Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Power On The River

Hydroelectric facility possible at Pike Island

November 21, 2013

WHEELING — Two companies believe they can generate up to 256,000 megawatt-hours of renewable power per year by building a hydroelectric plant at the Pike Island Locks and Dam....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

WVUGEO

Nov-21-13 7:44 PM

WWUthinking: Didn't know that; and, didn't get that info from the web resources we were able to find. What we saw indicated some useful income was being thrown to the city. Our "WVU" guy left New Mart better than 30 years ago, we now live quite some considerable distance away, and don't have any reliable contacts down there anymore to call and consult with for more info on how the sale was transacted, what sort of resid income there might be, etc.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Nov-21-13 7:35 PM

BigMike: Yes, agree. But, our thinking has been that anything sensible we can do to extend and conserve our Coal resource is a good thing. We think there are more valuable applications to which coal can be put than "just" generating power - as economically vital as Coal based power is. We have vast reserves of Coal, but WVU recently again confirmed it's value as a feedstock for making high-value hydrocarbons that could free us from enslavement to OPEC; so, any little bit of Coal we can conserve for higher purposes is a good thing. If we start using Coal for hydrocarbon synthesis, everyone in WV could, to use an old phrase, "get fat".

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

UNCOMMONSENSE

Nov-21-13 7:30 PM

With the given output for the New Martinsville hydro, it can produce nearly 15 million dollars worth of power in a year

So IT could pay for it's construction in 30 or 40 YEARS

However, after you factor in the cost of maintenance, cost overruns repairs, and of course payroll and benefits for the employees need to keep it running every day, it could easily take closer to 50 or 60 years for it to actually BEGIN to make a profit!!!

AGAIN, this is STILL a HUGE scam!!!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

UNCOMMONSENSE

Nov-21-13 7:16 PM

256 megawatt hours per YEAR???

If that figure is correct then this is the biggest scam on the planet!!!

So with the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars it would take to CONSTRUCT, at 50 dollars per megawatt hour, ($12,800) a year, it would take THOUSANDS of years for it to break even!!!!

Ever notice that REAL hydro dams are HUNDREDS of feet in height???

There's a REASON for that!!!

It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to generate any significant amount of power WITHOUT that massive drop, volume, and pressure!

So Unless their plan is to construct a 600 foot high****at pike Island, this is a SCAM!!!!!

Anyone who would suggest this is a good investment should be HUNG!!!!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Nov-21-13 3:56 PM

(cont'd) It would take more than a few of these turbines to replace one coal fired power plant.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Nov-21-13 3:54 PM

WVUGEO: Do you see any issues with this article. In particular the use of terms such as "256,000 megawatt-hours of renewable power per year" and "the New Martinsville plant is capable of producing 18 megawatts per hour on each of its two generating turbines." The author is misusing these terms, implying that the proposed Pike Island turbines will have much greater capacity than the New Martinsville installation. Generating capacity is measured in Watts, Megawatts and Gigawatts, etc. So is the 256000/MWH per year 256000/MWH divided the number of of hours in a year (8760 hrs/year). Then the Pike Island project is 256000MWH/Yr/8760Hr/Yr=29.2MW???. The author is confusing readers, hopefully unintentionally, by not specifying the generation capacity of the three plants. I'm guessing that New Martinsville is 36MW, Pike Island 29.2MW and AEP gives Kammer as 630MW. You can see what I'm getting at. It would take more than a few of these turbines to replace one coal fired po

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hillbillypride

Nov-21-13 1:55 PM

Really your gonna censor the word****! Wow this is the world I live in

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hillbillypride

Nov-21-13 1:53 PM

Every****should have hydro if it has enough flow why not ? The city's cost to power it's public buildings wouldn't exist . Bottom line is its a good idea and as a community we should support this type energy.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Nov-21-13 1:41 PM

The hydro generator on the Hannibal Locks and****operated by New Martinsville, as mentioned in the article, seems to have been working out pretty well for them since they installed it in the late eighties. Most report have it that they operate with a surplus of income.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-21-13 1:19 PM

wonderwhiner, the Government grant for a hydroelectric power plant would go to a PRIVATE COMPANY like McKinley’s. Do you think the Government actually builds power plants? Dolt. LOL

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

Nov-21-13 12:36 PM

WWUthinking, you do realize technology significantly changes every 15 or 20 years, right?

This is a great idea, but since when is a biology professor the foremost expert on energy policy? Wheeling IS getting smaller lol

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wonderwhy

Nov-21-13 10:51 AM

toolplayer would rather the government give grants and money to the Oil Companies or folks like McKinley to profit off the backs of taxpayers. No wonderwhy!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Triton

Nov-21-13 8:32 AM

Hydro has been powering the southeast for about 80 years, it works and its 24/7 not dependent on wind or sun. But Obama didn't get millions from people supporting hydro, he got it from the southwest solar investors and the foreign companies who manufacture the props for wind turbines. The amounts are in his election papers now on file in D.C. but isn't it odd that the national media doesn't publish those records for us to see. Hydro is totally clean, no emissions and very efficient. New Martinsville has had one for years. Don't you wonder why its never been part of any green planning? Same thing, no money to be made by protesting it. Oh baby but just wait, we will have the same out of town flakes who are protecting our water from Greenhunter move on to protecting the carp in the river. That hydro has never been on the table, even though proven safe and clean, demonstrates the corruption among "green" groups. For Obama green means greenbacks.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-21-13 8:09 AM

Clueless, you read the ENTIRE article? Good for you! After snack time we’ll learn about Google, where you’ll discover the many other information resources available to you...

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Nov-21-13 8:03 AM

Hydroelectricity is a natural, however, I would rather see a nuclear energy plant producing the electricity, and North of Warwood or Wheeling Island would be the perfect spot. Nuclear energy requires a lot of water.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GETACLUE

Nov-21-13 8:01 AM

Leave it to Toolsucker and all the other righties to assume just because he said something it becomes true. I read the entire article and nowhere in it does it say anything about any type of grant monies.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-21-13 7:49 AM

Leave it to the loony leftist RockE to leave out about a half-BILLION taxpayer dollar construction cost to conclude the electricity produced will only be 3 cents/kWh. It’s only tax money, and you didn’t pay that, right RockE? LOL

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RockEReputation

Nov-21-13 7:40 AM

Leave it to the braintrust present to git all scientific and invoke the law of gravity in response to a satirical comment..too much...all is not lost as they say in learning curve analysis.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tdolan

Nov-21-13 7:09 AM

It is wasted energy just like the methane burned off at the old and new dumps

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikeyd

Nov-21-13 6:53 AM

the rocks will settle to the bottom.they don't usually float.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-21-13 6:48 AM

rockhead, The screens at the intake will prevent those rocks from entering the turbine! LOL

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RockEReputation

Nov-21-13 6:04 AM

The potential for generating electricity at under 3 cents/kWh on the Ohio is a no-brainer.

..unless Murray's "storm water runoff containing rock, etc from normal mining operations" impedes the turbines involuntarily or otherwise.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-21-13 5:35 AM

troll, You are likely correct. Tax payer funded grants are a major part of our wasteful spending problem. I would be more than willing to invest into hydropower, kind of a no-brainer. I would also suggest that the permits are likely a nightmare.....

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Nov-21-13 5:32 AM

21 locks and dams on the Ohio River. How many should have power turbines on/at them?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Nov-21-13 5:30 AM

I smell a great big Government grant...

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: