Micro Hydro Scheme

[1978 14]

An interesting diversion onto pumped storage hydro electric power which is unlikely to work in Sheffield as two lakes are needed, at the top and bottom of the system. Ben Cruachan is another example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruachan_Power_Station

 

However, it could work in the Derwent Valley where there are three reservoirs in the complex. (Adding in downstream Carsington, which is a pumped rather than collection reservoir, there are four.)

 

Last September they were constructing a small hydro-electric plant (not pumped as far as I could tell) taking water from the Howden Reservoir as it falls into the Derwent Reservoir. It should be active by September 2016. It will primarily provide power for the reservoir equipment but the surplus will go to the grid. There's more about the potential here; http://www.british-hydro.org/uploads/11102008114256AM.pdf

 

Separately, the Derwent Hydro website is very helpful regarding the generation of hydro-electricity, see; http://www.derwent-hydro.co.uk/our_sites/index.html

 

It all comes down to costs. The quantity of electricity generated is relatively low to provide an adequate pay back for most proposed schemes. Then it comes down to subsidies and grants if that's how we want to utilise the potential.

 

It may seem to be a no brainer. We get more rain in winter and the highest levels of water coincide with when we most need electricity. It's available all day, every day, hot or cold, windy or not, subject only to river and dam capacity. However, those economics can decide many a scheme's success or failure.

[petemcewan 27]

"Sheffield Renewables is a community and a social enterprise that develops, funds, builds, owns and operates renewable energy schemes."

 

Were do you get the idea that I said pumped storage generates more power than it uses. I never suggested such a thing. Pumped storage is just one example of hydro electricity.

And by the way there breakthroughs in the science of electrical engineering electromagnetics that increase the efficiency of :motors, generators and alternators. Such apparatus are approaching 100%. The Japanese manufacturer of the Minato Motor claims an efficiency of 320 %. Utilising dual magnetic technology, the efficiency of electrical machines is increasing to very high levels So such breakthroughs are causing power engineers to reinvestigate hydro schemes and the economics of such generating schemes .

What seems to have dropped from this thread is the concept of Micro Hydro

schemes- not the Hoover Dam but schemes using small scale generating plants

with Michel Banki type cross flow turbines , storage capacity and power inverters. And once again, pumped storage stores the potential energy in the form of water in a reservoir or lake for release into turbines that generate

power.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 01:49 ----------

 

So... It's a system of storing power. Glad that's clear.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2016 at 22:45 ----------

 

 

I am not an electrical engineer, you're quite correct and I'm not in fact reading a text book.

 

The fact is that power storage in any form, kinetic, gravitational, chemical, whatever is simply NOT power generation.

If you store power by pumping water up a mountain, that is not power generation. It simply doesn't meet the definition. If I charge a battery and later discharge it, I have not GENERATED any power. I just stored it.

 

Repeating the principle of power generation has no effect on my opinion because you are only considering half the system. As if pretending that the water gets there by magic will prove your point.

 

The fact is that you started the thread by being wrong and you don't like being called on it. Sorry about that.

Actually, not sorry.

 

Don't apologise for anything . You are not calling me on anything. You've just mixed up you principles . The longer thread I posted sourced from Hydro equipment manufacturers makes it plane. Pumped storage generates electrical power. You said it doesn't . That why I responded to your post.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 01:54 ----------

 

An interesting diversion onto pumped storage hydro electric power which is unlikely to work in Sheffield as two lakes are needed, at the top and bottom of the system. Ben Cruachan is another example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruachan_Power_Station

 

However, it could work in the Derwent Valley where there are three reservoirs in the complex. (Adding in downstream Carsington, which is a pumped rather than collection reservoir, there are four.)

 

Last September they were constructing a small hydro-electric plant (not pumped as far as I could tell) taking water from the Howden Reservoir as it falls into the Derwent Reservoir. It should be active by September 2016. It will primarily provide power for the reservoir equipment but the surplus will go to the grid. There's more about the potential here; http://www.british-hydro.org/uploads/11102008114256AM.pdf

 

 

Separately, the Derwent Hydro website is very helpful regarding the generation of hydro-electricity, see; http://www.derwent-hydro.co.uk/our_sites/index.html

 

It all comes down to costs. The quantity of electricity generated is relatively low to provide an adequate pay back for most proposed schemes. Then it comes down to subsidies and grants if that's how we want to utilise the potential.

 

It may seem to be a no brainer. We get more rain in winter and the highest levels of water coincide with when we most need electricity. It's available all day, every day, hot or cold, windy or not, subject only to river and dam capacity. However, those economics can decide many a scheme's success or failure.

 

I shall follow that scheme with interest.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 02:28 ----------

 

I wasn't aware there was a problem with producing power, rather more of a problem with storing it for when it's required. The traditional way round being to produce hydro power when it's needed (and expensive), then to use cheap electricity off peak to pump all the water back. This, as has already been pointed out is a process that uses more power than it generates, just to provide power at peak times.

The simple answer is to find a way of storing power in the first place, saving over half the energy required for the above method

.

Elon Musk is the guy who's actually getting anywhere with this. His Tesla cars are powered by storage devices manufactured by his company' with plans to make them removable to power say, a house. He already makes power storage devices for houses and businesses. Once people cotton onto this, micro hydro systems'll be old hat.

I remember seeing an article in the papers a week or so back about someone who was the first in Britain to install such a battery system to his own house.

Unfortunately, can't post links as am stuck in S Wales with just a Kindle and iffy (at best) wi-fi.

On top of all that, room temperature fusion's just round the corner.

 

Some interesting points. Particularly cold fusion. The advantage of AC power over DC power is that AC power can be transformed from a low voltage to a high voltage for the purposes of transmission. It saves on transmission losses (current squared multiplied by resistance ) You can transmit bulk power over long distances cheaply utilising overhead power lines with a csa between 16 square millimetres and 20 square millimetres (or more depending on the current). It's a very good system.

You are absolutely right about battery technology and it will grow and grow no doubt about that. However , as the price of electricity increase,hydro schemes may not fall into disfavour . Micro hydro schemes may just be one amongst a number of systems distributing electrical power to consumers.

Just an aside. I have a friend who is farming in the Pyrenees . He has a micro hydro system supplying the farm.He's lucky by have a fast flowing stream running through his property. The scheme is clean,efficient,robust and requires very little maintenance . You couldn't ask for more.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 02:37 ----------

 

There were plenty of water wheels on the Don, Loxley, Rivelin, Porter and Sheaf in years gone by. If it worked then I don't see why it couldn't work again if the will was there to do it. However, there was a lot of infrastructure work associated with each one (dams, races etc). Also, each one would, I imagine, be very small in modern day kW terms, so probably not worth the effort and set up cost. Also, I don't think people own the water that passes their house so they'll finish up having to pay some sort of fee to the water owner (maybe the local water company or the Environment Agency)

 

The construction of the infrastructure could provided employment opportunities. Ownership of the watercourses ? Now that's a political problem.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Were do you get the idea that I said pumped storage generates more power than it uses. I never suggested such a thing. Pumped storage is just one example of hydro electricity.

And by the way there breakthroughs in the science of electrical engineering electromagnetics that increase the efficiency of :motors, generators and alternators. Such apparatus are approaching 100%. The Japanese manufacturer of the Minato Motor claims an efficiency of 320 %. Utilising dual magnetic technology, the efficiency of electrical machines is increasing to very high levels So such breakthroughs are causing power engineers to reinvestigate hydro schemes and the economics of such generating schemes .

