DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3450--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 12, 2015, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[b]Anti-nuke activist turned hydropower developer John Warshow
was admired by friends and foes[/b]
Anne Galloway Jul. 6 2015, 11:16 am
John Warshow in a photo (at link) that his son David Warshow
said expresses his father’s personality well. Photo courtesy
Warshow family
John Warshow, an anti-nuclear activist and renewable energy
pioneer, died last week.
HTML http://www.mrwallpaper.com/wallpapers/Sad-Sunflower.jpg
Warshow, 59, and his business partner Mathew Rubin, became the
first independent hydropower producers in Vermont. Their
lifelong friendship was forged during an anti-nuclear protest:
In 1978, they were arrested for chaining themselves to a fence
outside the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
A memorial service for John Warshow will be held 10 a.m. Sunday,
July 19, at Marshfield’s Old Schoolhouse Common.
In the 1980s, Warshow and Rubin channeled their anti-nuclear
activism into the development of alternative energy. They bought
several defunct dams and, using a new federal law, sought to
sell power from the dams to local utilities. One of the
utilities, Green Mountain Power, fought the scheme for a dam in
East Montpelier, and sued over Warshow and Rubin’s biggest
scheme: The development of a large hydro dam on the Winooski
River in Winooski. The litigation over the dam and over rates
for the resulting hydropower went on for years. Eventually, they
defeated the utility company in court.
Warshow was, as one friend put it, a “quintessential Vermonter”
of the hippie era. He came to Vermont from Long Island in 1976
to attend Goddard College, which was a hotbed of liberal
activism, and soon after became involved with his professor,
Scott Nielsen, in the anti-nuclear movement. (He later married
Nielsen’s daughter, Jenny, and they made Marshfield their home.)
In one memorable protest, Warshow, Rubin and about 150
demonstrators at Vermont Yankee chained themselves to the fence
around the plant. Rubin recalls that the Vermont State Police
used bolt cutters to release the protesters and then carted them
off to the Brattleboro Armory.
The protesters waited for hours. By evening, they had no food,
no blankets, no Band-Aids for the scratches they’d gotten in the
fray of the protest, and so Warshow went over to the trooper in
charge and asked to use the telephone. His one call was to Jerry
Diamond, the Vermont attorney general.
“He said, ‘hey you’re in charge of the state police, therefore
we’re your responsibility,’” Rubin said. “He read him the riot
act, and Diamond was so stunned he called the state police, and
they brought him down to Brattleboro, driving 90 miles an hour.”
The protesters were charged with trespassing, and Warshow sued
the state over the right to demonstrate. He argued the case pro
se (he represented himself), and when the case went before the
Vermont Supreme Court, he won.
Warshow didn’t have a law degree. In fact, he didn’t graduate
from Goddard College, but he became an astute student of the law
and became very knowledgeable about federal and state utility
statutes.
His keen intellect and legal savvy came in handy when he and
Rubin decided to develop hydropower in the 1980s.
Marty Miller, an attorney who worked for Warshow and Rubin, said
Warshow saw that nuclear power “wasn’t the way to go and he
couldn’t just say no; he had to have an alternative.”
Old dams, new energy
That alternative energy source was hydro. Warshow and Rubin
explored whether they could develop abandoned 19th century dams
under a new federal law, the Public Utility Regulatory Power
Act, which was enacted in 1978 and paved the way for independent
companies to sell electricity to utilities. Today, 7 percent of
the nation’s power comes from independent power producers,
according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Warshow and Rubin started with the old Wrightsville Dam in
Montpelier. They obtained a federal license and permits for the
property and then sold the project to the Washington Electric
Co-op. Then they acquired abandoned dam sites in East
Montpelier, Springfield and Winooski.
The East Montpelier dam had been owned by Green Mountain Power,
but the utility let the federal license lapse and Warshow and
Rubin swooped in to buy it. The duo obtained the land for the
dam through an eminent domain proceeding. GMP officials were
stunned.
When the pair tried to develop the Winooski dam, they became
enmeshed in a seven-year legal battle with Green Mountain Power,
the city of Burlington, the city of Winooski and the owner of
the Chace Cotton Mill.
Burlington wanted to develop a dam on the river falls and spent
$4 million on environmental studies. Under federal law,
municipalities get first dibs for hydro licenses. The trouble
was, the city was backed by a private enterprise — Green
Mountain Power — and that put Warshow and Rubin on equal
footing. Their proposal cost half as much and produced
two-thirds of the power Burlington hoped to produce. Eventually,
Warshow and Rubin won.
“John was a fighter, but without anger,” Rubin said. “In a
business partnership that lasted 34 years, I never saw him lose
his temper.”
They then went to war with Green Mountain Power over power
rates. The utility didn’t want to pay rates allowable under
federal law, which were in the 10 cents per kilowatt range at a
time when nuclear power was selling for 4 cents per kilowatt.
Warshow argued, again pro se, that the utility didn’t have a
choice.
Miller said utilities have a state-granted monopoly for their
service territories, and this was the first time an independent
company was generating relatively large scale power.
“[John] led the fight at the PSB to obtain payments that were
sufficient to actually build and run one of these plants, which
was key to getting this whole industry going,” Miller said.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Warshow and Rubin bought GMP and Central Vermont Public Service
shares (for themselves and their friends) and a group of 10 or
so of the activists began showing up at the annual meetings.
They gave utility executives a hard time
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
about investments in
the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire. (Warshow, who was a
member of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance, spent 30 days in
jail for a protest at Seabrook.)
Steve Terry, who was an executive with GMP, describes Warshow as
“a tough opponent.” Terry doesn’t recall that the utility ever
won a rate case against Warshow.
“They were scrappers, they were challenging GMP in rate cases,”
Terry said. “They really knew how to make use of the media and
they did. Their strategy always was news by embarrassment.”
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
As stockholders, they had access to private company information
that they were more than happy to share with reporters. They
turned the media onto information about executive pay and
expense accounts, for example.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
Eventually, GMP negotiated a confidential agreement with Warshow
and Rubin, and the pair agreed to not set foot on the utility’s
property, not to interfere with rate cases and not to own stock
in the company.
