Readers Write
Making Waves with Tidal Energy
I read "Making Waves with Tidal Energy" with great interest as we are also a wave energy device developer. OPT's effort is groundbreaking, but I wanted to alert you to something that may be confusing to some of your readers. Columbia Power and OPT are wave energy technology developers, as opposed to tidal. While both fall under marine hydrokinetics, there is a pretty distinct difference in the methods of energy extraction. Wave energy devices don't really rely on tides or current like Verdant Power does so I'm not sure the concepts are interchangeable.
That said, thank you for the article. We love to see heightened awareness for the industry, which is just starting to take off.
Reenst Lesemann
www.columbiapwr.com
Just read today's news letter and I know you don't have room for a lot of details.
Water power has several very different technologies and they need to be separated for clarity.
OPT's technology is wave powered. It uses the lifting force of the buoyancy of a "float" and the amplitude (height) of the waves to generate power. Wave action does vary significantly over time. Other than the buoys on the surface and the anchorage on the bottom, it doesn't impede the flow or navigation in the vicinity of the installation. The moving parts are unlikely to harm sea life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power
Another proposed design use the "wiggle" caused by the peaks and troughs of the waves in a on-surface set of floats. It takes up a lot of space and could interfere with navigation.
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/Annapolis-tidal-power.html
These tidal power installations use a dam that captures high tide and releases it as needed. It generates power as the water enters and as it leaves. There are two, no generation periods daily.
Verdant's technology is more like a wind mill and is related to run-of-the-river turbines. It uses water flow to produce power without impounding it. Generally speaking and depending on the location, power is produced in a continuous fashion. If it is true tidal power, then it reverses twice each day and varies from zero to maximum cyclically--very predictable, but output does not always occur when needed. This really needs a good storage technology to go with it.
The other application use the flow of a river as a power source and I believe this what they are using in NYC. It is continuous, but varies seasonally with the river's flow. Rivers tend to have minimum flow in late summer or fall and maximum flow in the spring. The output may be minimum when the demand is highest (late summer) and it doesn't lend itself to storage without several impoundments upstream to maintain a flow when the needed. It could work in tandem with several conventional hydro dams very well.
Several others are working on designs for true run-of the-river applications. Floods, low flow periods and entrained debris present issues. The energy in Mississippi River could possibly power half the nation if it could all be harnessed. As it is if we could just capture a few percent, it would be significant.
The only current true run-of-the-river installation I know of in the US is the Sidney Murray facility on the Mississippi south of Vidalia, La. It uses a dam to create a height difference where the Mississippi splits in its trip to the Gulf of Mexico. This technology can only be applied in a few places and is VERY expensive to build. M&O is relatively low and fuel is free.
Then there is ocean thermal. You mentioned that the oceans are the worlds largest solar collectors. Well some think they can convert this energy (temperature difference) to electricity.
Differentiation of the technologies is important because they have very different environmental/visual effects. If people can't see it and can't hit it with their boats/nets/anchors, etc. they are all for it. If it gets in their way.... or if it isn't there when they want it, they don't want it.
David McGee, PE
I am always impressed with the breadth of accurate knowledge that your writings possess; it's always a pleasure to read your columns.
I write today to bring to your attention that your August 27 article, Making Waves with Tidal Energy, had a major theme in it that has not yet happened and that this column is being picked up by other blogs and repeating this.
While the Settlement Agreement (SA) that Ocean Power Technologies (OPT) signed with its stakeholders and with the FERC related to OPT's Reedsport, Oregon wave energy project is momentous, and took over 3 years to negotiate, it is only a part of the FERC licensing process for this project. FERC has not yet issued a license to OPT for this project.
The FERC docket for OPT's Reedsport project showing all of the documents related to it can be found at:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/eSave.asp?dt=All&cat=submittal,%20issuance&dkt=P%2D12713&ft=fulltext&dsc=description
The docket does show that the SA has been filed and that several resource agencies and stakeholders wish to formally intervene in the ongoing FERC licensing process. OPT stands an excellent chance of receiving a FERC license to build and operate this important wave energy project, but they have a ways to go still.
Up until March of this year I was the program manager for Pacific Gas and Electric's Humboldt WaveConnect ocean wave energy pilot project offshore of Eureka California (http://www.pge.com/waveconnect/). I am now consulting to PG&E on this and their other wave project, Central Coast WaveConnect, as an employee of CH2M HILL. Humboldt WaveConnect has applied to FERC for a pilot license and is going through a similar process as OPT Reedsport.
