Skip navigation

Community Discussions

What is the hang up?

41comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Neil Levine

Jan 10, 2012
12:40

Member


1 |
Share via:
In general, several forms of hydro are considered to be safe, cheap, clean abundant, that is, better than wind or solar, so what is the hang up????

Dennis Peterson

Jan 10, 2012
01:17

Member


2 |
Share via:
There's a limit to how much hydro we can build. Here are a couple interesting articles where a physicist estimates the maximum energy we could get from dams: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/how-much-dam-energy-can-we-get/ and from tides: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/can-tides-turn-the-tide/ And of course, sometimes there's political resistance when people who live in the area don't want their homes to end up underwater. Or even from environmentalists who don't want ecosystems destroyed.

Neil Levine

Jan 10, 2012
03:52

Member


3 |
Share via:
Hydro Association says only 3% of dams generate hydro. Waterwheels very good. Tidal just political inclusion. Rather inferior.

Neil Levine

Jan 10, 2012
03:57

Member


4 |
Share via:
http://hydro.org/tech-and-policy/developing-hydro/powering-existing-dams/ The Hydro Association article.

Neil Levine

Jan 11, 2012
12:01

Member


5 |
Share via:
Let me give some comparative numbers. The formula Power equals 1/2 density times area times velocity of fluid cubed can be used to calculate and compare how much energy is in a given volume of air or water. We start with water being 833 times heavier than air at 62.5 pounds per cubic foot, a big advantage. Also, water flows 24 7 365 whereas wind blows only a third of the time, a three fold advantage. Of course, cubing wind speeds is a big advantage fot wind power althiugh the area of a turbine or waterwheel can be scaled up, adding another advantage to hydro given equal or comparable labor costs. So hydro by the numbers is mostly superior as you can calculate by multiplying three by 833 by the area advantage.

Neil Levine

Jan 12, 2012
12:00

Member


6 |
Share via:
Let me add NYSERDA, the New York State agency has full disclosure. Unfortunately, under the Constitution rivers and water come under federal jurisdiction and getting a reply is worse than deaf. No one seems to know who is in charge.

Neil Levine

Jan 15, 2012
10:52

Member


7 |
Share via:
I want to point out that I am Tweeting daily about this under my name, neillevine3. I would like to point out that the Obama approach as exemplified by his handling of the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf was to strong arm BP for reparations first rather than recruiting expert Petroleum Engineers to advise on capping the leaking well, exacerbating BPs frustrations and not ameliorating the immediate cause of pollution quickly.

Neil Levine

Jan 15, 2012
03:11

Member


8 |
Share via:
In response to a question, I am looking for advice, contacts, referrals, cooperation, sympathy. Under

James Greyson

Jan 16, 2012
07:03

Member


9 |
Share via:
Hi Neil, thanks for this discussion and all the great info and thoughts. What do you think of tidal stream hydro? An alternative to dams on rivers and barrages on estuaries. James

Neil Levine

Jan 16, 2012
01:17

Member


10 |
Share via:
Creative is nice. But I think officials are looking for cost effective, which is usually the direct approach

Neil Levine

Jan 16, 2012
05:05

Member


11 |
Share via:
I would like to add I am not a Professor of Engineering and aennd the politend oical reaction to my NYSERDA submission may depend on geopolitical developments, depending on how dumb the Iranians may be.

Neil Levine

Jan 19, 2012
05:57

Member


12 |
Share via:
My tablet was crashing. Now I think it is okay so I thought I would add this American energy policy is incoherent. First, there was a tax break for gasohol that is no more. There was coal. Now coal is dirty. There is a tax break that helps us import solar from China, propped up by high energy prices and so on. Hydro would help. But it is hard to get straight answers.

Neil Levine

Jan 19, 2012
05:26

Member


13 |
Share via:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203750404577170412230319648.html?mod=WSJ_World_LEFTSecondNews#articleTabs_comments%3D%26articleTabs%3Dcomments

Neil Levine

Jan 19, 2012
05:12

Member


14 |
Share via:
Also http://online.wsj.com/community/mailbox/trackeditems

Neil Levine

Jan 20, 2012
01:31

Member


15 |
Share via:
If hydro gets any real traction, would that help hydrogen fuel cells???