The rise of renewables
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
Terry said Warshow and Rubin were outliers, but he gives them
credit for creating a visionary approach to renewable energy in
Vermont that eventually became mainstream. The state of Vermont
has adopted aggressive renewable energy goals, and GMP is now a
national utility leader in the field.
“In order to do what we did, we had to create an industry,”
Rubin said. “There were no independent power producers. They
didn’t exist.”
Rubin and Warshow not only figured out how to go through the
federal licensing process, they also had to work with the state
to develop rates, contracts and regulations.
“Needless to say, back then the utilities had a monopoly, and
they didn’t want anybody else playing in the sandbox,” Rubin
said.
Renewable energy pioneer John Warshow died June 28, 2015.
Courtesy photo (at link)
Warshow was fearless, Rubin said, because he had a strong sense
of what he believed in. He also had no ego.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png
<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png
<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png
“The question was never whose idea it was, but the result,”
Rubin said. “With someone like that, with intelligence and
integrity, you can accomplish a lot and we did.”
In September, Rubin, Warshow and the Winooski One partnership
sold the dam to the Burlington Electric Department and the city
of Burlington for $12 million.
Warshow didn’t have much time to enjoy the proceeds of his once
risky investment. He was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a
cancer formed by malignant plasma cells, less than two weeks
before he died on June 28 of cardiac arrest, following kidney
failure.
Warshow is survived by his wife, Jenny; his sons, David and
Ethan; his father Alan, of Manhasset, New York; his sisters,
Leslie, of Salt Lake City, and Susan, of Port Washington, New
York; his nieces, Hannah and Julia, of Upton, Massachusetts, and
his nephew, Jason, of Salt Lake City, who called John “Uncle
Maple.”
Contributions in John’s memory may be made to the John L.
Warshow Memorial Fund being created to support the development
and maintenance of recreational, educational, and historical
opportunities in Marshfield such as the Stranahan Memorial Town
Forest that John helped create.
Memorial fund donations should be payable to the John L. Warshow
Memorial Fund and sent to C/O Rich Phillips, 1119 Hollister Hill
Road, Plainfield, VT 05667.
Editor’s note: Steve Terry and Mathew Rubin are members of the
Vermont Journalism Trust, the nonprofit organization of which
VTDigger is a part.
HTML http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/06/anti-nuke-activist-turned-hydropower-developer-john-warshow-was-admired-by-friends-and-foes/
John Beling
July 6, 2015 at 1:52 pm
I am saddened to see this. My condolences to John’s family and
friends.
Rich Lachapelle
July 6, 2015 at 2:16 pm
The man was a pioneer in Vermont in promoting renewable energy,
even before it was trendy. He did however face vehement,
organized protest when pushing to build the Winooski One hydro
project which has been a huge success. It has since been
purchased by Burlington Electric and contributes to it’s 100%
renewable portfolio. He did not cave and cower when the
protesters erected posters asking: “do you want the Winooski
River to go through a hole this big?”.
Fred Woogmaster
July 7, 2015 at 6:37 am
“Who is it that says most, which can say more,
Than this rich praise, that you alone, are you…” Shakespeare
A life of merit – without question.
Patrick Zachary
July 7, 2015 at 5:50 pm
John was a great guy. He was always willing to talk about his
projects. I fondly remember walking the Winooski One dam with
him during construction and stopping at spray paint circle
around what was clearly a weed – he commented that this
particular weed held the project up for a long time ( years). He
was quiet, objective and determined. Well lived.
Bob Stannard
July 8, 2015 at 5:59 am
It was an honor to have known John and to work with him on the
closing of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. He was a quiet
man; an understated man, but you’d be ill-advised to
underestimate him.
I never did have an opportunity to ask him his thoughts on those
who oppose renewable energy; much as he opposed nuclear energy.
It would have been nice to have been able to hear his
perspective.
#Post#: 3512--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 28, 2015, 7:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/content/images/dam_Virdnejavri.jpg
Norway Pumps Up ‘Green Battery’ Plan for Europe
Posted on Jul 27, 2015
LONDON—Norway is hoping to become the “green battery of Europe”
by using its hydropower plants to provide instant extra
electricity if production from wind and solar power sources in
other countries fade.
Without building any new power stations, engineers believe they
could use the existing network to instantly boost European
supplies and avoid other countries having to switch on fossil
fuel plants to make up shortfalls. ;D
Norway has 937 hydropower plants, which provide 96% of its
electricity, making it the sixth largest hydropower producer in
the world—despite having a population of only five million.
Europe already has 400 million people in 24 countries connected
to a single grid, with power surpluses from one country being
exported to neighbours or imported as national needs change.
Full article:
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/norway_pumps_up_green_battery_plan_for_europe_20150727
#Post#: 3960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 6, 2015, 2:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: I strongly disagree with the data and the
assumptions made by Gary Wockner in this article.
The Hydropower Methane Bomb No One Wants to Talk About
Gary Wockner | October 6, 2015 12:38 pm
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/06/hydropower-methane-bomb/
A fossil fueler (copper) weighed and I had to agree with him.
:o
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
Copper
You ecotards are never happy are you. Not until everyone is
living in caves. So let me ask you this Gary. Where do you think
that organic matter goes if not into some reservoir behind a
damn? Maybe the next large body of stagnate water? You don't
seem very bright so don't beat yourself up if you can't answer.
agelbert reply to Copper
For once, I must agree with you. In the early 1940's, over 40%
of the U.S. electric power came form hydroelectric power. That
percentage of NON-coal polluting crap has yet to be achieved.
Yes, the grid grew a LOT since then, and the nuclear power pigs
were added to the SUBSIDIZED polluting fun and games, but it
certainly DID NOT have to be that way.
