 |
|
 |
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:41:14 -0500, "James" <...@iglou.com
Clever subject title but I doubt the aggravation is more than miniscule,
if at all. Too bloody many people begets too much growth which begets
too much water demand which begets water shortages. No doubt the warmers
would love to add this one to the top of their scare lists when the
water problem becomes a reality soon. I'm sure the wheels are turming in
those dogmatic little minds.
"john fernbach" <...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:21:31 -0500, "marcodbeast" <...@casual.com
"I doubt"... "no doubt"... 'I'm sure"... lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:41 pm, "James" <...@iglou.com
Not DOGMATIC LITTLE MINDS --- NOOO!!
Someone else's Dogma is ALWAYS so disagreeable, don't you think?
Perhaps that's why I find it "dogmatic" of you to be blaming the water
shortages completely on "too many people," with no apparent thought
that other factors might aggravate or modify the effects of having too
many people.
And BTW, with your not allowing for the possibility that "too much
growth" might be partly caused by factors other than, or in addition
to, "too many people."
For example, your neat little paragraph seemingly ignores or excludes
the possibility that "too much growth" might ALSO be the default
position of any capitalist economy where the main objective of both
government and business is ensuring that capitalist investors can earn
positive returns on their investments in new and existing enteprises.
But that's a bit off topic, I suppose. Your main thesis seems to be
that BECAUSE water shortages are partly or even largely caused by
population growth, THEREFORE climate change can have no significant
effect on the problem.
The ABCD's of Denialism -- "Anything But Carbon Dioxide"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:54:47 -0500, "James" <...@iglou.com
<...@z9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 19, 12:41 pm, "James" <...@iglou.com
Not DOGMATIC LITTLE MINDS --- NOOO!!
Someone else's Dogma is ALWAYS so disagreeable, don't you think?
Perhaps that's why I find it "dogmatic" of you to be blaming the water
shortages completely on "too many people," with no apparent thought
that other factors might aggravate or modify the effects of having too
many people.
And BTW, with your not allowing for the possibility that "too much
growth" might be partly caused by factors other than, or in addition
to, "too many people."
For example, your neat little paragraph seemingly ignores or excludes
the possibility that "too much growth" might ALSO be the default
position of any capitalist economy where the main objective of both
government and business is ensuring that capitalist investors can earn
positive returns on their investments in new and existing enteprises.
But that's a bit off topic, I suppose. Your main thesis seems to be
that BECAUSE water shortages are partly or even largely caused by
population growth, THEREFORE climate change can have no significant
effect on the problem.
=========================================
Yes, it is a bit off topic. And yes the primary problem stems from too
much population. Even on your belief in AGW. If there were not near as
many people, you could not claim global warming and thus water shortages
because of it. No soup for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:58:23 -0700 (PDT), columbiaaccidentinvestigation <...@yahoo.com
On Mar 20, 1:54 pm, "James" <...@iglou.combit off topic"
thats all you dois post off topic bs, funny how you admit it.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Mar 20, 5:54 pm, "James" <...@iglou.com
I disagree, although I do agree that population growth is one key
source of environmental problems.
As Paul Ehrlich, aka "Mr. Population Bomb," pointed out some time ago,
the environmental impact of any human population is a function of at
least three factors:
(a) population size, or "P"
(b) average level of affluence, or "A," a place holder for average
resource consumption, and
(c) the technologies, or "T," used to satisfy the population's demand
for goods and services.
Ehrlich puts the relationship into a mathematical form, where I =
environmental Impact.
The equation being I = PAT.
James - I'm not surprised, but you're taking one of the three factors
in Ehrlich's equation, the "P," and making it responsible for the
entire 3-factor function. That's not honest on your part, I suspect,
but regardless of whether it's honest, it's just intellectually
misleading.
You're pointing out that population growth is problematic for water
availability and probably for a host of other environmental problems,
too -- which is true. Bravo.
