Russell Ray
Canada -- Canada is already the world's second-largest hydropower producer behind China. But Canada is bent on producing more, driven by its vast potential for hydropower generation and demands for more clean energy in the U.S.
It's a major element of Canada's plan to boost its economy, as lawmakers attempt to wean the country off coal-fired power through landmark legislation that encourages the development of renewable energy, especially hydropower.
"The federal government is intending to introduce legislation to reduce emissions pretty significantly from coal-fired plants," said Colin Clark, chairman of the Canadian Hydropower Association. "I think that creates an opportunity for hydropower."
In the U.S., where restrictions on carbon emissions are anticipated and demand is growing, there's a big market for Canada's hydropower resources. A handful of deals to export that power to the U.S. have already been made and more are looming.
"The U.S. is constrained in how it can develop its own generation systems because of uncertainty around carbon," said Dan McCarthy, president and chief executive officer of Black & Veatch Water. "Canadian hydro companies have an opportunity to take advantage of that uncertainty and get some power purchase agreements in place."
Hydro-Quebec recently reached long-term agreements to export hydropower supplies to Vermont and New England.
Hydro-Quebec and Public Service of New Hampshire plan to build a 140-mile transmission line that will bring up to 1,200 MW of Canadian hydropower to central New Hampshire. In another agreement, Hydro-Quebec will provide up to 225 MW of hydropower to two Vermont utilities, Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power, for 26 years beginning in 2012.
Canada, home to about 475 hydroelectric plants with a capacity of 70,000 MW, produces about 355 terawatt-hours of hydropower each year. But Canada's untapped potential is far greater.
According to a study commissioned by the Canadian Hydropower Association, Canada has 163,000 MW of untapped hydropower potential, more than twice the country's existing hydropower capacity.
Already, hydropower accounts for 60 percent of Canada's electricity consumption. That number is sure to rise as construction of several new hydropower plants near completion while more coal-fired plants are shuttered in the name of clean air.
There has been "a very significant increase in the number of references to hydropower by the federal government," Clark said. "It shows that the politicians are strongly supportive of the hydropower development in Canada and policies that will encourage development."
Earlier this year, British Columbia approved an aggressive plan known as the Clean Energy Act to create jobs and reduce carbon emissions through the development and export of new hydropower capacity.
Among other things, the measure establishes a goal of energy self-sufficiency by 2016, requires the province to generate a whopping 93 percent of its power from renewable resources such as hydro, and raises the standard for meeting incremental power demand through conservation and efficiency improvements from 50 percent to 66 percent by 2020.
In addition, the bill authorizes significant public investments in expansions at BC Hydro's Mica and Revelstoke projects.
Another chief objective of the act is to make BC Hydro a net exporter of electricity. Under the measure, BC Hydro will be able to secure long-term export power sales contracts with other jurisdictions, something that was prohibited before the law was passed.
"We want British Columbia to become a leading North American supplier of clean, reliable, low-carbon electricity and technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while strengthening our economy in every region," said British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell.
In Ontario, the Green Energy Act has led to a surge of new interest in building renewable energy projects throughout the province.
The act includes a feed-in-tariff (FIT) program, which provides price supports for renewable-energy producers serving Ontario. The FIT program is a major part of the province's aggressive plan to eliminate coal-fired power.
Under the FIT program, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) has offered contracts to 184 projects with a capacity exceeding 500 kW each. Altogether, those projects are expected to add nearly 2,500 MW of new capacity. Of the 184 projects, 46 are hydropower projects.
Canada Hydropower: Liquid Cornerstone | Renewable Energy World Magazine Article
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Magma/Plutonic Merger | Alternative Energy Stocks
The Magma/Plutonic Merger
A Great Deal for Plutonic Shareholders, Not bad for Magma
Tom Konrad CFA
As a shareholder of Magma Energy Corp. (MGMXF.PK), I'm reading through the joint information circular [PDF] on the proposed merger of Plutonic Power Corp (PUOPF.PK) and Magma to form "Alterra Power Corp." I'm not thrilled with the merger, although I plan to vote for it, now that it's arranged.
Overall, I think the merged Alterra will be a stronger company than either company alone. Both companies are in capital intensive niche Renewable Energy industries, so the added scale and diversification of Alterra should better enable the merged company to borrow money to finance projects at lower rates. Obtaining financing at favorable rates is essential to the profitability of renewable energy projects.
My misgivings about the merger arise from the price. Magma shareholders will have a controlling stake of 66.5% of the merged company, with current Plutonic shareholders owning the balance. Plutonic shareholders are being paid a 32% or 17.5% premium, based on pre-merger market capitalization or book value, respectively. That would be a normal buyout premium, except that Magma was a much stronger company, and so Plutonic shareholders also gain more as part of the merged entity. Although the two companies work in different renewable energy industries, their projects have much in common. In addition to raising finance, environmental permitting, grid interconnection, and negotiating with utilities are crucial to the success of any renewable power producer, and a larger company with more projects may be able to make more effective use of employees with specialized local knowledge or skills in these areas.
Before the merger, I considered Magma shares a good buy, but I would not have bought Plutonic shares, because the company would have needed to either do a deal like this or raise money in the next year or so. This put Magma in the stronger bargaining position, and so I would have liked to see a smaller premium paid for Plutonic shares. That said, since two thirds of Plutonic shareholders will need to vote for the merger in order for it to be a success, this premium is probably necessary to gain sufficient support. Passage by Magma shareholders is a virtual certainty, since the owners of 38.7% of Magma shares have already committed to vote for the deal, and only 50.01% support is needed.
As a Magma shareholder, I think the deal is acceptable, and will be a way for Magma to pursue opportunities for growth beyond Geothermal power, part of the company's current strategy. I also like Plutonic's Run of River and Pumped Hydroelectric assets, although until this proposed merger, I was unwilling to buy the company's shares because I felt its balance sheet wasn't strong enough.
Overall, I'm in favor of the deal. Too bad they couldn't have come up with a better name. Apparently "Alterra" means "Other Earth" or "Other land" in Latin, but it doesn't do much for me. I liked both Plutonic and Magma better.
Plutonic shareholders will gain an instant 32% premium on their shares, while the shareholders of both companies can look forward to steadier growth.
The Magma/Plutonic Merger | Alternative Energy Stocks
A Great Deal for Plutonic Shareholders, Not bad for Magma
Tom Konrad CFA
As a shareholder of Magma Energy Corp. (MGMXF.PK), I'm reading through the joint information circular [PDF] on the proposed merger of Plutonic Power Corp (PUOPF.PK) and Magma to form "Alterra Power Corp." I'm not thrilled with the merger, although I plan to vote for it, now that it's arranged.
Overall, I think the merged Alterra will be a stronger company than either company alone. Both companies are in capital intensive niche Renewable Energy industries, so the added scale and diversification of Alterra should better enable the merged company to borrow money to finance projects at lower rates. Obtaining financing at favorable rates is essential to the profitability of renewable energy projects.
My misgivings about the merger arise from the price. Magma shareholders will have a controlling stake of 66.5% of the merged company, with current Plutonic shareholders owning the balance. Plutonic shareholders are being paid a 32% or 17.5% premium, based on pre-merger market capitalization or book value, respectively. That would be a normal buyout premium, except that Magma was a much stronger company, and so Plutonic shareholders also gain more as part of the merged entity. Although the two companies work in different renewable energy industries, their projects have much in common. In addition to raising finance, environmental permitting, grid interconnection, and negotiating with utilities are crucial to the success of any renewable power producer, and a larger company with more projects may be able to make more effective use of employees with specialized local knowledge or skills in these areas.
Before the merger, I considered Magma shares a good buy, but I would not have bought Plutonic shares, because the company would have needed to either do a deal like this or raise money in the next year or so. This put Magma in the stronger bargaining position, and so I would have liked to see a smaller premium paid for Plutonic shares. That said, since two thirds of Plutonic shareholders will need to vote for the merger in order for it to be a success, this premium is probably necessary to gain sufficient support. Passage by Magma shareholders is a virtual certainty, since the owners of 38.7% of Magma shares have already committed to vote for the deal, and only 50.01% support is needed.
As a Magma shareholder, I think the deal is acceptable, and will be a way for Magma to pursue opportunities for growth beyond Geothermal power, part of the company's current strategy. I also like Plutonic's Run of River and Pumped Hydroelectric assets, although until this proposed merger, I was unwilling to buy the company's shares because I felt its balance sheet wasn't strong enough.
Overall, I'm in favor of the deal. Too bad they couldn't have come up with a better name. Apparently "Alterra" means "Other Earth" or "Other land" in Latin, but it doesn't do much for me. I liked both Plutonic and Magma better.
Plutonic shareholders will gain an instant 32% premium on their shares, while the shareholders of both companies can look forward to steadier growth.
