Image: Lotfi BM/Wikimedia Commons
In the far northern reaches of Atlantic Canada, energy companies seek to harness untapped river sites with a hydroelectric project that could replace fossil fuel plants and export power into New England.
Utility company Nalcor Energy aims to build two hydroelectric sites along the Lower Churchill River in Labrador, downstream from an existing 5,428-megawatt station -- one of the largest in the world.
The proposed Muskrat Falls and Gull Island projects would have a combined capacity of more than 3,000 MW, produce 16.7 terawatt-hours of electricity per year and offset millions of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, says the company.
"It translates into displacing 16 megatonnes of carbon dioxide annually from thermal, coal and fossil fuel generation," said Nalcor spokeswoman Karen O'Neill. "That's equivalent to offsetting the greenhouse gas emissions from 3.2 million automobiles annually."
Nalcor is currently waiting for government approval before it can begin phase one of the Lower Churchill Project -- the 824-MW facility at Muskrat Falls, with high-voltage direct-current transmission links to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The much larger and potentially more environmentally damaging Gull Island project is currently on hold. Late last month, the Canadian federal government announced it would back a $6.2 billion loan to develop the Muskrat project.
"The loan guarantee isn't requiring Canada to directly fund the project; we're using their borrowing capability to improve the economics of the project," said Gilbert Bennett, vice president of the Lower Churchill Project. "In doing [this], Canada is supporting a major infrastructure project that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will ultimately reduce electricity costs in Atlantic Canada."
Muskrat Falls alone would displace 2 megatonnes of greenhouse gases per year from the oil-powered Holyrood thermal plant in Newfoundland, said Bennett. It would also displace 1 megatonne of emissions from a coal-fired plant in Nova Scotia.
Another benefit is that the project would create as many as 2,700 jobs during the construction phase. That amounts to 8,600 person-years of direct employment in Newfoundland and Labrador. The socioeconomic and clean energy benefits make the Lower Churchill Project very attractive, particularly to energy-hungry American states. But the Canadian Parliament must still review an independent environmental assessment and pass Nalcor's proposal before construction can begin.
Supplying U.S. peak summer demands
Last November, Naclor joined forces with Emera Inc. to get the Muskrat Falls project under way. Nalcor would have 100 percent ownership of the generating facility and would control a majority of the Island Transmission Link from Labrador to the island of Newfoundland. Emera would be primarily responsible for the Maritime Transmission Link to Nova Scotia, which will be the first-ever interconnected maritime system.
According to their agreement, Nalcor would take 40 percent of the hydroelectric output and Emera would take 20 percent to power their respective provinces. That leaves 40 percent of Muskrat Falls' energy capacity for export, and almost all of the 2,264 MW from the Gull Island site, should it be developed.
Govs. Peter Shumlin (D) of Vermont and Lincoln Chafee (I) of Rhode Island visited the Lower Churchill Project site in August to start forging business relationships. The trip was proposed in July during the annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
"From our perspective, we think there are a number of good reasons why Canadian hydro is a good answer for U.S. needs," said Bennett. "We're competitively priced, we have a renewable product and we integrate well with other renewables."
He added that the U.S. and Canadian systems are complementary. The United States' peak electricity demands are in summer, when customers need electricity to power their air conditioners, while Canada's peak demands are in winter -- Canada uses electricity for heating, whereas the United States has access to natural gas.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentCanada; I wouldn't depend too much on the United States if I was you. If the United States was that much interested in clean renewable energy, they would already have it. We have everything you have, but more of it. Use your renewable energy to benefit yourself, as the U. S. will do. When the U.S. gets its head our of its....we will use our natural resources like, geothermal, wave and solar to help the American people; you should do the same. If our two ships should pass in the night...we both will benefit; in the mean time...help yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Innu is an honorable tribe of people, but remember how the white man treated you in the past; don't let them treat you like that again. Always retain the majority of rights to your land and resources, or you will be living at the north pole and eventually be as the polar bear...extent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all hydro dams produce almost as many GHG's per kwh as coal because of the enormous amount of 75 times as potent methane spewing rotting vegetation associated with them
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html
Secondly the $8B/Gw just for the dam, powerhouse at Muskrat falls and transmission line to St Johns is four times per Gwh the cost of a Candu 6 nuke. The last three Candu 6's built overseas in 2004 and 2007 cost $2B/Gw.
The nuke could have been built right there in St John's. No need for a $2B transmission line heating up the islands air for nothing.
