I found the video above fascinating. The main informant made a number of interesting points.
First, there is a tremendous opportunity for expanding the amount of electricity being generated in the United States. There are hundreds, even thousands of small dams in the United States that could be retrofitted to generate hydroelectric power. Not doing that is effectively throwing energy away.
Doing that would not be free—it would be expensive but it would probably be less expensive than building a new coal or nuclear power plant.
I doubt that such a project would ever be funded or even undertaken by the private sector unprompted. If you’re interested in federal government infrastructure investment, here it is.
Second, we need more power lines at “choke points”. That, too, is something I think the private sector is unlikely to undertake on its own.
Check it out.
After the second oil embargo in the early 80’s, there was actually a program to do this. The Ohio River has lots of low-head locks, and Columbus, Ohio, has some fairly tall water reservoir dams. One of Columbus’ dams even has built-in bays for turbines. However, the schemes were abandoned, because the cost per kwh was too high.
All of the “Small is Beautiful” schemes prove to be uneconomic, because of the economies of scale.
PS. My favorite “Gigantic is Beautiful” scheme is the North American Water Plan, which transfer BC water down east of the Cascades to LA.
I’m skeptical that there are 90,000 unpowered dams in the U.S. that could benefit from power generating, or that figure is that meaningful for the opportunities available. There were a lot of small water reservoirs built during the Great Depression that are beyond their design life, silting-in and not being maintained.
The Livingston Dam highlighted in the piece wasn’t built for flood control, just water use, meaning that water that comes in must leave either into the public water system or over the spillway. It would probably be a seasonal source of power.
I think the engineer in the piece would benefit from reading _Cadillac Desert_ to give him an idea that most of these dams he dots on his map were built as developmental projects for politically connected interests. As time went on the Army Corps of Engineers was finding fewer rivers to dam, but they continued moving forward by inertia into smaller and smaller watersheds. Those are likely the ones being targeted with his dots.
Federal policy started to turn around with the National Environmental Act of 1969 which required a cost-benefit analysis in the form of an environmental impact study. That’s part of the difficulty in installing new transmission lines discussed in the second part. Congress could exempt any project or design an alternative analysis for improving the electrical grid if it wanted.
I don’t know anything about this group, American Rivers, but they plan on removing what they refer to as 30,000 harmful dams by 2050 with their partners. Here’s a description of their biggest project:
“[O]n November 17, [2022] the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the hydropower License Surrender to remove four dams from the Klamath River. The License Surrender follows from earlier this year, when FERC issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement recommending that the dams be removed due to their cultural and environmental impacts. There are more steps that need to be taken, including additional regulatory steps, before deconstruction can begin in 2023, but a project that has been decades of struggle and seemed to be falling apart as recently as two years ago, now feels inevitable.”
https://www.americanrivers.org/2022/11/five-key-lessons-as-worlds-biggest-dam-removal-project-will-soon-begin-on-the-klamath-river/
Interesting. Let’s not lose sight of fundamentals. Water evaporates (the sun) and then rains at altitude with higher potential energy. Capture that energy as water falls. Perfect.
But now: conversion. Uh-oh. See Bob Sykes comments. And PD.
It always seems easy as a concept. More difficult as an entire enterprise approach. My good friend Steve has never been able to understand this wrt solar. Anyone see the latest solar bankruptcy? I’ve seen multiple rounds, as I’ve commented here repeatedly.
Dams are a niche source, like solar and wind. Sure, let’s exploit it as warranted. But let’s get real. As I commented recently, the increase in electricity demand from AI alone will dwarf all the water, solar and wind we could ever hope to develop.
Energy concentration/intensity is the key concept. (Think like an engineer) Only two currently qualify. Fossil, now. And nuclear, in the future. It’s a shame the politically motivated and ignorant can’t come to grips with reality.
No argument there.
I guess my base point is that if we are not going to do without we’re going to need more energy. We should exploit all sources, as you put it, “as warranted”.
I’m skeptical that wind will be able to satisfy future needs in the Southwest or that solar will do that in the North. It will provide some but not all future needs.
The Big Blue River in SE NE. Has perhaps a dozen or more of these abandoned power plants along its length in its path to Kansas. This one was decommissioned in 1985, none of them are operational.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thebouncingczech/50013356612
I’ve read elsewhere that just staying _competitive_ in AI will require vast increases in energy expenditure.
At that scale, perhaps building nuclear becomes more cost-effective.
Said another way, AI is killing net zero plans.
I really should write a post on the politics and economics of AI. We can’t control its advance. We can only cede it.
Dave
I completely agree with your point. My (generally sarcastic) points about wind, solar or hydro are aimed at those touting them as anything more than niche.
But anyone, especially with a core engineering mindset, would say we should exploit all sources and efficiencies that make economic sense. It’s the zealots or politically driven who lose their way. As I’ve pointed out, and Piercello echoed, a modern economy is increasingly energy intensive. These niche sources will and cannot make a material dent in current need, but will fail miserably as the need grows.
Count me in the skeptical about 90,000 dams group. While I favor an all of the above approach the trends in solar, wind and batteries are very positive and they are still pretty young technologies. Add in externalities and they are winners in even more places than they are now.
Steve