Obama Wants To Cut Hydropower Funding

Russell Ray
April 19, 2011 | 33 Comments

Hydropower advocates must be puzzled by President Obama’s plan to build a nation powered by clean energy.

As the Obama administration promotes an ambitious new goal to produce 80 percent of the nation’s energy from clean resources by 2035, Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal 2012 would slash funding for hydropower research and development by 21 percent.

Talk about irony.

Hydropower is the world’s largest and most reliable form of renewable power, and it deserves a strong presence in any comprehensive plan to generate more clean energy in the U.S. Cutting funding for hydropower research and development amid deepening concerns about climate change is a crime against common sense.

Improvements in turbine design and technology can significantly boost the capacity of existing hydro plants and help realize the power potential of America’s ocean waves, tides and river currents. What’s more, new information about the nation’s hydropower potential shows that 12,600 MW of renewable power capacity could be added to the grid by installing generation equipment at existing non-powered dams, according to a Department of Energy study released earlier this month.

Advancements in hydropower technology can go a long way in helping the nation meet its clean energy goals.

Under Obama’s budget proposal for fiscal 2012, funding for DOE’s Waterpower Program, which centers on the development and deployment of advanced waterpower technologies, would be reduced from $49 million to $39 million.

In a recent letter to lawmakers, the National Hydropower Association and the Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition said it will be hard to meet new goals for clean energy without increased support for hydropower.

“Those goals will be difficult, if not impossible, to reach unless there is strong, sustained support to realize the untapped growth potential from all waterpower resources,” the letter stated.

Both associations called on Congress to appropriate $100 million to DOE’s Waterpower Program and to split it equally between marine and hydrokinetic technologies and conventional hydro and pumped storage projects.

“Even as new studies document significant near-term and long-term growth opportunities, historically, the DOE Waterpower Program has been substantially underfunded,” the letter stated. “Though our organizations and members greatly appreciate the increase in funding that has occurred in recent years, the program remains the smallest of the renewable energy programs.”

Stay tuned. I’ll let you know how the story unfolds.

Russell Ray is senior editor of Hydro Review magazine. Russell has 11 years experience as an energy journalist, covering the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and the growth of solar and nuclear power in Florida. He served eight years as the energy reporter for the Tulsa World. He held the same position at the Tampa Tribune for two and a half years before joining Hydro Review in 2009.

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.

33 Comments

ANONYMOUS
April 28, 2011

From:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

"Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."

While ancient times were hotter, the Earth survived. Over a long time scale, according to this site (I don't know

Adrian Akau
April 28, 2011

Dear Anonymous,

I was the one who wrote about having a resiliant non-carbon based energy structure for our country. In answer to your questions on carbon dioxide level, I refer you to research done by Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

She determined CO2 concentration by analysis of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice but this method was accurate only up to 800,000 years ago. Aradhna used a second method of studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae which has proven accurate up until 20 million years ago. She said 'during the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today. Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years and that prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million. Some projections show carbon dioxide levels rising as high as 600 or even 900 parts per million in the next century if no action is taken to reduce carbon dioxide."

In my humble opinion, if we do not get off our carbon dioxide binge, we are headed for increased flooding, storm damage and the rise of ocean waters which will innundate low level areas of our planet. The rise in water level will cause storm damage to be much more destructive. We may also look forward to an increased number of tornados as well as hurricanes. It is the hangover we will be paying for this terrible habit of ours.

Russell Ray
April 28, 2011

Actually, I didn't write that.

ANONYMOUS
April 28, 2011

Russel Ray wrote:

"because we need a strong, resiliant energy infrastructure in our country that is independent of coal and oil."

Why do we need to be independent of coal & oil?
Why not drill for more domestic oil. Each barrel of oil we produces creates jobs and income. Each barrel we export or do not import helps the balance of trade.

Also, why not use coal. If the argument is CO2 release, didn't the carbon in fossil fuels get removed from the ancient atmosphere by ancient plants? Aren't fossil fuels fossilized bio mass? What is the ideal CO2 concentration? Are we below it or above it? Wasn't it higher millions of years ago?

