This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Planning permission has been granted for a small Hydro Electric scheme to be built in the Cwm Glas Bach area of the Llanberis Pass.
Local climber Mark Reeves commented:
"When I headed up into Cwm Glas this week and saw a line of wooden posts hammered into the pristine mountain hillside, I had to ask myself what the hell are these marking out?"
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=68732
In reply to UKC News:
What capacity? Would be good to know the figs. This cost to the landscape for what benefit?
Edit: 100kw turgo machine. v little!
http://planning.snowdonia-npa.gov.uk/swiftlg_snpa/MediaTemp/12956-30947.pdf
What capacity? Would be good to know the figs. This cost to the landscape for what benefit?
Edit: 100kw turgo machine. v little!
http://planning.snowdonia-npa.gov.uk/swiftlg_snpa/MediaTemp/12956-30947.pdf
Post edited at 19:09
In reply to UKC News:
100Kw micro hydro. the weir is planned to be 7m across and 1.8m high. the pipe buried and the powerhouse to be a rebuilt shepherd's hut.
i'm really not bothered by this if it's owned by someone from the local community, god knows we need to use renewables more... but if this is some seed-capitalised speculative money making scheme from out of town then I'll agree that it's the thin end of the wedge.
100Kw micro hydro. the weir is planned to be 7m across and 1.8m high. the pipe buried and the powerhouse to be a rebuilt shepherd's hut.
i'm really not bothered by this if it's owned by someone from the local community, god knows we need to use renewables more... but if this is some seed-capitalised speculative money making scheme from out of town then I'll agree that it's the thin end of the wedge.
Post edited at 19:05
In reply to UKC News:
Some pictures here from the developers website showing what the finished "weir" might loook like.
http://www.greenearthhydro.co.uk/gallery.html
I suspect that if this one goes ahead then others in the area(and beyond) are sure to follow and this could have a very dramatic impact on our mountains. The BMC really do need to get involved ASAP.
Thanks for highlighting this.
Some pictures here from the developers website showing what the finished "weir" might loook like.
http://www.greenearthhydro.co.uk/gallery.html
I suspect that if this one goes ahead then others in the area(and beyond) are sure to follow and this could have a very dramatic impact on our mountains. The BMC really do need to get involved ASAP.
Thanks for highlighting this.
In reply to UKC News:
This really is nothing to get "up in arms over". It's a tiny scheme, the visual impact will be minimal, even from close up. It has been done with the maximum respect for the local environment and ecosystems. It seems that this is very much a local project. Recently i am noticing an immediate negative reaction to any renewable energy scheme, regardless of size, scale, siting.
This really is nothing to get "up in arms over". It's a tiny scheme, the visual impact will be minimal, even from close up. It has been done with the maximum respect for the local environment and ecosystems. It seems that this is very much a local project. Recently i am noticing an immediate negative reaction to any renewable energy scheme, regardless of size, scale, siting.
In reply to UKC News:
Looks a well considered application to me. Not much power but v low impact so good as far as i'm concerned.
I think more should be made of mountain streams. high head should be prioritised over these less efficient and less effective run of river projects.
Looks a well considered application to me. Not much power but v low impact so good as far as i'm concerned.
I think more should be made of mountain streams. high head should be prioritised over these less efficient and less effective run of river projects.
In reply to yarbles:
It used to be quite common, my grandparents farm was supplied by a small hydro scheme 50 odd years ago.
It used to be quite common, my grandparents farm was supplied by a small hydro scheme 50 odd years ago.
In reply to Skip:
+1
Far less intrusive than a wind turbine.
> This really is nothing to get "up in arms over". It's a tiny scheme, the visual impact will be minimal, even from close up. It has been done with the maximum respect for the local environment and ecosystems. It seems that this is very much a local project. Recently i am noticing an immediate negative reaction to any renewable energy scheme, regardless of size, scale, siting.
+1
Far less intrusive than a wind turbine.
In reply to UKC News:
Sounds good to me. Frustrates me how the guy claims that 'this will have no effect on climate change, it is a drop in the ocean.' Yes, Mark. And the ocean is made up of millions of drops. Small projects like this lead the way to a greener future. I'd rather see the occasional weir than massive nuclear power plants.
Sounds good to me. Frustrates me how the guy claims that 'this will have no effect on climate change, it is a drop in the ocean.' Yes, Mark. And the ocean is made up of millions of drops. Small projects like this lead the way to a greener future. I'd rather see the occasional weir than massive nuclear power plants.
In reply to Skip:
It really is worth getting 'up in arms' over. It appears this proposal wasn't widely advertised and has been given the go-ahead because of lack of opposition.
As far as I can ascertain, there has been very little environmental assessment of its impact.
> This really is nothing to get "up in arms over". It's a tiny scheme, the visual impact will be minimal, even from close up. It has been done with the maximum respect for the local environment and ecosystems. Recently i am noticing an immediate negative reaction to any renewable energy scheme, regardless of size, scale, siting.
It really is worth getting 'up in arms' over. It appears this proposal wasn't widely advertised and has been given the go-ahead because of lack of opposition.
As far as I can ascertain, there has been very little environmental assessment of its impact.
In reply to MischaHY:
Oh, well, why don't we put one in every river in the pass then. In fact, lets have one on every flank of Snowdon - there's already one at Hafod Y llan don't you know. It doesn't benefit anyone apart from the land owner and the NT who use this energy to power their properties.
Oh, well, why don't we put one in every river in the pass then. In fact, lets have one on every flank of Snowdon - there's already one at Hafod Y llan don't you know. It doesn't benefit anyone apart from the land owner and the NT who use this energy to power their properties.
In reply to UKC News:
I understand its not in the best location, with regards to scaring the picturesque landscape of the Llanberris pass, but at some point we do need to start thinking about investing more heavily in Hydro Power rather than Wind Power. New Zealand has succeeded in producing over 70% renewable energy, most of that being hydro. PS we get loads of RAIN in Wales.
I understand its not in the best location, with regards to scaring the picturesque landscape of the Llanberris pass, but at some point we do need to start thinking about investing more heavily in Hydro Power rather than Wind Power. New Zealand has succeeded in producing over 70% renewable energy, most of that being hydro. PS we get loads of RAIN in Wales.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Good question!
Why not?
> Oh, well, why don't we put one in every river in the pass then.
Good question!
Why not?
In reply to MischaHY:
TBH you'd need a bit more than the occasional weir to replace a nuclear power plant....
10,000 would be a start.
> Sounds good to me. Frustrates me how the guy claims that 'this will have no effect on climate change, it is a drop in the ocean.' Yes, Mark. And the ocean is made up of millions of drops. Small projects like this lead the way to a greener future. I'd rather see the occasional weir than massive nuclear power plants.
TBH you'd need a bit more than the occasional weir to replace a nuclear power plant....
10,000 would be a start.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
So by that rationale, you can't have any renewable projects unless they directly benefit loads of people? This is not a big deal. It'll look like shit while being built, everyone will complain loads and in a few years its part of the landscape and everyone has forgotten.
So by that rationale, you can't have any renewable projects unless they directly benefit loads of people? This is not a big deal. It'll look like shit while being built, everyone will complain loads and in a few years its part of the landscape and everyone has forgotten.
In reply to UKC News: Not sure what I feel about this but if it's taking water out of the stream then there'll be less water going down the stream (obviously) - how will that affect the stream - will it always be dry or what?
In reply to spidermonkey09:
76 houses? that's most if not all of Nant Peris and Gwastadnant.
Once it's in place and the trench scars have grown over you'll hardly know it's there. The biggest bit will be the dam but if a few native bushes and trees are planted (or the area below the dam is fenced off and allowed to regenerate naturally) then even that will be hard to spot.
Notice of the planning application will have been sent to most houses in the village and there are quite a few climbers who live there so it will have been known about for a while. The application mentions 2012 so it's been in the pipeline (sic) for some time.
Given the estimated output you'd probably only need one of this size for each valley in the national park. Localised power generation. sounds good to me.
76 houses? that's most if not all of Nant Peris and Gwastadnant.
Once it's in place and the trench scars have grown over you'll hardly know it's there. The biggest bit will be the dam but if a few native bushes and trees are planted (or the area below the dam is fenced off and allowed to regenerate naturally) then even that will be hard to spot.
Notice of the planning application will have been sent to most houses in the village and there are quite a few climbers who live there so it will have been known about for a while. The application mentions 2012 so it's been in the pipeline (sic) for some time.
Given the estimated output you'd probably only need one of this size for each valley in the national park. Localised power generation. sounds good to me.
In reply to Mark Reeves: Given the enormously difficult process of getting a Licence from NRW (this is a separate process to the Planning Application), I think you can be sure that a full environmental impact assessment will have been done, and the specialists* will have to be satisfied that the impact will be minimal.
You have to separate 'environmental' impact from the perceived impact of users of the landscape - they are not the same thing.
Sure it'll look crap for a couple of months, but after a year I'd suggest anyone not actively looking for it would struggle to see it until stood right on top of it.
100kW is a decent amount - over a year it'll probably produce around 4-500MWhrs. Your average house might use 4 or 5 MWhrs per year? Do the rest of the maths yourself.
I hate the kneejerk nimbyism spouted by people who nothing of the technology and are quite happy for their power to be generated elsewhere. This sort of thing has to be the way forward.
*i.e. people who do actually know what they are talking about
You have to separate 'environmental' impact from the perceived impact of users of the landscape - they are not the same thing.
Sure it'll look crap for a couple of months, but after a year I'd suggest anyone not actively looking for it would struggle to see it until stood right on top of it.
100kW is a decent amount - over a year it'll probably produce around 4-500MWhrs. Your average house might use 4 or 5 MWhrs per year? Do the rest of the maths yourself.
I hate the kneejerk nimbyism spouted by people who nothing of the technology and are quite happy for their power to be generated elsewhere. This sort of thing has to be the way forward.
*i.e. people who do actually know what they are talking about
In reply to Bob:
Thoroughly agree with the lot of that.
Thoroughly agree with the lot of that.
In reply to butteredfrog: Or somewhere like not in a national park.
In reply to Mowglee:
> (In reply to Mark Reeves) Given the enormously difficult process of getting a Licence from NRW (this is a separate process to the Planning Application), I think you can be sure that a full environmental impact assessment will have been done, and the specialists* will have to be satisfied that the impact will be minimal.
> Not necessarily the case in my experience
> You have to separate 'environmental' impact from the perceived impact of users of the landscape - they are not the same thing.
> OK, but it wil have a visual impact
> Sure it'll look crap for a couple of months, but after a year I'd suggest anyone not actively looking for it would struggle to see it until stood right on top of it.
> It will be maintained and kept clear.
> 100kW is a decent amount - over a year it'll probably produce around 4-500MWhrs. Your average house might use 4 or 5 MWhrs per year? Do the rest of the maths yourself.
> It will produce about 250MWhrs, so has a 30% efficiency/availability. There will still need to be the same number of conventional power stations available.
> I hate the kneejerk nimbyism spouted by people who nothing of the technology and are quite happy for their power to be generated elsewhere. This sort of thing has to be the way forward.
> The power will go into the grid not directly to the local houses
>
>
> *i.e. people who do actually know what they are talking about
> Not necessarily the case in my experience
> You have to separate 'environmental' impact from the perceived impact of users of the landscape - they are not the same thing.
> OK, but it wil have a visual impact
> Sure it'll look crap for a couple of months, but after a year I'd suggest anyone not actively looking for it would struggle to see it until stood right on top of it.
> It will be maintained and kept clear.
> 100kW is a decent amount - over a year it'll probably produce around 4-500MWhrs. Your average house might use 4 or 5 MWhrs per year? Do the rest of the maths yourself.
> It will produce about 250MWhrs, so has a 30% efficiency/availability. There will still need to be the same number of conventional power stations available.
> I hate the kneejerk nimbyism spouted by people who nothing of the technology and are quite happy for their power to be generated elsewhere. This sort of thing has to be the way forward.
> The power will go into the grid not directly to the local houses
>
>
> *i.e. people who do actually know what they are talking about
In reply to UKC News:
Funny how people are all for things like renewable energy infrastructure or needle exchange clinics until they are proposed to be built near to where they live, work or play. 'Make it someone else's problem' should be the official motto of the late 20th/early 21st century.
Funny how people are all for things like renewable energy infrastructure or needle exchange clinics until they are proposed to be built near to where they live, work or play. 'Make it someone else's problem' should be the official motto of the late 20th/early 21st century.
In reply to Martin Haworth:
given whats across the valley from it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileinorwigPowerStation01.jpg
it doesnt seem that big a deal
snowdonia is far from being untouched wilderness, its a landscape that has supported heavy industry for centuries. seems like a good idea to me
cheers
gregor
given whats across the valley from it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileinorwigPowerStation01.jpg
it doesnt seem that big a deal
snowdonia is far from being untouched wilderness, its a landscape that has supported heavy industry for centuries. seems like a good idea to me
cheers
gregor
In reply to UKC News:
Great idea, about time more of this starts to happen. May well make a very small impact, but nothing in comparison to the road, vehicles parked along the valley, quarrying, etc
Great idea, about time more of this starts to happen. May well make a very small impact, but nothing in comparison to the road, vehicles parked along the valley, quarrying, etc
In reply to UKC News:
I find it odd that people can consider two small buildings to constitute an eyesore, situated as they are in the vicinity of a six metre wide strip of black tarmac that runs the length of the Pass, and along which vehicles that can be heard throughout the area travel.
We'd hardly be happy about the laying of a new road through the middle of a mountain valley if it hadn't already been done there, but the fact that we've adapted to things like that (to the extent that I doubt few people even consider it an invasion of a beautiful landscape) suggests that something as insignificant as this probably won't be an issue once it's done.
That said, it'll be a pain in the arse while they're building the thing.
I find it odd that people can consider two small buildings to constitute an eyesore, situated as they are in the vicinity of a six metre wide strip of black tarmac that runs the length of the Pass, and along which vehicles that can be heard throughout the area travel.
We'd hardly be happy about the laying of a new road through the middle of a mountain valley if it hadn't already been done there, but the fact that we've adapted to things like that (to the extent that I doubt few people even consider it an invasion of a beautiful landscape) suggests that something as insignificant as this probably won't be an issue once it's done.
That said, it'll be a pain in the arse while they're building the thing.
In reply to UKC News:
its a very damp and unpleasant little cwm, i doubt it will affect any of the climbs.
as for an eyesore, i doubt it.
I dont want to see any more valleys flooded for water for england e.g. Tryweryn, but this is tiny and imo a good idea
its a very damp and unpleasant little cwm, i doubt it will affect any of the climbs.
as for an eyesore, i doubt it.
I dont want to see any more valleys flooded for water for england e.g. Tryweryn, but this is tiny and imo a good idea
Post edited at 22:32
In reply to UKC News:
Unfortunately we will need more and more of these sites for renewable energy. It think in the long run it's a small price to pay.
Beside there is a whopping big hydro plant down the valley an no one seems to kick up a fuss about the weir over in Ogwen area (can't remember its name but it's up that big track) there are also a load of man made ditches there as well
Unfortunately we will need more and more of these sites for renewable energy. It think in the long run it's a small price to pay.
Beside there is a whopping big hydro plant down the valley an no one seems to kick up a fuss about the weir over in Ogwen area (can't remember its name but it's up that big track) there are also a load of man made ditches there as well
In reply to UKC News:
Don't sheep graze on that "pristine mountain hillside"?
> Local climber Mark Reeves commented:
> "When I headed up into Cwm Glas this week and saw a line of wooden posts hammered into the pristine mountain hillside, I had to ask myself what the hell are these marking out?"
Don't sheep graze on that "pristine mountain hillside"?
In reply to Morgan Woods:
Exactly, and does everyone complain when new sheds are required for livestock? A new lambing shed would have a greater visual impact than this project. We need to start somewhere with greener energy. Anyone ever seen what a mess they've made of the alps with all the hep? It's a wonder anyone goes there at all!
Exactly, and does everyone complain when new sheds are required for livestock? A new lambing shed would have a greater visual impact than this project. We need to start somewhere with greener energy. Anyone ever seen what a mess they've made of the alps with all the hep? It's a wonder anyone goes there at all!
In reply to UKC News:
I daresay a single car parked alongside the road has more of an impact than this scheme would have. Not to mention the road itself. It's just we are used to the road and cars parked there, oh and we all park there every so often, so it must be ok... It seems a small, sensitively designed scheme. My only question is how on earth would it pay for itself but presumably it will do eventually.
I daresay a single car parked alongside the road has more of an impact than this scheme would have. Not to mention the road itself. It's just we are used to the road and cars parked there, oh and we all park there every so often, so it must be ok... It seems a small, sensitively designed scheme. My only question is how on earth would it pay for itself but presumably it will do eventually.
In reply to UKC News: I notice Mark says he saw "...a line of wooden posts hammered into the pristine mountain hillside". I'm trying to work out which pristine hillside he's on about. Does he mean the one that currently has houses, footpaths, tracks, ruined buildings, walls and telephone lines on?
How does the visual impact compare to the road, the houses, the campsites? After construction - and after vegetation regrowth - I suspect there will be little to see. Having looked through the documents, I give this the thumbs up.
How does the visual impact compare to the road, the houses, the campsites? After construction - and after vegetation regrowth - I suspect there will be little to see. Having looked through the documents, I give this the thumbs up.
In reply to UKC News:
I was slightly concerned that the impact statement referred to its visibility only from the road and also said that it is on private farmland so public access is not an issue. These ignore that this is CRoW Access Land and it will be visible to walkers and climbers using Cwm Glas. Nevertheless this is a very small-scale scheme and I think the visual impact will be small. I would however have preferred the weir as well as the power house to be in local materials.
In the UK National Parks are places where people live and work, they are not pristine landscapes. Let's not forget that Snowdonia is littered with large and small quarry workings, mines, walls and other evidence of man's activities, including artificial watercourses and dams. I don't think this proposal is something we should be worrying about. It appears to comply with the National Park's planning policies, and it's providing sustainable energy, which is a Good Thing.
When I was a child I regularly went on family holidays to a cottage near Ffestiniog. Every morning we would look to see if the (very much larger) Lyn Stwlan dam was visible below the inevitable cloud base. I was actually quite excited to see it, as seeing a dam was as much a novelty as seeing mountains. Back then it was gleaming white concrete. 50 year later, it has weathered into the hillside and is quite hard to spot even if you're looking for it.
I was slightly concerned that the impact statement referred to its visibility only from the road and also said that it is on private farmland so public access is not an issue. These ignore that this is CRoW Access Land and it will be visible to walkers and climbers using Cwm Glas. Nevertheless this is a very small-scale scheme and I think the visual impact will be small. I would however have preferred the weir as well as the power house to be in local materials.
In the UK National Parks are places where people live and work, they are not pristine landscapes. Let's not forget that Snowdonia is littered with large and small quarry workings, mines, walls and other evidence of man's activities, including artificial watercourses and dams. I don't think this proposal is something we should be worrying about. It appears to comply with the National Park's planning policies, and it's providing sustainable energy, which is a Good Thing.
When I was a child I regularly went on family holidays to a cottage near Ffestiniog. Every morning we would look to see if the (very much larger) Lyn Stwlan dam was visible below the inevitable cloud base. I was actually quite excited to see it, as seeing a dam was as much a novelty as seeing mountains. Back then it was gleaming white concrete. 50 year later, it has weathered into the hillside and is quite hard to spot even if you're looking for it.
In reply to butteredfrog:
Building an effective hydro scheme in Lincolnshire would be some engineering challenge.
Building an effective hydro scheme in Lincolnshire would be some engineering challenge.
In reply to Removed User:
You could build a big water tower to give you the head, with a wind turbine to pump the water.
You could build a big water tower to give you the head, with a wind turbine to pump the water.
In reply to Martin Haworth:
Are you against all development in the National Park?
> Or somewhere like not in a national park.
Are you against all development in the National Park?
In reply to UKC News:
Setting aside the apparent lack of publicity for the planning application, I'll add my name to those who consider this a good thing. Better if it was to be made of local material but otherwise minimal visual impact and if it can supply reliable power to the local village then that is just great. TBH given the history of sheep farming and industrial structures in the hills already I would have no complaint if you put one in each of most of the cwms in Snowdonia and the Lakes.
Setting aside the apparent lack of publicity for the planning application, I'll add my name to those who consider this a good thing. Better if it was to be made of local material but otherwise minimal visual impact and if it can supply reliable power to the local village then that is just great. TBH given the history of sheep farming and industrial structures in the hills already I would have no complaint if you put one in each of most of the cwms in Snowdonia and the Lakes.
In reply to chris j:
I don't have a problame with this development as it stands, and I suppose I'll leave this here as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cwm_Dyli
I don't have a problame with this development as it stands, and I suppose I'll leave this here as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cwm_Dyli
In reply to UKC News:
Doesn't look so bad. I think there's one similar (but a bit bigger) near Buxton, though I forget exactly where. There is some sport climbing nearby, if that helps anyone work out where!
Neil
Doesn't look so bad. I think there's one similar (but a bit bigger) near Buxton, though I forget exactly where. There is some sport climbing nearby, if that helps anyone work out where!
Neil
In reply to Howard J:
Why should CROW land be subjected to extra planning constraints?
> I was slightly concerned that the impact statement referred to its visibility only from the road and also said that it is on private farmland so public access is not an issue. These ignore that this is CRoW Access Land and it will be visible to walkers and climbers using Cwm Glas.
Why should CROW land be subjected to extra planning constraints?
In reply to chris j:
Stick an earth bank in front of the dam and it would be even less intrusive.
I didn't see what size the upper pond would be, from the given size of the dam I can't imagine it would be too big.
One "problem" with schemes like this is that they provide continuous power so unless you have a load balancing and/or some storage system in place then they have to be linked in to the national grid. I stayed in a house at the top end of Glen Trool in Galloway that had its own hydro-electric system and the shed to the size was full of batteries to handle the fluctuations in supply. It also had an indoor jacuzzi that you occasionally had to use in order to bleed the system!
Stick an earth bank in front of the dam and it would be even less intrusive.
I didn't see what size the upper pond would be, from the given size of the dam I can't imagine it would be too big.
One "problem" with schemes like this is that they provide continuous power so unless you have a load balancing and/or some storage system in place then they have to be linked in to the national grid. I stayed in a house at the top end of Glen Trool in Galloway that had its own hydro-electric system and the shed to the size was full of batteries to handle the fluctuations in supply. It also had an indoor jacuzzi that you occasionally had to use in order to bleed the system!
In reply to UKC News:
I fully understand that this would upset many people and especially those that make full use of our wonderful National Parks, however, Is a small hydro electric terminal going to make much difference ? More difference than a Cafe built on top of a summit? More damaging than a huge pipe line that runs from Pen y Pass down the mountain? More damaging than all the other hydro electric plants 10x the size of this that were built without any complaints?
Its impact on the local environment will be minimal and it will help reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
I fully understand that this would upset many people and especially those that make full use of our wonderful National Parks, however, Is a small hydro electric terminal going to make much difference ? More difference than a Cafe built on top of a summit? More damaging than a huge pipe line that runs from Pen y Pass down the mountain? More damaging than all the other hydro electric plants 10x the size of this that were built without any complaints?
Its impact on the local environment will be minimal and it will help reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
How are they going to move the electricity away from the generators.
If that means pylons down the Pass I'm against the scheme. If it doesn't I am for it.
If that means pylons down the Pass I'm against the scheme. If it doesn't I am for it.
In reply to UKC News:
I think the news item is a tad misleading/alarmist banging on about a concrete weir, blot on the landscape etc.
Yes it will be made of concrete but faced with stonework (which will subject to approval/quality control) and blend in well (eg stone walls)
I have no issues with this project.
I think the news item is a tad misleading/alarmist banging on about a concrete weir, blot on the landscape etc.
Yes it will be made of concrete but faced with stonework (which will subject to approval/quality control) and blend in well (eg stone walls)
I have no issues with this project.
In reply to UKC News:
Energy from this sort of venture does seem to be pretty inconsequential. Personally I'd much rather that people stop concentrating on such minute 'feel good' efforts and just embrace modern nuclear plants as the solution for the next 50 years or so.
On the other hand - I'd be interested to know if anyone objecting to this tiny project has ever been on a ski lift (or even driven their car on the road through the pass!).
Energy from this sort of venture does seem to be pretty inconsequential. Personally I'd much rather that people stop concentrating on such minute 'feel good' efforts and just embrace modern nuclear plants as the solution for the next 50 years or so.
On the other hand - I'd be interested to know if anyone objecting to this tiny project has ever been on a ski lift (or even driven their car on the road through the pass!).
In reply to BAM:
As much as we do need large scale production, I think small local generation for rural communities is great.
This seems like a good idea to me.
> Personally I'd much rather that people stop concentrating on such minute 'feel good' efforts and just embrace modern nuclear plants as the solution for the next 50 years or so.
As much as we do need large scale production, I think small local generation for rural communities is great.
This seems like a good idea to me.
In reply to BAM:
Haven't you heard? Every little helps!
(A little. And we need a lot of help. http://www.withouthotair.com/c19/page_114.shtml )
> . Personally I'd much rather that people stop concentrating on such minute 'feel good' efforts and just embrace modern nuclear plants as the solution for the next 50 years or so.
Haven't you heard? Every little helps!
(A little. And we need a lot of help. http://www.withouthotair.com/c19/page_114.shtml )
In reply to Bob:
It's a hard life!
> It also had an indoor jacuzzi that you occasionally had to use in order to bleed the system!
It's a hard life!
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Did you actually read the application? It appears to be very well considered, sympathetically designed and exactly the sort of rural development project we should be applauding rather than trying to impede.
jk
> It really is worth getting 'up in arms' over. It appears this proposal wasn't widely advertised and has been given the go-ahead because of lack of opposition.
> As far as I can ascertain, there has been very little environmental assessment of its impact.
> As far as I can ascertain, there has been very little environmental assessment of its impact.
Did you actually read the application? It appears to be very well considered, sympathetically designed and exactly the sort of rural development project we should be applauding rather than trying to impede.
jk
In reply to UKC News:
Bonkers. How can we sensibly object to such low impact 'green' schemes in the middle of a landscape that has buildings, a road, telephone lines, lots of industrial archeology and a huge hydro scheme as a neighbour; all in a situation where despite hordes of rich tourists local farmers are often struggling to make ends meet. I hope they put an information board up explaing the benefits and maybe how micro-hydro power in under-utilised resource in the UK.
Bonkers. How can we sensibly object to such low impact 'green' schemes in the middle of a landscape that has buildings, a road, telephone lines, lots of industrial archeology and a huge hydro scheme as a neighbour; all in a situation where despite hordes of rich tourists local farmers are often struggling to make ends meet. I hope they put an information board up explaing the benefits and maybe how micro-hydro power in under-utilised resource in the UK.
In reply to webding:
The Design and Access statement states that the power cable will be buried, along with the pipes for the water, upstream and downstream of the power house.
The dam is actually a weir, so that water will flow over and cover up at least some portion of it all the time, providing there is sufficient flow in the river.
The Design and Access statement states that the power cable will be buried, along with the pipes for the water, upstream and downstream of the power house.
The dam is actually a weir, so that water will flow over and cover up at least some portion of it all the time, providing there is sufficient flow in the river.
In reply to UKC News:
100kw supply 76 houses? eh
100kw from a 7x1.5m dam? eh
figures batting about here appear to be complete boll@cks
so 750watts supply to each house
and a dam that would usually produce between 7.5-15kw for that size..
personally i think they are a good idea as long as it local.
100kw supply 76 houses? eh
100kw from a 7x1.5m dam? eh
figures batting about here appear to be complete boll@cks
so 750watts supply to each house
and a dam that would usually produce between 7.5-15kw for that size..
personally i think they are a good idea as long as it local.
In reply to UKC News:
100 kW is small for a hydro project. I don't know what the head or the flow rates are for this scheme, but the size has probably been chosen because it is the upper limit to the installed capacity you can have and still claim the subsidy for renewable electricity generation, the so-called feed-in tariff.
A 200 kW scheme near me is virtually invisible until you fall upon it, apart from the long leats used to channel water to the point where a buried pipe takes the water down to the power house. Like many such schemes it has reused an existing infrastructure dating from the days where water was used for mechanical power, so that even the leats, 200 years old as they are, don't appear so much intrusive as part of the landscape.
Another 100 kW scheme has rebooted a scheme put in the 20s to provide compressed air for a quarry. Back then they didn't bother with niceties like burying the water pipes, so that the current scheme uses the same 700 mm cast iron pipe that the originals did. The whole thing, power house, moss covered pipe and weir a few 100 m away look quite magical.
100 kW is small for a hydro project. I don't know what the head or the flow rates are for this scheme, but the size has probably been chosen because it is the upper limit to the installed capacity you can have and still claim the subsidy for renewable electricity generation, the so-called feed-in tariff.
A 200 kW scheme near me is virtually invisible until you fall upon it, apart from the long leats used to channel water to the point where a buried pipe takes the water down to the power house. Like many such schemes it has reused an existing infrastructure dating from the days where water was used for mechanical power, so that even the leats, 200 years old as they are, don't appear so much intrusive as part of the landscape.
Another 100 kW scheme has rebooted a scheme put in the 20s to provide compressed air for a quarry. Back then they didn't bother with niceties like burying the water pipes, so that the current scheme uses the same 700 mm cast iron pipe that the originals did. The whole thing, power house, moss covered pipe and weir a few 100 m away look quite magical.
In reply to chris j:
The intake weir will be built by hand from mortared rocks to improve its visual
appearance. The penstock will be buried and therefore will not be visible along its entire
length.
The power house will utilise the site of an existing, ruined stone shed. It will retain the
same 6,600mm x 7,450mm footprint. A wooden access door and a slate roof will be
reinstated, and the building will be clad in local stone. The landscaping around the power
house will remain unchanged from existing. Access to the power house will be via the
existing track.
> Better if it was to be made of local material but otherwise minimal visual impact and if it can supply reliable power to the local village then that is just great.
The intake weir will be built by hand from mortared rocks to improve its visual
appearance. The penstock will be buried and therefore will not be visible along its entire
length.
The power house will utilise the site of an existing, ruined stone shed. It will retain the
same 6,600mm x 7,450mm footprint. A wooden access door and a slate roof will be
reinstated, and the building will be clad in local stone. The landscaping around the power
house will remain unchanged from existing. Access to the power house will be via the
existing track.
In reply to Paul R:
What do you mean?
The power for the scheme is a function of the head and the flow rate. The energy over a year depends on how the flow rates vary and what proportion the operators are allowed to abstract into their pipe.
The quoted annual energy yield of 270 MWh or so (implying an average power output of 30 kW or so) is about 70 times the 4 MWh or that an average house uses for electricity each year.
What do you mean?
The power for the scheme is a function of the head and the flow rate. The energy over a year depends on how the flow rates vary and what proportion the operators are allowed to abstract into their pipe.
The quoted annual energy yield of 270 MWh or so (implying an average power output of 30 kW or so) is about 70 times the 4 MWh or that an average house uses for electricity each year.
In reply to MischaHY:
100 KW = 0.1 MW = 1 micro hydro (this one)
2 GW = 2000 MW = 1 nuclear power station
2000/0.1 = 20000 (twenty thousand) micro hydro = 1 nuclear power station
> I'd rather see the occasional weir than massive nuclear power plants.
100 KW = 0.1 MW = 1 micro hydro (this one)
2 GW = 2000 MW = 1 nuclear power station
2000/0.1 = 20000 (twenty thousand) micro hydro = 1 nuclear power station
In reply to timjones:
My point was that this will be visible to people in the Cwm, not just from the road.
> Why should CROW land be subjected to extra planning constraints?
My point was that this will be visible to people in the Cwm, not just from the road.
In reply to Howard J:
I suspect that soon after the work is completed it will be pretty much invisible to anyone that isn't stood right on top of it.
> My point was that this will be visible to people in the Cwm, not just from the road.
I suspect that soon after the work is completed it will be pretty much invisible to anyone that isn't stood right on top of it.
In reply to mbh:
There's a green painted hydro pipe of similar dimensions I've drive past in the Torridons many times and I like the look of it, it's certainly less ugly and more intriguing than the road it runs beside.
Perhaps they should be brave and build it from wood - here's someone else's photo of a large bore hydro pipe made from Redwoods that we saw in Oregon - http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/1_travel_images_3/washington/2007/octobe...
> Another 100 kW scheme has rebooted a scheme put in the 20s to provide compressed air for a quarry. Back then they didn't bother with niceties like burying the water pipes, so that the current scheme uses the same 700 mm cast iron pipe that the originals did. The whole thing, power house, moss covered pipe and weir a few 100 m away look quite magical.
There's a green painted hydro pipe of similar dimensions I've drive past in the Torridons many times and I like the look of it, it's certainly less ugly and more intriguing than the road it runs beside.
Perhaps they should be brave and build it from wood - here's someone else's photo of a large bore hydro pipe made from Redwoods that we saw in Oregon - http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/1_travel_images_3/washington/2007/octobe...
In reply to UKC News:
Good idea, we'll need a lot more renewables to stave off climate change. Sympathetically designed, once the building has finished sounds like there will be little to see.
Paul
Good idea, we'll need a lot more renewables to stave off climate change. Sympathetically designed, once the building has finished sounds like there will be little to see.
Paul
In reply to Offwidth:
Ooh, think of the backlash there would be if a new notice board was put up
> I hope they put an information board up explaing the benefits and maybe how micro-hydro power in under-utilised resource in the UK.
Ooh, think of the backlash there would be if a new notice board was put up
In reply to jkarran:
Of course I didn't. I gave my opinion based purely on conjecture and nimbyism... :p
Of course I didn't. I gave my opinion based purely on conjecture and nimbyism... :p
In reply to UKC News:
Great to see the majority of UKC backing this, I sighed after reading the article
Great to see the majority of UKC backing this, I sighed after reading the article
In reply to UKC News:
Good work.....sounds like just the sort of Micro projects the whole country needs.
Good work.....sounds like just the sort of Micro projects the whole country needs.
In reply to UKC News:
I'm a hydrologist involved in developing a number of hydro schemes just like this, mainly in Scotland. From what I can see, this scheme is being developed quite sensitivly, using a buried penstock and stone-clad powerhouse. I don't know who the investors are, but hopefully it is communty based, rather than just making the rich richer. It may be small, but if all rural communities were able to have small scale developments like this, it would go a long way towards self sufficiency.
I'll concede that I know nothing about this specific site, but I'm a big (and biased) fan of small scale renewables!
I'm a hydrologist involved in developing a number of hydro schemes just like this, mainly in Scotland. From what I can see, this scheme is being developed quite sensitivly, using a buried penstock and stone-clad powerhouse. I don't know who the investors are, but hopefully it is communty based, rather than just making the rich richer. It may be small, but if all rural communities were able to have small scale developments like this, it would go a long way towards self sufficiency.
I'll concede that I know nothing about this specific site, but I'm a big (and biased) fan of small scale renewables!
In reply to Removed User:
Have you seen the bill for clearing up after a nuclear has been decommissioned? Billions of quid. And the site is contaminated forever (well nearly).
Renewables - the way forward. Sorry if they use tried and tested techniques that have been used for centuries with no REAL issues. If we've got used to pylons and roads everywhere, then we'll get used to turbines and hydro schemes soon enough.
> 100 KW = 0.1 MW = 1 micro hydro (this one)
> 2 GW = 2000 MW = 1 nuclear power station
> 2000/0.1 = 20000 (twenty thousand) micro hydro = 1 nuclear power station
Have you seen the bill for clearing up after a nuclear has been decommissioned? Billions of quid. And the site is contaminated forever (well nearly).
Renewables - the way forward. Sorry if they use tried and tested techniques that have been used for centuries with no REAL issues. If we've got used to pylons and roads everywhere, then we'll get used to turbines and hydro schemes soon enough.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Agreed, in no way is this a pristine environment. People just make themselves look silly and undermine everything else they have to say when they throw that word around.
Agreed, in no way is this a pristine environment. People just make themselves look silly and undermine everything else they have to say when they throw that word around.
In reply to UKC News:
I feel proud that the UKC reaction has been so intelligent and positive. I was steeling myself for a load of the vitriol usually directed at wind-farm applications.
The argument that the scheme has an insignificantly small generating capacity is insidious - according to this kind of thinking, all the small changes that individuals can make in their energy consumption (and in everything else in life) are worthless, whereas when taken collectively, these changes are extremely significant.
I feel proud that the UKC reaction has been so intelligent and positive. I was steeling myself for a load of the vitriol usually directed at wind-farm applications.
The argument that the scheme has an insignificantly small generating capacity is insidious - according to this kind of thinking, all the small changes that individuals can make in their energy consumption (and in everything else in life) are worthless, whereas when taken collectively, these changes are extremely significant.
In reply to David Barratt:
Who is the investor? It was decided in 2012 to design and build the micro hydro scheme as a way of expanding the Jones’ farming business and secure an alternative means of income and electricity for future generations.
Is it community based? Well document 13091001DAS-V2 states in the Economic section;
Economic impact will be short term employment of local building contractors for the construction and local building material suppliers.
> I don't know who the investors are, but hopefully it is communty based, rather than just making the rich richer.
Who is the investor? It was decided in 2012 to design and build the micro hydro scheme as a way of expanding the Jones’ farming business and secure an alternative means of income and electricity for future generations.
Is it community based? Well document 13091001DAS-V2 states in the Economic section;
Economic impact will be short term employment of local building contractors for the construction and local building material suppliers.
Post edited at 15:43
In reply to timjones:
It's hard enough finding the outlying boulders below Cwm Glas Bach with the Bowldro Gogledd guide!
> I suspect that soon after the work is completed it will be pretty much invisible to anyone that isn't stood right on top of it.
It's hard enough finding the outlying boulders below Cwm Glas Bach with the Bowldro Gogledd guide!
In reply to USBRIT:
They'll probably come up with some way of charging Ynys for its water supply ;-(
I see a range war looming
> Not too bad now the CC hut will now have its own swimming pool ..
They'll probably come up with some way of charging Ynys for its water supply ;-(
I see a range war looming
Post edited at 16:02
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
Sounds great then. Although I wonder how much of the money the jones' were able to invest them selfs and how much a third party has invested... Based on a 100kW scheme at 40% load factor, with some allowance for downtime, the scheme would generate around 332,880MWh's per year. At 24.71p/Kwh, that's over £82k in income each year. and assuming a payback period of between 5 and 10 years... that's an investment of between £410,000 and £820,000. In my experience, the land owner rarely fronts the money and only gets some of that income. You could argue it's good for both parties, but I like to see the money coming from and going to locals, that may be the case. If so, great. In Scotland, the other issue is that the land is owned by big estates and so there's no such thing as a community because it's so remote, but that's a whole other debate!
