One of the more interesting types of green energy is hydroelectric power. Among green energy sources, hydroelectric power is second only to nuclear power in terms of generation capacity. In many respects hydroelectric plants are something like a miniature version of nuclear power plants; they are costly to put up but once they are built, they last for decades providing power at close to zero marginal cost. Yet despite their effectiveness, hydroelectric power plants have not garnered the kind of focus that wind turbines and solar arrays do.
Hydroelectric plants represent an intriguing opportunity to generate more energy without increasing carbon output. In particular, there are a significant number of existing dams at rivers across the U.S. where hydroelectric power is not being used. The U.S. Department of Energy did a study suggesting that up to 12 gigawatts of additional power could be generated simply by taking advantage of these existing plants. Beyond that proverbial low hanging fruit, there is a significant amount of construction activity around building new dams and hydro plants; over 600 dams are currently under construction with several thousand more planned for the future. Related: Oil Jobs Lost: 250.000 And Counting, Texas Likely To See Massive Layoffs Soon
Most of these new hydro power plants are being built outside the U.S. though. Like nuclear power plants, hydroelectric plants have gone out of vogue in the U.S. it would seem. The U.S. has plenty of opportunities to add to hydroelectric capacity as the DoE study demonstrates, yet little is being done on this front. In theory hydroelectric power could be a threat to the explosive trend towards greater natural gas use (and the associated phase out of coal power). Yet there is no indication that utility companies are looking to switch away from gas or any other source and towards hydroelectric in large quantities.
Fans of hydroelectric power talk about expanding its portion of the aggregate generation capacity in the U.S., but even for hydro-bulls, this is a very slow process that might see hydroelectric power double its share of generating capacity over the course of several decades. That growth trajectory pales in comparison to the level of growth in wind and solar (albeit off a much smaller base of installed capacity for the latter sources). Related: Oil Price Rebound Not Imminent, But Underway
The limited interest in hydroelectric plants might be for a couple of reasons. First, it is not a source of energy that many environmentalists are excited about. Critics deride its effects on river ecosystems, the fish it kills, the potential flooding of areas around newly built dams, and even the simple impact on views of rivers. Second and arguably more importantly, hydroelectric power seems to be being held back by its upfront capital cost. While hydroelectric power plants are far less expensive than nuclear plants to build, they are still very costly and entail extensive permits. A study by the EIA showed that conventional hydroelectric capital costs per kw were close to three times as expensive as a comparable natural gas project. Related: Big Oil: Which Are The Top 10 Biggest Oil Companies?
One of the most remarkable aspects of the decarbonization of the U.S. over the last 15 years is how wrong many pundits were when making predictions about the future of energy. Rather than clean energy sources like solar, wind, and ethanol helping to lower carbon output, the process has largely been driven by the switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas. This has been driven not by a desire to help the environment, but instead by the profit motive of utility companies. As long as hydroelectric plant costs remain uncompetitive with conventional sources, it’s likely the resource will remain underutilized going forward.
By Michael McDonald of Oilprice.com
More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
- Will Low Oil Prices Increase Internal Instability In Conflict Countries?
- Glencore Wades Into Libyan Oil Fight
- Why The Future For Energy Storage Just Got Brighter