Hydroelectric vs. Slow Volcanic Power

One very keen analyst visited the Grand Coulee Dam this summer. Grand Coulee is the largest concrete structure in North America, and the fourth largest dam on Earth. (Two dams in South America and one in China are larger.) At 6,809 megawatts of rated electric power, Grand Coulee is also the largest point source of energy in North America. The spillway alone is twice the height of Niagara Falls.

Grand Coulee contains 24 million tons of concrete and 12 million tons of steel.  Back when they constructed Grand Coulee in the 1930s, 12 million tons of steel would have built 240 battleships. So that’s a lot of steel.

But devoting massive amounts of resources is exactly what you have to do when you want to build energy systems and produce a lot of energy. People made that choice back in the 1930s. They spent the money, dedicated the labor and resources and built the dam.

Now, about 66 years after the first turbine started spinning, we are still benefiting. So there’s certainly a lesson for our time in the history of the Grand Coulee Dam.

Hydro power [as published by the USGS must be one of the oldest methods of producing power.

No doubt, Jack the Caveman stuck some sturdy leaves on a pole and put it in a moving stream. The water would spin the pole that crushed grain to make their delicious, low-fat prehistoric bran muffins. People have used moving water to help them in their work throughout history, and modern people make great use of moving water to produce electricity.

Hydroelectric Power for the Nation

Although most energy in the United States is produced by fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants, hydroelectricity is still important to the Nation, as about 10 percent of total power is produced by hydroelectric plants. Nowadays, huge power generators are placed inside dams. Water flowing through the dams spin turbine blades (made out of metal instead of leaves) which are connected to generators. Power is produced and is sent to homes and businesses.

World distribution of hydropower

• Hydropower is the most important and widely-used renewable source of energy.
• Hydropower represents 19% of total electricity production.
• Canada is the largest producer of hydroelectricity, followed by the United States and Brazil.
• Approximately two-thirds of the economically feasible potential remains to be developed. Untapped hydro resources are still abundant in Latin America, Central Africa, India and China.

Producing electricity using hydroelectric power has some advantages over other power-producing methods. Let's do a quick comparison:

Advantages to hydroelectric power:
Fuel is not burned so there is minimal pollution
Water to run the power plant is provided free by nature
Hydropower plays a major role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Relatively low operations and maintenance costs
The technology is reliable and proven over time
It's renewable - rainfall renews the water in the reservoir, so the fuel is almost always there

Disadvantages to power plants that use coal, oil, and gas fuel:
They use up valuable and limited natural resources
They can produce a lot of pollution
Companies have to dig up the Earth or drill wells to get coal, oil, and gas
For nuclear power plants there are waste-disposal problems

Hydroelectric power is not perfect, though, and does have some disadvantages:
High investment costs
Hydrology dependent (precipitation)
In some cases, inundation of land and wildlife habitat
In some cases, loss or modification of fish habitat
Fish entrainment or passage restriction
In some cases, changes in reservoir and stream water quality
In some cases, displacement of local populations

"Slow volcanic" power, also known as "geothermal energy," is a greener way to make electricity. It can operate 24 hours a day, yet few realize why it is so advantageous. You can suck steam out of the ground around the clock.

"Slow volcanic" plant whips up electricity for at least 21.6 hours a day. On average, a "slow volcanic" power plant can blast out electricity for almost four times as long as solar power. Hydroelectric power can produce electricity 24 hours a day as long as there is enough water, but hydro electric has real advantages.

As the USGS site asks, "Why don't we use it [hydroelectric power] to produce all of our power? Mainly because you need lots of water and a lot of land where you can build a dam and reservoir, which all takes a LOT of money, time, and construction.

"In fact, most of the good spots to locate hydro plants have already been taken. In the early part of the century hydroelectric plants supplied a bit less than one-half of the nation's power, but the number is down to about 10 percent today. The trend for the future will probably be to build small-scale hydro plants that can generate electricity for a single community."

So as is obvious, in order to replace the big, fossil fuel powered electricity plants and the power they generate, we will need to build and expand upon the potential for "slow volcanic power". Geothermal power generation has many important advantages.

The United States generates more geothermal electricity than any other country but the amount of electricity it produces is less than one-half of a percent of electricity produced in United States. Only four states have geothermal power plants, California, Nevada, Hawaii and Utah. So there still a lot to be accomplished in creating the "slow volcanic power companies and plants" that can begin to make up for the limitations and disadvantages of hydroelectric.

Take a look at all the areas in the US where "slow volcanic power" can get harnessed. The opportunity is enormous!

This is why companies like Nevada Geothermal (NGLPF.OB) and US Geothermal (HTM) are worth watching and considering, and more investment opportunities await.

Disclosure: None

Comments

[buyitcheap:]

Geothermal is 100% the way to go straightforward and long term - I like hydro, but the negatives you accurately cite are too high to me (Disclosure: mad fisherman). I am long HTM and CPTC( for the transmission side) as well as CWST which is generating power from smaller methane generators on their waste sites.

2008 Sep 03 08:57 AM

[John Lounsbury:]

Has there ever been a good study of the pros and cons of tidal flow power generation? Also, ever a good study of the feasibility of generation using wave motion?

2008 Sep 03 10:16 AM

[nukehyrdoguy1:]

Geothermal is great but it is not completely waste free. In many wells the water that is used becomes contaminated with toxic heavy metals that will need to be cleaned from the water and disposed of as hazardous waste. Other than that though, it is a trouble free source of power that can produce reliably around the clock.

2008 Sep 03 10:29 AM

[StateofConf...:]

The author didn't mention another company for this sector, RZ. Raser In building geothermal plants now and is starting one in New mexico as well.

2008 Sep 03 10:41 AM

[The Cynic:]

I like this article, but it's not a question of hydro versus geothermal. It's a question of harnassing all the sources of energy in the most cost-effective and ecologically sensitive manner. Each has a role to play and, in my view, hydro and geothermal should have a much greater emphasis than nuclear. It aamazes me that nuclear is so often given the "green" tag of approval. Has everyone forgotten about heavy water discharges and spent nuclear fuel rods???

2008 Sep 03 11:38 AM

[Avatar_of_E...:]

Geothermal would be great if:
a) it actually worked and the water they put into the ground came OUT again. (hint... it usually doesn't)
b)Transmission losses weren't an issue. Lots of geothermal energy up in Wyoming doesn't do the power hungry southern Californians much good.

And to The Cynic:
Wah wah wah nuclear power uses water and has nuclear waste. Your tears are so sweet.

2008 Sep 03 02:37 PM

[wallyjm:]

go to lng as we have great amountsof this natural resource to power vehicles as well as power turbines to produce geenerous amounts of moving electrons. i.e. electricity.

2008 Sep 03 04:29 PM

[surfgrrl:]

As more articles are written about geothermal electric generation potential and application, more people will begin to see what a viable source of power it is, and become less skeptical of the process. They will prove to be good for the economy, as geo is one of the most reliable and constant producers, and requires NO fuel to operate, produce NO greenhouse gasses, and will compete price-wise with coal-fired plants in the production of base-load (constant production) power .
As to transporting the power: many geo resources are very close to the large and growing population centers of the southwest (check the map in the article), and plants are being built in those areas. Since they are completely non-polluting, there are not issues of toxicity to local populations. Some of these can now be built very quickly: Raser Technologies is implementing a process that will allow very rapid deployment. Their first plant (in Utah ) is scheduled to come online in 2 months - they broke ground in May of this year.

2008 Sep 04 11:46 AM

[Road Runner:]

I don't understand your map. The map appears to say that geothermal is available in over 90% of the US. Is that right?

2008 Sep 04 05:34 PM

[Wildhawk:]

Another stock not mentioned in the article is Brookfield Asset Management (NYSE and TSX- BAM). Brookfield is the largest publicly traded operator of hydroelectric power plants in North America (though, hydro power generation doesn't generate anything close to a majority of their revenue- the overwhelming majority comes from commercial and residential real estate through subsidiaries Brookfield Properties (BPO) and Brookfield Homes (BHS)).
Disclosure: Long BAM

2008 Sep 04 10:25 PM

[r_craig@bas...:]

Once geothermal generating companies get on board with T. Boone people will hear about them. One comercial demonstrating the efficency and cleanliness of the method is all they will need to realize what a gem this is.
As far as heavy metals getting into the water I never heard the people in Greenland say anything about such a tale. From what I understand the pipes are set in a coil at the bottom of the well and a hermaticly sealed system is created by partially backfilling the well bottom with mud or concrete to aid in heat transfer. The water never actually comes i contact with the earth or lava. One the wells are too shallow andd the engineers avoid such extreme hot spots due to the risk involved. Two the system is a partially hermetic double loop system so the water being sent into the well never comes in contact with the generators.
The system is basically a copy of the nuclear system without the rods.

2008 Sep 10 02:19 PM

[Learning Curve:]

Basic question that I hope can be answered in this forum –either by you, Mark Courtenay, or by another contributor: Is NGLPF to be considered a utility stock, an energy stock, an industrial stock, a growth stock, a value play? Is it speculative, staid? In order to include it in my portfolio, I would like to understand how it should be viewed as compared to RZ, ORA, Excel, or Pacific Gas & Electric, GE, etc.

2008 Sep 16 07:12 PM

[Chris B:]

nukehydroguy,
If the heavy metals counterargument had any weight, mining would have to be outlawed too. And if you consider that geothermal energy offsets coal burning, there is a net reduction in lead, mercury, etc. emitted. Most geotherm plants cool and reuse the same water anyway. Putting byproducts back into the hole doesn't seem difficult. As a poster pointed out on another article, the brine byproduct is actually a profitable source of lithium - you know... as in lithium-ion.

Road Runner,
Geotherm is available anywhere if you dig deep enough, but the red spots are the cheapest places to produce. Although the yellow-orange spots are not economical compared to prices of other sources of energy, the prices of other sources of energy don't account for costs such as oil wars, energy dependence, nuclear waste disposal, lead and mercury pollution from coal, defense of nuclear plants from terrorism, etc. Taxpayers get to bear the costs of coal and nuclear.

2008 Sep 17 12:49 PM

[Zoey R:]

You make a very good point on both, but what is the cost for both on cents/kW/hr?
If someone knows the answer could you tell me what web-site to go to. I am doing this for a report in science.

2008 Nov 29 08:00 PM