Bill Toman
I read your piece about Hydropower's Turn with great interest. In Vermont, a still vertically integrated system, we approach power supply as a long term portfolio as opposed to a short run market dynamic. We have perhaps the lowest carbon footprint electric portfolio in the country, thanks to a dominant position in nuclear and hydro. We have a longstanding trade relationship with the Province of Quebec and Hydro Quebec as a cornerstone of that relationship. On August 12th our utilities signed a new 26 yr supply agreement with Hydro Quebec. In addition we amended our statutes to recognize large scale hydro as renewable. Our thinking on this is very straightforward:
In the face of the challenge of climate change and our dependence on foreign oil the emphasis of national energy policy should be a "non carbon agenda". The implication of this policy direction is that we have to recast long established emphasis on narrow elements of the solution like renewable power or energy efficiency. Instead we have to embrace all energy sources that can power our homes, businesses and transportation while not adding carbon emissions to our atmosphere.
Perhaps the proposed national renewable energy standard could be modified to become a "non-carbon standard" where a minimum percentage of every utility's electric portfolio does not emit carbon. It would be up to every state and their utilities how to build an electric portfolio that produces less carbon, looking at a wide solution set from efficiency to nuclear power.
Renewable portfolio standards also place a limit on the resources that qualify as renewable, despite the fact that from a carbon emissions standpoint they are the same. As a result large scale hydro resources are devalued, perhaps one could argue they are discriminated against.
Not only do large scale hydro and nuclear resources provide carbon free electricity, but as base load sources they provide the grid stability to support the intermittent wind and solar resources we seek to build across this country.
Further with the advent of the Smart Grid, these non carbon resources can reduce our dependence on foreign oil by charging up our vehicles and heating our homes and businesses.
So it is not about large versus small renewables, efficiency versus new electric supply, instead a cohesive policy that leverages the unique characteristics of all resource solutions with a common outcome of reduced carbon emissions from our energy use while delivering the lowest possible cost to consumers and maintaining reliability of the grid.
In essence we have lost our way in terms of the least cost means to accomplish a proper balance between demands for energy and the environment. Ultimately it is the US consumer, especially job creators in industry, that bears the brunt of this flawed thinking. Governor Douglas has had the opportunity to share this policy construct with the President and the also the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NERUC). So while I appreciate the potential of additional hydro which should be pursued, we could do a lot to recognize how much of our problem has already been solved by existing hydro resources. I would add nuclear to that statement but that is for another day.
David J. O'Brien
Commissioner
Vermont Department of Public Service
Your tag line captures the issue precisely: hydropower is the forgotten cousin of green energy. Thank you for 'refreshing' everyone's memory! One other point that may bear emphasis: hydropower is the perfect mate to other carbon-free technologies, such as solar, but even more for wind in that it is readily dispatchable and forecastable to follow the vagaries of wind generation without the impacts of excessive cycling of base-load thermal plants or further increasing our reliance on gas fired CCT facilities. It is the rapid responsiveness of hydro that makes it the ideal 'enabling technology' to leverage our investment in wind capacity. Potentially, adding pumped storage will only further enhance the value of both investments.
Gordon Matthews
BPA
Few people realize that Hydro power is NOT as green as MOST people believe.
Yes for existing dams which do not generate - fitting with generating equipment certainly makes sense.... as the damage from flooding has already been done.
If the flooded regions of the forebays are in regions without trees (far north or in deserts) - then they can be "somewhat" clean... if the mercury and other heavy metals leached from the banks of the flooded regions and the resultant river pollution is not considered!
If the flooded regions are in forested areas - then often a vast area of trees are killed and the loss of CO2 capture is just the same as the production of CO2 from combustion - for the life of the dam - (Many Years!!). As well, the mercury and other heavy metal polution of the river is FAR from being green!!
It always so frustrating to read about various proposed so called 'green' technologies written by those who 'don't understand' - the technical details, pros and cons of the of these various options.
Ross Reid
Saint John,
New Brunswick,
Canada.
Remember that water is an excellent source of stored energy. Hydropower coupled with wind pumps (same machinery as wind generators, just using the wind to pump the water uphill), would be a very effective way to stabilize the grid with constant speed hydro-generators, and still get the production of the variable wind as well.
G Alan Bysfield
Cooper Nuclear Station
Brownville, NE
Your article of August 23, 2010 - "Hydropower's Turn" is timely and it is about time for hydropower to finally get the long overdue recognition it deserves. There is much debate about the effects of hydropower on the environment, but given that only 3 % of the more than 80,000 dams in the Country are used for hydropower, there are plenty of opportunities to build new hydro power plants without new dams. We are also seeing new technologies that can harness hydropower, such as kinetic and ocean wave energy to name a few. The cost of hydro is also often cited as a problem, but its costs are not out of line with the competition whether renewable or not and when you consider that the efficiency of a modern hydro project is more than 90 % the cost picture is far better than the alternatives. There is no close second in terms of efficiency and net energy. Hydro is always a better choice over the long term. In addition, the longevity of a hydro project is unequaled. There are numerous hydro projects throughout the Country that are near or have reached the century mark and many are operating with the original equipment. Of course, upgrades of older facilities can produce more energy for the same water use due to increased efficiency, but even the older 100-year old plants operate at efficiencies above 80 %. The environmental movement has unfairly made hydropower a major target and that has been detrimental to the Country's energy independence goals and a cleaner environment. The time has come to move forward and realize the Nation's full hydro potential.
Hydro is the most efficient and plentiful renewable. We have even seen some supporters of other renewable technologies oppose hydro because it's "not a new technology". There was a time, until recently that Congress wasn't even recognizing hydro as a renewable. And, why are Federal subsidies so lopsided in favor of wind and solar? Hydro also sees many States refusing to include all hydro in its renewable energy standards (RES). In those states that do have a RES, there is often a limit on the size of hydro development to only small projects. Isn't it time to think about all renewables on an even playing field?
Ronald A. Corso
Vienna, Va.
What factor is used to convert power output to jobs? Dividing 60,000 MW by 1.4 million jobs I get 0.04 MW/job, or 40 kW of capacity per job.
An 800MW 3-in-1 combined cycle gas plant runs operates with about 30 people, or 26MW per employee, or 650 times the capacity per job.
Mick Gavrilovic
Executive Director
E3 Consulting LLC
Englewood, CO 80110
I am writing to provide a couple of clarifications/corrections to the article published on August 18 regarding California's solar lead.
One statement mentioned that "Federal regulators said administratively-set prices are not allowed under national law but went on to add that the state could help create a green energy market there." I would like to clarify that federal regulators said that State's can administratively set prices under national law and a recent ruling (July 15, 2010) by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission validated that the California Public Utilities Commission can set a price for a Feed in Tariff as long as certain conditions are met.
Some regions have already adopted and implemented FITs, specifically:
Gainesville Regional Utilities
Sacramento Municipal Utilities District
State of Oregon
State of Vermont
Regions that are in process of implementing or considering FITs are:
California (pursuant to state law - SB 32, enacted in 2009)
Hawaii
Arizona
New York
Nevada
The California Solar Energy Industries Association (California's largest solar industry association) is actively working on implementing a FIT in California and we look forward to working with the California Public Utilities Commission on this important market initiative.
Last, there is general agreement within the solar industry that Feed in Tariffs are an desirable mechanism due to their effectiveness in growing the market for solar in a competitive and efficient manner that stimulates cost reductions. In a recent meeting with other State Solar Associations, thirteen state solar industry associations called for States to implement Feed in Tariffs (press announcement attached).
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the industry views on Feed in Tariffs for the U.S. renewable energy markets.
Sue Kateley
CAL SEIA
Rio Vista CA
info@calseia.org
San Diego Gas and Electric: Of course, the utility's rationale' is that, given the success of convincing individual ratepayers to conserve, ratepayer monthly remittances for "conventional power" are no longer large enough to support installation of equipment necessary to supply green power. Inability to "...curb costs with increased reliability..." and crony capitalism running wild just might have more to do with electorate recalcitrance than your article admits.
