This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Hydroelectric Revolution: A River Runs Through It
Submitted by Martin Katusa at Casey Research
Hydroelectric Revolution: A River Runs Through It
Two years ago, British Columbia’s premier electric utility company,
BC Hydro, issued its “Clean Power Call” – a bid for the province to
achieve electric self-sufficiency through renewable energy by 2016.
That aggressive goal sparked an intense competition. Renewable energy
companies of all stripes were jostling each other to prove that their
project was the best, and to win a coveted Electricity Purchase
Agreement (EPA).
When the EPAs were finally handed out, one green technology captured
over half of the sixteen contracts awarded. The overwhelming winner?
Not solar and wind, but a relatively obscure type of hydroelectric
power that is quickly becoming all the rage: run of river.
It’s no secret that hydroelectricity sits near the top of the renewable
energy list. But hydro invariably conjures images of soaring concrete
dams, rerouted rivers and flooding, environmental damage and displaced
people. Not to mention the stiff price tag that comes with such an
immense engineering project.
However, as British Columbia is proving, hydroelectric power generation
is not limited to just dams. For junior hydroelectric companies, these
run-of-river projects are a less expensive, more efficient, and
fish-friendlier way to get in on the energy game. They’re also a
ground-floor investment opportunity.
Run of river exploits the elevation drop of a river. Power stations are
built on rivers with a consistent and steady flow, either natural or
regulated by a reservoir at the head of the facility. There is no need
to flood large tracts of land to keep the plant humming during the dry
season; run-of-river projects simply use a weir (a small, only
partially blocking dam) to divert some water via a penstock (delivery
pipe). As the water flows downhill, it picks up the speed necessary to
spin the turbines in the powerhouse and create electricity. The
diverted water then joins the river again through a channel known as a
tailrace.
Everything is done within the natural range of the river. There’s no
need for the concrete monstrosities that come with large-scale damming
– or the associated environmental controversy. At the most, a weir is
constructed to submerge the mouth of the penstock. Capital outlays are
relatively low, the ecological footprint from the projects is quite
small, and if the geology is right, engineers can tailor the technology
to the terrain, rather than having to wrestle with it.
Run of river just might be the ultimate in green power. On the one
hand, with its near-zero emissions, it stacks up favorably against
conventional, polluting sources of energy. At the same time, it has a
distinct advantage over other renewables, like solar and wind. There’s
no need for the costly backup generation units these technologies
require to operate on calm days or at night.
These power plants have actually been around since the 1970s, but the
technology has only started to take off in the last few years. In
countries that can, and do, use hydro as a power source, the
competition for contracts is becoming fierce. And thanks to the
comparatively low costs, junior, small-cap companies are making out
especially well, leaving the big boys to handle the staggering debt and
the environmental protests associated with huge dams. Smaller-scale
projects mean fewer headaches while providing excellent returns on
investment.
Of course, nothing’s perfect, and run of river has its challenges. One
is that without a large dam or reservoir, there is no way to store
energy and adjust power output according to peak periods of consumer
demand. There are also still environmental issues, albeit much less
drastic than with a traditional dam. Somebody will always object to new
roads and transmission lines. And while the projects are usually sited
away from fish-spawning grounds, aquatic life still can get trapped
behind the weirs or at the mouth of the penstock.
But one of the beauties of the technology is its flexibility.
Engineering solutions like fish ladders, water-velocity regulators, and
careful site design can mitigate many of these concerns. The smarter
companies also work closely with local communities, to head off
problems early on.
The biggest limitation is geology. These generators can’t be built
across just any old river; only regions with a favorable lay of the
land will do. And the next biggest is probably politics. Some African
nations that could really benefit are too unstable to attract
sufficient investment capital. Other countries, like Venezuela, deter
investors because of the risk of nationalization. Still, the good news
is that there is immense potential to be found on almost every
continent, while utilization remains in its infancy. And as
construction designs improve and engineers innovate, project sites that
were formerly only theoretically feasible will become economically
viable.
Run of river will not completely replace conventional hydro. It’s not
meant to. There’s no way naturally running water can compete with
something like the Three Gorges Dam
across the Yangtze River in China, a project which will eventually have
a total electric generating capacity of 22,500 megawatts. By
comparison, the premier U.S. run-of-river plant – the Chief Joseph Dam
on the Columbia River in Washington State – produces a “mere” 2,620 MW.
