River nearby? Set to it . . .
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
On 18/01/2025 09:06, RJH wrote:
River nearby? Set to it . . .
Not without permission, I'm afraid: <https://www.gov.uk/permission-work-on-river-flood-sea-defence>
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown in the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in Shropshire
both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during the winter
months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is often full of debris that can damage the installation.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in Shropshire
both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during the winter
months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is often full of
debris that can damage the installation.
There's a very early one here. Kipling had it put in for electric light.
His advisor was a guy who had worked on the Aswan Dam!
https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx? uid=MNA125420
Bob Eager <[email protected]> writes:
There's a very early one here. Kipling had it put in for electric light.
His advisor was a guy who had worked on the Aswan Dam!
https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx?
uid=MNA125420
Cragside, another National Trust property has a history of water powered electricity generation:
An Archimedian Screw, installed in 2014: http://www.mannpower-hydro.co.uk/project/cragside-house/
And in 1870, the world's first hydroelectric power station:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cragside#Technology
https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/18/geeks_guide_to_britain_cragside/
On 18/01/2025 12:28, Alan J. Wylie wrote:
Bob Eager <[email protected]> writes:And despite all this, it isn't widely used at all.
There's a very early one here. Kipling had it put in for electric light. >>> His advisor was a guy who had worked on the Aswan Dam!
https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx?
uid=MNA125420
Cragside, another National Trust property has a history of water powered
electricity generation:
An Archimedian Screw, installed in 2014:
http://www.mannpower-hydro.co.uk/project/cragside-house/
And in 1870, the world's first hydroelectric power station:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cragside#Technology
https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/18/geeks_guide_to_britain_cragside/
I wonder why?
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
On 18/01/2025 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:28, Alan J. Wylie wrote:
Bob Eager <[email protected]> writes:And despite all this, it isn't widely used at all.
There's a very early one here. Kipling had it put in for electric
light.
His advisor was a guy who had worked on the Aswan Dam!
https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx?
uid=MNA125420
Cragside, another National Trust property has a history of water powered >>> electricity generation:
An Archimedian Screw, installed in 2014:
http://www.mannpower-hydro.co.uk/project/cragside-house/
And in 1870, the world's first hydroelectric power station:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cragside#Technology
https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/18/geeks_guide_to_britain_cragside/
I wonder why?
Possibly the same reason why mills powered by waterwheels upgraded to relatively low power steam engines.
On 18/01/2025 11:29, alan_m wrote:
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel
the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown in
the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows
falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during the
winter months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is often
full of debris that can damage the installation.
The short summary with D-i-Y or run-of-the-river hydro is 'If it were
any good, everybody would be doing it'.
The green and wet behind the ears persist in trying stuff that's been
done before and rejected because it didn't work, and a few minutes with
a calculator shows why.
There is fuck all energy in a river to begin with.
I think it is a fundamental mental condition: ArtStudents™ don't think
in terms of size, quantity, maths etc and can'tDoSums™. So the *idea*
that rivers contain energy is accessible to them, but they have no idea
*how much* is in them.
Same as with batteries for grid storage. A battery keeps their phone
going 14 hours, why can't the *same battery* keep their car, or the
grid, going 14 hours? It lasts 14 hours!
Stan's ter raisin, dunnit?
The world is now run by ArtStudents™ and we can only wait for them to destroy it before we can gently prise their sticky fingers off the
levers of power...
On 18/01/2025 11:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:29, alan_m wrote:
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel
the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown
in the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows
falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during
the winter months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is
often full of debris that can damage the installation.
The short summary with D-i-Y or run-of-the-river hydro is 'If it were
any good, everybody would be doing it'.
The green and wet behind the ears persist in trying stuff that's been
done before and rejected because it didn't work, and a few minutes
with a calculator shows why.
There is fuck all energy in a river to begin with.
I think it is a fundamental mental condition: ArtStudents™ don't
think in terms of size, quantity, maths etc and can'tDoSums™. So the
*idea* that rivers contain energy is accessible to them, but they have
no idea *how much* is in them.
