Hydro-electric power (and other non-fossil fuel generation methods) discussion

Onebadhawk
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
dr wogz

dr wogz

Fly caster
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
9,489
Reaction score
5,639
Location
Land of Poutine!
Since we have some other "non fossil fuel" specific power generation threads, I thught I'd start this to not derail those.. this wouds mainly be about hydro electric energy. Water spins a turbine, the turbine spins a generator. It can be considered "renewable" and "clean" as once it's built, gravity & water do the work.

I will toss this into the pot for some to ponder..

https://www.quebec.ca/en/agricultur...ates, transports and distributes electricity.
There was an offer to sell our power to Maine, but it now stuck in the courts..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/maine-court-energy-export-quebec-1.6566934
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/hydro-q...-power-line-after-failed-referendum-1.5896092
 
Tidal energy along all the coastlines:
water is much more dense than air, tidal energy is more powerful than wind energy. Unlike wind, tides are predictable and stable. Where tidal generators are used, they produce a steady, reliable stream of electricity.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tidal-energy
 
We have predominantly Hydro in my area (along the Columbia and Snake Rivers) as well as nuclear Energy Northwest WNP-2, and large windfarms. I prefer the nuclear, but Hydro is a close second. With some changes IMO Hydro can be much more environmentally friendly without the loss of the dams but the fish passage systems need to really be modified to allow easier upstream passage of the fish, the flow rates need to be increased to allow the river waters to be cooler instead of backing them up in the reservoirs where the water warms up creating algaes and slimes that should not be in the waters, and the needs of irrigation all need to be balanced. Dollar for dollar though hydro is hard to beat and has very little hazardous or long lived waste to dispose of.
 
rharshberger said:
The Nurek dam kinda scares the hell outta me....its a 980' tall earthen dam (I'm sure its concrete backed with earth) just a small leak anywhere is a ticking bomb......
Click to expand...
I wonder if that ever happened. If it has, you'd think someone would have found a fix. I'd mix in epoxy or something 😆

This list is different. Not sure how dams are sorted usually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_dams
 
hobie1dog said:
Tidal energy along all the coastlines:
water is much more dense than air, tidal energy is more powerful than wind energy. Unlike wind, tides are predictable and stable. Where tidal generators are used, they produce a steady, reliable stream of electricity.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/tidal-energy
Click to expand...
Tidal energy production is interesting but one thing it is not is “steady”. Slack tides, which generally happen four times per day, have zero flow and so zero energy production. In addition incoming and outgoing tides don’t always correspond with demand so tidal energy production like solar and wind has to be in conjunction with some form of base load production and/or storage.
 
Last edited:
No man made product is going to produce "free energy" without some sort of damage. Dams, tidal generators, and windmills cause an environmental impact of some kind and may hurt birds and fish. I am sure solar panels will have an unplanned impact. Time will tell on each.
 
lakeroadster said:
Living in a pine forest... my favorite is our wood stove...

View attachment 557182View attachment 557183
Click to expand...

Wood stoves are a staple in Montreal / Quebec. But recent 'winter smog events' have had laws passed that no new "log" wood stoves are allowed. and this also applies to wood fired ovens. so, Pizza joints, smoke houses, and the coveted bagel shops are all affected.

if you have one, its grandfathered in. But anything new is subjected to these strict laws. only energy efficient pellet stoves are now allowed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-bylaw-wood-burning-stoves-1.4844083
 
dr wogz said:
Wood stoves are a staple in Montreal / Quebec. But recent 'winter smog events' have had laws passed that no new "log" wood stoves are allowed. and this also applies to wood fired ovens. so, Pizza joints, smoke houses, and the coveted bagel shops are all affected.

if you have one, its grandfathered in. But anything new is subjected to these strict laws. only energy efficient pellet stoves are now allowed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-bylaw-wood-burning-stoves-1.4844083
Click to expand...

