Hoover Dams For Lilliput: Does Small Hydroelectric Power Have a Future? 302
New submitter MatthewVD writes "Boing Boing's Maggie Koerth-Baker, author of Before The Lights Go Out, writes that the era of giant hydroelectric projects like the Hoover Dam has passed. But the Department of Energy has identified 5,400 potential sites for small hydro projects of 30 MWs or less. The sites, in states as dry as Kansas, represent a total 18,000 MW of power — enough to increase by 50 percent America's hydro power. Even New York City's East River has pilot projects to produce power from underwater turbines. As we stare down global warming and peak oil, could small hydroelectric power be a key solution?"
They keep making them.... (Score:1, Interesting)
The finicky environmentalist (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my biggest problems with the environmentalist "movement" (and, in fairness, it's really more a mish-mash of a bunch of somewhat different movements) is its propensity for embracing fashionable fads and then tossing them aside the second some new thing comes along. Hydro was once the darling of clean energy, but then someone started complaining about the poor fish not being able to spawn as good as before, and so it was tossed aside like some embarrassing stepchild--in favor of the current green stars-of-the-moment, wind and solar. This in spite of the fact that hydro has BY FAR the longest and most productive history of any of the green energy generators. There are still working dams out there today that have been generating electricity for close to a century (probably some over a century now).
Makes me wonder how long it will be before someone finds fault with wind and solar and those get tossed aside for some new fad too.
Re:Economies of scale (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument against breeder reactors is that you need a lot less nuclear fuel, so that's not good for the people who dig it up and sell it. I can't find another one, anyway. Follow the money.
You're 100% right that medium-sized hydro is a bad solution, however. What we need is more MICRO hydro setups, which don't affect fish and other life because of where they're sited and how they're installed.
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
> When total energy required on the order of TWatts, you want to boast about 18GWatt...
This. If hydro is currently producing 6% of our electricity, increasing that by 50% gets you all the way up to 9% but the cost in construction and maintaining so many small installs will dwarf the benefit. To borrow someone else's phrase, "Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
> The ecological damage for that pittance of power just isn't worth it.
While I do agree in this case, note that the enviros ALWAYS say the ecological damage isn't worth it. ALWAYS. Since they cry wolf so regular most normal folk have taken to discounting claims of enviromental harm. Enviros really should consider that and instead of opposing everything every time tell us what they are FOR.
Me, I say build the crap of nukes and convert fleets to natural gas.
It would be a case where the government could make a positive impact and NOT be exceeding their legal bounds. If all large government fleets went natural gas every service station would quickly add the ability to sell to them without any mandate or tax breaks needed. Imagine every new school bus, city bus, police car, etc. converting. Every one of those vehicles stopped needing gas it would relieve a lot of pressure on crude prices AND on our strained refining capacity. Then we could think about the big rigs.
As for nukes, we should be building them. New safer designs so we can retire the current units which were less safe than a modern design before we have operated them far beyond their original service life. Which design is best? Who knows, so have a bake off and pick a half dozen different designs and build some. Dump some R&D into thorium, if only to get those people on board. Right now electric vehicles are just indirect coal burners, get enough nuke capacity onto the grid and they make a lot more sense. Now if we could just get the battery tech up to scratch....
Re:Scarce? Where? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Contained Hydro (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Economies of scale (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree on the micro-hydro setups. This winter I stayed at a resort in northern Ontario that has a 20kW turbine on site. It's the only electricity that's available there. Privately owned and maintained.
Little-to-no damage to the habitat, because the resort is situated between two lakes that have a level difference of about 6 feet naturally.
Of course, it's rare to find locations like that where low-impact turbines could be installed, but we should capitalize on them whenever we can.
Re:Economies of scale (Score:5, Interesting)
"Less people" is fine later, but right now, many people can generate their own power on a small creek. It doesn't take much to support one house. The generators are inexpensive and the efficiency doesn't have to be high as that is not the most important feature for home use. I grew up on a small creek where a floating water wheel (or whatever you want to call it) could easily produce enough power for a house and not affect the creek in any measurable way.
I agree on population, except...politicians have made so many promises to deliver goodies to future citizens, that failure to grow population will literally cause a revolution when the money runs out as the the population seriously slows or sinks. Hence the desire by some politicians to want to let in foreigners without going through any supervised immigration process.
Social Security (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is merely a promise to pay older people by taking cash from younger people...who are declining as a % of the older population. Medicare is the same. Citizens have come to view these goodies as a "right", but in fact they are laws that can be changed or repealed...and if they are not, there will be inflation that collapses the purchasing power of retirees.
Europe is in the midst of near bankruptcy in 4-5 countries (Greek debt holders will get only about 25% on their bonds...how about that for retirees who invested in 'safe' Greek bonds) SIMPLY because they promised more than they can deliver!
SOLUTION: Do not rely on the government to save you or your family. Save, invest and grow your own little community as best you can. That is the American way that always led to success.
Re:Economies of scale (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonsense. People are NOT a drain on a system if the system does not turn them to be a drain.
The system that allows the people to be free and to fulfil their own needs allows for the people to provide for themselves, this is a natural consequence of free market - the more demand there is for something the more supply will be provided. People find way to create more supply when there is more demand and if they can't find the supply, there will be a natural decrease of population (this is seen in European countries, as they are forced into near slave taxation levels, they can't afford children and births are very depressed as the young are forced to give up so much for the old).
OTOH your proposal is nothing short of Modest, isn't it? I can see you standing on a podium, a round of applause from the junger-cpu6502s or however your preferred system of totalitarian regime will organise everybody. I bet self-immolation and other forms of suicide would be greatly encouraged and praised for their 'selflessness' that is so wonderful for your preferred flavour of socialist movement.
I have a better proposal - you have matches and access to some kerosene? Do you know how to use those things? Set an example.
Re:something about reservoirs (Score:5, Interesting)
> ...and their environmental effect.
I think you missed this part:
"produce power from underwater turbines"
These are called "run of river" systems. Instead of a dam that creates an artificial height difference, they are based on using natural changes in height of the landscape. What you do is dig a tube between two points on the river, and the difference in height between the two provides the power.
Although everyone things of dams, run-of-river systems are very common. Niagara Falls is a good example. This project has little visual impact, and none of the detrimental effects normally associated with hydro. The failure modes are also quite benign, generally loss-of-power, not loss-of-life.
I've never seen a good argument not to build these where possible. Except for financial, of course.