The St John's Candu could also supply the entire city with free heat if district heating were provided, cutting costs well below $1B/Gw. 10% the cost of the stupid hydro proposal.
Dude, you're beating a dead horse. Nuclear power is done. It was a noble attempt, but it didn't prove out and is nowhere near as cheap as you claim. Nor are the lifecycle GHG impacts anywhere near as high. Methane may be a potent GHG, but it also has a short dwell time in the atmosphere. Go 50 years down the line when it really counts and the equation is massively in favor of Hydro over fossil fuels. Nothing is perfect, but thankfully the people analyzing this kind of project can see the full picture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere exactly is Nuclear power failed? France is almost 100% Nuke and Illinois is a good example of Nuke producing more than enough for the state and export.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only failure of nukes is the leftist environmentalists going so far out of their way to prevent more use of this fuel. Please spare me Chernobyl or Japan. The Soviet union was hardly an example of doing anything right and japan was an error that should have been mitigated. 50 years of Naval use of Nukes on ships with no incidents and just as long in the US with no actual incidents (no, 3 mile island did not actually do anything) is the proof we should be doing nukes for power.
Or do you really think we should flood out thousands of acres of land in the name of so called "renewable" hydro power?
You do realize the US has more environmental protection and has done more to reduce emissions than any other country? Nice of you to act like we are not doing anything, when in fact we are doing more and paying more than anywhere else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is your euro and communist friends around the world that are polluting the planet. Air, water and land. Isn't canada the place that is strip mining an entire province in the name of tar sands?
Incredible, Governor SLEAZOID Shumlin of Vermont, they guy who has wallowed in the a cesspool of NG graft & payolla, wants to shut down Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant - the CLEANEST & GREENEST source of energy in the entire state, and makes Vermont the LOWEST CO2 emissions of ANY STATE in the USA of .070 lbs CO2 per kwh. This CREEPOID, Shumlin tried LYING he would replace Vermont Yankee with GET THIS - SOLAR POWER - and claimed Germany gets 35% of its power from Solar Energy - the truth happens to be less than 1%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Shumlin is going BEGGING to Hydro Quebec and Newfoundland to supply some of Vermont Yankee's CLEAN GREEN Nuclear with Hydro - the rest of course will come from Shumlin's NG buddies who ILLEGALLY financed his campaign.
The methane released from flooded reservoirs depends, of course on the extent of the reservoir. Some hydroelectric power stations, especially those downstream from established dams use the same water over and over again without new extensive reservoirs, merely the gorges they are in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd take note, once Shumlin's buddies build all those fuel guzzling NG power plants in Vermont and adjacent states, then he will quietly cancel low CO2 imports from Quebec & Newfoundland and replace them with NG. By then Shumlin figures that no one will notice Vermont's CO2 emissions creep up from the lowest in the USA of 0.07 lbs per kwh to somewhere around 500 gms per kwh, not including all the methane leakage emissions from Shale Gas NG production
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSethdayal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering you spend so much time being scientific about nuclear energy, I am amazed that you would quote the "newscientist" article on GreenHouse Gas(GHG) production at hydroelectric plants. It is totally biased, and without merit. I would reference you to " The Role of Hydropower Reservoirs in Greenhouse Gas Emissions", EPRI Report 1017971, May 2010, which amply defines the "newscientist" report you quoted as incorrect on a number of points. A synopsis of the EPRI report shows the following: 1) No assessments of the site GHG production are normally made before a hydro facility is constructed, hence there is no baseline for GHG production (For example, natural wetlands produce 22% of the world GHG; reference Goddard Institute for Space Studies, The Global Methane Cycle http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html )
2. There are no adequate monitoring systems of "temperate" zone reservoirs at present. A 3 year study initiated in July 2010 by EPRI to study 8 reservoirs in the Southeast U.S.; and 3 reservoirs in the Pacific NW should be completed by 2014. Because of the dearth of monitoring data for "temperate" zone reservoirs, formal environmental assessments of Hydropower projects lack any scientific basis for asserting such reservoirs increase GHG emissions.
In summary, most of your comments concerning nuclear generation appear to be well researched. However, this comment quoting the"newscientist" is seriously flawed. Please investigate your sources more closely before quoting them so you do not wrongly influence numerous people.
That newscientist article is biased and flawed. The plants engulfed by a dam reservior are part of the carbon cycle. If you leave them alone, they will eventually decay and release methane in the atmosphere. You are not adding more greenhouse gases. Being submerged in water, the release of methane is slower than if the decaying plants are exposed to the atmosphere. CO2 emission of fossil fuels is not part of the carbon cycle because they are buried underground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for nuclear, I saw a National Geographic documentary on Chernobyl. It was human error. The operator removed all but six control rods. The safety limit was minimum of 26 control rods. The nuclear reactor overheated and blew up.