Be aware, though, that 2,620 MW is hardly trivial. Apply the usual rule
of thumb, where one megawatt will supply the needs of 500-900 average
houses, and this run-of-river plant could serve as many as 2.4 million
homes. Not bad.
As the era of cheap fossil fuels winds down, governments and
entrepreneurs alike are searching for alternative energy sources. Given
run of river’s advantages – low initial cost and maintenance,
flexibility, environmental friendliness – it is poised on the brink of
a major construction boom, in many more places than British Columbia.
It’s going to be an exciting ride, for end users and investors alike.
»
- 11566 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
A great example of how private capital innovates in ways that government bureaucrats can't plan for.
While the state promotes failed technologies like corn ethanol and wind farms, capital finds methods to generate real solutions.
Ethanol and in too many cases wind power is a scam. The powers than be and the politicians know this. It is a way to funnel tax receipts to the priviledged few while placating the sheep something is being done. You can be sure this scheme will be taken advantage of through uneeded tax writeoffs and subsidies. You would have to put a hell of a lot of these to make significant levels of power. One coal fired power plant would probebly be equal to 1000 of these.
yes, this just illustrates the energy density of hydrocarbons that me and others have been talking about.
Wind power, however, is not a scam. There are areas in the US which are consistently windy; the issue is transmission of that power. Our grid sucks
I've heard of plans to use wind to pump water uphill during times of excess energy as a means to store it. Apparently this is already used in some places to take advantage of the price variations.
Ya wind power is a scam. Shoot anybody trying to sell you a sailboat.
There's nothing "green and clean" about hydroelectric dams. A many a migratory fish have become extinct due to hydroelectric...Dams are the worst, flooding prime habitat, creating one gigantic cesspool of shit and back water.
Very correct Rusty. In fact, even in these so called run of the river projects, the water that is looped off the top and fed back after it's energy has been converted, is literally "poison" for the river itself.
Anyone interested in learning more about this and related water issues should really read up on an unsung hero of the last century, Viktor Schauberger.
Take your pick of trusted sources from here for a start:
http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Viktor+Schaube...
He was a Mechanical Tesla (actually I do him a disservice by the comparison, but Tesla is better known). Read one of his books and you might re-value your entire outlook to the industrial revolution, with all of it's deleterious cause and effects.
Run of the river, I'm afraid is just more run of the mill.
Abundant energy is only available through resonant systems.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
Tend to agree. Run of the river solutions are a little better, because they allow most of the nutrients to flow downriver (at least to the next resevoir). The Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite N.P. for example, is a travesty in terms of habitat and natural beauty lost to "pewblic werx projects"...so much for .gov protecting the environment for posterity.
Heh...20% of our energy in CA is used just to move our water around....to golf courses...in the desert.
Actually BC Hydro is owned by the public.
This was the initiative of government bureaucrats.
Now remind me again of PG&E's latest fantastic innovation.
oh yeah, I remember now, 41 million dollars on prop 16
Is it possible for you to stay ON TOPIC on only one article you post under, and not draw non-existing parallels between private vs. public.
I know it sounds awesome [and will probably get you a lot of "Whoa dude; thats deep" and "Yeah; you rock" cheers] in this day and age to rant against everything non-private etc etc, but constantly evoking Phantasms of universal non-beneficiary governmental involvement is really really REALLY tiresome.
This is not 1992; and you are not Fukuyama [who was wrong then the same as he is now].
The only thing you manage to achieve with your constant propagation of orthodox free-market capitalism is mis-interpreting [or purposely skewing] the possible hybrid nature of a solution which would set the world towards a more sustainable and non-volatile Globality.
Most of the theories and philosophies I see quoted here are, at best, out-dated. There are no meta-narratives, there are no supra-methodologies and no meta-dynamics which could offer a unified solution. None.
The diffusion and structure of Power makes sure of that. Every and all meta-narratives have either been either obliterated or have deteriorated in their influence significantly. EVERY.ONE.OF.THEM.
Starting with Zoroastrianism and ending with Free Market Liberalism.
This is essentially what PG&E did with their Feather River project back in the 30's. There are some dams though but it is a cool project. Enviro's hate it though. Fish migration was blocked....but so what? In the late 1960's the Oroville Power/water dam was built as a federal project at the bottom of the run.
Only an earthquake can hurt this.
If it's truly a productive venture, then it shouldn't need political pull, massive subsidies, and government mandates. It should be able to compete in the real world where prices have to cover costs.
