Marketplace    Homes    Jobs    Classifieds    Coupons
[SeMissourian.com] Fog/Mist ~ 39°F  
River stage: 33.66 Rising
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Print Email link Respond to editor Read comments (8) Share link

Company wants to turn river into energy

Monday, November 12, 2007

The Mississippi River runs high and fast and it flows low and slow. But the river never stops, and a Massachusetts company wants to harness that force to generate electricity from turbines anchored to the river's bed.

Free Flow Power Corp., or FFP, of Manchester, Mass., applied for 59 permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to install 160,000 turbines in the river from St. Louis to Louisiana. Of that number, 14 projects are in the Mississippi River as it passes between Missouri and Illinois, including nine in Southeast Missouri and three in Cape Girardeau County.

FFP intends to prove the commercial viability of what is known as hydrokinetic energy, said Daniel Irvin, chief executive officer of the firm. The first step, he said, is to obtain preliminary permits. Those permits allow the company to develop a detailed plan that proves the capabilities of its turbines and outlines how the company intends to comply with the complex regulatory web that governs the river.

"We are looking at a lot of people doing demonstration projects," Irvin said. "We don't see how those generate an economic return in the long term."

To make the FERC process more efficient, and because other regulators, especially the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, control all construction in the river, the company decided to go for the large-scale approach, Irvin said. The FERC process for hydropower generators, from preliminary permit to operating license, generally takes five years. It is a process developed for dam construction, Irvin said, and he hopes to cut the period to about 2 1/2 years.

The permitting process is lengthy to allow for maximum public input. The FERC is currently taking comments on FFP's applications for the preliminary permits. The comment period ends just before the end of the year.

Notices of the applications and the comment period have been published in newspapers and sent to county commissions and city governments in the areas adjacent to the proposed projects.

Ken Eftink, Cape Girardeau's development services director, said the notice surprised him. "I wasn't aware of the project. My initial reaction is, 'What a great idea. If we can harness all this energy from the river and use it and not burn fossil fuel. ...' But I have not talked to anyone from AmerenUE. They might have some concerns."

Eftink said the city must also be concerned about protecting river traffic. Local governments will not be holding any public hearings on the proposed projects.

Hydrokinetic power

FFP not only wants to install and operate the electrical generators, it is developing the turbines required for the project with an eye to becoming a major supplier to developers of other projects, Irvin said.

"The volume of production of the turbines will get larger and, once you are up to scale, you can produce the turbines more cheaply," he said. "That would mean better tax benefits if we got the recognition of this as a clean, renewable energy source."

If all the projects are built, the total investment will be $3 billion, Irvin said.

Harnessing hydrokinetic power is becoming a major focus of energy research. Most ideas focus on harnessing tidal forces. But rivers could be a major source of power, Irvin said, and his company's proposal uses only a fraction of the available power in the Mississippi River.

"The Mississippi is huge and there are lots more opportunities for others," he said. "We want to sell turbines to others as the longer-term business model."

Hydrokinetic power production is so new that FERC hasn't issued any preliminary permits for projects, said Barbara Connors, a spokeswoman for the federal agency.

If FFP's applications are approved, she said, the company would have three years to study the feasibility and get the approvals needed for construction.

"With the preliminary permit, they can't do any construction," Connors said. "They are more or less doing further studies."

1,600 megawatts

FFP's plan calls for installing pilings in the river with six to 12 turbines attached to each piling. The pilings would be placed in deep water, far enough above the river floor to be away from the shifting silts that line the river and, where the arrays enter the navigation channel, at least 40 feet below the surface of the water to stay clear of surface traffic.

A piling would be placed every 50 feet around the bends in the river. At a flow of 9 feet per second, each turbine could generate 20 kilowatts of power. River bends are ideal, Irvin said, because water accelerates around bends.

"We are seeking to generate electricity at prices competitive with conventional generation," Irvin said. "A lot depends on all kinds of conditions and so forth, but we are projecting we will compete with conventional generation."

Proposed sites near Cape Gir-ardeau include one that follows the bend around Marquette Island just south of Cape Girardeau for 3.1 miles. It would have 15,500 turbines with a stated generating capacity of 31 megawatts.

Another site would be just north of the city and run for 6.2 miles with 3,100 turbines and a rated capacity of 62 megawatts. The third would straddle the line between Cape Girardeau and Scott counties for 3.4 miles, contain 1,700 turbines and have a rated capacity of 34 megawatts.

The entire string of 59 projects has a capacity of 1,600 megawatts, Irvin said.

In comparison, the coal-fired Associated Electric Cooperative power plant in New Madrid, Mo., has a rated capacity of 1,200 megawatts.

The power from the Mississippi River projects would supply the needs of about 1.5 million homes, Irvin said.

The actual amount of power the turbines will generate will fluctuate with the river's flow. The 20 kilowatt output of each turbine is based on flow speeds of 9 feet per second.

Consulting the Corps

The actual water speeds in the Mississippi River vary greatly, said Alan Dooley,, a spokesman for the Corps of Engineers St. Louis District office. In 2001, the flow rate varied from 2.7 feet per second to 6.5 feet per second. At the height of the 1993 flood, flows in the stretch from St. Louis to the Ohio River were rated at about 12.5 feet per second, Dooley said.

The corps has not received any applications for permits from FFP, Dooley said. The corps permits would include a construction permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and a Clean Water Act permit allowing the introduction of foreign material into the river.

The corps also has jurisdiction over electric transmission lines that go over the river, Dooley said.

Any applications to the corps would have a lengthy comment period, he added.

An attempt to harness the river's flow to generate power isn't surprising as the cost of fossil fuels, especially oil, continues to escalate, Dooley said. One company has approached the corps with the idea of generating power from the water flowing over the low dams that regulate the flow of the Mississippi north of St. Louis to maintain barge traffic.

"There are numerous hurdles to be surmounted, not the least of which is the economics of it," Dooley said.

Generating power would be a use that fits the Mississippi, which has for ages been a source of strength, he said.

"The Mississippi River today has the same function it had 300 years ago," Dooley said. "That is sustenance, transportation and a spiritual element."

rkeller@semissourian.com

335-6611, extension 126


Harnessing the Mississippi in Southeast Missouri

Free Flow Power Corporation has applied for 59 permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to develop electric power production facilities powered by the flow of the Mississippi River. The list includes nine projects in the river between Southeast Missouri on the west and Illinois, Kentucky and Tennessee to the east:ProjectMissouri County Turbines Rated Output
Cape BendCape Girardeau1,550 31 megawatts
Flora CreekCape Girardeau3,10062 megawatts
Gale LightScott/Cape Girardeau1,70034 megawatts
New Madrid BendNew Madrid5350107 megawatts
Hickman BendMississippi2,85057 megawatts
Williams PointNew Madrid3,55071 megawatts
Little Prairie BendPemiscot2,70054 megawatts
Wickliffe ProjectMississippi1,45029 megawatts
Greenfield BendMississippi4,10082 megawatts

Source: FERC filings


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Yes, swan, you know I couldn't possibly miss this! I read the article with great interest, and then took a trip into the land of Google.

It appears to be a newer-technology - 'infancy' was the term applied in another article. This approach does appear to have a 'cousin' of sorts, with the tidal-wave generation projects.

This project will be a tremendous challenge to pull off -

* being able to overcome the various operating issues with the widely varying river levels and the debris (do these guys really understand the quirks of the Mississippi River?);

* the NIMBY opponents that will surely object for whatever reason to the large-scale insertion of the equipment along the 'beautiful' river banks; and,

* perhaps toughest of all - in the end, being able to deliver a competitively-priced product.

Since this is apparently a very new approach as far as a large commericial installation, it will be interesting to compare actual results against the initial estimates. Didn't see any available data during the quick Net search.

There are many ways to generate electricity. The lowest-cost producer usually wins out - where cost is defined by a much-argued about combination of health, safety, and environmental impacts; land-use issues, capital investment project costs; consumer product costs; etc.