What seems to have dropped from this thread is the concept of Micro Hydro

schemes- not the Hoover Dam but schemes using small scale generating plants

with Michel Banki type cross flow turbines , storage capacity and power inverters. And once again, pumped storage stores the potential energy in the form of water in a reservoir or lake for release into turbines that generate

power.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 01:49 ----------

 

 

Don't apologise for anything . You are not calling me on anything. You've just mixed up you principles . The longer thread I posted sourced from Hydro equipment manufacturers makes it plane. Pumped storage generates electrical power. You said it doesn't . That why I responded to your post.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 01:54 ----------

 

 

I shall follow that scheme with interest.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 02:28 ----------

 

 

Some interesting points. Particularly cold fusion. The advantage of AC power over DC power is that AC power can be transformed from a low voltage to a high voltage for the purposes of transmission. It saves on transmission losses (current squared multiplied by resistance ) You can transmit bulk power over long distances cheaply utilising overhead power lines with a csa between 16 square millimetres and 20 square millimetres (or more depending on the current). It's a very good system.

You are absolutely right about battery technology and it will grow and grow no doubt about that. However , as the price of electricity increase,hydro schemes may not fall into disfavour . Micro hydro schemes may just be one amongst a number of systems distributing electrical power to consumers.

Just an aside. I have a friend who is farming in the Pyrenees . He has a micro hydro system supplying the farm.He's lucky by have a fast flowing stream running through his property. The scheme is clean,efficient,robust and requires very little maintenance . You couldn't ask for more.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 02:37 ----------

 

 

The construction of the infrastructure could provided employment opportunities. Ownership of the watercourses ? Now that's a political problem.

 

Pumped storage systems such as Dinorwic are a net consumer of electricity, not a net producer. For them to work they need more generation capacity to be available elsewhere. So they will not reduce any requirement for nuclear generation.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Eater Sundae

[petemcewan 27]

Repeating the same exact comments doesn't make it right.

 

Let me try to explain more simply. The water flows from the reservoir through a generator and creates 100mwhs of electricity that get sent to the national grid. All fine.

 

Then you need to pump the water that you just let through back up to refill the reservoir, correct? This take 110mwhs to do so. So you've in fact lost a net 10mwhs of electricity to complete the circuit.

 

So yes it generates electricity, but it takes more to refill the system than it generated in the first place making it totally unsuitable to replace other electricity generation methods. It is used in situations when there is a peak demand at certain times as it can create extra electricity to take pressure of other power stations. Then it uses 'cheaper' off peak electricity to refill the tank overnight bought off the same power stations it assisted earlier.

 

Do you understand now why this doesn't 'generate' electricity in the way you seem to think it does?

 

If you are so sure you are correct then explain how it can possibly create more power than it uses? That would create a perpetual energy machine and hopefully a GCSE science student would immediately find fault with that...

 

You use potential energy of say 100kj to drive a generator which will waste some energy in friction, sound and so on, perhaps leaving you with 90kj of usable energy at the end. You then have to refill the potential energy tank with 100kj of energy, but you've only converted 90kj to electricity so each time you run this through you lose 10kj. Keeping it incredibly simple here to make sure you understand what I'm trying to point out.

 

I honestly think it's you who should be going back to school here unless we are having a massive communication break down...

 

You would be completely right if the reservoir was being refilled by a river, but that's not how the system in Wales works. It is effectively a closed system and relies on the water being pumped back up again after it's gone through the turbine. You cannot create something from nothing, trust me if Da Vinci couldn't do then neither can we...

 

I have no disagreement with what you are pointing out, eg, the energy efficiencies. I think you have misunderstood the original thread. I'm not suggesting anything like perpetual motion-far from it. I'm suggesting the Pump Storage and Micro Hydro schemes are worthy of consideration .Yes, we have had miscommunication moment. I don't fail to understand the laws of thermodynamics as applied to electrical machines. I took up Cyclone on the point he made about pumped storage not generating electricity. Every power

engineer in the world agrees that pumped storage generates electricity.

Some other contributor is going to be annoyed because I've misdirected a response to them that was meant for you. I have to apologise to them later. It wasn't rude anyway.

I thought you would like to know that there are some amazing breakthroughs in the construction of electrical machines that throw a spanner into the laws of thermodynamics. (2nd Law in particular) The utilisation of dual magnet technology in the construction of motors is pushing beyond the 100% efficiency limit.( Google Joe Flynn and Optimal Flux Core Motor Construction). Now that is interesting . In conclusion, PE -losses,= KE-losses=Electrical energy -losses = output power in Kilowatts. Kilowatts are the prefered unit for electrical machines rather than Kilo joules because the kW is the unit for power (rate at which work is done) where as the Kilojoule is the unit of energy . (ability to do work). The whole process results in the production of electricity.To reiterate, the pumped storage scheme stores potential energy in the form of water. It doesn't store "Charge" like a battery or capacitor-of course there are losses in the system. I never said there wasn't.

I don't mean to be rude but you did get the wrong end of the stick.

[1978 14]

Pumped storage systems such as Dinorwic are a net consumer of electricity, not a net producer. For them to work they need more generation capacity to be available elsewhere. So they will not reduce any requirement for nuclear generation.

 

Nuclear and hydro share a common advantage in that they are capable of being switched on and off very quickly to meet surges in demand.

 

There is no absolute requirement for nuclear power, any more than for any other form of generation. The more power we generate from one source the less we may need to generate from the others.

 

A pumped system helps even out peaks and troughs in demand. On a windy night water may effectively be being pumped up with electricity from off shore wind farms. That may depend on how the distribution grid is managed.

[Cyclone 10]

Generation

the production or creation of something.

 

Pumped storage is not a net producer of power, thus it generates nothing unless you disingenuously consider only half the cycle.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 08:53 ----------

 

Nuclear and hydro share a common advantage in that they are capable of being switched on and off very quickly to meet surges in demand.

 

There is no absolute requirement for nuclear power, any more than for any other form of generation. The more power we generate from one source the less we may need to generate from the others.

 

A pumped system helps even out peaks and troughs in demand. On a windy night water may effectively be being pumped up with electricity from off shore wind farms. That may depend on how the distribution grid is managed.

 

A pumped system doesn't generate any power though.

 

If you filled the country with pumped storage plants you would have a net output of 0 watts.

You need power generation before the pumped storage becomes of any use.

 

And nuclear is the best option for generation at the moment.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 08:55 ----------

 

To reiterate, the pumped storage scheme stores potential energy in the form of water. It doesn't store "Charge" like a battery or capacitor-of course there are losses in the system. I never said there wasn't.

 

A battery stores potential energy in the form of chemical bonds... It's as much a generator as a pumped storage plant.

A capacitor on the other hand DOES actually store charge, directly, lots of electrons stuffed inside it. It's still not a generator though.

[petemcewan 27]

Flexo,

 

I apologise. I misdirected a post to you which should have gone to SgtKate. I got excited and pressed the wrong keys on the chrome. Good job I'm not pressing the wrong button in the control room of a Nuclear power plant .

[Eater Sundae 12]

Nuclear and hydro share a common advantage in that they are capable of being switched on and off very quickly to meet surges in demand.

 

There is no absolute requirement for nuclear power, any more than for any other form of generation. The more power we generate from one source the less we may need to generate from the others.

 

A pumped system helps even out peaks and troughs in demand. On a windy night water may effectively be being pumped up with electricity from off shore wind farms. That may depend on how the distribution grid is managed.

 

Surely nuclear cannot be switched on and off at will.

 

My reference to nuclear was because the OP appeared to claim that pumped storage systems would reduce the need for nuclear, which it clearly wouldn't. The use of alternative forms of net generation could be used to reduce nuclear generation (assuming we want to) but a net consumer such as pumped storage wouldn't

Edited March 5, 2016 by Eater Sundae

[1978 14]

My previous post was, of course, incorrect. Nuclear power is best for base load as it can't be quickly switched on and off. That's where pumped hydro acts as a 'battery' to take excess power off peak, and provide extra during the times it's needed. The two go well together, which is why the Dinorwic scheme went ahead.

 

The topic is about micro hydro schemes. Little local efforts, like those by Derwent Hydro and others. It will take a lot of them to generate even 5% of current needs, but every little helps.

[Annie Bynnol 613]

There is a case for saying every little does not help.

 

Loading a grid system with lots of low power assets is expensive in infrastructure, monitoring and maintenance and contributes to instability and inefficiency.

 

Privately owned grid systems are concerned/refusing to take on connections to renewable sources.

The contribution that these local sources make is swamped by the costs to the grid.

The grid will need updating to cope and so will be asking HMG to pay.

 

In the future there is no guarantee that the power generated in micro schemes will be taken by the grid. This includes solar panels on roofs. The deals are through private companies.

 

There is also the physics of transmitting power from places where energy sources are abundant to areas of demand.

 

To avoid this Micro schemes need to focus and cost on locally supplied demand.

Edited March 5, 2016 by Annie Bynnol

[Flexo 10]

There is a case for saying every little does not help.

 

Loading a grid system with lots of low power assets is expensive in infrastructure, monitoring and maintenance and contributes to instability and inefficiency.

 

It's just the opposite of the consumption though, innit? There's lots of low power villages etc dotted all around.

 

As for monitoring, they plan to install a spy in every home to record your electricity use by the minute and report it back to some central database. Monitoring the output of a much smaller number of generators is a much easier problem to solve.

[petemcewan 27]

Pumped storage is not a net producer of power, thus it generates nothing unless you disingenuously consider only half the cycle.

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2016 at 08:53 ----------

 

 

A pumped system doesn't generate any power though.

 

If you filled the country with pumped storage plants you would have a net output of 0 watts.

You need power generation before the pumped storage becomes of any use.

 

And nuclear is the best option for generation at the moment.

 

 

 

A pumped system doesn't generate any power though.

 

If you filled the country with pumped storage plants you would have a net output of 0 watts.

You need power generation before the pumped storage becomes of any use.

 

And nuclear is the best option for generation at the moment.

 

 

 

A battery stores potential energy in the form of chemical bonds... It's as much a generator as a pumped storage plant.

A capacitor on the other hand DOES actually store charge, directly, lots of electrons stuffed inside it. It's still not a generator though.

 

Quite right about batteries and capacitors. They both can be considered as "seats of EMF ". You know how a battery works as a means of converting chemical energy into electrical energy. All well and good. The energy stored in a capacitor is recoverable into some other form if the capacitor is discharged, Thus unlike a resistor a capacitor is considered as a "seat of EMF (Unit, the Volt) . No disagreement with you on that. Consult with the Hydro Equipment Association on Pumped Storage. The Laws of Electromagnetic Induction-simplified- State, that if a conductor is moved at right angles to a magnetic field an EMF is induced in the conductor. That's what is happening in the synchronous generator attached to the turbine-simple. What some people sem to be confused about in this thread is the STORAGE, and its misuse in some sources. It's the water that is stored ready for realise to turn an alternator. Its not electricity ,(charged particles) that's stored nor is it power. The pool is not a pool of Watts ,it's water.See, if you know about a subject you can determine when a terms is misused. The common misconception by laypeople is they think there's a pool of electricity stored up in the mountain. Just like some people think that electricity leaks out of their socket outlet and spills on the ground when they are not looking. The Hydro Equipment Association agree with me-not you. And they know a thing or two about a thing or two when it comes to hydro electricity schemes.

Now have a go at describing Micro Hydro schemes, their advantages and disadvantages and I will read your stuff with interest. The Michel Banki Cross Flow Turbine is a good place to start. You may find it interesting. I'll start you off. The MBCT utilises two points at which the flow exerts a turning moment. A very efficient system.

 

A note for you. If you want to look it up . The instantaneous maximum induced EMF = 2BLUN volts.

Edited March 5, 2016 by petemcewan