Adrian Akau
April 27, 2011

Dear Russel Ray,

Thank you for your explanation on the compromise situation. Our government must make unseemly compromises because we are running three rather expensive wars. Congress, per se, has no control over the military budget so expenditures in this direction continue to multiply and there appears no way of solving the deficit. Investment in all forms of hydro and other renewable energy development would be preferrable to military expenditures because we need a strong, resiliant energy infrastructure in our country that is independent of coal and oil. Industrialization of renewable energy technologies means that our country will develop many new job positions which will help bring forth a stable economy. We must move ahead or we will just stagnate. Congressional compromise is in itself a sign that our government is in trouble. We need to spend more efforts in revitalizing our own nation by using all available resources.

Russell Ray
April 27, 2011

It's a compromise by the Obama administration in the face of Republican opposition. But compromise comes in all shapes and sizes. Cutting hydropower funding amid a campaign to produce 80 percent of your energy from clean resouces is a glaring flaw in the Obama administration's compromise. The compromise should not have included a cut in hydropower funding for the reasons cited in this blogpost.

Garth Barker
April 27, 2011

I'm not sure what hydro subsidies are being cut, the PTC? ITC? There hasn't been any New dams built for 30 years with hydro installed. Retro fits and re-licensing is about it. That being said at one time I supported the republicans then I thought the democrats had some good ideas; now I think almost everyone in Washington DC should be fired. They're more concerned about their political careers than the well being of America.What is it about Washington DC that turns good men (and women) into idiots?

Allen Gerhardt
April 27, 2011

The lowering of hydro subsidies is a result of Republican opposition to anything the President asks for, not as the author claims in his headline. With Republicans demanding $100 billion in cuts, as they cry about the deficit they created,
the administration pulled out a compromise cutting $39 billion from the budget and a decrease in hydro subsidies was part of that. Read this to see who it is that is behind the loss of hydro moneys. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/oil-subsidies-obama-democrats-republicans_n_854102,html

Adrian Akau
April 25, 2011

Dear RusselRay.

I know you are an expert in this area but you have written:

"In a perfect world, government wouldn't subsidize energy research, construction or production"

You are forgetting our heavy tax burden. The government takes a good chunk of private sector's tax dollars and, in return, is supposed to assist the private sector in developing useful technologies that will be of help to its tax payers. We here in Hawaii have the additional burden of transport and oil costs. About 80% of all electricity produced for residents on the various islands comes from burning imported oil. You must realize the situation in the Middle-East is driving up fuel prices to the extent that average gasoline prices on the island of Maui have topped $5/gallon and those on Molokai pay over $6/gallon. The high cost of oil has led to increased food/commodity prices and drastic raising of kwh costs. You say that we should wait until the US has developed good wave and water current systems because the UK systems are still being tested and are not perfect. Perfect or not, these systems do provide power and with the present cost of oil, we would be glad to bring UK systems such as the Oyster II to our islands. There are a million residents on Oahu who would welcome marine power conversion farms. Oahu has a wind farm at Kahuku which supplies power for about 7,000 residents. Over the next few years, the cost of oil here are predicted to rise to make gasoline $7/gallon. The LEAFs have begun to arrive and over 300 residents are still waiting.for their order. Out of necessity, we need more electricity from renewable i.e. marine sources.

Russell Ray
April 24, 2011

Anonymous,

In a perfect world, government wouldn't subsidize energy research, construction or production. In a perfect world, every form of energy would compete on a level playing field and the best technologies would prevail. Such expectations, however, are not realistic.

ANONYMOUS
April 24, 2011

Russel,
Why should the Federal government be spending Energy research rather than private Industry especially considering we are going increasingly in debt? If new forms or hydro power will be what the world needs, then they will be profitable on their own, and wise companies will develop them.

Why would the government be any better at driving research direction than private industry.

