How America could easily add 12 nuclear reactors’ worth of hydro power

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A new analysis by Oakridge National Laboratory says that America could generate 12.6 gigawatts of always-on baseload power just by adding electrical generation capacity to existing dams that don't already have it. That's 12 (big) nuclear reactors' worth -- the average reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant produced only 0.78 GW.

Much of that power-generating capacity is low-hanging fruit: ORNL estimates that even if you focused only on the country's 100 biggest non-electrified dams, you could still generate 8 gigawatts of power. That's four times as much as the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which provides 30 percent of the electricity used by New York City and Westchester county.

Historically, hydropower has been seen as a dead end in the race to replace fossil fuels with renewables. A 2002 analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists says that "The impact of very large dams is so great that there is almost no chance that any more will be built in the United States," and "…hydropower is almost certainly approaching the limit of its potential in the United States." But ORNL isn't talking about building more dams -- just getting more out of the existing ones.

Whether or not the new findings from ORNL will change anyone's mind is the big unknown, but a bipartisan group of Senators headed by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is apparently ready to go to the mat to see the Hydropower Improvement Act (pdf) get done.

• straight to the source
  
• Murkowski, Oak Ridge National Lab Tout Hydropower Potential (pdf), National Hydropower Association
• Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies, Union of Concerned Scientists

[JohnSmith2007 353]

This makes sense. Why not just add hydro generators to dams that we already have?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This makes sense. Why not just add hydro generators to dams that we already have?

Because the EPA won't let you do it. They're shutting down hydroelectric power in the US, not increasing it. We lost a primary generation plant north of here several years ago.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Because the EPA won't let you do it. They're shutting down hydroelectric power in the US, not increasing it. We lost a primary generation plant north of here several years ago.

Unless they are taking down the dam why would the EPA shut down the power plant? What difference does it make if the water runs over a spillway or through a turbine?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Oh come on now!!! Screw the EPA. They want it both ways.

Hydroelectric power plant at Gorge Metro Dam is scrapped after EPA, Summit County Metro Parks, environmentalists complain

It may seem contradictory, but green groups, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Summit County Metro Parks have stopped a proposed green-energy project on the Cuyahoga River.

Most river and nature lovers, in fact, are celebrating the decision earlier this month by a Fairlawn company to nix its plan to build a small hydroelectric power plant at the now-idle Gorge Metro Dam near Akron.

Environmentalists say it's a matter of one thing being greener than another. A new plant would bring hydropower to only about 2,000 homes, while the existing 58-foot-high dam prevents upstream fish movement, generally impairs water quality and should be torn down because it no longer serves a legitimate purpose, they say.

Further, a new power plant project on the site would have meant clearing four acres of park to make room for a new road and the hydroplant itself, potentially endangering plant species, opponents argue.

But the company, Metro Hydroelectric Co., says that the Summit County park system, in particular, is to blame for blocking what could have been a key renewable-energy project for the Northeast Ohio region.

"Metro Parks Serving Summit County has chosen to block our efforts -- not even allowing us to conduct the environmental studies which would have demonstrated the benign nature of this project," said company spokesman M. Clifford Phillips. He made the statement in a recent letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that effectively ended the proposed project.

"One is left to question why the Metro Parks, which promotes living 'green' to all who will listen, would not support a green-energy project."

Phillips said the company would now look beyond Ohio to develop hydropower.

The EPA, park system and more than 20 other groups including Cuyahoga Falls, the Ohio Environmental Council and the Keel Haulers Canoe Club opposed the plant when it was proposed in 2003.

The groups have said that damage to the river and the nearby Gorge Metro Park would not be worth the small amount of electricity the project would generate -- about 2.5 megawatts.

"We're hardly upset to see the permit being withdrawn for a power plant," said the Ohio EPA's Steve Tuckerman, a surface-water expert on the Cuyahoga River for nearly three decades. "The eventual removal of the dam there is the best chance for the restoration of that portion of the river."

U.S. EPA officials will be at the dam next month to test sediment for contaminants, "the first step toward determining what it would take to remove it," he said.

The dam -- the largest by far along the Cuyahoga River -- was built in 1912 to power a hydroelectric plant about a mile downstream. Its power station closed in 1958.

The dam is now owned by the Metro Parks, but FirstEnergy Corp. retains an easement to use it for power production, spokesman Mark Durbin said.

"Our preference all along was to see the dam used as some type of green project," Durbin said. "This is a local asset where there is something in place already to provide clean, renewable power and it's especially important now that Ohio has renewable standards for energy."

The company could someday entertain a new suitor to build a plant -- or consider someday tearing it down if government money became available, Durbin said.

"We've had discussions over the years with the Metro Parks and EPA about what an open river would look like, so it could happen," he said.

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2009/06/hydroelectric_power_plant_at_g.html

Edited April 6, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

We buy ours from HydroQuebec. They built dams that flooded land that was deeded to Indians and use it to generate clean power for profit.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Guess what's next? No gravel mining in riverbeds (already happened), no flood control dams, no weekend releases for recreational use (already happening), and finally, no limiting the flow during wet months to store water for later use (in process). Dams are an endangered species. Can I be the one to push the plunger on the Hoover Dam? Please? Pretty please?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

What do you think of the EPA now Steven? Still think they don't overreach?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This sounds familiar. I remember that the environmental groups in Germany that opposed coal and nuclear power wanted renewable energy sources quite badly until they decided that those wind turbines are undesirable because they killed a bird here and there and really took a toll on the views along the coastlines. That was my ####### moment back then where I stopped taking them seriously at all. While I am all for low impact energy generation and for investments into alternative and especially renewable energy resources, I can't support those that run on slogans like "No need for nuclear energy - I take my electricity from the wall power outlet". It's gotta come from somewhere and there are certain trade-offs we need to consider. Otherwise, we need to move back to those caves.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This sounds familiar. I remember that the environmental groups in Germany that opposed coal and nuclear power wanted renewable energy sources quite badly until they decided that those wind turbines are undesirable because they killed a bird here and there and really took a toll on the views along the coastlines. That was my ####### moment back then where I stopped taking them seriously at all. While I am all for low impact energy generation and for investments into alternative and especially renewable energy resources, I can't support those that run on slogans like "No need for nuclear energy - I take my electricity from the wall power outlet". It's gotta come from somewhere and there are certain trade-offs we need to consider. Otherwise, we need to move back to those caves.

I like the ones that are going to charge their electric cars by plugging them in and losing efficiency in both the charging operation and the generation of power from the electric motor. Great idea.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

A new analysis by Oakridge National Laboratory says that America could generate 12.6 gigawatts of always-on baseload power just by adding electrical generation capacity to existing dams that don't already have it. That's 12 (big) nuclear reactors' worth -- the average reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi plant produced only 0.78 GW.

Much of that power-generating capacity is low-hanging fruit: ORNL estimates that even if you focused only on the country's 100 biggest non-electrified dams, you could still generate 8 gigawatts of power. That's four times as much as the Indian Point nuclear power plant, which provides 30 percent of the electricity used by New York City and Westchester county.

I'm all for this. But the liberal greenie weenies hate any power generation.

I have an idea........ how about all you libs stop using power..... that includes fuel your your SUV.