More local power will become available, because HUG requires no dam.

1. The Water Crisis Solution
 The James Bay WaterThe James Bay Water
BasinBasin is one of the only
basin in North America
with water to spare.
 Without this new source
of fresh water, there will
be no more cheap
water available.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

2. Great Lakes & Global Warming
 Record low levels of the Great Lakes coincided with the dust
bowl years of the 1930s and a severe drought in 1964. The
primary driving force is evaporation or global warming.
 Today the US drought is now so acute that, in some southern
communities, there are heavy restrictions on water use.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

3. Great Lakes Glacial Phenomena
 The Great Lakes are a glacial phenomena - not a water basin.
Despite all the threats of drought, there will not be one drop
available from the Great Lakes to areas of water scarcity.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
Bad NewsBad News
Good NewsGood News
 If you put one drop into the Great Lakes, you can take a drop
out, while helping to increase its own water level.

4. The Arid American West
 The American West could
be more arid than at any
time since the advent of
European settlement.
 Analysis * of 19 computer
models of the future:
sometime before 2050, the
Southwest will be gripped
in a dry spell akin to the
Great Dust Bowl drought
that lasted through most of
the 1930s.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
There appears to have been a return to a
more drought stricken climate.
* Findings of Richard Seager, a senior researcher at Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory of Columbia University: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought

5. We Don’t have to Wait 40 years.
 The Ogallala Aquifer in the High Plains states,11 million acres
of farmland, will run dry in 10 years.
 California has a 20-year supply of freshwater left. New Mexico
has only 10 years.
 Another problem is the country’s growing population, expected
to reach 450 million by the middle of the century, or roughly
50 percent more people than now.
 North America is not running out of water, but we are running
out of time to tackle critical water stress problems.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

6. The Canadian Prairie Transfer Canal
 The Canadian prairies and the US Midwest are facing
an unprecedented water crisis today.
 A $780 million 1000km long siphon system is
sustainable & innovative.
Source: GRANDCO, Thomas Kierans.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
It will be difficult to say NONO to Water Export Revenue
of $433 Million/year$433 Million/year at the auction price of $0.13/ m3
s
for 135 m3

7. Northern Hydro Project
 The Northern Waters
project would capture
800 m3
s - 2000 m3
s of
seasonal runoff before it
flows North.
 There was a time when
the thought of transporting
oil across the ocean
seemed silly, too.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
Explained by Pierre Gingras in an Economic Note published by the
Montreal Economic Institute (MEI)

8. Northern Hydro Project
 The Broadback,
Waswanipi and Bell
Rivers would capture the
seasonal runoff and
gather it in basins before
it flows into the northern
lowlands.
 The surplus waters would
then be diverted via the
natural riverbeds through
a series of pumping
stations along the Bell
River.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
Explained by Pierre Gingras in an Economic Note published by the
Montreal Economic Institute (MEI)

9. Southern Water Project
 This surplus could be delivered to the Midwest
and South via a detour through the Chicago Canal
and Mississippi River.
 Each of the 150 million people whose needs could
be served by the project would pay the reasonable
rate of $50 per year. In this case, the willingness
to pay for these exports would be $7.5 billion. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

10. Ontario HUG*Siphon Project
 HUG* is a New Good: the key to power of
future hydro technology in Ontario.
 HUG has a dual purpose: clean electricity
& clean siphoned water to the Great Lakes.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
*
* Helical Unique Generation System

11. What is a New Good?
 A New Good was never there before, which
substantially deviates from any other good or
service produced before. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

12. Fresh Water to the Great Lakes
 Fresh water can be transferred without
using much electricity, which is used to
prime the siphons.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
AUGUST 19, 2010

13. Clean Fresh Water
from Deep of Lake Michigan
 Fresh water can be siphoned from intake
pipes that extend 2 – 3 km into Lake Michigan
and are 15 meters below the surface. These
intakes are far from sources of pollution. . Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

14. A Canadian Solution
to Water Crisis in South Western U.S.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

15. A Canadian Solution to
Water Crisis in Midwest & Southern U.S.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
 NARA can reverse the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer.