Congress, in the 1960's, wanted a 50/50 mix of nuclear power and
solar R & D for new electric power in the growing grid. But
solar was deliberately defunded except for solar panels on
satellites, a far more hazardous environment than the surface of
our planet. This technology WAS NOT handed off to the business
to produce highly efficient (and cheap with mass production)
solar panels because it was a "national security" issue. But It
wasn't just the nukers that wanted solar power to stay on the
fringe.
1955: Why the US Chose Nuclear Energy Over Solar
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/the-nuclear-insanity-of-the-1950s/msg1812/#msg1812
At any rate, I agree with your point about methane. The FACT is
that termites, which represent one of the largest biomasses on
the planet (far larger than humans AND the farm animals we raise
for food and milk), produce MORE methane than those cows and
dams put together! And THAT is NATURAL methane.
I have never heard anybody screaming about all that methane the
termites are making. ;) I'm sure you haven't either.
So the methane produced as a "byproduct" of hydropower is BULLS
HIT. That is the type of ecotard hyperbole that tarnishes
renewable energy efforts.
Ecocide is real. WE are doing it. But it is NOT because of
hydropower!
Some biomass weights:
Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg.
--- Quote ---
> [size=12pt]"Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg. This figure
is based on an average human weight of more than 100lbs, though
(50kg, to be exact). I don't know how accurate this estimate
is, especially considering that about 1/3 of us are children.
There are supposedly around 1.3 billion cattle in the world,
and, put together, they may weigh almost twice as much as our
species."
>
> Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba = 379,000,000,000 kg.
> There are more ants than krill. Also, metabolism plays a role
along with biomass. A "million ruby-throated hummingbirds will
consume much more food than one African Elephant, even though
both have about the same biomass (3,000kg, or 3.3 US tons).
>
> Thus, ants, as a group, may actually consume more resources
per year than antarctic krill, even though both may have roughly
the same biomass, because ants tend to be smaller, and live in
warmer environments. Although there may be about 10-15 times the
biomass of termites than cows in the world, studies have
suggested that termites might produce almost 30,000 times as
much methane per year because of their faster metabolism."
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.antweb.org/antblog/2010/10/do-ants-really-have-the-largest-biomass-of-all-species-on-earth-laurie-usa.html
[color=purple][b]So how come Gsry Wockner isn't hollering about
reducing the termite population?[/b]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpghttp://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
#Post#: 4385--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: January 24, 2016, 8:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Huge Hydropower Plant to Harness Seawater and Solar
Power in South America’s Driest Desert
HTML http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130730115824/plantsvszombies/images/5/59/Sunflower_Free_Promo.jpg[/center]
Cole Mellino | January 22, 2016 3:54 pm
Lodged between the Andes Mountains and the Pacific Ocean is the
Atacama Desert in Chile—the driest non-polar desert in the
world.
It certainly isn’t a location where you’d expect to find a
hydropower plant, but Valhalla, a Chilean company, plans to
build Espejo de Tarapaca (Tarapaca Mirror), a 300-megawatt solar
and hydropower plant.
[center]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/atacamadesert.jpg[/center]
[center]Valhalla claims Chile’s unique coastal geography make
its an ideal location for a solar and hydropower plant.[/center]
During the day, the plant will use solar power to move seawater
up a tunnel to the top of a mountain, where the water will be
stored in a natural reservoir, explained FastCoExist. At night,
the water will be released back down, generating power as it
falls. This way, the plant can generate power day and night.
Pumped storage hydropower plants are not a new concept, but
utilizing solar power to pump the water is.
“You need to be able to provide power when it’s needed, so it’s
readily available and dispatchable,” Francisco Torrealba,
co-founder of Valhalla, told FastCoExist. “If on a particular
day you don’t have wind and can’t provide energy at a peak time,
that would be a huge crisis. That’s why our concept becomes
relevant.”
[center]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/valhalla.jpg[/center]
[center]The water will be pumped up to a natural reservoir at
the top of a mountain using solar power during the day. Then at
night, the water will be released back down, generating power as
it falls. Photo credit: Valhalla[/center]
Because there are natural reservoirs at the top of the mountain,
the company will not need to build dams. ;D
The Chilean coast is an ideal location for this type of project.
“Chile has the best conditions in the world for solar
plants—roughly 15 percent better than Arizona,” Torrealba said.
“It’s really stunning. But Chile also has the best conditions in
the world for pump storage running with seawater. That means we
can produce flat, steady power at a very reasonable price.”
The company won’t have to construct dams, either. “We found
these natural depressions that we believe were very ancient
lakes, but obviously there is nothing there now, it is a desert,
that will allow us to store water,” the company’s co-founder and
chief executive Juan Andres Camus told Reuters.
And it’s currently cost-competitive with coal. “In Chile, we
don’t have any subsidies for renewables, so we need to be able
to compete straight with coal generation,” Torrealba explained.
“It’s a very Darwinian world—you need to be able to play against
coal. Our cost structure is at the price of coal right now.”
Valhalla is set to begin construction on the plant in the second
half of 2016. They’re still in the process of securing funding
for the venture, but they estimate they will be supplying
electricity to utilities by 2020. They believe the Chilean
coastline has the potential to supply power for all of South
America.
“The region of Tarapaca can be a leader in solar energy,”
Torrealba told Tunneling Journal. “And Chile can become an
energy superpower in the world.”
--- Quote ---
>
> “We could completely replace all the generation in South
America,” he told FastCoExist. “You could very easily envision a
South America in 20-25 years which has an integrated grid all
throughout the continent, in which Chile could be providing very
cheap, clean electricity with this combination of pump storage
and solar power.”
HTML http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/chile-solar-hydropower-plant/
#Post#: 6705--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: March 18, 2017, 6:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]How to Make Electricity in a Disused Coal Mine
;D[/center]
SNIPPET:
A coal-mine that powered German industry for almost half a
century will get a new lease on life when it’s turned into a
giant battery that stores excess solar and wind energy.
The state of North-Rhine Westphalia is set to turn its
Prosper-Haniel hard coal mine into a 200 megawatt pumped-storage
hydroelectric reservoir, which acts like a battery and will have
enough capacity to power more than 400,000 homes, said state
governor Hannelore Kraft. The town of Bottrop, where people
worked the 600 meter (1,969 foot) deep mine since 1974, will
keep playing a role in providing uninterrupted power for the
country, she said.
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180317185004.png[/center]
[center]Source: University of Duisburg-Essen[/center]
Full article:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
HTML https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-17/german-coal-mine-to-be-reborn-as-giant-pumped-hydropower-battery
#Post#: 6793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 1, 2017, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317134631.png
[center]Building Hoover Dam, in pictures (1931-1936)[/center]
Tibi Puiu March 23, 2017
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-53.jpg[/center]
[center]Officials boldly ride in one of the penstock pipes of
the soon-to-be-completed Hoover Dam (1935). Credit: BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION[/center]
When it was finally finished in 1936, the 60-story Hoover Dam
was the highest dam in the world. That distinction now belongs
to Jinping-I Dam in China. Eighty years later, however, Hoover
Dam is not only still operational generating 3.6 TWh annually
and a tourist attraction where millions flock every year, it’s
also a remarkable engineering effort that serves as an
inspiration for great infrastructure works.
This huge dam was built in only five years, from 1931 to 1936,
with 5,251 people employed at peak construction. Hoover Dam’s
story began much earlier, though. A famous engineer at the time
from the Bureau of Reclamation named Arthur Powell Davis first
outlined the vision for a high dam erected in Boulder Canyon,
Colorado back in 1902. His indications and initial engineering
report were put to good use when detailed plans for Hoover Dam
began in 1921.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-50.jpg[/center]
[center]An inspection party near the proposed site of the dam in
the Black Canyon on the Colorado River (1928). Credit:
EYSTONE/FPG/HULTON ARCHIVE.[/center]
Herbert Hoover, the 31st president of the United States and the
man the dam was named after, played a crucial role in turning
Davis’ vision into reality. In 1921, at the time a secretary of
commerce, Hoover became convinced that a dam is of the utmost
importance in Boulder Canyon. Such infrastructure would provide
much-needed flood control in the area protecting downstream
farming communities that got battered each year when snow from
the Rocky Mountains melted and spewed into the Colorado River.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-18.jpg[/center]
[center]A surveyor signals to colleagues during the construction
of the dam (1932). Credit: CORBIS.[/center]
The damn would also provide enough water to irrigate farming in
the desert and supply southern Californian communities like Los
Angeles with potable water. That’s, of course, in addition to
the electricity it would generate. In 2015, Hoover Dam, which
has a 2,000 megawatts of capacity, served the annual electrical
needs of nearly 8 million people in Arizona, southern
California, and southern Nevada.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-1.jpg[/center]
[center]Dynamite is detonated in the canyon to make room for the
new dam (1933). Credit: CORBIS.[/center]
Once Hoover became president in 1929, the Boulder Canyon dam
became a national priority. In the same year, the president
signed the Colorado River Compact into law, also known as the
‘Law of the River’. It defined the relationship between the
upper basin states, where most of the river’s water supply
originates, and the lower basin states, where most of the water
demands were developing. Hoover would later claim this was “the
most extensive action ever taken by a group of states under the
provisions of the Constitution permitting compacts between
states”.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-40.jpg[/center]
[center]To make sure the canyon walls were solid enough to
support the arch design, so-called ‘high scalers’ were employed
to hammer away anything loose. Falling rocks were a serious
hazard so the workers dripped their hats in tar and left them
out to dry. Essentially, these were some of the first hard hats.
Credit: Corbis[/center]
Building Hoover Dam was a gargantuan task. Before construction
of the dam itself could begin, the Colorado River had to be
diverted. Four diversion tunnels were carved through canyon
walls to divert river flow around the dam site. Then, the
riverbed had to dredged of deep silt and sediments to expose the
bedrock formation.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-25.jpg[/center]
[center]This bucket holds 18 tons of concrete (1934). Credit:
CORBIS.[/center]
To stabilize Hoover Dam, its base required 230 gigantic blocks
of concrete. Then, columns were linked together like a giant
Lego set with alternating vertical and horizontal placements. By
the time concrete pouring ceased on May 29, 1935, some 2,480,000
m3 of concrete were used, not counting the 850,000 m3 employed
in the power plant and other works. Overall, enough concrete was
poured to pave a two-lane highway between San Francisco and New
York! :o
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-51.jpg[/center]
[center]From 1934. Credit: GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHIC AGENCY.[/center]
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-12.jpg[/center]
[center]Construction works carried on day and night (1935).
Credit: CORBIS.[/center]
All of that [color=red]concrete would have taken 100 years to
cool and cure properly :o were it not for the intervention of
the Hoover Dam engineers[/color]. Some 528 miles worth of
one-inch steel pipes were embedded through the interconnecting
concrete blocks through which ice cold water was circulated. The
water was supplied by the construction site’s own ammonia
refrigeration plant which at peak capacity could produce the
equivalent of a giant 1,000-pound ice block every day.
Hoover Dam is an arch-gravity design which dissipates that
pressure into the canyon walls equally on the Arizona and Nevada
side. Water exerts as much as 45,000 pounds per square foot of
pressure at the base of Hoover Dam but this immense crushing
force is transferred to the canyon walls.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/building_hoover_dam_25-1.jpg[/center]
The architect of Hoover Dam was Gordon B. Kaufmann, known for
his design of the Los Angeles Times Building. Kaufmann not only
took structural design in consideration but also applied an
elegant Art Deco style to the entire project.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-39.jpg[/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.netanimations.net/Frankenstein-looks-stares-and-blinks-animated-gif.gif<br
/> :D Engineering students pose for a picture atop one of the 2
million-pound hydroelectric generators for the dam at the
General Electric factory in Schenectady, New York
(1935).[/center]
A widely circulated urban myth says many bodies are were buried
inside the dam’s concrete. That’s certainly not true although
way too many people died building Hoover Dam by today’s
standards. Officially, there are 112 deaths associated with the
construction of Hoover Dam, including three workers who
committed suicide on site, and a visitor who died accidentally
falling off the massively high structure.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-44.jpg[/center]
[center]President Franklin D. Roosevelt tours the dam (1935).
