Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there is an attractive return on investment from the project, I don't object. However, producing a significant amount of electricity will require a significant water flow from Falls Lake -- which will be intermittent.
I get that....but this will be a total waste of taxpayer money in order to feelgreen. Symbolism over substance.
Will it? You have all the data and facts? You have studied this and have some proffesional opinion it will be a waste?
Or just shooting off at the mouth with an opinion based in your political beliefs?
ANY way to produce electricity without oil is worth exploring...unless you like Terrorists...
Do you think we should use oil till we have a sure fire way to replace it? Or should we explore, invent, and become creative in our ways?
I think there is no way to replace oil...yet, but there are ways to lower our use. Wind solar, nucleur, nat gas and water are a few.
Over many years the turbines at Hoover Dam have been replaced with much more efficient models. What makes you think we cant generate electricity more and more efficiently and cheaper as we discover and invent better and better options.
My neighbor in NJ had a solar panel on his roof 30 years ago. The thing hardly could warm the water. But now, solar hot water is common. Next time your out riding around. Look at all the new public schools around the area. Huge roofs. Why are they not COVERED with solar panels running most of the school?? All new houses should have solar hot water MANDATED. It would cost the builder approx $700 more dollars to install a SHWH during construction instead of the current systems with electricity or gas. AND THEY WORK!
Its not symbolism, its baby steps... its the way it is. No one is going to shoot a rifle at the ground and have a majical new substance bubble up from the ground. That is a fantasy...just like thinking oil is going to last forever...
It's probably much more fun to debate this based on a few high level tidbits published in the N&O, but if you really want to have fun and reads lots of tables and numbers, you can read the pre-feasibility study report here:
First off, they describe power in terms of number of houses so that simpletons who have no idea what a kilowatt hour is can comprehend the size of a project.
The proposed project will install turbines to capture the power from a portion of the water that goes through the dam already. Typically 60-100 cfs during the summer, and 200-600 cfs the rest of the year. Based on the average stream flow, the project will generate and average of 4600 megawatt/hours of electricity per year. Our house uses an average of around 900 kilowatt/h of electricity per month, or around 11 megawatt/h of electricity per year, so the project would provide enough energy to supply about 420 houses that use the same amount of power we do.
Note that the project will sell power into the grid, so there is a constant return on investment. If nothing changes (namely, the wholesale price of electricity stays the same for the next 30 years), the cost of the project along with mainainence is projected to lose $700,000. If the price of electricity goes up, the project will break even or make money. And if we as a society ever pull our collective head out of our arses and begin afixing a cost to energy sources that dump pollution into the atmosphere, then the project will be quite profitable.
Thanks to CHtransplant for posting the project details.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 09-23-2011 at 12:57 PM..
Reason: Deleted off-topic comment
First off, they describe power in terms of number of houses so that simpletons who have no idea what a kilowatt hour is can comprehend the size of a project.
The proposed project will install turbines to capture the power from a portion of the water that goes through the dam already. Typically 60-100 cfs during the summer, and 200-600 cfs the rest of the year. Based on the average stream flow, the project will generate and average of 4600 megawatt/hours of electricity per year. Our house uses an average of around 900 kilowatt/h of electricity per month, or around 11 megawatt/h of electricity per year, so the project would provide enough energy to supply about 420 houses that use the same amount of power we do.
Note that the project will sell power into the grid, so there is a constant return on investment. If nothing changes (namely, the wholesale price of electricity stays the same for the next 30 years), the cost of the project along with mainainence is projected to lose $700,000. If the price of electricity goes up, the project will break even or make money. And if we as a society ever pull our collective head out of our arses and begin afixing a cost to energy sources that dump pollution into the atmosphere, then the project will be quite profitable.
Thanks to CHtransplant for posting the project details.
Slam Dunk. Thanks for being the voice of reason in a thread polluted by ignorant comments.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 09-23-2011 at 12:57 PM..
Reason: Edited quoted text
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
