# Is Hydro-Power the Solution



## Drachir (Jan 28, 2009)

This is an article on the solution to energy problems from the Canadian perspective.  I realize that it was written by a spokesperson for the hydro-electric industry, but he does seems to have a few legitimate points.  

*Hydro power could re-energize economy, help environment*

*Regulations favour gowth of fossil-fuel-powered electricity*

*Pierre Fortin, Canadian Hydropower Association*

*Published: Monday, January 26*
*Is green energy a cure for the economic downturn?*
*While there is no instant remedy, Canada is in a better position to recover from this slowdown than our neighbour to the south.*
*To start with, we have a significantly lower debt and we have a wealth of natural resources.*
*Specifically, Canada's immense hydro power potential is the secret tonic that can re-energize regional economies and create high-quality jobs. At the same time, hydro power development can address climate change and improve air quality.*
*In recognition of hydro power's role as a clean, renewable energy that can contribute to economic growth and fight climate change, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has committed to meeting 90 per cent of Canada's electricity needs with clean sources, such as hydro power, by 2020.*
*Hydro power already provides 60 per cent of Canada's electricity, and about 97 per cent of existing renewable electricity. Yet we have the potential for much more. The industry has identified 163,000 megawatts of technical potential across all of Canada -- more than double the existing capacity. In Alberta alone, the potential is over 11,000 MW.*
*Right now, a number of hydro power projects are being considered, planned or are under construction. Over the next 10 years, these projects will involve more than $50 billion in capital investment and tens of thousands of jobs.*
*Because these projects take many years to develop and are often undertaken by public utilities, they tend to be less sensitive to economic downturns than other energy and natural resources projects.*
*Such investment pays off for decades. The long service life of hydro installations translates into lower rates for consumers.*
*In fact, British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec have among the lowest electricity rates in North America, thanks to a predominantly hydro-based system. Given that water is a domestic resource, hydro installations are not subject to fluctuations in fuel prices. That means hydro power also fosters energy independence and security.*
*Hydro makes good economic sense, and it is green. Hydro power produces no air pollutants that cause acid rain and smog, no polluting or toxic waste by-products and a very small amount of greenhouse gas emissions: 60 times less than those from coal-fired plants and 18 to 30 times less than natural gas power plants.*
*Life-cycle emissions from hydro facilities are comparable to those of wind power. And hydro power's unique flexibility makes it the best source to support development of other renewable but intermittent sources of electricity, such as wind power.*
B*y displacing more polluting sources of electricity, hydro power helps Canada reduce its emissions and improve air quality. Pollution from U.S. coal-fired plants crosses borders; hydro power reduces continental emissions and pollutants through annual sales of an average of 40 terawatt hours a year to the U.S., primarily to markets that rely on coal-fired plants. Canada is one of the world's largest exporters of clean electricity.*


----------



## Dave (Jan 28, 2009)

The problem with hydro-power in general is that you need to dam a fast flowing river. Over time the reservoir behind the dam then silts up. If you can find a better solution to that problem you have the winner.

Probably the remoteness from industry and towns is a problem for distribution too. I'm trying to be a devils advocate here.

In the UK, we currently have a discussion about creating a barrage across the Severn estuary to get tidal power. The Severn has the largest tides in the world and it could supply 5% of the UK energy needs. While it would displace more polluting sources of energy, it would flood areas used by wildlife. On a smaller scale, hydro-electric power would do the same.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 28, 2009)

The trouble with tide power is that you get all the energy at certain peak points, and you can't choose when these will fall. There's no way of storing electrical energy (indeed, the best I've heard so far involves a  hydro-electric system that pumps water uphill when you have excess energy, and generates electricity from it when there's a shortage, and how efficient can that be?)

If there were an industrial process that could be made to run efficiently by batch, while the energy was available, tide power could make an important contribution. The obvious situation would be to use it to make some fuel (probably hydrogen, but it would be possible to go more sophisticated) which could be used during the quiet periods.

You don't have to have fast flowing water to extract energy from it; while the Valais does it like that, Geneva concentrates on sheer quantity; there is relatively little head on the Rhone coming out of lac Leman, but the amount of water  going towards the Mediterranian is enormous. 