Sounds great then. Although I wonder how much of the money the jones' were able to invest them selfs and how much a third party has invested... Based on a 100kW scheme at 40% load factor, with some allowance for downtime, the scheme would generate around 332,880MWh's per year. At 24.71p/Kwh, that's over £82k in income each year. and assuming a payback period of between 5 and 10 years... that's an investment of between £410,000 and £820,000. In my experience, the land owner rarely fronts the money and only gets some of that income. You could argue it's good for both parties, but I like to see the money coming from and going to locals, that may be the case. If so, great. In Scotland, the other issue is that the land is owned by big estates and so there's no such thing as a community because it's so remote, but that's a whole other debate!
In reply to David Barratt: I did wonder about this investment.
Greenearth are Wyn's agent and so would seem to be providing services to this project and they show the following (obviously a rough guide)
http://www.greenearthhydro.co.uk/fit.html
Greenearth are Wyn's agent and so would seem to be providing services to this project and they show the following (obviously a rough guide)
http://www.greenearthhydro.co.uk/fit.html
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
payback of 2.6 years would be very nice! I guess it assumes not too much infrastructural cost i.e. access road, grid connection. All my sites have very significant infrastructural costs. I think up to around 5 years is good, 10 would be bad but some go for that.
payback of 2.6 years would be very nice! I guess it assumes not too much infrastructural cost i.e. access road, grid connection. All my sites have very significant infrastructural costs. I think up to around 5 years is good, 10 would be bad but some go for that.
In reply to David Barratt:
The claimed AEP is 277 MWh, so a load factor of about 30%.
If you look at the planning documents
http://tinyurl.com/p6kd8dn
they seem to need to build a power house on the site of an existing ruined building, build a weir about 2 m x 7 m, and bury the penstock, tail race and power cable for a short distance (a few (10s of ?) metres to a new pole mounted transformer on an existing pole. I may have missed it, but I can't see mention of an access road being built. However, they will use a helicopter to bring materials to the weir site.
What sort of ball park does that put the costs into, do you think?
The claimed AEP is 277 MWh, so a load factor of about 30%.
If you look at the planning documents
http://tinyurl.com/p6kd8dn
they seem to need to build a power house on the site of an existing ruined building, build a weir about 2 m x 7 m, and bury the penstock, tail race and power cable for a short distance (a few (10s of ?) metres to a new pole mounted transformer on an existing pole. I may have missed it, but I can't see mention of an access road being built. However, they will use a helicopter to bring materials to the weir site.
What sort of ball park does that put the costs into, do you think?
In reply to mbh:
I may have missed it, but I can't see mention of an access road being built. However, they will use a helicopter to bring materials to the weir site.
There's already a track insitu.
I may have missed it, but I can't see mention of an access road being built. However, they will use a helicopter to bring materials to the weir site.
There's already a track insitu.
In reply to Little B:
I think I gave it a quick glance before sticking at the bottom of the pile of bills and junk mail on the corner of the living room table.
Without dragging this thread off on a pro/anti nuclear power tangent I was illustrating the point that in the grand scheme of things one micro hydro scheme is a drop in the ocean and that even a substantial expansion of these sorts of schemes is unlikley to make much of a dent in our useage of electricity. I'm ambivalent about this particular scheme (I live in Scotland) but generally in favour of small local generators with some reservations surrounding the cost of the power they produce. On the other hand I am under no illusions about what effect they have on the grand scheme of things.
> Have you seen the bill for clearing up after a nuclear has been decommissioned? Billions of quid. And the site is contaminated forever (well nearly).
I think I gave it a quick glance before sticking at the bottom of the pile of bills and junk mail on the corner of the living room table.
Without dragging this thread off on a pro/anti nuclear power tangent I was illustrating the point that in the grand scheme of things one micro hydro scheme is a drop in the ocean and that even a substantial expansion of these sorts of schemes is unlikley to make much of a dent in our useage of electricity. I'm ambivalent about this particular scheme (I live in Scotland) but generally in favour of small local generators with some reservations surrounding the cost of the power they produce. On the other hand I am under no illusions about what effect they have on the grand scheme of things.
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
Many small schemes like this will never be economic due to the "digression" mechanism that the Treasury has imposed on FIT income see http://tinyurl.com/kxud49w
I am currently involved in developing a very similar community based 450 Kw project situated on Ben Ledi north of Callander http://tinyurl.com/mkk2opr
Unless this developer has access to private capital the Banks will be very wary of funding this size of scheme until the current 80+ Mw of schemes pre-accedited for FIT have been constructed.
Many small schemes like this will never be economic due to the "digression" mechanism that the Treasury has imposed on FIT income see http://tinyurl.com/kxud49w
I am currently involved in developing a very similar community based 450 Kw project situated on Ben Ledi north of Callander http://tinyurl.com/mkk2opr
Unless this developer has access to private capital the Banks will be very wary of funding this size of scheme until the current 80+ Mw of schemes pre-accedited for FIT have been constructed.
In reply to Conor1:
Agreed Conor1! However its good to see the balance of favour is supporting the project here .
Agreed Conor1! However its good to see the balance of favour is supporting the project here .
In reply to mbh: A point aside but some of the stone for footpaths in Snowdonia is moved using helecopters so that would suggest the cost is not that great ;0)
In reply to muppetfilter:
Don't know if it's still the case but it used to be that the stone moving was done as a means of pilot training.
It's actually quite a quick way though I don't think they are up to this speed - youtube.com/watch?v=08K_aEajzNA&
Don't know if it's still the case but it used to be that the stone moving was done as a means of pilot training.
It's actually quite a quick way though I don't think they are up to this speed - youtube.com/watch?v=08K_aEajzNA&
In reply to mbh:
hard to say, the turbine and generator will be coming in at £100k maybe, then I'd guestimate £100/meter for the penstock, + grid connection, if roads are existing then that'll save a bundle, +consultancy services (£20-30k?)... I'd throw a guess of £300k. Still, hard to find that kind of money without a 3rd party.
hard to say, the turbine and generator will be coming in at £100k maybe, then I'd guestimate £100/meter for the penstock, + grid connection, if roads are existing then that'll save a bundle, +consultancy services (£20-30k?)... I'd throw a guess of £300k. Still, hard to find that kind of money without a 3rd party.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
With the greatest respect that's utter bo**ocks, the only evidence I have is the Pilots I talked to that used to stay in the Tyn-y-coed that used to fly the Helicopter used to drop stone when I worked there. It is very difficult flying and not "training" in any way.
With the greatest respect that's utter bo**ocks, the only evidence I have is the Pilots I talked to that used to stay in the Tyn-y-coed that used to fly the Helicopter used to drop stone when I worked there. It is very difficult flying and not "training" in any way.
Post edited at 21:57
In reply to webding:
There are at least two (probably three) buildings in the immediate vicinity that have mains electricity, so just tap into whatever supplies them. Underground cables I think.
There are at least two (probably three) buildings in the immediate vicinity that have mains electricity, so just tap into whatever supplies them. Underground cables I think.
In reply to MischaHY:
How many "occasional weirs" replace one nuke plant? We'd need 24,000 of the "occasional weirs" described to equal one (Hinckley) nuke plant.
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I'd rather see the occasional weir than massive nuclear power plants.
>
> I'd rather see the occasional weir than massive nuclear power plants.
How many "occasional weirs" replace one nuke plant? We'd need 24,000 of the "occasional weirs" described to equal one (Hinckley) nuke plant.
In reply to muppetfilter:
Fair enough, I was told it by a National Park warden. I think he meant top-up training rather than "This is a helicopter, we'll nip over to Snowdon to shift some rocks" type training.
Fair enough, I was told it by a National Park warden. I think he meant top-up training rather than "This is a helicopter, we'll nip over to Snowdon to shift some rocks" type training.
In reply to webding:
yaah they are putting in 100 pylons straight down the pass to distribute power to Manchester.. they reckon this pool and weir can provide electricity for half of manchester...
> How are they going to move the electricity away from the generators.
> If that means pylons down the Pass I'm against the scheme. If it doesn't I am for it.
yaah they are putting in 100 pylons straight down the pass to distribute power to Manchester.. they reckon this pool and weir can provide electricity for half of manchester...
In reply to stroppygob:
Increasingly in this country we've moved away from local power generation to large centralised production. Whilst undoubtedly more efficient it also makes the whole system more vulnerable. Shutting down one plant whether deliberate or accidental takes a significant proportion of the generating capacity out of the system.
Pretty well every town used to have its own power generation. This had its own problems in that most of the distribution systems were incompatible but the introduction of the national grid in the 1930s eventually solved those. With the rise of NIMBYism it's unlikely that we'll move back to medium scale local power production in any significant way.
Schemes like the Nant Peris one are quick to install, probably two or three months from first cut to up and running. With a Nuclear power station you'd still be listening to Colonel Cholmondley-Cholmondley Pettigrew droning on about why it shouldn't be built within 100 leagues of his estate. I don't know how long a Gas fired power station takes to construct and bring on-line - a couple of years?
I find it amusing that people complain about such schemes (wind farms and hydro) but aren't prepared to switch off their power hungry devices. There's a disconnect between the realities of power production and consumption.
To IainRUK: I thought you and Sarah lived in Nant? Did you get any planning application notice or know about the proposal?
Increasingly in this country we've moved away from local power generation to large centralised production. Whilst undoubtedly more efficient it also makes the whole system more vulnerable. Shutting down one plant whether deliberate or accidental takes a significant proportion of the generating capacity out of the system.
Pretty well every town used to have its own power generation. This had its own problems in that most of the distribution systems were incompatible but the introduction of the national grid in the 1930s eventually solved those. With the rise of NIMBYism it's unlikely that we'll move back to medium scale local power production in any significant way.
Schemes like the Nant Peris one are quick to install, probably two or three months from first cut to up and running. With a Nuclear power station you'd still be listening to Colonel Cholmondley-Cholmondley Pettigrew droning on about why it shouldn't be built within 100 leagues of his estate. I don't know how long a Gas fired power station takes to construct and bring on-line - a couple of years?
I find it amusing that people complain about such schemes (wind farms and hydro) but aren't prepared to switch off their power hungry devices. There's a disconnect between the realities of power production and consumption.