More or less free renewable energy from a simple easy-to-maintain technology is not economically productive and will never be in a scarcity based system like ours, for the same reason there aren't air vending machines.
Huh? In a "scarcity based system like ours"? What "system" is that, reality?
There aren't air vending machines because air is so abundant as to have zero marginal cost.
Energy has a very real cost. Anyone who has a legitimate way to produce it for cheaper than existing costs should be able to make a killing with no need for subsidies and mandates forced upon the productive members of society.
To suggest that free energy is so cheap it isn't economically viable, and therefore we must be taxed into oblivion for something we'd never pay for voluntarily, is an amazing feat of logic.
I say put micro versions in the sewer systems and never worry about those rivers running dry.
not to mention the methane the contents would produce.
slogan - drink more beer and light up your night life...
try this on: http://www.sqwalk.com/bc2009/001583.html
Tidal is where it's at.
I grew up in this area.. the tides in the summer run 13 knots plus at max... far more stable than a river - and you know the flow via tide charts.
there are a ton of great ideas out there..
Bingo here, BINGO
Tidal is where it's at, hell, I have already designed a working model...really, it's that simple...anchor a barge...pump jack apparatus in reverse...TA-DAAA !!
California has had problems paying its electrical bill from British Columbia. That was years ago though
Yes, but only because BC demanded cash up front before any deliveries took place.
Those Canadians are REALLY smart, and needed to be, considering California's finances.
What do you think the chances are of getting a new run-of-the-river hydro plant through the environmental lobby? Slim and none. There is also the issue of building the new transmission lines required to wheel the power from the source to the interconnection points and onto the grid. And no one wants a transmission line affecting their beautiful view of the mountains, the river or the sunset. And besides, transmission lines cause brain cancer.
I might also point out that California in particular has suffered great shortages of power during years when snowfall in the Northwest has been below winter averages and the snowmelt has been insufficient to generate enough electricity to meet demand.
and speaking of the beauty of unfettered markets, enron didn't help either.
Hope you're joking there. The "deregulation" leading up to Enron was just a bunch of control freak politicians throwing every bad regulation they could come up with on the pile and slapping the "deregulation" label on it because they still didn't think it had enough taxes, fees, subsidies, and arbitrary rules.
Utilities were forbidden from entering long term contracts that let them lock in stable prices and plan around consistent supply. Instead, they had to start negotiating all their power needs on the extremely short term spot market.
All expansions and facility updates were swamped with even more red tape. The end result was a heavily restricted supply, and little flexibility for dealing with the unexpected.
The smallest shock to energy prices meant companies immediately falling all over each other trying to lock in supply at any price, turning cycles into bubbles (how familiar) and opening the door to all kinds of fraudulent gaming within the bloated system.
So it is not a substitute, just a limited addition. This should be the first disclaimer at the top.
Obvious, but should be a second disclaimer.
All the rest is hype. Small and micro hidro plants are common worldwide and because they don't have a large water reservoir they are subject to an above average drought season.
lots of less polluting power has this limitation. so be creative in what is regarded as a "battery" to store power during peak generation for use during weak generation.
That is quite obvious, Jeff. But the "revolution" stated in the article is nothing but hype, it's nothing new except a silly registered name.
There are many types of small and micro hidro power plants. That is the most common type.
As an example, I saw at least two in Chile, and assume there are many more, that take water from melting ice in the Andes, not a lot of water but the altitude drop makes it viable. No peak/weak/battery excuse necessary: they don't work in the winter.
Awesome nonclaim.
Maybe the west needs to learn demand-side thinking from it's less "advanced" brethren?
They are looking to solve supply side problems with supply side solutions.
Nut gud!
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com
Chief Joe dam is nothing like described in the post. It is a dam the stretches across th Columbia river, just like all of the dams on the Colombia. It is "run of the river" only because it doesn't store vast amounts of water and relies on the Grand Coulee dam to regulate the water for it. At best the generation described will provide less than 1/100th of the power of Chief Joe, but most likely 1/1000th.
That being said, it does provide a crapload of clean energy, as do all of the dams on the Colombia and the Snake River.
seems a bit medival...
Gravity is pretty fuckin' powerful, that's why. This gathers way more power than any peasant windmill could.
These types of power generation are important to the big cities. Small towns, 30K to 75K, need something so that they do not have to run transmission lines from the river generator storage farms to their town 120 miles away. The grid is exactly that; a grid. It is costly.
