HYDROELECTRICITY - Revision history

Randylyon at 14:42, 16 October 2024

2024-10-16T14:42:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 16 October 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:hydroelectric.JPG\|left\|thumb\|250px\|Illustration of how electric energy is produced by flowing water.]]HYDROELECTRICITY. The generation of electric power from energy provided by flowing water. With the construction of Lock and Dam 11 at Dubuque in the 1930s, the possibility of using the facility to produce electricity was studied and rejected. The potential of the dam to create electric power was again discussed in 1978 as a result of a three-year study by the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Institute of Water Resources of the nation's dams.		[[Image:hydroelectric.JPG\|left\|thumb\|250px\|Illustration of how electric energy is produced by flowing water.]]HYDROELECTRICITY. The generation of electric power from energy provided by flowing water, hydroelectricity has proven a topic of recurrent interest in Dubuque With the construction of Lock and Dam 11 at Dubuque in the 1930s, the possibility of using the facility to produce electricity was studied and rejected. The potential of the dam to create electric power was again discussed in 1978 as a result of a three-year study by the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Institute of Water Resources of the nation's dams.

	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have also been considered insufficient. During periods of low water, nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

	In 1981 the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors asked the City of Dubuque to take over plans to develop a small-sale hydroelectric power plant on the Mississippi. The county's plan to develop the project was blocked by a legal opinion that county governments do not have the authority to form electric utilities. (1)		In 1981 the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors asked the City of Dubuque to take over plans to develop a small-sale hydroelectric power plant on the Mississippi. The county's plan to develop the project was blocked by a legal opinion that county governments do not have the authority to form electric utilities. (1)
Line 16:		Line 16:
	5. rock be placed on the river bottom downstream to prevent erosion.		5. rock be placed on the river bottom downstream to prevent erosion.

	In 1984 the [[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed a Motion to Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the O'Leary's Lake area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies ~~and~~ after several years the $76 million project was cancelled. (3)		In 1984 the [[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed a Motion to Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the O'Leary's Lake area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies; after several years the $76 million project was cancelled. (3)

	In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (4)		In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (4)

	In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc., announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (5) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (6) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven~~, also~~ was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (7)		In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc., announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (5) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (6) Energy Resources USA Inc. was part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven and was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (7)

	In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (8) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (9)		In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (8) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (9)

			No action was taken and the topic lay dormant until October, 2024. Ohio-based Low Head Hydro M 11 LLC filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a preliminary permit to construct a hydroelectric plant at Lock and Dam 11. The permit did not permit the company to perform any land-disturbing activities, but would grant the company priority to apply for a license to do so while the company studies the site. The company noted that Dubuque was one of three locations along the Mississippi River it was studying. The proposed Dubuque plant was estimated to have the ability to generate about 91 gigawatts-hours of power, enough to serve about 7,000 homes. (10)



	---		---
Line 45:		Line 49:

	9. Ibid., p. 2A		9. Ibid., p. 2A

			10. Strzalka, Konrad, "Hydropower Plant Proposed at Dam," Telegraph Herald, October 10, 2024, p. 1A

	[[Category: Electricity]]		[[Category: Electricity]]
	[[Category: Sustainability]]		[[Category: Sustainability]]

Randylyon at 03:23, 14 February 2020

2020-02-14T03:23:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:23, 14 February 2020
Line 5:		Line 5:
	In 1981 the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors asked the City of Dubuque to take over plans to develop a small-sale hydroelectric power plant on the Mississippi. The county's plan to develop the project was blocked by a legal opinion that county governments do not have the authority to form electric utilities. (1)		In 1981 the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors asked the City of Dubuque to take over plans to develop a small-sale hydroelectric power plant on the Mississippi. The county's plan to develop the project was blocked by a legal opinion that county governments do not have the authority to form electric utilities. (1)

	In 1984 the ~~[[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed~~ a ~~Motion~~ to ~~Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and~~ Dam #11 and the [[O'LEARY'S LAKE]] area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The ~~Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies and after several years the $76 million project was cancelled.~~ (2)		In October, 1984 the Army Corps of Engineers released a draft feasibility study and environmental impact statement recommending that Sabula, Preston, and Bellevue be allowed to build a 14 megawatt hydroelectric power plant on Dam 11 at Dubuque. The report recommended that: (2)

	~~In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services~~, a ~~Sioux-Falls~~, ~~South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as~~ a ~~site for~~ a ~~future project~~, ~~but chose instead other locations~~. ~~(3)~~		1. new boat ramps be constructed to replace those lost
			in the construction of the powerhouse,
			2. a rock wall be constructed with openings for fish and
			wildlife to pass through,
			3. a 36-inch concrete pipe be laid between [[O'LEARY'S LAKE]]
			and a backwater slough to allow water and wildlife exchange,
			4. fishing be allowed downstream of the powerhouse along the shore,
			5. rock be placed on the river bottom downstream to prevent erosion.