So, important factors in hydroelectric generating; a big reservoir, to make you independant of rainfall, all the year round flow, stable geology, reasonable access. Almost everywhere in the world this means damming valleys, changing local ecologies, flooding wetlands, displacing populations. The "green" fanatics, so pro renewable resources, generally come out in opposition when the bulldozers move in in earnest. Hydro is a much better buzz word than nuclear, but tends to do a lot more damage to a much greater region when they're both working right; and even a dam burst is comparable with most nuclear disasters. If the Three Gorges poject is anything to go by, this isn't going to change any time in the near future.

So, is hydro power (all hydro power, including tide and wave power) the solution? Even for Canada, I don't think so, and worldwide, definitely not.

Should it be part of the global solution? Just as definite a yes; a mature technology, we know the problems it causes, relatively low in polluants and not too dire an effect on the environment, we'd be irresponsible not to expand it's use, where that can be done responsably.


----------



## Nik (Jan 28, 2009)

At least they're looking at multiple options for the Severn Barrage this time !!

IIRC, one classic scheme that refused to die may yet satisfy even the ecologists !! This marvel required a 'pumped storage' island-shaped tower on the rocks in mid-estuary which would also anchor the barrage. This would be a 'high island' rather than a lagoon, and have enough buffer capacity to supply demand while retaining the existing tidal pattern and range. Much of the tall ring-dam's outer face would be textured like a 'climbing wall' to welcome cliff-nesting birds...

Um, for inland use, I recently saw a design for a fish-friendly hydropower generator that did not use turbines, weirs or the like. It worked by vortex shedding from an immersed cylinder...


----------



## Wiglaf (Jan 28, 2009)

1.  You need largish undammed rivers.  (They don't need to be fast; the weight of the higher water level behind the dam creates the necessary force.)
2.  You must mitigate the ecological dammage.  (For example, providing a way for spawning fish to get through.)
3.  You can't drink all the lake water; you need to leave enough to power the turbines.  (A problem that arrises with Hoover dam and lake Mead in a few years.)

If you can do that, great.  Otherwise you are stuck with nuclear and fossil fuels until you find a way to make other sources cheaper.


----------



## Boneman (Jan 28, 2009)

A retired nuclear physicist put it to me that actually, enough energy is beamed to earth in a day to last it a year. It's just that we don't know how to collect it. When you consider photosynthesis is free, heat is free and light is free, eventually we'll do something about it and become more efficient in collecting it. In the meantime, hydro-electric sounds damn (sorry for the pun) good, but weren't there some problems a while back with the weight of the dammed water creating pressure on the earth plates, and action and reaction earthquakes or some such elsewhere? Might have been the yangste?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jan 28, 2009)

I personally don't think hydro is really the solution. Sure, it might not put anything into the air, but there's certain wildlife to take into account. Not to mention costs of building and maintaining dams.....


----------



## Happy Joe (Jan 28, 2009)

Personally I see relatively small hydro power as another example of "Look at the US and do the opposite." (Its harder to go wrong that way.)

Small hydro power dams were once very common across the US they have, nearly all, been torn out and/or decommissioned over the last 50 - 60 years so in favor of bigger, more expensive, higher polluting (new) alternatives. Now we are looking at spending lots of money on all kinds of schemes to get back to the point we ran away from; without once considering reactivation/repair of proven technologies.

Ah! development, ain't it grand?

It may be smart... but is it wise?

Enjoy!


----------



## Wiglaf (Jan 29, 2009)

Happy Joe said:


> Personally I see relatively small hydro power as another example of "Look at the US and do the opposite." (Its harder to go wrong that way.)
> 
> Small hydro power dams were once very common across the US they have, nearly all, been torn out and/or decommissioned over the last 50 - 60 years so in favor of bigger, more expensive, higher polluting (new) alternatives. Now we are looking at spending lots of money on all kinds of schemes to get back to the point we ran away from; without once considering reactivation/repair of proven technologies.
> 
> ...


I know about building Hoover Dam and the TVA but, when did we ever tear out small power generating dams? Wouldn't upgrading turbines or just letting water flow through the (now turbine-free) channels be cheaper than tearing down a dam?

Well, I found something about 2 being torn down to please environmentalists and because of Indian salmon rights.  Like I said you have to find a way to protect the wildlife or you have to resort to coal.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 29, 2009)

chrispenycate said:


> There's no way of storing electrical energy (indeed, the best I've heard so far involves a  hydro-electric system that pumps water uphill when you have excess energy, and generates electricity from it when there's a shortage, and how efficient can that be?)



About 75%, Chris - this is what Dinorweg, in the Wesh mountains does.

Dinorwig_Power_Station


----------



## Wiglaf (Jan 29, 2009)

Pumped storage systems use more energy than they produce.  They use the power when there is low demand but can produce some at peak draw to help out the main supply of power.  Otherwise you need lots of batteries which will give you about a 20% loss by the time you convert back to AC.  So it is batteries at 80% or water towers at 75%.


----------



## Drachir (Jan 29, 2009)

Dave said:


> In the UK, we currently have a discussion about creating a barrage across the Severn estuary to get tidal power. The Severn has the largest tides in the world and it could supply 5% of the UK energy needs. While it would displace more polluting sources of energy, it would flood areas used by wildlife. On a smaller scale, hydro-electric power would do the same.



Canada also claims the highest tides 
Tides at the Bay of Fundy

Just how do the tides in the Severn compare?

Actually new tidal power technology eliminates the need for a dam.  The turbines are simply placed free-standing on the ocean bottom and the tides flow through and around them.  They can even be placed in rivers without dams.  Below are links to both types.  
NYC Successfully Installs Tidal-Power Turbine in East River : CleanTechnica

Giant Tidal Power Turbines Coming to a Canada Near You : CleanTechnica


----------



## Drachir (Jan 29, 2009)

I expect that dams in Canada make more sense than elsewhere.  A few square kilometers of land gets flooded, but if it is one thing Canada has it is lots of land in fairly remote areas.  A classic example was the James Bay Hydro Project in the Province of Quebec.  

James Bay Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James Bay Project

As you can see there was some opposition from native people, however, these have largely been resolved.


----------



## Wiglaf (Jan 29, 2009)

I thought most of the talk now was about micro-hydro under 1Mw, tidal, wave, and hydro-thermal.  California currently has arround 400 hydroelectric dams.  We can't do thermal because you need warmer water; it would be out for you as well.  We can't do tidal but, Alaska can.  Canada might have some luck with that.  We could do wave but filling the coastline with generators would be expensive, put big chunks of metal all along the coast, and even then only provide 23% of our current need.  I don't like them.


----------



## Dave (Jan 29, 2009)

Drachir said:


> Canada also claims the highest tides
> Tides at the Bay of Fundy
> 
> Just how do the tides in the Severn compare?


I stand corrected - it is the second largest in the world at 50ft.
The Severn Bore Page

As usual, everything in Canada is bigger!


----------



## Nik (Jan 29, 2009)

Big dams with big 'lakes' *do* prompt a spate of minor quakes, that's a given. Now they're built to cope.

The Three Gorges project is a whopper by any standard, and has been over-built as a precaution. Snag, IIRC, is that they face a small but finite risk of a 'Richter 9+' in the Himalayan foot-hills.

Remember their 'natural dam' which formed due to an avalanche ? It prompted evacuation of a city due to the rising water level, partial evacuation of several down-stream cities and towns due risk of catastrophic collapse and torrential flood, and seriously frantic digging of a by-pass channel ??

Now imagine ten times worse, in several places, in the middle of a big quake's devastation and major after-shocks...

Think 'domino effect', as one natural dam's failure overwhelms those down-stream...

That's bad, but not the worst case: With that, the entire river breaks from the current, centuries-old channel, 'hangs a left', and sweeps several million people into the China Sea. Did that in the Middle Ages, done it oft before, may yet do it again...


----------



## Drachir (Jan 30, 2009)

Dave said:


> I stand corrected - it is the second largest in the world at 50ft.
> The Severn Bore Page
> 
> As usual, everything in Canada is bigger!




I see it is a matter of tides and bores.  The Fundy bore is only modest, raising a wave of only about two meters on the St. John River.  It is the tide that is spectacular.  At low tide fishing boats are left stranded on the ocean floor.  
Fundy Tides, Hall's Harbour, NS - a set on Flickr

Here are a couple of Youtube videos
YouTube - Stop Motion (Bay of Fundy "TIDE" - Parrsboro, NS)
YouTube - Bay of Fundy


----------



## Wiglaf (Jan 30, 2009)

I got 49 ft for the Severn and 53 ft for the Bay of Fundy. Personally living in a city with an official elevation of 8 ft, 50 ft tides sound like more trouble than they're worth.  Is river surfing worth it?


----------