Russell Ray
April 24, 2011

aligatorhardt,

I've been a journalist for 20 years. For 11 of those years, I have covered the energy beat at the highest level and written about every aspect of the energy industry, including pricing, policy and technology. I've stood on the drillig rigs and production platforms in the Gulf, I've been inside the control rooms of some of the nation's largest nuclear plants and I've interviewed the industry's top experts and executives. I have been called a lot of things. A racist is not one of them. Your suggestion that this blogpost is a racist attack on President Obama is doltish to say the least! I've been exposing the flaws of energy policy/legislation for years. I was critical of the Bush administration's energy proposals and I will use the same skeptical eye to vet Obama's energy plan. I've treated Obama no differently than I treated Bush. I do have an agenda, though. It's not Republican or Democrat. It's not black or white. My mission is to promote smart energy policy.

Allen Gerhardt
April 24, 2011

This article has me fuming right off the bat. Does the author live in a pipe under the river? Does he have no knowledge of the difference between the President and Congress and how and who makes the budget? Or is this just another lame racist attack against the president? The Republican opposition to the President's budget is the reason why investment is cut, as well as the fact that Chu seems enthralled with nuclear power, regardless of the damages it makes. Obama has invested more in renewable energy than all previous Presidents combined. The Republicans try to send all money to their sponsors in oil, coal, and nuclear power, as well as take money out of the budget for public services and hand it over to those who have no need for extra tax breaks. Nuclear power has been a mature industry with 60 years investment and it still gets more subsidies than all forms of renewable energy. Who is behind that? There are far more players than just one President. At least the G20 agreed that reduction of fossil fuel subsidies was in everyone's best interest for helping to solve global warming.
With the Republican attacks on social services and an obsession with reducing the deficit they created, the President was doing well to preserve any investments. I would like to see only renewable energies getting subsidies, but practical limits cannot be denied.

ANONYMOUS
April 23, 2011

Why not let the free market decide where energy research dollars go? If it can be proven a form of conventional energy is damaging our environment, then perhaps regulate it to be cleaner and or tax it (as we do gasoline). This makes a free market incentive to produce more economically efficient alternative. Also, if we were on the verge of having very costly energy, wouldn't free market business have an incentive to develop renewable energies to make profits a few years down the road?

The free market has so many limitless pieces each of which can grow or fail based on the decisions that make and I put my faith in that. The parts of a free market that make the worst choices perish.
Why not let the free market decide where R & D dollars go? Why have any government R & D energy funding?

Geoff Steele
April 22, 2011

When can we all begin to grasp the REALITY that the country is practically broke and in serious fiscal stress re: an inability to balance an annual budget, much less deal with the incredible national debt??!! We simply cannot continue smoking along, burning through money we don't have, no matter HOW worthy the projects might be, at the same funding pace we've gotten used to. Let's get the economy reined in and under control FIRST, then talk about re-energizing our alternative source R&D and be VERY wise how we invest (lloking for best possible ROI on the public investment). Geoff in Charlotte

William Stockhausen
April 22, 2011

Ray --- yes, I found the slide presentation but it doesn't give details. Is there a link to the actual report?

Lorax --- with 97% of existing dams not producing hydro, the CO2 hit has already happened - why not use what's already in place?

Garth Barker
April 22, 2011

Lorax
I don't know if anyone has measured the C02 absorption of crops but I do know some of the large dams in the west consumed sage brush and stunted cedar trees and maybe some coyote willow. Using existing dams that have been built for flood control and irrigation for generation seems like a good idea to me. The folks that would remove all dams and irrigate with their garden hose are being very unrealistic. Stored water is a profound need here in the west. It might seem like a good idea to just live off the land without development such as dams but at this day in time totally unrealistic. I realize that when Lake Powell filled up there was some vegetation lost but not pristine alpine forests, sure a lot of beautiful rock formations were lost but I'd venture a guess that if coal fired plants were built instead the carbon cost would be far greater that the dam afforded. I might be more sympathetic with your views if I knew you were using solar to run your computer rather than the local utility but hey I think we're both after the same thing; I'm just being little more realistic.