	In ~~2015 Energy Resources USA Inc., announced that it was considering Dubuque as~~ a ~~possible location~~ for ~~a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at~~ Lock and Dam ~~No.~~ 11. The ~~permit would allow~~ the ~~company three years to consider developing~~ the ~~site, but~~ would ~~not authorize construction. (4) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000~~ and ~~11,000 homes. (5) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part~~ of ~~Energy Resources S~~.~~A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven, also~~ was in ~~the process of obtaining permits~~ and ~~licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas,~~ and ~~Louisiana~~. (6)		In 1984 the [[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed a Motion to Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the O'Leary's Lake area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies and after several years the $76 million project was cancelled. (3)

	In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (7) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (8)		In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (4)

			In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc., announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (5) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (6) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven, also was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (7)

			In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (8) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (9)

	---		---
Line 19:		Line 30:
	1. "County Asking City to Take Hydro Project," ''Telegraph Herald'', May 15, 1981, p. 17		1. "County Asking City to Take Hydro Project," ''Telegraph Herald'', May 15, 1981, p. 17

	2. ~~Leifker~~, ~~David.~~ "~~Dubuque County Conservation Society Celebrates 75 Years~~," ~~'''Julien's Journal'''~~, ~~April 2008~~, p. ~~73.~~		2. Breyfogle, Bill, "Corps Report Gives Tentative OK to Hydropower Plant," Telegraph Herald, Oct. 3, 1984, p. 2

	3. ~~Barton~~, ~~Thomas J~~. "Dubuque ~~Dam Eyed for Power Source~~," ''~~Telegraph Herald~~'', ~~September 5, 2015~~, p. 1		3. Leifker, David. "Dubuque County Conservation Society Celebrates 75 Years," '''Julien's Journal''', April 2008, p. 73.

	4. ~~Ibid~~.		4. Barton, Thomas J. "Dubuque Dam Eyed for Power Source," ''Telegraph Herald'', September 5, 2015, p. 1

	5. Ibid.		5. Ibid.

	6. Barton, Thomas J. "Hydropower Plant Might be in City's Plans," ''Telegraph Herald'', October 6, 2015, p. 2A		6. Ibid.

			7. Barton, Thomas J. "Hydropower Plant Might be in City's Plans," ''Telegraph Herald'', October 6, 2015, p. 2A

	7. Ibid., p. 1		8. Ibid., p. 1

	8. Ibid., p. 2A		9. Ibid., p. 2A

	[[Category: Electricity]]		[[Category: Electricity]]
	[[Category: Sustainability]]		[[Category: Sustainability]]

Randylyon at 19:00, 14 March 2017

2017-03-14T19:00:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 14 March 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

	In ~~1984~~ the ~~[[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed~~ a ~~Motion to Intervene regarding~~ the ~~Three City~~ Mississippi ~~River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the [[O'LEARY'S LAKE]] area~~. The ~~Society~~'s ~~concerns centered on the adverse effect~~ the project ~~would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society~~ was ~~joined in its opposition~~ by ~~other public and private agencies and after several years~~ the ~~$76 million project was cancelled~~. (1)		In 1981 the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors asked the City of Dubuque to take over plans to develop a small-sale hydroelectric power plant on the Mississippi. The county's plan to develop the project was blocked by a legal opinion that county governments do not have the authority to form electric utilities. (1)

	In ~~2013 Missouri~~ River ~~Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site~~ for a ~~future~~ project~~, but chose instead other locations~~. (2)		In 1984 the [[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed a Motion to Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the [[O'LEARY'S LAKE]] area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies and after several years the $76 million project was cancelled. (2)

	In ~~2015~~ Energy ~~Resources USA Inc.~~, ~~announced that it was considering~~ Dubuque as a ~~possible location~~ for a future project~~. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site~~, but ~~would not authorize construction~~. (3) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (4) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven, also was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (5)		In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (3)

	In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (6) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (7)		In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc., announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (4) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (5) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven, also was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (6)

			In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (7) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (8)

	---		---
Line 15:		Line 17:
	Source:		Source:

	1~~. Leifker, David~~. "~~Dubuque~~ County ~~Conservation Society Celebrates 75 Years~~," ''~~'Julien's Journal'~~'', ~~April 2008~~, p. ~~73.~~		1. "County Asking City to Take Hydro Project," ''Telegraph Herald'', May 15, 1981, p. 17

	2. ~~Barton~~, ~~Thomas J~~. "Dubuque ~~Dam Eyed for Power Source~~," ''~~Telegraph Herald~~'', ~~September 5, 2015~~, p. 1		2. Leifker, David. "Dubuque County Conservation Society Celebrates 75 Years," '''Julien's Journal''', April 2008, p. 73.

	3. ~~Ibid~~.		3. Barton, Thomas J. "Dubuque Dam Eyed for Power Source," ''Telegraph Herald'', September 5, 2015, p. 1

	4. Ibid.		4. Ibid.

	5. Barton, Thomas J. "Hydropower Plant Might be in City's Plans," ''Telegraph Herald'', October 6, 2015, p. 2A		5. Ibid.

			6. Barton, Thomas J. "Hydropower Plant Might be in City's Plans," ''Telegraph Herald'', October 6, 2015, p. 2A

	6. Ibid., p. 1		7. Ibid., p. 1

	7. Ibid., p. 2A		8. Ibid., p. 2A

	[[Category: Electricity]]		[[Category: Electricity]]
	[[Category: Sustainability]]		[[Category: Sustainability]]

Randylyon at 16:59, 26 January 2016

2016-01-26T16:59:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 26 January 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

	In 1984 the [[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed a Motion to Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the [[O'LEARY LAKE]] area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies and after several years the $76 million project was cancelled. (1)		In 1984 the [[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed a Motion to Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the [[O'LEARY'S LAKE]] area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies and after several years the $76 million project was cancelled. (1)

	In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (2)		In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (2)

Randylyon at 16:58, 26 January 2016

2016-01-26T16:58:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 26 January 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

	In ~~2013 Missouri~~ River ~~Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site~~ for a ~~future~~ project~~, but chose instead other locations~~. (1)		In 1984 the [[DUBUQUE COUNTY CONSERVATION SOCIETY]] filed a Motion to Intervene regarding the Three City Mississippi River Hydropower Project proposed for Lock and Dam #11 and the [[O'LEARY LAKE]] area. The Society's concerns centered on the adverse effect the project would have on the river habitat including migrating fish and the destruction of a large portion of the lake area. The Society was joined in its opposition by other public and private agencies and after several years the $76 million project was cancelled. (1)

	In ~~2015~~ Energy ~~Resources USA Inc.~~, ~~announced that it was considering~~ Dubuque as a ~~possible location~~ for a future project~~. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site~~, but ~~would not authorize construction~~. (2) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (3) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven, also was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (4)		In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (2)

	In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (5) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (6)		In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc., announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (3) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (4) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven, also was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (5)

			In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (6) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (7)

	---		---
Line 13:		Line 15:
	Source:		Source:

	1. ~~Barton~~, ~~Thomas J~~. "Dubuque ~~Dam Eyed for Power Source~~," ''~~Telegraph Herald~~'', ~~September 5, 2015~~, p. 1		1. Leifker, David. "Dubuque County Conservation Society Celebrates 75 Years," '''Julien's Journal''', April 2008, p. 73.

	2. ~~Ibid~~.		2. Barton, Thomas J. "Dubuque Dam Eyed for Power Source," ''Telegraph Herald'', September 5, 2015, p. 1

	3. Ibid.		3. Ibid.

	4. Barton, Thomas J. "Hydropower Plant Might be in City's Plans," ''Telegraph Herald'', October 6, 2015, p. 2A		4. Ibid.

			5. Barton, Thomas J. "Hydropower Plant Might be in City's Plans," ''Telegraph Herald'', October 6, 2015, p. 2A

	5. Ibid., p. 1		6. Ibid., p. 1

	6. Ibid., p. 2A		7. Ibid., p. 2A

	[[Category: Electricity]]		[[Category: Electricity]]
	[[Category: Sustainability]]		[[Category: Sustainability]]