16. Many Other Fresh Water Projects
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
FRESH WATER PROJECTS Distance Volume
Central Valley Project Sacramento 85% irrigation 600 km 274 m3
s
Central Arizona Project Colorado $4Billion 1968-
1994to Phoenix and Tucson 90% irrigation 528 km 59 m3
s
Central Utah: Project Colorado 242 km 10.6 m3
s
Chicago Diversion to the Mississippi River 40 km 91 m3
s
Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant: $158 M 1.1 m3
s
Las Vegas: $2 billion by 2014 40,000 acre foot
(Buried water pipeline: 150 million gallons/ day)
400 km 1.56 m3
s
The Alaska-California Subsea Pipeline Project 644 -3380 km $110 Billion
NARA projected at US$390M/yr. (FOB Great Lakes)
Add $1.25M/ mile or $780,00/km for pipeline (2007) 570 km 1,074 m3
s

17. Inter-basin Water Proposals
are Not New
PROPOSED PROJECTPROPOSED PROJECT
(No Cost Estimates Available)
Volume ofVolume of
FreshFresh
WaterWater(m3
s)
Great Lakes-Pacific Waterways plan {Decker}
Skeena R., Nechako R. & Fraser R., of B.C.,
Peace R., Athabasca R., & Saskatchewan R.
4,500
983
NAPAWA-MUSCHEC or Mexican-United States
Hydroelectric Commission {Parsons} –
NAPAWA sources, plus lower Mississippi &
Sierra Madre, Oriental Rivers of South Mexico.
5,517
North American Waters, A Master Plan
[NAWAMP] {Tweed} - Yukon & Mackenzie Rivers,
plus drainage to Hudson Bay.
58,663
SOURCE: P.H. Pearce, F. Bertrand and J.W. MacLaren, "Currents of Change",
FINAL REPORT OF THE INQUIRY ON FEDERAL WATER POLICY [Ottawa: Minister of
Supply and Services Canada, 1985] p.127
Magnum Plan {Magnusson} - Peace R.,
Athabasca R., & N. Saskatchewan Rivers
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

18. There were High Priced Proposals
PROPOSED PROJECTPROPOSED PROJECTSS
Volume of
Water (m3
s)
Estimated
Price (2008)
North American Water And Power Alliance
[NAWAPA] {Parsons} –
Pacific & Arctic drainage of Alaska, Yukon & B.C.* 9830 $166 Billion
Kuiper Plan {Kuiper} –
Peace R., Athabasca R., and N. Saskatchewan R. in
Alberta; Nelson R. and Churchill R. in Manitoba. 5865 $83 Billion
Central North American Water Project [CeNAWP]
{Tinney} – Mackenzie, Peace, Athabasca,
N. Saskatchewan, Nelson & Churchill Rivers.
5865
$50 Billion
to
$83 Billion
Western States Water Augmentation Concept
{Smith} – Liard R. & Mackenzie River.
5865 $149 Billion
*This plan would involve 240 dams and reservoirs,
112 water diversions and 17 aqueducts and canals.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

19. Economically Feasible Water
Cost of the New Fresh Water Supply
Power Station and Water Supply System O&M $30 M/yr
Net Cost: $5,445 M at 480 Monthly Payments at 6.59% due 2050 616 M/yr
Supervision, Management and Labour 5 M/yr
Total annual amortized cost $$651651 M/yrM/yr
 New Water Volume Recycled (1,074 m3
/s x 60 x 60 x 12 x365) 16.9 Billion m3
/year
 Annual Cost of each m3
($651M / 16.9 Billion) FOB Great Lake $ .$ .039039/m/m33
or $48/acre-foot FOB Great Lakesor $48/acre-foot FOB Great Lakes
2200km (1380 miles: $2.9M to $6.5M per mile) to Texas from Great Lakes
through Lake of the Woods, Ont. to the Rio Grande River: $4 to $9-billion:
100 m3
/s = 1.57 Billion m3
/year@ $4 billion: $2.55/m3
Another Lower Estimate: $1.25M/mile: $1.10/m3
Comparables
Annual Cost of each m3
: UK (2006) incl. VAT $2.13/m3
Annual Cost of each m3
: (U. S. $925/acre-foot ) $.75/m3
 Water Export Revenue of 1074 m3
s at the auction price of $0.13/ m3
s: $3.45 Billion/yr$3.45 Billion/yrRomain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

20. Similar Proposed Projects
 In Russia, a canal 200 m wide and 16 m deep
southwards for some 2500 km using the flows of
Siberia's rivers to carry 856 m3
s of water. This would
like irrigating Mexico from the Great Lakes: $40 billion
 In China, 300 km of tunnels from the Yangtze, to a new
1,240 km (764-mile) canal to Beijing. This would be like
altering the course of the Mississippi River to service
New York City with 444 m3
s: $40 billion.
 One estimate to build a pipeline over 2200km (1380
miles) to Texas from James Bay through Lake of the
Woods, Ontario to the Rio Grande River in Texas: $4
to $9-billion. This is $2.9M to $6.5M per mile. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

21. Contrast our Modest Cost
 The U.S. Federal Government is contributing most of
the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay: $29.3 billion$29.3 billion in
capital costs.
 The U.S. Government is currently engaged with the
State of Florida in an initiative $10.5 billion$10.5 billion to restore
the Everglades (another environmental problem).
 U.S. Federal aid to highways annuallyannually: $$3131..22 billionbillion
(2005). This is not too dissimilar to water ways.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

22. A Ready USA Market
There have been a frustrating number of proposals
to access the Great Lakes:
• A proposal to the High Plains states & the Southwest (1984).
• Into the Mississippi River and ultimately to Mexico (1964–68).
• To the Missouri River in South Dakota: 400 mile canal (1983).
• South Dakota and Minnesota partnering to Wyoming.
• Lake Erie to the Ohio River (1986–91).
• To Southern Illinois (1987)
• In Northeast Kansas, to the Missouri River ($200 million)
All Proposals have been rejected in the past by the
International Joint Commission, who administers the Great
Lakes. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

23. Annual Potential Revenue
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
 The Potential Revenue for 1074 m3
s is
$4,296 million/year.
1074 m3
s

24. The HUG Turbine System
can help one to:
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
•Develop a leading role in this new technology,
which allows you to go international.
•Allow you to expand in entirely new markets,
because of the flexibility of HUG.
•Develop a ready USA market for Water Export.
•Find support in green energy and innovation
government programs, in order to reduce any risk

25. Avoid the High Cost of Droughts
Time Frame Drought/Heat WaveDrought/Heat Wave Costs (Actual)
Estimated
1987-89 Northern Plains: Drought Relief:
$4Billion
$40 Billion$40 Billion
Summer 1993 Southeast U.S. $1.0 (1.3)$1.0 (1.3)
BillionBillion
Summer 1998
Southern: from Texas/Oklahoma eastward
to the Carolinas.
$6.0-$9.0$6.0-$9.0
(6.6-9.9) Billion(6.6-9.9) Billion
Summer 1999 Eastern: Very dry summer and high
temperatures, mainly in eastern U.S.
$1.0 (1.1)$1.0 (1.1)
BillionBillion
Spring-Summer
2000
South-central and Southeast states
$4.0 (4.2)$4.0 (4.2)
BillionBillionSpring through
early Fall 2002
Large portions of 30 states: the western
states, the Great Plains, & eastern U.S.
Over $10.0Over $10.0
($11-12)($11-12)
BillionBillionSpring-
Summer
2006
Widespread Drought: Centered over the
Great Plains region with portions of the south
and far west
Over $6.0Over $6.0
BillionBillion
 Throwing good money ($6-8 billion) after bad
money (unnecessary losses)
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

26. The Huron Canal Option
 The canal excavation can be built for 800 m3
s. If the
velocity of the flow of the canal is 2 m/s and the depth of
the canal is 3 m, the width of the canal will be 134 m over
the entire length of 171 km.
 Yet this option poses major problems to populated areas.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

27. Sustainable Ottawa River
 The water level behind the Otto Holden Hydro
Dam can be maintained at 179.5 m, while the
water level in Lake Huron is 176.5 m.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

28. Sustainable Lake Huron
 The total length the water transfer is 170 km.
 The HUG Siphon System is less evasive.
 The HUG Siphon System captures energy
along the pathway.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

29. Ontario River HUG: First Leg
 The Siphon system can be buried under any
populated built up areas, rivers and lakes,
unlike the Huron Canal option.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

30. Water Runs Uphill: Second Leg
 Using a siphon, the
heights of land are
excavated to a
maximum height of
189 m, which is 10 m
above the 179.5 m
level of the Ottawa
River.
 Alternatively, the canal
depth would have to
be 176.5 m.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

31. Excavating River Beds
 Excavating river bed can create a water level
difference to allow for siphoning.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
AUGUST 19, 2010

32. The HUG Siphon Sucks Literally!
 Water pumps are unable
to raise water more than
10.1 m (33 feet high) from
its source.
 The tallest barometer is
12m high, because it
measures air pressure with
a column of water *.
 The HUG Siphon System
can then be raised from
179.5 m as high as 189 m.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
* A barometer has .76 m of mercury;
a similar barometer level of water
(as above) is 10.1 m (33 feet) high.

