Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Small States Grapple With Big Canadian Hydropower

By Jennifer Runyon
March 7, 2011   |   17 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

17 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 17
March 7, 2011
I can see the same problem with foreign import hydro as I see with foreign import oil or foreign import anything. Eventually, after they have you hooked and unable to provide for yourself, the imports become very expensive and provides a crappy service, if they don't completely shut down and leave your stranded. NH should aggressively reject the foreign import hydro and provide for themselves to prevent a future collapsing economy in their state. If your like of knowledge to create a local source of renewable energy forces you to import, import from another state that has more renewable energy than they need. Become independent and help each other and reject foreign imports of everything that you can provide for yourself.
Comment
2 of 17
March 7, 2011
A significant portion of the article focuses on HB302 and what might happen "should it pass." Later, the post states that the bill "has been tabled for now."
In fact, the sponsor of the bill withdrew it several weeks ago and its status is "inexpedient to legislate."
The key reason for the withdrawal, according to the sponsor, was the confusion it had caused and which the author here seems to have fallen victim too, as well.
In fact, the bill would NOT have changed another section of New Hampshire existing RPS law which states, in part: "...Certificates issued for purposes of complying with this chapter shall come from sources within the New England control area..." In fact, HB302, had it passed, would not have resulted in Canadian hydropower as qualifying under the state's RPS law, but would have recognized a variety of other existing NH hydro sources, including those owned and operated by PSNH, which range in size up to 18 megawatts.
Comment
3 of 17
March 7, 2011
There's a few problems I'd like to point out with this article (also I'm from Quebec and well versed on what HydroQuebec does).

First of all the land that is being flooded is in the North of Quebec, far away from large population centres. This land is commonly owned by native peoples in Canada, who get jobs and income into their community as well as training on how to run the projects alongside Hydro-Quebec technicians. Another key point about this land is that it is in the Canadian Shield, so the soil is very shallow and there isn't much vegetation anyways (they don't flood forests). So most of the disadvantages pointed out in this article are moot.

However that is not to say there are no disadvantages with large scale hydro, there are many. Mostly these include disturbing aquatic wildlife in the areas affected by turning on and off the turbines.

Secondly I don't think there's necessarily a need to worry about hydro quebec being a large foreign producer and disturbing the market. The hydro it sells now are at competitive rates with conventional sources in the US. Plus even if they could get the NH hooked on their Hydro, the Canadian economy is so tied to the US economy that they would have to give them good rates.
Comment
4 of 17
March 7, 2011
One thing you might be overlooking is the potential marriage of hydro power and wind, as is done in Norway-Denmark. Hydro can be ramped up and down fairly quickly to correspond to falling and rising wind.
Comment
5 of 17
March 8, 2011
I think we would be better served in the long run by accepting hydro-power from Canada if that means we can shut down some old coal power plants or shut down old nuclear plants. We should be practical if we expect to clean up our electric supplies. Hydro power is so much better than coal or nuclear power, we hurt ourselves by rejecting the replacements for coal and nuclear power. There are legitimate concerns over building new dams, but compared to building new coal or nuclear plants, those damages are much easier to accept, especially since this project has utilized the most careful choice of locations. If the hydro-power is being priced competitively with today's fossil fuel supplies, then the competition for new renewable systems is the same as for fossil fuels, so this prevents no new challenge.
Comment
6 of 17
March 8, 2011
There's over thirty thousand Mws of energy available in the US from dams that have already been built; what is wrong with exploiting that potential? Of course hydro is "green" if added to already existing dams. Many of the dams built by the Army Corp and the BOI and BOR are for flood control and irrigation, adding generation to these structures in many cases mitigate the problems created when the dams were first built. Micro hydro on culinary water systems can be a great help to communities to off set infra structure costs. Don't start laying judgment on hydro its the best green energy we have.
Comment
7 of 17
March 8, 2011
That being said, ramping hydro isn't a good idea if there are fish issues. Changing flows can be harmful just ask BPA, Bonneville Power Admin. In many cases hydro is used for ramp up and down, if storage is added to the system to integrate variable renewable energy then there is no need to ramp hydro; at that point peaking gassers can be shut down. Using combustion for ramping reduces the "green "aspect of variable energy by 45% some to solve both the Ghg issue and the fish issue add storage.
Comment
8 of 17
March 8, 2011
In response to mitch3, I would err on the side of killing some fish. There needs to be a bit more urgency in dealing with climate change. The motto should be "ABC", "Anything But Carbon", that includes nuclear. I am not sure we have time for intellectual debates about the best way to do things.
Comment
9 of 17
March 9, 2011
Much of the hydro power sold to New England states comes from two sources. The first is James Bay which is located on the eastern side of Hudson's Bay. The second comes from the Upper Churchill in Labrador. This is the key to New England states obtaining cheaper power. In 2041 the infamous contract with Hydo Quebec and Newfoundland will expire. By that time a second transmmission line will be in place across two bodys of water and into Nova Scotia delivering power to both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The lower Churchill along with the Upper Churchill located in Labrador will be transmitting power to Nova Scotia and New England will be able to buy either from Quebec or from newfoundland directly via the under sea cables. The Lower and Upper Churchill projects contain a total of 8000MW amd a potentisl 5000MW of Wind also. If they are carefull, New England states could be in for cheaper power up the road by buying Newfoundland and Nova Scotia against Quebec. One note: The Upper Churchill's Smallwood Resovoir flooded an area of 5630 square Kilometers. You do the math and see if it is less than solar per square meter.
Comment
10 of 17
March 9, 2011
v-bruce...
I agree to a point with your comment however remember the agency that will most likely be enforcing any Ghg mandates or legislation will be the 800lb green gorilla EPA and they are serious about the ESA endangered specie act. Bonneville just released their ROD record of decision concerning integration of variable energy in relation to ramping with their hydro facilities, of course they spelled it out as a necessity during high water periods. They will curtail wind if it gets down to hurting fish, they have to, its part of their mandates put in place by environmental compliance. It's unnecessary if storage is added to the system. Comment period ends Friday the 11th of March. Of course before they cut off wind combustion generation has to be curtailed first-if its not base load. So coal continues to operate, combined cycle gas continues to operate but simple cycle peakers get cut off before wind. Again storage will fix the problem and hydro can continue to be the best thing for green.
Comment
11 of 17
March 9, 2011
Hydropower is the only base load renewable power in existence. It is also extremely inexpensive, competing head to head with coal powered electricity. We need to develop this resource wherever it can be harnessed asap to help mitigate global warming and climate change.

There are thousands of dams in the US which do not generate hydropower. We need to renovate these dams to generate hydroelectricity. This should be at the top of the agenda of anyone concerned about climate change. It is cost effective, provides jobs, keeps money in our country, and helps reduce global warming.

We should also support developing new hydropower sources wherever they can be harvested. Canada has enormous potential and we should welcome it! We need all the hydropower we can make in the short term to transition ourselves off non renewable sources of power.

If, at some future time, in 50 years, when renewables are plentifully supplied by distributed photovoltaics on buildings, etc, and the hydro power is no longer needed, we can take the dams down to restore the areas effected. Global warming is much longer lasting and will take centuries to reverse, whereas dams can be removed quickly and flooded habitat can be restored in a decade or two.

Global warming is far more destructive than the local flooding created by new hydroelectric projects, or the issues surrounding running new power lines from where the power is generated to where it is needed.
Comment
12 of 17
March 9, 2011
aapine...
I agree; I am an independent consultant for a hydro developer who has licensed 7 small hydro projects in the last 6 years. The only hydro ror to receive new FERC licenses in nearly 30 years. The licensing process because of the aquatic issues are expensive and timely; somewhere in the 2m dollar range for a 10mw project; the bad part is it takes 2 to 5 years to get past all the required studies, permits and bureaucratic red tape. Stream line the process and renewable base energy would eliminate quite a bit of fossil fuel generation. However the grid still needs storage to integrate wind.
Comment
13 of 17
March 9, 2011
Hydro impounds create new ecosystems that absorb CO2, and serve as major fish and other aquatic breeding grounds.

In urbanized regions, where rain runoff creates periodic flooding, a network of dams mitigates the flooding.

In Maine several dams were taken out of the Kennebec on the premise they would restore salmon and other migratory fish. Few returned but what did return are ice jams that are quite destructive to bridges and shore facilities.

Then you have the recreational value of the impounded water and the increased property tax value of all that new shoreline, and major concern in an era of declining government revenue.

Horowitz engages in quite a bit of propagandizing to characterize hydro as 'non-renewable'; his ignorance about the many benefits of large hydro are obvious.
Comment
14 of 17
March 9, 2011
Maine has thousands of tidal dams once used to cut timber and polish granite; that are being permitted so that tidal energy turbines can be installed to harness both the incoming tide and the dammed up water. Ocean Renewable Energy Corp. just completed a successful test of their 48 ft. prototype off the coast of Eastport, Maine. The prototype is largely made of composites; adding an industrial/job advantage to this mode of generating renewable power.
No image available
Comment
15 of 17
Anonymous
March 9, 2011
aapine is correct, the only situation better than buying clean renewable hydro is to produce it ourselves - for which we need less regulation from FERC and the extreme fish people to look at the greater importance of renewable energy and encourage our own hydro at existing dams
Comment
16 of 17
March 11, 2011
A similar issue will be debated by the Maine Legislature later this month. Maine currently has a two-tiered RPS, requiring competitive electricity providers to source 30% of their power from existing "Class II" resources, and an escalating amount (currently 4%) of their power from new (post-9/1/2005) "Class I" resources.

LD 956, "An Act To Improve Maine's Renewable Portfolio Standard", would enact two principal changes to Maine's RPS. First, the bill would allow "low carbon emitting resources" to be used to meet the RPS. That term would be defined by statute as "a source of electrical generation that produces or results in low net emissions of carbon dioxide", and would be further defined by the Public Utilities Commission.

Second, and more directly relevant to this discussion, LD 956 would eliminate the 100 MW cap on the size of any "renewable resource" eligible to satisfy the RPS. Under current law, the definition of "renewable resource" includes a limitation to those resources "[w]hose total power production capacity does not exceed 100 megawatts". If this were removed, new large-scale hydropower could be qualified to satisfy Maine's RPS.

If you're interested, you can find the text of LD 956 here:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=956&PID=1456&snum=125
Comment
17 of 17
rif
August 14, 2011
This article is written as if power can only flow from Canada to North-east US. This is obviously the wrong view.

US should see Canadian Hydro as a tremendous opportunity to invest in both wind energy and HVDC transmission lines to Canada. This give possibility for US to both import when wind is weak and export when wind is strong. For Canada it means that they can stretch the hydro capacity because they will not be running full time. Hydro damns typically have capacity factors 25 to 60% because there is not enough water to run 100% all the time.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Jennifer Runyon

View Jennifer Runyon's Profile
About: Jennifer Runyon is managing editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com and Renewable Energy World North America magazine, coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, ... more »

Advertise With Us

The Stella Group, Ltd. Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut) AWS Truepower, LLC 3TIER Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. HUBER+SUHNER AG
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters