|
OT Electricity Generation
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? |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 ;-) |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
"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. |
OT Electricity Generation
"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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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/ |
OT Electricity Generation
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/ |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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? |
OT Electricity Generation
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? |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
|
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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. |
OT Electricity Generation
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter