The DOE’s Path to an American Hydropower Renaissance

[Marlin]

Hydro power is not talked about much any more but this article seems to make sense. If persued it would mean a larger share of the grid for hydro and more storage for solar and wind. Not good news for nuclear.

The DOE's Path to an American Hydropower Renaissance

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-DOEs-Path-to-an-American-Hydropower-Renaissance

[GLW]

Hydro power is not talked about much any more but this article seems to make sense. If persued it would mean a larger share of the grid for hydro and more storage for solar and wind. Not good news for nuclear.

The DOE's Path to an American Hydropower Renaissance

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-DOEs-Path-to-an-American-Hydropower-Renaissance

Broke link?!?!

[Marlin]

Broke link?!?!

Should work now.

[hamsamich]

Not good news for nuclear, maybe.  Being able to store power also means peaking units wouldn't be as important as well, since any type of stored energy means less need for peaking units (natural gas usually) because the stored energy could be used intsead of peaking units.  If most states get serious about carbon emissions, nuclear power plants that run all the time might benefit from the stored power to replace dirty peaking units.  So when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing and the nukes are running above 100% power demand, you could store that power for later use when only a portion of that renewable power is available.  Nuclear power combined with renewables using stored energy from hydro and other types of storage could provide an even greater percentage of carbon free power.  I doubt we will be able to store enough power until decades from now to use only renewables.  Like I said, if our country ever gets serious about carbon emiission, nuclear power could be the one reliable large carbon free power source available when renewables aren't able to meet full demand.  But energy storage would be the key to that power puzzle.

[GLW]

Should work now.

pie in the sky,...

fully 25% plus of all dams which exist in the USA are at high to significant levels of hazard potential,...

what the author of the article fails to mention is that to utilize these (or any existing dams) for electricity production, those dams will first have to be "brought up to code",...

the expectation for most of the deficient dams is to allow their return to "wild river" status as they age, not to spend billions turning into trillions to bring them up to code and then electrify them,...

the article's projections are a financial non-starter:

in the last eight years the government has plunged ten trillion dollars deeper into debt,...

as much money has been debited to the national credit card in the last 8 years as in the preceding 225+ years,...

over the last ten years for every dam refurbished under federal aid programs to non-deficient or low hazard deficient status, another two dams have slipped into a significant hazard or a high hazard deficiency status primarily due to age and regulatory standard creep as per the National Inventory of Dams (NID),...

the average age for the 84,000+ dams in the US of A is >50 years old (not all dams are listed, inspected or classified in the NID),...

and with all of this money spent, and what improvements have been made, the number of deficient dams in increasing, not decreasing,...

we simply cannot afford the author's projections,...

on a side note:

the federal government has many dams owned and/or regulated by various federal agencies,...

these total to about 37200 dams (there are  ~80,000 dams in state, local or private hands),...

of these federal dams ~4600 are deficient and pose a high hazard to downstream communities,...

~3400 are deficient and pose a significant hazard to downstream communities,...

9 of these federal dams are NRC dams, none (as in 0) of these NRC dams pose a high or significant hazard to downstream communities,...

the NRC is the ONLY federal agency to have ZERO dams in either a significant hazard or high hazard deficiency status,...

ALL dams pose at least a low hazard to downstream communities, there is no 0 hazard associated with dams,...

I could go on, but you should be getting the picture,...

it's a non-starter, we cannot afford it,...

[Marlin]

pie in the sky,...

fully 25% plus of all dams which exist in the USA are at high to significant levels of hazard potential,...

what the author of the article fails to mention is that to utilize these (or any existing dams) for electricity production, those dams will first have to be "brought up to code",...

the expectation for most of the deficient dams is to allow their return to "wild river" status as they age, not to spend billions turning into trillions to bring them up to code and then electrify them,...

the article's projections are a financial non-starter:

in the last eight years the government has plunged ten trillion dollars deeper into debt,...

as much money has been debited to the national credit card in the last 8 years as in the preceding 225  years,...

over the last ten years for every dam refurbished under federal aid programs to non-deficient or low hazard deficient status, another two dams have slipped into a significant hazard or a high hazard deficiency status primarily due to age and regulatory standard creep,...

and with all of this money spent, and what improvements have been made, the number of deficient dams in increasing, not decreasing,...

we simply cannot afford the author's projections,...

on a side note:

the federal government has many dams owned and/or regulated by various federal agencies,...

these total to about 37200 dams (there are  ~80,000 dams in state, local or private hands),...

of these federal dams ~4600 are deficient and pose a high hazard to downstream communities,...

~3400 are deficient and pose a significant hazard to downstream communities,...

9 of these federal dams are NRC dams, none (as in 0) of these NRC dams pose a high or significant hazard to downstream communities,...

the NRC is the ONLY federal agency to have ZERO dams in either a significant hazard or high hazard deficiency status,...

ALL dams pose at least a low hazard to downstream communities, there is no 0 hazard associated with dams,...

I could go on, but you should be getting the picture,...

it's a non-starter, we cannot afford it,...

He did start with:

In the scenario that combines continued growth of new technologies, access to lower-cost financing, and commitments to the environmental health of rivers, it will be possible to expand U.S. hydropower from the current 101 gigawatts of generation and storage capacity to almost 150 gigawatts by 2050, according to the study. Most of that -- 36 gigawatts -- would be new pumped storage, joined by 13 gigawatts of new generating capacity.

-Pumped storage would likely be new construction and that is a large chunk of this proposal. No rivers required in a closed loop system and there are some in use now.


-The plan does not restrict itself from new dams but that too depends on new technology. All of the new "Green" power sources need new technology even solar and wind need new technology to survive without subsides. Applying carbon subsides to Hydro I think is likely to help advance the technology.


-There does not need to be a large number of dams that to be converted for the "vision"


-They are putting a lot of money and effort into a non-starter.?     OK it is the government but still.

Just Sayin' 

[GLW]

He did start with:

In the scenario that combines continued growth of new technologies, access to lower-cost financing, and commitments to the environmental health of rivers, it will be possible to expand U.S. hydropower from the current 101 gigawatts of generation and storage capacity to almost 150 gigawatts by 2050, according to the study. Most of that -- 36 gigawatts -- would be new pumped storage, joined by 13 gigawatts of new generating capacity......

with interest rates at near zero percent, lower cost financing can only be realized with financial "gifts",...

we already have 20 trillion in gifts to be repaid now,...

....All of the new "Green" power sources need new technology even solar and wind need new technology to survive without subsides. Applying carbon subsides to Hydro I think is likely to help advance the technology.....

nope, look up methanogenesis, hydro dams are global warming monsters,...

-They are putting a lot of money and effort into a non-starter.?     OK it is the government but still.

Just Sayin' 

nope, the DOE is handing out grant money,....

remember NUSCALE?!?!?!

hundreds of millions in previous and on-going USA taxpayer subsidies for jobs in Britain,....

[Marlin]

with interest rates at near zero percent, lower cost financing can only be realized with financial "gifts",...

we already have 20 trillion in gifts to be repaid now,...

Fundamentally agree but if there is a pool of "green" money that is spent anyway who decides which new technology gets it. wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, biomass, tidal power etc.etc.

nope, look up methanogenesis, hydro dams are global warming monsters,...

Should we drain every lake to mitigate this horrible greenhouse gas. There is greenhouse gas associated with every "green" energy source at some point in it's life cycle. Most sites I saw see dams as "green" without mention of a condition that is common to every body of fresh water including those for flood control and recreation.

nope, the DOE is handing out grant money,....

remember NUSCALE?!?!?!

hundreds of millions in previous and on-going USA taxpayer subsidies for jobs in Britain,....

It is our money no matter where it goes or who puts out the effort.

[Rerun]

Wont happen

[GLW]

okay, okay but this is gonna get circular real quick,....

Fundamentally agree but if there is a pool of "green" money that is spent anyway who decides which new technology gets it. wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, biomass, tidal power etc.etc.....

eeeeyup, and we're still 20 trillion in debt,...

....Should we drain every lake to mitigate this horrible greenhouse gas. There is greenhouse gas associated with every "green" energy source at some point in it's life cycle. Most sites I saw see dams as "green" without mention of a condition that is common to every body of fresh water including those for flood control and recreation.....

eeeeyup, but those big body of water uses are not dialing for carbon credit dollars to present some veneer of being renewable, sustainable, viable,...

.....It is our money no matter where it goes or who puts out the effort.

eeeeyup, our money, making jobs and jobs infrastructure for blue collars in Britain,...

we're 20 trillion in debt and making jobs programs for Brits,...

if you do not see something suicidal in that perhaps you should trade in Marlin and adopt Lemming?!?!?!?

[hamsamich]

awww man.  lemming.  wow.  brutal.

[Marlin]

okay, okay but this is gonna get circular real quick,....

