I wonder if that could be defeated in court on the grounds that...
1) You're only using the water while it's on your land and "returning" it in perfect condition
2) Any energy potential derived from elevation change on your land certainly belongs to you.
but it may harm the damn fish. i have a season creek in my back yard and 50' either side of it is "protected" wetlands and i cannot do anything with it. all i can do is maintain the area so that the vegatation doesn't become hazardous. i may also build a bridge to cross the creek but the plans must be submitted and approved.
her's a question for those in the know. i know solar you can directly back feed into the system so there is no batteries. can the same be done with hydro???? i'd like to think so, but has anyone done it or heard it being done. i think that this would be a great idea. in winter you use more hydro power and in summer go to solar.
I know some ranchers who have a tiny stream running through their property. They channeled it down into a small nozzle and through a turbine. It worked great, and they were selling excess power back to the grid, but I think they eventually shut it down for some reason. I don't remember the details, it's been probably 15 years since I've seen it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpig70
her's a question for those in the know. i know solar you can directly back feed into the system so there is no batteries. can the same be done with hydro???? i'd like to think so, but has anyone done it or heard it being done. i think that this would be a great idea. in winter you use more hydro power and in summer go to solar.
Its ironic that the sierra club would oppose the use of a renewable resource. I also find it amusing they think that fish are so stupid that they would stop using the river they were born in because of a small obstacle that doesn't block their access to the spawning where they were hatched in. I can understand spawning beds being left untouched, but most fish aren't worried about the trip home LOL.
Linear Mode