The operator was standing just several feet from the blown nuclear reactor spewing high level radiation. He is alive and well and telling the story to National Geographic two decades after the accident. The engineer who went directly under the blown nuclear reactor to inspect if the meltdown penetrated the concrete flooring is also alive and well and telling the story. Radioactive liquid was dripping when he was crawling underneath the blown reactor.
Amazingly Chernobyl continued operating for 15 years after the accident. Workers went in and out of the plant everyday for 15 years while the rest of the world was panicking over nuclear radiation. The place is now open to tourists, and workers regularly go inside the sarcophagus, the giant concrete tomb of the blown reactor, to monitor radiation level.
Priddseren
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Tharter that public opinion (not just leftist environmentalists) are against further nuclear development since the Japanese nuclear incident. The rationale that the incident should not have happened because the technical errors should have been "mitigated" earlier is not correct reasoning. The problem did occur, and it was not "mitigated" either due to bad management, or bad engineering. This same problem, on a different technical issue, could occur again as it is related to the political and/or management structure. And your comparison of naval propulsion (ship) nuclear plants vs large, land-based nuclear power plants is incorrect on several levels (like most analogies). Having said all that, I agree that we need more nuclear power plants if we are to decrease the number of fossil-fueled plants presently operating. This is with the caveat that we (the U.S.) agrees on a centralized location for the used fuel.
Concerning hydroelectric power plants: What is your problem with hydro plants. They have a longer life than a nuclear plant (80 -100 years+ vs 50 - 60 years)(you can reference Hoover Dam & the TVA dams built in the 1930's); higher efficiencies (85 -90% eff. vs 35-40% for nuclear); higher capacity factors, and produce zero emissions and no radioactive materials. All the aforementioned (lifetime, efficiency, capacity factor) means that you have to build more and/or larger MW nuclear plants to obtain the same electrical power output as equivalent MW hydro plants. So what is your "rationale" against hydro plants, considering the downsides of nuclear power, especially when you know the GHG problem is still not scientifically resolved.
I'm all for Hydro, it is the one economical Renewable. Wind, Solar & Geothermal all have niche applications, but conventional Hydro is the only Renewable Energy of significant value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEfficiency is a dubious concept, applied to Hydro, Nuclear fuel is dirt cheap, and efficiency is greater than Hydro, when used for High Grade heat applications. Hydro has a LOWER capacity factor than Nuclear - where do you get that it is higher? Most Hydro is ~ 65% CF whereas Nuclear is running >90% CF. And Hydro is highest in spring when power demand is lowest. Nuclear does its maintenance in spring & fall. Main advantage of conventional Hydro is the ability to store water in order to supply peak demand.
But, Hydro is severely limited, and Greenie/Oil/NG lobby groups hate Hydro just as much as they hate Nuclear. Obviously because only Hydro & Nuclear are viable competitors to the existing Energy Hegemony. NWT, the Canadian province has the highest Hydro resources per capita of anywhere in the world, but 83% of their electricity is expensive diesel-electric with some NG. Even mention damming a river & the you get Greenie & Native groups SCREAMING. Some native bands claim their rivers are sacred and can't be dammed. In Nunavut 99% of their energy is diesel. They been studying for 10 yrs to install one lousy Hydro plant. The plan they finally came up with will cost an INCREDIBLE $40K per kw and take 20 YRS to build! Just ridiculous. Cheaper to buy a brand spanking new Nuclear Sub, and run a cable from the Reactor power plant.
Hydro emissions varies CONSIDERABLY from site to site. Some total LCA emissions are as low as 3 gms/kwh and some sites are as high as 450 gms/kwh (NG is 500 gms/kwh). Big factors are climate in the region and Indirect Land Use effects are a major component of Hydro Emissions. The Itaipu Dam in Brazil devastated more land permanently and displaced more people than the temporary evacuation area of the ONLY serious commercial Nuclear incident in the West, after trillions of kwh's generated. Land that formerly sequestered vast amounts of carbon became net CO2/Methane emitters. Long distance Hydro lines cut a huge swath through productive GHG absorbing forest. With half of the carbon sequestered in the soil. Chemical herbicides are dropped on Hydro lines to prevent forest re-growth.
And Hydro way exceeds Nuclear in terms of deaths per twh and potential disastrous events. See:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/27/363471/-A-Tale-of-Two-Centimeters:-The-Near-Collapse-of-the-Colorado-River-Dam-System-in-1983
dwbd
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe efficiency of a hydro plant is from the stored potential energy in the water to the electrical output. For a normal hydro plant this is the equation: Overall efficiency = (Turbine eff.) x (Generator eff.) x (Main Power Transformer eff.) minus Penstock losses. With the present day 95% efficient water turbines, this formula becomes Overall efficiency = (95%)(98%)(99.8%) - 5% = 88%. This far exceeds a nuclear power plants efficiency (from the thermal heat of the boiler to electricity) because of the thermal heat generation process Most steam boilers are in the 40% conversion range (Rankine cycle) or lower, then you must multiply this times the turbine/generator/transformer efficiencies. Hydroelectric power plants do not require this steam transformation. You can verify this in any number of texts; and I can confirm this with my 20 years of experience at a major Hydro consulting firm.
The capacity factor for run-of-river hydro is 60 to 65%. I'm quoting from AMP-Ohio's statistics (Hydro Review, April 2010) because they are currently building four plants on the Ohio River Lock & Dams. They previously built (1995) a 50 MW facility at a similar Lock & Dam; and AMP-Ohio was quoting their capacity factor from the earlier facility, which was utilized in their financial calculations for the four new plants. Naturally, this figure can vary dependent upon the river and annual precipitation. Reservoir hydro has a much higher capacity factor than run-of-river hydro "if" the reservoir hydro was built only to generate electricity (like Churchill Falls). Usually reservoir hydro is built for numerous functions such as flood control (TVA dams), irrigation (Grand Coulee), water supplies (Hoover) where these other functions take precedence over electrical generation. Then the capacity factor is usually below 50%. I believe Hoover's capacity factor is around 36% because the water supply priorities dictate how much water can be released. I will have to get back to you on the actual capacity factor for reservoir hydro built only for electric power in theU.S. as I can't quote a source off the top of my head.
One final question: Does Hydro still exceed nuclear in deaths per twh with the latest Japanese incident included.
James - a recent report by our (Canada)federal government shows that we have sufficient,geothermal energy, within relatively easy reach, particularly here in BC and next door in Alberta, to power all of North America and then some. The capacity is ~ 1,000,000 times the amount of power Canada currently uses. See http://www.canada.com/business/Clean+renewable+energy+abounds+under+Canadians+feet+report/5399731/story.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a ridiculous and idiotic report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom Wikipedia. "...Mean [geothermal] heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.[12] This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,)..."
Total Geothermal Heat production of the entire Earth is 30 TW. Present human power consumption is 14 TW. So you would have to totally suck the heat from every square inch of the Earth's surface to capture even enough to dream of running Earth's civilization. Of course, thermodynamics would make even that impossible.
They have a standing offer in British Columbia (the best location in Canada) for 15 cents per kwh, guaranteed for 60 yrs, with inflation rider, for anyone who wants to sell Geothermal power. No takers.And our civilization will collapse on 15 cents per kwh energy. That's harsh economic reality.
You would think Hawaii, sitting on top of active volcanoes, would be the Geothermal Power capital of the USA. Instead it relies on Coal for 13%, and expensive imported Oil for 68% of its electricity supply, with 1.8 % coming from Geothermal, 0.7% from Wind Energy and not surprisingly has the highest power rates in the USA of 21.3 cents per kwh. And Hawaii is run by super-Greenies who claim to LOVE Renewable Energy. I would say if Geothermal was economical they would have figured it out in Hawaii decades ago.
Toxic metals, minerals, chemicals & gases leach out with the geothermal steam or hot water, as it is forced through rock fissures. Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, Methane & CO2, Sulfur, Vanadium, Chlorides, Mercury, Nickel and Radon & other Radioactive isotopes are released. Not so clean & green.
It is easy to make GRANDIOSE statements like "there's enough heat from XXXXXX to power the Earth thousands...". In the real world, we are constrained in what we can do by Economics.
"...efficiency of a hydro plant is from the stored potential energy in the water to the electrical output..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can choose to define it that way, but you can also define it as the percentage of total potential energy in the River System that is actually used. That makes Hydro a much lower effective efficiency. And include water that is spilled during high water conditions. Common in the spring, esp in Canada - when power demand is lowest.
Latest large reservoir Hydro project in British Columbia is site C, on the Peace River is $6.6B for 900MW & 4.6 TWh/yr for a CF of 58% and a cost of $12.6k per kwavg. Several times the cost of Nuclear. And 3173 HA of agricultural land flooded, not including the huge swaths of lands, ripped open for long distance power transmission lines.
The Bruce power proposal for Lac Cardinal site in Alberta is 3.2-4.4 GW, 2.9-4.0 GW avg delivered power on 712 HA of fenced in land. (mostly unused or undamaged). That's 24 X the energy per unit land area.
The very best site in Alberta - on the Slave River of 827 GWavg, 1.3 GWpk, has been talked about for the past 30 yrs. ATCO's latest proposed development of $5B plus $1B for the power transmission lines is an expensive $7.3k per kwavg much more than Nuclear. And that's for a Run-of-River plant. With a total 20 yr development time-frame.
And opposition to the dam was so intense the project was dropped.
http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2812518&archive=true
And SCIAM article discusses how Climate Change is greatly reducing the Capacity Factor of developed Hydro sites. Hoover dam is operating at 30% of its rated Capacity due to a decade of drought.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worlds-dams-unprepared-for-climate-change
"...Does Hydro still exceed nuclear in deaths per twh with the latest Japanese incident included..."
The only deaths from the Fukushima incident were 3 guys killed by the tsunami and a 62 yr old had a heart attack in the cleanup operation. Radiation exposure is tightly controlled to a level FAR BELOW common natural background radiation in many places in the World, like Ramsar, Iran - which has a lower cancer rate than avg. And ~800 lives were saved from the Earthquake & Tsunami, when the safest place to be is in a Nuclear Power plant.
I don't believe anyone would define efficiency of a hydro power plant as the "...percentage of the total potential energy in the river system...". Where did this idea come from? The efficiencies I'm talking about are defined in the various textbooks, e.g., "Hydropower Engineering Handbook" by John Gulliver & Roger Arndt, 1991, Chapter 11, System Planning & Operation, or "Renewable Energy Focus Handbook" 2009, Chapter 13, Storage Technologies. What books do you have that define efficiency as the electrical output divided by the total potential energy of the river system; and how, exactly, would you define the total potential energy of the river system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a variety of hydroelectric site locations, some of which are not economically viable. However, without reviewing each of the sites that you mentioned, I would like to point out that Canada obtains 60% of its electricity from hydroelectric plants; and intends to increase this number to 65%. This means that they favor hydroelectric power over nuclear power; and will continue to do so as witnessed by the Lower Churchill Falls project. From this, you should be able to derive that a long life, renewable energy source of electricity with zero emissions is preferable to the dollars & cents approach that you continually take regarding nuclear power. Having said all that, I still believe that nuclear power is a very important part of our energy future; and wish it the best of luck.
On a separate subject, I would like to know where (what text) you get your hydro emissions data from. Emissions, indeed, are quite variable dependent upon the site (tropical/temperate/desert/etc.) location. However, as I stated in one of my previous comments to Sethdayal, the actual study for temperate zones is being performed by EPRI right now (2010 to 2013) on several dams. Previously, there was no GHG site data gathered prior to the dam construction; and there was no accepted standards for gathering methane gas measurements from reservoirs. Therefore, everyone could state whatever they wanted and/or desired to be true.
And pertaining to the deaths on the Japanese incident: I believe the press noted numerous radiation poisonings of both people and the environment in the plant area. These are long term effects; therefore, the final tally cannot yet be given. Do you have some other reference that already identifies every individual who was effected?
It is accepted practice to determine the potential energy of a River system, and how much that can or will be developed by Hydro plants. For instance the Slave River system in Alberta has a theoretical maximum Hydro Potential Energy of 8490 GWh/yr. And total Hydro Potential for Alberta is 103,360 GWh/yr of which 2050 has been developed or < 2%. And as I said the very best site, much discussed for 30 yrs, has been cancelled due to local opposition mostly, possibly due to some political influence dealing as well. I know one Hydro site engineers plant to build at was nixed by Environmental Regulators, so they had to build down river and lost 20% of Annual Energy Output, at the same cost. You could call that a loss of plant efficiency.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you are comparing Hydro with Hydro, yes the efficiency as you described it is the standard and reasonable definition. When comparing Nuclear to Nuclear, yes thermal conversion efficiency is the most useful definition. But comparing Nuclear to Hydro? You're comparing apples to oranges. The comparison is entirely irrelevant and meaningless.