We all want clean and green. It is a long way off. The company that creates the technology that allows a town of 40K to purchase/capture low cost power, across the BTU spectrum, will be very successful at ROE.
I've been living with run-of-river micro hydro from a creek on my property for years. No dam, no weirs, no environmental impact. I'm posting this comment using it. 1200kW/hrs a month, day and night, using a 2hp electric motor as a generator.
kW-hrs, not kw per hr. That would be a ton of power.
Seems like you're using the full 2 hp. How big/fast of a creek does that take?
And what's a rough cost you're looking at? In my apartment I'm probably averaging 160 kW-hrs a month, with an outlier around 230 (not sure how that happened). If I used my AC more than a couple times a year that would go up, but I think it's still pretty low.
Never gave much thought to producing my own power because solar/wind are such a joke; with my bills so low it's not even worth it. Something like this seems appealing though.
9' of head and 4CFS (1800GPM) flow through a 10" Francis runner, based on a patent from the 1890's... it delivers about 1400 Watts per hour with a system efficiency of 61%. (A 2hp motor can actually deliver 1800W when run as a generator, since they're over-designed to accommodate loss when run as motors.) I have a really decent creek, two actually, one is still untapped. the installed turbine is a real low-head turbine, not one of the little turgo/Pelton impulse toys... though my second creek would make ~500 W per hour with its 50' of head and lower flow using a turgo.
Water flow is year 'round, no problem with weeks of -12F overnight temps here each winter. Moving water doesn't freeze at an 1800GPM flow rate, and that's maybe 1/10th the creek flow at low water. I also have an old 2kW solar PV array that delivers 10-12kW hours per day average. 10kW hours of battery for a "flywheel" and DC/AC inverters deliver 7.5kW peak constant load power. Solar hot water and heating, too.
With low head reaction turbines, run of river hydro is possible along many water courses ... nobody makes small ones anymore though, at least not in the States. The designs were over 80% efficient in the late 1800's though - and made from wood!
Don't disagree with the effectiveness of small ROR systems like yours, but in most of the west (where flows and gradients allow), you have to purchase/give up water rights to get those flows diverted. Where I live, it's all already spoken for, meaning the cost of the water rights would far exceed the benefit from the power generation for the forseeable future. If you live on the headwaters, this is viable, and it's likely viable for small percentages of streamflow in certain areas (where surplus surface water is available), but on a large scale you have to compete with the surface water rights' holders. Those are the only thing (besides the rocks and the Indians) older than the railroads in this country, and if you've ever tried to fight a railroad you know what I mean.
hhhmmmm, water rights for this application are not traditionally applied. After all, you are only borrowing the water for a certain number of feet elevation. Energy rights would be a better description.
.
What happens to this type of system if the weather is cold enough to cause the river to freeze? The article claims no backup system is required. But I don't know how the turbines would turn under that situation?
A river big enough to making tapping it worthwhile isn't going to freeze solid. We're not talking about a lazy mill stream here, but a real river.
Of course, we have more of those here in the West where we're kind of short of people to use the electricity, but those of us who live here will probably figure out a way to burn all the electricity we can generate, then export the rest.
for the next 100 years, these hydro-energy ideas are pie in the sky. Fossile fuels will cover our energy needs until they are exhausted.
somehow it would seem the price of "fossile fuels" would increase as their exhaustion nears. your estimate of the time is what, your fingers times your toes?
Of course they will, dear.
I remember this from the 70s. On a small scale for a household with a small creek and a sufficient drop. It used a pelton wheel to drive an alternator.
While this is an interesting article, Casey is usually involved in a stock promo (Vancouver style). This story is a bit of a stretch compared to the technologies enabled there. Watch for a company private/common offering!
True, but if somebody can make a buck this way, somebody else can save that same buck doing it all on their own.
EXACTLY! This sounds like an old fashioned pump-and-dump, stock promoters sending out stories to talk about "new" technologies, when this isn't new at all, this is old news for anyone in the power industry.
If anyone remembers, the Vancouver Stock Exchange was one of the most corrupt stock exchanges in North America with plenty of stock promotion scams. I have a couple of friends that made hundreds of thousands of dollars (Canadian dollars when the exchange rate sucked) back in the early 90s buying penny stocks ahead of stock promotion pump and dump scams on the VSE.
This is not something new.
Whoever making this as a news is joking with Engineers.
This is only a solution to very small towns( few hundred people) and the water discharge should be relatively constant throughout the year. it will not work on big scale and big cities. Town must be very close to the electric production, most of the power will be lost in long distances, electric energy will turn into heat in cable lines.
I think that's why they invented transformers.
http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
No, this technology has been in use pretty much forever (although I suppose you mean as electrical power plants). Flour mills, lumber mills, textile mills, cotton mills, etc. from the Industrial Revolution were all powered by water in this manner, by diverting some of a river's flow through a mill race. The term "mill race" refers to the same thing as the "penstock," and the dictionary says "mill race" goes back to the 15th century. However, the ancient Greeks even used water-powered lumber mills.
In France this method has been used for decades to generate electricity for the power grid. The technology is old hat there.
3 words...Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) been rockin hydro power for years...and the gov gets some lovin too. Water is power....frankley if we can have 1 mile deep wells we can have current water cloumn harnessers. 1 Mile deep current harness colums? come on...I sai it here first if noone has thought of it.
TVA...if you know anything about the greatest ecosystem on the planet i.e. Appalachia, you would know that TVA destroyed it.
This "run of river" approach is widely used in France, since many decades. Electricite de France produces electricity from pulling some of the water out numerous streams and even glacier terminus, and bringing those to a place where they drop down onto turbines.
Thousands of water power sites that drove grist mills and saw mills in the 19th century were abandoned when electric power came in.
These small power sources can now be put back into operation thanks to computers. A remote control, computer operated power plant will run indefinitely with only a check by a technician once every month or two to oil the bearings and generally check things over.
Individually they may be small but all together they would rival a new nuclear or fossil fuel power plant at a fraction of the cost. In fact some small scale entrepreneurs have already started doing this. In some cases it is possible to put an old mill dam back in commission for a hundred thousand dollars, using a combination of new and used equipment. Then draw an income of thousands of dollars per month for, well, forever.
The enviros hate this "green project". Just read about Bute Inlet. Plutonic Power which is the main "run of river" hydro companies just shelved the Bute Inlet project for now because of the howling from the people that live in the area. The people opposing this "green project" feel that new roads, bridges and huge transmission lines running through pristine areas is not green after all.
wow... you mean...like a watermill?!?!
Wouldn't it be lovely if all fairy tales were the reality of the day. There's a few problems with this story, one being the source. Casey Research is often simplistic at best and Doug Casey is outspokenly impatient with "environmentalists" . Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the modern world; without exception our actions as a species are having profound effects on the environment in which we live. As an inhabitant of B.C. I've been eyewitness to Run of The Rivers being shoved down the throat of local residents who fought tooth and nail to preserve the last remains of truly pristine wilderness areas in addition to fantastic wild river fish and whitewater runs. Fly up the coast of B.C. sometime and try and find the valleys that haven't felt the choke hold of the human race. A hundred plus years of logging has already left very few B.C. valleys undisturbed. These last remaining beauties are on par with any of the great national parks of the States. What would the reaction be to damning the Merced in Yosemite, blasting miles of tunnel and running hundreds of miles of power lines?
B.C's Premier Gordon Campbell would blow a leper if it meant a few bucks. He's the poster boy of corporate patsies. The lie constantly lied is that B.C. doesn't yet generate enough power for its own needs. And the U.S. is in Afghanistan to protect womens' rights.
These projects can be great, indeed they are better than many other choices. But the massive number of projects proposed, where they have been proposed, and the sometimes criminal manner in which they have been instigated is what have forced many people into stiff opposition.
All I can say is SWEET!! That is something that South America should take advantage of in a big way.
What, so the masters can grow some more people??
There is a very well organized campaign against all these projects, no matter how benign they actually are.
It is backed by the union of BC Hydro employees (can't recall their exact name off the top of my head). They don't want any threat to their monopoly, and their wages, so they've unleashed the environmentalists and a bunch of other useful idiots.
Thus very few of these theoretically approved projects seem to be going anywhere.
BC Hydro is an extraordinarily bloated and wasteful corporation but it just happens to have a huge cash cow thanks to earlier decisions and the luck of geography.
Ya environmentalists when properly confused make the best pawns. Because all you gotta do is lie to them and they will go out blindly and arrogantly spreading the misinformation with pure gusto. You turn their good intentions against them and against everyone.
What most people forget is that most of the hydro projects in the US western states were not hydro power projects first, they were irrigation and "reclamation" projects first, hydropower second. eg, the Hoover Dam was put up to tame the Colorado River, which flooded huge swathes of productive farmland in California. Today, the irrigation delivery made possible by the Hoover Dam makes the Imperial Valley ag powerhouse possible.
Run of the River hydro is nothing new. There's a big river called "Niagara" that has a history of hydro going back to 1851. Also a traditional river-side mill was based on the same prinicipal. BC is full of mountains and is able to leverage these changes in elevation more than it already has. That's great! Places east of the Rockies aren't so lucky...the best locations have already been built. My second choice is nuclear. The overall electricity mix in Canada is pretty low in carbon, so the more that can be exported south the better. Now if Americans would just start buying plug-in cars, we'd be set.
Damless hydro (also known as low head hydro) is an interesting solution, and it's not new:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_head_hydro_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_hydro
But it alone can't solve the energy problem. Damless hydro will be ONE of the solutions, alongside a lot of other tecnologies, like concentrated solar power (CSP), Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and many others...
And we'll be always awaiting for fusion power....
Two thoughts. One, this is not a new technology. As a matter of fact, if you live along a flowing river and state law in your area permits it, you can buy and install a turbine in the river flow that will generate electricity for home use like these: http://www.absak.com/library/hydro-power.
Two, I'm not sure where this is coming from but too many comments suggest that wind is a scam. It's not. Wind is subsidized, but so are a lot of other things. That in and of itself doesn't make it a scam. We will find out if it's a scam when the subsidies expire. In the meantime, my home state of Texas is now generating 6% (http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/21/2208495/texas-wind-industry-has-...)of it's total electricity from wind. That's significant and it saves a ton of coal and natural gas, regardless of whether you like it or not. New technologies are not adopted overnight, and perhaps wind is a transitional technology, but to say it's insignificant and a scam is simply not true.
If regulated by a reservoir at the head of the facility, one way to store energy and adjust power output according to peak periods of consumer demand, would be to pump water back up to the reservoir through a pipeline parallel to the penstock at low periods of demand. But this would only really be necessary for power stations built on rivers with an inconsistent and unsteady flow.
As suggested earlier, the EURUSD daily chart is giving bullish signals.
http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/latest-market-outlook-1
As one unleashed idiot to another UnBearorBull, I'll muster up the last few working brain cells to say B.C Hydro unionists are mere minnows compared to some of the larger issues surrounding ROR.
Some people don't quite have the capability to realize something could go wrong until, for instance, the oil on their favorite beach is fouling their favorite footwear. Others with possibly more foresight and intelligence catch on shall we say, a little bit earlier.
I'm in the slow camp so it took me thirty years to realize that all the hundreds of thousands of salmon that used to pack the river just outside the front door of our house, so many goddamn fish there was barely room for the water, well, heck, they're all gone. Name the species, the last few years the runs have dwindled down to basically zero. And the great bald eagle, the symbol of American power, the majestic birds that used to make such a racquet feeding on the fish a person had a hard time concentrating: especially idiots, they had a really hard time....anyway, the eagles, well they're at the dump now feeding off garbage and the occasional seagull that gets its feet tangled up in plastic six pack tops.
Now I'm not saying ROR is responsible for that, though, come to think about it, there is a hydroelectric dam and diversion upstream from us which I guess really hasn't helped matters.
Perhaps try imagining the fish as canaries and the coast of B.C. as one big coal mine. Their continued decimation can be attributed to many factors all stemming from one factor: humans.
Very dedicated people from our region gave up many hours of their time to finalize an official government plan to integrate ROR with fish habitat, recreation, viewscape, native issues....the list goes on and so did the work involved. The result? Our Backdoor Man freshly greased by Ledcor, instigated emergency legislation and, like previously mentioned, shoved it down our throats.
The point? ROR's can be brilliant, or not. And if not, they can as damaging as any other man made imposition gone wrong.
A city-commissioned report from Miller Ecological Consultants of Fort Collins found that that a minimum of 13.3 cubic feet per second of water needs to be in Castle Creek to ensure healthy fish and plant life, although the stream often doesn’t contain much more water than that.
The city plans to divert a maximum of 25 cfs from Castle Creek to run the turbine of the proposed facility, which would be located in a new building under the Castle Creek Bridge on Power Plant Road. After running the turbine, water would be fed back into Castle Creek. The plant could generate up to 5.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually.
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/141044