I have my doubts as to how far this particular project will get, but recognize that whoever does figure out how to do it profitably will reap HUGE rewards.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Nov 12, 2007, at 9:08 AM

Great idea, and it is already working in places like Denmark. However, Denmark doesn't have to deal with the Corps of Engineers, who won't get it because they can't think outside the box. So, it will be awhile before FFP can realize their dream.

-- Posted by Hawker on Mon, Nov 12, 2007, at 9:55 AM

Gets back to following the money, figuring out where it's going, and understanding the 'angles' of the advocates and of the opposition.

As costs for current energy sources rise, alternative sources that were previously unfeasible are beginning to get another look as the differences between the respective costs shrink.

I don't think ethanol would be receiving all the attention it has, if gasoline were still below $2 per gallon.

Foreign countries already have significantly higher average energy costs, making alternative sources more attractive there first.

Just poked through some of the data given in the article - looks like 527 of the 1600 total megawatts in the project are proposed for this region.

But that value is based on a 9 feet per second (fps) average river velocity. The Corps spokesman shared the actual data from 2001, where the average river velocity was only about 1/2 of the proposed design 9 fps rate.

So, assuming linearity, the 527 megawatts is already down to an average of 260 megawatts or so potential actual output.

260 megawatts is still a lot of power - about the size of Sikeston's coal-based power plant.

$3 billion for 160,000 turbines comes out to an average of $18,750 per 20-kilowatt unit, or $937 per installed kilowatt capacity. Actually, not bad - slightly higher than for new natural-gas fueled construction, significantly less than for new coal-fueled construction.

To get the cost per unit (kilowatt) down, need to produce lots of units, since construction is a fixed cost. A tough challenge since the above-suggested average output is only about 1/2 of the capacity.

This in effect raises the installation costs per kilowatt, since it would be expected that the units would operate at average levels significantly lower than nameplate values.

This group has to have done their homework to move this project forward, and there are likely considerations involved that are much too detailed to get into for a short article.

I tend to be overly cautious. The wish is to be certain before everyone loads up on the bandwagon for the 'latest and greatest thing' - that accurate information has been shared, due diligence has been performed, and resulting confidence is in place to ensure the bandwagon isn't going to be rolling towards a cliff or other point-of-no-return.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Nov 12, 2007, at 11:16 AM

Dang - do I have the blog equivalent of B.O. or what? The last few times I've posted in these blogs, it seems that all other posts stop in short order for that thread.

Energy awareness is something I'm both concerned and enthusiastic about. Getting issues and proposals such as this water 'windmill' project out for discussion and comment is a good thing.

To work for a better understanding of what is and isn't currently possible or feasible, and what the various obstacles and costs may be of alternatives, serves to encourage a wider audience to become more knowledgeable on and active toward one of the larger cost-centers for their personal budgets and lifestyles.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Nov 12, 2007, at 8:53 PM

I hope it works out.

Swan... apply for a job at the paper... you sure in the heck love to read the blogs all the time, and you can come up with some insight every so often.

:)

-- Posted by jsohn on Tue, Nov 13, 2007, at 1:31 PM

This source of electrical power, when integrated into a power grid that includes geothermal sources, wind farms, solar energy and other renewable, alternative sources will help reduce our reliance upon foreign oil. It will also support environmental "green" objectives.

-- Posted by IVAN DUNN on Wed, Nov 14, 2007, at 10:24 AM

Unfortunately, the power goes up with the CUBE of the velocity. So over estimating by a factor of 2 gives you 8 times the power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower

As someone else correctly said, that means the real cost is 8 times higher. So you have to figure 3 cents per kilowatt hour times the annual average production of energy is the real payback. Most likely the numbers are inflated to attract investors.

-- Posted by Engineer on Sat, Dec 8, 2007, at 11:33 AM

And so would this work on BRyant CReek in South central Misouri-small scale, hunting cabin-wise.

Sounds good to me. How to go about it?

-- Posted by David Rienstra on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 4:16 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com, semoball.com, or shethemagazine.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists: