On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

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

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

The 2004 PB Power report for the Royal Academy of Engineering. Yes,
it is well known.

This is what UKERC had to say about it
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/06/0604Intermittency/0604IntermittencyReport.pdf

"Within the data on reserve impacts and costs we have included (but
not shown on figure 3.1) a notable outlier (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239). This report is difficult
to categorise. This is because the report does not use the systemic
approach to estimating system costs common to other studies, but
works on the premise that wind generation requires dedicated back
up. Since this back up would be expected to provide both balancing
and reliability, the data in this study are therefore a combination
of system balancing reserves and capacity installed to maintain
reliability. This highlights the scale of the implications of
methodological differences and the importance of terminology to
estimates of the impacts of intermittency."

"The study that does not show a penetration level (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239) is an extremely high
outlier at a cost of £17/MWh. This report has the unusual
characteristics noted previously, and appears to be an amalgamation
of balancing and reliability costs."

See also Box 3.1.

In less academic language, they started from a false premise and
built their house on that sand.




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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:58:22 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

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.

What is the distance?

If memory serves me correctly the Longannet "biomass" plant
http://www.thecqiscotland.org/East/Proposed%20Kincardine%20Biomass%20Power%20Station% 20Final%20Web%20Issue.pdf
will be connected to the system via an 11 kV line of 15-20 km in
length running to Dunfermline.

However, the comparison is not exact. The line exists already, it
was formerly used to supply the mine. The short distance alternative
to reusing it would be to install a transformer and 275 kV circuit
breaker in the main Longannet Power Station, which is a rather
expensive option.



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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:54:33 +0100 someone who may be Roger Chapman
wrote this:-

Very informative as table 7.4 is securely hidden elsewhere.

False claim.

Nothing is securely hidden anywhere. All can be accessed from
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/,
including chapter 7 which includes table 7.4.

The fact that I didn't link to that page, but rather linked to
chapter 5, does not indicate a conspiracy to hide information by
DECC.



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

John Rumm wrote:
On 19/10/2010 10:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
TMC wrote:

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.

I think he was talking about water mills - and small scale generation
systems from river flow etc.


Or those, either

Terry Casey wrote:
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 ...


cos iot wouldn't even keep the house of parliament lit up..


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 ...!

well, it wouldn't be the first time..

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:32:09 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

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?

Eh? Consumption. 1kW being consumed not 1kWHr which is a fixed
quantity of energy.

Ours, over 24hrs, isn't quite 1kW, normally 20 units/day which gives
a mean load of 800ish W. It can spike for a minute or two to 7kW, but
that doesn't make much difference to the mean as it's so short.
Obviously at night it's lower (about 300W) but the evenings with
lights, TV computers etc the consumption can get up to 1.3kW.

The spin doctors could take the night consumption of the house (300W)
rather than the more realistic evening consumption of 1.3kW depending
on the light they want to shed from their article. Which sounds
better to the great unwashed?

"Our Grenbol Savvy 2000 wind trubine will generate enough electricity
for 6,000 homes". (Using 300W).

or

"Our Grenbol Savvy 2000 wind trubine will generate enough electricity
for 1,500 homes". (Using 1.3kW).

or

"Our Grenbol Savvy 2000 wind trubine will generate 2MW of
electricity."

How the calculation is done for wind ...

Average load of an average house from those figures (4,700kWHr/year)
is 537W. A quick google gives similar ball park figures, just over
5MWHr/year for a family with two kids at school, parents working,
4.8MWHr/year for a couple, both working. So 4.7 is a bit low but not
excessively.

Getting back to Teddington Lock, 600 homes at 537W/home gives a 322kW
instalation, less than my lowest guesstimate.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 19/10/2010 15:31, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:54:33 +0100 someone who may be Roger Chapman
wrote this:-

Very informative as table 7.4 is securely hidden elsewhere.

False claim.

OK insecurely hidden elsewhere.