But then you're using this valid point to deny the impacts of (a)
average level of affluence and/or consumption and (b) technology
choice.
This doesn't make a lot of sense; theoretically, you're playing with
half a deck. Try again, Dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:33:11 -0500, "James" <...@iglou.com
<...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 5:54 pm, "James" <...@iglou.com
I disagree, although I do agree that population growth is one key
source of environmental problems.
As Paul Ehrlich, aka "Mr. Population Bomb," pointed out some time ago,
the environmental impact of any human population is a function of at
least three factors:
(a) population size, or "P"
(b) average level of affluence, or "A," a place holder for average
resource consumption, and
(c) the technologies, or "T," used to satisfy the population's demand
for goods and services.
Ehrlich puts the relationship into a mathematical form, where I =
environmental Impact.
The equation being I = PAT.
James - I'm not surprised, but you're taking one of the three factors
in Ehrlich's equation, the "P," and making it responsible for the
entire 3-factor function. That's not honest on your part, I suspect,
but regardless of whether it's honest, it's just intellectually
misleading.
You're pointing out that population growth is problematic for water
availability and probably for a host of other environmental problems,
too -- which is true. Bravo.
----------------------------------------------------
Water shortage is what we are discussing.
But then you're using this valid point to deny the impacts of (a)
average level of affluence and/or consumption and (b) technology
choice.
-----------------------------------------------------
Some always have more than others regardless of population size.
This doesn't make a lot of sense; theoretically, you're playing with
half a deck. Try again, Dude.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think Ehrlich's equation is bogus or just plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
James - I'm delighted we're having this exchange, because it reminds
me of one very significant effect that our choice of energy generating
technologies has on -- yes, water use and availability.
As noted below, in a series of articles on water use by COAL FIRED
POWER PLANTS that Sen. Harry
Reid has evidently inserted into the Congressional Record, coal-based
electricity production is * enormously * voracious in its consumption
of water.
Moreover, a good deal of the water that coal-burning power plants
extract from rivers and acquifers etc., both for cooling purposes and
for steam production, is returned to the environment in highly
polluted form.
I don't think Ehrlich is right about everything, and I think his
equation I = PAT is probably somewhat crude as a gauge of
environmental impacts. But Sen. Harry Reid's excerpts into the record
support the thrust of what Ehrlich wrote, and dramatically illustrate
the role that "T" or technology choice plays in the I = PAT formula.
See below for more details.
==============================
On Mar 20, 11:33 pm, "James" <...@iglou.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
ON COAL BURNING AND WATER CONSUMPTION IN ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANTS:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
This is the html version of the file http://reid.senate.gov/issues/upload/Energy-CoalReportOnWater.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl
the web.
Page 1
THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF COAL POWER PLANTS ON
WATER RESOURCES
________________________________________
Page 2
THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF COAL POWER PLANTS ON WATER
RESOURCES
Water is vital to the continued growth and vitality of Nevada. In the
desert landscape of
Southern Nevada, water is both vital and scarce. Las Vegas is the
second-driest city in the
nation, receiving just 4 inches of precipitation each year. The city
relies on the Colorado
River for 90 percent of its water, with 10 percent coming from
groundwater sources. In
this context, it is imperative that Nevada carefully manage its water
resources.
Coal power plants throughout the West hurt our ability to ensure
access to water in three
ways. First, they consume huge amounts of water, more than 650 million
gallons per day
throughout the Interior West. Second, coal plants discharge water that
is often highly
toxic, containing high levels of arsenic, lead and other chemicals.
Third, coal power plants are a major contributor to global warming,
producing enormous amounts of CO2 emissions. Climate change is likely
to either further reduce precipitation throughout the
West while increasing aridity or it will change the cycle of
precipitation, resulted in more
rainfall and less snowfall and limiting our ability to ensure water
availability throughout
the year.
New coal plants would strain our already limited water resources,
pollute this
valuable resource and accelerate climate change, further reducing the
West’s access to
water.
________________________________________
Page 3
Water Use
Coal plants in Nevada and throughout the Interior West use huge
amounts of water. As
the demand for water throughout the West increases, we will be forced
to turn to energy
alternatives that do not rely as heavily on water. New power plants
will simply further
strain our limited water resources and make it more difficult to
reduce our reliance on
water-guzzling coal plants.
Coal Plants Use Far More Water Per Kilowatt Hour of Electricity
Produced than
All Other Sources of Generation Except Nuclear. According to an
article in
Greenwire, coal power plants use nearly 800 gallons of water per mega-
watt hour of
electricity produced. This is more than all other sources except
nuclear power.
[Greenwire,
10/4/07]
Overwhelming Amount of Water Used in Power Generation in the Interior
West
Was Used by Coal Plants.
Within the 8 state Interior West, coal plants use 335 of the
355 million gallons of water consumed each day by fossil-fuel plants
in 2000.
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
________________________________________
Page 4
Power Plants in 8 Western States Withdraw Over 650 Million Gallons of
Water Per
Day – Enough to Provide Water for 4 Million People Per Year.
“Coal and gas steam-generating electric plants in the eight-state
Interior West currently withdraw over 650 million gallons every day.
This is a lot of water. Over the course of a year, this same
volume meets the municipal demands of almost four million people, the
equivalent of six
or seven cities the size of Albuquerque, Denver or Tucson.”
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
•
Power Plants in Nevada Withdrew 14 Billion Gallons of Water in 2000.
In
Nevada alone, power plants withdrew 14 billion gallons of water in
2000.
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by
Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
Nevada Power Plants Averaged 0.6 Gallons of Water Withdrawn and
Consumed
Per Kilowatt Hour Produced in 2000. According to a report by Clean Air
Task Force
and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, power plants in Nevada
average 0.6
gallons of water withdrawn and consumed per Kilowatt Hour in 2000.
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
________________________________________
Page 5
Coal-to-Liquids Plants Would Require Huge Amounts of Water. “Gov. Jim
Gibbons
announced a major energy initiative in his State of the State speech
Monday, calling for
the construction of a coal-to-liquids fuel plant in Nevada that would
use rail lines to
import coal, which would then be converted to diesel and jet fuel. The
proposal left many
legislators and policy experts scratching their heads Tuesday. Nevada
has an abundance
of wind and solar energy sources but no coal, and the process consumes
huge amounts of
water, which is in short supply in Nevada.”
[Las Vegas Sun, 1/24/07]
•
It Takes 5 Gallons of Water to Produce 1 Gallon of Liquid Fuel
“As for the coal-energy plant, the Montana Environmental Information
Center, a group that
lobbies for environmental issues, has reported that 5 gallons of water
are required
to produce a gallon of liquid fuel. But it was the lack of coal in
Nevada that
puzzled legislators.”
[Las Vegas Sun, 1/24/07]
Just Two of Proposed Nevada Coal Plants Would Use 3.4 Billion Gallons
of Water
Per Year.
According to a report by Western Resource Advocates and Environmental
Defense, just two of the proposed coal plants in Nevada would use a
combined 3.4 billion
gallons of water per year. The proposed Sierra Pacific Resources plant
near Ely, Nevada
would use 2.6 billion gallons of water per year. The proposed Sithe
Global near
Mesquite, Nevada would use about 800 million gallons of water per
year.
[Western Resource Advocates and Environmental Defense, “Climate Alert:
Cleaner Energy for the Southwest,” 2007]
Power Production Reliant on Water Can Be Adversely Affected By
Drought.
“Drought conditions result in water scarcity and intensified
competition for finite water
supplies. Drought can significantly reduce electric power generation
based on site-
specific engineering and hydrologic conditions, can constrain or
curtail power production
at fossil power plants for reasons related to cooling system design
and operation, can
cause cooling water source levels to fall below intake structures and
can result in water
temperatures that prevent acceptable levels in cooling system
discharge waters.”
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
________________________________________
Page 7
Coal Plants Strain Groundwater Resources
Coal plants contribute to the depletion of groundwater resources on a
sites-pecific basis
throughout the West. Las Vegas relies on local groundwater resources
to provide 10
percent of its water.
Water Diversion and Consumption By Fossil Fuel Plants Can Have
Significant
Impacts on Streams and Groundwater Resources. “Water diversion and
consumption
by fossil fuel plants in the West, while small relative to
agriculture, can still have
significant impacts on streams and groundwater resources on a site-
specific basis,
especially in basins where water is already stretched to the limit.”
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
Navajo and Hopi Have Raised Concerns About Groundwater Depletion Due
to
Mohave Plant. “For decades, the Mohave plant has been blamed for some
of the
pollution obscuring views in the Grand Canyon. Environmental groups
sued under the
Clean Air Act to force the plant to add modern pollution controls, and
in 1999 Edison
agreed to do the upgrades by Jan. 1, 2006, or shut the plant down…Many
Navajo and
Hopi tribal members raised concerns about groundwater depletion and a
study has been
under way to try to find a more plentiful source of water for the
pipeline.”
[Associated Press, 9/26/06]
________________________________________
Page 8
Coal Power Plants Directly Pollute Water Resources
Coal power plants discharge water polluted by chemicals and impurities
back into water
sources, causing significant environmental damage. A patchwork of
regulatory authority
divided between federal, state and local jurisdictions contributes to
poor enforcement of
pollution laws. The result is all too often a major pollution
violation, with serious
consequences for vital water sources.
Coal Preparation Nationwide Produces 90 Million Gallons Per Year of
Sludge Made
Up of Water, Chemicals and Impurities. “Coal preparation uses large
quantities of
water and chemicals to separate impurities from mined coal, washing
away the wastes in
a sludge known as slurry. Up to 90 million gallons of slurry are
produced every year in
the U.S.”
[Sierra Club]
Discharge Waters Often Contain High Concentrations of Copper, Arsenic,
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Sulfates and Boron. “A common
chemical
from discharge waters is copper, which can leach from water condenser
piping and end
up in discharge waters, sometimes at toxic levels. In addition, waters
discharged from
waste treatment have been shown to have high concentrations of
arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, selenium, sulfates and boron.”
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
Chlorine and Biocides Are Discharged by Coal Plants Under Standards
that Vary
By State. “Chlorine and its by-products are present in the discharge
water plume and can
be toxic to aquatic life, even at low concentrations. High water
temperatures can magnify
the damaging impacts of chlorine. Chlorine and biocide discharges are
subject to federal
and state water quality standards. Pursuant to EPA regulation, plants
must use best
practicable control technology and avoid discharge in toxic amounts.
EPA, however,
lacks a list of EPA-approved biocides and delegates most regulation to
states. At the state
level, implementation of standards varies.”
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
Coal Plants Emit Mercury, Which Falls to Earth in Rain and Pollutes
Water
Sources, Poisoning Fish and Humans.
“When coal is burned at power plants, it releases
mercury into our atmosphere. This mercury falls to earth in rain,
running into our lakes,
rivers and streams. Bacteria in the water transform this mercury into
toxic methyl-
mercury. When fish consume this bacteria, they become contaminated.
Fish that eat other
contaminated fish end up with even higher levels of toxic mercury in
their flesh. Humans
can be contaminated with this methyl-mercury by eating contaminated
fish.”
[Sierra Club]
Regulation of Water Quality Is Plagued By Understaffing and Division
of
Responsibility Across Federal, State and Local Authorities.
“Across the West, state and federal agencies responsible for water
quality are understaffed and often have difficulty reaching decisions
that adequately protect water systems. Clear guidance is
needed through federal and state regulation to address power plant
water use. Decisions
about water withdrawals and plant siting permits are handled
differently by different
________________________________________
Page 9
states and fall within the jurisdiction of local, regional and state
planning and regulatory
agencies. Power plant water discharges are regulated largely at the
state level, whereas
rules for water allocation and use are grounded on state and local
law.
