Dear James A Green 

Given that I am very concerned for the environment I clean energy including hydropower we commonly call the white coal. Certainly that can generate a physical pollution by increasing the water temperature but it remains by far the cleaner energy than fossil fuels

James A Green

You vision is very good. But what about the thermal pollution of water, ecological damage of the aquatic environment, occupational protection of the fishermen, steady supply of fish and shell fish to daily market, steady flow of rivers year round particularly in monsoon countries, velocity of river in plains and last but not the least preliminary cost of installation in the third world countries.

Regards.

Dr. Sarada Mandal

Dear James A Green 

Given that I am very concerned for the environment I clean energy including hydropower we commonly call the white coal. Certainly that can generate a physical pollution by increasing the water temperature but it remains by far the cleaner energy than fossil fuels

Caged systems can mitigate damage to aquatic life that could be consumed by the generators. Heat can be vented into the air.

I am not just talking about underwater generators. We, as a civilization, have been using waterwheels for ages. A chute diverting river flow to a waterwheel attached to a generator, the whole assembly regulated to automatically adjust to the height of the water, is simple engineering. A transmission could adjust the RPMs during low or high flow, thus keeping a more or less steady power generation regardless of season.

In the 18th century in coastal Louisiana they built grist/saw mills in the marsh by creating a low-level dam less than .5 meter high and thousands of meters long. These tidal mills used the ebb and flow of the tides through a narrow chute in the low-level dam to turn a waterwheel. That was over 200 years ago!

At one time I could design and implement a stream-based hydroelectric system that could provide minimal power to ten third-world homes for a few hundred dollars. Why do we not have this now?

Dear James, I totally agree with you. Puerto Rico has hydroelectric power plants in three of the largest local reservoirs, including the one that supplies water for more than half of our population. But these hydroelectric plants have been unused for years. They were built in the 1940s when the local Aqueduct and Sewer Authority and the The Authority of Water Resources (which eventually became our Electric Power Authority) were created in 1942. Fossil fuel power plants were built in the 1950s on the north and the south coasts. The most splendid and heroic enterprise was to plant all the power network throughout the island, including our central mountain range. When that project was completed in the early 1960s, we all celebrated (I was born in 1954) and the government printed a beautiful Christmas card that depicted a huge power tower planted at the top pf the highest mountain as a decorated Christmas tree. I remember my mother crying of joy when she showed us the beautiful, hand-made greeting card celebrating electricity for the poor citizens living in the mountains. Oil was cheap back then, until OPEC sent the prices soaring and our present power crisis began. Since them it has been an occasional nightmare.

The old hydroelectric power plants built in the 1940s do not have the capacity to service the whole population right now. Besides, the global warming processes has brough us severe droughts every year from September to February. The water in the reservoirs is sorely needed for satisfying water needs. Since we enjoy a pleasant and constant breeze all over the island and throughout the year, many municipalities have planted windmills to generate electric power. In Puerto Rico, that is possibly the best solution for us, aided by solar power. We have a tropical sun that is always clean and intense.

Every place has its needs, and specific ways to better deal with power and where to get it. For us, hydroelectric power is not as feasible as wind / solar power.

Best regards, Lilliana

The levelised cost of hydropower electricity.

http://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/irena_re_power_costs_2014_report.pdf

Thank you for the report link, Krishnan. I think that Chapter 7 very well confirms what I am saying. Not only does it say that, world-wide, hydroelectric power is one of the cheapest forms of power generation per construction and maintenance costs, but it also notes that it is adaptable for small-scale projects that can provide electricity for a community. It also discusses some of the other concerns, such as droughts.

My question is why we have not been utilizing more hydroelectric power on smaller scales? It almost seems like the large power companies have a monopoly on electricity.

Dear James A,

Your idea is something so ancient as the waterwheel, and there are easy technology to build for that purpose. The limitant, I think, is the pressure from the coal and oil industries.

Thanks

Luis,

Yes. It is like the mythological 80 MPG car invented in the 1950s that was supposedly suppressed by Big Oil. It is a very common practice for large corporations to buy smaller innovated companies that threaten their status quo or find something in the design that is a patent infringement.

JAG

I think so have been leaving aside the generation of hydroelectric power in the interest of preserving other less clean energy options. I'm not certain of the extent that we could achieve if we were to universally promote the use of hydroelectric power, but I think it would certainly be significant in efforts to support the provision of energy required by humanity at its present stage of development without affectations severe damage to the ambient.

George,

Yes. I saw a story not long ago about how a low-cost system consisting of a small solar cell and rechargeable battery was bringing light to huts in sub-Saharan Africa. It is simple things like that which can make a big difference in people's lives. Another is the project to bring hand-pumped water wells to arid villages at a cost, if I remember correctly, $75 US per well.

Yes, I have the same question, too. I think you are very wise to suggest such a method.

In fact my students in the environmental course have proposed similar ideas.

If there are any thermal pollution issues they can be sorted out without difficulty. Given the voluminous near-death problems using fossil fuels.

We should be promoting this as one of the many alternative renewable methods.

Everything I've read on this subject says that in the US, use of hydroelectric power is maxed out. And furthermore, that some environmental groups are opposed to it, for reasons such as wildlife habitat disruption, including fish, and thermal pollution.

Albert,

In the standard scenario of damming a river there is great opposition from environmentalists. A small hydroelectric plant that is only large enough to service a small community or town would not have a dam and the heat generated would be minimal compared to the huge hydroelectric plants. In fact, as towns and communities are spread out along rivers, the small amount of heat would likely dissipate. Yes there would be a cumulative effect, but probably only a few degrees because of each source being spread out by tens of kilometers, as opposed to the large hydroelectric plants that raise the temperature many of degrees.

Additionally, who says hydroelectric power is maxed out? It might be true that there are no adequate locations along rivers to build huge hydroelectric dams, but what I propose does not require damming a river, only diverting a minor flow into a chute. Believe me, the current electrical power grid in many parts of the United States is inadequate for peak summer usage and sometimes even winter usage. Because of the aging power infrastructure and increased population, especially in my part of Louisiana, we started experiencing brown-outs in the summer about five years ago. California has brown-outs regularly in the summer time. During the heat of the summer with all of the air conditioners running the power companies can not generate enough electricity to meet the demand.

Dear James:

It seems that climate change and the prospects of declining fossil fuel reserves are creating incentives for the development of renewable sources of energy. In Argentina, 87% of electricity production relies on fuel. The rest is from nuclear and hydroelectric plants. Recently, the Congress passed a law whose goal is that 8% of energy production in 2017 should originate from renewable sources, mainly wind and rivers. In 2020, the percentage should be 20%.

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1831948-para-2017-el-8-de-la-generacion-electrica-argentina-debera-ser-de-energias-renovables

I agree with you James.  With development in technology, higher efficiency and smaller footprints, more can be done to place hydro-electric power plants along rivers.  Of course, the impact to the environment must be taken care of, which I believe is possible with today's engineers and engineering know-how. 

I do recall reading a few years ago in The Chemical Engineer about such a project in UK where a turbine was placed on a river in order to supply enough power to a nearby village.  That eliminates the need to lay power lines and a grid (with its share of environmental impact)

Shyam,

Thank you for the answer. My point has been that it seems more logical to use hydroelectric generation on a smaller scale to bring power to or supplement the needs of small towns and communities at the local level. There used to be hundreds of small electric co-ops across the United States, but the more successful ones bought or put the others out of business until we now have large areas of the country serviced by only a few giant power companies. While I have not made a study of it (hint to any grad students), as these now existing corporations grew they decided to consolidate their electrical generation facilities in certain locations. As a direct result we have huge hydroelectric dams, coal-burning power plants, and nuclear power plants, all of which cause some form of ecological and/or environmental damage.

And like you said, constructing and maintaining the power grid causes more damage. Think of an isolated village beside a river in the mountains. What is the environmental damage of a small hydroelectric turbine to supply the village with electricity versus constructing an electrical transmission line 50 meters wide and 50 kilometers across mountainous wilderness?

On a slightly different note, during the late 19th and early 20th century people got their blocks of ice from an ice house. Many people do not realize that those ice houses had small gasoline engines that turned generators that produced the electricity for making the ice. Many of these ice houses actually started supplying electricity to the town hall, etc. and eventually invested in more equipment, becoming power companies.

James,

I too have thought this was a waste to let all this power just flow and not have any use of the resource.   I designed a zero energy community based off of a low flow low head Hydro-electric power plant.  It should and could be done.

George,

I think early in the development of electricity entrepreneurs were willing to invest in the new technology to run ice houses, machine shops, textile mills, etc. Once the large electric companies and co-ops grabbed the market it was easier to purchase power from them than to invest your own money. Nowadays I think there is also the "What If" factor. Small towns are hesitant to invest money in something that sounds good, but perceptually is still in its infant stage, even though the technology has been around for over 100 years. Then there is blame: it is easier to blame the huge power company when the electricity goes off, rather than have the townspeople blame the town officials.

Still, it will take some visionary pioneers implementing small-scale hydroelectric-power communities to prove its feasibility as more than a curiosity.

If I had the ability it would have been done by now.  The study that I did in looking to build this community lead me to the information that there are 2,500 power stations that use Hydro power and in North America, and there are 250,000 locations that are suited to low flow low head Hydro power.   This seems like a no brainer to me.   This is not even considering the streams that could be used for alternate in stream flow power. 

The place that I designed a community around was an old mill damn that was less than 10 feet tall.  The mill in the 1920's had a power house on it and has a working power plant that is turned off right now.   I wanted to put in an over the top of the water series of floating wheels that upped the power output and would be easy to maintain and run.  This little mill would have supplied with a little solar enough power to supply my community with 355 homes and businesses all they needed.  There is a plan to use community farming and what I called the Cyber City approach to the business model.

Several years ago when I was trying to get this under contract the Springfield Business Journal did a front page story on it.  This was as the down turn happened and it floundered.  The investor backed out.  In looking at it it was the wrong time for the investor to back out he could have been the only one selling homes in the down turn as there was no energy bill for the community.

It was called Riverdale.  There is so much we could be doing that we are not that it kills me to think that we are wasting this resource.

This energy has been exploited for centuries. Farmers since the ancient Greeks have used water wheels to grind wheat into flour. Placed in a river, a water wheel picks up flowing water in buckets located around the wheel. The kinetic energy of the flowing river turns the wheel and is converted into mechanical energy that runs the mill.

In the late 19th century, hydropower became a source for generating electricity. The first hydroelectric power plant was built at Niagara Falls in 1879. In 1881, street lamps in the city of Niagara Falls were powered by hydropower. In 1882 the world’s first hydroelectric power plant began operating in the United States in Appleton, Wisconsin.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/hydropower-profile/

See ...

Fadel,

The type of Hydro power that I envision would be in stream on the surface and not block or slow the river or for that matter there would be very small or not even any dams.  This type of low flow low head would be able to be installed in any moving body of water.  

We in the west have promoted this giant scale Hydro power model that is harmful to the environment and we need to stop thinking that we can solve the power problem by having one company control all the power.  This is what is wrong with the world.  It is all about how one company can control everything and make the most money.  It is not about how to safely supply power to the world.  If you notice there are still power problems even in the USA where the population is low.  This is because no one wants to supply power to people that can not make them wealthy..

I am not anti business I am anti greed.  The solutions to many of the worlds problems are in small scale systems that help all not just the powerful.   

George,

Gear ratios are the great equalizers. You can take the gyrations of an impeller in moderate stream flow and translate those RPMs into enough speed to turn a generator for producing electricity. I once worked with a giant wood lathe machine that had so high a gear ratio that the blades kept turning for 45 minutes after the machine was turned off.

That is remarkable.  I think we always look for to large of a solution or ways to scale the products instead of ways to use small scale products in unison.  

We forget things like the power outage that blackened the east coast for several hours was a $25.00 part that failed and created a cascading blackout.  If we had smaller grids that were loosely connected that kind of thing would never happen.  

Super size scale is only good for profits not people.

Thank you for the links, David. There actually was a ship-based saw mill in one of our local rivers during the late 19th and early 20th century.

As for the reasons that water power was abandoned for mills and factories, since I have not made a study of it, I do not know. However, I am sure that the reasons vary. One of those reasons was likely that by the time that the mills/factories' needed to upgrade or revamp their systems because of age and increased power demands, electric companies were offering service. Why invest in your old power plant or install a new one when you can use the electricity generated by someone else?

This scenario is similar to a few years ago when my water well needed replacing. The choice was $1500 for a new well or $350 to tie in to the county water system. With initial hookup investment, it would take 12 years of monthly water bills in order to equal the cost of replacing my well!

However, just because small-scale hydroelectric generation was abandoned does not mean it is not feasible today. The scientific advances in materials mean that wood and iron can now be replaced with light-weight aluminum and composites. Frictionless bearings and seals, precision gears, and advanced computerized "station-keeping" systems mean less energy loss, thus increased efficiency in converting momentum to power. These advances likely have increased the generating capacity at least three fold over early 20th century technology.

 @ George E. Van Hoesen

Your answer is quite logical and I fully share

A few reports from the 1980s recommending small and micro hydroelectric plants for rural areas and developing countries. Interestingly, the 1st report mentions that engineering firm's feasibility studies often result in 40 to 50 percent of the total cost of the project, which they think is ridiculous.

https://archive.org/details/fe_Small_HydroPower_Cost_Reductions

https://archive.org/details/fe_Pelton_Micro_Hydro_Prototype

https://archive.org/details/fe_Micro_Hydropower_Source_Book

https://archive.org/details/fe_Microhydropower_Handbook_1

https://archive.org/details/fe_Microhydropower_Handbook_2

The Engineering costs are ridiculous.  They could do 40% more projects and or pass on 40% savings if they were no so costly.  I understand there needs to be Engineering done but it gets to be just a money maker for the Engineering companies that only change a few things from plan to plan.  At the turn of the last century either the Engineers were the builders or the builders only asked for help from an engineer if they has a situation that was not what they knew how to do.  There were very few failures.  Today we have to have someone to sue when there is a problem.  No one is willing to give up on blaming someone else for your problems.  Cutting corners is the fault of the general contractor not the owner, building is the blame of the engineering company if it does not work but is built to the standard, everyone lines up to get sued and no one cares how much this cost use in the society.  

Yes the Engineering is important but not to that cost. 

George,

Classic example, small town near me needed a new bridge over a canal that gave residents boat access to a river. Many of the residents had high-end pleasure boats. Engineering firm drew up plans that had the bottom of the bridge span two feet from water! Construction company followed the plans. City engineer apparently never went by to inspect the work in progress. City sued engineering firm who then showed ruling council the city engineer's signature approving the plans as drawn up. New bridge had to be removed and appropriate one built at the city's expense.

Bill Gates, founding member of the Mission Innovation and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, believes sustainable, eco-friendly, and reliable ways to produce energy a must for developing countries and remote regions. One of those energy producing methods is hydroelectric.

David,

Thank you for the links. One of my points all along has been that for a remote village that has a steady flow of water, a micro or small-scale hydroelectric generating system is 1000X better than no electricity at all, even it it is not as efficient as larger hydroelectric power-plants. Look at the initiative in Africa that is installing small solar collectors in order to supply power for a single radio or satellite-uplinked computer in the village. We need multiple approaches to bring the simple things like power to run lights, communications, and refrigeration to remote villages of the world. If I had the money I would seriously fund a few studies and test platforms into micro and small-scale hydroelectric generation.

I hear it on the engine generator. My great uncles used a 1936 Chevy roadster engine to run their combination grist mill/saw mill on the old farmstead.

http://www.weriguam.org/docs/reports/129.pdf

http://didattica.uniroma2.it/assets/uploads/corsi/144713/hydro.pdf

http://library.iyte.edu.tr/tezler/master/enerjimuh/T001094.pdf

http://gendell.pratt.duke.edu/sites/gendell.pratt.duke.edu/files/fdr%20river%20turbine.pdf

Solar is working its way into the mainstream and will be able to work as well as Hydro as soon as the battery storage issues are resolved. It is coming and maybe sooner than we think. In Quantum chemistry we are seeing some promising things and it is not to much to think of the ability of all communities to be self sufficient.

Yes, solar has come a long way. I think that the costs still are leaps and bounds above what some rural communities can afford and it doesn't seem like some countries are willing to invest in those poor or isolated regions. Heck, look at the United States. We had to have a government initiative to help pay for rural broadband internet until the Trump administration killed it. As of 2012 some 35 percent of Americans still had Internet access only through 56k dial-up modems because it was profitable for telecommunications companies to run broadband to those communities. To me, anybody with an old generator/alternator, a regulator, and a stream can create free electricity.

A few year ago, I work on what you described river-based underwater hydroelectric turbines. The idea was put them in river, canal, for undercurrent due to tie and wave etc. The problem is energy density versus ROI.

Home made project do not need an ROI but people and pension plan that invest in large installation need a ROI.

For Clean energy, unless regulation would not allow for any increase in hydrocarbon consumption such that all future increase was done with non hydrocarbon and the cost to the consumers increase due to the higher labor intensity for clean energy. Very few clean energy will ever see a proper ROI. The question is how bad the environment has to become before we put a price tag to save it. All the clean energy have existed for many many years, so it is not complicated. The technology is already well developed and mature. (we are just making better mouse trap with new material that cost more)

If I may, I would like to way in on some of the statement that have been made here and there.

