Why no hydro?
December 26, 2010Everytime gas prices rise a couple of cents, the media is all over it. Invariably, however, #2 oil, from which heating and diesel fuels are derived, go up by staggering amounts every Fall, just in time for the winter heating season. The rise in diesel fuel prices affects my business directly and currently costs upwards of 150 dollars per day, per truck. A few years back, when diesel prices approached $5.00 per gallon, it crippled the trucking industry.
After that nightmare, it takes a bigger price hike to get our attention, but the one constant that remains is that our nation is still vulnerable to the fickle nature of world oil prices. Gaining independence from oil should be a national priority, and there are a number of reasons why.
First, as we watch our economy continue to teeter on the brink of disaster, we must ask ourselves…”where is the next industrial, manufacturing, or technical frontier?” We have become a service economy but a great nation can’t survive on that alone. We build barely anything here anymore, and not since the high-tech boom have we seen a really churning economy. Energy is necessarily one of the next big frontiers. We should be leading the way.
Second…the planet. If you’ve read my stuff for any length of time you’ll know I’m not a “Global Warming Nut”, but I do believe that the burning of fossil fuels has had an effect on the atmosphere, and therefore the planet as a whole. What bothers me most about the GW argument is that it has become politicized. I have to maintain a little cynicism for someone like Al Gore who turns the cause into a living, but still travels by private jet, lives in a mansion, and has a carbon footprint bigger than Sasquatch on steroids. Still, I do believe it is morally imperative to be good stewards of the planet, and to not roll the dice on a gamble as large as the inhabitability of Earth. The atmosphere is remarkably thin in comparison to the size of the ball it protects, and I don’t believe it is implausible that the amount of oil we’ve been burning for the last century or so has taken some ill effect on it. And, beyond the effects of burning oil, think “Gulf Oil Spill” to see the dangers of harvesting oil.
Third…some of the answers are right in front of us. While I don’t see electric cars that are practical, or solar panels that provide a reasonable cost vs. benefit ratio, I do see, just to our North, over 100 years of successful production of electricity from rivers. This is not a big gamble on some crazy scheme. It works, and we know it.
Fourth…National Security. Oil has played too big a role, for far too long, in foreign policy decisions and probably even wars.
That, alone, should be impetus enough for a national resolution to ween ourselves off the gooey substance.
Why is there no substantial hydroelectric effort in this country? Canada has mastered the art and I have marveled at the simplicity and efficiency of their hydro plants. Remarkably maintenance free, clean and reliable, these massive facilities are manned by a skeleton crew. I watched a documentary on one of them once, and one of the workers stated that there was simply no need for a staff of hundreds. The water pours in, turns the turbine, the turbine turns a generator, and the water pours out and back into the river. The Decew Falls 1 hydro plant, built in 1898, still produces power today and hasn’t missed a day. Not like a nuclear plant, with a relatively short life, and then a massively expensive dismantling project with radioactive waste that continues to be an expense and hazard for future generations.
In 2004 Canada was the top hydro power producer in the world. Today, Manitoba, Quebec and British Columbia derive 75% of their electricity from hydro power. There are two basic types of plants, “run-of-river” which diverts a portion of the water from a river and runs it through the plant, or “impound” type where a dam is built to harness the waters power. There are many of both types in Canada, still functioning after many years of trouble-free operation.
Sometimes in life, we over-complicate things and while meeting America’s energy needs for the future is not simple, this part of it certainly could be. Perhaps a good place to start would be a federal streamlining of the permitting process along with some kind of tax initiative for start-ups. The most difficult question to answer might simply be this…what are we waiting for?
PabloNH
Dec 26, 2010
1. The US has nowhere near the hydroelectric capacity, relative to electricity demand, that Canada does. Our capacity is already heavily utilized - and many environmentalists want to reduce that (e.g. by removing the Glen Canyon Dam). However, we can, and do, buy a lot of hydroelectricity from Canada, which of course is a good thing.
2. How we generate electricity doesn’t have much of an impact on oil prices; less than 1% of US electricity is generated by burning a petroleum product.
CThompson
Dec 27, 2010
In PHYSIC 134 “Energy for the Future” I finished with a final grade of 99.13%. :) …..Pablo makes a few good points.
I would add the following:
About 75% of our oil consumption goes to the transportation sector….. No amount of available water flow will change this fact or lower petro prices.
You can see the complete distribution of “Supply Sources” and “Demand Sectors” in this diagram:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html
conserv-ed
Dec 27, 2010
First and foremost we should be good stewards of the planet. We can agree but we need real science and valid data not Al Gore!
Right this very moment there is evidence that the EPA with Obama’s blessing will tax America for its carbon usage like Cap and Trade.
And finally there is no bleeping evidence that Carbon Dioxide by man created global warming. None!
In fact there is new evidence that the Earth cycles via the Sun and Moon contribute more to hot and cold cycles that man can ever do with fossil fuel.
CThompson
Dec 27, 2010
“In fact there is new evidence that the Earth cycles via the Sun and Moon contribute more to hot and cold cycles that man can ever do with fossil fuel.”
Funny that you should mention that. …I, like so many others, have been so distracted w/ Al Gore-like shows/claims…that when I heard the following statement by a prominent scientist I felt silly:
“The primary source of Global Warming is the sun.”
Karl Zahn
Dec 27, 2010
Thanks to both of you for reading and commenting. CT..your graph actually bolsters my argument. I see coal there at 19.7%…all for electricity and of course coal is a big pollutant and the culprit in the carbon tax that is being discussed. See..I’m a pragmatist. Hydro is clean, reliable, low-maintenance power and no one is going to tell me we don’t have enough rivers here to do it. One river, with a series of dams run-by type plants, could generate a whole lot of power. On the Global Warming argument…let’s face it…because so much of it is science, and so much of science is open to different interpretations, I see the notion of waiting for a definitive scientific answer as pointless. We may well NEVER have a consensus. So I look to logic. Since just the early 1900’s there has been a boon in the burning of fossil fuels. The advent of the internal combustion engine, the industrial revolution. There can be no argument that we have not burned a hell of a lot of fuel, that it does indeed emit pollutants into the atmosphere, that there are reputable scientists on BOTH sides of the argument, and that all of the fuel that mankind has burned and whatever effect it has had is ON TOP of whatever natural cycles may be occuring. I would think that we could all agree, as well, that if it turns out that there is ireparable damage done to the ozone or atmosphere, that that would be a really tough Genie to get back in the bottle. Or…maybe you’re all right and hydro is a bad idea, and that energy is not the next technical frontier that this country should be on the leading edge of… I also add to my opinion, my own observations. At 53, having lived here in the same town my whole life, I have watched rain storms measured in inches turn from an anomaly to the norm. I have seen tornados become somewhat routine in NH. Not like the midwest monsters, but still something that was practically unheard of until a few decades ago. I throw it all into the mix, and it makes me wonder.
PabloNH
Dec 28, 2010
> “…no one is going to tell me we don’t have enough rivers here to do it”
That’s unfortunate, because it is the simple physical and economic fact. If we could somehow use the potential energy in every drop of water to produce electricity, there would be plenty - but it would be fantastically expensive and ecologically disruptive. The vast bulk of undeveloped potential hydro power is in the West. Much, much better to buy cheap electricity from Quebec.
> “ir[r]rparable damage done to the ozone”
Not happening - ozone is an unstable gas, created in the upper atmosphere when ultraviolet light breaks up an oxygen molecule into atomic oxygen, which then binds with another oxygen molecule. Ozone rapidly breaks back down into oxygen, a reaction that is catalyzed by certain free radicals, such as those contained in CFCs. It doesn’t have anything to do with the burning of coal, and is not “irreparable”.
There have been plenty of tornadoes in NH through its history; for a list of those in the last half of the 20th century, look here: http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/nhtorn.htm.
Likewise, many of NH’s weather records were set a long time ago. Record high temp in 1911. Record low in 1934. Heaviest snows in the 1940s and 1960s - and droughts in those same decades. And we haven’t had a serious hurricane in decades.
Obviously, we get weather reports in real-time now, and the network of sensors is much denser today, but it takes a lot more than subjective observation to add up to evidence of climate change. I’m sure there’s never been a generation that didn’t perceive its weather to be unique.
Karl Zahn
Dec 28, 2010
Pablo,,,what is truly “unfortunate” is your apparent conviction that YOU have all of the facts. OK..there aren’t enough rivers for Hydro Power to make sense so we shouold continue buying it from Canada. Burning coal is good, I guess, because Pablo says there’s nothing to worry about.
You see..I appreciate you reading and commenting, but there have been others here that I finally stopped responding to becuase it was personal or political. You can quote all the science about ozone and weather records that you like. That is the canned response from people who get all upset the moment anyone, especially a conservative, wants to talk about clean energy and a clean planet. Go back and read your posts. Why does this aggravate people so? Frankly, the ozone stuff that you were able to look up and put out here, though it sounds technical and really smart…I’ve seen too many instances of science being wrong. how many medications and substances…coffee..aspirin….etc. have we been alternately told over the years would either kill us or make us live forever? You know, as we keep learning, we keep adjusting. Sorry the subject was so upsetting for you and as is often the case…no one here has answere the intended question.
Should we free ourselves of foreign oil? Should we work towards new energy tecnhology and be the country that cracks that wide open? Although, I gues you did answer the hydro question…..No!. If you write back, offer some ideas, not all the same “Global warming isn’t real because…” crap that we’ve all heard a million times.
conserv-ed
Dec 28, 2010
Will comment more tomorrow. Good discussion!
PabloNH
Dec 28, 2010
Is there a rule on this forum against citing actual facts, rather than feelings and perceptions?
> Burning coal is good, I guess, because Pablo says there’s nothing to worry about.
Where did I say that?
> the ozone stuff that you were able to look up
FYI, I didn’t have to look this up - it’s pretty common knowledge. (And, yes, it’s knowledge - not a theory. We know how ozone is created in the upper atmosphere, and how it breaks down.)
> Sorry the subject was so upsetting for you
Huh?
> no one here has answere the intended question. Should we free ourselves of foreign oil?
Perhaps because not only didn’t you ask it, but because your topic was hydro power, which CThompson and I did address.
> “Global warming isn’t real because…”
Again, huh?
Karl Zahn
Dec 28, 2010
Pablo..what “upsets” me is not the subject, but a back and forth that leads no place.First..I didn’t quote you as saying anything about burning coal. You offered no opinion about coal. Second..the column is clearly, I think, about more than hydro power, indeed it lists out a few reasons, in my opinion, why we should be devloping new sources of energy. As far as the ozone, I’m not a scientist, but neither you nor I can say as fact, whether or not the activities of mankind have had an effect on the atmosphere. The answer may be “no”. It may be a combination of natural and manmade influences.
And I did ask the question about whether or not we should free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil.
Finally, i ask you straight out, and this is a “yes” or no”…Do you feel it is not even plausible that mankind has had a negative effect on the atmosphere? If the answer to that is yes…then I’m not sure where you expect the discussion to go. I have stated clearly that I could be wrong…we may have nothing to do with any changes in the climate, regardless how tiny they may seem.
Finally,,,you chide me for using “feelings” and “perceptions” though they have done me pretty well in my 53 years, combined with a sense of logic. Those same “feelings: told me Obama Care couldn’t work. Logic: You can’t add million of patients to n existing infrastructure of doctors and hospitalsd and expect the cost or level of service to remain unchanged. i was right, and I’m not a medical expert or economist. Those same “feelings” told me Obama would be a lousy President because he had never been a “leader”. Whoa! Worked again…
PabloNH
Dec 28, 2010
You may be “upset” now, and that is of course your right, but you had written about “people who get all upset”, and a “subject [that] was so upsetting” to me. The latter, at least, was unfounded, presumptuous, and rather bizarre.
Coal - I never said you did. however, you connected me with an assertion about burning coal, with no foundation. I merely quoted what you wrote, and asked where it had come from.
“whether or not the activities of mankind have had an effect on the atmosphere.” I can say as a fact that the activities of mankind - starting with respiration - have had an effect on the atmosphere. There has been pollution of various sorts for millenia, resulting in air that has been nearly unbreathable in many instances. What I wrote was much narrower - merely an explanation of the genesis of upper atmospheric ozone, and its breakdown (in which I mentioned yet another well-understood process by which mankind has had an effect on the atmosphere).
(BTW, I used to design and code atmospheric models for a living. It was an extremely interesting job - but way too much politics.)
You didn’t ask about dependence on foreign oil until your penultimate post; FWIW, my answer is emphatically no.
“Do you feel it is not even plausible that mankind has had a negative effect on the atmosphere?”
I think I have made it very clear, beginning with my ozone explanation, that the answer is yes. But whether we have had a negative effect, or any appreciable effect, on climate is an entirely separate question.
“Feelings and perceptions” - no, I chided you that, when I make a fact-based argument, you accuse me of claiming a monopoly on facts, and of making unfounded assertions (”because Pablo says there’s nothing to worry about”). You said using facts “aggravate[s] people so”, and wrote, again without any evidence, that I was able to “look up” “ozone stuff” that is actually fairly common knowledge. (Not that there’s anything wrong with looking stuff up.)
What I’m trying to do here is to get you to be more careful and analytical - and less personal - with your arguments. Among other things, this means not discounting well-established scientific observation about a simple chemical reaction. It also means not expanding an observation about that simple reaction to a (contradictory) assertion about the extremely complex system of which that reaction is a tiny part.
I don’t claim to have all, or even most, of the answers, but I do try my best to discuss these things as carefully as I can, and to keep my assertions to the areas I understand fairly well.
Your feelings may have worked with Obama - although one would have had to be particularly deluded not to have figured that one out - but they clearly have not worked here. Again, you seem to be a bright enough guy - just try to think things through before making assertions. You have a forum here, and the inclination to use it; I’m trying to help make your arguments more effective.
Karl Zahn
Dec 28, 2010
Fair enough.
conserv-ed
Dec 29, 2010
I understand below that there are 9 hydro electric dams in New Hampshire that in total produce 66 KW. Small indeed for the number of dams and our power needs.
Hydro information for New Hampshire below
http://www.nu.com/energy/stations/hydro.asp
Quote from the website
“Hydroelectric power — water power — at one time supplied a majority of New England’s energy needs. Although hydropower in Northeast Utilities’ (NU’s) service area cannot meet all the power demands of today’s customers, NU relies on hydropower for a small percent of its customers’ electrical energy requirements.
NU operates 27 run-of-river or “conventional hydro” stations, normally during periods of high electricity demand. These stations are mainly on the Merrimack, Pemigewasset and Androscoggin Rivers in New Hampshire.
The NU conventional hydro system also plays an important role in the effort to restore anadromous fish, such as the Atlantic salmon and the American shad, to New England’s waterways. Fish passageway facilities have been installed at seven hydro stations, including five in New Hampshire.”
End quote
What I get from this is that even with 27 hydroelectric generating stations, NU says it does not come close to supplying our ever growing energy needs. So, How big is the Quebec dam and what area would we have to put under water to create such generating capacity is a question that I think is obvious. We would get a public backlash the likes of which would challenge the building of the Seabrook station.
A 2006 report from masscops
http://www.masscops.com/f12/report-new-england-needs-more-electric-capacity-19789/
Quote
(Boston-AP, Oct. 27, 2006 5:08 PM) _ New England’s power grid manager says satisfying the region’s growing appetite for electricity will require building eight large power plants by 2015.
A report from ISO New England calls for investing more than three-and-a-half billion dollars to improve power transmission.
The study also warns that the region has become too dependent on electricity generated from burning natural gas — which has become prone to price spikes.
ISO says New England could help ensure a reliable electricity supply by building new terminals to import liquefied natural gas and by adding new gas pipelines.
Investors have submitted 35 proposals for new plants in New England since mid-2005, after construction dropped off sharply from 2002 through 2005.
end quote
Based on all this info, I do not believe that Hydro is the answer but it does help to create energy diversity which helps to supplement our needs and is a clean source of energy.
That is all I can add to the conversation guys.
conserv-ed
Dec 29, 2010
Further info on Maine energy.
http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/GORDON-L-WEIL-Energy-project-foes-benefit-from-lack-of-balanced-national-policy.html
quote
Decades ago, tidal power was proposed in the Dickey-Lincoln project that would have given New England its first federal power administration and lower electric rates. But the project was rejected because of environmental opposition.
