The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:09:06 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

Mark Spice wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-10758519
It isn't the same - the one TMH mentions is the only one that is
literally 'no external power'.
Other than that obtained by reducing the gravitational potential
energy of thousands of gallons of water ..
OK, but it'd be going down there anyway...and there is no monetary
cost at all.

Indeed. Just diverting the water that was going downhill anyway.

We also went to a working water mill. Incredibly efficient,

Yep 5% is incredible. Really.

much better that those windmills. Wonder why we don't use more local
hydro electric schemes?


Because they are as crap as windmills?

You may only get 5% efficiency, but that water is returned to the river
and will continue to flow, surely regaining its kinetic energy very
quickly, allowing it to be used again further down? There are of course
far more efficient systems than old-fashioned water wheels.

SteveW

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---