Opinion
Portland is installing turbines in water pipes to produce electricity, will Red Deer consider following suit?
Portland is installing turbines in their water pipes to generate electricity. Available for 24 inch or 42 inch pipes, excellent for gravity fed water supply.
This got me thinking about our city applications. Would it be worthwhile for someone at city hall to look into possible applications for Red Deer?
If Red Deer had a guaranteed year round source of flowing water, should we harness it for Hydroelectricity? What if we had a flow rate that was only strong enough to power city buildings? Should we investigate it? If we knew parts of the equation could we not ask?
City Councillor Buck Buchanan thinks it should be looked into. Why?
The city has a guaranteed source that has been recently upgraded to 72,500 cubic meters per day. The source is our Wastewater Treatment Plant. It pumps treated water into the Red Deer River year round and it is not going to stop anytime soon.
The raw wastewater goes through different cycles and/or processes before it is released as clean water. Treated wastewater leaves the plant area through a channel before being released into the Red Deer River.
The upgraded capacity of Red Deer’s wastewater treatment plant is 72,500 cubic meters of water per day or 2.6 million cubic feet per day.
The energy in these moving waters is being wasted. Why not harness it as Hydroelectricity.
Hydroelectricity is electricity produced by movement of water. It is usually made with dams that block a river to make a reservoir or collect water that is pumped there. When the water is released, the pressure behind the dam forces the water down pipes that lead to a turbine. Our wastewater treatment plant acts like a dam as it holds back water for treatment.
So just how do we get electricity from water? Actually, hydroelectric and coal-fired power plants produce electricity in a similar way. In both cases a power source is used to turn a propeller-like piece called a turbine, which then turns a metal shaft in an electric generator, which is the motor that produces electricity. A coal-fired power plant uses steam to turn the turbine blades; whereas a hydroelectric plant uses moving water to turn the turbine. The results are the same.
People have been using the power of moving water to run water wheels and mills for more than 2,000 years. Modern power plants today convert that mechanical energy into electricity.
Tides, ocean currents, waterfalls, rivers… Moving water is a constant source of energy ready to be harnessed. Hydroelectric energy is obtained by using a turbine to convert the kinetic energy of a river or waterfall into mechanical energy, and then an alternator to transform it into electrical energy.
There are two main kinds of hydroelectric generating stations: reservoir, and
run-of-river (ROR).
A generating station with reservoir uses a dam to create an artificial lake. A run-of-river generating station has no reservoir but offers the advantage of producing electricity without having to store the water.
Hydro power plants produce minimal greenhouse gases and are a source of clean, non-polluting energy. The evaporation/condensation cycle also makes hydro energy renewable. The above qualities pertain particularly to ROR plants, which produce energy from the natural water flow, which means that the impact on the landscape, ecosystem and neighbouring communities is considerably reduced. It also costs much less to produce electricity at an ROR plant.
Such properties make ROR hydroelectricity a sensible choice, for economic, social and environmental reasons.
Run-of-river generating stations are not very complicated. Flowing water is channelled through the intake and enters a penstock, which causes it to flow with greater speed and force to the turbine. The turbine is activated by the force of the water, and it, in turn, runs the alternator to produce electricity. The water then flows down the tailrace and returns to the river.
The viability of a site and the electricity it can produce are determined by two factors: drop height and water flow volume.
Hydroelectric energy has been in use for thousands of years. Ancient Romans built turbines, which are wheels turned by flowing water. Roman turbines were not used for electricity, but for grinding grains to make flour and breads.
Water mills provide another source of hydroelectric energy. Water mills, which were common until the Industrial Revolution, are large wheels usually located on the banks of moderately flowing rivers. Water mills generate energy that powers such diverse activities as grinding grain, cutting lumber, or creating hot fires to create steel.
Hydroelectric power is also very efficient and inexpensive. “Modern hydro turbines can convert as much as 90% of the available energy into electricity. The best fossil fuel plants are only about 50% efficient. In the US , hydropower is produced for an average of 0.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).
Since we know we have a flow rate of 72,500 cubic meters per day, could we not ask an expert if we could harness it for hydroelectricity? If so how much could we produce and how much would it cost?
Just asking.
From the Fraser Institute
In case you missed it amid the din of Trump’s trade war, Prime Minister Carney is a big believer in “carbon capture and storage.” And his energy minister, Tim Hodgson, who said it’s “critical to build carbon capture systems for the oilsands,” wants the Smith government and oilsands companies to get behind a proposed project (which hasn’t been unable to raise sufficient private investment) in Cold Lake, Alberta.
The term “carbon capture and storage” (or CCS) essentially refers to technology that separates carbon dioxide (CO2) from emissions and either stores it or uses it for other products. Proponents claim that CCS could replace other more ham-handed climate regulations such as carbon taxes, emission caps, etc. The problem is, like many (or most) proposed climate panaceas, CCS is oversold. While it’s a real technology currently in use around the world (primarily to produce more oil and gas from depleting reservoirs), jurisdictions will likely be unable to affordably scale up CCS enough to capture and store enough greenhouse gas to meaningfully reduce the risks of predicted climate change.
