Twice today Peak Oil is on the front page of the WSJ:
First, in an article entitled "Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil-Production Crunch," a good explanation of the shift at the IEA on the peak oil issue. For those who have access: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121139527250011387.html?mod=hps_us_whats...
Second, in an article about one of the first effects of Peak Oil: "American Cuts Flights, Adds Fees as Airlines Face Crisis."
Please excuse me now, while I go off to redeem all of my frequent flier milers.
I feel this article is the singlemost important article ever to have made it to a major MSM- institution ! It mentions the words "peak-oil"-theory ..... in a "traditional" manner, but one sunny day Peak Oil will become a reality ,IMO , without "" and theory attached
...and even though its got me down at times I'm glad to have been with you.
IMO this IEA revision and the Contango event are the most important bits of news I've heard for a while short of a 'Jimmy Carter' style emergency declaration (its coming!)
I've put my 2nd home on the market today and ramping up other PO 'preparedeness' activities. All around are dead men walking: airlines, truckers (Uk logistics friend told me today "1/3 of the Industry to go to the wall by Xmas"), etc etc.
Families face £650 rise in petrol and energy prices as oil breaks through the $135 barrier ... and air fares are going to rise too
By Ryan Kisiel
Last updated at 3:43 PM on 22nd May 2008
• Comments (47)
• Add to My Stories
Families were warned today that the latest dramatic spike in oil prices will cost them an extra £650 a year in petrol and energy bills.
The oil price soared again on international markets last night to exceed $135 a barrel for the first time. The $5 surge is the biggest since the start of the first Gulf War in 1990.
And don't forget the Daily Express (ignoring Princess Di for once) and their new campaign to cut UK taxes now, rather than when the price REALLY rises.
The oil price is now lead story on the BBC News website and number 2 on the BBC News channel. What with the bunch of stories turning up in various places it looks like an editor has finally decided to take it seriously.
Still have the non-explanations of the price though; equivalent to shrugging shoulders.
Ever since I can remember, the airlines have jumped from one crisis to another. The airline industry service model, which in any case was never very much good to begin with, is now falling apart.
What we'll end up with in a very few years is a system of corporate jet and (as someone mentioned yesterday) turboprop-based air taxis for the highest end business and leisure travelers.
Boeing and Airbus aren't both going to make it. 15 years from now there just isn't going to be room in the civilian market for two of them. Possibly not even for one of them. The combined A380 and Dreamliner fiascos are going to come to symbolize the end of an age.
I've seen postings on various threads which follow the pattern "let's nuke (city/country) and grab their oil". Air power can be used to deny oil to someone else - it can't be used to seize oil assets.
In the best of times, it is hard enough to keep flammible liquids and gases under high pressure from blowing up in refineries and pipelines. Start throwing bombs or missiles around, and there is likely to be nothing left to seize.
Of course, the fact that it is stupid, immoral, and counter-productive doesn't mean that someone won't try it(:
Not to mention that things like pipe-lines and refineries are easier to blow up than to build, or maybe even to guard. Case in point: as far as I know Iraq's oil production is still slightly lower than the pre-war levels.
Better yet, I hear this from the same people opposed to the Iraq invasion. I guess someone better clue them in to exactly why we chose Iraq and not Zimbabwe to spread "democracy".
We were very careful when we "liberated" Iraq not to cause uneeded damage to the oil infrastructure.
I wonder what kind of flows we will be looking at if they get a political solution in place and allow foreign companies to drill? Anybody have any idea what they can pump?
Depends whether they really have that 350 billion barrels they now claim. The chances of that are about 5%.
I think years ago they hit a peak of about 4 million barrels a day. If they really have about the same reserves as Kuwait and Iran, that would put them in the same ballpark, up from about 2.3 today.
During the sanction years, Saddam was woefully under investing, so the facilities need tremendous work. Seem unlikely to happen unless the political situation improves a lot more than now seems possible. If peace breaks out, I think they might get another 1.5 to 2 million barrels a day in 5 to 10 years. The neocons who went in there for oil apparently think you could take it up tp 6-8 million. (I have no expertise in the oil industry.)
I heard somewhere that during the period of sanctions, Saddam had all flow meters and gauges removed from pipelines and storage tanks so that inspectors couldn't detect when he was cheating on quotas.
During the eight years that Iraq was at war with Iran, I think that they both produced at as high a rate as they could to pay for weapons. AFIK, when wells are produced at too high a rate you get "channeling" in the reservoir leaving a lot of oil unavailable for future production (stranded oil).
I am very curious as to what the real potential of Iraq is after decades of mismanagement.
Case in point: as far as I know Iraq's oil production is still slightly lower than the pre-war levels.
WHICH 'war'? Iraq had its 'Hey you - go pick on your neighbor Iran' conflict. Then the 'We have no opinion on your claims that your neighbor is slant drilling oil you claim' conflict that has been ongoing for years.
I can't see current defence expenditures in the States, or anything like them, remaining financeable for 15 years, or likely much beyond 2009 or 2012 at the outside.
They may use it in an oil grab, or loose it, but either way they will have gone within that time frame, is my guess.
I would agree. But I would also expect, given the expected geopolitical environment surrounding oil depletion, that the U.S. government will continue to see military expenditures as their single highest priority. Current yearly levels of military spending in the U.S. (especially if supplementals to fund the Iraq occupation are included) are just about the same as the entire rest of the world. And while the current absolute level is unsustainable, I would not be surprised if the relative level is maintained, even increased. That spending by itself should be enough to keep some of the larger contractors afloat, even if at smaller sizes.
Or perhaps we will see a merger of Airbus and Boeing, stranger things are likely to occur.
An associate of mine mentioned how the 'economies of scale' that has helped the airline industry won't be there in the future to help either. A world of hurt for the business model - plus the active efforts to make the experience of flying to be distasteful.
The 787-8 and 787-9 are almost ideal a/c to be selling post-Peak oil. At the small end of twin aisle a/c and 20+% more efficient than what is flying today.
International travel over water and the Eurasian land mass will shrink but not disappear post-Peak Oil, and what is left will be flying in smaller and the most fuel efficient a/c available (for long flights the 787 beats turboprops, the air (aerodynamic resistance) is thin up there).
Despite being backed by the treasuries of France, Germany, the UK and Spain, Airbus costs are largely in euros and pounds, Boeing costs in US $ (yen #2). Boeing sells a better product at a lower cost of production.
As for the 737/A32x replacements, Boeing has a substantial technological lead with the 787 vs. the planned A350. ATM, Boeing is waiting for a better, more fuel efficient engine before launching the 737 replacement. Shrinking the 787 to 737 size with current engines would save about 12%.
You might be right, mine was very much a guess based on the state if US finances.
Any idea of how they are off for power supplies in Seattle?
BTW, I posted a question for you on a old DrumBeat, but it is probably lost in the wash now - I wonder if you could inform us at all on the likely implications of trying to switch freight to rail in Europe, as they have done a dire job on that as opposed to passenger transport.
It will have to take priority in any case, but any idea of how it will impact the passenger side of things here?
Thanks.
During WW II, the volume of passengers and freight more than tripled in the USA (from memory) and it was 98-99% rail (truck & bus was de-emphasized and cut back).
Some lessons might be learned from this. Priority was given to freight, then troop trains, then civilian trains.
All railroads operated as a single entity, operating on whatever tracks worked best/had spare capacity.
FedEx has approached SNCF about using TGV lines to carry special package trains, has not happened (yet). I could see most food shipments (fruit & veggies) going by HSR where available.
Switzerland is in the middle of a massive switch from truck to rail, and SBB is the best run railroad in the world (some in Japan rival it). Some lessons to be learned from them.
The EU does not have enough rolling stock to suddenly switch modes (see WW II in USA) but it could be built in 3 or so years (IMHO). Additional tracks to add capacity while building that rolling stock. Finish electrifying (adds +15% capacity).
The biggest issue for EU freight, is how does one impose good management ?
Not a coherent answer, but hopefully some useful bits.
Very useful information. That sounds very do-able.
Eurocrats in spite of being startlingly obtuse and rigid have some formidable administrative capabilities to draw on once the political will is there.
I can easily see decisions being taken on a rapid schedule out to 2010 after initial shock and paralysis, and then perhaps your 3 years for transfer to rail and water.
To pick up on another comment on the same thread, France is actually installing 50,000 air source heat pumps per year, which are fine for their climate and far less expensive than ground source.
It is informative to compare that with how many they will need to install to really substantially impact the need for gas.
A medium sized European country like France has around 25million homes.
So they would need to expand their effort by perhaps 40 times to maybe 2million a year to convert on some useful schedule, and their plans for residential solar thermal of 5 million in a few years would have to multiply by a factor of 5.
Although this is challenging builders there are getting invaluable experience of installing the units, and the ramp up will be much easier than in the States, where solar heaters are essentially used for swimming pools.
Another technology that I have recently come across is the use of desiccants for a/c- apparently this uses a fraction of the power of traditional a/c: http://www.nrel.gov/dtet/thermal_air_cond.html
NREL: Distributed Thermal Energy Technologies - Thermally Driven Air Conditioning
Early days for it, and immediately post peak probably not do-able anyway, but perhaps some hope for workers in inclement climates at a power consumption which may be affordable.
What about the mix of high/low speed traffic? All frieght or all passenger is easier to schedule than mixed speed traffic. The only solution that I have seen to high density mixed traffic is to have lots of rail sidings.
SBB (see best managed railroad in world) plans to operate up to 300 trains per day through their new dual track 58 km tunnel at varying speeds from 110 kph to 240 kph. Longest train 1.5 km long.
If any other RR made that claim, I would be incredulous.
On the TransAlp website, in German from memory. They also talked about maintenance (vaguely remember shutting down for 48 hours every ten years), the new class 160 kph freight trains, etc.
Some heavy lobbying for the smaller tunnels along the Zurich-Milan route (10 and 18 km long ?).
Do you think we will see a new form of transport in the form of a rubbish train. You get free transit in return for sorting the rubbish the train collects on its rounds. Recyclable, compostable and landfill wastes are deposited at the appropriate locations. Took the inspiration from the postal trains, I think trains would be ideal locations for stand up comedy, preaching, sing-a-longs, live music or even a gym. Some of the carriages could have certain debate topics and encourage more human interaction. Food serving and preparation is also an obvious function. I guess the extra costs and less seats would make the economics stink, but would be a bit more interesting IMO.
Any idea of how they are off for power supplies in Seattle?
I have not looked it up but I think they have just about the best hydro resources up there in Washington and BC of any place in the world. I think they send a lot of it down here to California. But when supplies get tight, can they redirect them locally? I doubt it since US states are not that autonomous. They could also build a lot of nuclear up there because they have great ocean and bay cooling water resources, although they have moderate earthquake hazards. With all the mountains near the coast, they probably have some pretty good wind sites as well. They are probably better set for local power than any other place in the US.
I think the biggest hydro infrastructure in North America is in Quebec. About 40GW installed capacity. 100% renewable power generation from hydro/wind.
Doesn't most of Quebec's Hydro power really come from the upper Churchill in Newfoundland and Labrador (under a really favorable, to Quebec, 75-year contract from the days of Joe Smallwood)?
Churchill is about 5.7GW. The "La Grande" complex on James Bay is a bit over twice that; the Manicouagan complex is maybe about the same as Churchill.
The power from Churchill would be counted as part of Hydro-Quebec's capacity, although it is not properly in Quebec (and the lease will expire in another 40? years). I should have included that info in the original post.
Here's a link to the Hydro-Quebec generating network (in English).
I said the best hydro resources, not installed generation. According to Wikipedia, the Grand Coulee Dam (6809 MW) is bigger than any in Quebec. But I was also thinking about what seems to me a lot of untapped potential from all that rain in those mountains up the Washington and BC coast. I will give you that Quebec currently probably has more installed generation.
Robert Bourassa (formerly LaGrande 2) is 5,616 MW and La Grande 2A is 2,106 MW for a total of 7,722 MW. The two are side by side, drawing from the same reservoir and discharging into the same river.
2A was an add-on in a multi-stage development. I could see where it might be easier to split water flows.
Won't get nuke power in BC and Washington - both made it illegal. But that's o.k., they'll keep the lights on by sitting around the camp fire, holding hands and wishing real hard.
Working on the hydro developments up here in BC. Yes, there is huge potential in run of river systems. There is only one dam site under consideration of 900 MW and it is naturally running into all sorts of opposition because they need to flood family farms.
Run of river is pretty cool, but small and distributed, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The other drawback for RoR is the generation is lowest during the winter months just when you need it most.
Twice today Peak Oil is on the front page of the WSJ:
First, in an article entitled "Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil-Production Crunch," a good explanation of the shift at the IEA on the peak oil issue. For those who have access:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121139527250011387.html?mod=hps_us_whats...
Second, in an article about one of the first effects of Peak Oil: "American Cuts Flights, Adds Fees as Airlines Face Crisis."
Please excuse me now, while I go off to redeem all of my frequent flier milers.
I feel this article is the singlemost important article ever to have made it to a major MSM- institution ! It mentions the words "peak-oil"-theory ..... in a "traditional" manner, but one sunny day Peak Oil will become a reality ,IMO , without "" and theory attached
I agree, it's quite a milestone, just three years ago we were sharing the same spot with UFO research and Raëliens.
Of course most of the MSM still believes in UFO's , Unlimited Findable Oil (sources).
...and even though its got me down at times I'm glad to have been with you.
IMO this IEA revision and the Contango event are the most important bits of news I've heard for a while short of a 'Jimmy Carter' style emergency declaration (its coming!)
I've put my 2nd home on the market today and ramping up other PO 'preparedeness' activities. All around are dead men walking: airlines, truckers (Uk logistics friend told me today "1/3 of the Industry to go to the wall by Xmas"), etc etc.
Nicks PO Timeline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8745365@N04/2504887199/sizes/o/
Well it is starting to hurt now.
Read the comments...distress, anger, confusion, rebellion.
And its not even started yet....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021109/Motorists-warned-years-p...
Families face £650 rise in petrol and energy prices as oil breaks through the $135 barrier ... and air fares are going to rise too
By Ryan Kisiel
Last updated at 3:43 PM on 22nd May 2008
• Comments (47)
• Add to My Stories
Families were warned today that the latest dramatic spike in oil prices will cost them an extra £650 a year in petrol and energy bills.
The oil price soared again on international markets last night to exceed $135 a barrel for the first time. The $5 surge is the biggest since the start of the first Gulf War in 1990.
And don't forget the Daily Express (ignoring Princess Di for once) and their new campaign to cut UK taxes now, rather than when the price REALLY rises.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/45277/Stop-petrol-tax-robbery
Well.
At 17:10 BST , Chris Skrebowski was interviewed on Radio 4 re PO.
Snippets:
CS'we are at peak light sweet. This is the foothills of Peak oil .'
'when will final peak occur?'
CS'probably 2012-2013.'
pause...'2013?'
Listen again for that episode.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/news.shtml?radio4/pm
Not sure if it will work outside the UK, probably will.
Thanks for that
The oil price is now lead story on the BBC News website and number 2 on the BBC News channel. What with the bunch of stories turning up in various places it looks like an editor has finally decided to take it seriously.
Still have the non-explanations of the price though; equivalent to shrugging shoulders.
Its not rocket science people!
I'm fairly certain that Gordon Brown will face a vote of no confidence before the 2010 general election.
