HUG Siphon System
• The water level behind the Otto Holden Hydro Dam on the Ottawa River can be maintained at 179.5 m above sea level, while the water level in Lake Huron is 176.5 m. This difference of 3 m is the basis of water transfer through a HUG Siphon System for 171 km.
• The HUG Siphon system can be buried under any populated built up areas. HUG can also be raised to189.5 m above sea level.
• It will be difficult to say NO to Water Export Revenue of $433 Million/year at the auction price of $0.13/ m3s for 135 m3
• Each of the 150 million people whose needs could be served by the project would pay the reasonable rate of $50 per year. In this case, annual income from the exports would be $7.5 billion.
• The total initial cost of this mega project is $347.5 + $232.25 = $580 million.
• HUG has a potential of Hydro Revenue of $210 Million/yr (11 kW/m2)
• HUG has a potential of Water Export Revenue of 56 m3s@auction price of $0.13/ m3s of $180 Million/yr / HUG System
• Water Export Revenue of 2000 m3s = $6.4 Billion/yr for 35 HUG Siphon Systems
• Return on Investment : $180 +$210 / $580 million = 67%/yr for 1 HUG System.
• An alternative desalination plant (1.2 m3s) is twice the price, because it is energy intensive and it incurs high-pollution costs that could escalate as energy price increase.
• Nine bodies of 265 m3s water share the same environment: only a distance of 1.5 m to 12 km apart, which can be diverted to Lake Superior.
This workshop highlights successful large scale, on-the-ground restoration efforts in several priority areas of the Great Lakes. Strategies will be shared for planning, financing, and articulating results from restoration projects in order to bring multiple societal benefits. Participants will brainstorm the next level of restoration impacts we would like to see from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Dr. Rafael Sanchez Navarro IEWP @ Workshop on Water allocation, water economi...India-EU Water Partnership
Presentation by Dr. Sanchez Navarro, Senior Expert on Eflows, during the Workshop on Water allocation, water economics and eflows in River Basin Management
This workshop highlights successful large scale, on-the-ground restoration efforts in several priority areas of the Great Lakes. Strategies will be shared for planning, financing, and articulating results from restoration projects in order to bring multiple societal benefits. Participants will brainstorm the next level of restoration impacts we would like to see from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
Dr. Rafael Sanchez Navarro IEWP @ Workshop on Water allocation, water economi...India-EU Water Partnership
Presentation by Dr. Sanchez Navarro, Senior Expert on Eflows, during the Workshop on Water allocation, water economics and eflows in River Basin Management
HUG is a new good, which has never been seen before; it substantially deviates from any other good or service produced before. Over the past decades, no major breakthroughs have occurred in the basic machinery of hydroelectric turbines.
Overview of the groundwater issues of Brant County including concerns for development and gravel pits over recharge and potential impacts of a proposed Lake Erie pipeline.
Humanity's Last Hope: a comprehensive Solution to Global Issuesseapact
The Hydroloop™ System
24/7 Smart Solutions for Transport, Water Delivery, and Energy Production
The Hydroloop™ System is a sustainable energy and water distribution solution that leverages geothermal energy to supply electricity and water constantly. It also aids in the transportation of goods and people. The system generates electricity and distributes water to Smart Farming operations, which cultivate a variety of produce and aquatic life, and for human consumption. The used water is then recycled and directed back to the geothermal power source to energize the Hydroloop™ System, thus completing the cycle and preparing it to start again. This project aligns with the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDG) making it "Humanity's Last Hope".
Sierra Club: Moving from Tar Sands to Clean Transportation in WisconsinShahla Werner
Details Sierra Club's work to expose Enbridge's terrible track record of tar sands oil spills; and offers ideas on how we can block proposed tar sands expansions in the Great Lakes region and work for cleaner transportation alternatives (biking, walking, transit, and electric cars)
Austin Water is engaged in aggressive water conservation and climate programs aimed at reducing water use and addressing the water-energy nexus, while continuing to provide reliable and sustainable water and wastewater service to customers. The programs include: mandatory watering restrictions; installation of renewable energy at plants and facilities; and implementing employee ideas to save energy in operations – all while dealing with the worst drought since the historic drought of the 1950s.
Water H₂OECS 1116 September 2016Donald B. OlsonProb.docxcelenarouzie
Water: H₂O
ECS 111
6 September 2016
Donald B. Olson
Problems with Water:
Demise of the Marsh Arabs
What sets the scales for water as a commodity?
What sets the price of water?
How does water quality enter the picture?
Is there a need to protect the price of water for some specific uses?
Does the last question suggest that waters has different worth under free trade?
When does water lead to diplomatic problems including war?
National Geo. Apr. 2010
Water in our Ecosystems: Cont.
Adequate water: Domestic, industrial, agricultural uses, and the rest of nature
Sustainability of water supplies: Future use
Maintenance of water quality: Pollution from natural (salt), industrial/agriculture, domestic sources.
Trans-boundary issues: Sharing water between cities/rural districts, states, countries.
Natural Saline Waters
Colorado River
Sources of fresh water:
Ground water: Aquifers
- Volume (km³), removal rate (km³/sec)
– Issue recharge rates and depletion times
Rivers and streams: Runoff in channels
- Volume transport (km³/sec)
- Downstream water quality
Lakes: Still waters, natural and dam created
- Volume exchange: Residence times
- Water quality and pollution build up
Residence and depletion times:
Residence time:TR Equilibrium (Steady State)
Depletion rates:TD
Rate of resource decay
Problems to consider:
Calculate the residence times for the different water pools in the last lecture (see Tables).
Discuss the assumptions you have to make to turn these global numbers into something that might be useful for policy. (What do you have to assume?)
Choose a lake that you are interested in and work out its water balance.
Calculate a depletion time for an aquifer.
Water Stocks in the Environment
21
From: Chow, Maidment and Mays, Applied Hydrology, McGraw Hill, 1988
Water Fluxes in the Environment
Salinity ~ 35 gm salt/kg sea water; potable water < 19
22
More on freshwater availability
23
Global Water Balance (land)
Rainfall (119,000 km3/yr or 31 in) =
Evapotranspiration (72,000 km3/yr or 19 in) +
Runoff (44,700 km3/yr or 11.7 in) +
Infiltration (2,200 km3/yr or 0.3 in)
Conclusion: the world lives on a “water budget”
24
Stocks and Fluxes
Budgeting of an environmental stock takes place over a period of time (day, month, year, etc).
[Change in Stock] = [Flux In]
- [Flux Out]
+ [Stock created]
- [Stock withdrawn]
25
Rainfall Data
Annual Rainfall in the Continental US, 1895-2003
Source: NOAA (www.noaa.gov)
26
Evaporation
Found by “evaporation pans”
Actual Evaporation =
Pan Evaporation x 0.70
27
Transpiration
Vegetation uptake and release of water for metabolic (growth) purposes
Uptake takes place through the roots
Release takes place through the leaves (stomata)
Vegetation functions as a “pass-through” for water
28
Source: Laio et al., Advances
In Water Resources 24, p. 708,
.
14. A Canadian Solution to Water Crisis in South Western U.S. Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010
15.
