Exemptions with Regard to Small Hydropower Projects

Conduit Exclusions

A small passage hydroelectric installation which is around 15 MW, and in certain projects of a municipality of a capacity up to 40 MW, using an artificial conduit functioning chiefly for non-hydroelectric aims may be entitled for a conduit exception. The applicant should have the realty (real estate) concerns essential to formulate and control the project, or an alternative to obtain the interests. The installation cannot use federal lands. The channel on which the scheme is being developed is not considered a project work. Requests for exceptions of small hydroelectric conduits are unconditionally free from the obligation for an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement to be arranged by the Commission. On the other hand, this does not signify that the Commission cannot require an EA or EIS to be developed if the proposed project seems to have contrary consequences on the environment.

MW Exceptions

A small-scale hydroelectric project of 5 MW or less might be entitled to the 5 MW exclusion. The applicant must intend to set up on or lend capacity to an existing project situated on a non-federal dam constructed before 2005, or even at a natural water feature. This exemption is allowed for projects which are situated on federal lands, but they should under no circumstance be situated at a federal dam. The claimant must have all the realty interests or an alternative to hold stakes in any non-federal grounds.

Licenses

A permit from the Commission is needed to build, operate, and maintain a non-federal hydroelectric project. Such projects must have the following features:

(a) Be situated on crossable waters of the United States;

(b) Reside on U.S. lands;

(c) Make use of excess water or water authority from a U.S. government dam; or

(d) Be situated on a watercourse above which Congress has trade Clause authority;

(e) Where project building or elaboration took place on or after August 26, 1935.

Such project should also consider effects on the interests of interstate or overseas commerce. Licenses may be given for a period which might be up to 50 years and must be renewed toward the end of each period. A license provides the licensee with the ability to hold lands or other permissions required to build, operate, and preserve the hydroelectric project.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that we are at crossroads with regard to the views of hydropower’s future from its past and present dictatorial environment. The reaction to present disputes and altering actuality will, to a great degree, decide the importance of small hydropower as a significant element of the U.S.'s inexhaustible energy content in the future. Present advances for licensing onhand projects seem to be allowing for preferred tractability, with the option of enhanced efficiencies owing to the superior class of data obtainable for projects with important post-ECPA (Electronic Consumers Protection Act) procedures.

On the other hand, the scarcity of propositions for new small and additive capacity to established hydropower add-ons is a red flag. Large fiscal and regulative roadblocks are blocking growth of new generation, formulating less than 3% which is equal to 560 MW out of 21, 000 MW, of the onhand small conservative hydropower not needing the building of new dams, which does not enthuse policy-makers. An appraisal of present policies and processes to assure they are not producing unneeded hurdles to enhancing this existing capacity would be sensible.

https: //www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/104294-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-and-private-hydropower/

Japan Nuclear Incident: What Really Happened?

Energy & Power Plants / By vishalseafarer / Mechanical Engineering

Japan and Earthquakes

To the Japanese, earthquakes are nothing new. The entire land mass that Japan rests on is present in a region that experiences earthquakes each year. This has led them to adopt building architectures that are capable of withstanding earthquakes all the way to 6.0 on the Richter scale. But the earthquake of the magnitude 9.0 that Japan saw on March 11th was something out of the blue. It was the worst earthquake that the industrialized world has ever seen.

This earthquake not only triggered a tsunam, i but also damaged the Fukushima I reactor to such an extent that many were afraid of a possible Chernobyl-like incident, or something even worse.

For those who came in late, here is a brief description of the series of events that has left all countries with nuclear power plants in deep thought about the future of nuclear energy.

On March 11th of 2011, an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 on the Richter scale hit Japan. The earthquake caused damage to the Fukushima nuclear reactors. The damage stopped the power source to the reactors before they could shutdown. As designed, the backup generators kicked in and the reactor proceeded with its shutdown process.

However this earthquake triggered a tsunami that ravaged a huge area of land and made its way to the Fukushima nuclear reactors. The tsunami reached the reactor and damaged the backup power supply before the nuclear reactor shutdown totally.

This was something that was not expected when the reactor was designed, although it was designed to withstand earthquakes up to the magnitude of 8.2. The incomplete shutdown led to the explosion of two reactors (not a nuclear explosion, but an explosion due to the build up of gases inside the reactor).

The damage caused to the nuclear reactor was so bad that the core of the nuclear reactor was exposed in the days that followed. This led to the increase in nuclear radiation level around the surrounding areas.

FUKUSHIMA 1

⇐ Предыдущая12345678Следующая ⇒

Поделиться: