backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by Nervenkrieg.. on May 20 at 2:52 PM

If you close coal plants and don't build nuclear, what are your options?

The Canadian province of Quebec recently started construction on a major new hydroelectric project that will cost an estimated $6.5 billion dollars (CAD). The Romaine Hydroelectric Complex will have 1550 MW of capacity and produce 8 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. Consisting of four power plants when completed, it will be able to supply electricity for 450,000 households.

Much of that power could end up in New York state and New England. Hydro-Quebec, the province's public utility, generates over 95% of its electricity from hydropower. It currently exports 21.3 terawatt-hours of electricity per year to Ontario, New York state, and New England, generating over $1.9 billion CAD in revenue for 2008.

Several factors are leading to increased hydroelectricity imports. The Obama administration’s policies on renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions trading, and the shift away from coal power plants means that hydroelectricity becomes more attractive to municipalities. On the other hand, growing power consumption along the eastern seaboard means that new and replacement power generation must be brought online quickly.

The Luther Forest Technology Campus in New York state's Capital Region is expected to require large amounts of power. GlobalFoundries is planning to build its Fab 2 CPU plant there, and GE Transportation will build a new battery plant in the region to support its hybrid-electric vehicle efforts.

Hydroelectricity is a source of constantly available baseload power during the day and night. Baseload power is currently only available from nuclear, coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric sources. Solar and wind power require large amounts of reactionary power from coal and/or natural gas plants to ensure stability in the electrical grid and power supply chain.

Hydroelectric dams usually raise environmental concerns due to flooding needed to create reservoirs for the dams. Over $200 million has already been spent or budgeted on environmental studies, attenuation measures, and environmental monitoring, which is planned to continue until 2040.

Power from the project will be initially available by 2014 and all construction will be completed by 2020.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Dams are bad for the enviroment
By the goat on 5/19/2009 1:21:48 PM , Rating: -1
Artificially damming a river is much more destructive to the environment then generating CO2 which is a naturally occurring compound.




RE: Dams are bad for the enviroment
By Suntan on 5/19/2009 1:34:07 PM , Rating: 5
Tell that to the beavers....

...Nothing good ever came from beavers...

-Suntan


RE: Dams are bad for the enviroment
By rcc on 5/19/2009 1:37:19 PM , Rating: 3
Hey! I like b....., er nevermind. Inappropriate discussion for inappropriate board.

: )


RE: Dams are bad for the enviroment
By rcc on 5/19/2009 1:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing the point. Today it appears to be better to trash an ecosystem than to utter the evil N word.


RE: Dams are bad for the enviroment
By omnicronx on 5/19/2009 1:41:56 PM , Rating: 4
This project was actually done pretty well. They spent/plan to spend well over 200 million dollars in environmental studies, attenuation measures, and environmental monitoring over the next 30 years.

Some of the measures include:

- $20 million Atlantic salmon development program over 20 years
- Protection of downriver in-stream flows to preserve fish habitats
- Creation of spawning areas and stocking of lakes and tributaries
- Telemetric monitoring of forest caribou
- Recovery of merchantable timber in reservoirs and at dam sites
- Replanting and reforestation of work vicinity
- Development of wetlands and borrow pits, deforestation of sections of reservoir shoreline, and creation of bays to facilitate riparian habitat

P.S I find it funny you focus solely on C02, as though sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, mercury, arsenic, lead and other airborn particles are not released into the air and surrounding areas with current coal burning plants.


RE: Dams are bad for the enviroment
By arazok on 5/19/2009 2:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
200 million on environmental assessments?! How is that even possible? (Don’t tell me, I already know)


By Sulphademus on 5/19/2009 4:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
200 million on environmental assessments?! How is that even possible? (Don’t tell me, I already know)


Thats what I thought at first but the $200mil is a total of whats already been spent combined with what is planned on being spent until 2040 on this assessment project.

Of course, given the nature of government I expect this to become $500mil + $100m for bailouts of companies involved who are in financial trouble + $50m emergency salmon war funding.


By amanojaku on 5/19/2009 2:43:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
$20 million Atlantic salmon development program over 20 years
For $20 million those salmon should come with lasers. Spawning season would be funny as hell, with salmon shooting each other and getting the bears fat. But bigger bears means bigger farts, thus more CO2. So, I guess no lasers. :-(


By geddarkstorm on 5/19/2009 3:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh god, the salmon! They say they make "fish ladders" for them, but everyone knows salmon don't have opposable thumbs, how will they ever climb a ladder?!


RE: Dams are bad for the enviroment
By drycrust on 5/19/2009 3:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with your comment on CO2. Pretty well every air breathing thing is breathing out CO2, even plants do it at night. I just can't see what all the fuss is about. Yes, I can see dangers with the other emissions from burning of fuel, but water and CO2 are natural emissions. If nature couldn't cope then we'd have all died years ago.
In regards to the environmental impact, I wonder if there is a maximum size a hydro dam can be before it starts to impact the earth's crust. There seems to be lots more earthquakes around the Three Gorges Dam than one would expect.
In regards to the cost of building the dam, I heard a radio report many years ago regarding the "total energy content" of a 1970s technology nuclear power station. Basically, if you looked at the total energy used to extract and refine the nuclear material to a suitable level of radioactivity, the amount of fuel needed to build a nuclear reactor (including the extraction and refining of steel, making concrete, etc), and the fuel and electricity needed to run it and to dispose safely of the waste, after 20 years you have just made a small profit in terms of total energy.
I don't know how long it will take to pay off the energy put into a hydro-electric dam is, but the impression I get is they are pretty low maintenance and don't need large numbers of staff to run them. Even if it took 20 years to pay off the energy put in, which I doubt, after that it's pretty much profit all the way.


By Nervenkrieg on 5/19/2009 5:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
I know of a dam that has an annual operating budget of $13 million. Generating up to 950 MW, can bring in 120-200 million per year, depending on flow and the market. The total cost of the project was almost $418 million in 1970 dollars.
The carbon footprint that the dam offsets is large, approx 3 million tons of CO2 per year. Some river dams allow barges to travel inland, offsetting the need for thousands of semi trucks. Barging decreases traffic, CO2 and the need to build/maintain more highways.
Is the savings worth the potential environmental impact?


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki