A PROFITABLE PRIVATE MICROHYDROELECTRIC PLANT
(Page 5 of 6)
Another disaster that had to be guarded against was pipe
implosion, which can be caused by the vacuum created behind
water flowing from a pipe with its intake closed. To
prevent such a calamity, Andy and Bob installed an air
bleed near the top of the penstock. A 3"-diameter polybutyl
pipe is connected to the 8"-diameter plastic and runs
uphill to a point 10 feet above the intake. Thus no water
can escape through the tube, but air can be drawn in if
necessary.
RELATED CONTENT
If you're interested in building a home-scale or larger AC hydroelectric plant, this account of our...
The original marshmallow? The candied roots of the marsh mallow...
THE PRACTICAL (AND PROFITABLE) SIGN LANGUAGE September/October 1983 Everbody loves a secret languag...
For a richly satisfying, cash money project to finance that homestead it looks like growing herbs -...
FINANCES
Dr. Ayers estimates that, if the group hadn't saved money
through the use of donated labor and careful equipment
selection, the finished price for the site could have
totaled more than $50,000. He hastens to add that one
cannot, today, hire an engineering firm to develop a plant
of this size and expect to make a profit.
As it stands, though, the ratio of dollars invested to KW
capacity is quite favorable at Laurel Creek. With just
short of $22,000 spent and a delivered output of 17.5 KW,
the price per KW is well under the widely accepted
guideline of $1,500. In fact, as a point of reference,
Laurel Creek Hydroelectric was put on line for less money
per KW than it costs a utility company to build a
coal-powered plant.
In purely economic terms, the generator will deliver an
average of about 132,000 KWH to BREMCO each year, bringing
in a gross income of about $4,000 annually. (This figure
will, of course, rise as electric rates go up.) Maintenance
should be minimal—including bearing lubrication, belt
dressing, trash rack cleaning, and inspection—so the
major expense to be considered is capital. If the money
used for Laurel Creek's construction had been borrowed at
prevailing rates (which, of course, it was not . . . being
a grant), the system would net about $200 each year (and
more as rates rise) for ten years, at which point it would
be paid off: From that time until the end of equipment
life—a minimum of ten years more—the income
produced by the site would be largely profit.
Still, the most difficult aspect of developing a
microhydropower site—beyond acquiring or getting
access to the necessary expertise—is raising the
money. Grants similar to that which provided Laurel Creek
Hydroelectric's source of capital have dried up with the
"new austerity", and the possibility of federally backed
loans is doubtful (the mechanism is there but no funding
has yet been provided). And since the costs will run at
least $1,000 per KW of capacity, the total sum would add up
to more than most folks' savings accounts. Furthermore,
banks are likely to be reluctant to make loans, simply
because the concept of a profitable small—scale
power—generating facility is so unfamiliar. For now,
sites such as Laurel Creek offer the best references you
can provide to lenders.
Page:
<< Previous 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 | 5 |
6 |
Next >>