Ever since I can remember, the airlines have jumped from one crisis to another. The airline industry service model, which in any case was never very much good to begin with, is now falling apart.
What we'll end up with in a very few years is a system of corporate jet and (as someone mentioned yesterday) turboprop-based air taxis for the highest end business and leisure travelers.
Boeing and Airbus aren't both going to make it. 15 years from now there just isn't going to be room in the civilian market for two of them. Possibly not even for one of them. The combined A380 and Dreamliner fiascos are going to come to symbolize the end of an age.
Let's hope their future isn't in bombers, cruise missiles and surveillance aircraft.
I've seen postings on various threads which follow the pattern "let's nuke (city/country) and grab their oil". Air power can be used to deny oil to someone else - it can't be used to seize oil assets.
In the best of times, it is hard enough to keep flammible liquids and gases under high pressure from blowing up in refineries and pipelines. Start throwing bombs or missiles around, and there is likely to be nothing left to seize.
Of course, the fact that it is stupid, immoral, and counter-productive doesn't mean that someone won't try it(:
Not to mention that things like pipe-lines and refineries are easier to blow up than to build, or maybe even to guard. Case in point: as far as I know Iraq's oil production is still slightly lower than the pre-war levels.
Better yet, I hear this from the same people opposed to the Iraq invasion. I guess someone better clue them in to exactly why we chose Iraq and not Zimbabwe to spread "democracy".
We were very careful when we "liberated" Iraq not to cause uneeded damage to the oil infrastructure.
I wonder what kind of flows we will be looking at if they get a political solution in place and allow foreign companies to drill? Anybody have any idea what they can pump?
Depends whether they really have that 350 billion barrels they now claim. The chances of that are about 5%.
I think years ago they hit a peak of about 4 million barrels a day. If they really have about the same reserves as Kuwait and Iran, that would put them in the same ballpark, up from about 2.3 today.
During the sanction years, Saddam was woefully under investing, so the facilities need tremendous work. Seem unlikely to happen unless the political situation improves a lot more than now seems possible. If peace breaks out, I think they might get another 1.5 to 2 million barrels a day in 5 to 10 years. The neocons who went in there for oil apparently think you could take it up tp 6-8 million. (I have no expertise in the oil industry.)
I heard somewhere that during the period of sanctions, Saddam had all flow meters and gauges removed from pipelines and storage tanks so that inspectors couldn't detect when he was cheating on quotas.
During the eight years that Iraq was at war with Iran, I think that they both produced at as high a rate as they could to pay for weapons. AFIK, when wells are produced at too high a rate you get "channeling" in the reservoir leaving a lot of oil unavailable for future production (stranded oil).
I am very curious as to what the real potential of Iraq is after decades of mismanagement.
Case in point: as far as I know Iraq's oil production is still slightly lower than the pre-war levels.
WHICH 'war'? Iraq had its 'Hey you - go pick on your neighbor Iran' conflict. Then the 'We have no opinion on your claims that your neighbor is slant drilling oil you claim' conflict that has been ongoing for years.
Perhaps new lyrics are pending. Boeing and Airbus will be humming "Flight of the Concorde" instead of "Flight of the Condor".
Airbus and Concorde will be entries among other extinct winged creatures in future textbooks in addition to the Dodo and Passenger Pigeon.
My money's on Airbus.
Finances in Europe are in a healthier state to support it, and the availability of nuclear power should keep costs in check.
But Boeing's finances are "supplemented" by it's extensive defense contracting.
I can't see current defence expenditures in the States, or anything like them, remaining financeable for 15 years, or likely much beyond 2009 or 2012 at the outside.
They may use it in an oil grab, or loose it, but either way they will have gone within that time frame, is my guess.