33. Estimates of the First Leg
 The Development Cost includes a full HUG Turbines System, which produces
36.5 kW/turbine x 3125 HUG pairs = 228 MW.
 The designated Patent Promotion Fee is initially offered to promoters (under contract).
 Hydro Revenue: (Ontario FIT) (using $131/MWh x 1.600,000 MWh) = $210 Million/yr$210 Million/yr
 Return on Investment : $210 / $232.25 = 90%$210 / $232.25 = 90% in First Year only
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
($Million)
Civil Works 9.0
Access Roads 8.8
Large Dimension Pipes (3m diameter): 56 m3
s 18.0
Helical Turbine Pair: 25,000 m / every 8m: 3,125 HUGS x 2 x $15,000 93.8
Rock Excavation/lineal meter $25 cubic meter: $750/ meter x 2,000 m 1.5
Control System .5
Electric Power Converter/Generator 228 MW DFIG 11.6
Transmission and Grid Connection .2
Electrical Connections .5
Electrical and Mechanical Overhead
.25
Miscellaneous 5.6
Subtotal $149.75
Engineering and Design 15% 22.5
Project Management 10% 15.0
Patent Promotion Fee* (5%) 7.5
Environmental studies & licensing 5% 7.5
Contingency (20%) 30.0
Estimated development costs: $232.25
($1,019/ kW)

34. Estimates of the Second Leg
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
 The second leg has no HUG turbines in the interest of project
readiness. HUGS can be added after the spring flood.
 Water Export Revenue of 56 m3
s: auction price of $0.13/ m3
s
= $180 Million/yr$180 Million/yr // HUGHUG System
 The total initial cost is $347.5 + $232.25 = say $580 million.
 Return on Investment : $180 +$210 / $580 = 67%/yr.$180 +$210 / $580 = 67%/yr.
($Million)
Civil Works 52.5
Access Roads 50.0
Large Dimension Pipes 105.0
Rock Excavation/lineal meter $25/m3
$750/ meter x 12,000 m 9.0
Miscellaneous 32.0
Subtotal $248.5
Project Management 10% 25.0
Patent Fee 5% 12.5
Environmental studies & licensing 5% 12.5
Contingency (20%) 50.0
Estimated development costs: $347.5

35. Water Export Revenue
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
 Source: World Commission on Water for the 21st
Century, 1999.
(www.worldcouncil.org).
Water Export Revenue of 56 m3
s: auction price of $0.13/ m3
s = $180 Million/yr/$180 Million/yr/HUGHUG
Water Export Revenue of 2000 m3
s = $6.4 Billion/yr$6.4 Billion/yr for 35for 35 HUGHUG Siphon SystemsSiphon Systems
Comparables: U. S. (2006) $.66/m3
average

36. Seasonal floodwaters of Ottawa River
Ottawa River Discharge Volume as Measured at Carillon Dam
Year Max. Flow Min. Flow Yearly Average
m3
/s m3
/s m3
/s
2004 4,917 534 1,960
2003 4,792 519 1,811
2002 5,947 666 2,064
2001 4,070 563 1,700
2000 3,205 971 1,801
Average 4,586 650
Average Additional Flow, which river can handle: (4,586 - 650) 3,936
(Source: ORRPB: “Historical Streamflow Summary”)
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

37. Comparative Low Cost Alternative
• The Helical Turbine System has the lowest
Energy Installation Costs. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

38. Clean Energy Demands
 The goal should be a 50% reduction in global
carbon-dioxide emissions by the middle of the
century. This means every year the world needs:
 30 new nuclear plants
 17,000 windmills
 400 biomass power plants
 Two hydroelectric facilities the size of China's massive
Three Gorges Dam
 42 coal and gas power plants with yet-to-be-developed
carbon-capture technology
Romain Audet
ROAUDET@GMAIL.COM
August 19, 2010

39. Subsidizing Inefficient Technology
 Fortunately, there is a
smarter way to deal with
global warming: we make
green energy cheaper.
 The miracle of the modern
age -- the personal
computer didn't become
household items because
governments subsidized
purchases or forced up the
price of typewriters.
Typewriter Man Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

40. Funding Basic Research
 The R&D that got Neil Armstrong to the moon in
1969 made it possible for Apple to introduce the
first Mac in 1976.
 Forget about subsidizing inefficient technologies or
making fossil fuels too expensive to use.
 Instead, let's fund the basic research that will
make green energy too cheap and easy to resist.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

41. A New Product: the HUG
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
•Picture a long spiralling interwoven set of 3 m
diameter tubes facing a current from rapids, a
waterfall, a tide or an ocean current.
•Now place an array of twin helical turbines in the
HUG Pathway separated within a length of a 6 m
of each other in the fast spiralling flow.