Randylyon at 00:37, 10 October 2015

2015-10-10T00:37:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 10 October 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

	In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project but chose instead other locations. (1)		In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project, but chose instead other locations. (1)

	In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc. announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (2)		In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc., announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (2) The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (3) Energy Resources USA Inc. is part of Energy Resources S.A. based in Barcelona, Spain which constructed twenty-five hydroelectric plants in Spain and operated seven, also was in the process of obtaining permits and licenses for work in Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. (4)

	~~The proposed 19,800-foot power~~ plant ~~would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year~~. ~~This would be enough energy~~ to ~~power between 10,000~~ and 11,~~000 homes~~. (3)		In October 2015 it was announced that city officials had asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to allow the city to explore the potential of constructing a hydroelectric plant at the [[ZEBULON PIKE LOCK AND DAM]] on its own or with private partners. In 2013 council members had adopted an effort to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2003 levels by 2030. (5) Without details financial and technical details about the Spanish company, the federal commission was also asked to amend the company's application to ensure the city was not prohibited from its own review of the site. (6)

	---		---
Line 18:		Line 18:

	3. Ibid.		3. Ibid.

			4. Barton, Thomas J. "Hydropower Plant Might be in City's Plans," ''Telegraph Herald'', October 6, 2015, p. 2A

			5. Ibid., p. 1

			6. Ibid., p. 2A

	[[Category: Electricity]]		[[Category: Electricity]]
	[[Category: Sustainability]]		[[Category: Sustainability]]

Randylyon at 00:21, 14 September 2015

2015-09-14T00:21:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:21, 14 September 2015
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

	In 2013 Missouri River Energy ~~Sergices~~, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project but chose instead other locations. (1)		In 2013 Missouri River Energy Services, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project but chose instead other locations. (1)

	In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc. announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (2)		In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc. announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (2)

Randylyon at 00:21, 14 September 2015

2015-09-14T00:21:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:21, 14 September 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	HYDROELECTRICITY. The generation of electric power from energy provided by flowing water. With the construction of Lock and Dam 11 at Dubuque in the 1930s, the possibility of using the facility to produce electricity was studied and rejected. The potential of the dam to create electric power was again discussed in 1978 as a result of a three-year study by the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Institute of Water Resources of the nation's dams.		[[Image:hydroelectric.JPG\|left\|thumb\|250px\|Illustration of how electric energy is produced by flowing water.]]HYDROELECTRICITY. The generation of electric power from energy provided by flowing water. With the construction of Lock and Dam 11 at Dubuque in the 1930s, the possibility of using the facility to produce electricity was studied and rejected. The potential of the dam to create electric power was again discussed in 1978 as a result of a three-year study by the United States Army Corps of Engineers' Institute of Water Resources of the nation's dams.

	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

Randylyon at 00:18, 14 September 2015

2015-09-14T00:18:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:18, 14 September 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

			In 2013 Missouri River Energy Sergices, a Sioux-Falls, South Dakota based utility company considered Dubuque as a site for a future project but chose instead other locations. (1)

			In 2015 Energy Resources USA Inc. announced that it was considering Dubuque as a possible location for a future project. The company also applied for a preliminary permit to build a hydropower plant at Lock and Dam No. 11. The permit would allow the company three years to consider developing the site, but would not authorize construction. (2)

			The proposed 19,800-foot power plant would produce 119,655 meta-watt-hours per year. This would be enough energy to power between 10,000 and 11,000 homes. (3)

			---

			Source:

			1. Barton, Thomas J. "Dubuque Dam Eyed for Power Source," ''Telegraph Herald'', September 5, 2015, p. 1

			2. Ibid.

			3. Ibid.

	[[Category: Electricity]]		[[Category: Electricity]]
			[[Category: Sustainability]]

Randylyon at 03:49, 7 August 2013

2013-08-07T03:49:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:49, 7 August 2013
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.		Problems mentioned in the production of hydroelectric power included doubts that such power could be marketed competitively with energy produced by burning coal. Drops from one navigation pool to another on the Upper [[MISSISSIPPI RIVER]] have been considered insufficient. During periods of low water nearly all the navigation pools would have to be drained to keep generators operating. Increasing prices for fossil fuels such as coal and declining supplies in the future could make the production of hydroelectric power more likely.

			[[Category: Electricity]]