[TMC[_2_]]

Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and nuclear
power

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with bits
of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and flooding. May
also be beneficial for flood control further down the valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?

[Peter Scott]

On 18/10/2010 12:20, TMC wrote:
Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and
nuclear power

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with
bits of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and
flooding. May also be beneficial for flood control further down the
valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?



I am sure I have heard knowledgable people talking about dams. The
message was that we don't have enough flow in most of our rivers to make
hydro dams viable. Tidal can be used where there is a sufficient tidal
rise and fall, but it seems we haven't many places for that either. The
Rance barrage in Brittany works fine but the tidal range there is
amazing to watch. Can't give a figure off-hand but I visited a few weeks
ago and didn't believe that the sea would rise high enough to cover the
tidal marks on the rock outcrops. The Severn and Morecombe Bay are OK
but the length of barrage in each case makes it horribly expensive.

Peter Scott

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

TMC wrote:
Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and
nuclear power

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with
bits of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and
flooding. May also be beneficial for flood control further down the
valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?


The short answer is that if the land topography and rainfall is right
HEP is THE cheapest way to make leccy.

Unfortunately, if its not, its a waste of money.

I suspect there are few UK sites suitable left..there is a distinct
conflict between destroying thousands of acres of habitat and cheap HEP ;-)

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:20:55 +0100 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

They do. For example Scottish Renewables
http://www.scottishrenewables.com/

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with bits
of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and flooding.

The NoSHEB identified a number of schemes early on. Roughly half of
them were built, so there is the potential to install at least twice
as much hydro here as there currently is.

The same sort of people who object to wind turbines also object to
hydro though, the landscape lobby.

NoSHEB just looked at relatively large schemes, there is also
potential to convert every former water mill into a small generating
plant using low-head forms of engineering, not just in Scotland. An
example in England is http://westernrenew.co.uk/Case_Study.pdf.


The first new large scale hydro scheme for decades, Glendoe, has
already been opened, but suffered from a rock fall in the tunnel
http://www.scottish-southern.com/SSEInternet/index.aspx?rightColHeader=104&id=3218&TierSlicer1_ TSMenuTargetID=140&TierSlicer1_TSMenuTargetType=4& TierSlicer1_TSMenuID=6

Plans to convert Sloy to pumped storage have also been approved
http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/SSEInternet/index.aspx?id=23316&TierSlicer1_TSMenuTargetID=136 8&TierSlicer1_TSMenuTargetType=1&TierSlicer1_TSMen uID=6
Pumped storage is not a perpetual motion machine, they consume more
electricity than they produce, but their flexibility is a great way
of matching supply with demand. For a short period they can produce
far more electricity than a "conventional" hydro station on the same
site.





--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "TMC" saying
something like:

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

****ing NIMBYs and eco-conservationist ******s, that's why.

[TMC[_2_]]

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "TMC" saying
something like:

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

****ing NIMBYs and eco-conservationist ******s, that's why.

Some interesting responses and have done a bit of googling.
There are more pumped storage schemes than I realised already in operation

Regarding NIMBYs and eco-conservationist I would ban them from using
electricity unless they were prepared to be affected by its generation

Possibly the way to go would be lots of small scale mill type schemes which
should be reasonably productive in the Mill towns of the north and big
rivers in the south.

[Michael Chare]

"TMC" wrote in message
...

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "TMC" saying
something like:

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

****ing NIMBYs and eco-conservationist ******s, that's why.

Some interesting responses and have done a bit of googling.
There are more pumped storage schemes than I realised already in operation

Regarding NIMBYs and eco-conservationist I would ban them from using
electricity unless they were prepared to be affected by its generation

Possibly the way to go would be lots of small scale mill type schemes
which should be reasonably productive in the Mill towns of the north and
big rivers in the south.

Before WW2 Rudyard Kipling had Hydro Electric power at Batemans, in house in
Sussex. The generator fed a set of batteries which supplied enough power to
light 10 60-watt light bulbs for 4 hours. The turbine was on a river and its
presence limited the restoration of the mill which was next to it.

Last summer we stayed at a B&B about 20 miles south of Revelstoke in BC,
Canada. When we arrived there were light bulbs all round the facia board of
the single storey house, and in the garden. All of them were on. Inside,
although we were the only guests, the lights in all the other 10 or so rooms
were on and the ceiling fans were running.

The reason for this apparent extravagance was that the place had its own 107
kw generator driven a water turbine. You could look at it through the window
of the shed in which it was sited.


--
Michael Chare

[harry]

On 18 Oct, 12:20, "TMC" wrote:
Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and nuclear
power

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with bits
of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and flooding. May
also be beneficial for flood control further down the valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?

Hydro power is capital intensive and we have few viable sites in the
UK. There are a few in Wales and Scotland all pretty old but still in
use, mostly updated.
There are now microhydro systems too due to the ehhanced rates paid
for green electricity.
We have a major manufacturer in this country.
http://www.gilkes.com/
Lots of info here.
The fate of all hydro projects is that the dam silts up.
I was reading about the high Aswan dam the other day, it is silting up
faster than anticipated
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n5677462t174565r/

[harry]

On 18 Oct, 12:40, Peter Scott wrote:
On 18/10/2010 12:20, TMC wrote:

Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and
nuclear power

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with
bits of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and
flooding. May also be beneficial for flood control further down the
valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?

I am sure I have heard knowledgable people talking about dams. The
message was that we don't have enough flow in most of our rivers to make
hydro dams viable. Tidal can be used where there is a sufficient tidal
rise and fall, but it seems we haven't many places for that either. The
Rance barrage in Brittany works fine but the tidal range there is
amazing to watch. Can't give a figure off-hand but I visited a few weeks
ago and didn't believe that the sea would rise high enough to cover the
tidal marks on the rock outcrops. The Severn and Morecombe Bay are OK
but the length of barrage in each case makes it horribly expensive.

Peter Scott

We have the world's best site for tidal power, ie the Severn estuary.
Apparently the gov. is abandoning support for the scheme.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rage-plan-sunk
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n5677462t174565r/

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:24:36 +0100 someone who may be Grimly
Curmudgeon wrote this:-

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

****ing NIMBYs and eco-conservationist ******s, that's why.

They were partly responsible for stopping the programme in Scotland,
but the other opposition included the (then) Scottish Office. They
favoured fossil fuel powered plant such as Inverkip, Longannet and
Peterhead. It was claimed it was cheaper to produce electricity in
them than by hydro.

Their arguments soon exploded. Inverkip seldom operated, except in
the miner's strike due to the high cost of oil. Peterhead was built
to burn oil and would have been as big a white elephant as Inverkip,
but it was converted to burn gas from the North Sea. When this was
sent to Mossmorran the station shut down for a while, until the
price of oil became lower and it operated on oil for a while until
converted to burn other gas from the North Sea.

Longannet did better, though eventually the mine flooded and all
coal had to be bought from elsewhere. Good news for the railways,
who bring most of the coal to the place.

Since the ending of the hydro programme the price of the fuel for
hydro stations has not gone up once, unlike the price of the fuel
for thermal power stations. Hydro still has high initial costs, in
building the dams and watercourses, but they then last pretty much
for as long as we want them to.

You can read about the NoSHEB schemes in Power from the Glens
http://www.scottish-southern.co.uk/sseinternet/assets/569CABFE-1165-4ED8-9419-CF3B5A64BC98.pdf

"the first large-scale scheme came into operation, in 1930. This
development, at Rannoch and Tummel Bridge in Perthshire, was built
by the Grampian Electricity Supply Company."

These stations are still producing electricity. That scheme has been
extended with subsequent work.

"The Foyers catchment area was first developed for hydro electric
power in 1896, by the British Aluminium Company. The plant, the
first large scale commercial hydro electric development in Britain,
was in continuous operation until the aluminium smelter it served
closed in 1971.

"In 1974, the Foyers combined pumped storage and conventional hydro
scheme began operating on the shores of Loch Ness. Pumped storage
schemes use machine sets that are designed for dual purpose
operation."

Pretty much in continuous operation from 1896 to today, except for a
few years during conversion [1]. The conventional turbine uses the
pipe BAC installed, the pumped storage scheme uses a new pipe and
the reservoir and catchment was enlarged for that scheme.



[1] http://www.scottish-places.info/features/featurefirst3852.html
has different dates for the redevelopment.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:39:32 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

True HEP generation requires a georgraphy and rainfall predisposed to it
that we don't really have much off.