I would agree. But I would also expect, given the expected geopolitical environment surrounding oil depletion, that the U.S. government will continue to see military expenditures as their single highest priority. Current yearly levels of military spending in the U.S. (especially if supplementals to fund the Iraq occupation are included) are just about the same as the entire rest of the world. And while the current absolute level is unsustainable, I would not be surprised if the relative level is maintained, even increased. That spending by itself should be enough to keep some of the larger contractors afloat, even if at smaller sizes.
Or perhaps we will see a merger of Airbus and Boeing, stranger things are likely to occur.
An associate of mine mentioned how the 'economies of scale' that has helped the airline industry won't be there in the future to help either. A world of hurt for the business model - plus the active efforts to make the experience of flying to be distasteful.
Then your money will likely be lost.
The 787-8 and 787-9 are almost ideal a/c to be selling post-Peak oil. At the small end of twin aisle a/c and 20+% more efficient than what is flying today.
International travel over water and the Eurasian land mass will shrink but not disappear post-Peak Oil, and what is left will be flying in smaller and the most fuel efficient a/c available (for long flights the 787 beats turboprops, the air (aerodynamic resistance) is thin up there).
Despite being backed by the treasuries of France, Germany, the UK and Spain, Airbus costs are largely in euros and pounds, Boeing costs in US $ (yen #2). Boeing sells a better product at a lower cost of production.
As for the 737/A32x replacements, Boeing has a substantial technological lead with the 787 vs. the planned A350. ATM, Boeing is waiting for a better, more fuel efficient engine before launching the 737 replacement. Shrinking the 787 to 737 size with current engines would save about 12%.
Best Hopes for Boeing,
Alan
You might be right, mine was very much a guess based on the state if US finances.
Any idea of how they are off for power supplies in Seattle?
BTW, I posted a question for you on a old DrumBeat, but it is probably lost in the wash now - I wonder if you could inform us at all on the likely implications of trying to switch freight to rail in Europe, as they have done a dire job on that as opposed to passenger transport.
It will have to take priority in any case, but any idea of how it will impact the passenger side of things here?
Thanks.
During WW II, the volume of passengers and freight more than tripled in the USA (from memory) and it was 98-99% rail (truck & bus was de-emphasized and cut back).
Some lessons might be learned from this. Priority was given to freight, then troop trains, then civilian trains.
All railroads operated as a single entity, operating on whatever tracks worked best/had spare capacity.
FedEx has approached SNCF about using TGV lines to carry special package trains, has not happened (yet). I could see most food shipments (fruit & veggies) going by HSR where available.
Switzerland is in the middle of a massive switch from truck to rail, and SBB is the best run railroad in the world (some in Japan rival it). Some lessons to be learned from them.
The EU does not have enough rolling stock to suddenly switch modes (see WW II in USA) but it could be built in 3 or so years (IMHO). Additional tracks to add capacity while building that rolling stock. Finish electrifying (adds +15% capacity).
The biggest issue for EU freight, is how does one impose good management ?
Not a coherent answer, but hopefully some useful bits.
Best Hopes for EU freight rail,
Alan
Very useful information. That sounds very do-able.
Eurocrats in spite of being startlingly obtuse and rigid have some formidable administrative capabilities to draw on once the political will is there.
I can easily see decisions being taken on a rapid schedule out to 2010 after initial shock and paralysis, and then perhaps your 3 years for transfer to rail and water.
To pick up on another comment on the same thread, France is actually installing 50,000 air source heat pumps per year, which are fine for their climate and far less expensive than ground source.
It is informative to compare that with how many they will need to install to really substantially impact the need for gas.
A medium sized European country like France has around 25million homes.
So they would need to expand their effort by perhaps 40 times to maybe 2million a year to convert on some useful schedule, and their plans for residential solar thermal of 5 million in a few years would have to multiply by a factor of 5.
Although this is challenging builders there are getting invaluable experience of installing the units, and the ramp up will be much easier than in the States, where solar heaters are essentially used for swimming pools.
