Douse the flames of warming with water

It is reputed that Winston Churchill once said, “Americans always do the right thing – but only after trying every other possible solution.” I thought of Churchill’s wry comment when I noticed the absence of a word from the public discourse on global warming. The word has apparently been excised from the vocabulary of our pundits, politicians and alternative energy experts as too shocking to utter aloud. That word is hydroelectricity: electricity derived from hydroelectric dams fueled by the hydrological cycle. It is the cleanest, cheapest and most efficient form of energy available.

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Energy Information Administration (E.I.A.) hydroelectric dams operate at 90 percent efficiency. The most efficient thermal powered generators are only 50 percent efficient. Another advantage is the ability of hydropower to restart generation almost instantly after a blackout, and some thermal plants can take days to go back on line. The water behind the dam is the most practical way to store large amounts of energy, and is ready to be used at the flip of a switch to open the taps.

Most old thermal powered plants burned coal and their smoke stacks were relatively short, causing dirty air in the locality, and soot all over everything nearby. When the neighbors complained, they solved the problem by building taller chimneys which expelled the smoke higher into the atmosphere where it was carried by the wind over into the next state. This caused acid rain downwind which killed fish and vegetation in the lakes, so they put scrubbers in the chimneys to clean the smoke. That seemed to work for the acid, but it didn’t eliminate the greenhouse gases. Now that the greenhouse gases are becoming a threat to the planet, they are thinking of ways to pump these gases deep into underground reservoirs; thus confirming Churchill’s observation.

Besides requiring no fuel to burn, a hydroelectric dam is a long-term capital investment. According to the EIA; the Department of Energy hydropower program estimated a capital cost of $1,700 – $2,300 per kilowatt-hour with an operating life of 50 or more years. Running at only 40 to 50 percent capacity, they estimated the total cost of generated power to be 2.4 cents per kwh. The operation and maintenance costs took 0.7 cents per kwh of the total. If run at full capacity, the cost would be only about a penny per kwh. Hydropower costs one-third of nuclear or fossil fuel generation.

As for longevity of service, the Conowingo dam, built by the Philadelphia Electric Co. on the Susquehanna went in service in 1928. It is still a major source of power, (548 megawatts) and is the most reliable source during a blackout for that heavily populated, highly industrialized region. When built it was the second largest power plant in the country, second to Niagara falls. Compare Conowingo dam’s 78 years of service, and still going strong; to Maine Yankee’s (900 megawatts) for 25 years before having to be shut down, and leaving us with a radioactive mess. And I wonder how long those 400 foot windmills will withstand a couple of our hundred-mile-per-hour Maine gales.

According to the Almanac, we produce 3,979 billion kwh annually, and the EIA says we import an extra 42,930,212 megawatt hours from Canada. Canada produces 62 percent of its electricity by hydropower. The EIA pie chart shows that 50 percent of our electricity is generated by burning coal, 20 percent is nuclear powered, 19 percent is from burning natural gas, and 61/2 percent is from hydropower. It isn’t that we don’t have enough rivers to produce more; the Nuclear Resource Service, no friend of hydropower, estimates that “hydropower can be increased by at least 50 percent.” We currently have 79,511 megawatt hours of hydropower installed, but we have 260,400 gigawatt hours worth of hydropower going unused. One gigawatt hour is equal to 1,000 megawatt hours. Apparently we could generate all of our electricity without burning anything.

The Bush administration assured us they, too, are concerned about the environment, but according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor on Sept. 15, 2006, they have cut funds for hydropower research altogether. They explained that hydropower was “mature enough for private enterprise to take the lead.” Could it be because President Bush has ties to the oil, gas and coal interests? Should we question President Bush’s motives for giving us $10 million to tear down the hydroelectric dams for the Penobscot River Restoration Project? I think the money would be better spent restoring the dams, even enlarging them, and constructing fish escalators for the salmon.

Homere A. Dansereau is a resident of Addison.