To IainRUK: I thought you and Sarah lived in Nant? Did you get any planning application notice or know about the proposal?
In reply to Bob:
The curiousity for me is one of 'national relevance' rather than 'local suitability'. If someone living in a hilly, low poulation density area want do something like this, then fine - good luck to them.
But let's not pretend that this is some sort of blueprint for energy generation for the other 90+% of the population of the UK. It's completely irrelevant to most of the population living in high density lowland areas. By all means propose and support renewable energy generation for them, but don't pretend it's going to bear any resemblance to what we are seeing in the Llanberis valley. I'd suggest that the recent news that some company is not expanding the off-shore windfarm down in the Thames estuary due legal blocks from the RSPB is a more relevant starting point for a discussion about the nation's energy policies.
The curiousity for me is one of 'national relevance' rather than 'local suitability'. If someone living in a hilly, low poulation density area want do something like this, then fine - good luck to them.
But let's not pretend that this is some sort of blueprint for energy generation for the other 90+% of the population of the UK. It's completely irrelevant to most of the population living in high density lowland areas. By all means propose and support renewable energy generation for them, but don't pretend it's going to bear any resemblance to what we are seeing in the Llanberis valley. I'd suggest that the recent news that some company is not expanding the off-shore windfarm down in the Thames estuary due legal blocks from the RSPB is a more relevant starting point for a discussion about the nation's energy policies.
In reply to Marek:
Surely it could be part of the blueprint? I don't think Bob is saying we should be running the grid off small scale hydro but that appropriate energy generation for the location (inc power stations for areas of large population densities but also waste to energy in urban areas, domestic solar etc) and for everyone to reduce their power usage so in the ututre, we require fewer large scale fossil fuel/nuclear plants.
Which seems like a good idea?
Surely it could be part of the blueprint? I don't think Bob is saying we should be running the grid off small scale hydro but that appropriate energy generation for the location (inc power stations for areas of large population densities but also waste to energy in urban areas, domestic solar etc) and for everyone to reduce their power usage so in the ututre, we require fewer large scale fossil fuel/nuclear plants.
Which seems like a good idea?
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
It will in fact benefit everyone who visits Snowdonia, the money generated from the Hafod y Llan hydro is to be invested in conservation.
There is also an existing hydro on the SW side of Snowdon, near Pont Cae Gors which is bigger than the one at Hafod Y Llan, but no-one seemed to notice - I challenge you to go and find it! There are also plans for many more hydros all over Snowdonia - not just in the Llanberis Pass.
(Also, for the record the National Trust IS the landowner at Hafod y Llan.)
> Oh, well, why don't we put one in every river in the pass then. In fact, lets have one on every flank of Snowdon - there's already one at Hafod Y llan don't you know. It doesn't benefit anyone apart from the land owner and the NT who use this energy to power their properties.
It will in fact benefit everyone who visits Snowdonia, the money generated from the Hafod y Llan hydro is to be invested in conservation.
There is also an existing hydro on the SW side of Snowdon, near Pont Cae Gors which is bigger than the one at Hafod Y Llan, but no-one seemed to notice - I challenge you to go and find it! There are also plans for many more hydros all over Snowdonia - not just in the Llanberis Pass.
(Also, for the record the National Trust IS the landowner at Hafod y Llan.)
In reply to Bob:
Sarah lives in Llanberis.. I live in Germany and am moving to the US..
But no, some of the people who also originally tweeted pics of the stakes being used for planning live in Nant (RAW adventures) and they didn't know what the stakes were for, so it sounds like there was no planning notice. They do work away a lot so its possible they missed it I guess.
Sarah lives in Llanberis.. I live in Germany and am moving to the US..
But no, some of the people who also originally tweeted pics of the stakes being used for planning live in Nant (RAW adventures) and they didn't know what the stakes were for, so it sounds like there was no planning notice. They do work away a lot so its possible they missed it I guess.
In reply to Marek:
Agree.. but local power production will help reduce the need for a net work of pylons, plus power is lost transferring it long distances.
> The curiousity for me is one of 'national relevance' rather than 'local suitability'. If someone living in a hilly, low poulation density area want do something like this, then fine - good luck to them.
> But let's not pretend that this is some sort of blueprint for energy generation for the other 90+% of the population of the UK. It's completely irrelevant to most of the population living in high density lowland areas. By all means propose and support renewable energy generation for them, but don't pretend it's going to bear any resemblance to what we are seeing in the Llanberis valley. I'd suggest that the recent news that some company is not expanding the off-shore windfarm down in the Thames estuary due legal blocks from the RSPB is a more relevant starting point for a discussion about the nation's energy policies.
Agree.. but local power production will help reduce the need for a net work of pylons, plus power is lost transferring it long distances.
In reply to Marek:
Oh, indeed. It's a drop in the ocean but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread: an ocean is composed of many drops.
Schemes like this could be installed in most valleys in most national parks without much environmental impact or disturbing our aesthetic appreciation of the areas. If the dam and generator building were installed in woodland then non-one would know they were there. There was such a scheme on a beck near the family farm, supplied power to three farms I think but it stopped working in the 1950s, I only remember the building and turbine, my dad could remember it working.
It used to be the case that what was North West Water (now United Utilities) would charge for "water extraction" for such power schemes which put the kibosh on them financially.
There's a beck in the valley beneath us but the gradient is too gentle to create the head needed, or rather you'd have to dig in a couple of miles of pipe to do so which would make the cost somewhat prohibitive.
It's (small hydro schemes) not the answer to energy security but it is part of it.
Oh, indeed. It's a drop in the ocean but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread: an ocean is composed of many drops.
Schemes like this could be installed in most valleys in most national parks without much environmental impact or disturbing our aesthetic appreciation of the areas. If the dam and generator building were installed in woodland then non-one would know they were there. There was such a scheme on a beck near the family farm, supplied power to three farms I think but it stopped working in the 1950s, I only remember the building and turbine, my dad could remember it working.
It used to be the case that what was North West Water (now United Utilities) would charge for "water extraction" for such power schemes which put the kibosh on them financially.
There's a beck in the valley beneath us but the gradient is too gentle to create the head needed, or rather you'd have to dig in a couple of miles of pipe to do so which would make the cost somewhat prohibitive.
It's (small hydro schemes) not the answer to energy security but it is part of it.
In reply to stroppygob:
That's irrelevant, and you know it. Obviously no-one is suggesting that we replace nuclear power purely with weirs. We use a wide range of all the options available too us to spread the production of electricity across the whole country, neatly localising energy production in the process which massively lowers the prospect of massive power cuts. Hydro-electric plants in the sea and in mountains, wind farms in the right places, solar panels on as many houses as possible... The possibilities and potential are immense, if, and only if, people can put aside this negative view of each little project being 'worthless'.
As said before, I'd much rather see small green energy projects popping up all over the place than rely on something like nuclear power.
That's irrelevant, and you know it. Obviously no-one is suggesting that we replace nuclear power purely with weirs. We use a wide range of all the options available too us to spread the production of electricity across the whole country, neatly localising energy production in the process which massively lowers the prospect of massive power cuts. Hydro-electric plants in the sea and in mountains, wind farms in the right places, solar panels on as many houses as possible... The possibilities and potential are immense, if, and only if, people can put aside this negative view of each little project being 'worthless'.
As said before, I'd much rather see small green energy projects popping up all over the place than rely on something like nuclear power.
The weir doesn't particularly bother me, what does bother me is when things like this get railroaded through and the general public are completely unaware of the intention until it's too late and debate is closed.
Pass lovers, local residents etc should be aware of and involved in the whole process for any developments in an area of outstanding natural beauty, surely?
Pass lovers, local residents etc should be aware of and involved in the whole process for any developments in an area of outstanding natural beauty, surely?
In reply to blake:
Local residents would almost certainly have had the opportunity to "be aware ” if they take any notice of local planning applications. ”Pass lovers" are more tricky but surely the residents are the ones that really matter?
> The weir doesn't particularly bother me, what does bother me is when things like this get railroaded through and the general public are completely unaware of the intention until it's too late and debate is closed.
> Pass lovers, local residents etc should be aware of and involved in the whole process for any developments in an area of outstanding natural beauty, surely?
Local residents would almost certainly have had the opportunity to "be aware ” if they take any notice of local planning applications. ”Pass lovers" are more tricky but surely the residents are the ones that really matter?
In reply to galpinos:
Like I said - fine idea, but in the grand scheme of things, its just a distraction from the real problem. A quick google suggests UK electricity supply is of the order of 400 TW. So a 10,000 schemes like this one in Llanberis would only supply about <<1% of the uk energy needs. are there enough appropriate locations for more than that? i'm not sure.
Like I said - fine idea, but in the grand scheme of things, its just a distraction from the real problem. A quick google suggests UK electricity supply is of the order of 400 TW. So a 10,000 schemes like this one in Llanberis would only supply about <<1% of the uk energy needs. are there enough appropriate locations for more than that? i'm not sure.
Post edited at 12:15
In reply to Marek:
it's more like 45 GW, on average, and this scheme will producer about 30 kW, on average, so you would need 10-15,000 of these to provide 1% of our electricity needs, never mind our energy needs.
The average altitude in the UK is 150 m, the area is 25 million hectare and the average annual rainfall is about 1150 mm. If all that rain is captured by a hydro device as it trickled down towards sea level, it would generate about 100 TWh annually, or about 25 % of our annual electricity demand. To provide 1% of our electricity needs, hydro schemes need to capture 4% of the available resource.
Renewable energy schemes, bny their very nature need to be dispersed and spread over a large area. each one, alone won't solve our energy problems, but that does not make this scheme, in Llanberis, a bad idea.
At £300 per kW installed, if that is what it turns out to be, it compares favourably with other small renewables schemes, and anyway it ought also to be judged on the carbon intensity of what it produces and its ratio of energy yield to energy input. On both scores, I'll wager it will look good.
it's more like 45 GW, on average, and this scheme will producer about 30 kW, on average, so you would need 10-15,000 of these to provide 1% of our electricity needs, never mind our energy needs.