42. Helical Pathway Patent
 The HUG Patent explained: Oval helical turbines
harness kinetic energy are inserted in a Helical
Pathway System in fast flowing waters.
 An 80 page Patent (44 images) has been registered.
 None of the 44 images appear in this presentation.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

43. HUGHUG Captures the
Vortex Power of Water
 We have all experienced vortexes
in our lives: the fast draining sink.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

44. The Helical Turbine is the
Most Efficient: 35%35%
Propeller turbines have an efficiency of 20%
compared to the Helical Turbine (35%).
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

45. The Venturi Pathway
 The scientist, Giovanni Venturi, tested conical
contractions. The classical venturi consists of
a 21°conical contraction, straight throat and
7-15°conical expansion.
 (Velocity)2
= 2 x g x s
Acceleration of gravity = g = 9.8 m/s2
Velocity = 7.67 m/s for 3 m drop (s) of siphon
 At the convergence, the Final Velocity =
10.4 m/s
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

46. The Vortex Pathway
 HUGHUG, creates a vortex. The Velocity in the
flume of the HUGHUG is four times faster than
placing the turbine directly in the path of a
straight flow.
 The Final Velocity of 10.4 m/s, which is
increased at the conical convergence, is
further increased in the vortex.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

47. Turbine Power in Siphon
•The Power of each Turbine in a Siphon incline:
KE = ½ x A x V 3
x efficiency (A = area swept)
= ½ x 3.26 m2
x (10.4m/s)3
x .35 =
.64 MW/turbine
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

48. Oval Helical HUGHUG Power
Oval Helical turbines have power of .64 MW/turbine.
 A community will require a minimum of 1.93 MW of
power in winter with a 3-Oval Turbine HUG SystemHUG System.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

49. Modular Oval Turbines installed
on Site
 The modular unit of the oval twin turbines in
an inner envelope can be replaced without
interference to the flow of the siphon.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

50. Modular HUGSHUGS
 The large diameter (3 m) plastic pipe is formed by
wrapping of steel-reinforced polyethylene (PE)
sheets, which provides excellent flexibility.
 The ribbing of the PE is flexible & light enough to
intertwine with the second half of the HUGHUG manually.
 Detachable hinged door are inserted on the side. C-
shaped joint systems support these door with its
attached helical turbine housing.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

51. New Technology:
Earth-moving Machines
Excavator Bucket 40 m3
Romain Audet
roaudet@sympatico.ca
August 19, 2010
 More Efficient Hydraulic excavators.
Worker

52. New Technology:
Tunnel Boring Machines
Romain Audet
roaudet@sympatico.ca
August 19, 2010
 Non-invasive Canadian
tunnel boring machines
measure 6 meters in
diameter. This didn’t
exist until 1985.

53. Helical Turbines in Open Water
 Helical Turbines have been successfully
developed over the last 15 years.
Gorlov Experimental Helical Turbine
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

54. Commercially Viable
New Technology
 Investment in helical
turbines has increased
from US$13 million in
2004 to US$257 million
(Korea) in 2007.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

55. Electricity & Fossil Fuel Energy
 Energy costs of diesel electricity
(not including capital costs) are very
high: $0.63 per kWh vs. $$0.0.1515//kWkWhh
for HUGHUG. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

56. Why so much Power?
 A negative pressure or a sucking action is
created from a spiral centripetal motion.
 The Velocity in the flume of the HUGHUG is four
times faster than placing the turbine directly in
the path of the river: 36.5 kWkW/turbine/turbine
Power DensityPower Density: 173 kW/m173 kW/m22
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

57. Velocity is King:
Romain Audet
ROAUDET@GMAIL.COM
August 19, 2010
 The most critical factor is the Velocity of the flow.
A quadrupling of the Velocity from 1 m/s* multiplies
the Kinetic Energy (KE) by 43
or 64x, by the formula:
KE= ½ x A x V 3
x efficiency (A = area swept; Velocity)
= ½ x 3.26 m2
x (4 m/s*)3
x .35 = 36.5 kW/turbine
Red Area denotes HighRed Area denotes High
Velocity of FlowVelocity of Flow
at the flume.at the flume.
11 kW/m2
* Based on a discharge of 56 m3
s per A of 3.26 m2

58. The HUG Prototype
 1,682 MWh can sustain 1,360 average households
annually@ 12,000 kilowatt-hours (KWh)/household.
The HUG Prototype: 0.24 MW
One Twin Oval Helical Turbine: Length: 5 m; Head: 3 m; Depth 6m
1 Modular Helical Pathway, Helical Turbine & Vanes & Striations (62%) $324,000
Control System & Generators & Converters for DIFG 0.24 MW: (9.5%) 50,000
Transmission and Grid Connection: (11.5%) 60,000
Module Anchors & Slot Construction (1.25m) $1,500/m x (50m) (17%) 90,000
Subtotal $524,000
Contingency, Insurance, Legal costs, Bank fees, Interest (15%) 78,600
Total Helical Turbine System Cost
$602,600
Engineering Planning and Design (15%) 90,000
Promotion Patent Fee (10%) 60,000
Total Costs: 0.24 MW $3,136/KW $752,600
80% utilization rate: 1,682 MWh * [x $79/MWh (Quebec) $133,000/yr or 17.517.5%%/yr./yr.
(ROI) ]Annual Return on Investment (ROI): (Ontario FIT) (x $131/MWh) $220,000 = 29%/yr.29%/yr.
*The designated Fee is initially offered to promoters (under contract). The fees for
succeeding systems will be allocated to community development (5%) and patent fee
(5%).
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

59. HUG Pilot Project
Romain Audet
ROAUDET@GMAIL.COM
August 19, 2010
28 Turbines @ $8,750 $245,000
28 Submersible Generator @ $5,000 140,000
1 Module Cylindrical HUG 1,250,000
Module Anchors & Civil Works 1,625,000
Control System 407,000
Electric Power Converter/Generator for 6.7MW DFIG 593,000
Transmission and Grid Connection 86,000
Electrical Connections 550,000
Electrical and Mechanical Overhead 114,000
Subtotal $5,010,000
Contingency, Insurance, Legal costs, Bank fees, Interest: (15%) 752,000
Total Helical Turbine System Cost $5,762,000
Engineering Planning and Design (15%) 864,000
Patent Promotion Fee* (10%) 576,000
Total Costs: 6.7 MW $1075/kW (.153/kWh) $7,202,000
* The designated Fee is initially offered to promoters (under contract). The fees for
succeeding systems will be allocated to management fees (5%), community development
(4%) and patent fee (1%).
80% utilization: 47,000 MWh [x $79 (Quebec)] $3,700,000: ROI = 51%
Annual Return on Investment: (Ontario FIT) (using $131/MWh) $6,150,000 = 85%
The First 6.7 MW Prototype HUG System
HUG Length: 31 m; Diameter/Depth: 6 m; Twin Oval Helical Turbines: 28

60. HUG is Profitable:
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010
•Allows one to license the technology for a high fee initially,
because you will be in a monopolistic and R&D fees are expected.
•High Ontario FIT prices are established from inefficient wind
turbine technology. This allows one to keep profits high. (using
Ontario FIT Guaranteed sale price of $131/MWh or Quebec prices
of $79/MWh less your cost of $5.46/MWh).
•Allows one to set up a Private Public Partnership for a very high
initial return and a reasonable annual return for managing the
project.
•Earns extra revenue from the sale of carbon credits.

61. Public Ownership –
Private Development
 The water sector is one of the
natural local monopolies.
 Public Private Partnerships
(PPP) ensure that water
remains a universal human
right and a freely accessible
public good.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

62. “Build-Transfer-Operate” Model
 The NARA PartnershipThe NARA Partnership contracts with a
private partner to build a facility. Once
completed, the private partner transfers
ownership of the facility toto NARA.NARA.
 NARA then leases the facility back to the
private partner under a long-term lease.
 The private partner involved in the design
and construction of the infrastructure has an
opportunity to earn a reasonable 10% pre-tax
equity return.
 The original NARA partners will be open to
new co-owners and invite all water supply
and sanitation organizations to become
"implementation partners" of the initiative.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

63. Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada
 NSERC invests more than $2-billion annually in
technology R&D incentives for Manufacturing,
Energy Resources & Northern Development, etc.
 The Scientific Research and Experimental
Development (SR&ED) program provide an
investment tax credit (ITC) of 35%.
 Average Strategic Project: $120,000
 Average Discovery Grant: $30,000 Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

64. NSERC Short List
 Baird Engineering & Sciences
 Hatch Associates Ltd
 Hydro-Québec
 Risk Services: Ontario Power Generation Inc.
 Siemens Westinghouse
 Tecsult Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

65. Helical Turbines:
Environmental
Zero Effects
People requiring resettlement: zerozero
 Areas flooded: zerozero
Dam Reservoir unsuitable for fish: zerozero
Natural habitats affected: zerozero
Adverse noise & visual impact: zerozero
Two million mTwo million m33
of concrete for a dam:of concrete for a dam: saved Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 9, 2010

66. Environmental Impacts
 A great deal more research is warranted.
 There is a flip side to an environmental impact:
the dangers of inter-basin water transfers must
be balanced by a greater risk, the Great Lakes
environment.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

67. Wind Turbine Power
 Since wind turbines are so unpredictable,
conventional power plants have to serve as back-
ups. These run at less than half power most of
the time. This is all terribly uneconomical.
 2000 Wind Turbines is
four times more costly
than one HUG System,
because water is 1,000
times denser than air.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

68. This Project Reduces
Global Warming.
 Companies that exceed the
emission limits must soon buy
credits of $284,000 worth of
carbon credits, from the 1 MW
of new clean energy, which
will add to our revenue.
 Power generation of 228 MW
is worth $65 Million.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

69. The Alternative: Desalination Plants.
 An alternative desalination plant (1.2 m3
s) is twice
the price, because it is energy intensive and it incurs
high-pollution costs that could escalate as energy price
increase.
 Improperly structured subsidies can prove
economically inefficient and hamper sustainable
development. Seawater desalination plants grants:
1. Federal financial support: $200 per acre-foot
(.16 /cubic meter)
2. State subsidies – California: $5 million per project
3. Municipal – S. California: $250 per acre-foot
(.20 /cubic meter)
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

70. A Stop Gap Solution
from Lake Superior
 Siphon Pipes from a height of 200 m
above sea level to 183 m at L. Superior.
 The ecological risk is non-existent for
inter-body water transfer, which is
siphoned to Lake Superior from waters
travelling to James Bay over a distance
of 12 km. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

71. Great Lakes Siphon Project
 Eleven bodies of 265 m3
s water share the
same environment: only a distance of 1.5 m to
12 km apart. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
AUGUST 19, 2010
There are eleven possible locations at which this siphon system can be applied.

72. Supporting Lake Superior
 A HUG Siphon can tap into the spring flooding
river system along the USA - Canada border
(One of nine Siphon System for 265 m3
s ).
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

73. Supporting Lake Superior
 This HUG Siphon system can tap into the river
system flowing west away from Lake Superior.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

74. Sustainable Lake Superior
 This HUG Siphon System can tap into a
flowing river system only 4 km away, which is
sustainable, especially in the spring. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

75. Sustainable Lake Superior
 The sustainable HUGHUG Siphon System can tap
into a flowing river system heading west. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

76. Supporting Lake Superior
 This HUG Siphon system can tap into flood
waters flowing north from a lake 10 km away. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

77. Sustainable Lake Superior
 This HUG Siphon System can tap into a major
river system 12 km away, flowing north. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

78. Sustainable Lake Superior
 This HUG Siphon System can tap into a major river
system, which is sustainable, especially in the spring.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

79. Sustainable Lake Superior
 This HUG Siphon System can tap into a major
river system, which is flowing north, 7.8 km away.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

80. Supporting Lake Superior
 This HUG Siphon system can tap into the river
flowing 8 km away, from March to July. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

81. Key Issue: Great Lakes
Water Scarcity
 The condition of the Great Lakes need to be
improved. Its waters are evaporating more
quickly because of global warming.
 The Great Lakes are glacial phenomena -
not a self-sustaining water basin.
 Only 50% of original wetlands remain in the
Great Lakes region.
 There is a need for a new supply to the
Great Lakes if levels are to be maintained.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

82. Environmental Concerns:
 The environmental shocks of the Great
Lakes wetlands and its water levels.
 The need for water in Canada’s prairies.
 The loss of funds from fresh water sales,
which can be used to solve Canada’s
other environmental problems.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

83. No Ecological Problem
There is no ecological problem with U.S. buying
Canadian water under three conditions:
1. There is protection (water rights) for those
who cannot afford to buy it.
2. The water isn't used for unsustainable
lifestyles.
3. It must be environmentally acceptable and
sustainable.
Water is a human right, not a commodity.Water is a human right, not a commodity.
It is a public trust.It is a public trust. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

84. Connecting with GLRC Strategy
 The U.S.A. Great Lakes Regional Collaboration
Strategy requested $26 billion$26 billion a plan preserve
the Great Lakes over five years.
 Part of this Strategy is to enhance sustainable
planning and resources ($115 million)($115 million)..
 TheThe Ontario SiphonOntario Siphon HUGHUG projectproject would
significantly affect these cost estimates.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

85. Ontario Blue Oil?
 Bill 198, Safeguarding and Sustaining
Ontario's Water Act, 2007, chose a
watershed approach
 It is aimed at discouraging bulk water
exports by making the environmental
protection of water resources the key
reason for the law.
 It is based on the threats to water
ecosystems from inter-basin transfers.Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

86. Canadian Blue Oil
 The standard proposed by the IJC is
that there should be “no net loss” to the
area from which the water is taken.
 The federal government knows that the
economic opportunities of these water
diversion projects are endless.
 This is why the Canadian governments
failed to choose a policy course so as
to keep their future options open. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

87. Examine our Gains
 The Multiplier Effect: every $1 spent in the
water and sanitation sector creates on
average another $8 in costs averted and
productivity gained. This is the reason for
government subsidies for water distribution
between 30% and 50% (OECD countries).
 It is estimated that NARANARA would increase the
annual national income from agriculture,
livestock, mining, and manufacturing by
approximately $30 billion$30 billion.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

88. Canadian Political Options:
 Parliament could pass legislation
regulating the export of water from Canada
under international trade, just as it
regulates energy exports under the
National Energy Board Act.
 The federal government could negotiate a
tri-national treaty with the United States
and Mexico for water users across the
whole continent.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

89. Canada and NAFTA
 NAFTA & WTO require non-discriminatory
treatment “in like circumstances”.
 If those provinces do not export bulk
water, they would not be required to start,
as that policy would be considered the
best treatment available.
 A decision by one province, namely
Ontario, to permit the sale of bulk water
has no implications for other provinces.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

90. The U.S. and NAFTA
 Water shortages and global warming pose a
“serious threat” to America’s national security.
 The U.S. could put $600 billion in trade at risk.
 Obama threaten to withdraw from NAFTA during
the primaries: some parts of America have
benefited; others have not.
 Governments are required not only to provide clean
water to their citizens, but citizens of other countries
have the right to water as well and to find peaceful
solutions to water disputes between states. Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

91. U.S.A. Guarantees Required:
o The federal government could overrule the rights of
provinces to exploit their water resources as they see fit, as a
national concern, for “peace, order and good government”.
o Neither NAFTA, nor the World Trade Organization, would
tolerate a country restricting water explicitly for use within
national boundaries. This would be trade discrimination, so a
water accord is largely ineffective, such as Bill 198,
Safeguarding and Sustaining Ontario's Water Act, 2007
o United States need to offer the Canadians a proposal,
which allows bulk water exports to be safeguarded from
NAFTA’s Chapter 11 investment rules.
o The U.S. proposal should also offer an ‘escape-clause’,
i.e. allow for interruption in the trade in bulk water after
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

92. Gains for Ontario
 Revenue from the Sale of New Power
 Revenue from the Sale of Water
 New Low Cost Fresh Water (Toronto area)
 New Resources for Agriculture, Mining & Pulp
 Employment and Capital Inflows (with tax revenues)
 New Supporting Secondary Industries Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

93. Win Win for Canada!Win Win for Canada!
 Economic advantages to Canada: to offset
the global warming “bite”
 This has tremendous political, financial, and
psychological advantages to unite various
factions in Canada and promote Canadian
pride by uniting Aboriginal, Quebec, Ontario
and Western interests.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

94. A Call to Action !A Call to Action !
 Canada is an Expert in Large-Scale
Infrastructure-Building Programs.
 Canada supports clean electricity technology,
which then can be imported.
 It is time to build political and social solution,
which is “Made in CanadaMade in Canada”.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

95. The Canadian Touch
 Our hope is that it will be
a Canadian company
interested in developing
tradable Canadian goods
and not some company
from Korea, Germany or
the Netherlands, which
will see the light.
Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010

96. Anticipation!
 Experts assert that this water crisis is more
than a cyclical "drought.
 Just as energy security became a national
priority during the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973–
74, water security will become a national and
global priority in the decades ahead.
 They will say, “We didn't know it was coming." Romain Audet
roaudet@gmail.com
August 19, 2010