SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The All Energy Forum at last week's ANS Meeting in Washington D.C. was an eye-opener for many reasons, not the least being my underestimation of the amount of new hydroelectric power that could be installed in America without building a single new dam.
Almost 90% of America's low-carbon energy sources come from hydropower (21%) and nuclear power (67%), which together avoid almost a billion tons of CO2 emissions each year. If we are to achieve any of the low-carbon goals we have set out for 2030 and beyond, hydropower must increase significantly and nuclear has to maintain it's share of power, and even increase slightly by 2030.
David Zayas, Senior Manager at the National Hydropower Association (NHA), says that the goal is to double hydropower over the next few decades, adding 60 GW by 2030, producing an additional 300 billion kWhs of electricity each year.
The premise is that most dams in America don't produce power, and that adding that capability would account for the increase.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by moondoctor on Wednesday November 25 2015, @08:41PM
My uncle installs small turbines in old dams, and they generate a surprisingly large amount of electricity. Water is powerful when you've got a lot of it and let it flow. We've all seen the videos of cars being washed away by water only a foot deep. There are a lot of dams and millponds (the bigger the pond, the more energy) from the old water-wheel days that are easily converted to electric power generation. Then add all the newer dams that weren't cost effective to convert until now (technology developments, changes in markets, etc.), and you've got a serious amount of power just sitting there waiting to be used.
Think about it like the fields of wind generators. Each micro-hydro makes a reasonable amount of power, so the 'field' of generators doesn't have to be as dense.
(Score: 2) by moondoctor on Wednesday November 25 2015, @09:00PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_hydro [wikipedia.org]
I was amazed by how simple, clean and low impact micro-hydro installations are. Seen a half dozen or so sites, lots of different styles. From fancy clean designer-style concrete pour with a turbine house nicer than most garages to a cave with a spaceship-engine looking turbine stuffed down a hole to a 19th century hobbit style mill building with a big-ass (15ft in diameter?) steampunk looking generator from the 1920s with frankenstein switches that take two hands and which shakes the ground when running at full tilt. Eco-nerd heaven.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 26 2015, @12:51AM
The problem with lots of microhydro is that the engineering is haphazard at best. Sure they manage to put in a pipe, small turbine, and a generator.
They even cobble together a little dam to even out the flow.
Until it washes out, takes out the hillside, and leaves a gully. Water is heavy, and if you don't engineer your pond right you put a lot of people and property at risk.
The original concept of microhydro was no dam at all, simply a diversion of a PORTION of a stream for a few yards. But that didn't last, and just about every private installation I saw in Alaska ended up sneaking in a pond, and hopping nobody noticed.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0, Troll) by frink on Wednesday November 25 2015, @09:12PM
Let me guess. You uncle is from Nigeria and has a lot of money to transfer out of the country, money made form installing small turbines
into dams...?