Are these energy efficient stoves and the pellets used therein made in an energy efficient manner, or is this yet another example of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
 
lakeroadster said:
Are these energy efficient stoves and the pellets used therein made in an energy efficient manner, or is this yet another example of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Click to expand...
Smog and energy efficiency are 2 different problems. In fact, energy efficiency depends on what problem one is trying to solve. In this case, it seems like the laws are for reducing smog, which is usually very local, so I suspect @dr wogs is referring to some municipal bylaws.
 
dr wogz said:
Wood stoves are a staple in Montreal / Quebec. But recent 'winter smog events' have had laws passed that no new "log" wood stoves are allowed. and this also applies to wood fired ovens. so, Pizza joints, smoke houses, and the coveted bagel shops are all affected.

if you have one, its grandfathered in. But anything new is subjected to these strict laws. only energy efficient pellet stoves are now allowed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-bylaw-wood-burning-stoves-1.4844083
Click to expand...
That is disturbing. I live in Iowa on the south edge of a medium sized city. I primarily heat with natural gas, but I supplement that with a wood burning stove in the basement. It is an expensive energy efficient unit with a catalyst. I have no idea what the particulate emissions are, nor how that is measured. I suspect that objectionable levels of emissions are mostly due to star-up transients, burning "bad" firewood, garbage, leaves, etc. or trying to run the stove at an inefficient temperature. I might add that pine should not be burned in a stove, only hardwoods, and Maple is not worth the effort.

Working up firewood can be fun and interesting, like a hobby. It is good exercise that is more "efficient" than exercising at a gym or on a treadmill. My main interest is to lower heating costs, but that may not be the case. What is does do is conserves natural gas and helps keep natural gas prices lower for everyone, while reducing net CO2 emissions. Most homes and houses are not suitable for heating with firewood, and if everyone was doing it the air quality would be terrible. At 67 I am easing out of the firewood game. I let the pickup truck go a few years ago, and I will never buy another chain saw. I just hope natural gas is still available at a reasonable cost when I am too old and feeble to work the firewood. If I were building a new house in the country, I would go geothermal, and supplement that with a corn burning stove.
 
dams eventually silt up, takes 100, 150, 200 years... longer than a lifetime but a blink in geological time.

our civilization will be known as "the wreckers" for 10,000 years to come.
 
Alan15578 said:
Working up firewood can be fun and interesting, like a hobby. It is good exercise that is more "efficient" than exercising at a gym or on a treadmill.
Click to expand...
I think every man is willing to split firewood for hours, rather than [insert other equally exhaustive activity] there is just something about swinging an axe & breaking logs into 'chunks'..
 
lakeroadster said:
Are these energy efficient stoves and the pellets used therein made in an energy efficient manner, or is this yet another example of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Click to expand...
frankly, no idea. don't own a stove, don't really know anyone who does (except some with a fireplace or the older models).. but I believe there is supposed to be some type of energy management in the system.. i think it's more the long term savings [less "smog" pollution] that is the net gain..
 
My parents neighbors in Minnesota had a wood burning heating system. Most of the time the smoke blew right into my parents home. It got so bad they finally moved to get away from it.
 
SDramstad said:
My parents neighbors in Minnesota had a wood burning heating system. Most of the time the smoke blew right into my parents home. It got so bad they finally moved to get away from it.
Click to expand...
@SDramstad - I live in rural NW Wisconsin and have a woodstove. I only burn dry red or white oak that has been in my woodshed for a couple of years. (Note that white oak is like throwing dilithium crystals in the stove.) But there are a ton of those outside wood boilers in the area and I have never seen one that burns clean. All their chimneys are short so they can't develop a good draft for good combustion and I'm pretty sure the dryness of the wood people burn in these is bad.
 
Here in Southern Nevada we get most of our power from Hoover Dam. There are some other small power stations. I believe they are natural gas fired. In Boise they banned new wood stoves in the early 80's. I would come into Boise from the east. The land there was much higher than the Boise valley. I could see the brown/green smoke/smog layer as I came into town. The smoke stayed in the valley because of temperature inversions. Vegas is the same way. The smog hangs around near the valley floor. 2 million plus people sure make a lot of emissions. And no one I know has a wood stove or a wood burning fireplace. In Northern Nevada and in parts of Idaho there is geothermal. I'm all for nuclear power. And if it wasn't for politics Yucca Mountain would be a nuclear waste depository.
 
cwbullet said:
I am sure solar panels will have an unplanned impact.
Click to expand...

It's not unplanned, merely a part of the embedded costs and operating costs.

"The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled."

Sadly, solar arrays kill birds, bats, and migratory insects.
 
lakeroadster said:
... Sadly, solar arrays kill birds, bats, and migratory insects.
Click to expand...
It's quite easy to tell apart someone trying to save birds, bats and insects, from someone calling out solar for no apparent reason. I don't really need a detailed comparison of damage from solar with damage from alternatives, but maybe others do.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top