Same as with batteries for grid storage. A battery keeps their phone
going 14 hours, why can't the *same battery* keep their car, or the
grid, going 14 hours? It lasts 14 hours!
Stan's ter raisin, dunnit?
The world is now run by ArtStudents™ and we can only wait for them to
destroy it before we can gently prise their sticky fingers off the
levers of power...
The Domesday book is claimed to have recorded 4 mills near me. There is certainly a leat cut parallel to the Lea. Google Earth gives a fall of
less than 2m over the length. I suppose an under fed wheel might have
turned a modest grinder. I once quietly reburied a damaged stone wheel
which might have had some connection.
Perhaps better to extract river water for thermal energy as the Lea
never freezes downstream of the Luton sewage outfall!
On 18/01/2025 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:geeks_guide_to_britain_cragside/
On 18/01/2025 12:28, Alan J. Wylie wrote:
Bob Eager <[email protected]> writes:
There's a very early one here. Kipling had it put in for electric
light.
His advisor was a guy who had worked on the Aswan Dam!
https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx?
uid=MNA125420
Cragside, another National Trust property has a history of water
powered electricity generation:
An Archimedian Screw, installed in 2014:
http://www.mannpower-hydro.co.uk/project/cragside-house/
And in 1870, the world's first hydroelectric power station:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cragside#Technology
https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/18/
Possibly the same reason why mills powered by waterwheels upgraded to relatively low power steam engines.And despite all this, it isn't widely used at all.
I wonder why?
River nearby? Set to it . . .
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:02:26 +0000, alan_m wrote:
Possibly the same reason why mills powered by waterwheels upgraded to
relatively low power steam engines.
Well, that and the fact the steam power removed the need to be near to *suitable* water.
Bob Eager <[email protected]> writes:
There's a very early one here. Kipling had it put in for electric light.
His advisor was a guy who had worked on the Aswan Dam!
https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx?
uid=MNA125420
Cragside, another National Trust property has a history of water powered >electricity generation:
An Archimedian Screw, installed in 2014: >http://www.mannpower-hydro.co.uk/project/cragside-house/
And in 1870, the world's first hydroelectric power station:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cragside#Technology
https://www.theregister.com/2019/03/18/geeks_guide_to_britain_cragside/
On 18/01/2025 11:29, alan_m wrote:
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel
the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown in
the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows
falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during the
winter months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is often
full of debris that can damage the installation.
The short summary with D-i-Y or run-of-the-river hydro is 'If it were
any good, everybody would be doing it'.
The green and wet behind the ears persist in trying stuff that's been
done before and rejected because it didn't work, and a few minutes with
a calculator shows why.
There is fuck all energy in a river to begin with.
I think it is a fundamental mental condition: ArtStudents™ don't think
in terms of size, quantity, maths etc and can'tDoSums™. So the *idea*
that rivers contain energy is accessible to them, but they have no idea
*how much* is in them.
Same as with batteries for grid storage. A battery keeps their phone
going 14 hours, why can't the *same battery* keep their car, or the
grid, going 14 hours? It lasts 14 hours!
Stan's ter raisin, dunnit?
The world is now run by ArtStudents™ and we can only wait for them to destroy it before we can gently prise their sticky fingers off the
levers of power...
On 18/01/2025 11:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:29, alan_m wrote:
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel
the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown
in the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows
falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during
the winter months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is
often full of debris that can damage the installation.
The short summary with D-i-Y or run-of-the-river hydro is 'If it were
any good, everybody would be doing it'.
The green and wet behind the ears persist in trying stuff that's been
done before and rejected because it didn't work, and a few minutes
with a calculator shows why.
There is fuck all energy in a river to begin with.
I think it is a fundamental mental condition: ArtStudents™ don't
think in terms of size, quantity, maths etc and can'tDoSums™. So the
*idea* that rivers contain energy is accessible to them, but they have
no idea *how much* is in them.
