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.
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.
They woold make zero contribution to anything except the cost of your electricity bill, and you know it.
>
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?
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
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.
Largely because they dont save any CO2 anyway.
Dont ask awkward pertinent questions.
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 ...
... except, of course, that the 'dam' was built for exactly the opposite reason ...!
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.
I was under the impression they (we) pay for it every year one way or another, not just a one off payment.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:15:07 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar wrote this:-
Proof by assertion. No references where we can see where you got this assertion from.
Ditto.
The SD Commission had reports prepared on this . The best it seems possible to say is that nuclear is about as carbon intensive as onshore wind.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:39:50 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-
1 kW for what time period?How the calculation is done for wind is shown at . I imagine the same approach is taken for other forms of generation. Average load factors are given in Table 5.10 of
It also neatly sidesteps the point that most houses don't draw the bulk of their energy use from the electricity supply anyway.
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.
I suspect your average mill water wheel will only produce a couple of kW, not much head but hopefully reasonable flow. According to:
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.
I assumed it was sufficiently well known not to need references.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
"(3) Wind load factors can be found in Table 7.4."
Very informative as table 7.4 is securely hidden elsewhere.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:18:21 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm wrote this:-
It would certainly be attractive for small enough schemes, someone has provided a figure for the maximum size.
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..
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:23 +0100 someone who may be "Nightjar wrote this:-
it is well known.
This is what UKERC had to say about it
"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.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:58:22 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-
What is the distance?
If memory serves me correctly the Longannet "biomass" plant
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.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:54:33 +0100 someone who may be Roger Chapman wrote this:-
False claim.
Nothing is securely hidden anywhere. All can be accessed from , 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.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.