16. Many Other Fresh Water Projects Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 FRESH WATER PROJECTS Distance Volume Central Valley Project Sacramento 85% irrigation 600 km 274 m 3 s Central Arizona Project Colorado $4Billion 1968-1994to Phoenix and Tucson 90% irrigation 528 km 59 m 3 s Central Utah: Project Colorado 242 km 10.6 m 3 s Chicago Diversion to the Mississippi River 40 km 91 m 3 s Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant: $158 M 1.1 m 3 s Las Vegas: $2 billion by 2014 40,000 acre foot (Buried water pipeline: 150 million gallons/ day) 400 km 1.56 m 3 s The Alaska-California Subsea Pipeline Project 644 -3380 km $110 Billion NARA projected at US$390M/yr. (FOB Great Lakes) Add $1.25M/ mile or $780,00/km for pipeline (2007) 570 km 1,074 m 3 s
17. Inter-basin Water Proposals are Not New SOURCE: P.H. Pearce, F. Bertrand and J.W. MacLaren, "Currents of Change", FINAL REPORT OF THE INQUIRY ON FEDERAL WATER POLICY [Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1985] p.127 Magnum Plan {Magnusson} - Peace R. , Athabasca R. , & N. Saskatchewan Rivers Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 PROPOSED PROJECT ( No C ost E stimates A vailable ) Volume of Fresh Water (m 3 s ) Great Lakes-Pacific Waterways plan { Decker } Skeena R ., Nechako R . & Fraser R ., of B.C., Peace R. , Athabasca R. , & Saskatchewan R . 4 , 500 983 NAPAWA-MUSCHEC or Mexican-United States Hydroelectric Commission {Parsons} – NAPAWA sources, plus lower Mississippi & Sierra Madre , Oriental Rivers of South Mexico. 5 , 517 North American Waters, A Master Plan [NAWAMP] { Tweed } - Yukon & Mackenzie Rivers, plus drainage to Hudson Bay. 58 , 663
18. There were High Priced Proposals * T his plan would involve 240 dams and reservoirs, 112 water diversions and 17 aqueducts and canals . Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 PROPOSED PROJECT S Volume of Water ( m 3 s ) Estimated Price (200 8 ) North American Water And Power Alliance [NAWAPA] {Parsons} – Pacific & Arctic drainage of Alaska, Yukon & B.C. * 9830 $16 6 Billion Kuiper Plan {Kuiper} – Peace R. , Athabasca R. , and N. Saskatchewan R. in Alberta; Nelson R. and Churchill R. in Manitoba. 5865 $8 3 Billion Central North American Water Project [CeNAWP] {Tinney} – Mackenzie, Peace , Athabasca, N. Saskatchewan, Nelson & Churchill Rivers. 5865 $ 50 Billion to $8 3 Billion Western States Water Augmentation Concept {Smith} – Liard R. & Mackenzie River. 5865 $14 9 Billion
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48. The Helical Turbine is the Most Efficient: 35% Propeller turbine s have an efficiency of 20% compared to the Helical Turbine ( 35% ). Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60. HUG Pilot Project * The designated Fee is initially offered to promoters (under contract). The fees for succeeding systems will be allocated to management fees (5%), community development (4%) and patent fee (1%). 80% utilization: 7 ,015 MWh [x $79 (Quebec)] $ 554 ,000: ROI = 7 % in first year only. Annual Return on Investment: (Ontario FIT) (using $131/M W h) $ 919 ,000 = 12.7 % The First 1.0 MW Prototype HUG System HUG Length: 31 m ; Diameter/Depth: 6 m ; Twin Oval Helical Turbines: 28 Romain Audet [email_address] August 19, 2010 28 Turbines @ $8,750 $245,000 28 Submersible Generator @ $5,000 140,000 1 Module Cylindrical HUG 1,250,000 Civil Works 1,625,000 Control System 407,000 Electric Power Converter/Generator for 6.7MW DFIG 593,000 Transmission and Grid Connection 86,000 Electrical Connections 550,000 Electrical and Mechanical Overhead 114,000 Subtotal $5,010,000 Contingency, Insurance, Legal costs, Bank fees, Interest: (15%) 752,000 Total Helical Turbine System Cost $5,762,000 Engineering Planning and Design (15%) 864,000 Patent Promotion Fee* (10%) 576,000 Total Costs : 1.0 MW $1075/kW (.153/kWh) $7,202,000