Nothing is securely hidden anywhere. All can be accessed from
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/,
including chapter 7 which includes table 7.4.


All very well if you already have the original link but tedious in the
extreme trying to get from chapter 5 to chapter 7 or indeed any other
chapter.

The fact that I didn't link to that page, but rather linked to
chapter 5, does not indicate a conspiracy to hide information by
DECC.

But that doesn't absolve you from providing a misleading cite by quoting
a table that doesn't actually give load factors for wind nor DECC for
not providing any means of navigation from one chapter to the next or
even back to the page you originally navigated from.

On 19/10/2010 15:10, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

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

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

The 2004 PB Power report for the Royal Academy of Engineering. Yes,
it is well known.

This is what UKERC had to say about it
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/06/0604Intermittency/0604IntermittencyReport.pdf

"Within the data on reserve impacts and costs we have included (but
not shown on figure 3.1) a notable outlier (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239). This report is difficult
to categorise. This is because the report does not use the systemic
approach to estimating system costs common to other studies, but
works on the premise that wind generation requires dedicated back
up. Since this back up would be expected to provide both balancing
and reliability, the data in this study are therefore a combination
of system balancing reserves and capacity installed to maintain
reliability. This highlights the scale of the implications of
methodological differences and the importance of terminology to
estimates of the impacts of intermittency."

"The study that does not show a penetration level (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239) is an extremely high
outlier at a cost of £17/MWh. This report has the unusual
characteristics noted previously, and appears to be an amalgamation
of balancing and reliability costs."

See also Box 3.1.

In less academic language, they started from a false premise and
built their house on that sand.

That is not actually what it says. However, if you simply look at the
cost of generating with wind power, ignoring the question of pricing for
back up, it still works out a lot dearer than nuclear. In this, the
study is in agreement with the following analysis from the government'
national archives:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g.../file31938.pdf

There are plenty of other studies available online that put onshore wind
generation at anything up to twice the cost of nuclear and offshore wind
at up to three times. However, I'm not going to hold your hand and guide
you through every one. You can spend the time Googling yourself.

Colin Bignell

On 19 Oct, 16:24, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:32:09 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
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?

Eh? Consumption. 1kW being consumed not 1kWHr which is a fixed
quantity of energy.

Ours, over 24hrs, isn't quite 1kW, normally 20 units/day which gives
a mean load of 800ish W. It can spike for a minute or two to 7kW, but
that doesn't make much difference to the mean as it's so short.
Obviously at night it's lower (about 300W) but the evenings with
lights, TV computers etc the consumption can get up to 1.3kW.

The spin doctors could take the night consumption of the house (300W)
rather than the more realistic evening consumption of 1.3kW depending
on the light they want to shed from their article. Which sounds
better to the great unwashed?

"Our Grenbol Savvy 2000 wind trubine will generate enough electricity
for 6,000 homes". (Using 300W).

or

"Our Grenbol Savvy 2000 wind trubine will generate enough electricity
for 1,500 homes". (Using 1.3kW).

or

"Our Grenbol Savvy 2000 wind trubine will generate 2MW of
electricity."

How the calculation is done for wind ...

Average load of an average house from those figures (4,700kWHr/year)
is 537W. A quick google gives similar ball park figures, just over
5MWHr/year for a family with two kids at school, parents working,
4.8MWHr/year for a couple, both working. So 4.7 is a bit low but not
excessively.

Getting back to Teddington Lock, 600 homes at 537W/home gives a 322kW
instalation, less than my lowest guesstimate.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The capacity of the plant has to be sized on peak loads not any
avaerges worked out. The problem is everybody gets home at once &
starts wanting to cook, take showers, use the computer, TV etc.

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.


no need. Its everywhere you look

If windmills and oter renewables wer so cheap why would they beed
massive tarrrifs and EO funding?


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.


and ditto to yopu.

Widmills are danegrous ineffcieint expensive, use three times the copper
and steel to make and do absouiktely the square root of **** all to
alleviate global warming.

Apart fro needing massive grid upgrades everyweher yiu look.



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.

Since the early windfarms of ten years ago are only just beginning to
fall to pieces, its had to say, as the life expectancy is still 'up in
the air'

It seems 10-15 years as agaiinst 60+ for a nuke, so how on earth can you
calculate that? 4 windfarms at hree times the cost that womt even
replace one nuke..

Like everything coming out of the 'renewables' lobby, its all based on
false premises that are never allowed to be challenged.

Show e ONE study that CONCLUSIVELY proves that windpower has ever
reduced *overall* carbon emissions anywhere in the world.

The Danes say it didnt, the Germans say it didn't...

David Hansen wrote:
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?


Forever, dickhead.


1kw is not a measure of energy, its a measure of power.
But windmillers always confuse the two. ou cant have a brain and support
windmills
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


all irrelevant really.
Since no matter how much they genearet, we syill burtn as much gas
backing the stupid things up.

Usuall WEA spin..

John Rumm wrote:
On 19/10/2010 09:39, Dave Liquorice wrote:
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.

It also neatly sidesteps the point that most houses don't draw the bulk
of their energy use from the electricity supply anyway.


that is their average ELECTRICITY usage.


Avearage HOUSE overall is 2-5KW depending if you count the energy used
outside of it to e.g. drive too the shops etc etc.

Britain as a nation runs at about 200GW of total energy burn.

That's a shade of 3Kw per PERSON all day every day. To keep you in
frozen pizzas.

If you count impact of imports, its probably a whole lot more than that.

Its about 100,000 windmills and then only when the wind blows. Covering
the whole country end to end.

Or 60 nukes. easily tucked away in quite spots.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
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.


BUT the fact that the windfarms eed backing up by ineffeiceintl;y run
gas turbines, provabaly muoltiplies that by ten or so.

Wind farms are almost certainly no better thah a good gas turbine set
running efficiently without wind.


Colin Bignell

John Rumm wrote:
On 19/10/2010 13:58, Dave Liquorice wrote:
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:

Assuming it can do it 24/7, then a couple of kW would be getting on for
£7000 / year at the daft feed in tariff rates they pay!


The daft feed in tariffs WE pay mate. Don't assume 'they' are anyone
else than you and I.

David Hansen wrote:
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..


It wouldn't be if they actually did anything useful: They don't so its
money down the drain.

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote this:-

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

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

The 2004 PB Power report for the Royal Academy of Engineering. Yes,
it is well known.

This is what UKERC had to say about it
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/06/0604Intermittency/0604IntermittencyReport.pdf

"Within the data on reserve impacts and costs we have included (but
not shown on figure 3.1) a notable outlier (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239). This report is difficult
to categorise. This is because the report does not use the systemic
approach to estimating system costs common to other studies, but
works on the premise that wind generation requires dedicated back
up. Since this back up would be expected to provide both balancing
and reliability, the data in this study are therefore a combination
of system balancing reserves and capacity installed to maintain
reliability. This highlights the scale of the implications of
methodological differences and the importance of terminology to
estimates of the impacts of intermittency."

"The study that does not show a penetration level (Royal Academy of
Engineering and PB Power 2004) (ref.239) is an extremely high
outlier at a cost of £17/MWh. This report has the unusual
characteristics noted previously, and appears to be an amalgamation
of balancing and reliability costs."

See also Box 3.1.

In less academic language, they started from a false premise and
built their house on that sand.



Like wind people you mean?

Show me one study that conclusively demonstrates that wind power in any
way reduces OVERALL carbon emissions in the UK.

No? Thought not.

No one's done it.

"they started from a false premise and
built their house on that sand".

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:39:35 +0100 someone who may be Roger Chapman
wrote this:-

All very well if you already have the original link but tedious in the
extreme trying to get from chapter 5 to chapter 7 or indeed any other
chapter.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&biw=1024&bih=587&q=dukes+energy&aq=f&aqi=g4 &aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=ccd8ecc3630e400c
works for me. It is how I found the figures I linked to.

But that doesn't absolve you from providing a misleading cite by quoting
a table that doesn't actually give load factors for wind

You would do better if you stopped digging. There was nothing
misleading in my reference.

In response to an assertion about household equivalents for hydro
schemes [1] I gave a link for how they are calculated for wind and
then typed, "I imagine the same approach is taken for other forms of
generation. Average load factors are given in Table 5.10 of
[DUKES]".

Sure enough if one looks at table 5.10 one sees the figures for
hydro and pumped storage. From that one could work back from the
annual household equivalent to the possible plant capacity, which
was the point being discussed. I haven't bothered to do the
calculation myself to see how close to "400 to 600kW" it is. For all
I know "400 to 600kW" could be spot on.



[1] an assertion which used the wrong unit.


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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:51:14 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be harry
wrote this:-

The capacity of the plant has to be sized on peak loads not any
avaerges worked out.

The plant at Teddington Lock will undoubtedly be feeding into the
grid. As a result it does not have to be sized for peak loads, that
is something for the system operator to deal with.




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

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
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.

The Clywedog scheme ISTR, back in the '60's had a 500kW generating set
running from a Pelton wheel. There was also a 100kW diesel as a back up
house supply.

At the time, it was the tallest buttress dam in Europe at 200'.

The purpose was said to be for controlling flooding of the upper Severn
but I believe the Welsh had other views:-)

I think it unlikely that the opportunity for cheap generation would be
ignored in any such scheme.

regards


--
Tim Lamb

On 19/10/2010 18:47, David Hansen wrote:

All very well if you already have the original link but tedious in the
extreme trying to get from chapter 5 to chapter 7 or indeed any other
chapter.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&biw=1024&bih=587&q=dukes+energy&aq=f&aqi=g4 &aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=ccd8ecc3630e400c
works for me. It is how I found the figures I linked to.

Oh yes and why should I pick on 'dukes' as the significant element in
the first place?


But that doesn't absolve you from providing a misleading cite by quoting
a table that doesn't actually give load factors for wind

You would do better if you stopped digging. There was nothing
misleading in my reference.

False claim.


In response to an assertion about household equivalents for hydro
schemes [1] I gave a link for how they are calculated for wind and
then typed, "I imagine the same approach is taken for other forms of
generation. Average load factors are given in Table 5.10 of
[DUKES]".


You make a reference to wind and then cite a reference that doesn't give
the average load factors for wind.

Sure enough if one looks at table 5.10 one sees the figures for
hydro and pumped storage.

But not for wind. Just a pointer to chapter 7 which isn't easily found
starting from where you directed us to.

snip

On 19/10/2010 08:55, Tim Streater wrote:

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?


Not much, to all the questions.

The power will be limited by the low fall, and the flow of the Thames.

But OTOH the weir will be there anyway; the moving parts are easily
accessible for maintenance; and there will be no silting problems that
aren't already being dealt with by the Thames navigation authorities.

I'd say do it. It won't help much, but it'll help.

Andy

David Hansen wrote:

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..

It's a lot of money to **** down the drain.

Andy Champ wrote:

The power will be limited by the low fall, and the flow of the Thames.


The power is a function of the flow times head. The cost tends to be
proportional to the mass of the equipment. Half the head and you double the
massflow for a given power, hence a high head low flow is far cheaper to
exploit than the opposite.

AJH

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:26:27 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

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.

What is the distance?

I should think less than 3km to the nearest 11kV.

However, the comparison is not exact. The line exists already, it
was formerly used to supply the mine.