[Clean Air Task Force and The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, “The
Last Straw: Water Use by Power Plants in the Arid West, April 2003]
SNIP -- REST OF THIS DOCUMENT COLLECTION FOCUSES MOSTLY ON COAL
BURNING POWER PLANTS AND CO2 EMISSIONS, NOT ON WATER USE
________________________________________
Climate Change Could Threaten Water Levels in the Colorado River,
Which is
Source of 90 Percent of Southern Nevada’s Water. According to a study
by Western
Resource Advocates and Environmental Defense, “Climate change could
also threaten
water levels in the Colorado River, which is the major source of fresh
water for much of
________________________________________
Page 14
the Southwest.” According to the Southern Nevada Water Authority,
“Southern Nevada
gets nearly 90 percent of its water from the Colorado River.”
[Western Resource Advocates and Environmental Defense, “Climate Alert:
Cleaner Energy for the Southwest,” 2007; Southern Nevada Water
Authority, http://www.snwa.com]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
James - Just to continue on the topic of the "T" or technology choice
factor in Ehrlich's equation
I = PAT, here's some information from Pace University's Energy &
Environment sector, concerning the general water impacts of
electricity production.
CAVEAT: The Pace University info doesn't seem to be addressing the
projected effects of AGW on water availability around the world, so
it's a bit off topic.
Also, it seems to focus as much on the adverse environmental effects
of big hydropower dams as it does on the water-gulping characteristics
of big coal and nuclear power plants.
Nonetheless, this academic source points to extensive implications of
coal & nuclear power use for world water consumption -- indicating,
again, that the problem is NOT simply "population" alone.
================================================
==================================================
Water Quality Issues of Electricity Production:
Consumption of Water Resources
---------------------------------------------------
From the Pace Energy and Environment Center web site:
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5
----------------------
How does electric power production use and consume water?
Cooling Technologies
Thermal electric generating facilities make electricity by converting
water into high-pressure steam that drives turbines. Once water has
gone through this cycle, it is cooled and condensed back to water and
then reheated to drive the turbines again. The process of condensation
requires a separate cooling water body to absorb the heat of the
steam. These condenser systems typically consist of banks of thousands
of one-inch diameter tubes, through which cooling water is run, and
over which the hot steam and water is circulated.
Two cooling technologies are in use today:
• Closed-cycle systems discharge heat through evaporation in cooling
towers and recycle water within the power plant. The water required to
do this is comparatively small since it is limited to the amount lost
through the evaporative process. Because of the expense associated
with closed-cycle cooling, once-through systems are far more common.
• Once-through systems require the intake of a continual flow of
cooling water. The water demand for the once-through system is 30 to
50 times that of a closed cycle system.
The amount of water used for power plant cooling also varies by each
specific power plant's electricity generating technology and size. For
example, nuclear reactors require the most water for cooling, and
baseload fossil fuel power plants come in second. Steam electric
generating plants across the nation draw in more than 200 billion
gallons per day. Most renewable energy technologies require little or
no water for cooling.
Hydropower Generation
To generate power, hydropower plants divert water from the river
through turbines. Water is diverted from the river via an intake at
the dam. At some hydropower plants, the turbines are located in the
dam and thus the water is released again right below the dam. At other
hydropower plants, the turbines are located in a powerhouse
significantly downstream from the dam (in order to generate enough
height difference, or "head," between where the water is diverted to
where the power is generated). This means that the water can be
diverted outside of the stream for some distances, sometimes several
miles, before being released back in the river.
What do we mean by water use and consumption?
