Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Old Technology For Renewable Energy At Hugh Moore Park
NorCo Exec Lamont McClure yesterday announced a $1.4 million grant from the Pennsylvania Alternative Clean Energy Program for the construction of a new 520 kW zero emissions hydro facility at Hugh Moore Park in Easton. This grant was awarded to New England Hydropower, LLC (NEHC) of Beverly, MA. Northampton County Council voted to provide matching funds for the project at their July 19, 2018 meeting.
The Northampton County investment is a loan to be repaid over 10 years at current market rates. There is a possibility that NEHC will repay this loan by supplying power to the county.
“Our extensive canal and dam systems presents a great opportunity to provide renewable power to our residents,” said McClure. “This is an important step in building a green future for Northampton County.”
This hydroelectric power generator is commonly referred to as an Archimedes Screw, and has been in use for thousands of years. To generate electricity, the screw is used in reverse where water enters at the top and the weight pushes on the helical flights, causing the screw to rotate. This rotational energy can then be extracted by an electrical generator connected to the main shaft. The turbine is fish-friendly and capable of generating enough power for up to 400 homes over the next 40 years.
Archimedes screws are commonly used in Europe to produce clean power. NEHC installed the first one in America in Meriden, CT in 2017.
This project was originally referred to McClure by State Rep. Bob Freeman.
This Archimedes screw will be located right by the canal boat.
A second site is also under consideration at Ground Hog lock in Williams Tp.
The two sites combined would provide energy for 800 residences.
37 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
Not cool BO. This is Tara Zirinski's project. Stop giving McClure credit for what others have done. Especially when you do not give a woman credit. Sad!
ReplyDeleteIS it true that one needs to complete studies at Screw U before they are allowed to operate the generator?
ReplyDeleteFinally. Lamont can brag about one of his screw ups. Meanwhile Gracedale is cut to ribs and dick while money gets poured into the Pharoah Lamont's crime center vanity project. It should be constructed like the Sphinx with that bulbous nose and an extended middle finger pointing toward Gracedale.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with screw-ball Tara
ReplyDeleteThey came to council before Tara started supporting nuclear power plants
Tara is the champion of this project. McClure steals ideas from county council and pens them as his own. His PR machine works hard to exclude the council from any credit. Stop stepping on the necks of talented women.
ReplyDeleteLooks like this requires some dams to be present.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when the Wildlands Conservancy forces the demolition of those dams?
Math does not compute. Average small home need 15-20 kw. The story does make you feel all warm an fuzzy though!
ReplyDeletePoint is currently water is pouring over the locks in both the upper and lower portions into this canal. Why not put it to good use even if it was far less wattage?
ReplyDeleteSame could be applied for the Lehigh River dams in Hokendauqua, Hamilton, the Chain Link dam to the south as well as the confluence where the river meets the Delaware in Easton.
ReplyDelete11:01 AM
ReplyDeleteDoes not compute because you are not adept at "Renewable Math".
Renewable math assumes constant supply and constant demand. The numbers work out if you assume about 950 kW/hr per month for an average household. About 730 hours in a month of constant use of about 1.3 kW...et voila.
Of course, renewable math can also assume that the "excess" electricity produced when it's not needed can just be fed back into the grid. This only works if you have a fossil fuel plant that can cycle up and down as needed, or if someone's stupid enough to install a shatload of expensive battery storage. It also assumes 100% capacity factor.
oops, should be kW hr, not kW/hr.
ReplyDeleteThat unit makes a good deal of noise pollution.
ReplyDeleteSooooo will Tara be responsible for retrieving it when the spring floods (caused by climate change) wash it half way to Philly? Or does it ride a bike to work?
How will this affect the otter population? I call for an investigation.
ReplyDelete1.03
ReplyDelete"This only works if you have a fossil fuel plant that can cycle up and down as needed"
this is occurring whether you use water power or not.
Currently you are running a fossil fueled plant to adjust for the load.
Reducing the use of fuel has plenty of benefits, for one how about reducing the environmental damage burning coal causes.not to mention the health costs associated with coal pollution.You get to pay for that damage.
1.03
ReplyDeletetry
https://electrek.co/2018/09/24/tesla-powerpack-battery-australia-cost-revenue/
"Tesla’s 100MW/129MWh Powerpack project in South Australia provide the same grid services as peaker plants, but cheaper, quicker, and with zero-emissions, through its battery system.'
The French energy company revealed that the entire system cost 56 million euros (~$66 million USD)
it would mean the battery system generated between ~$10 million and $17 million during roughly its first 6 months of operation and it is on pace for over $20 million in revenue during its first year.
Zirinski and Hefner are some real winners. one is a scatter brain and the other is an angry puppet of McClure. What have they done for the county?
ReplyDelete5:12 PM
ReplyDeleteNice. Essentially a press release from a company about to file for an IPO, and with Elon Musk's fingerprints all over it.
We know how accurate his financial projections have been.
Here's what the local government has to say"
"However unsurprisingly, the current South Australian government disagrees, accusing its predecessor of rushing into the project in a bid to find a miracle cure to the state’s power woes after it was hit with widespread blackouts during spring and summer of 2016 and 2017.
“The information that was released by Neoen a couple of days ago… makes it very clear the previous government’s implementation and delivery of the battery was incredibly messy and overly expensive,” Energy Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan told ABC Radio Adelaide.
“It actually costs taxpayers’ money. There’s a cost of $4-5 million a year to have the battery in place ... There are more costs than that involved.”"
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/true-cost-of-sas-big-tesla-battery-revealed/news-story/4c6dbf0505b6b0a6697ab8fc97cdf9b2
Biased the other way? No doubt. But still two sides to every story, at least until the Dems take over again. There will still be two sides, but only one can be talked about.
4:53 PM
ReplyDeleteSure fossil fuels are running to adjust the current load. But the more they have to come on to adjust for more intermittent power, the less efficient they become (both economically and in terms of CO2 emissions). Also, the more intermittent power that is thrown into the system, the more backup is needed.
At least this screw should have a higher capacity factor than wind or solar, but it's not really scalable and is pretty much a vanity installation. And with the financials provided, installed cost is about $5.8/watt, which is pretty high. The water is free, but capital is not.
540pm Anon
ReplyDeleteWhich one is which?
B.O.=Body Odor
ReplyDeleteBob Ryan PJC was walking the streets of Hells Kitchen with a black jack and combat boots looking for you, come out of your hole and face justice drunki
Delete5.12
ReplyDeleteso the article you cite claims 100 million Australian with revenues of 9 million.
(that excludes the government payment) so a 10 year break even point is horrible?
not to mention the blackout problem went away. BTW where is the cost for a kicker plant to equal the battery storage?
also the new government energy dude is from an opposing party with an axe to grind as he claims a 4 million cost--and i do not see any documents to back that up.
so believe a politician or believe financial documents submitted--your choice.
4.53
ReplyDeletevanity perhaps--feel good probably. cost effective yep.
call it 500kw per hour at 10 cents per kw. or 50 bucks an hour or 1200 a day or 438,000 yearly.
to make it easier cut that roughly in half(just to be conservative) so you get 200 thousand a year on a 1.4 million investment or a 7 year break even point.
sounds very workable.
as to kicker plants the efficiency does vary with load but usually under 5 percent depending on design. gas turbines for example ramp up and down quickly with a fairly flat efficiency curve
so as a cost factor it does not amount to a substantial figure.
Sam Murray Haddad (fixed an All Star Vote for his Son Joseph) going to the Phillies opener with his crony Mike Fleck tomorrow ?,
ReplyDelete8:54 PM
ReplyDeleteThe $1.4 million is only half the cost, and you don't account for interest payments.
I know some think grants are "free", but the money has to come from someplace.
And your revenue ignores that the electricity market has variable rates. Energy produced when no one needs it has no value unless the grid is forced to take it by some sort of "feed-in" mandate.
8.54
ReplyDelete"and you don't account for interest payments" yep and i do not try to account for the rise in electric rates over the next 10 years either. nor do i consider the high value peak demand rate as i am using an average.
you can also drill down and consider environmental damage due to mining coal or fracking vs water power if you want but that makes it more complex than needed.
so the true question becomes the break even time-7 yrs-10 yrs?
" think grants are "free", but the money has to come from someplace."
yes it does but i could name plenty of programs with higher costs and no payback time or simply wasteful.try the f-35 or the newest navy carrier.
that would be beyond this particular discussion.
The next time a local government tries to fund a fighter jet or air carrier I'll be on your side. As far as rising electricity rates, the average wholesale rate in Pa is currently less than 4 cents per kWhr, so it'll be a while before it catches up with your assumed 10 cents.
ReplyDeleteWould love to see the political contributions of the supplier of this contraption.
ReplyDeleteAlso, will there be any accountability as to what actually happens with this after its installed. Any reporting on the investment or any reporting on what is actually being generated/saved?
Many schools in Bethlehem and surrounding areas installed these solar panels to do the same thing. I could be wrong, but I have never seen any additional follow up on these to say what was generated, saved, sold back, etc.
The only ones benefiting from this are the companies and political hacks that set up these deals (remember Jim Hickey?).
We can hope it's an isolated incident, but a big black eye for "Green Savings" in this morning's paper.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mcall.com/news/education/mc-nws-saucon-valley-rebid-hvac-20190326-story.html
Fortunately, it was caught before the money was spent.
7.00
ReplyDeletethe figures i used were close enough to 4 cents per kw.
Mid Atlantic area had peak rates of 9.7 cents during 2017
Huh? Ten cents is close to four? Make up your mind, are you using peak or average? And if you're using peak, what are you going to sell it for the other 90% of the time?
ReplyDelete6.00
ReplyDeletei used 10 cents and then cut it more than half.
4 cents a kw gives you 182,000 dollars a year.
200 thousand is a fair (very conservative)number of dollars generated.
i am averaging slightly over 4 cents per kw.
i do not know the interest rate of the loan and i have no crystal ball to tell me how much electric costs will rise in ten years.hence a conservative view on the revenue generated and the break even point.
After the break even point a profit of 200,000 a yr is made as well and i do not try to wrap that into the money issue as well.
design life is 40 yrs---so if you want to take 200k over 40 yrs you have some serious coin --8 million minus 2.8 million installation cost.
add 1.2 million for maintenance.
So 4 million cost and generated revenue of 8 million.
you get to double your money.
and that is being very conservative with the numbers.
Double my money in forty years!
ReplyDeleteSign me up!!!
And what's the demonstrated lifetime?
7.06
ReplyDeleteyou borrow the money and use the revenue generated to pay off the loan --say it takes 10 yrs to pay the note off(break even point) and after that you get revenue of at least 200k a yr.
design life is 40 years and hydro equipment is very robust.
Sounds like you should invest. No government money needed.
ReplyDeleteNeat how you can be confident of paying off the loan when you don't know the interest rate.
7.41
ReplyDeleteusing a standard mortgage calculator the current rate is 3.75 percent and it gives a 14 year break even point.
i suspect the loan would be lower then the 3.75 given the amount of loan and who is taking it.
Dead money for 14 years. What's not to like?
ReplyDeleteEspecially when VERY smart people are saying the Earth will be toast by then.