The United States can generate an additional 70,000 megawatts of electricity by upgrading existing hydro facilities according to U.S. energy secretary Steven Chu.
The juice would come from newer, more efficient turbines and other technologies that would goose more energy without having to undertake megaprojects and risk additional environmental damage.
This further dims the prospects for the Lower Churchill as the Americans are looking at a wide range of ways to meet future energy needs.
It also reinforces the idea that megaprojects like the Lower Churchill just aren’t considered to be green anymore.
The Americans are developing real energy plans. That is they are developing ways of meeting their energy needs in environmentally friendly ways and by encouraging ingenuity.
By contrast what is called an energy plan locally is nothing more than justifying a bunch of decisions already made to produce a megaproject called the Lower Churchill and create ways of stymieing any development that isn’t controlled by a large, ponderous government monopoly.
h/t RenewNewEngland.
-srbp-
6 comments:
That doesn't even come close to addressing the capacity provided by coal power.
If you think the USA doesn't need electricity you're sadly mistaken.
No offense but I think you're misinformed on this one.
Evidently, 2216, English comprehension is not one of your strong suits.
Where did I say the United States didn't need electricity?
Where?
Anywhere?
No. That's right. i never said that. What I said was that the US is looking at a wide range of alternatives to meet their needs, including - as you noted - coal.
What they aren't necessarily quite so keen on is the giant megaproject.
I don't think you're misinformed. I think you need to learn to read.
www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2019673
Sure Chu is not regurgitating (or in the case of hydro, maybe "spinning" is the better term)? This number has been tossed around for awhile. In any case, the price of natural gas may be a far greater predictor of the fate of the LCP.
And your point is what, exactly, 0959?
Funny how things like this bring forward all sorts of off-the-wall, usually anonymous comment.
In this instance you seem to be confusing a raft of things including "LCP" by which I presume you mean low cost power.
This isn't about low-cost power. it's about developments in the US and how they affect a major project here.
Oh yes, and if this had mentioned wind turbines someone would be linking to a story on wind turbine noise pollution.
LCP = Lower Churchill Project. And there are two "anonymous" posters, in this case. I actually disagree with the first commenter re US demand. Why did you just not ask the first blogger why he thought US electricity demand would continue to increase rather than criticizing him? Invite conversation...you might learn something.
Thanks for the chuckle, 1659. It's always amusing to get a scolding from someone who wants a conversation but who can't be bothered to identify himself or herself.
Two things:
1. The first commenter - (I don't know if he or she writes a blog, so they really can't be called a blogger, can they? Hmmm?) - evidently didn't read the post.
Demand will increase and there's no reason to assume it won't. The question is how to meet the demand. If you think electricity demand will decline, by all means toss your own information into the mix and let's see what it looks like.
I'll go with the reasonable assumption that it will increase. other than that, there was no reason to make any ther comment.
2. As for your comment, 1659, I'll stick with what I wrote in the beginning.
Just because the firgure 70 thousand megawatts is in the article you linked to doesn't mean its the same 70K Chu mentioned.
But in any event, as I said before, the US is looking at many ways to meet its needs. Honking big projects like the LC aren't necessarily at the top of their to do list.
Natural gas prices don't have much of anything to do with it. It's really a function of financing $14 billion plus over 30 years.
Post a Comment