Do-Si-Do 

eeeeyup, and we're still 20 trillion in debt,...


eeeeyup, our money, making jobs and jobs infrastructure for blue collars in Britain,...

we're 20 trillion in debt and making jobs programs for Brits,...

if you do not see something suicidal in that perhaps you should trade in Marlin and adopt Lemming?!?!?!?

I think I addressed that. I am a AGT skeptic denier so the whole thing is contrary to my fundamental belief anyway. But if the money will be spent anyway as I doubt they will check in with me I see no reason that it should not go to something that is not a Cuisinart or death ray for birds.

Fundamentally agree but if there is a pool of "green" money that is spent anyway who decides which new technology gets it. wind, solar, hydro, SMRs, biomass, tidal power etc.etc.

   I am and I am sure you are able to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Whether you agree with the funding or the premise of AGT or economy of the effort there is room for discussion beyond "never happen".

[GLW]

Do-Si-Do 

I think I addressed that. I am a AGT skeptic denier so the whole thing is contrary to my fundamental belief anyway. But if the money will be spent anyway as I doubt they will check in with me I see no reason that it should not go to something that is not a Cuisinart or death ray for birds.





   I am and I am sure you are able to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time. Whether you agree with the funding or the premise of AGT or economy of the effort there is room for discussion beyond "never happen".

eeeeyup,...

I understand all the convoluted shell games with money plus the politics of social engineering and controls through energy policy,...

after all;

inexpensive energy has allowed the greatest freedom, expanse of wealth and leisure to the individuals than any other accomplishment of mankind,...

and so we are compelled to play on a field not of our choosing, not level, and with continuously moving boundaries,...

either we play on that field as best we can, or we pack up our balls and go home,...

ah well,.....be well,...leming nee aguja,...

[GLW]

awww man.  lemming.  wow.  brutal.

you shoulda been here in 2003,...

that was brutal,....for some anyways,...

[Marlin]

2003? I don't remember a more contentious year than 2005 for the Terri Schiavo threads. That was brutal but then that was PolySci and the subject was living wills or lack of them and who can make the decision. A lot of passion on both sides. The bright side of it was I learned a lot about on-line debate and how to deal with a wide array of posters. It can be hard to discuss something serious on line when you cannot see the other persons face for nonverbal communication or hear the tone of the voice. Emoticons help a little with this. Learned a bit about composing posts that helps get your view across... not to much, not to little, just right (  ). Very important I learned a bit about Flame Warriors.


http://flamewarriorsguide.com/index.htm


Most of all I gained a very thick skin and a little more compassion for fellow posters while still sticking to my guns. I miss HydroDave (RIP) we frequently debated to a point of diminishing returns and had to agree to disagree on minutiae while agreeing on the main points, not much different than this thread.


  HydroDave and 50 Quatloos on his ranking status with the most negative Karma while having the highest positive Karma Legacy for some time into the future.

[GLW]

2003? I don't remember a more contentious year than 2005 for the Terri Schiavo threads.....

2003 was the opening of the Iraq invasion,...

and then the never ending body count mantra (which whimsically disappeared beginning on or about 1-20-2009, although icasualties.org does still keep on keeping on)),...

2005 was TS,...

the 2008 election run up was rather boisterous,...

and now we're back to:

BZ's general observation on Internet forums/threads etal, By the 5th post in any thread it starts drifting off topic. By 12 to 15 it has nothing to do with the original topic and if it surives to 30 or so it magically gets back on topic. This applies almost everywhere.

Mike

yet again,...

[RRhoads]

This sums it all up (directly from the article)
"In short, the proposed hydropower renaissance is far from certain"

[Marlin]

A lot of the same info but a little bit deeper. Hydro and nuclear do seem to have some common denominators.

"It is ironic that the two largest providers of low-carbon electricity, hydro and nuclear, have the most onerous regulatory hurdles that make construction lengthy and expensive. Ten years is common for merely licensing. Once built, however, both enjoy the longest of facility life-times, the lowest production costs per kWh, and produce vastly more power than any other type of energy facility before they die."

DOE Vows To Expand Hydropower in America

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/08/05/doe-vows-to-expand-hydropower-in-america/#52dddcc44182

[Marlin]

A fly in the ointment.

Canada's Big Dams Produce Clean Energy, and High Levels of Mercury

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/canada/clean-energy-dirty-water-canadas-hydroelectric-dams-have-a-mercury-problem.html?ref=energy-environment&_r=0