Neil Levine

Jan 25, 2012
11:54

Member


16 |
Share via:
O ama preemptively demands clean standards, then he goes back to talking up hydrocarbons. He makes asking questions difficult and getting answers virtually impossible. Go figure out what is what?

Neil Levine

Jan 26, 2012
07:24

Member


17 |
Share via:
http://thehill.com/video/administration/206841-obama-we-need-an-all-out-all-in-all-of-the-above-energy-strategy?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Neil Levine

Jan 26, 2012
07:57

Member


18 |
Share via:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-01-25/energy-state-of-the-union/52795248/1 Obviously, I am willing to ask, but getting a straight answer is too difficult.

Neil Levine

Jan 29, 2012
05:22

Member


19 |
Share via:
It has recently come to my attention that Britain and The Philippines are proceeding with small hydro projects, including an installation at one of tbe Queen's castles. Also news stories poi.t to unstable conditions in Nigeria, Sudan, Iran, etc., raising questions about unstable foreign sources of energy, especially Iran, which seems to be very belligerent.

Neil Levine

Jan 31, 2012
11:31

Member


20 |
Share via:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE80T00F20120130 as the Reuters article makes clear, if Washington wants wind and solar, Washinvton gets wind and solar, although waterwheels work, have been used in the past and are vrr cost effective

Neil Levine

Jan 31, 2012
04:04

Member


21 |
Share via:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/31/bloomberg_articlesLYNDWQ6JIJVA01-LYOI1.DTL It is being reported that Iran is making threats.

Neil Levine

Jan 31, 2012
04:03

Member


22 |
Share via:
http://patdollard.com/2012/01/report-iran-preparing-to-launch-terrorist-strikes-against-us/ another report

Neil Levine

Jan 31, 2012
04:48

Member


23 |
Share via:
http://m.nypost.com/p/news/international/iran_prepared_to_attack_us_overseas_I7LJeQD5eygyGZZHOzS56N another. No predicting exactly what Iran will do nor the Obama response, although I wish Obama would solve the problem.

James Greyson

Feb 1, 2012
02:45

Member


24 |
Share via:
HI Neil, thanks for all these posts. I'm finding it hard to join in due to the many topics and links. I'm sure what question you would like to raise in the CoLab community. Is the Iran topic climate-related? Regards, James

Neil Levine

Feb 1, 2012
02:42

Member


25 |
Share via:
Just venting. As I have said, what Washington wa.ts Washington gets, despite the merits or facts. Solar and wind are the high oriced choices.

Neil Levine

Feb 5, 2012
01:25

Member


26 |
Share via:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/automobiles/wheels/a-hydrogen-advocate-whose-time-has-come.html?_r=1 an interesting article that invites the tough and pointed question where is the hydrogen infrastructure. Answer may be contingent on future events

Neil Levine

Feb 6, 2012
02:30

Member


27 |
Share via:
Let me put it this way. Automakers apparently, plan to produce hydrogen fuel cell powered cars by 2015. However, an equivalent price of $12 a gallon means very little is being done to produce hydrogen gas since it is my understanding H2 can be used to supplement natural gas, which is selling at a much lower price. The discrepancy is Washington's responsibility and should be brought up with appropriate officials, especially if Iran does something since expanding natural as supplies would help in an emergency. Thank you.

Neil Levine

Feb 6, 2012
03:01

Member


28 |
Share via:
Let me clarify some more. Making hydrogen gas affordable would help spur sales of hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. I am on Twitter and have been in contact with a few people but am willing to discuss this as appropriate.

Neil Levine

Feb 8, 2012
01:48

Member


29 |
Share via:
Let me try to clarify something. After various communications with NYSERDA, I handed in a complete waterwheel proposal and was told they woukd be offering "approprate" contracts this spring. On the other hand, they verified almost nothinh and offered no information about US DOE, who are really in charge. I am looking to get something legsl and proper done.. Any advice or suggestions??????

Neil Levine

Feb 8, 2012
05:27

Member


30 |
Share via:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/ my point is easy to generate hydrogen could supplement natural gas or power fuel cells, either choice would provide added revenue. I am, for sure, at a loss as to why this is not being done.