This nearest line would be a small capacity one for the few scattered
farms right at the top end of Teesdale. I don't know where the
sub-station feeding this distribution is located. It may well be
Barnard Castle but possibly Middleton-in-Teesdale, that would be 15km
or so away.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:39:19 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

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

Assuming it can do it 24/7, then a couple of kW would be getting on for
£7000 / year at the daft feed in tariff rates they pay!

eh? Highest hydro FIT rate is 19.9p:

2kw 24/7 for a year 365*24*2 = 17520kWHr @ £0.199 = £3486.48.

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 19 Oct,
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

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 ..."

The largest Hydro scheme in England currently is Kielder, rated at a maximum
of 12 MW.

The extraction of water at Riding Mill from the Kielder dam outflow to feed
the Tyne/Tees/Derwent/Wiske takes an order of magnitude more power. Not a
vast saver until you consider Kielder electricity is 24/7 and usage at Riding
Mill is only in unusual circumstances.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:42:47 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

This nearest line would be a small capacity one for the few scattered
farms right at the top end of Teesdale. I don't know where the
sub-station feeding this distribution is located. It may well be
Barnard Castle but possibly Middleton-in-Teesdale, that would be 15km
or so away.

The wind farm at Delabole, the first UK commercial wind farm,
http://www.delabole.com/aerieldelabole.htm is 1.5km from the
village, though the line may not be that long and I have no idea of
its capacity. It used to have a maximum capacity of 4 MW. Its effect
on the local electricity system was carefully measured and it
stabilised the local electricity system, the operation of tap
changers was much reduced.

The repowered Delabole
http://www.goodenergygeneration.co.uk/developing-renewables/Delabole_Photo-Gallery.aspx,
being commissioned at the moment, has a maximum capacity of 9.2 MW.
No idea if any changes have been made to the connection to the rest
of the electricity system.

So a 1MW hydro plant might be suitable to connect to a small 11 kV
line. Certainly Scottish Hydro Electric has a number of sub 5 MW
turbines in remote areas. I don't suppose they are connected by
anything more beefy than a small 11 kV line of the sort which also
feeds a few farms.



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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:26:59 +0100 someone who may be Roger Chapman
wrote this:-

Oh yes and why should I pick on 'dukes' as the significant element in
the first place?

That is the name the publication is usually known as. Sorry if I
credited you with more knowledge of the basic sources of information
about electricity systems in the UK.

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/
is the URL I gave, there is a clue at the end of that.

You make a reference to wind and then cite a reference that doesn't give
the average load factors for wind.

Still digging I see. This will be my last comment on this
sub-thread, but if you wish to dig further so be it.

I was explaining how it is likely that hydro equivalent households
are calculated, by pointing to how they are done for wind. There was
no reason for me to provide a link to wind load factors, they are
noting to do with hydro, I provided a link to hydro load factors.



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

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:04:51 +0100 someone who may be andrew
wrote this:-

The cost tends to be proportional to the mass of the equipment.

No doubt the case if one is only considering one type of equipment.
However, the Archimedean screw I linked to earlier means a whole new
set of considerations. Vastly easier to make than a turbine and with
no need to ensure dimensional accuracy to the same degree, but I
imagine higher civil costs.



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

On 20/10/2010 08:37, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:26:59 +0100 someone who may be Roger Chapman
wrote this:-

Oh yes and why should I pick on 'dukes' as the significant element in
the first place?

That is the name the publication is usually known as. Sorry if I
credited you with more knowledge of the basic sources of information
about electricity systems in the UK.

This from the man who is forever complaining about insults when someone
points out his undoubted lack of intelligence!

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/
is the URL I gave, there is a clue at the end of that.

You make a reference to wind and then cite a reference that doesn't give
the average load factors for wind.

Still digging I see. This will be my last comment on this
sub-thread, but if you wish to dig further so be it.

You mean you are still trying to weasel your way out of a hole you dug
for yourself.

I was explaining how it is likely that hydro equivalent households
are calculated, by pointing to how they are done for wind. There was
no reason for me to provide a link to wind load factors, they are
noting to do with hydro, I provided a link to hydro load factors.

