I was watching the CNN special last night "CNN Reports: We Were Warned, Out of Gas" http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/siu/ it was a great show and really put the global demand for oil into perspective. The show also spent some time talking about alternatives specifically Biofuel with a great interview with Virgin Atlantic owner Richard Branson, and also about the idea of the "Volt" a car that runs on electricity.
I live in Washington State and was driving by Snoqulamie Fall which is a local tourist spot and the parking lot was jammed. I figured out the reason when the road I wanted to use was closed due to all the flooding we are having right now. Snoqualmie Falls actually produces a fair amount of electricity and it got me to thinking "Wow, why aren't we building more hydroelectric?" It's clean, remewable energy, it doesn't cause gobal warming, there's no waste or pollution. The only donw side is the fish, which I think there are pretty good solutions for with fish ladders, etc. No solution is perfect but this one seems pretty close. An additional benefit is improved water management something that can only be a plus.
So how much energy could we really create in the US, are all the good spots taken and what would it take to increase our capacity?
According to Wikipedia, "There is a common misconception that economically developed nations have harnessed all of their available hydropower resources.
However, In the United States, according to the US Department of Energy, "previous assessments have focused on potential projects having a capacity of 1 MW and above". This may partly explain the discrepancy.
More recently, in 2004, an extensive survey was conducted by the US-DOE which counted sources under 1 MW (mean annual average), and found that only 40% of the total hydropower potential had been developed.
40%???? And most of it can be gotten from smaller, more easily built, less intrusive projects? Really?
Wiki goes on to say that "A total of 170 GW (mean annual average) remains available for development. Of this, 34% is within the operating envelope of conventional turbines, 50% is within the operating envelope of microhydro technologies (defined as less than 100 kW), and 16% is within the operating envelope of unconventional systems. [1] In 2005, the US generated 1012 kilo-watt hours of electricity. The total undeveloped hydropower resource is equivalent to about one-third of total US electricity generation in 2005. Developed hydropower accounted for 6.4% of total US electricity generated in 2005."
Did they just say there's 1/3 more clean, renewable energy out there?
Hydropower produces essentially no carbon dioxide or other harmful emissions, in contrast to burning fossil fuels, and is not a significant contributor to global warming through CO2.
Hydroelectric power can be far less expensive than electricity generated from fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Areas with abundant hydroelectric power attract industry. The chief advantage of hydroelectric dams is their ability to handle seasonal (as well as daily) high peak loads. When the electricity demands drop, the dam simply stores more water (which provides more flow when it releases). Some electricity generators use water dams to store excess energy (often during the night), by using the electricity to pump water up into a basin. Electricity can be generated when demand increases. In practice the utilization of stored water in river dams is sometimes complicated by demands for irrigation which may occur out of phase with peak electrical demands.
Not all hydroelectric power requires a dam; a run-of-river project only uses part of the stream flow and is a characteristic of small hydropower projects. A developing technology example is the Gorlov helical turbine."
Wow!
Now, water is only part of the solution but it seems like it could do a lot, especially since a great deal of the remaining capacity is not giant dams, but things like Snoqualmie Falls.
Why aren't the politicians or CNN or anyone else talking about this?