The average altitude in the UK is 150 m, the area is 25 million hectare and the average annual rainfall is about 1150 mm. If all that rain is captured by a hydro device as it trickled down towards sea level, it would generate about 100 TWh annually, or about 25 % of our annual electricity demand. To provide 1% of our electricity needs, hydro schemes need to capture 4% of the available resource.
Renewable energy schemes, bny their very nature need to be dispersed and spread over a large area. each one, alone won't solve our energy problems, but that does not make this scheme, in Llanberis, a bad idea.
At £300 per kW installed, if that is what it turns out to be, it compares favourably with other small renewables schemes, and anyway it ought also to be judged on the carbon intensity of what it produces and its ratio of energy yield to energy input. On both scores, I'll wager it will look good.
In reply to mbh:
Without checking you maths here - what efficiency are you assuming? I'm guessing that only a very small proportion of the rain falling on the land end up in an 'energy extraction suitable' stream. Most will end up in flat slow rivers which can't be used without building dams and flooding vast areas.
> (In reply to Marek)
>
> The average altitude in the UK is 150 m, the area is 25 million hectare and the average annual rainfall is about 1150 mm. If all that rain is captured by a hydro device as it trickled down towards sea level, it would generate about 100 TWh annually, or about 25 % of our annual electricity demand.
>
> The average altitude in the UK is 150 m, the area is 25 million hectare and the average annual rainfall is about 1150 mm. If all that rain is captured by a hydro device as it trickled down towards sea level, it would generate about 100 TWh annually, or about 25 % of our annual electricity demand.
Without checking you maths here - what efficiency are you assuming? I'm guessing that only a very small proportion of the rain falling on the land end up in an 'energy extraction suitable' stream. Most will end up in flat slow rivers which can't be used without building dams and flooding vast areas.
In reply to Marek:
Maybe, but equally well many rivers could drive more than one turbine along their course?
> Without checking you maths here - what efficiency are you assuming? I'm guessing that only a very small proportion of the rain falling on the land end up in an 'energy extraction suitable' stream. Most will end up in flat slow rivers which can't be used without building dams and flooding vast areas.
Maybe, but equally well many rivers could drive more than one turbine along their course?
In reply to Marek:
100% ! Real schemes have efficiencies around 70%, I think.
It's just to give an idea of the upper limit of the available resource. As you suggest, actually getting at much of it might be tricky.
100% ! Real schemes have efficiencies around 70%, I think.
It's just to give an idea of the upper limit of the available resource. As you suggest, actually getting at much of it might be tricky.
In reply to Bob:
Since that has come up twice now, I would like to correct it. Yes, I know it's not meant literally, but still.
Let us assume that a drop is one milliliter. The oceans of the world contain of order 1 billion cubic km of water, so one drop is one part in 100000000000000000000000 of the ocean.
The proposed development is about 400MW hours/year. National demand is of order 300TWh/yr. So the development is one part in 1000000.
A million is still a huge number but using a million million million million as an analogy is poor form. For superior analogies may I suggest:
A single character in a hefty book
A single pixel on your computer monitor
A single pebble in a ton of gravel
Jumping over a narrow ditch at the start of a 5 day hike
Yours sincerely
A pedantic physicist
> Oh, indeed. It's a drop in the ocean but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread: an ocean is composed of many drops.
Since that has come up twice now, I would like to correct it. Yes, I know it's not meant literally, but still.
Let us assume that a drop is one milliliter. The oceans of the world contain of order 1 billion cubic km of water, so one drop is one part in 100000000000000000000000 of the ocean.
The proposed development is about 400MW hours/year. National demand is of order 300TWh/yr. So the development is one part in 1000000.
A million is still a huge number but using a million million million million as an analogy is poor form. For superior analogies may I suggest:
A single character in a hefty book
A single pixel on your computer monitor
A single pebble in a ton of gravel
Jumping over a narrow ditch at the start of a 5 day hike
Yours sincerely
A pedantic physicist
In reply to Jack B:
> (In reply to Bob)
>
> A million is still a huge number but using a million million million million as an analogy is poor form. For superior analogies may I suggest:
[...]>
> A million is still a huge number but using a million million million million as an analogy is poor form. For superior analogies may I suggest:
> Jumping over a narrow ditch at the start of a 5 day hike
Only if your hike consist of continuous ditch jumping. Otherwise it's quite different, as I found out doing an MTB traverse of the hill between Strathcarron and Torridon. Bl**dy drainage ditches every few yards! Bunny hop or die.>
> Yours sincerely
> A pedantic physicist
> Yours sincerely
> A pedantic physicist
In reply to UKC News:
A scheme like this was built in Cwmorthin (Moelwynion) many years ago. Most people (climbers included) walk past without even realising that it's there
A scheme like this was built in Cwmorthin (Moelwynion) many years ago. Most people (climbers included) walk past without even realising that it's there
In reply to Bob:
Well I did say I was a physicist, and we're not exactly known for being party animals. I went up Cul More last weekend, does that count?
There was a serious point behind my post though. For a very large fraction of the population, big numbers are just 'big', they make no attempt to understand or work with them. If this development really was one quadrillionth of the national consumption, it would absolutely not be worth installing it. Knowing it is a millionth lets us make some 'back of an envelope' guesses as to how worthwhile it is. For example:
There are 60 million people in the UK, so if we wanted to use such turbines for all our energy, the cost of the turbine will be spread over about 60 people (indirectly, via feed-in tariffs, increased business costs impacting wages etc). So ten grand or so each? Spread over it's life, say, 20 years. I wouldn't be happy with adding £500pa to my bill, so that's a rough guide saying it's probably not economically viable to do so. Especially as the cost of this one is probably much less than the cost of the rest of the possibilities, that's why they're doing this one first.
The land area of the UK is 250000 square km. If we want a million such turbines, we need to average 4 per square km. That may be possible (though unpopular) in mountain areas, but patently ridiculous in the vale of York. That tells us it would be impractical to get a large part of our energy from such turbines.
This type of calculation is very easy to do. The maths is easy, finding the numbers is easy. Anyone who passed Maths GCSE should be able to do the above in 5-10 minutes tops. It would be nice if more people would do it for themselves rather than listening to whatever the media and/or people with vested interests say.
P.S: this may be coming across as anti-hydro. Actually I'm not really anti-hydro, it's certainly better in most cases than wind, because it's predictable. It is an argument that renewables aren't going to give us everything we need, and thus we should look at installing a new generation of thermal (coal, oil, gas or nuclear, preferably nuclear) power plants.
Well I did say I was a physicist, and we're not exactly known for being party animals. I went up Cul More last weekend, does that count?
There was a serious point behind my post though. For a very large fraction of the population, big numbers are just 'big', they make no attempt to understand or work with them. If this development really was one quadrillionth of the national consumption, it would absolutely not be worth installing it. Knowing it is a millionth lets us make some 'back of an envelope' guesses as to how worthwhile it is. For example:
There are 60 million people in the UK, so if we wanted to use such turbines for all our energy, the cost of the turbine will be spread over about 60 people (indirectly, via feed-in tariffs, increased business costs impacting wages etc). So ten grand or so each? Spread over it's life, say, 20 years. I wouldn't be happy with adding £500pa to my bill, so that's a rough guide saying it's probably not economically viable to do so. Especially as the cost of this one is probably much less than the cost of the rest of the possibilities, that's why they're doing this one first.
The land area of the UK is 250000 square km. If we want a million such turbines, we need to average 4 per square km. That may be possible (though unpopular) in mountain areas, but patently ridiculous in the vale of York. That tells us it would be impractical to get a large part of our energy from such turbines.
This type of calculation is very easy to do. The maths is easy, finding the numbers is easy. Anyone who passed Maths GCSE should be able to do the above in 5-10 minutes tops. It would be nice if more people would do it for themselves rather than listening to whatever the media and/or people with vested interests say.
P.S: this may be coming across as anti-hydro. Actually I'm not really anti-hydro, it's certainly better in most cases than wind, because it's predictable. It is an argument that renewables aren't going to give us everything we need, and thus we should look at installing a new generation of thermal (coal, oil, gas or nuclear, preferably nuclear) power plants.
Post edited at 14:04
In reply to UKC News:
Could you change the somewhat sensationalist/emotive title to the Article and Thread?
Hydro-electirc Plant implies a significant facility, not a small scheme like this.
I was expecting to read about a new Dinorwig!
Could you change the somewhat sensationalist/emotive title to the Article and Thread?
Hydro-electirc Plant implies a significant facility, not a small scheme like this.
I was expecting to read about a new Dinorwig!
In reply to Jack B:
Actually, no. Whether it's worthwhile is independent of the scale. The Llanberis scheme is still 'worthwhile' for Llanberis. My point was that just because it may be worthwhile for a small proportion of the population, you can't assume that it is worthwhile (or even remotely relevant) for the rest.
> (In reply to Bob)
>
[...] Knowing it is a millionth lets us make some 'back of an envelope' guesses as to how worthwhile it is. For example:>
>
Actually, no. Whether it's worthwhile is independent of the scale. The Llanberis scheme is still 'worthwhile' for Llanberis. My point was that just because it may be worthwhile for a small proportion of the population, you can't assume that it is worthwhile (or even remotely relevant) for the rest.
In reply to Jack B:
I wasn't suggesting that it would!
There was a programme presented by Brian Cox a year or so ago about Nuclear Fusion. In it he interviewed a guy who installed large wind turbine farms, who indicated what we (as a species/society) would need to do to replace Hydrocarbons as the main energy source in 25 years' time. He began with "A new nuclear power station *every* fortnight" and then went on to add several hectares of solar and wind farms per week.
Which really just goes to show how much energy we consume.
One of the ironies of energy production is that the cleanest source is nuclear which is anathema to most environmentalists. (accidents notwithstanding of course)
I wasn't suggesting that it would!