And my comment was on the uninformative nature of the load factor
information - viz:

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

Very informative as table 7.4 is securely hidden elsewhere."

Which you chose to dispute. No use now trying to move the goalposts.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
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,

How can you (or anybody) possibly make this claim when we STILL don't know
how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material we have already
stored, let alone that which we have yet to generate.

tim

On 20/10/2010 14:09, tim.... wrote:
"Nightjar"cpb"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
....
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,

How can you (or anybody) possibly make this claim when we STILL don't know
how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material we have already
stored, let alone that which we have yet to generate.

We don't *know* the prices of anything in the future, but we can make
informed estimates and for nuclear energy, the best estimate is that
waste disposal will add 5% to the cost of generation.

Colin Bignell

David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:04:51 +0100 someone who may be andrew
wrote this:-

The cost tends to be proportional to the mass of the equipment.

No doubt the case if one is only considering one type of equipment.
However, the Archimedean screw I linked to earlier means a whole new
set of considerations. Vastly easier to make than a turbine and with
no need to ensure dimensional accuracy to the same degree, but I
imagine higher civil costs.




Whether you can make a cheaper, comparably efficient, device doesn't alter
the fact that if has to handle a greater mass of water to get the same
power. So it tends to be more massive.

Pelton wheels are small, convert around 90% of the incoming kinetic energy
to rotary motion and simple but they need a good head.

I fancy playing with a screw device in our weir but cannot see how it would
trap a fraction of the flow let alone work at 90% conversion. Even if it
were in a tube with minor losses around the periphery why should it get
more out than a simple propeller type turbine in the same tube?

AJH

On 20/10/2010 20:25, andrew wrote:
I fancy playing with a screw device in our weir but cannot see how it would
trap a fraction of the flow let alone work at 90% conversion. Even if it
were in a tube with minor losses around the periphery why should it get
more out than a simple propeller type turbine in the same tube?

Both the Archimedes Screw Turbine and the Kaplan Turbine are supposed to
work at a very low head. A quick google suggests that both can exceed
80% efficiency but I didn't find anything that gave a direct
relationship between head and efficiency.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:11:39 +0100
Roger Chapman wrote:

On 20/10/2010 20:25, andrew wrote:
I fancy playing with a screw device in our weir but cannot see how
it would trap a fraction of the flow let alone work at 90%
conversion. Even if it were in a tube with minor losses around the
periphery why should it get more out than a simple propeller type
turbine in the same tube?

Both the Archimedes Screw Turbine and the Kaplan Turbine are supposed
to work at a very low head. A quick google suggests that both can
exceed 80% efficiency but I didn't find anything that gave a direct
relationship between head and efficiency.

Yes I've seen a chart showing efficiencies and where the device sits on
the head verses flow which suggests the Kaplan comes close to the
pelton, isn't it fully submersed Kaplans at Dinorwig which I think
reaches 70% overal conversion from electricity to elctricity which
implies close to 90% mechanical conversion for each pass.

So if all the water is channeled down a tube what are the coinversion
limits for a simple screw? and why would the archimdes screw do better?

AJH on claws

tim.... wrote:
"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...
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,

How can you (or anybody) possibly make this claim when we STILL don't know
how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material we have already
stored, let alone that which we have yet to generate.

the same way wind people calculate costs when they have no idea how long
the ghastly things will last, and calculate carbon reduction when they
have no idea how much if any, given the total variability of the wind
and the back up policy it entails, they will save (if any), or indeed
calcualate the cost of removing the unsightly towers and foundations
once its realised the things are of absolutely no value to anyone and a
total eyesore, and the same way they calculate the cost of coal power,
when no-one has any idea what regulations might be imposed some time in
the future to deal with the (more radioactive than low level nuclear
waste) coal ash..

Generally 15% of capital cost is put in for decommissioning: Fortunately
these days stations are built to be taken apart, unlike e.g. Dounreay.

What is the cost of decommissioning a wind farm? Includig removing teh
foundations?

And storing them somewhere no one will ever have to encounter the things
ever again? Or at least for 5000 years...



tim

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"tim...." wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote in message
...

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,

How can you (or anybody) possibly make this claim when we STILL don't
know how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material we have
already stored, let alone that which we have yet to generate.

You don't need to get rid of it (unless you want to reprocess it for
some reason). Just leave it alone.

The amount of high-level waste is not large. That's quite radioactive,
but is composed of stuff with short half-lives. So after not many years
(IIRC less than 50) it's less than half as radioactive as when you
started with it.

The low-level waste (of which there is a lot more) is not particularly
dangerous anyway.


Actually the fuel comes out for reprocessing, the low level **** gets
taken away and stored - its relatively harmless: the reactor shell etc
you fill with concrete and leave. If you are particularly bothered, make
it a landfill site and build a mound over it. In 100 years it will be a
useful place to put affordable housing.

Anything else you simply strip - gebnerators etc etc are all usable
items, or recyclable

On 20 Oct, 20:25, andrew wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:04:51 +0100 someone who may be andrew
wrote this:-

The cost tends to be proportional to the mass of the equipment.

No doubt the case if one is only considering one type of equipment.
However, the Archimedean screw I linked to earlier means a whole new
set of considerations. Vastly easier to make than a turbine and with
no need to ensure dimensional accuracy to the same degree, but I
imagine higher civil costs.

Whether you can make a cheaper, comparably efficient, device doesn't alter
the fact that if has to handle a greater mass of water to get the same
power. So it tends to be more massive.

Pelton wheels are small, convert around 90% of the incoming kinetic energy
to rotary motion and simple but they need a good head.

I fancy playing with a screw device in our weir but cannot see how it would
trap a fraction of the flow let alone work at 90% conversion. *Even if it
were in a tube with minor losses around the periphery why should it get
more out than a simple propeller type turbine in the same tube?

AJH
There is a simple means open to you if you have a weir. That is to
use an ordinary central heating pump (or a larger industrial pump if
you have enough water). The induction motor will run as as
asynchronous generator, the impellor will run as a turbine. It will
need to run in parallel to the mains to generate. It just has to be
turning faster than synchronous speed

On 21 Oct, 08:53, harry wrote:
On 20 Oct, 20:25, andrew wrote:



David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 22:04:51 +0100 someone who may be andrew
wrote this:-

The cost tends to be proportional to the mass of the equipment.

No doubt the case if one is only considering one type of equipment.
However, the Archimedean screw I linked to earlier means a whole new
set of considerations. Vastly easier to make than a turbine and with
no need to ensure dimensional accuracy to the same degree, but I
imagine higher civil costs.

Whether you can make a cheaper, comparably efficient, device doesn't alter
the fact that if has to handle a greater mass of water to get the same
power. So it tends to be more massive.

Pelton wheels are small, convert around 90% of the incoming kinetic energy
to rotary motion and simple but they need a good head.

I fancy playing with a screw device in our weir but cannot see how it would
trap a fraction of the flow let alone work at 90% conversion. *Even if it
were in a tube with minor losses around the periphery why should it get
more out than a simple propeller type turbine in the same tube?

AJH

There is a simple means open to you if you have a weir. * That is to
use an ordinary central heating pump (or a larger industrial pump if
you have enough water). *The induction motor will run as as
asynchronous generator, the impellor will run as a turbine. It will
need to run in parallel to the mains to generate. *It just has to be
turning faster than synchronous speed- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Further to above.
http://www.smallhydropower.com/pumps.htm

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:09:38 +0100 someone who may be "tim...."
wrote this:-

we STILL don't know
how much it will cost to get rid of the waste material we have already
stored

And when we know that the only way is up with the price of doing
that.


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