Neil Levine

Feb 8, 2012
05:34

Member


31 |
Share via:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/ my point is easy to generate hydrogen could supplement natural gas or power fuel cells, either choice would provide added revenue. I am, for sure, at a loss as to why this is not being done.

Neil Levine

Feb 9, 2012
03:32

Member


32 |
Share via:
Since the price of hydrogen is comparatvely high but easy to generate, I have been on Twitter today basically asking some wind related accounts where is the hydrogen to supplement natural gas or to power fuel cells. For a wind farm, hydrogen should produce extra income.

Neil Levine

Feb 21, 2012
11:31

Member


33 |
Share via:
Thank you for the Facebook post. My reading of Beacon, Solyndra and the high cost of hydrogen fuel is that Washington has done little or nothing to increase supplies, even though hydrogen can supplement natural gas up to 20% leaving politicians ooen to complaints of doing nothing.

Neil Levine

Apr 19, 2012
12:41

Member


34 |
Share via:
Current numbers: gasoline is approximately $3.90 a gallon. Newt is trying to sell $2.50 while natural gas is currently approximately $1.40 an equivalent gallon. Also, lots of hydro and hydrogen. Even excess wind can generate easy to mix and easy to burn hydroge. What does this seem to add up to?

Robert Bernal

Apr 21, 2012
07:14

Member


35 |
Share via:
Water is great, but much of it is already harnessed. In order to do so more effectively would be to use it as pumped hydro, that is, use wind and solar to power it up a hill for storage. However, isn't their easier ways to store (and generate) energy than building lots of large dams? Molten salt is probably the best form of energy storage. It can be heated by a bunch of mirrors (and sunlight). Or it can be heated by fissioning U233 (from thorium), the ultimate and unlimited power concept. Meltdown proof and already proven with some 22,000 hours of operation at ORNL (before being shut down in favor of plutonium producing operations necessary for winning the cold war) LFTR (liquid thorium fluoride reactor) is also load leveling and requires thousands of times less land than solar (however, I'm not against solar either!). In fact, we should use LFTR to power the massive undertaking of creating robotically mass produced solar panels and LiFePO4 batteries, necessary for massive jobs creation across the nations...

Robert Bernal

Apr 21, 2012
07:21

Member


36 |
Share via:
Water is great, but much of it is already harnessed. In order to do so more effectively would be to use it as pumped hydro, that is, use wind and solar to power it up a hill for storage. However, isn't their easier ways to store (and generate) energy than building lots of large dams? Molten salt is probably the best form of energy storage. It can be heated by a bunch of mirrors (and sunlight). Or it can be heated by fissioning U233 (from thorium), the ultimate and unlimited power concept. Meltdown proof and already proven with some 22,000 hours of operation at ORNL (before being shut down in favor of plutonium producing operations necessary for winning the cold war) LFTR (liquid thorium fluoride reactor) is also load leveling and requires thousands of times less land than solar (however, I'm not against solar either!). In fact, we should use LFTR to power the massive undertaking of creating robotically mass produced solar panels and LiFePO4 batteries, necessary for massive jobs creation across the nations...

Robert Bernal

Apr 21, 2012
07:56

Member


37 |
Share via:
Sorry, my computer bad.

Neil Levine

May 15, 2012
12:40

Member


38 |
Share via:
Watereheels have been used before. There is a lot of capacity including underwater currents snd the numbers are very favorable see my previous post. I am just waiting for a cohere.t reply from the powers that be. am ever hopeful thAt the upcoming shAkeup At DOE is it but I intend to keep making my case.

Neil Levine

May 30, 2012
03:17

Member


39 |
Share via:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/on-climate-change-its-money-vs-mouth/ trying to explain political inanities

Neil Levine

May 30, 2012
03:06

Member


40 |
Share via:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303674004577432552487031064.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments furthermore

Atm Domino

Jan 17, 2019
09:05

Member


41 |
Share via:

Bosen tiap hari liat dompet kosong ? , Join Sekarang Juga di ATMDOMINO, Agen Judi dengan Kartu Random Terbaik dan Terhoki , depo dan nikmati jackpotnya .

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.