Credit: CORBIS[/center]
The final block of concrete was poured and topped off at 726
feet above the canyon floor in 1935. On September 30, a crowd of
20,000 people watched President Franklin Roosevelt commemorate
the magnificent structure’s completion. The dam was designated a
National Historic Landmark in 1985 and one of America’s Seven
Modern Civil Engineering Wonders in 1994. It receives some 7
million visitors annually, while Lake Mead, the world’s largest
reservoir, hosts another 10 million as a popular recreation
area.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-36.jpg[/center]
[center]Hoover dam after years of operation (1940). Credit:
SCHENECTADY MUSEUM.[/center]
HTML http://www.zmescience.com/science/building-hoover-dam-pictures-1931-1936/
#Post#: 6796--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 1, 2017, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RE link ---
>
> Amazing what the thermodynamic energy embedded in Fossil Fuels
enabled Homo Sap to do on the civil engineering level.
>
> Unfortunately of course, we are running out of that fuel with
which to maintain said dams, and they will in due time be taken
down by the forces of nature.
>
> RE
>
--- End Quote ---
True, but I have a different take on what happened AFTER the US
went wild building Renewable Energy infrastructure on a massive
scale during the 1930's for about two decades.
You know old man Rockefeller died around when Hoover Dam was
being built. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that when he SAW
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__smokelots.gif<br
/>a picture of this Gigantic Electric Generator, it scared the
living S H I T out of him.
[center]
HTML http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/http3A2F2Fa.amz_.mshcdn.com2Fwp-content2Fuploads2F20152F092Fhooverdam-39.jpg[/center]
[center][I] Engineering students pose for a picture atop one of
the 2 million-pound hydroelectric generators for the dam at the
General Electric factory in Schenectady, New York
(1935).[/i][/center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/dam-hydropower/msg6793/#msg6793
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/dam-hydropower/msg6793/#msg6793
SO, his friends in fossil fuel fascsistdom began ANOTHER attack
on renewables (remember, at this time the fossil fuel fascists
had DESTROYED the wind generator push 30 years early, the
ethanol push 20 years early AND were busy destroying plant based
fuel refinery technology pioneered in the 1930's). Making hemp
illegal was part of their skullduggery. And don't forget buying
and trashing electric trolleys to replace them with buses. If
their product is so God Damned "efficient", why do they ALWAYS
go out of their way to destroy the competition?
AND, before all that, they had attacked geothermal (late 19th
century) and KEPT a lid on it in the USA, despite we having
MASSIVE resources and an invention called a power line that can
send energy through wires one hell of a lot cheaper than using
gasoline trucks to do it. And don't forget how they engineered a
huge tax on booze as far back as 1870 in order to make kerosene
artificially cheaper than alcohol for lamp fuel. And all that
BULLSHIT about all the other products we "need" to get from
fossil fuels is just that!
RE, the fossil fuel industry CANNOT make money if the MAIN use
of hydrocarbons is for plastics, paint, pharmaceuticals and
other stuff that ISN'T BURNED. THAT is only about 5 to 10% of
their market. They go BANKRUPT if we stop burning their fuels
because refineries CANNOT AVOID producing a LOT of fuel and VOCs
with the TINY percent amount of lubricants they get per barrel
of crude.
I will continue to disagree with you that the ISSUE of energy
production and use is simply a matter of thermodynamics, with
fossil fuels as the most "energy dense". It's not. The issue is
CORPORATE CORRUPTION of scientific technology in gooberment,
PERIOD.
As I have written here a couple of years ago, the dams were
beating the daylights out of coal plant electrical power because
they were, and are, CHEAPER and clean! Of course dams screw up
wildlife in the long run, BUT this fossil fuel industry
sponsored imbecilic idea that we have to concentrate on ONE
source of POLLUTING energy from hydrocarbons is total bullshit.
It's always been total bullshit, and it always will be total
bullshit.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
[center]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-260217143301.png[/center]
#Post#: 6797--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 1, 2017, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RE link ---
>
> Absolutely, FF energy has been wasted and burned
indiscriminately for the self-aggrandizement and enrichment of
the Plutocracy. Much to the detriment of the planetary
environment.
>
> However, tons of it was used to build Dams like Hoover and the
3 Gorges Dam in China, and 100s if not thousands of others over
the course of the last century. Mostly in the 1930s through
1960s when all the real good spots for this were dammed up.
That has had its own set of environmental consequences of
course.
>
> Advanced batteries and solar PV didn't even exist until maybe
the 1970s, so that wasn't a practical or even possible choice at
that time for a growing society with growing energy needs. So
the infrastructure got built out around the energy contained in
FFs, and the population kept growing as a result. Eventually
here since FF energy is a finite resource, you reach an
inflexion point. We have hit it.
>
> RE
>
--- End Quote ---
I am aware of the energy technology available at any time during
the 20th century. Yeah, of course they used, AND CURRENTLY USE,
a lot of fossil fuels to make concrete. What was 'practical' at
any time during that century was a product of corruption, not
CFS. You really do believe that we needed fossil fuels to build
all those dams when ethanol plant products couldn't? It was
corruption that strangled ethanol and geothermal AND wind (and
later on, solar from 1955 on for most of that century - even
though the photoelectric effect was KNOWN since Einstein
discovered it in the early years of the 20th century!). We
could build a nuke but we couldn't have built solar panels in
1940? Give me break!
WE DID NOT NEED THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY. I know you think we
did. We didn't. The fossil fuelers CHEATED US out of decent
government and clean energy. Do you REALLY think battery
technology and solar technology and wind technology and
geothermal technology and chemurgy plant fuels have been SO SLOW
to develop because of "competitive cost market forces"? That's
the fossil Fuel Industry's pitch.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png<br
/>I never bought it.
