I realize that differing points of view legitimately arise from different individual circumstance, so I am not trying to say either of the perspectives given by Frank or DJ below are wrong - particularly if one restricts ones interest to systems suitable for a single residence. However, I have a very different view of this, as I suspect would others in this group who have an interest in revenue producing plants in the 5-5,000 kW capacity range.
An article on small hydro power appeared on page 87, of the 1984 Smithsonian magazine titled "The rush is on to find new gold in falling water". The subtitle caption was "Small hydroelectric power stations could take the place of 45 nuclear generating plants by 2000 - if governments decide to go that route". I am not personally opposed to nuclear power. I understand the fuel cycle problem we are currently facing but I am told by those who know, that advanced cycle plants could essentially solve that problem. So, I think advanced nuclear plants are preferrable to coal, gas and oil fired plants all of which will emit ~ 8 metric tons of CO2 per year per kW (or 8,000 tons/MW-year). I would still like to see clean renewable power capacity built before nuclear. If according to the Smithsonian article small hydro power has the potential for as much as 45 nuclear plants (600 - 2000 MW each ?), that's a lot of power. I've seen a study from the same time period for potential at existing dams and diversions in the state where I live that also shows very high potential - also 20 years later still un-tapped. So, why are these systems not being built? 1) Regulations and permitting processes that are arbitrary, open ended and non-deterministic, i.e. you can spend a lot of money on the process with no way of knowing if you'll ever get the permit. 2) Banks don't like lending for something different (houses and main street business are ok, but even though all of them buy kW-hrs that's not). 3) Power sales prices that are far below the true value (to the purchaser and to society) of the power - which makes the payback case more difficult to show on #2. This type of incentive helps all three aspects. 1) It makes a statement that government is promoting hydro power. 2) Faster payback which leads to easier financing Five years ago I tried (unsuccessfully) to buy and rehabilitate a 50+ year old 500kW plant near my home. At the time, all I could show the bank was the prior owner's history of being paid 1.9 cents/kW-hr over the past decades. A 1 cent incentive would have been a huge improvement in payback time. Things have improved over the past 5 years so that the fellow who did buy the plant is averaging closer to 5 cents /kW-hr. To me, 1 cent whether it constitutes a 20% or 50% increase is still significant and welcome. Put another way, say you had 3 plants at 382kW each for 1146kW total, a 1 cent incentive is $100,000/year. What I'm talking about is clearly in the small hydro range, rather than microhydro. The technology and local impact of small and microhydro is similar, but a large increase in small hydro could have a very positive global impact on CO2 emissions. Joe --- In [email protected], "Frank Leslie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There should never be a net sale of power to the utility. If so, you > overbuilt your expensive system. The utility produces power much more > cheaply. > > Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Fwd: Re: [microhydro] CANADA TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES from small > hydro and biomass] > > > > This just came across the Refocus Weekly - Renewables Update - Issue > > 165 which rarely has any hydro news. > > > > CANADA TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR NON-WIND GREEN POWER > > OTTAWA, Ontario, CA, September 28, 2005 (Refocus Weekly) The > > government of Canada will provide an incentive to encourage the > > installation of 1,500 MW of capacity from small hydro and biomass > > generation facilities. > > > > http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/view.asp?x=681 > > Did you read it? > > "An incentive payment of 1 cent per kilowatt-hour of production for the > first 10 years of operation will be introduced for eligible projects > commissioned after March 31, 2006 and before April 1, 2011." > > That's pretty much incredibly insulting for homeowner sized installations. > So, you stick a one kilowatt turbine in your river. It probably cost you > near ten thousand dollars to put it there (based on my professional > experience) and tie it into a battery bank and the grid. > > Logically, you'd want to keep probably five to ten kilowatts a day for > yourself, rather than pay the utility for them. > > So that leaves, for fun, let's say 20 kw-h per day to sell. So at a > repayment of 20 CENTS a day, your return on investment is about... what, > FIFTY THOUSAND DAYS. Unfortunately, FIFTY THOUSAND DAYS is about 136 > years, and they stopped paying you that 20 CENTS A DAY 126 years ago... > > Insulting. > > DJ > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Does your company feature in the microhydro business directory at http://microhydropower.net/directory ? If not, please register free of charge and be exposed to the microhydro community world wide! NOTE: The advertisements in this email are added by Yahoogroups who provides us with free email group services. The microhydro-group does not endorse products or support the advertisements in any way. More information on micro hydropower at http://microhydropower.net To unsubscribe: send empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/microhydro/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