The Magma/Plutonic Merger | Alternative Energy Stocks
NHA Annual Conference: Hydropower leaders say hydro is gaining momentum
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S. 4/5/11 (PennWell) --
Hydropower is a clean, efficient renewable energy source that is poised to play a larger role in the nation's renewable energy portfolio, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski told hundreds of hydropower professionals gathered at the 2011 National Hydropower Association Annual Conference in Washington, D.C.
The senator's NHA address followed on the heels of her introduction of the bipartisan Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, which is aimed at boosting U.S. hydropower generation.
"I am a strong, strong hydro proponent," Murkowski, R-Alaska., said, noting that her home state gets about one quarter of its power from hydroelectric generation. "I consider hydro to be one of our hardest working renewable resources."
Senator Murkowski, R-Alaska, is the current ranking member on the Committee for Energy and Natural Resources.
A record-breaking crowd of more than 570 hydropower industry professionals are gathered at the Capital Hilton for the 2011 National Hydropower Association Annual Conference. The event began April 4 and lasts through April 6.
A wide range of activities, meetings and sessions are planned for the NHA conference, covering many aspects of the hydropower industry. Subjects range from legislative and regulatory issues to dam safety and security, small hydro, pumped-storage hydro and an array of other topics.
Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary Anne Castle and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner John Norris were among the industry leaders to address NHA conference attendees during the event's opening session.
Castle cited a recent DOI internal study that shows the department could generate up to one million megawatt hours of electricity annually and create jobs by adding hydropower capacity at 70 of its existing facilities.
"We clearly recognize the importance of the hydropower resource," she said, noting that inter-agency cooperation will play an important role in further developing hydropower's role in the nation's renewable energy mix.
FERC Commissioner Norris said increased generation from hydropower and other clean energy sources will diversify domestic energy production and lower dependence on foreign energy.
"There is great opportunity for hydro moving forward," Norris said, noting that "We are in a period of transition in our energy economy."
Prior to the start of this year's NHA conference, FERC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed an updated memorandum of understanding to ensure timely review of non-federal hydropower development applications.
NHA Executive Director Linda Church Ciocci and NHA President Andrew Munro said hydropower is gaining momentum and is ready to take a leading role in America's renewable energy mix.
"This is a historic time," Munro said. "It's a new era for hydro."
For more hydropower news and information, click here
NHA Annual Conference: Hydropower leaders say hydro is gaining momentum
Hydropower is a clean, efficient renewable energy source that is poised to play a larger role in the nation's renewable energy portfolio, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski told hundreds of hydropower professionals gathered at the 2011 National Hydropower Association Annual Conference in Washington, D.C.
The senator's NHA address followed on the heels of her introduction of the bipartisan Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, which is aimed at boosting U.S. hydropower generation.
"I am a strong, strong hydro proponent," Murkowski, R-Alaska., said, noting that her home state gets about one quarter of its power from hydroelectric generation. "I consider hydro to be one of our hardest working renewable resources."
Senator Murkowski, R-Alaska, is the current ranking member on the Committee for Energy and Natural Resources.
A record-breaking crowd of more than 570 hydropower industry professionals are gathered at the Capital Hilton for the 2011 National Hydropower Association Annual Conference. The event began April 4 and lasts through April 6.
A wide range of activities, meetings and sessions are planned for the NHA conference, covering many aspects of the hydropower industry. Subjects range from legislative and regulatory issues to dam safety and security, small hydro, pumped-storage hydro and an array of other topics.
Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary Anne Castle and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner John Norris were among the industry leaders to address NHA conference attendees during the event's opening session.
Castle cited a recent DOI internal study that shows the department could generate up to one million megawatt hours of electricity annually and create jobs by adding hydropower capacity at 70 of its existing facilities.
"We clearly recognize the importance of the hydropower resource," she said, noting that inter-agency cooperation will play an important role in further developing hydropower's role in the nation's renewable energy mix.
FERC Commissioner Norris said increased generation from hydropower and other clean energy sources will diversify domestic energy production and lower dependence on foreign energy.
"There is great opportunity for hydro moving forward," Norris said, noting that "We are in a period of transition in our energy economy."
Prior to the start of this year's NHA conference, FERC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed an updated memorandum of understanding to ensure timely review of non-federal hydropower development applications.
NHA Executive Director Linda Church Ciocci and NHA President Andrew Munro said hydropower is gaining momentum and is ready to take a leading role in America's renewable energy mix.
