Micro Hydro Scheme

[Cyclone]

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.

 

It's the ENERGY that is stored, in the form of gravitational potential. Storing water is of little interest to anyone except the water board. Storing excess energy, that's of interest to power companies.

[petemcewan]

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.

 

AB,

Please reference your sources. The physics of transmitting power is not a problem. Low loss, low resistance cables have been in use for years.Without wanting to bore you. The losses are the , the current squared multiplied by the resistance.There are some capacitive losses,but they are small in comparison to the power losses. Such losses in transmission shouldn't rule out micro hydro schemes. The tendency to massive scale power generation -like in America- means that any "outages" result in chaos. That is avoided by staying local.Just one more point about losses. The resistance of a cable is directly proportional to its length. So the longer the transmission cable/lines the greater the resistance. So, the more distant the points of utilisation the greater are the line losses.Therefore , by staying local to your point of generation you will reduce your transmission losses. In essence ,it is a fine balancing act. I take your point about the Grid and the future commercial activities of the privately owned Regional Electricity Companies.

Ref: Electrical Power Equipment and Measurements,Alan Symonds, Generation Transmission and Utilisation of Electrical Power. A.T Starr. Electrical Installation Calculations . B.D Jenkins. Hydro Equipment Association.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2016 at 09:38 ----------

 

In my original post I mentioned something about employment prospect being thrown up by embarking upon the building of micro hydro schemes.

Employment opportunities in the: North West, North East and the Midlands is a pressing matter-particularly for young people. By building such schemes -and even maybe a nuclear power station-what kind of job opportunities might be generated as a consequence ?

Edited March 6, 2016 by petemcewan

[*Belle*]

AB,

The physics of transmitting power is not a problem. Low loss, low resistance cables have been in use for years.

 

 

The resistance of a cable is directly proportional to its length. So the longer the transmission cable/lines the greater the resistance. So, the more distant the points of utilisation the greater are the line losses.Therefore , by staying local to your point of generation you will reduce your transmission losses.

 

 

I'm not very bright when it comes to science, but now I'm even more confused.

 

So what you are saying is, transmitting the power is not a problem, however, it is a problem?

[Halibut]

Lol at PeteMcEwan still not getting it.

[fatrajah]

This is the most confusing thread I have ever read. Is the OP suggesting that small local hydro-electric schemes coupled with Dinorwic-like generation facilities be built?

[petemcewan]

I'm not very bright when it comes to science, but now I'm even more confused.

 

So what you are saying is, transmitting the power is not a problem, however, it is a problem?

 

Belle,

 

I'm not trying to bamboozle you with science. What I'm suggesting is the following.

 

When generating electricity and transmitting it, there are losses in them both.

They cannot be avoided but can be reduced. So, the electricity companies are always researching methods of reducing the losses. Transmission losses should be kept to a minimum ,but shouldn't be prohibitive when utilising small scale local hydro schemes. If the generating plant is close to the consumers, the transmission losses are reduced.

Just one more point.On long transmission lines there are losses. By raising the operating voltages ( 275,000 V or 400000 V ) thereby reducing the current for a given power being delivered, the line losses can be reduced and the efficiency of transmission increased. By staying close the transmission losses

can be kept down. Yes, losses are a problem,but not a problem that cannot be managed. Hope that helps.

Belle, If you want to look it up do so. The calculations involved -at a simplified level- are not much more than: multiplication,division and the squaring of number.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2016 at 10:47 ----------

 

This is the most confusing thread I have ever read. Is the OP suggesting that small local hydro-electric schemes coupled with Dinorwic-like generation facilities be built?

 

What I'm suggesting is that micro hydro schemes in this day and age are worth a punt . It's got a bit of track by getting bogged down in Pump Storage. I used Dinowic as an example of a hydro scheme.

Micro hydro might be a valid alternative to building large scale generating plant. Micro hydro is clean, and has less environmental impact than building massive dams and facilities like Drax.

Edited March 6, 2016 by petemcewan

[fatrajah]

Thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't these sort of schemes only supply those living in close proximity to a river? And wouldn't the river have to have a reasonably steep fall? For example, the Don in central Sheffield is only about 30 metres above sea level & the Humber estuary is, say, 50 miles away so the average potential gradient along its length must be very small indeed.

Edited March 6, 2016 by fatrajah

[Brin56]

Lol at PeteMcEwan still not getting it.

 

It's you who doesn't get it . If it is too technical for your brain then keep out of it.

 

It is a technical subject so it demands the attention span outside of the range of a fish .

 

McEwan's thread requires some brainwork and research.

 

There are a few regular contributors to this Forum who clearly know nothing about anything and set themselves up as experts and pontificate about all and sundry.

 

 

It's clear from my reading of this thread; that McEwan is the expert . You......swimming around in a sea of ignorance and oh yes ...LOL .

Edited March 6, 2016 by Brin56

[petemcewan]

Thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't these sort of schemes only supply those living in close proximity to a river? And wouldn't the river have to have a reasonably steep fall? For example, the Don in central Sheffield is only about 30 metres above sea level & the Humber estuary is, say, 50 miles away so the average potential gradient along its length must be very small indeed.

Fatrajah,

 

The civil engineering plans would have to be drawn up by a group of experts and civil engineers.In the grand scheme of electricity generation,"small scale " has to be part of the thinking-especially when considering the environment.

I 'm sorry if the subject got confusing. But when tackling a subject like this one has to strive not to patronise people. The technicalities in this subject cannot be avoided .

It has been suggested that in 10 yrs time the "lights will go out" unless more capacity is built. So it's a pressing matter. Dr Dame Sue Ian , (once employed by BNFL) is a staunch supporter of nuclear power, she has said as well as nuclear power ,we have to look at alternatives as methods of power generation.

You and I and the public will be mere observers as the scramble for power

come to pass.

[Annie Bynnol]

...The tendency to massive scale power generation -like in America- means that any "outages" result in chaos...

 

The Distribution system in the NE USA and E Canada is very different to the UK and most of Europe for one simple reason - no comprehensive grid, compounded by severe winter weather, peak summer demand when HEP supply is at its lowest level and the abandonment of nuclear power building plans.

 

Traditionally the private power generating companies own the feeds to the cities. Extra capacity and a grid were seen as unnecessary expenses compounded by state and federal government failure to demand backup. A series of major and extremely expensive outages have obliged state, federal, generators, distributors and utilities to move towards a grid system. Compatibility of networks when grids are created in the US exaggerates difficulties as in California in 2011 and undermines a grids effectiveness.

 

In the early days of generation low voltage "brownouts" were used to cope with problems but this is not permitted anymore and so when demand exceeds capacity whole areas have to be switched off (and cannot be re-connected quickly because of technical issues). National plans in Europe promoted a comprehensive grid system with national management of supply.

 

The last major UK outage was caused when two of three available major grid connections from the north to the south east were lost during the great storm because of the cascading damage from the 11kV system failing because of tree damage to line and sub-stations. Leaving everything on, waiting to be re connected delays re connection.

 

Low grade supplies make no difference when re connecting except that they would all be switched out 1) because they are unreliable 2) the infrastructure and control of the National Grid is not designed to deal with them and nobody is willing to pay.