Follow this blog:
RSS

Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi

By | June 8, 2010, 4:00 AM PDT

Louisianians may soon find another energy source within their waterways. No, not the Gulf of Mexico, but beneath the surface of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers.

And the energy won’t come from damming up the rivers, but by letting them flow—the faster, the better—via in-stream hydrokinetic energy.

If made law, Louisiana Senate Bill 183 would let the state rent out land—in this case, river space—for the development of renewable energy. The bill has passed the Senate and now awaits the House.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Free Flow Power (FFP) 60 preliminary permits in 2008 to test sections of the rivers, where the currents are strong and consistent, to submerge slow-spinning turbines.

Free Flow Power’s almost 10-foot turbines are meant to sit passively in the river, generating about 10 kilowatts in 7.4-feet-per-second flows and 40 kilowatts in 10-feet-per-second currents.

Last week, the Associated Press quotes FFP’s Jon Guidroz:

The U.S. has never developed its own form of renewable electricity. We have an extraordinary river resource no one else has…This is an opportunity the United States has never had.

In the upper stretches of the Mississippi, Hydro Green Energy launched in August the country’s first licensed, commercial in-stream hydrokinetic project north of Hastings, Minnesota. This energy system sits downstream from a more traditional hydropower operation, a dam (the Army Corps of Engineers Lock and Dam No. 2). Dams highly disrupt rivers and surrounding ecosystems.

With in-stream turbines, one impact that comes to mind is whether they fillet the fish swimming through them.

According to a report released and conducted by Hydro Green Energy in January, fish passing through their turbine had a 97 percent survival rate. The company is also planning a project at the Amory Lock and Dam on the Tennessee-Timbigbee river.

Images: Free Flow Power (top) and Hydro Green Energy (bottom)
Via
: IEEE Spectrum

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Melissa Mahony

About Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2010 to 2011.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Contributing Editor

Melissa Mahony has written for Scientific American Mind, Audubon Magazine, Plenty Magazine and LiveScience. Formerly, she was an editor at Wildlife Conservation magazine. She holds degrees from Boston College and New York University's Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. She is based in New York.

Follow her on Twitter.

Melissa Mahony

Melissa Mahony

Melissa does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers. She currently works for the Wildlife Conservation Society as an editor. Should Melissa cover a topic in which the WCS is involved, she will disclose this fact in her writing.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
20
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
"Dams highly disrupt rivers and surrounding ecosystems."

The hydrokinetic system will most likely depend on the existence of dams.
Without the pool behind the dam, the turbines might find themselves above the surface during the dry season. It would be like a wind farm when the wind isn't blowing.
Posted by dc.martin@...
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
10 kilowatts would power a laundry dryer. Too much finicky infrastructure for too little gain. A trait shared many non-dam water power projects.
Posted by genedieken
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
"10 Kw wouldn't power a laundry dryer" obviously dont know power. the average household usage is 1Kw, so 10Kw would be 10 homes worth of power(US are energy junkies)
The oil spill is helping the industry.
Posted by avoidsroids
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
Mahoney, good job yet again. Raw research at its finest, not another
fluff piece. The ladies on this site .... .do the men even work?
Posted by Vailhem@...
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
I can see that this, as other forms of alternate energy, will greatly profit from the next incarnations of this technology. Where this is a behemoth the next hydrokinetic units will be smaller and able to do more work with less current. As with everything new there will be detractors. Still there can be no progress without innovation.
Posted by ironwrkr
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
dc.martin has a point
There is ALSO the problem of all the debris that goes downriver, esp. during the spring floods. And this isn't limited to parts of trees, but also the myriad human detritus (tires, appliances, garbage) frequently found along the riverbanks. Would these turbines be safe from barge traffic? Considering the number of accidental collisions (bridge pilings, other barges, etc.), that seems rather unlikely.
Posted by JTF243@...
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
This was tried in NYC
A few years ago, somebody installed an underwater turbine in the East River. It was experimental and relatively small; I think the electricity was used to power a grocery store. As I recall, the water currents were too strong and the project was abandoned.
Posted by zackers
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
A single hair dryer can use 1,500 Watts, so in no way is the average home going to use 1kW. Next, a 97 percent survival rate for fish passing through the fan is horrendous! That means that, as long as the water is flowing, 3 percent of the fish passing through the blades are being food processed.
Posted by SmartEnough
10th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
It should be easy enough to have a fine mesh somewhat up stream
far enough to not interfere greatly with water pressure and it would reduce the damage to fish as well as prevent some damage caused by debris.

Not sure what the placement needs to be to reduce the problems to
boating and the like. In any case, the turbines would obviously be placed
in large groups as a single unit would likely not provide enough energy to
compensate for the supportive power stations.
Posted by richard233
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
Deflection of debris would not be that big of a problem. The problem would be siltation and depth. The average depth is 15 feet at low water. Remember as you look at the Mississippi, most of the water area is only 6 inches to a couple feet deep. The only deep water is the main channel which has to be dredged yearly to keep it deep enough for barges. I don't recall the amount of cubic yards of silt that flows to the mouth, but it is a huge amount. Any CoE's on here?
Posted by cybertec
15th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
Well I looked it up and it averages about 200,000,000 tons per year with a high of 700,000,000 tons in one year. Thats approximately 200,000,000 cubic yards or 11,111,000 truck loads of silt per year. A bunch!

The average water flow rate is 450,000 cfs with a maxed rate of 700,000 cfs.

Sorry, I mistyped the average depth before. It should read 35 feet. The deepest at the mouth is about 200 feet in New Orleans.

With the correct design, enough units and overcoming the siltation problem, they should be able to supply New Orleans with power.
Posted by cybertec
15th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
If I recall correctly the group which now has the unit in the Mississippi near Hastings is the same group which put the unit in NYC. That was a test. This is the next test. Progress is being made.

In order for the river to be navigable for barge traffic it is already dredged in places and channeled in others. In virtually every city and urban area with a river flowing through there is channeling and damming for flood control. Downstream of existing flood control dams, as well as dams for locks and navigation aids (as in the case at Hastings) the flow of water is considerably different than in open river. The siltation rate is also different,since the water is often dropping the silt at the entrance of the flow into the reservoir above the dam. This is one reason why dam based hydroelectric systems also need to be dredged, or silt out after about twenty years of operation. An advantage of a flow system is that it does not depend on slowing the water as much as a dam system,and therefore does not case a much silt deposition.

Barge and other river traffic does not just wander about anywhere, but is controlled by buoys and other markings. Anyone who pilots any sort of boat on the river soon learns to avoid the places where they will rip their bottom out, or where they will damage fixed structures for which they will be required to pay. There are accidents, but we also manage to maintain bridges over the Mississippi and other rivers.

The same river detritus flows into existing hydroelectric facilities. The same techniques which keep it out of those turbines should be adaptable to this.

As to the 10kw, the average home does consume more than 1kw most of the time (200 amp service at 220v gives a potential draw of 44kw, with typical use far lower, but still more than 1 kw). However, these are proof of concept units, not full production deployments. A small experimental design wind turbine also does not produce huge amounts of power.

The question of fish kills is relevant. As a corollary, what is the survival rate for birds flying through commercial wind turbines? And is the fast food industry harvesting the resultant material for nuggets?
Posted by gardoglee
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
What about San Francisco
I can envision a whole bunch of these in the Golden Gate channel. Of course, they would have to be bi-directional, but that shouldn't be a huge problem.
Posted by TranMan
16th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
They don't have to sit IN the river
The turbines don't have to be placed within the existing river channel. Like their dam predecessors, the water can be channeled through a "turbine tunnel". Design it to enhance the Venturi effect and you can increase the flow rate and resultant power output. A screen at the front of the tunnel will keep out debris large enough to damage the turbines.

As for the fish survival rate, simply build a sushi restaurant with a at the end of the tunnel. It will reduce processing fees and the profits can fund further research. Yes, I'm being facetious!
Posted by Get-Smart
17th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
From the DOE:L
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_ho
me)

"In 2008, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S.
residential utility customer was 11,040 kWh, an average of 920
kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month. Tennessee had the highest annual
consumption at 15,624 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh."

920kwH/mo X 1mo/720 hrs = 1.278 KW
Posted by dgm9sf@...
30th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
So the average consumption is 1.278 KW. The power source needs to supply the peak, not the average.

A man with one foot on a hot stove and one foot on a cake of ice is comfortable on the average.

Just one more scheme to increase the cost of electricity.
Posted by pauc1
30th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
The 10 kw output is not kilowatt hours, the turbine generates 10 kw as soon as the blades turns (at the proper speed).
Posted by jc8ward
31st Aug 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
Posted by birumut
10th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us! sesli sohbet sesli chat
Posted by birumut
14th Feb 2011
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Hydrokinetic energy on the Mississippi
Great post !

Vi hjalper dig med 3 glas fönster och mycket mer
Posted by Billiga fonster
12th Sep 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!