But we do have an awful lot of water reservoirs obstenishly for
drinking water but most if not all let down water all the time to
keep the rivers below them flowing. One could harness this let down
for power generation.

It probably wouldn't be a great deal at any single reservior, maybe a
few MW, but not far from here there are a series of reserviors all
letting down one to the other. It starts to add up and apart from
maintenace and faults it would be 24/7 power.

Not only more expensive, but more importantly not able to generate in
sufficient quantity.

No one single renewable energy soure stands a chance of supplying all
the enregy demanded but that is *not* a reason not to use renewables.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Andy Dingley]

On 18 Oct, 17:20, harry wrote:

We have the world's best site for tidal power, ie the Severn estuary.

No-one has really discussed the Severn estuary for tidal power. The
schemes put forward have been in the Bristol Channel, which is
downstream of the estuary, enormously wide and an impractical scale
for anyone except the Chinese to contemplate barraging.

The Severn estuary is an awkward river. It's not as big as you might
imagine: although very wide it's also very shallow across almost all
of this width and there's only a narrow navigable channel, which both
tidal and shipping needs would be fighting over. Tidal flow turbines
in the narrower part of the Severn (even the Usk, Wye or Avon) would
be an interesting idea and far cheaper than a barrage on the Severn,
but the effect on navigation would make them most unpopular.

I'd like to see tidal flow turbines in the Bristol Channel, but free-
flow turbines, not a barrage.

[Andy Dingley]

On 18 Oct, 17:17, Huge wrote:

Cragside in Northumbria is worth visiting, among other things because
it was the first house in the UK lit by electirc light;

It was the first to be lit by hydro-generated electric light. There
were several others in town centres (including AFAIR, Armstrong's own
townhouse) that were lit by electricity beforehand.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:51:13 +0100 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

There are more pumped storage schemes than I realised already in operation

Foyers and Cruachan in Scotland. Ffestiniog and Dinorwig in Wales.
Sloy will be an interesting conversion.

Regarding NIMBYs and eco-conservationist I would ban them from using
electricity unless they were prepared to be affected by its generation

A little harsh. As well as being against hydro and wind the
landscape lobby were also against the overhead lines that connect
them with the rest of the system. A great fuss was made when NoSHEB
put up these lines in the Highlands, the same sort of people made a
fuss again when the upgrading of one of these lines was approved.
The letters pages of the newspapers were full of angry letters, they
were even more critical of organisations like Friends of the Earth
Scotland which supported it.

Possibly the way to go would be lots of small scale mill type schemes which
should be reasonably productive in the Mill towns of the north and big
rivers in the south.

They would make a useful contribution and if community owned the
profits would go back to the community.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:33:27 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

But we do have an awful lot of water reservoirs obstenishly for
drinking water but most if not all let down water all the time to
keep the rivers below them flowing.

Since water privatisation (down south) they have been doing this.
Extra profits for little extra work.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:20:22 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be harry
wrote this:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rage-plan-sunk

The subsequent story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/18/severn-barrage-nuclear
has an interesting discussion of the pros and cons of that
particular scheme.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Peter Scott]

On 18/10/2010 17:15, harry wrote:
On 18 Oct, 12:20, wrote:
Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and nuclear
power

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with bits
of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and flooding. May
also be beneficial for flood control further down the valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?

Hydro power is capital intensive and we have few viable sites in the
UK. There are a few in Wales and Scotland all pretty old but still in
use, mostly updated.
There are now microhydro systems too due to the ehhanced rates paid
for green electricity.
We have a major manufacturer in this country.
http://www.gilkes.com/
Lots of info here.
The fate of all hydro projects is that the dam silts up.
I was reading about the high Aswan dam the other day, it is silting up
faster than anticipated
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n5677462t174565r/

There's a theme here. Huge hydro schemes are probably not going to be
built here, but maybe one important element of generation will be many
small scale schemes. I don't have the knowledge even to guess what
percentage of our need could be met by a combination of small river
generators, small scale tidal, roof-based photovoltaics, thermal energy,
wind, biogas plants, coppice burners and so on. The advantage would be
that each would not have a great impact so would satisfy those, like
myself, who don't want to see tracts of beautiful countryside spoiled by
industrial equipment.

Peter Scott

[Andy Burns[_7_]]

Peter Scott wrote:

There's a theme here. Huge hydro schemes are probably not going to be
built here, but maybe one important element of generation will be many
small scale schemes.

I didn't realise until the last year there is a small-scale hydro plant
at Beeston on the river Trent, there are several others in the sub-MW to
several-MW range

But they're all dwarfed by landfill gas, biogas and household waste
incinerators.

http://www.nfpa.co.uk/nffo3.html

[Andy Champ[_2_]]

On 18/10/2010 12:40, Peter Scott wrote:

I am sure I have heard knowledgable people talking about dams. The
message was that we don't have enough flow in most of our rivers to make
hydro dams viable. Tidal can be used where there is a sufficient tidal
rise and fall, but it seems we haven't many places for that either. The
Rance barrage in Brittany works fine but the tidal range there is
amazing to watch. Can't give a figure off-hand but I visited a few weeks
ago and didn't believe that the sea would rise high enough to cover the
tidal marks on the rock outcrops. The Severn and Morecombe Bay are OK
but the length of barrage in each case makes it horribly expensive.


Average tidal range is 8 metres. The Severn has slightly more. You may
have hit springs, which are over 12 metres.

Of course it doesn't run 24 hours. It's nicely predictable though, and
I guess a few dozen pumped storage schemes could buffer up the power for
slack tides. So long as we don't mind filling every valley in the
Brecons with water twice a day.

Andy

[Tony Bryer[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:20:55 +0100 Tmc wrote :
Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and
nuclear power

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with
bits of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and
flooding. May also be beneficial for flood control further down the
valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?

A mile from my old home, there is now a firm proposal for a small hydro
installation at Teddington Lock - see

http://e-voice.org.uk/hamunitedgroup/ham-hydro/

We discussed whether this might be feasible on this group back in 2006!


--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:47:04 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

Sadly I expect the main reason people will do it is to
milk the system either for feed in rates, or for renewables credits
rather than because its makes sense for other reasons. Both of which
just mean that jo consumer is copping the bill on their domestic usage.

Feed in Tariff is for small scale systems, so operators of large
scale hydro schemes will get nothing from it.

Jo consumer paid £9 a year on the average electricity bill a few
years ago for the Renewables Obligation.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:39:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Scott
wrote this:-

so would satisfy those, like
myself, who don't want to see tracts of beautiful countryside spoiled by
industrial equipment.

When hydro schemes were built in Scotland people went on and on
about how beautiful countryside would be destroyed. It didn't
happen. There are hydro schemes in Glen Affric (probably the most
beautiful bit of countryside in the UK). The artificial loch, dam
and power station at Pitlochry is an asset to tourism.

Wind turbines don't spoil the view in Scotland. Even in large
numbers, IIRC the 14 at Whitelee are the largest installation at the
moment, they are puny in comparison to the scale of the countryside
and are items of great beauty in themselves. Anyway the views in
most of Scotland are entirely industrial, a natural view would
involve putting back the trees humans removed. Shooting moors and
farms are industrial landscapes.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[nightjar]

On 18/10/2010 17:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:39:32 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

True HEP generation requires a georgraphy and rainfall predisposed to it
that we don't really have much off.

But we do have an awful lot of water reservoirs obstenishly for
drinking water but most if not all let down water all the time to
keep the rivers below them flowing. One could harness this let down
for power generation.

It probably wouldn't be a great deal at any single reservior, maybe a
few MW, but not far from here there are a series of reserviors all
letting down one to the other. It starts to add up and apart from
maintenace and faults it would be 24/7 power.

Not only more expensive, but more importantly not able to generate in
sufficient quantity.

No one single renewable energy soure stands a chance of supplying all
the enregy demanded but that is *not* a reason not to use renewables.

Cost effectivness is. None of the renewables can match the generating
cost of conventional or nuclear power and, if you do a whole life study,
when nuclear still wins out on cost, wind farms generate a lot more CO2
per MWh than nuclear.

Colin Bignell

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:55:42 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

http://e-voice.org.uk/hamunitedgroup/ham-hydro/

How much power is this project expected to produce?

"Under our plans, the scheme will generate enough electricity to
power 600 homes ..."

I hate that measure as it can be twisted by the spin doctors.
Generally a "household" is taken to be around 1kW, so this plant is
probably 400 to 600kW.

Must admit the link above is sadly lacking in any real information
and the number of paper shuffling office wallas in the team list is
not a good sign.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

David Hansen wrote:

The same sort of people who object to wind turbines also object to
hydro though, the landscape lobby.


Not true. I might object to hydro on landscape grounds but apart from
that its very very good, cost effective, highly dispatchable and long lived.

I object to wind because it is *none* of the above.

AND I have to pay for it out of my own pocket.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

TMC wrote:

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "TMC" saying
something like:

Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?

****ing NIMBYs and eco-conservationist ******s, that's why.

Some interesting responses and have done a bit of googling.
There are more pumped storage schemes than I realised already in operation

Regarding NIMBYs and eco-conservationist I would ban them from using
electricity unless they were prepared to be affected by its generation

I would bam all windmill wavers from using any electricity BUT that
generated by their windmills, and paying the true cost of it. And
suffering all the blackouts.

Bunch of friggin townies.

Possibly the way to go would be lots of small scale mill type schemes
which should be reasonably productive in the Mill towns of the north and
big rivers in the south.

There speaks a total tosser who hasn't even done a single sum regarding
windpower ever.

Just swallowed all the hype along with his museli.

Windpower doesn't work. It never has and it never will. It is the
greatest mistake the politicians have made in terms of energy
infrastructure ever.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:51:13 +0100 someone who may be "TMC"
wrote this:-

There are more pumped storage schemes than I realised already in operation

Foyers and Cruachan in Scotland. Ffestiniog and Dinorwig in Wales.
Sloy will be an interesting conversion.

Regarding NIMBYs and eco-conservationist I would ban them from using
electricity unless they were prepared to be affected by its generation

A little harsh. As well as being against hydro and wind the
landscape lobby were also against the overhead lines that connect
them with the rest of the system. A great fuss was made when NoSHEB
put up these lines in the Highlands, the same sort of people made a
fuss again when the upgrading of one of these lines was approved.
The letters pages of the newspapers were full of angry letters, they
were even more critical of organisations like Friends of the Earth
Scotland which supported it.

Quite right. Since no one wanst scottish winpower anyway, as it -0 like
most of scotland - is never there when you want it, and when you dont,
there's far too much of it and you need to build a frigging motorway to
carry the traffic.



Possibly the way to go would be lots of small scale mill type schemes which
should be reasonably productive in the Mill towns of the north and big
rivers in the south.

They would make a useful contribution and if community owned the
profits would go back to the community.



They woold make zero contribution to anything except the cost of your
electricity bill, and you know it.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

harry wrote:
On 18 Oct, 12:40, Peter Scott wrote:
On 18/10/2010 12:20, TMC wrote:

Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and
nuclear power
Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?
Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along with
bits of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams and
flooding. May also be beneficial for flood control further down the
valleys.
Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?
I am sure I have heard knowledgable people talking about dams. The
message was that we don't have enough flow in most of our rivers to make
hydro dams viable. Tidal can be used where there is a sufficient tidal
rise and fall, but it seems we haven't many places for that either. The
Rance barrage in Brittany works fine but the tidal range there is
amazing to watch. Can't give a figure off-hand but I visited a few weeks
ago and didn't believe that the sea would rise high enough to cover the
tidal marks on the rock outcrops. The Severn and Morecombe Bay are OK
but the length of barrage in each case makes it horribly expensive.

Peter Scott

We have the world's best site for tidal power, ie the Severn estuary.
Apparently the gov. is abandoning support for the scheme.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rage-plan-sunk
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n5677462t174565r/

Another fantastic government saving.

Who needs a bunch of untried untested technology on an open ended budget
that wouldn't have generated much and would have destroyed a hundred
square miles of habitat?

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 18 Oct, 17:20, harry wrote:

We have the world's best site for tidal power, ie the Severn estuary.

No-one has really discussed the Severn estuary for tidal power.

Yes they have, and the implications or everyone who uses uit are staggering.

Why not simply dam the Thames and flood London instead?

That way we could drown all the people who need the power in the first
place, thus killing tow bird with one stone?

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:39:32 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

True HEP generation requires a georgraphy and rainfall predisposed to it
that we don't really have much off.

But we do have an awful lot of water reservoirs obstenishly for
drinking water but most if not all let down water all the time to
keep the rivers below them flowing.

Golly. the fact that they are full might have something to do with that?
And teh fact teh water is needed belwo them for more than just paddling
in never crossed your mind?


One could harness this let down
for power generation.


A couple of kilowatts maybe. On and off.

People simply have no idea of the scale odd power geeratuiio, and how
much a coal or nuclear station puts out, and how little a lump of water
falling a couple of hundred feet does.

Although that's more than any windmill does, its true.

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 18/10/2010 17:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:39:32 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

True HEP generation requires a georgraphy and rainfall predisposed to it
that we don't really have much off.

But we do have an awful lot of water reservoirs obstenishly for
drinking water but most if not all let down water all the time to
keep the rivers below them flowing. One could harness this let down
for power generation.

It probably wouldn't be a great deal at any single reservior, maybe a
few MW, but not far from here there are a series of reserviors all
letting down one to the other. It starts to add up and apart from
maintenace and faults it would be 24/7 power.

Not only more expensive, but more importantly not able to generate in
sufficient quantity.

No one single renewable energy soure stands a chance of supplying all
the enregy demanded but that is *not* a reason not to use renewables.

Cost effectivness is. None of the renewables can match the generating
cost of conventional or nuclear power and, if you do a whole life study,
when nuclear still wins out on cost, wind farms generate a lot more CO2
per MWh than nuclear.


Largely because they dont save any CO2 anyway.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:20:55 +0100 Tmc wrote :
Just been reading the latest news reports about tidal barrages and
nuclear power
Why does no one mention HEP as a renewable source of energy any more?
Surely there must still be some areas of Wales and Scotland along
with bits of Northen England that would be ripe for building dams
and flooding. May also be beneficial for flood control further down the
valleys.

Can it really be more expensive than new nuclear stations?

A mile from my old home, there is now a firm proposal for a small
hydro installation at Teddington Lock - see
http://e-voice.org.uk/hamunitedgroup/ham-hydro/

We discussed whether this might be feasible on this group back in 2006!

How much power is this project expected to produce?
What is it expected to cost?
What is its expected lifetime?
What are its annual maintenance and running costs?

Dont ask awkward pertinent questions.

[Terry Casey[_2_]]

In article , lid says...

Andy Dingley wrote:
On 18 Oct, 17:20, harry wrote:

We have the world's best site for tidal power, ie the Severn estuary.

No-one has really discussed the Severn estuary for tidal power.

Yes they have, and the implications or everyone who uses uit are staggering.

Why not simply dam the Thames and flood London instead?


The 'dam' - The Thames Barrier - is already there!

I can't understand why they can't build a couple of locks there for
river traffic, close all the other gates permanently, and turn it into a
tidal hydro system ...

That way we could drown all the people who need the power in the first
place, thus killing tow bird with one stone?

.... except, of course, that the 'dam' was built for exactly the opposite
reason ...!
--

Terry

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:15:07 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

None of the renewables can match the generating
cost of conventional or nuclear power

Proof by assertion. No references where we can see where you got
this assertion from.

and, if you do a whole life study,
when nuclear still wins out on cost, wind farms generate a lot more CO2
per MWh than nuclear.

Ditto.

The SD Commission had reports prepared on this
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=337. The best
it seems possible to say is that nuclear is about as carbon
intensive as onshore wind.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:39:50 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

I hate that measure as it can be twisted by the spin doctors.
Generally a "household" is taken to be around 1kW,

1 kW for what time period?

How the calculation is done for wind is shown at
http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html. I imagine the same approach is
taken for other forms of generation. Average load factors are given
in Table 5.10 of
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/dukes/311-dukes-2010-ch5.pdf



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:18:21 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Feed in Tariff is for small scale systems, so operators of large
scale hydro schemes will get nothing from it.

I would have thought that taking advantage of reservoir flood control
let down would be a fairly small scale scheme.

I made a *very* rough guesstimate that the let down from Cow Green
would be in the order of a megawatt. FITs apply to Hydro schemes up
to 5MW.

It could certainly be attractive for people owning former mill houses by
a river etc.