At one time, nuclear power seemed like a reasonable alternative, one that would not contribute to climate change. But Maine Yankee, the state’s only nuclear plant, was closed, and there is no chance of a new facility.
Natural gas came along, and it displaced a lot of oil. But opponents question any new natural gas facilities, because after all, it, too, is a fossil fuel. At best, it is only “transitional.”
How about solar energy? It is too soon to tell, but we know that it requires vast expanses and massive amounts of water. Can it happen without opposition?
Why go over this sad history? Because we are about to embark on the quest to make Maine and its offshore waters home to big-scale wind generation. And we can expect opposition and lawsuits. Cape Wind set the pattern.
Does wind power threaten birds? Does it cause visual and noise pollution? Do off-shore facilities interfere with commercial fishing?
Wind power, like all of the other resources policymakers have considered, requires balancing legitimate environmental and energy concerns. And, like all other resources, we can expect to see a series of battles over each project as it comes along.
The result of perennial squabbles over individual projects is a piecemeal energy policy. There is no chance that a case-by-case approach can yield energy independence.
unquote
No easy answers…
America is on the verge of bankruptcy and China is emerging, the USA is on its way to Banana Republic status if we don’t tap into domestic fossil fuels. I would pour my efforts into what pulls us out of this economic disaster. I opt for North American fossil fuels my friends as the backbone of our economic engine for the remainder of this century. Yes keep working on clean energy with realistic goals.
Karl Zahn
Dec 29, 2010
I couldn’t have said it better. Let’s use our oil resources here through a transition period. It is the same over-reacting environmentalists and the ensuing over-regulation, that leaves us drilling a mile deep in the ocean. My feeling is, though hydro and wind may be only small pieces, that we need to start putting the small pieces together nonetheless. It is the same with the national deficit. We overlook millions as “too small to matter”, but if you put enough of those together, it adds up. All in all, a reasoned conversation by all.
CThompson
Dec 30, 2010
As is the case in most areas, it wouldn’t hurt if we took a page from China’s playbook….
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html
before it’s too late.
The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal= #1 in the world..(reserves). …ALL ours. …Set up a contest for scientists to improve or master clean coal technology. …Set the winning prize at 30 billion dollars and let the private sector go at it w/ innovation.
Karl Zahn
Dec 30, 2010
CT—now you’re talkin’. Would you be interested in running for President?
CThompson
Dec 31, 2010
Large amounts of money motivate people. …Why not tap into that? …Instead of the gov’t subsidizing w/ billions $$$ the failed Ethanol program(which only drives up food prices.) ..Put aside those bilions as a prize for the smartest entrepreneurs …to move in the direction that you espouse in your column.
Funny thing often happens when entrepreneurs are released w/ real incentives= INNOVATIONS THAT ARE UNEXPECTED and come out of the blue making all of our lives better. (ie. Medical and technological advances.)
Incentivize and release these people who are much smarter than I. (The scientists, the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world, etc.)…and MAKE THE REWARDS BIG…….It’ll save money in the long run.
AND NO!!! ….I do not want to be president! …Happy to be an average stiff. :)
Karl Zahn
Dec 31, 2010
Good idea. They did a similar thing with getting a private company to get their own vehicle into space. Burt Rutan and his crew took that prize, but you’re right. it’s an excellent way to motivate our greatest thinkers.
I just watched John Stossell do a report on the Ethanol subsidies. It is so absurd it makes you want to cry. An excellent example of the government trying to fulfill it’s own wet dream at taxpayer expense.
CThompson
Jan 1, 2011
” They did a similar thing with getting a private company to get their own vehicle into space. Burt Rutan and his crew took that prize”
I think I saw a story on that. …There are also a couple of other similar contests w/ large cash prizes that get different teams of scientists/innovators really juiced. …Their enthusiasm is so refreshing and a reason to hope.
I rarely associate enthusiasm w/ the public sector.(more like apathy.) …Yet that’s where the billions $$$$ are just dumped w/ little oversight, and even less demand for results.