Let talk about multiple small units. Most statement made are using adjective instead of being quantitative. I.e. you are using word like small and big when talking about energy you should refer to size. For example a typical house (bungalow) with a 60 amps entrance at 220 volts (not electric heating) could have a peak of up to 8 or 9 kw but most of the time it is at 1 to 2 kw. while a home that use electric heating or air conditioning will have a 100 amps entrance in the south or 200 amps entrance in the north with a peak of 15 kw and 25 amps respectively with a regular load of 1 to 2 kw.

The reason that I say this is because the proof is in the pudding and if someone would do the number a lot of statement made in this discussion would demonstrate the lack of real technical knowledge some statement have. They are more like wish list that someone else need to figure it out.

If you are on the grid, you can add all kind of clean energy but there is a high cost, equipment and administrative cost in order to have a system that match the grid sine wave and approval from the grid owner.

I am a believer in off the grid and would like to point out why the conventional approach does not have a business case.

If you choose to get off the grid, you need to have energy storage. For one car battery you cannot meet any real electrical demand. Now if you take my number above, say 8 kw peak demand and you want to be using 12V200Ah solar gel battery battery at about 250$us each. This is 2.4 kwh at 12 volt and 20 amps for 10 hours. (Note if you bull 100 amps for 1 hour, the battery only give 1200 Watts and the battery get damage) So this is 240 W or 0.240 kw. you would need 10 to give 2.4 kw, I mention that we have a peak of 8 kw, so that mean we need 30 battery. Now if you look for 15 kw, then you need 60 battery and at 25 kw you need about 100 batteries. By the way, you will need to replace them in about 4 to 10 years based on the number of charging/discharging cycle and the discharge rate. You can reduce the number of battery by 2/3 but you also cut the battery life to the low end.

For this reason, it does not work well. The second problem is if you use multiple electrical supply. Say solar, wind, and a generator. Now you need to make sure they all work together with the same sine wave and frequency. Again more equipment and cost.

As for the engineering cost, what you are quoting are engineers working on government project. I you have ever work on government project there are a lot of lobbyist, etc plus the bureaucratic slow pace. You need engineer and there are individual engineer and small engineering firm that are not spoil with huge government contract. The problem is that most people do not like to buy paper and for the engineer to learn on their project. For this reason, many engineer do not have a vast experience. On the other hand, the above calculation that I gave you above and how to solve the technical issue, engineer are better than electrician if they are given the time to do it.

By the way, I am an engineer and presently working of a waste to energy small power plant (30,000,000 Btu thermal and 1000 kw electrical at 440V/3phase/60hz with a steam generator 500 kw, an ORC 250 kw (organic Rankin cycle) and the grid. The trick is to make sure the grid provide it power after the steam generator and the ORC because you want to use the free energy before the grid. On this system with time, more clean energy equipment can be added if the interconnecting is taken care of.

With regard to floating thing on the water. First, in order to remove energy from a moving body of water you need a pressure drop. If you are installing something on the water you want to get enough power to justify the whole infrastructure. So there is no such thing has little or no slowing of the river.

The low head turbine, work at about 50% conversion efficiency compare to large system which work above 92%. Again, like windmill, or solar or other clean sources of energy, as long the labor is free, i.e. do it yourself installation and maintenance then it works. For the amount of power that is needed every day, little plants are not a real solution. By the way, using a cheap gas generator, it will not last on a continuous basis, so it should never be part of the infrastructure with wind or solar. Unit that are build for continuous use are 5 to 10 time the cost.

Please note that many of the thing that I mention can be google. I would recommend that you try to figure out the financial and technical aspect of your ideas and put them on a business plan. From this detail knowledge you would be more accurate with any of the ideas and someone may come up with real solution which would not be misleading. You can try building everything by trial and error. This is only good for do it yourself. In real installation, if you cannot calculate and then design it, you cannot build it.

Gilles,

True, but... A friend and I rigged a small camp with 12V lights, radio, small 12V refrigerator, etc. all running on a small (1m x .5m x 1m) water-powered 12V generator that could be raised and lowered into a river. For people, or even small villages off the grid, this does not need to be a complicated or expensive solution. Having access to even communal lighting instead of campfire at night to extend the day a little longer, providing a source of communication with the outside worlds, the ability to keep critical medicines chilled, these can be done with small water-powered generators or solar power. However, in many tropical monsoon-prone environments, both probably would have advantages.