There was a programme presented by Brian Cox a year or so ago about Nuclear Fusion. In it he interviewed a guy who installed large wind turbine farms, who indicated what we (as a species/society) would need to do to replace Hydrocarbons as the main energy source in 25 years' time. He began with "A new nuclear power station *every* fortnight" and then went on to add several hectares of solar and wind farms per week.
Which really just goes to show how much energy we consume.
One of the ironies of energy production is that the cleanest source is nuclear which is anathema to most environmentalists. (accidents notwithstanding of course)
In reply to Marek:
Yes, I agree.
The criterion for Llanberis is whether the return is worth the intrusion, which it almost certainly is in this case.
For the rest of us, there is the question of whether the subsidy that makes this scheme worthwhile financially for Llanberis had better been spent on other low carbon energy schemes, or not. To answer this we get into questions of cost per tonne of carbon saved in this way or that, but also into softer issues, not so easily quantified, such as the impact on attitudes and willingness to change that such community based (even if not community owned) schemes might bring about.
Yes, I agree.
The criterion for Llanberis is whether the return is worth the intrusion, which it almost certainly is in this case.
For the rest of us, there is the question of whether the subsidy that makes this scheme worthwhile financially for Llanberis had better been spent on other low carbon energy schemes, or not. To answer this we get into questions of cost per tonne of carbon saved in this way or that, but also into softer issues, not so easily quantified, such as the impact on attitudes and willingness to change that such community based (even if not community owned) schemes might bring about.
In reply to Bob:
I think it's a general human propblem of visualising large numbers. Like the old problem of are there more molecules of water in a glass than glasses of water in the seas. Hint - the size of the glass really doesn't matter!
Decommissioning impact (cost & waste management) seems to be a bigger issue.
> (In reply to Jack B)
>
>
> Which really just goes to show how much energy we consume.
>
>
> Which really just goes to show how much energy we consume.
I think it's a general human propblem of visualising large numbers. Like the old problem of are there more molecules of water in a glass than glasses of water in the seas. Hint - the size of the glass really doesn't matter!
>
> One of the ironies of energy production is that the cleanest source is nuclear which is anathema to most environmentalists. (accidents notwithstanding of course)
> One of the ironies of energy production is that the cleanest source is nuclear which is anathema to most environmentalists. (accidents notwithstanding of course)
Decommissioning impact (cost & waste management) seems to be a bigger issue.
In reply to ChrisJD:
Also the image used is misleading:
*The proposal clearly states the weir will be in stone not concrete.
*The great big red line is irrelevant/misleading given the pipe is to be buried and the surface made good.
jk
> Could you change the somewhat sensationalist/emotive title to the Article and Thread?
Also the image used is misleading:
*The proposal clearly states the weir will be in stone not concrete.
*The great big red line is irrelevant/misleading given the pipe is to be buried and the surface made good.
jk
In reply to Bob:
It's the accidents to a lesser extent and to a far greater extent the ridiculous 'head in the sand' attitude to decommissioning and disposal than rankles.
jk
> One of the ironies of energy production is that the cleanest source is nuclear which is anathema to most environmentalists. (accidents notwithstanding of course)
It's the accidents to a lesser extent and to a far greater extent the ridiculous 'head in the sand' attitude to decommissioning and disposal than rankles.
jk
In reply to MischaHY:
Who said;
So you'd ratehr uin teh whole country side with banks of inefficient wind turbines, weirs, solar panels, etc etc in the massive volume that would be needed, than have small areas of the country hosting conventional power plants.
Sounds daft to me. Eco-fascism biting its own tail.
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> That's irrelevant, and you know it. Obviously no-one is suggesting that we replace nuclear power purely with weirs.
>
> That's irrelevant, and you know it. Obviously no-one is suggesting that we replace nuclear power purely with weirs.
Who said;
> I'd rather see the occasional weir than massive nuclear power plants
?> As said before, I'd much rather see small green energy projects popping up all over the place than rely on something like nuclear power.
So you'd ratehr uin teh whole country side with banks of inefficient wind turbines, weirs, solar panels, etc etc in the massive volume that would be needed, than have small areas of the country hosting conventional power plants.
Sounds daft to me. Eco-fascism biting its own tail.
In reply to David Barratt:
Oh I don't know. That rain is falling from 2km to 7km up. Most hydro only extracts potential energy from the last 5 - 200m of that drop...
> inefficient? Hydro power is far from inefficient.
Oh I don't know. That rain is falling from 2km to 7km up. Most hydro only extracts potential energy from the last 5 - 200m of that drop...
In reply to wintertree:
haha, well think of it as fluvial power, not pluvial power. I think some people like to generalise renewables as inefficient without really knowing very much on the subject at all!
haha, well think of it as fluvial power, not pluvial power. I think some people like to generalise renewables as inefficient without really knowing very much on the subject at all!
In reply to David Barratt:
I'd be interested if Stroppygob can actually give any evidence for his assertion - as on many things his line seems to be more like a Telegraph editorial on a bad day than an actual argument! So come one Stroppy - convince me. I'm quite neutral on the issue so far.
I'd be interested if Stroppygob can actually give any evidence for his assertion - as on many things his line seems to be more like a Telegraph editorial on a bad day than an actual argument! So come one Stroppy - convince me. I'm quite neutral on the issue so far.
In reply to TobyA:
Well short of going through the software data at work, check out this for facts rather than assertion.
http://www.british-hydro.org/hydro_facts.html
Key points to note, hydropower efficiency is around 90%, represents 90% of renewable generation in the world, and 17% of total production.
Well short of going through the software data at work, check out this for facts rather than assertion.
http://www.british-hydro.org/hydro_facts.html
Key points to note, hydropower efficiency is around 90%, represents 90% of renewable generation in the world, and 17% of total production.
In reply to David Barratt:
Is it really that high, taking int account hydraulic and generator losses? I thought 70% overall, averaged over all flows, was nearer the mark, but I might be wrong.
> Key points to note, hydropower efficiency is around 90%
Is it really that high, taking int account hydraulic and generator losses? I thought 70% overall, averaged over all flows, was nearer the mark, but I might be wrong.
In reply to mbh:
The turbines etc. are very efficient. head loss in the penstock is around 5%. The biggest loss from potential energy available is not due to the technology but the environmental flow restrictions. These drop the theoretical production to around 40%, but that is on run-of-river schemes is the UK (or at least Scotland). From that 40% of flow available, the technology is very efficient.
The turbines etc. are very efficient. head loss in the penstock is around 5%. The biggest loss from potential energy available is not due to the technology but the environmental flow restrictions. These drop the theoretical production to around 40%, but that is on run-of-river schemes is the UK (or at least Scotland). From that 40% of flow available, the technology is very efficient.
In reply to stroppygob:
I think you are missing the point. They aren't their to meet huge demand, just local demand, reducing the need for pylons. Its one drop but they just provide power locally.
I know a few in Snowdonia, you don't they are there. This is a huge none issue. Compared to sheep grazing, quarrying, forestry, this is nothing and not noticeable.
I think you are missing the point. They aren't their to meet huge demand, just local demand, reducing the need for pylons. Its one drop but they just provide power locally.
I know a few in Snowdonia, you don't they are there. This is a huge none issue. Compared to sheep grazing, quarrying, forestry, this is nothing and not noticeable.
In reply to UKC News:
The National Trust have planning permission to install a small hydro plant in Stickle Ghyll, should happen this year.
techy stuff here
http://www.ellergreen.com/hydro/portfolio-item/stickle-gill-langdale
the planning application details are on Lake District National Park website
Application Reference: 7/2013/5515
Proposal: Installation of a small hydro scheme. Comprises a small stone faced intake weir with associated pipeline down to a new powerhouse building near to the Stickle Barn.
there are plans to feed directly to the local community as well as the grid
The National Trust have planning permission to install a small hydro plant in Stickle Ghyll, should happen this year.
techy stuff here
http://www.ellergreen.com/hydro/portfolio-item/stickle-gill-langdale
the planning application details are on Lake District National Park website
Application Reference: 7/2013/5515
Proposal: Installation of a small hydro scheme. Comprises a small stone faced intake weir with associated pipeline down to a new powerhouse building near to the Stickle Barn.
there are plans to feed directly to the local community as well as the grid
In reply to John Kelly:
Agree with someone else, the word 'plant' is a tad-misleading.
Same as 'built' is implies much more of a built structure. Once the ground has recovered you'll barely notice this thing.
TBH I can't see how these are bad things, they just seem great options for green energy on a local scale.
Lots of these rivers have had small dams in the past anyway, just to provide a regular drinking supply so its hardly anything new.
Agree with someone else, the word 'plant' is a tad-misleading.
Same as 'built' is implies much more of a built structure. Once the ground has recovered you'll barely notice this thing.
TBH I can't see how these are bad things, they just seem great options for green energy on a local scale.
Lots of these rivers have had small dams in the past anyway, just to provide a regular drinking supply so its hardly anything new.
In reply to IainRUK:
Hi Ian
Take your point however I think 'plant' covers the generator side of things which in this case will be a small building pretty much hidden from view behind the New dungeon ghyll hotel
The dam/weir will be just upstream from the bridge (about 1/4 of way up the ghyll) - the head is 77m
There is a history of hydro and water abstraction in the ghyll
in my time the NDG ran off a generator - you can still see the shed and pipes if you cross the beck as for white ghyll
for the record i work for the NT but i am also personally keen on this scheme - local, sustainable, very little if any collateral - whats not too like
Hi Ian
Take your point however I think 'plant' covers the generator side of things which in this case will be a small building pretty much hidden from view behind the New dungeon ghyll hotel
The dam/weir will be just upstream from the bridge (about 1/4 of way up the ghyll) - the head is 77m
There is a history of hydro and water abstraction in the ghyll
in my time the NDG ran off a generator - you can still see the shed and pipes if you cross the beck as for white ghyll
for the record i work for the NT but i am also personally keen on this scheme - local, sustainable, very little if any collateral - whats not too like
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...