Same as with batteries for grid storage. A battery keeps their phone
going 14 hours, why can't the *same battery* keep their car, or the
grid, going 14 hours? It lasts 14 hours!
Stan's ter raisin, dunnit?
The world is now run by ArtStudents™ and we can only wait for them to
destroy it before we can gently prise their sticky fingers off the
levers of power...
The Domesday book is claimed to have recorded 4 mills near me. There is certainly a leat cut parallel to the Lea. Google Earth gives a fall of
less than 2m over the length. I suppose an under fed wheel might have
turned a modest grinder. I once quietly reburied a damaged stone wheel
which might have had some connection.
Perhaps better to extract river water for thermal energy as the Lea
never freezes downstream of the Luton sewage outfall!
On 18/01/2025 11:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:29, alan_m wrote:
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel
the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown
in the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows
falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during
the winter months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is
often full of debris that can damage the installation.
The short summary with D-i-Y or run-of-the-river hydro is 'If it were
any good, everybody would be doing it'.
The green and wet behind the ears persist in trying stuff that's been
done before and rejected because it didn't work, and a few minutes
with a calculator shows why.
There is fuck all energy in a river to begin with.
I think it is a fundamental mental condition: ArtStudents™ don't
think in terms of size, quantity, maths etc and can'tDoSums™. So the
*idea* that rivers contain energy is accessible to them, but they have
no idea *how much* is in them.
Same as with batteries for grid storage. A battery keeps their phone
going 14 hours, why can't the *same battery* keep their car, or the
grid, going 14 hours? It lasts 14 hours!
Stan's ter raisin, dunnit?
The world is now run by ArtStudents™ and we can only wait for them to
destroy it before we can gently prise their sticky fingers off the
levers of power...
The Domesday book is claimed to have recorded 4 mills near me. There is certainly a leat cut parallel to the Lea. Google Earth gives a fall of
less than 2m over the length.
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a sensible approach to replace these with generating plants along side these weirs.
BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8 ft.
On 18/01/2025 14:02, Timatmarford wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:29, alan_m wrote:
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel
the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown
in the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows
falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during
the winter months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is
often full of debris that can damage the installation.
The short summary with D-i-Y or run-of-the-river hydro is 'If it
were any good, everybody would be doing it'.
The green and wet behind the ears persist in trying stuff that's been
done before and rejected because it didn't work, and a few minutes
with a calculator shows why.
There is fuck all energy in a river to begin with.
I think it is a fundamental mental condition: ArtStudents™ don't
think in terms of size, quantity, maths etc and can'tDoSums™. So the
*idea* that rivers contain energy is accessible to them, but they
have no idea *how much* is in them.
Same as with batteries for grid storage. A battery keeps their phone
going 14 hours, why can't the *same battery* keep their car, or the
grid, going 14 hours? It lasts 14 hours!
Stan's ter raisin, dunnit?
The world is now run by ArtStudents™ and we can only wait for them to
destroy it before we can gently prise their sticky fingers off the
levers of power...
The Domesday book is claimed to have recorded 4 mills near me. There
is certainly a leat cut parallel to the Lea. Google Earth gives a fall
of less than 2m over the length.
I thought that the whole point of such a leat?
You intercept the river at a point higher up, and try to deliver water
from that point to your mill without expending any more of its potential energy than necessary to get the water to flow from A to B.
You then 'expend' the residual potential energy in turning your wheel.
The River Severn at Gloucester has an average flow rate of 100 m^3/s
So if you have a fall at a weir of say 1m, than makes the drop with this quantity of water have the energy of 100kW.
If you think that's fuck all then I can see where you're coming from.
In the early 20th century diesel engines replaced the steam engines.
Later on they were replaced by auto start electric pumps, controlled by
float valves.
Exactly, The race to common sense solutions has been completely reversed
by 'renewables' .
--
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a sensible
approach to replace these with generating plants along side these weirs.
BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8 ft.
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful difference
to CO2 reduction?
