Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I grew up on a remote cattle ranch in the middle of miles of forest in the northern Sierra Nevada mountains of California. We had our own hydroelectric power plant. It was built by my father and my brother-in-law. They put a two-foot high dam across the creek (blue line), and diverted the water into a mile of ditch that they dug from there to a lake that they built by the house.
Figure 1. Renewable energy, circa 1952
Then they built a penstock and dropped part of the water back to a powerhouse by the creek. Inside the powerhouse was a Pelton Wheel that drove an alternator. Poles carried the power (4,000 volt, 10 kilowatts) to the ranchhouse. That was the only power for the ranch, and there was only us to keep it running. That was my introduction to renewable energy.
When I was a kid, our grade school took a field trip and toured Shasta Dam, in Northern California. I was astounded by it. I loved the idea that it was just a bigger version of our little powerplant.
Figure 2. Shasta Dam, Northern California. Note the five large penstocks at the lower left leading to the powerhouse. MORE PHOTOS
These days, of course, it is almost impossible to build a small dam in the US, much less something on the scale of Shasta Dam. People raise hundreds of objections, any project is stalled before it starts. This has always seemed extremely foolish to me, since hydroelectric power is proven, 24-hour, baseline power. Despite that, there’s a whole branch of the environmental movement that considers dams as forces of evil.
Which is why I laughed out loud when I saw the latest numbers on the CDM. The CDM is the “Clean Development Mechanism” of the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM is the foundation of the carbon emission credit system in use in Europe. Companies which emit more CO2 than the regulations allow can purchase credits. The companies pay the money to sponsor an emissions-reducing project in a developing country, so in theory everything balances out.
There’s a New York Times article on the CDM here. This is the part that I found to be hilarious (emphasis mine):
Since it began operating in 2006, the board has validated 2,918 projects, 40 percent of them in China, according to the U.N. Environment Program’s database at the Risoe Center, in Denmark, which tracks every project in the C.D.M. pipeline. The center’s data show that 1,668 projects are in hydroelectric power and 1,060 of those are in China.
So the effect of the Kyoto Protocol is that it is OK for the West to burn fossil fuels, as long as the West is also subsidizing hydroelectric dam construction in China …
Does anyone but me find that truly and bizarrely hilarious? I’m sure the Chinese are busting up laughing, and saying “Give us 20 Kyoto protocols, this is great, we’ll let you well-meaning Western fools build all the hydroelectric plants China can hold” …
The Chinese have taken to this capitalism lark very well. Watching the western industrialised nations implode their economies through the fear of CO2, building coal fired powerstations, without worrying pointlessly, and getting the west to provide them with subsidised hydro electric power. Very clever people.
Willis, many british rivers are canalised, obstructed with weirs with drops of about 6ft. Is this drop sufficient for small scale hydro schemes?
“hydroelectric power is proven, 24-hour, baseline power”
Hydropower is much better than just baseline power. It can be turned on almost instantly, removing the need for spinning reserve to cope with spikes in power demand.
Cannot find a laugh in me where you did, Willis — that clip from the NYTimes simply caused a deep, tired sigh.
The story from your youth, however, put fire in my veins. Wonderful! How have we ever been so foolish as to allow our personal actions, our pioneering spirit at work, to be stripped from us by small minds and mean spirits?
It’s just the modern version of roman catholic indulgence. Except that this time, the money doesn’t pay for local infrastructure or wonderful cathedrals, but for Chinese infrastructure.
Given the buckets of cash – billions – that China gleaned from the CDM system to make excess HCFC’s then get paid $100,000 per ton to destroy them, I am wondering how many of the dams have actually been built.
It has become fashionable for nations to declare all water to be a mineral resource and require the equivalent of a mining license to use it. There are good and bad consequences of this, micro-hydro dams being one fatality. It is an interesting thought that large countries might rather be forced to create offsets ‘in-house’ making the anti-dam pundits face reality, freezing in the dark – a prospect relished by Albertans pondering the fate of those at the Center of the Universe (Toronto).
I have constructed dozens of ram pumps (water powered water pumps). Getting permission to have the water for primary (domestic) consumption is easy, but not so easy to get permission to build a 6 inch high diversion to the sump right in front of a 10 foot waterfall.
It is interesting how pre-regulation constructions, from hydro dams to flour mills to Old City centers and cave houses are the most desirable things, declared heritage sites and preserved, but you cannot build them now. It is a form of extremism that inevitably provokes an extremist backlash. Inevitably, positions are in error.
I think this article very succinctly sums up the situation regarding China and western subsidies.
Actually I am starting to get a little bit worried about all these activities. I think that we are busy changing the surface of the planet by creating large square areas of shallow waters, mostly for irrigation and consumption but also for hydro power.
Nevermind the countless swimming pools and small artificial lakes we created for recreation. The problem is that shallow water easily gets heated up and therefore a lot more water evaporates then would otherwise be the case. In my 50m2 swimming pool I measured an evaporation rate of 2500 liters in one week (clear blue skies all week, max. temp. 31-34C during the day, water temp 25-26 C) . Compare this to my 40 liters of patrol (gas) that I use in one month.
Apart from that we have massive planes, trucks, cars, rockets, ships , etc. putting enormous amounts of water vapor in the air, in many factories we have thousands of water cooling plants, we have countless nuclear plants, that all put water vapor in the air.
now is water vapor not a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2? (if CO2 is a GHG)?
So, in the western world, wind turbines are symbols for “renewable energy” but in China, hydroelectrical power plants are.
Well that makes sen… Uh… No, it doesn’t make sense.
Btw, interresting to read about your childhood experiences in this area. 🙂
We have a case here in Sweden right now, where a private land owner has built a tiny hydro-plant in a small creek. The sport fishers and the ECO NGO:s here have raised havoc over this and I guess he will be forced to tear it down pretty soon.
Yes, I do find it absolutely hilarious that the bankrupt Europeans have financed 1,060 hydroelectric dams in China. The coal the Chinese saved can be diverted to coal-to-liquids plants.
Good post, Willis – the Chinese must think Westerners are truly mad!
New Zealand’s elctricity is generated mainly by hydro, somewhere near 70%, the main industries are grassland farming, viticulture and forestry, with huge tracts of land covered with native forests sealed off as national parks, Yet Fred Pearce, the warmist ‘science’ writer for the Guardian condemned it as being quite dreadful. The problem? New Zealand exports huge tonnages of fruit, sheep and beef meats and wine to the rest of the world, much of the milk products to poorer third-world countries which are desperate for affordable protein solids! He has a problem with the country exporting comparitively large amounts of coal to China.
My grandfather installed a small hydro plant on his sheep station just prior WWI and planned to reticulate electricity to the district, but the wartime shortage of copper wire killed that idea. The NZ government, which had begun an ambitious and foresighted programme of public works during the Great Depression, including building large (for the time) hydro dams, made the reticulation of electricity from private schemes illegal after WWI. This stayed in force for many years and severly delayed and small private initiatives. Now all kinds of enterprises have built a range of power generation plants which feed their excess power into the national grid.
agreed Willis, it is insane that we arent allowed to use in passing and return water to our systems for free clean power.
Aus at the moment is in a huge uproar over the Govt wanting to CUT water allocations to all, from 27 to 37% More, just as we emerge from 13 yrs of drought.
Willis, we need a new textbook of Basic Science.
It needs to be simple enough for fools, and friendly enough to sustain interest, but double the length of the previous primers, because now we not only need to teach the basics all over again, eg “CO2 is plant food” but we also need to flag down and spike all the New Dark Ages superstitions that have been appearing in the place of classic orthodoxy and Scientific Method, eg “CO2 is a pollutant”.
I think you’d do a fine job of such a textbook. Get a posthumous Nobel Prize too, in company with Anthony, Steve, Lindzen, Akasofu, etc, when all your work of due diligence has restored meaning to the Nobel Prizes.
Hydro too destructive for us but okay for China? Similar to our domestic oil-drilling policies which preserve US environment at the expense of rest of the world. We’ll buy foreign oil no-questions-asked as to how, or by whom it is produced just nimby.
One of the interesting uses for sporadic and/or off-peak energy generation is the Dinorwig Power Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station in Wales… it is not very efficient as it uses 33% more electricity than it produces… but it does have some practical benefits… first it uses off-peak nuclear generated electricity… this electricity is used to pump water uphill into a holding lake… secondly the water in the lake is then released to generate hydro-electricity to meet spikes in demand… and thirdly it helps power the famous glow-in-dark Welsh sheep – see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6KXECVl3lc
Some would say: Cymru Am Byth – Wales Forever
Others might say: Nuclear is Forever http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controversy
Golf Charley,
The drops of 6 feet could produce electricity but there would need to be more flow than some rivers have – during drought times some only have enough flow to keep the locks going for navigation.
But there are a couple of British companies who specialise in small “domestic size” hydroelectric plants and they have, I think, got access to subsidies for installers.
Try Google etc..
I agree. A long-planned project for a tidal generator on the river Severn would generate about 5% of UK total demand, but has been bogged down with people following a green agenda.
Micro hydro systems also have their place, but the red-tape involved in getting permission makes it difficult to get them built.
We will just have to rely on fossil fuel/nuclear power in the UK for the foreseeable future.
Torque is the desire of power generation as the resistance increases the amount of power you can get to change into electricity.
Current hydro power has to be exact in location for an exact flow rate as this was created 150 years ago or it will no run.
Interesting enough, if you mesure the speed of the water before the turbine and after the turbine, there is very little difference of speed. Yet it is suppose to be pulling 92%of the energy? If this WAS true then only 8% of energy would be left in the water.
Actual energy taken is less than 2% based on torque to energy tranferance.
Why is that???
Also, water is gases that have been pressurized giving us stored energy.
Golf Charley I live next to a river in France. There is an hydroelectric scheme on every barrage (weir) here and the drop is about just 2 metres apron 6ft6inches. The joke is my electric bill states 87percent nuclear 7 percent renewables6percent carbon, but the price is going up because of an Eu carbon tax. Politicians don’t you just love them?
If you want to see how to protest watch the French this weekend.
Malaga View says:
October 14, 2010 at 4:02 am
… and thirdly it helps power the famous glow-in-dark Welsh sheep – see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6KXECVl3lc
Some would say: Cymru Am Byth – Wales Forever
Ah yes – The Baa-Studs! My daughter farms sheep in wales and the video was the highlight of last Xmas day.
Alexander K says
“…programme of public works during the Great Depression, including building large (for the time) hydro dams, made the reticulation of electricity from private schemes illegal after WWI. ”
+++++++++++++
Typical! Wherever the Brits were, monopolies followed.
The largest single sugar producer is (I recall) Simunye in Eastern Swaziland – about 145,000 t/a. They had masses of biomass and generated power for their own use, as most mills do. Because of the pro$pect of CDM credit$ they wanted to upgrade their boiler (better efficiency) but had to first prove that it was uneconomic to do so without the CDM credit. A few fancy strokes of the accountant’s pen accomplished that easily: free money.
But it was illegal to distribute the excess power to the town that surrounds the sugar estate. It was also illegal to sell (very different from ‘distributing’) the electricity even if distribution was permitted. Almost all power (75%) is supplied by imported coal-fired electricity from highveld plants in RSA. The only companies in a position to meaningfully supply electricity generated from plentiful waste biomass were prevented from doing so by legacy laws that created parastatal monopolies.
It required the passage of three pieces legislation to make this project happen. Thankfully sane heads prevail in the sector in Swaziland and now it is possible to generate power and distribute it (‘reticulate’ is the word they like) and sell it to willing buyers.
So all is not lost. Let the ‘underdeveloped’ lead the way out of the colonial shackles, be they iron or green.
Seriously, the Welsh glow-in-the-dark sheep will brighten your day 🙂 currently at over 12 million views on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw
It sure does appear to be a Global Issue when some of the most vocal opponents to a “Green Project” just happen to be the Greens themselves. Remember the story of the fight in California between one neighbor who erected a solar panel and the guy next door whose Redwood tree blocked all the sunlight – and had been doing so before the solar panel was even installed…?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/science/earth/07redwood.html
Tidal power is not renewable. It takes rotational energy out of the Earth-Moon system. At 1970s human usage, humanity was using twice the natural energy loss. At current or future values, this energy loss would be multiplied many times. The effect is to push the Moon away from the Earth, lengthen the day, and reduce the tides. Flow-on effects could happen the Earth’s geomagnetic dynamo, continental drift, the Van Allen belts, and who knows what else. In summary, tidal power most likely shortens the life of the Earth as a habitable planet.
Humans are not very good at evaluating distant consequences of their actions – which is why, for example, westerners cheering about banning DDT fail to care about ten million Africans killed each decade from malaria. And so humans are even less capable of assessing the really long term damage in some distant future from terminating the planet’s life earlier than it would otherwise happen. But at some future time, the descendants of living beings here now will be wiped out as a consequence of tidal power. We need to get past our psychological limitations, recognise that tidal power is a planet killer, and never, ever make use of it.
Some more advantages to hydro…….cheap, low maintenance, (compared to other generation techniques), and very durable! I’m with Roger Carr, though, no laugh, just a deep dismayed sigh. I understand some parts of the country are contemplating pulling out the power dams in favor of the windmills.
Interesting, Willis. But you must be careful of telling the Green Folk that you have hands-on experience of renewables. I recently dined with a French geothermal electrician, who explained to me that the technology was old and well tried, good for heating and cooling in certain places, and usually lousy for energy applications. You think anyone wanted to know his opinion on renewables? He made it seemed so old…so sexless…
Alexander, I had no idea the NZ hydro figures were so high! Love it.
Across the ditch here, stopping the damming of the Franklin and Gordon Rivers in Tassie was pivotal in the ’83 election which brought Bob Hawke to power. Australians frequently make Tasmania the focal point of their enviro activism. It’s a safe way of being concerned and rad, even if you’re a conservative type; and Tassie is way off in the distance, so what the hell.
In fact, I came to feel that the dam campaign of the early eighties was a way for conservatives to take a holiday from themselves. When I asked some of them why they felt so aggrieved by a distant hydro scheme, none could really answer me. (These were the same people who were raised on the glories of the Snowy River Scheme.) Gradually, people began to find a vocabulary to justify the emotion. One soon heard talk of the “life of rivers”, “environmental flows”, “species diversity”, “eco tourism” and all the now familiar cant. Of course, the people turning on their taps in Sydney weren’t worried about the “entropy” etc caused by their own infrastructure.
Until we recognise, both philosophically and in our laws, that a measure of entropy is inevitable and justified in applying all potent technologies, we will be playing pretend. You know: pretend that the bloody Prius isn’t overloaded with aging batteries; pretend that the bird-chopping turbine isn’t supported inefficiently both by subsidy and coal; pretend that entropy sent offshore is no longer entropy; pretend that a few cents added to a Virgin fare will sanctify our air-borne tonnage; pretend that Australia’s insane anti-burning policies don’t lead to conflagrations which, in one murderous day, can waste a million petty economies of carbon.
Pretend, pretend, and pretend: the true essence of being green.