"This is a historic time," Munro said. "It's a new era for hydro."
For more hydropower news and information, click here
NHA Annual Conference: Hydropower leaders say hydro is gaining momentum
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Wind power output plummeted in 2010 with intermittent lows
A provocative new analysis of the UK’s wind power has indicated that the resource is considerably more intermittent than previously thought and that pumped storage hydro power cannot adequately be used to compensate for its fluctuations.
The analysis of UK wind generation was conducted with support from John Muir Trust, a UK-based charity dedicated to nature, to examine frequently made claims that the intermittency of wind power is mitigated by the ubiquity of the resource.
The study, which looked at wind energy supplied to the UK National Grid over 2010 and the start of this year, showed that wind energy generation ran at below 20 per cent of its rated capacity for more than half of the period compared to an anticipated average of close to 30 per cent.
The study’s findings for 2009 contrast with assertions that wind turbines generate on average 30 per cent of their rated capacity in a year, though not starkly, but the picture dimmed in 2010 when wind energy output fell further.
The average energy output from wind during the period was 27.18 per cent of metered capacity during 2009, compared with 21.14 per cent in 2010, averaging out at just over 24 per cent in the full period between 2008 and 2010.
The findings of the study point to the intermittency of wind as an energy resource, showing that wind generation was less than ten per cent of installed capacity for one third of the period examined.
Bringing the point home, the analysis found that in one day in late March 2011, the entire wind output for farms with a nameplate capacity of more than 3GW was just 9MW, while the average output from the resource during that month was 22 per cent.
For the equivalent of one in every 12 days examined, wind energy generation was running at less than 2.5 per cent of its full capacity, receding to below 1.25 per cent of full capacity for one day in every month.
The report said that wind output was particularly low at the four highest periods of peak demand in 2010, producing power at between 2.51 per cent and 2.59 per cent of metered capacity. Extremely low instances of wind were indiscriminate of seasons, according to the report, and not simply confined to winter months.
The authors of the report have warned the frequency of falling wind energy generation in the UK indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.
On a more positive note the study found that wind output rose during March 2011 to in excess of 100MW and up to 166MW, but these moments were coupled with short drops in wind power output, indicating the need for a reassessment of the suitability of wind power to stimulate the output fluctuations of thermal power plants.
It also looked at whether pumped storage hydro can be used to fill an energy generation gap during prolonged periods of low wind.
But causing more reason for concern, the study found that the entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can only provide back-up power for up to 22 hours, before the systems run out of water. The country’s pumped storage hydro capacity can provide up to about 2.78GW of power for up to five hours, which drops to just over 1GW before running out of the resource.
Wind power output plummeted in 2010 with intermittent lows
The analysis of UK wind generation was conducted with support from John Muir Trust, a UK-based charity dedicated to nature, to examine frequently made claims that the intermittency of wind power is mitigated by the ubiquity of the resource.
The study, which looked at wind energy supplied to the UK National Grid over 2010 and the start of this year, showed that wind energy generation ran at below 20 per cent of its rated capacity for more than half of the period compared to an anticipated average of close to 30 per cent.
The study’s findings for 2009 contrast with assertions that wind turbines generate on average 30 per cent of their rated capacity in a year, though not starkly, but the picture dimmed in 2010 when wind energy output fell further.
The average energy output from wind during the period was 27.18 per cent of metered capacity during 2009, compared with 21.14 per cent in 2010, averaging out at just over 24 per cent in the full period between 2008 and 2010.
The findings of the study point to the intermittency of wind as an energy resource, showing that wind generation was less than ten per cent of installed capacity for one third of the period examined.
Bringing the point home, the analysis found that in one day in late March 2011, the entire wind output for farms with a nameplate capacity of more than 3GW was just 9MW, while the average output from the resource during that month was 22 per cent.
For the equivalent of one in every 12 days examined, wind energy generation was running at less than 2.5 per cent of its full capacity, receding to below 1.25 per cent of full capacity for one day in every month.
The report said that wind output was particularly low at the four highest periods of peak demand in 2010, producing power at between 2.51 per cent and 2.59 per cent of metered capacity. Extremely low instances of wind were indiscriminate of seasons, according to the report, and not simply confined to winter months.
The authors of the report have warned the frequency of falling wind energy generation in the UK indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.
On a more positive note the study found that wind output rose during March 2011 to in excess of 100MW and up to 166MW, but these moments were coupled with short drops in wind power output, indicating the need for a reassessment of the suitability of wind power to stimulate the output fluctuations of thermal power plants.