I maintain that the fossil fuelers, along with the nuke pukes,
ACTIVELY SABOTAGED all the new technology so it wouldn't reach
"prime time" until 30 or fifty YEARS after it was actually
doable. But most people, you included, just do not want to go
there. :(
From an old article by me:
Outrageously Positive Renewable Energy Growth Prediction!
January 6, 2014
By A. G. Gelbert
Air Traffic controller/Data Systems analyst
Because I am convinced that Renewable Energy Technologies will
swamp fossil and nuclear power poisonous, biosphere damaging
technology (presently being subsidized and coddled by
governments in many parts of the world to the detriment of their
citizens), I am publishing the following Energy Technology Use
Projection Chart for the USA from 2014-2035. This chart reflects
what I believe to be a worldwide trend to use clean energy in
the face of climate change caused catastrophe. The climate will
trump all the pro-dirty energy propaganda to such a degree that
the mining and burning of coal will become illegal.
For the scoffers, I can only say that you had better pray to God
that my chart is accurate. If it is not, and the power of the
fossil and nuclear fuels profit-over-planet bullies limits
renewable energy to a mere 20% niche (as the dirty energy
defenders desire), mankind and most of the species in our
biosphere will suffer irreparable damage.
It's time to stop playing accounting games and fudging Energy
Return on Energy Invested (EROI) computations to make dirty
energy look profitable. It never was.
It's time for mankind to grow up and accept our sacred duty as a
self aware species to be the steward of all lifegiving forces on
this planet. It's time to profit off of life and leave behind
the ridiculous, delusional, destructive and suicidal social
Darwinist concept that you can profit from death.
Growth of renewable energy technology is already nearly
exponential. However, because the forces arrayed against it are
determined to hold their market share by hook or by crook,
increasing legislative headwinds are being encountered. This is
due to the fact that subsidies for dirty energy are not being
phased out even while subsidies for clean energy (a pittance in
comparison to dirty energy coddling) are being challenged as
"wasteful" in truly Orwellian fashion.
As I have documented at this link (
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-propaganda-modus-operandi/msg542/#msg542
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuel-propaganda-modus-operandi/msg542/#msg542<br
/>) about Ocean Going Oil Tankers and several other posts
describing, in detail, the Modus Operandi of fossil fuel
corporations' profit-over-planet standard operational procedures
is unsustainable.
The dirty energy corporations have never seriously addressed
pollution issues. Instead they mendaciously claim through
vigorous public relations propaganda efforts that they respect
the environment and are merely providing energy to "improve" our
standard of living.
They have a long history of destroying promising renewable
energy technologies in their infancy.
In the 1920's it was Rockefeller that funded the efforts to
obtain Prohibition. It had nothing to do with sin or people
drinking. It had everything to do with destroying ethanol as a
competitor to gasoline (with Prohibition, farmers could no
longer make their own fuel for their tractors or grow the fuel
to sell to automobile owners - Rockefeller, rather than our
farmers, profited from the growth of the automobile because
ethanol - a superior fuel - was illegal). By the time
Prohibition ended, the myth that gasoline "outcompeted" ethanol
was well entrenched in society.
Now the fossil fuelers claim ethanol from plants takes food off
the table. That is another bold faced lie that has been exposed
with crop land statistics worldwide. But that never stops these
ethics free pro-fossil fuel propagandists from repeating the
lies. They have to because their product (gasoline) is, not just
poisonous, it's less efficient too! And yeah, they lie day and
night about the efficiency of gasoline versus ethanol too.
Ethanol was always a superior fuel. That's why the laws were
rigged to get it out of the way for big oil to push their
refinery waste product (gasoline) onto us. The dirty energy
defenders continue the disinformation campaign about ethanol to
this day.
HTML http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/liesofbigoil
HTML http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/liesofbigoil
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg26/#msg26
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/renewables/ethanol/msg26/#msg26
In the 1930s, the promise of chemurgy (now re-discovered in the
21st century along with the resurgence of ethanol as a superior
internal combustion engine fuel) was crushed by a group of
magnates from fossil fuels, paper products and pharmaceuticals
who saw their profits threatened. Had chemurgy been utilized to
make every product previously made from hydrocarbons (plastics,
pharmaceuticals, paints, fuel, lubricants, etc.) to be made,
instead, from plant based carbohydrates, the oil industry would
have have lost their monopoly as a feedstock for these products.
The plant based carbohydrate chemurgy also threatened the paper
industry which had millions invested in forest harvesting rather
than quick growing, environmentally friendly plants that could
produce everything from paper to clothing to shoes without
destroying forests.
Once again, Renewable energy was destroyed in its infancy.
Farmers, once again, suffered while large fossil fuel and
chemical industries (the most horrendous polluters on the
planet) gained more wealth by gaming the laws, NOT by fair
competition, as they claim.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/how-the-promise-of-chemurgy-was-dashed-by-big-oil/
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/how-the-promise-of-chemurgy-was-dashed-by-big-oil/
The only really major advance in renewable energy was the
massive dam building project of the 1930s and 1940s that
produced a penetration of over 30% of our electrical grid
powered by renewable energy. To this day, we have not gotten to
that level. Yes, the grid is much larger but we had the
technology to go fully renewable several decades ago. It was
blocked because plutonium was needed for bombs. Nuclear power
plants, outrageously expensive in comparison to dams, were sold
to us as "too cheap to meter" when the truth was hidden behind a
veil of secrecy.
So much so that the costs of mining, refining and manufacturing
fuel rod assemblies (that last only 5 to 7 years before having
to be secured at taxpayer cost for centuries!) were totally
covered up in the miasma of "National Security" (along with
Navajo miner cancer clusters).
Those of you that claim it really was justified for national
security in the cold war, I challenge you to explain WHY, if it
was ONLY about National Security, these nuclear power plant
radioactive white elephants that we-the-people were bamboozled
into paying for, did not REMAIN IN PUBLIC HANDS? Oh no, they
became FOR PROFIT cash cows for utility investors while
we-the-people, STILL TO THIS DAY, are holding the bag for
nuclear accidents. Take your "National Security" baloney
somewhere else.
Now that we don't need all that plutonium, the truth is finally
coming out. We need nuclear power plants like a dog needs ticks!
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/what-a-nuclear-power-plant-really-is/msg160/#msg160
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/what-a-nuclear-power-plant-really-is/msg160/#msg160
NOTE: All the radionuclides needed in medicine for imaging can
be manufactured in cyclotrons safely. No nuclear reactors are
needed for nuclear medicine! The radionuclides made in
cyclotrons have extremely short half lives making them safe for
the environment AND superior for imaging than longer lived
radionuclide's made in nuclear power plants pushed on to nuclear
"medicine" as an added nuclear power plant cash cow (otherwise,
they are just hazardous waste).
As our electrical grid grew with more fossil fuel coal poisoning
our children along with the added radiation and CO2 gradually
building up, dirty energy celebrated its hegemony over the
energy spigot.
It has now become common knowledge how much we-the-people have
been coerced into spending to keep the fossil fuel industry's
profits happy.
This quote fro the peer reviewed book by Dilworth pretty much
sums up what "cheap" fossil fuels have cost the American people,
and by extension, caused grievous harm to the entire planet's
people and biosphere.
--- Quote ---
> Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp.
399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
>
> "As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a
cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this
way we can partly understand e.g. the American military
expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first
Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion
projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to
obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the
$27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.
>
> In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings
heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on
the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil
fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from
the Middle East.
>
> So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per
barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to
bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area
had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price,
money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the
Middle East.
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables
HTML http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables
We finally developed the solar panel when we had no other choice
(energy in space). Tell me, do you honestly think the solar
panel could not have been developed in the 1930s and 1940s
INSTEAD of the atomic bomb and for maybe a tenth of the cost? Of
course it could have! The photoelectric physics was understood.
All they needed was money. Big oil and nuclear bomb and power
advocates made certain they did not get it.
And that brings us to the 1980s when the same forces that acted
successfully against renewable energy in the 1920s and 1930s
came together to organize a massive attack on renewable energy,
in any form, again.
They succeeded. Now they continue to claim that solar, wind
,tide, ocean current, modernized hydro, etc cannot compete with
"cheap" fossil fuels. It was a lie in 1980 and an even more
monstrous lie now. In order to perpetrate this Orwellian
fantasy, many millions were, and are being, paid to politicians
and propaganda outlets from the news media to astroturf pretend
representatives of common people to conscience free advertising
agencies that will say anything for a buck.
--- Quote ---
> Reagan is a key reason we have only about one-sixth of the
soaring global market for windpower — an industry we once
dominated: “President Reagan cut the renewable energy R&D budget
85% after he took office and eliminated the wind investment tax
credit in 1986. This was pretty much the death of most of the US
wind industry” (see “Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks
at foreign wind company“).
>
> Reagan gutted Carter’s entire multi-billion dollar clean
energy and energy efficiency effort. He opposed and then rolled
back fuel economy standards. Reagan turned all such commonsense
strategies into “liberal” policies that must be opposed by any
true conservative, a position embraced all too consistently by
conservative leaders from Gingrich to Bush/Cheney and now to
John McCain.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/07/08/202854/who-got-us-in-this-energy-mess-start-with-ronald-reagan/
HTML http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/07/08/202854/who-got-us-in-this-energy-mess-start-with-ronald-reagan/
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/40-years-back-40-years-forward/msg478/#msg478
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/40-years-back-40-years-forward/msg478/#msg478
Friends of Renewable Energy:
Those of you fellow Homo sapiens that live in the reality based
community and understand objectively and dispassionately that
what is at stake is the very existence of mankind and much of
the biosphere, need to also understand that the forces that kept
renewable energy from competing on a level energy playing field
are trying to do it again. Don't let them. Challenge every
single myth, assumption and egregious happy talk lie about
fossil fuels and nuclear power from the very beginning of their
use. They were NEVER competitive with Renewable Energy, PERIOD.
People, poison is poison. Repeat that to these people that don't
see the connection between a car running in a closed garage and
what they are doing to the planet.
If those people do see the connection and don't care, do your
part to put them behind bars. I am not kidding. People that are
complicit in causing the death of humans are considered
accessories to murder.
The victims of this premeditated crime are not limited to humans
but extend to the entire biosphere. The fact that it's not
personal, just "business", exposes the mens rea psychopathic
thinking of these willful planet trashers .
Stop them or we have no future.
Make the above chart a reality and we have a chance to make
amends for our insane wasteful ways and open the path to a
sustainable future.
HTML http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/agelbert
HTML http://thehalloffame.wikidot.com/agelbert
[move]
"Whether one views the modern world as insane or not may even be
a criterion of one’s own sanity." Masanobu Fukuoka[/move]
Article chart at link:
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2014/01/outrageously-positive-renewable-energy-growth-prediction.html
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2014/01/outrageously-positive-renewable-energy-growth-prediction.html
#Post#: 7125--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 13, 2017, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://geothermalexpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/REW-logo-new.jpg
[center]Expansion of Switzerland's 480-MW FMHL Pumped Storage
Plant Complete[/center]
[center]
HTML http://aemstatic-ww1.azureedge.net/content/hydro/en/articles/2017/05/expansion-of-switzerland-s-480-mw-fmhl-pumped-storage-plant-complete/_jcr_content/leftcolumn/article/thumbnailimage.img.jpg[/center]
[center]Switzerland's 480-MW FMHL pumped storage plant [/center]
LAUSANNE, Switzerland
05/12/2017
By Michael Harris Associate Editor
More than 200 guests were on hand today as Swiss utility Alpiq
inaugurated the expanded 480-MW Forces Montrices Hongrin-Leman
pumped storage hydroelectric plant.
The addition of two new 120 MW turbines makes it the
second-largest pumped storage plant in Switzerland, Alpiq said —
not only contributing to the country's power security, but also
its contributions to the European Commission's Energy Strategy
2050 gas emissions goals. 60 MW of the plant's capacity will act
as a reserve, helping balance Switzerland's growing wind and
solar
sectors.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp
"Switzerland is fortunate to have a powerful hydroelectric
infrastructure that enables it to take up the challenge of
efficiently integrating intermittent energies into its energy
system," said Benoit Revaz, director of the Swiss Federal Office
of Energy.
