HUG is a new good, which has never been seen before; it substantially deviates from any other good or service produced before. Over the past decades, no major breakthroughs have occurred in the basic machinery of hydroelectric turbines.

1. HUG is a new good, which has never been seen before; it substantially deviates from
any other good or service produced before. Over the past decades, no major
breakthroughs have occurred in the basic machinery.
In today's world, manufacturers need to invest significant resources in research and
development to meet technology advance and market competition.
Large hydropower plants may have considerable impact on environmental and social
economic aspects at regional level. They are running out of possible locations. Small
hydro offers the only efficient solution to our hydro electric crises:
HUG Teeth: Financial Benefits
1. Reducing your cost per mega watt hour at the rate of $5.46/MWh by 360% on
the low side, by 1,100% on the high side. Generating costs usually range from
$20/MWh to $60/MWh.
2. Increasing your Energy Availability Factor (power plant performance) by the
same range. O&M costs are estimated between 1.5 and 2.5% of investment cost
per year.
3. Lowering your Cost of Construction:
• In 2009, Hydro-Quebec (Canada) was permitted to build a number of hydro
projects totaling 4500 MW, with a total price of US$ 23, which is
$5.1millon/MW.
• Your Cost of Construction for a 100 MW project is $88.5 million or .88 million/
MW, which is 22% of the typical average cost of $4000/kW.
4. Increasing your Return on Investment:
• In Quebec, the small $7.2 million project (6.7 MW) has a high return on
investment. At the 80% utilization rate, 47,000 MWh [x $79/MWh] =
$3,700,000: ROI = 51%/yr.
• Similarly, the larger $88.5 million project (100 MW) produces 700,800 MWh [x
$79/MWh (Quebec)] = $55,360,000: ROI = 63%/yr.
• Ontario has a higher guaranteed price called FIT. The Annual Return on
Investment: (using $131/MWh x 47,000 MWh) = $6,160,000: ROI = 85%
• The larger 100 MW project has a higher return on investment. Similarly, the
Annual Return on Investment: (Ontario FIT) (700,800 MWh x $131/MWh) is
$91,800,000 = 104%/yr.
• In the New England central/western Massachusetts zone, the average value
of energy for this year to date (June 2010) is around US$48/MWh.

2. 5. Lowering your Generation Costs: these are in the range for small hydro of $45–
120/MWh with an average of $83/MWh. There are many ideal sites, which are
close to the existing Electric Power Converter/Generators, thereby reducing
these costs by 40%.
6. Allowing you to tap into Green Technology Government Funding & Tax Rebates:
• The incentive programs are endless: from the Canadian Foundation for
Innovation to ecoENERGY Technology Initiatives.
• The $250 million Targeted Investment Program is aimed to strengthen
economic foundations of native communities. Assistance of up to 100% of
total eligible costs for non-commercial projects (like this Pilot Project). This
takes the risk away from any initial investment. A Private Public Partnership
set up to administer the project will guarantee a 10% annual return after taxes
on money invested by INAC (Indian and Native Affairs Canada)
• The Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program
provide an investment tax credit (ITC) of 35%.
7. Providing a faster return on investment: your construction time ranges between
10 and 18 months, while large hydro projects last as long as 18 to 96 months.
8. Creating approximately 18 million in new revenue period over three years-- with
an investment of seven million dollars over the same time frame; netting you
eleven million in new money, yet this investment can be sold as a Private Public
Partnership, earning a pre-tax return of10% for decades.
9. Providing a High Turnover: The Technical lifetime factor is an average of 30
years. This type of investment can be sold to pension funds for a much high
return, because they always seek out long term security.
10. Providing extra revenue from the upcoming sale of carbon credits: those
companies, which exceed the emission limits, will soon be forced to buy
$284,000 worth of carbon credits for every 1 MW of new clean energy.
11. Earning Water Export Revenue: using the technology of the HUG Siphon
System to move water south and partnering with pipeline companies.
12. The R&D efforts are driven by the prospect of 'temporarily' earning monopoly
profits.
13. The risk factor is low because the initial Prototype & Feasibility Study of the
HUG, the Helical Turbine System costs only $752,600.

3. • This 0.24 MW power cell line has an admirable cost recovery of $65,350/yr.
• The Return on Investment: 17.5%/yr.
Net Benefits of HUG in its Diverse Role
Waterfall Hydro
• Presently no new patents exist to capture energy from small waterfalls without
extensive use of a dam, which limits fish migration.
• A Total Power Output Estimate of 20 Ontario Waterfalls: 335.6 MW
• 1.25MW/Turbine (9 turbines: 11.32 MW)
Rapids Hydro
• Presently no patents exist to capture energy from rapids without a dam.
• Redirecting rivers to a water basin, which funnels into a new set of rapids
requires no dam.
• Canada has tremendous potential for small hydro development with more than
5500 identified sites (11,000 MW), which require no dams or barrages.
• The global technical potential of small hydropower is estimated between 150,000
and 200,000 MW.
Tidal Hydro
• Presently none of pilot project stage are commercially viable
• Average kinetic power density of 1 kW/m2 is the threshold for economic viability
(Bedard et al. 2006).
• In the Bay of Fundy, it was estimated that extracting the maximum of 7 gigawatts
(7,000MW) of power from the Minas Passage. (von Arx et al. 1974).
Ocean Current Hydro