In deciding between a Hydro or Nuclear plant - efficiency is ZERO CONSIDERATION. The #1 issue, by far, is political influence by Vested Interests. The other issues are Capital Cost, Environmental Effects, O&M cost, Fuel Cost, Decommissioning cost, Transmission Distance, Development time.
Your statement about Canada favoring Hydroelectric over Nuclear is nothing short of ridiculous. Like that is how Energy Decisions are made? Are you kidding me. Hydro was excellent in Canada in the past, if you needed cheap energy, you just built a dam, no environmental, native land rights, ENGO's, and LOADS of good sites. It just ain't that way anymore. I showed you typical 20 yr development times with HUGE opposition. And the best sites have all been taken.
Nuclear stalled out in Canada & the USA because it was SO SUCCESSFUL and was costing Oil/Gas & Coal $trillions in revenue. That just had to be stopped - and they did that. It is obviously much cheaper to go Nuclear than any other form of energy right now, the problem is ENTIRELY a political one.
Radiation poisonings? There have been a few locations in the Fukushima evacuation zone with temporary high readings, easily measured, easily avoided and workers carry dosimeters to avoid excess exposure. Pretty simple-minded. FAR, FAR less significant than the chemical toxins released into the environment.
Here is an example of a study of CO2 and Methane emissions from Hydro Reservoirs. Note that they use they erroneous GHG factor of Methane over 100 yrs, whereas the correct GHG factor is the much higher value(3X greater) over 25 yrs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.up.ethz.ch/education/term_paper/termpaper_hs07/Farrer_rev_termpaper_hs07.pdf
So, as expected, the emissions very considerably over various climate conditions. Apparently in dessert areas, the reservoirs are net Carbon Sinks.
So Samuel dam in Rainforest - carbon emissions are 2.5X > than for an equivalent thermal power plant.
Xingo in Scrub Savanna, emissions are 80X < than thermal.
Itaipu in Atlantic forest is 150X < than thermal.
Tres Marinas in Savanna is 1.3X > thermal.
So generally Hydro is much better than Fossil Fuel for emissions. The environmental issue is predominantly one of the large land area destroyed, human & animal populations displaced, rivers blocked with silt buildup preventing normal river silt transport, disruption of the river Eco-system and value for those who love pristine rivers (i.e. canoeists), long distance transmission lines, potential for catastrophic flooding and in some cases water losses due to evaporation from reservoirs.
And in Canada, a large number of the best undeveloped Hydro sites are now blocked by being located in the ever increasing areas contained in National & Provincial Parks.
I'm all for Hydro, and it is the ONLY economical Renewable Energy, but it is VITAL to understand it is NOT going to be a significant factor in the problems of Global Warming, Peak Oil, Oil Wars, Vulnerability & Economic/Job losses caused by Foreign Energy Imports and Fossil Fuel pollution death & destruction.
Nuclear, on the other hand, can MOST CERTAINLY resolve ALL of the above issues, but ONLY when & if the EXTRAORDINARY Level of opposition by Vested Interests is removed.
Canada's National Energy Board projected in 2008 that hydropower would increase their share of the energy market from 60% to 65% by 2015(Hydro Review, Nov 2008). They quoted over 5,000 MW of new hydro construction (excluding Lower Churchill Falls 1550 MW). How many new nuclear plants (what number of MW) are being built in Canada right now?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresently, there is more than 127,000 MW of pumped storage capacity operating worldwide. The pumped storage market is expected to grow over 60% in the next four years (Hydro Review, Dec 2009) to 204,000 MW. That same magazine lists a number of the projects; and their prices range from $600/kw to $2800/kw.(many were under active construction) So, not all pumped storage and/or hydro is exorbitantly expensive as portrayed by you. This also pertains to the 30 FERC licenses presently active in the U.S for pumped storage.
The reason I identified the efficiency of hydro is to show it is a good utilization of a natural resource. I agree that comparing nuclear and hydro efficiencies does not do much, except to show that hydro is a high efficiency resource that does not pollute. The efficiency was more for a comparison against other renewables, like wind (30% efficiency wind to electricity) or solar 15 -20% sun to electricity. I do agree with your statement that "....The number one issue, by far, is political influence...Capital costs, O & M costs, environmental, fuel costs, decommissioning costs, etc..."
In summary, hydro is not dead, as you seem to indicate. Naturally, it does have some downsides, as does nuclear; however, I think public, and therefore, political opinion is against nuclear (my perspective). However, best of luck in getting some nuke plants started in Canada.
I would still be interested in where you obtain your GHG info for hydro considering the EPRI study for temperate zone hydro is still ongoing.