It also looked at whether pumped storage hydro can be used to fill an energy generation gap during prolonged periods of low wind.
But causing more reason for concern, the study found that the entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can only provide back-up power for up to 22 hours, before the systems run out of water. The country’s pumped storage hydro capacity can provide up to about 2.78GW of power for up to five hours, which drops to just over 1GW before running out of the resource.
Wind power output plummeted in 2010 with intermittent lows
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Hydroelectric Energy Advantages and Disadvantages « Green World Investor
Hydro Power is one of the largest sources of energy accounting for roughly 20% of the worldwide demand of electricity and for well resourced countries it accounts for majority of the energy.For Paraguay 100% of the electricity comes from hydro power and lot of it is exported as well.Compared to other sources of Energy, Hydroelectric Power is one of the cheapest,non Carbon Emitting,non Polluting,Mature Energy Sources.Hydro Power plants have been developed to almost full potential in developed countries because of their superior characteristics and many more are being constructed by developing countries like China and India.However Hydro Power like all other thins in life suffers from disadvantages as well.The failure of a Hydro Dam can result in massive losses of human life and cause widespread devastation.Large Dams have always been controversial leading to displacement of people and ecology.They have also been cited as the reason for earthquakes due to large land changes.Here is a list of the advantages and disadvantages of Hydro Power
Hydroelectric Energy Advantages
No Fuel Cost - Hydro Energy does not require any fuel like most other sources of energy.This is a huge advantage over other fossil fuels whose costs are increasing at a drastic rate every year.Electricity prices are increasingly rapidly in most parts of the world much faster than general inflation.Price shocks due to high fuel costs are a big risk with fossil fuel energy these days
Low Operating Costs and little Maintenance - Operating labor cost is also usually low, as plants are automated and have few personnel on site during normal operation.
Low Electricity Cost – The Electricity produced from Hydro Power is quite low making it very attractive to construct hydro plants.The payback period is estimated to be between 5-8 years for a normal hydro power plant.Hydro Plants also have long lives of between 50-100 years which means that they are extremely profitable
No Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Air Pollution – Hydroelectricity does not produce any GHG emissions or cause air pollution from the combustion of fossil fuels unlike coal,oil or gas.This makes them very attractive as a source of cheap,non carbon dioxide producing electricity.
Energy Storage – Pumped Hydro Storage is possible with most of the hydro power plants.This makes them ideal storage for wind and solar power which are intermittent in nature.Hydro Dams can be modified at low costs to allow pumped storage.
Small Size Possible - Hydroelectricity can be produced in almost any size from 1 MW to 10000 MW which makes it very versatile.Small Hydro Plants are being encouraged by government as they cause less ecological affects than large hydro plants.Even micro hydro plants are possible
Reliability - Hydro Power is much more reliable than wind and solar power though less than coal and nuclear as a baseload source of power.Hydroelectricity is more or less predictable much in advance though it can decrease in summer months when the water is low in the catchment areas.
High Load Factor - The Load Factor for Solar and Wind Energy ranges from 15-40% which is quite low compared to Fossil Fuel Energy.Hydroelectricity on the other hand has a load factor of almost 40-60% .
Long Life - Hydro Plants has a very long life of around 50- 100 years which is much longer than that of even Nuclear Power Plants.The long life implies that the lifecycle cost of a Hydel Power Plant becomes very low in the long term
Hydroelectric Energy DisAdvantages
1) Environmental, Dislocation and Tribal Rights - Large Dam construction especially in populated areas leads to massive Tribal Displacement,Loss of Livelihood and Religious Infringement as potentially sacred Land is occupied by the Government.
2) Wildlife and Fishes get Affected - The Fishes are the most affected species from Dam Construction as the normal flow of the river is completely changed form its river character to a lake one.Submergence of land also leads to ecological destruction of the habitat of land based wildlife.
3) Earthquake Vulnerability – Large Dam Construction has been linked to increased propensity of Earthquakes.Massive Earthquakes in China and Uttarakhand in India were linked to the building of Massive Dams in these countries
4) Siltation When water flows it has the ability to transport particles heavier than itself downstream. This has a negative effect on dams and subsequently their power stations, particularly those on rivers or within catchment areas with high siltation
5) Tail Risk,Dam Failure - Because large conventional dammed-hydro facilities hold back large volumes of water, a failure due to poor construction, terrorism, or other cause can be catastrophic to downriver settlements and infrastructure. Dam failures have been some of the largest man-made disasters in history.The Banqiao Dam Failure in Southern China directly resulted in the deaths of 26,000 people, and another 145,000 from epidemics.
6) Cannot be Built Anywhere - This disadvantage of Hdyro Energy is present with other forms of Energy as well.Some forms of Energy are just better suited to some places.For example you can’t build a nuclear plant on top of an earthquake prone region,you can’t build a wind farm near the Dead Sea etc.Hydro Energy can only be built in particular places though enough of those places exist globally
7) Long Gestation Time - The time to construct a large hydro power project can take between 5-10 years which leads to time and cost overruns.
Hydroelectric Energy Advantages
No Fuel Cost - Hydro Energy does not require any fuel like most other sources of energy.This is a huge advantage over other fossil fuels whose costs are increasing at a drastic rate every year.Electricity prices are increasingly rapidly in most parts of the world much faster than general inflation.Price shocks due to high fuel costs are a big risk with fossil fuel energy these days
Low Operating Costs and little Maintenance - Operating labor cost is also usually low, as plants are automated and have few personnel on site during normal operation.
Low Electricity Cost – The Electricity produced from Hydro Power is quite low making it very attractive to construct hydro plants.The payback period is estimated to be between 5-8 years for a normal hydro power plant.Hydro Plants also have long lives of between 50-100 years which means that they are extremely profitable
No Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Air Pollution – Hydroelectricity does not produce any GHG emissions or cause air pollution from the combustion of fossil fuels unlike coal,oil or gas.This makes them very attractive as a source of cheap,non carbon dioxide producing electricity.
Energy Storage – Pumped Hydro Storage is possible with most of the hydro power plants.This makes them ideal storage for wind and solar power which are intermittent in nature.Hydro Dams can be modified at low costs to allow pumped storage.
Small Size Possible - Hydroelectricity can be produced in almost any size from 1 MW to 10000 MW which makes it very versatile.Small Hydro Plants are being encouraged by government as they cause less ecological affects than large hydro plants.Even micro hydro plants are possible
Reliability - Hydro Power is much more reliable than wind and solar power though less than coal and nuclear as a baseload source of power.Hydroelectricity is more or less predictable much in advance though it can decrease in summer months when the water is low in the catchment areas.
High Load Factor - The Load Factor for Solar and Wind Energy ranges from 15-40% which is quite low compared to Fossil Fuel Energy.Hydroelectricity on the other hand has a load factor of almost 40-60% .
Long Life - Hydro Plants has a very long life of around 50- 100 years which is much longer than that of even Nuclear Power Plants.The long life implies that the lifecycle cost of a Hydel Power Plant becomes very low in the long term
Hydroelectric Energy DisAdvantages
1) Environmental, Dislocation and Tribal Rights - Large Dam construction especially in populated areas leads to massive Tribal Displacement,Loss of Livelihood and Religious Infringement as potentially sacred Land is occupied by the Government.
2) Wildlife and Fishes get Affected - The Fishes are the most affected species from Dam Construction as the normal flow of the river is completely changed form its river character to a lake one.Submergence of land also leads to ecological destruction of the habitat of land based wildlife.
3) Earthquake Vulnerability – Large Dam Construction has been linked to increased propensity of Earthquakes.Massive Earthquakes in China and Uttarakhand in India were linked to the building of Massive Dams in these countries
4) Siltation When water flows it has the ability to transport particles heavier than itself downstream. This has a negative effect on dams and subsequently their power stations, particularly those on rivers or within catchment areas with high siltation
5) Tail Risk,Dam Failure - Because large conventional dammed-hydro facilities hold back large volumes of water, a failure due to poor construction, terrorism, or other cause can be catastrophic to downriver settlements and infrastructure. Dam failures have been some of the largest man-made disasters in history.The Banqiao Dam Failure in Southern China directly resulted in the deaths of 26,000 people, and another 145,000 from epidemics.
6) Cannot be Built Anywhere - This disadvantage of Hdyro Energy is present with other forms of Energy as well.Some forms of Energy are just better suited to some places.For example you can’t build a nuclear plant on top of an earthquake prone region,you can’t build a wind farm near the Dead Sea etc.Hydro Energy can only be built in particular places though enough of those places exist globally
7) Long Gestation Time - The time to construct a large hydro power project can take between 5-10 years which leads to time and cost overruns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)