Dear James,

What you are talking about is already being done by most people that are mechanically incline and can read articles in Popular Mechanic, etc. For small village this is questionable. At some point except for people who like to ruff it up, doing something for a lost cabin in the forest is practically meaning less. Our progress is normally to improve our living condition not to regress. Regression is for romance and for people who want a stress free life for a time. Of course if you were in a third world country these idea could go a long way but they do not have the money to buy the basic parts that you can get at a local hardware store or on line. If people are at a camp for a few days here and there, they only need to bring a generator and a bit of fuel to keep a little bulb on. Communication is questionable because if it is remote, there may no be any signal. If there is signal a charge car battery (like a booster with a AGM battery could power a cell phone and a computer for weeks, between 60 and 100$). If people go to their camp spend 100's of hours building stuff to be off the grid, this is a hobby.

The project you are talking about are for people that enjoy spending a lot of time making thing to solve or improve something with little consequences. This is so easily available on Google that I believe we need to have discussion that go beyond camp fire in this forum which I believe should be to provide some higher level mentoring and detail solution where someone can improve the life of village, or in my view creates CO-OP to improve community where corporate greed can interfere.

What may be interesting to pursue from the question you originally proposed would be to put our mind together and maybe build up a complete design from different inputs by the participant where the ROI is always being measured to show the value. If the detail of the simple ROI are shown, someone may deduct the material because he has it in is junk pile or the labor because they do the work themselves. This improve individual ROI but does not affect the actual business plan. From the detail information provided and documented on PDF or Libre Office or Open Office in an open cloud platform, we or others could piggy back on the ideas put forward and find real and practical solution to improve the design which seem to be your intend in this discussion and provide revisions. This way, anyone could take the design at any stage and invest his money and time and provide real result while enjoying the feeling of accomplishment of doing something. There would be a physical time line to follow and a lot of reading for all the intellectual. We can learn a lot by watching others, we just do not learn the workmanship skill that come with spending laborious hours at a specific task. I believe that if we can not provide quantitative value and drawing then we are not reaching and transfer know-how to those who can most benefit from it now and in the future (if someone ever need to survive) and we are just steering the same soup without ever adding any new ingredient. Any jack of all trade can take the information thrown around, like it is done here and try it for fun and "twick" the apparatus to get some performance. Most of us like to spend or waste time on fun thing that no one else understand which is the reason for our passion. This type of hobby is like splitting water with a sword. It leave a few ripple where people around you think you are a bit ode but there are no cuts afterward.

After reading all that was written, except for the fact that there is a belief that people in the country who have a some water flowing by their cabin should use some water paddle to make power. There are not that many pristine place like this so this is a very small segment of the population when talking about the 400,000,000 (400 million if you do not want to count the zeroes) people living in North America.

Sorry if my vision of the use of clean energy does not fit this forum, I just thought, has an intellectual exercise, we should always make a point to bring details and description using fact and number and sometime drawings, spread sheet and business case to support what we dare to tell other than to limit our self to general taught somewhere in the twilight zone forcing everyone who is interested to figure out and learn the hard way what we already know and done. Other wise we only have to give the link.

Of course I am not any better but I did provide a few numbers.

Like children in school most people learn better with some sort of coaching. This is probably due to the fact that through evolution has a species, we have had to socialize to survive. Some habit are hard to break when they have been implemented for thousands of years... (Sorry for those who do not believe in evolution) I would have like to contribute to a real idea and I tried by providing some real number. Unfortunately number that I have provided were to explain why some of what was said did not make, in general, to much sense because the narrator did not seek to better clarify what he was saying which become very misleading for those who accepting thing that are not clearly define with all the facts. I just believe that this type of information increase the level of general or collective ignorance, creating a greater spread between the intellectual and the general public when those of us that put information forward on social media failed to provide the facts.

It like encouraging false news and tell people that they have to believe it on faith because there are dark project all around preventing us from doing anything. (In the state you seem to have an angle on this) This was told by the man, to the man, to another man, to another man, maybe there was a women somewhere in there that can be blame for the whole thing (this is just a joke, I am being very sarcastic to some real social issue with some white male domination (top 1%) that give the rest of the normal white male a bad rap), that made a joke of some kind. After a while some people believe fiction to be true because no one are laughing when hearing it. Those of us who know better, unfortunately we do not have enough time to waste to show how ridiculous the whole false news are.