Don Geigler
On the grid, first, one can focus more on storage and local power (decentralized) generation; that is happening. This will forestall any big need for grid changes. Second, we can focus on wind power that can more easily fit into big grids, like PJM. Third, efficiency is the best way to reduce a carbon footprint permanently. And forth, as you know, the AMS GRANT ET AL. paper clearly shows not a lick of trend change in temperature since 1935 (page 4450) despite a 80% man-made CO2 increase since 1970, a smoking gun that shoots down the idea that CO2 causes warming. Yes, the report shows temperatures are increasing overall, we all know that. But that is just part of the natural cycle on display in ice core data. And the GRANT ET AL. data set clearly shows it's winters where warming is happening, which accounts for more Arctic and Antarctic snows and floating ice melts due to the warmer oceans, which provides the evaporative energy for more polar snow (not in dispute these days). But if anything, per this data, there is a slight trend down in summer temperatures.
Senator Reid is doing the right thing. I believe he understands that the CO2 link to climate change is bogus as do most elected leaders. President Obama is pursuing electric autos and efficiency, which is the right policy for now. CCS needs to stand down as there is no real-world science to support it.
It's time to tell a straight and thorough story on climate change using best scientific evidence as to what's happening. I submit that the application of CCS for coal and natural gas as outlined in the recent EIA report on 20 year levelized power costs is unnecessary and has no scientific standing. But now that natural gas has been included on the list (mix) for CCS, maybe folks will start to notice what is going to happen to power costs and fuel availability if the junk science on fossil fuel energy warming keeps inching forward. I noticed in the linked report below that EIA published the lower 30% power cost increase due to CCS, but the accountability office of Congress indicated up to an 80% cost increase is possible. I think peak oil prices are bad enough to deal with, let alone including junk science CO2 policy. This is a policy that will unnecessarily drive up coal and natural gas energy prices, unnecessarily harm our economy, and greatly hamper rebuilding our energy infrastructure, which is a monumental undertaking by any estimation. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html).
I think primarily the public is worried about grid reliability, blackouts. Not so much because the grid isn't robust enough, decentralized generation can take care of that, but because of cyber attacks. I think perhaps that's a high grid priority and is being done.
Lloyd Weaver
Harpswell, ME
NERC has an initiative known as the Integration of Variable Generation Task Force (IVGTF) whose purpose is to make recommendations regarding changes in the operation of the bulk power system to integrate renewable technologies like wind and solar. Though its work is driven by the need to ensure that renewables work well in an electric grid that was build and is operated around largely controllable technologies, nearly everything it does will be beneficial even if new renewable build stopped today. These include practices that allow more granular scheduling, more sensible management of inadvertent flow between Balancing Authority Areas and a review of ancillary services products. Although there have been improvements over the years, the power industry still employs many batch processes to schedule and dispatch the grid even though electricity is produced and delivered in a continuous process. We have better automation technology today than we did when interconnected operations were first implemented. Hopefully updates motivated by renewables will drive meaningful changes in some of those now outdated batch processes.
Jack Ellis
Resero Consulting
Tahoe City, California
Letters From Readers (Now called 'Readers Write')
Your "Letters from Readers" seems to have a theme, "electricity is going to cost more in the future."
Carbon Capture certainly can only add to the direct cost; I won't go into the present hidden costs.
The Smart Grid and related technology don't add any utility to the electricity we buy. Will it reduce future costs? How much of the cost of each kwh is currently due to generation investment? Can this be reduced by building fewer/smaller plants?
One reader mentioned conservation. This is the only measure that can actually reduce costs and CO2 emissions at the same time. If we use less, we should pay less, but the regulated utilities are guaranteed a return on investment....
Increased generation efficiency will help, but still requires increased capital. Ormat Technologies process is not very efficient, something like 15% so you would only recoup 6% of the total heat, but it is almost 'free.' I expect this can be improved to some degree.
Then there is transmission, who is going to pay for that? Everyone needs to realize that the consumer pays for everything whether directly and indirectly or through taxes! Increased grid means more power lines in open spaces, etc.
When China takes over the world you can bet the prices will go up. Worse than that, because we exported all our intellectual capital, we won't have anything to pay for it with. We will have to revert to a nation of farmers and sell our grain for whatever the market will pay.
"Energy is wealth!" Cheap energy (includes both manpower, education and coal, gas and oil) got us to the top of the world. It also got us acid rain, coal ash and other problems.
It appears we need to change what we have been doing if we want different results.
An intelligent national energy policy would be a start. Until all the "powers" realize that we are going down hill, relatively speaking, we can not get out of the "rut" mentioned.
Keep provoking us to think.
David McGee, P.E., CEM
respond to: energybizinsider@energycentral.com
follow Ken on www.twitter.com/freehand1200
Comments
Level of Articles
Level of Articles