Another technology that I have recently come across is the use of desiccants for a/c- apparently this uses a fraction of the power of traditional a/c:
http://www.nrel.gov/dtet/thermal_air_cond.html
NREL: Distributed Thermal Energy Technologies - Thermally Driven Air Conditioning
Early days for it, and immediately post peak probably not do-able anyway, but perhaps some hope for workers in inclement climates at a power consumption which may be affordable.
Anyway, thanks for the train info!
What about the mix of high/low speed traffic? All frieght or all passenger is easier to schedule than mixed speed traffic. The only solution that I have seen to high density mixed traffic is to have lots of rail sidings.
SBB (see best managed railroad in world) plans to operate up to 300 trains per day through their new dual track 58 km tunnel at varying speeds from 110 kph to 240 kph. Longest train 1.5 km long.
If any other RR made that claim, I would be incredulous.
Best Hopes for GREAT RR management,
Alan
I am interested. Where did you read that?
On the TransAlp website, in German from memory. They also talked about maintenance (vaguely remember shutting down for 48 hours every ten years), the new class 160 kph freight trains, etc.
Some heavy lobbying for the smaller tunnels along the Zurich-Milan route (10 and 18 km long ?).
If I remember, you are Swiss ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
Do you think we will see a new form of transport in the form of a rubbish train. You get free transit in return for sorting the rubbish the train collects on its rounds. Recyclable, compostable and landfill wastes are deposited at the appropriate locations. Took the inspiration from the postal trains, I think trains would be ideal locations for stand up comedy, preaching, sing-a-longs, live music or even a gym. Some of the carriages could have certain debate topics and encourage more human interaction. Food serving and preparation is also an obvious function. I guess the extra costs and less seats would make the economics stink, but would be a bit more interesting IMO.
I have not looked it up but I think they have just about the best hydro resources up there in Washington and BC of any place in the world. I think they send a lot of it down here to California. But when supplies get tight, can they redirect them locally? I doubt it since US states are not that autonomous. They could also build a lot of nuclear up there because they have great ocean and bay cooling water resources, although they have moderate earthquake hazards. With all the mountains near the coast, they probably have some pretty good wind sites as well. They are probably better set for local power than any other place in the US.
I think the biggest hydro infrastructure in North America is in Quebec. About 40GW installed capacity. 100% renewable power generation from hydro/wind.
Doesn't most of Quebec's Hydro power really come from the upper Churchill in Newfoundland and Labrador (under a really favorable, to Quebec, 75-year contract from the days of Joe Smallwood)?
Churchill is about 5.7GW. The "La Grande" complex on James Bay is a bit over twice that; the Manicouagan complex is maybe about the same as Churchill.
The power from Churchill would be counted as part of Hydro-Quebec's capacity, although it is not properly in Quebec (and the lease will expire in another 40? years). I should have included that info in the original post.
Here's a link to the Hydro-Quebec generating network (in English).
Hydro-Quebec
I said the best hydro resources, not installed generation. According to Wikipedia, the Grand Coulee Dam (6809 MW) is bigger than any in Quebec. But I was also thinking about what seems to me a lot of untapped potential from all that rain in those mountains up the Washington and BC coast. I will give you that Quebec currently probably has more installed generation.
Robert Bourassa (formerly LaGrande 2) is 5,616 MW and La Grande 2A is 2,106 MW for a total of 7,722 MW. The two are side by side, drawing from the same reservoir and discharging into the same river.
2A was an add-on in a multi-stage development. I could see where it might be easier to split water flows.
http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/hydroelectric/la_grande/index.html
Alan
Won't get nuke power in BC and Washington - both made it illegal. But that's o.k., they'll keep the lights on by sitting around the camp fire, holding hands and wishing real hard.
Working on the hydro developments up here in BC. Yes, there is huge potential in run of river systems. There is only one dam site under consideration of 900 MW and it is naturally running into all sorts of opposition because they need to flood family farms.
Run of river is pretty cool, but small and distributed, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The other drawback for RoR is the generation is lowest during the winter months just when you need it most.
Activists, (which is considered a