basic Falls in Montana is 2,320 feet tall with tallest single drop of 1,000 feet and here again, only 50 feet wide.
- Sulphide Creek Falls in Washington is 2,182 feet tall in an incredibly beautiful and inaccessible area with yet another 50 or so foot width.
These are just a few of many such powerful and beautiful water panoramas that are wonderful to see but impractical or impossible to harness for hydropower production.
All the same, there are hydropower plants all around the country. There is at least one in every state including Alaska:
Washington has 34; Tennessee 19; Oregon has 18; Idaho – 16 and California 12.
However, most of these use man-made dams and we will discuss the various components of water based electricity production in Hydropower 102 to follow.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Politics of Energy and the Energy of Politics - II
On the night of Tuesday, February 24, 2009, President Obama addressed a joint session of congress. Traditionally such a session is attended by both houses of congress as well as the Supreme Court, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the members of the president’s cabinet, as was this one.
The speech was not an official “State of the Union” address, per se, which is given in mid-January each year. But it had dual intentions: (1) Present his full program to the congress and the people and (2) to attempt to restore confidence in the American financial system.
The speech represented careful concern and strong statements covering healthcare, education, the financial crisis – Wall Street responsibilities and energy.
The energy proposals were expected since there has been much talk recently about “renewable energy,” – wind power, solar power, advanced biofuels and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks and, most important in our opinion, laying down “thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy….”
There was one major thing missing.
And one major mistake.
The mistake was to continue to pander to the oil/coal interests by offering “clean coal” and oxymoron if there ever was one. To be continued.
The major missing part could replace the coal, oil, burning biofuels and any other cause of the “carbon pollution” forever:
HYDROPOWER
We have discussed this solution a number of times recently and will be offering many more details in coming weeks.
Details such as...
- Pricing (not uniform by any current means)
- Controls (that do not exist for the oil people)
- The “grid system” (the part that really exists)
We hope the President’s program succeeds.
The speech was not an official “State of the Union” address, per se, which is given in mid-January each year. But it had dual intentions: (1) Present his full program to the congress and the people and (2) to attempt to restore confidence in the American financial system.
The speech represented careful concern and strong statements covering healthcare, education, the financial crisis – Wall Street responsibilities and energy.
The energy proposals were expected since there has been much talk recently about “renewable energy,” – wind power, solar power, advanced biofuels and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks and, most important in our opinion, laying down “thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy….”
There was one major thing missing.
And one major mistake.
The mistake was to continue to pander to the oil/coal interests by offering “clean coal” and oxymoron if there ever was one. To be continued.
The major missing part could replace the coal, oil, burning biofuels and any other cause of the “carbon pollution” forever:
HYDROPOWER
We have discussed this solution a number of times recently and will be offering many more details in coming weeks.
Details such as...
- Pricing (not uniform by any current means)
- Controls (that do not exist for the oil people)
- The “grid system” (the part that really exists)
We hope the President’s program succeeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)