The cost of the US$328.7 million plant was split amongst three
partners, with Romande Energie, Alpiq, Groupe E and the city of
Lausanne assuming 41.14 percent, 32.29 percent, 13.14 percent
and 6.43 percent shares, respectively.
Feasibility studies for the FMHL expansion were conducted a
decade ago. The pair of new turbines increases its output
capacity from 240 MW and are house in a 100-meter long, 25-meter
wide and 56-meter tall cavern with remote operation provided by
Alpiq's Centre d'Exploitation et de Gestion de la Production in
Lausanne.
--- Quote ---
>
[center]
HTML http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130526134221/plantsvszombies/images/8/84/Sunflower-HQ.pngSwitzerland's<br
/>1,000-MW Linthal pumped storage project, inaugurated in
January
2016, has the honor of being the country's largest.[/center]
--- End Quote ---
[center]
HTML http://www.tunnel-online.info/imgs/100837033_8d7b4eaf65.jpg[/center]
[center]Linthal pumped storage tunnel[/center]
[center]
HTML http://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2014/05/Mountain-cross-section.png[/center]
[center]
HTML http://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2014/05/Gruner-pumped-hydro-storage-facility.png[/center]
[center]Switzerland's 1,000-MW Linthal pumped storage
project[/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.hydroworld.com/content/hydro/en/articles/2016/10/swiss-hydropower-profitability-affected-by-weak-power-prices/_jcr_content/leftcolumn/article/thumbnailimage.img.jpg[/center]
[center]Located in the Linthal Valley in eastern Switzerland,
the Limmern pumped-storage plant uses water pumped from Lake
Limmern to Lake Mutt to generate energy.
HTML http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2016/10/swiss-hydropower-profitability-affected-by-weak-power-prices.html[/center]
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/05/expansion-of-switzerland-s-480-mw-fmhl-pumped-storage-plant-complete.html
#Post#: 9539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dam Hydropower
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: April 22, 2018, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170218174357.png
[center]Damen Dredging Equipment launches new DOP Dredger
Series[/center]
April 19, 2018 by Mike McDonald
[center]
HTML http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/New-Damen-DOP-Dredger-Series-1_lowres.jpg[/center]
Damen Dredging Equipment has launched a new DOP Dredger Series
following the success of the DOP submersible dredge pump, which
has proved its versatility across the globe.
Damen has built more than 20 DOP dredgers on a one-off basis and
at least 380 DOP pumps. The DOP submersible dredge pump has been
such a great success over the last 25 years because of its
simple concept, which is based on a well-proven dredge pump,
directly driven by a hydraulic or electric motor, assembled in a
rigid housing with the ability to attach all kinds of
specialised suction devices, such as mining heads or cutter
units. Moreover, the DOP can easily be connected to excavators,
cranes, etc.
Olivier Marcus, Damen Product Director Dredging, explains: “In
the past we have had many requests for ‘ad hoc’ dredgers using a
DOP pump. So we have listened to our clients and learnt from
that. They told us mobility and a deep, dredging depth were
vital. The knowledge and experience we have gained over the
years has now led to the development of a new standard series of
DOP Dredgers focusing on maximum sand production at significant
depths and practical transport and assembly due to the limited
unit weights.”
Dams, mining and sand winning
In recent years there has been more demand for specialised
dredgers from hydroelectric dam/water reservoir operators, sand
mining companies, and dredging companies carrying out sand
winning for reclamation projects, he adds. “There are probably
tens of thousands of hydropower dams and water reservoirs in the
world built in the last decades. As the flow of the river is
dramatically reduced, the sediment it carries settles by the
dam. The DOP dredger is ideal to tackle dam maintenance work.”
DOP dredgers are also very good for deep sand winning. “Mining
companies are going deeper and deeper for minerals. And
separately, there is a lot more land reclamation taking place.
The DOP dredger, with the submerged DOP pump, can go much deeper
to win sand when compared to a Cutter Suction Dredger.”
[center]
HTML http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/New-Damen-DOP-Dredger-Series-3_lowres-1.jpg[/center]
Depths to 100 m
The new Damen DOP Dredger Series makes use of the standard DOP
150, 200, 250 and 350, which have a mixture capacity ranging
from 600m3/h to 2,400 m3/h. Due to the use of a submerged dredge
pump, the DOP Dredger is simply able to reach depths other
dredgers cannot, with an ability to dredge to 100 m. Damen is
also introducing an all-electric version of the DOP Dredger,
which is particularly appealing for maintenance dredging at
hydroelectric dams.
Remote locations
Often projects are taking place in very remote areas, Mr Marcus
adds, in the case of hydroelectric dams, high up in the
mountains where road access is not easy. Here, the DOP Dredger
is ideal because it is easily dismountable and transportable
because even its largest components are never bigger than a
standard container size. It also has a limited weight, so can be
assembled with a small crane.
Quick delivery times
The Damen DOP Dredger Series can be delivered at very short
notice. The DOP pumps, power packs and pontoons are standard and
therefore in stock. “We can have a fully built up dredger ready
for the customer within a few weeks or if customers prefer, it
can be built on-site or at a location of their choice.”
It is also possible to change the suction head depending on the
project, giving a lot of flexibility, he points out. For example
for compact material, a cutter can be installed, or a water
injection head to boost production in free flowing sand.
Mr Marcus concludes: “The DOP Dredger client benefits from
Damen’s standardised products, which offer a well proven design
and provide guaranteed performance, and on top of that the
dredgers can be delivered promptly to the customer, no matter
how remote they are.”
For more information please look at www.damen.com.
[center]
HTML http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/New-Damen-DOP-Dredger-Series-2_lowres.jpg[/center]
HTML http://gcaptain.com/damen-dredging-equipment-launches-new-dop-dredger-series/
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page