Adrian Akau
April 22, 2011

Both Canada and the US should be developing more of the run of the river hydro, wave and tidal/ocean current generator farms. Twelve foot diameter generators are to be (or being) installed in the Mississippi River for conversion of slow currents. Much larger ones like the ones off the coast in the UK which are already grid connected should also be established in the coastal areas. Close to the shorelines, wave generators should be installed in farm units to produce electricity. I particularly like the hydraulic type (Oyster II) that can send water under great pressure to the shore where it can be run through turbines. It certainly would be good on the north shore of Oahu and to many other coastline areas subject to strong wave action. Finally we have to carefully look at converting ocean currents as being tested off the coast of Taiwan on one of the strong currents in proximity in addition to geographical areas conducive to tidal current farming as well as the research being done by the University of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico Current where more energy could probably be extracted over the next two or theree centuries than all of the oil under the sea in that area.

The 750 billion President Obama gave to the banks last year could have been better used in the overall development of hydropower for our nation and the promotion of industries and jobs related to the expansion of hydropower. I personally do not believe that our President has much understanding of the great potential that is available from hydro as well as the need for further development of the related support industry that will arise due to its growth. His advisor Dr. Stephen Chu is not primarily a "renewable" type person.

ANONYMOUS
April 22, 2011

William Yes Canada is surging ahead with hydro development but you are comparing two completely different situations. Most of this development is new dams in the far north within the Precambrian shield. It is a rugged solid land mass that lends itself quite well to hydro electric production. It is also an vast sparsely populated part of the planet and there is less of an impact on migrating salmon as on the west and east coast.
In the case of British Columbia in intends on damming the Peace River and destroying valuable farm land and peoples lives at the same time. A recent history lesson will reveal the damming of the Arrow river, now Arrow lake and the destruction that did to a beautiful populated valley. There were many farms and orchards in an area with multiple hot springs. This dam only controls the flow into the Columbia River and provides no hydro electricity.
The US may be hampered by regulatory issues but complacent Canadians often get things they don't want shoved down their unwilling throats.
Scott thanks for mentioning the obvious financial situation

ANONYMOUS
April 22, 2011

Hi. Strawberries and tomatoes in CA are not going to replace the CO2 absorption of full grown native forests. (Neither are avocado and orange orchards.) The only crop that might come close is sugarcane, and our lovely corn lobbyist friends aren't going to let that happen. Also, you can effectively irrigate without putting up a dam. You can also provide drinking water without massive dams.
Russell should be able to tell us if there has ever been a dam project (new or an upgrade) that has come close to making the overall impact carbon neutral. I will be surprised if there is a documented case.
Once again, don't be confused. Hydro is renewable. It is also a massive CO2 impact. Find a way to mitigate the impact before you do it, not with wishful thinking after the fact.
Sincerely,
The Lorax

Russell Ray
April 22, 2011

The results of the study by Oak Ridge National Lab, and arm of the DOE, were announced at the National Hydropower Association's annual conference in D.C. earlier this month. Brennan Smith of Oak Ridge presented the results. Here's a link to a power-point on that study: http://hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Brennan-Smith-PPT_NHA_April2011_Final.pdf

Garth Barker
April 22, 2011

larryshenry...
You're right, I work for a company that licenses small hydro; in fact for new hydro on existing dams they have licensed the first licenses in thirty years (see symbioticsenergy.com). If there was a reason for government funding it would be to help cover the licensing and permitting costs, which due to redundant and repetitive study requests by both the feds and the states, can exceed 5 years and 2 million dollars and still get hung up by agenda driven government bureaucrats. I have some fine examples if interested. The other reason for gov. funding would be to help on the transmission interconnection fees which are very pricey.

Garth Barker
April 22, 2011

I don't think there is one other than the one completed last year which identified all the potential sites in the US; however I understand that the BOR identified their dams with hydro potential this year but haven't looked it up.

Larry Henry
April 22, 2011

I doubt that anyone would argue with the value of the research regarding better hydro power systems. The question we should ask about this and other funding needs for RE is why does everything have to come from the federal government? When the new turbines are in place and other technology is developed, who benefits? Why should the funding not come from the utilities, local governments, and state governments? We all have to step back from the idea that the federal government is the only place for all funding.

William Stockhausen
April 22, 2011

This DOE study is an important development. Canada is surging ahead with hydro development, but the US is hampered by regulatory issues, which unless they are mitigated will prevent the true hydro potential at existing dams in the US. I have not been able to find the actual DOE study referred to. Does anyone have a link to the actual study?

Garth Barker
April 22, 2011

To the Lorax...
Here in the west where we have little water anyway dams are vital for the production of food. When you calculate the loss of carbon holding trees when a dam is built please consider the vast acreage of crops that are produced from the use of that water; don't they consume CO2? My guess is if otherwise arid land is irrigated and grows crops rather than stunted sagebrush, carbon capture totals weigh in favor of the crops. Think about it.

Scott Kornfeld
April 22, 2011

I seriously doubt President Obama or his team WANTS to cut funding for hydropower, especially given the clean energy program and goals that were mentioned. I think it is more likely he/they HAD to cut funding somewhat due to the unfortunate budget situation we are currently in. I imagine that the cuts were made in order to show a true spirit of sacrifice and compromise in order to make a deal with the opposition, or that it was felt that the established hydro sector needed less help, at least for the moment, than some of the other renewable energy sectors.

As for the overall climate cost for hydro power, not all hydro power equals dams these days, tidal and other forms were mentioned as well. And while I'm not positive I imagine the total climate cost of a hydro dam vs. other fossil fuel plants is still a win especially since most of the environmental costs for a dam are a one time hit vs a fossil plant that spews toxins and CO2 for decades.

Garth Barker
April 22, 2011

To the Lorax...
o one said there would be new dams built, but its a shame to ignore those dams that have the potential to house generation. The simple fact is most dams have a purpose other than generation; flood control, irrigation, culinary water storage, etc and we can't do without them. In other cases the inclusion of hydro can and does improve the aquatic environment; mitigation packages that improve stream beds, fish ladders, water quality, less TDG from improved structures. In some cases by adding a second reservoir pumped hydro can add trees rather than remove them. I really don't think there will be many if any new dams built in the US but utilizing those we have to produce good clean base energy is just smart.

ANONYMOUS
April 22, 2011

Please don't be confused. Hydro power is renewable, but it is not carbon neutral. The amount of energy required to create and complete a new dam project is enormous in scale, and the net effect on the environment is hugely negative. No process is in place to ever replace the thousands of acres of trees destroyed. No trees means that their ability to absorb and convert CO2 has been lost. Calculate all of the CO2 that these thousands of acres of trees would have absorbed in a lifetime, and you will see the true impact of hydro. Don't be confused. Hydro is renewable but not green.
Sincerely,
The Lorax

ANONYMOUS
April 22, 2011

I strongly agree with both Terry and Adrian.

Hydropower is of cardinal importance in providing power when the sun does not shine and wind does not blow. Without its grid stabilizing influence renewables cannot flourish.

Adrian Akau
April 22, 2011

I do not mean to imply that President Obama is not intelligence but his stance on cuts in hydropower lack good judgement. On one hand, he says that he wants more renewable energy but at the same time he wants to cut hydropower funding. I guess cutting support of hydropower means for him at least, the building up of hydropower. It is a good example of double talk he often uses. For example, he wanted to cut the budget but gave away 750 billion of tax dollars to the banks.

Sam Harriman
April 20, 2011

I agree with TerryAnderson. This belongs back in the closet with the rest of our dear president's bad idea jeans.

Terry Anderson
April 19, 2011

Advancements in hydropower technology as well as other renewable energy sources can help the nation meet its clean energy goals. Fossil fuels are not the answer. Combining all the different alternative energy sources together is the ultimate answer.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Russell Ray

Russell Ray is the managing editor Power Engineering magazine, the No. 1 trade magazine for the power generation industry. Russell has 13 years experience as an energy journalist, covering the oil and gas industry in Oklahoma and the growth...