4. • Presently none of 100 patents in pilot project stage, because they are not cost
effective: the average velocity is 1.5 to 2 m/s.
• In a HUG, the final velocity is increased to 6 - 8 m/s or four times faster.
• Previous studies indicate that a honeycomb of turbines producing 1,000 MW of
continuous power from the Florida Current would extract about 4% of its total
kinetic energy of 25 gigawatts (Karsten et al. 2008)
• Power Density: 73.5 kW/m2
• 70% of the world's population lives within 320 kilometres (200 mi) of an ocean.
River Hydro
• Presently no patents exist to capture energy from fast moving rivers
• Power Density: 37 kW/m2
• Power Output:123 kW/turbine
• Aboriginal communities are eligible for loan guarantees, a $250 million Targeted
Investment Program, which is aimed to strengthen economic native foundations:
assistance of up to 100% of total eligible costs for non-commercial projects (the
HUG pilot project).
HUG Siphon System
• The water level behind the Otto Holden Hydro Dam on the Ottawa River can be
maintained at 179.5 m above sea level, while the water level in Lake Huron is
176.5 m. This difference of 3 m is the basis of water transfer through a HUG
Siphon System for 171 km.
• The HUG Siphon system can be buried under any populated built up areas. HUG
can also be raised to189.5 m above sea level.
• It will be difficult to say NO to Water Export Revenue of $433 Million/year at the
auction price of $0.13/ m3s for 135 m3
• 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, annual income from
the exports would be $7.5 billion.
• The total initial cost of this mega project is $347.5 + $232.25 = $580 million.
• HUG has a potential of Hydro Revenue of $210 Million/yr (11 kW/m2)
• HUG has a potential of Water Export Revenue of 56 m3s@auction price of $0.13/
m3s of $180 Million/yr / HUG System
• Water Export Revenue of 2000 m3s = $6.4 Billion/yr for 35 HUG Siphon Systems

5. • Return on Investment : $180 +$210 / $580 million = 67%/yr for 1 HUG System.
• An alternative desalination plant (1.2 m3s) is twice the price, because it is energy
intensive and it incurs high-pollution costs that could escalate as energy price
increase.
• Nine bodies of 265 m3s water share the same environment: only a distance of 1.5
m to 12 km apart, which can be diverted to Lake Superior.
Comparisons: Key Points of Difference
1. None of the Competitive Offerings are commercially viable. The closest is the
$257 million Gorlov helical turbine system in Korea, which uses the same helical
technology as HUG.
2. The Power Density of the Competition is very low: the reason is that the flow of a
current treats all these turbines as obstacles to be avoided. In contrast, HUG
creates a negative force, which attracts the flow, because the velocity in its
Helical Turbine System is four time faster than the current.
3. The excessive weight causes installation problems: KORDI lost a whole year,
because it's very large unit was swept away by the tide.
4. Although the declared water to wire efficiency is in excess of 35%, none of the
Competitive Offerings can exceed this high efficiency held by HUG. See graphic.
5. The Power Density of 73.5 kW/m 2
tells the whole story. The velocity of the
current is the reason for the difference: the Power Density increases to the cube
of the velocity and the HUG velocity is four times faster than the competition.
6. The most important consideration is cost: $885/kW is unusually low compared to
most other hydro electric generation systems. In 2009, Hydro-Quebec cost for
4500 MW was $5,100/kW. See the comparison chart below
Net Benefit of Competitive Offering
Competitive Rotor Water-to- Total Power Power Total Cost $Cost/
Offering swept wire device density output at $Million kW
area efficiency weight kW/m2 2.5 m/s
m2 tonnes kW/turbine
Verdant 20 - 60 20 - 35% 5 -7 2.8 168 undisclosed undisclosed
Power (Unit
(East River, only)
NY)
OpenHydro 78 20 - 33% 360 2.6 200 2.2 undisclosed
(Bay of
Fundy
NS)
OCGen 58 20 - 30% 60 6.9 400 undisclosed undisclosed
Turbine (4
Generator rotors)

6. SeaGen 402 50% 900 4 1600 undisclosed undisclosed
Current
Turbine
Tidal-current Not Not Not Not 300 13.4 44,666
plant known known known known (pilot)
(Hammerfest,
Norway)
KORDI 5 x 72 35% Not Not Not known 257 1,000
(Uldolmok known known
Strait, Korea)
HUG 3.26 x 35% <5 73.5 260 .257/unit x 885 (pilot)
28units 28 =7.2 $0.15/kWh