Most electric power plants require water to operate. Nuclear and
fossil fuel power plants drink over 185 billion gallons of water per
day. Geothermal power plants add another 2 billion or so gallons a
day. Hydropower plants use water directly to generate power. These
power plants represent the single largest consumer of water among any
industrial, governmental or residential activity. Since 98 percent of
the water used in power plants is returned to its source, distinctions
are made between use and consumption.
Water use is a measure of the amount of water that is withdrawn from
an adjacent water body (lakes, streams, rivers, estuaries, etc.),
passes through various components of a power plant, and is then
ultimately discharged back into the original water body. Environmental
concerns surrounding water use center around any chemical or physical
alteration of the water body and any impacts these changes may have on
the plants, fish and animals who reside in the ecosystem.
Water consumption refers to water sucked up in power plant operations
that is lost, typically through evaporation. The primary concerns
surrounding water consumption is how best to utilize this essential
resource, especially in areas, such as deserts in the West, where
water is in short supply.
What are the consequences of water use and consumption?
Withdrawal of large volumes of surface water for either power plant
cooling or hydropower generation can kill fish, larvae and other
organisms trapped against intake structures (impinged), or swept up
(entrained) in the flow through the different sections of a power
plant.
Large fossil fuel and nuclear plants require incredible quantities of
water for cooling and ongoing maintenance. The Salem Nuclear
Generating Station alone takes 3 billion gallons a day from the
Delaware Bay. Studies of the environmental consequences of this
phenomenal water demand indicates that Salem is responsible for an
annual 11 percent reduction in weakfish and 31 percent reduction in
bay anchovy.
At the Indian Point 2 and 3 reactors on the Hudson River, the number
of fish impinged totaled over 1.5 million fish in 1987.
The 90 power plants using once-through-cooling (see below) on the
Great Lakes kill in excess of 40 million fish per year due to
impingement (Pace University, Environmental Costs of Electricity, p.
287).
The use of water to generate power at hydropower facilities imposes
unique, and by no means insignificant, ecological impacts. The
diversion of water out of the river removes water for healthy in-
stream ecosystems. Stretches below dams are often completely de-
watered. Fluctuations in water flow from peaking operations create a
"tidal effect," disrupting the downstream riparian community that
supports its unique ecosystem. A dam's impoundment slows water flows,
which hinders natural downstream migration of many fish species.
By slowing river flows, dams also allow silt to collect on river and
reservoir bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above
dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Disrupting the
natural flow of sediments in rivers also leads to erosion of riverbeds
downstream of the dam and increases risks of floods.
SNIP - mostly negative information on hydropower dams
(See also Hydropower Generation, Water Quality and Land Impacts Issue
Papers for more information on hydropower impacts.)
How can consumer electricity choice address water use and consumption?
By re-directing their electricity dollars to support environmentally
benign energy resources, consumers are empowered, in states that offer
supply choice, to influence the existing generating resources that are
deployed to meet demand. They can also support the construction of new
and cleaner electricity resources that will be built to meet overall
growth in demand in the future.
By supporting these power options, consumers can minimize many water
use and consumption impacts. Still, it should be noted that directing
one's dollars to cleaner power products in no way helps remediate
damages that already have occurred.
SNIP
References:
The Energy Project, Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, How the West
Can Win: A Blueprint for a Clean and Affordable Energy Future (1996).
ESEERCO, New York State Environmental Externalities Cost Study Vol. 1
(1995).
Pace University Center for Environmental Legal Studies, Environmental
Costs of Electricity (1990).
Karl R. Rabago, What Comes Out Must Go In: Cooling Water Intakes and
the Clean Water Act, 16 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 429 (1992).
U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in
2000. USGS Circular 1268, 15 figures, 14 tables (Published March 2004)
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/
Additional Information:
American Rivers http://www.americanrivers.org
Low Impact Hydropower Institute http://www.lowimpacthydro.org
Economic and Engineering Analysis of the Proposed Rule - Cooling Water
Intake Structures (Section 316(b) Clean Water Act). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ostwater/316b/support/chapter3.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|