Why? Because while you get energy out of converting methane (natural gas) to CO2 by burning it in a power plant to generate electricity, you have to put quite a lot of energy into the process if you want to capture, compress, transport and store the attendant CO2 emissions. Again, carbon capture can be profitable (on net) for use in producing more oil and gas from depleting reservoirs, and it has a long and respected role in oil and gas production, but it’s unclear that the technology has utility outside of private for-profit use.
And in fact, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), most CCS happening in Canada is less about storing carbon to avert climate change and more about stimulating oil production from existing operations. While there are “seven CCS projects currently operating in Canada, mostly in the oil and gas sector, capturing about 0.5% of national emissions,” CCS in oil and gas production does not address emissions from “downstream uses of those fuels” and will, perversely, lead to more CO2 emissions on net. The IISD also notes that CCS is expensive, costing up to C$200 per tonne for current projects. (For reference, today’s government-set minimum carbon market price to emit a tonne of CO2 emissions is C$95.) IISD concludes CCS is “energy intensive, slow to implement, and unproven at scale, making it a poor strategy for decarbonizing oil and gas production.”
Another article in Scientific American observes that industrial carbon capture projects are “too small to matter” and that “today’s largest carbon capture projects only remove a few seconds’ worth of our yearly greenhouse gas emissions” and that this is “costing thousands of dollars for every ton of CO2 removed.” And as a way to capture massive volumes of CO2 (from industrial emission streams of out the air) and sequestering it to forestall atmospheric warming (climate change), the prospects are not good. Perhaps this is why the article’s author characterizes CCS as a “figleaf” for the fossil fuel industry (and now, apparently, the Carney government) to pretend they are reducing GHG emissions.
Prime Minister Carney should sharpen his thinking on CCS. While real and profitable when used in oil and gas production, it’s unlikely to be useful in combatting climate change. Best to avoid yet another costly climate change “solution” that is overpromised, overpriced and has historically underperformed.
Kenneth P. Green
From the National Citizens Coalition
By National Citizens Coalition President Peter Coleman
Mark Carney promised to lead Canada with bold vision and economic strength. But his latest stall tactics on removing red tape for Canadian oil and gas, his floundering in tariff negotiations despite lofty “elbows up” promises, and his refusal to address shocking interference allegations tied to his public safety minister so far show that he’s all hat and no cattle.
Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney held consultations and conversations with Indigenous groups on Bill C-5, which claims to fast-track “nation-building” energy projects. Yet he announced no major approvals on the horizon, and impressed no urgency or authority upon those in attendance who would seek to claim veto over vital projects.
Canada doesn’t need more endless talk or one bill to pick more losers than winners. We need action to remove anti-resource laws and regulatory roadblocks that choke our energy sector. Projects like pipelines and LNG facilities are critical for jobs, economic growth, and energy security, but they’re stalled by bureaucratic overreach and outdated policies. Hard-working Canadians deserve affordable energy. Our economy needs rescuing from tariff threat and a decade of Liberal sabotage. And Indigenous communities deserve real economic partnerships, not more delays and cowardly half-measures that often only placate anti-resource interests and insiders, not the real needs of the community.
Streamlined approvals with clear economic benefits will unlock prosperity for all Canadians. Carney’s stall tactics only hold back progress. It’s time to cut the red tape and get out of the way so that real Canadian leaders, and our great Canadian workers, can rebuild Canada after all that’s been broken.
Carney campaigned as the economic genius who could handle U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats. Yet, with Trump’s August 1 deadline for a 35% tariff on Canadian goods approaching, Carney’s negotiations are going nowhere. His vague promises do nothing to protect Canadian jobs, industries, or families facing higher costs. Canadians deserve a leader who delivers results, not one who breaks campaign promises with empty rhetoric.
Meanwhile, he’s been shielding corruption and dodging accountability. Carney, now revealed to have 16 pages of conflicts that were kept from voters during the election, continues to protect Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who faces serious allegations of lobbying for those with listed terrorist ties. Instead of demanding transparency, Carney is shielding his minister from scrutiny, doubling down on the Liberal tradition of dodging accountability. Canadians deserve a government that upholds integrity, not one that buries troubling connections to protect political allies. Is Carney just like Justin, who broke immigration and invited rampant foreign interference into government? Because this response is right out of his predecessor’s playbook.
Mark Carney’s leadership has been all talk and no action. Canada needs a government that unleashes our energy potential, lives up to its lofty campaign promises, and roots out corruption; not another Justin Trudeau.
We’re not falling for it. And neither are you. Demand action. Demand results.
–Peter Coleman, President, National Citizens Coalition
Preston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again
Charity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations
Carney Liberals quietly award Pfizer, Moderna nearly $400 million for new COVID shot contracts
Westerner Days Attraction pass and New Experiences!
-
Education1 day agoWhy more parents are turning to Christian schools
-
Alberta1 day agoUpgrades at Port of Churchill spark ambitions for nation-building Arctic exports
-
Alberta1 day agoOPEC+ is playing a dangerous game with oil
-
Business1 day agoIs dirty Chinese money undermining Canada’s Arctic?
-
COVID-191 day agoJapan disposes $1.6 billion worth of COVID drugs nobody used
-
conflict1 day agoOne of the world’s oldest Christian Communities is dying in Syria. Will the West stay silent?
-
COVID-191 day agoWATCH: Big Pharma scientist admits COVID shot not ‘safe and effective’ to O’Keefe journalist
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoHow Did PEI Become A Forward Branch Plant For Xi’s China?