I suspect your average mill water wheel will only produce a couple of
kW, not much head but hopefully reasonable flow. According to:

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Calculation-of-Hydro-Power.htm

3m head and 20l/sec can be realistically expected to generate 353W.

Cow Green: 20m head 10,000l/sec (10 cu m/sec) 1,177,200W.

Trouble is Cow Green is in the middle of no where, it would be costly
to put in the line to get the power out. 1MW is 90A at 11kV. I reckon
I^2R losses would be starting to kick in so you'd need to put in a
33kV rather than a link to the nearest 11kV line and local upgrade of
that.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[nightjar]

On 19/10/2010 13:24, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:15:07 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

None of the renewables can match the generating
cost of conventional or nuclear power

Proof by assertion. No references where we can see where you got
this assertion from.

I assumed it was sufficiently well known not to need references.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publica...Commentary.pdf


and, if you do a whole life study,
when nuclear still wins out on cost, wind farms generate a lot more CO2
per MWh than nuclear.

Ditto.

The SD Commission had reports prepared on this
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=337. The best
it seems possible to say is that nuclear is about as carbon
intensive as onshore wind.

That study goes into great detail about the sources of CO2 from Nuclear
power and concludes, on page 21, that it produces from 2-20 tCO2/GWh,
with an average for European generation of 16 tCO2/GWh. It the asserts
that this is about the same as a wind farm, without giving any figures
or breakdown to support that claim. A 2006 study found that wind farms
produced 14-33 tCO2/GWh (reference 11 in
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Environmental..._of_wind_power ).

So, yes, if you take the average European nuclear power plant and
compare it with the very best wind farm, they are about the same.
However, the worst wind farm produces twice the CO2. The average wind
farm is likely to lie somewhere around the middle of the range, so wind
farms do produce a lot more CO2 than nuclear power.

Colin Bignell

[Dave Liquorice[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:51:13 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

But we do have an awful lot of water reservoirs obstenishly for
drinking water but most if not all let down water all the time to
keep the rivers below them flowing.

Golly. the fact that they are full might have something to do with that?

They still let down water irrespectively of the level in the
reservoir for the rivers below. If they didn't there would be an
awful lot of dry rivers in the summer when the level in the reservoir
drops below the spill way.

And teh fact teh water is needed belwo them for more than just paddling
in never crossed your mind?

They may well abstract from the river lower down for treatment, using
the river as a cheap pipeline. Either way, let down to feed the
treatment works or let down to keep the river alive, you still have
the energy available at the reservoir from that let down.

One could harness this let down for power generation.

A couple of kilowatts maybe. On and off.

I'm talking about decent sized reservoirs with a large dam. 20m head
and 5,000l/sec gives about 500kW. This let down is 24/7, pretty sure
the water co's would have to get permission from the EA to cut it
off.

People simply have no idea of the scale odd power geeratuiio, and how
much a coal or nuclear station puts out, and how little a lump of water
falling a couple of hundred feet does.

I'm well aware of the numbers. But 24/7 power for not much more than
the cost of a building and turbine set at the foot of an existing
damn must be very good value for money. Even maintenance costs are
very low.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Roger Chapman]

On 19/10/2010 13:32, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:39:50 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
wrote this:-

I hate that measure as it can be twisted by the spin doctors.
Generally a "household" is taken to be around 1kW,

1 kW for what time period?

How the calculation is done for wind is shown at
http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html. I imagine the same approach is
taken for other forms of generation. Average load factors are given
in Table 5.10 of
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/Statistics/publications/dukes/311-dukes-2010-ch5.pdf

"(3) Wind load factors can be found in Table 7.4."

Very informative as table 7.4 is securely hidden elsewhere.

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:18:21 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

I would have thought that taking advantage of reservoir flood control
let down would be a fairly small scale scheme. It could certainly be
attractive for people owning former mill houses by a river etc.

It would certainly be attractive for small enough schemes, someone
has provided a figure for the maximum size.

Jo consumer paid £9 a year on the average electricity bill a few
years ago for the Renewables Obligation.

I was under the impression they (we) pay for it every year one way or
another, not just a one off payment.

Indeed. It is now higher than a few years ago too. However, even if
it has now risen to double that still isn't a large amount of money
to help encourage renewables..



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54