The scheme I linked above generates around average of 20kW and cost
£400k ten years ago. The output varies month to month by 4:1.
It's another technology that requires a backup for when the water
doesn't flow too well in the river.
On 18/01/2025 18:48, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:29, alan_m wrote:
Youtube is full of such designs, mainly from the USA, which usually
require extensive modification to the river (dams, weirs) to channel
the water to the wheel in a controlled way. Many of the size shown
in the article don't seem to produce much usable power.
There a couple of water based generators on the River Teme in
Shropshire both are situated by weirs. Information on one is:-
http://ludlowhydro.org.uk/
It's another source of intermittent generation with river flows
falling during the summer months and in full flood at times during
the winter months. During heavy rain periods upstream the river is
often full of debris that can damage the installation.
The short summary with D-i-Y or run-of-the-river hydro is 'If it
were any good, everybody would be doing it'.
The green and wet behind the ears persist in trying stuff that's been
done before and rejected because it didn't work, and a few minutes
with a calculator shows why.
There is fuck all energy in a river to begin with.
Have you worked this out, or is this just your prejudice.
The River Severn at Gloucester has an average flow rate of 100 m^3/s
So if you have a fall at a weir of say 1m, than makes the drop with
this quantity of water have the energy of 100kW.
If you think that's fuck all then I can see where you're coming from.
I think it is a fundamental mental condition: ArtStudents™ don't
think in terms of size, quantity, maths etc and can'tDoSums™. So the
*idea* that rivers contain energy is accessible to them, but they
have no idea *how much* is in them.
The last art student here expressed the quantity "fuck all energy"
with power generation. A real engineer wouldn't have confused energy
with power.
Same as with batteries for grid storage. A battery keeps their phone
going 14 hours, why can't the *same battery* keep their car, or the
grid, going 14 hours? It lasts 14 hours!
Stan's ter raisin, dunnit?
Only an art student would put forward a silly and incoherent argument.
The world is now run by ArtStudents™ and we can only wait for them to
destroy it before we can gently prise their sticky fingers off the
levers of power...
Better than a failed engineer. We need more Clive Sinclairs.
I'm not sure about that. I remember my Sinclair Scientific calculator
which was far less accurate than a slide rule in some circumstances.
I also remember the IC10 audio amplifier chip which was a rebadged
Plessey device with massively inflated specifications.
At 20kW it would take 10 years to pay back, and not be an eye-saw in the
mean time.
On 18/01/2025 20:53, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a sensible
approach to replace these with generating plants along side these weirs.
BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8 ft.
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful
difference to CO2 reduction?
Thousands, but how many weirs are there in the UK? Every bit helps.
The scheme I linked above generates around average of 20kW and cost
£400k ten years ago. The output varies month to month by 4:1.
At 20kW it would take 10 years to pay back, and not be an eye-saw in the
mean time.
It's another technology that requires a backup for when the water
doesn't flow too well in the river.
Except a weir creates a dam in it's own right where water levels could
be allowed to drop during times when it doesn't blow or is sunny.
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a sensible
approach to replace these with generating plants along side these weirs.
BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8 ft.
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful difference
to CO2 reduction?
The scheme I linked above generates around average of 20kW and cost
£400k ten years ago. The output varies month to month by 4:1.
It's another technology that requires a backup for when the water
doesn't flow too well in the river.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 18:48:37 GMT, "Fredxx" <[email protected]d> wrote:
The River Severn at Gloucester has an average flow rate of 100 m^3/s
So if you have a fall at a weir of say 1m, than makes the drop with this
quantity of water have the energy of 100kW.
If you think that's fuck all then I can see where you're coming from.
OK so we get 100kW from the Severn. Care to tot up how many such installations
would make sense and how much power that would produce? Think you could reach,
say, 20MW? That is fuck all in the scheme of things and would most likely cost
a lot to maintain.
Why d'ye think that, historically, power stations have been built typically to
produce 500MW and upwards? Economies of scale, that's why.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 20:53:49 GMT, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a
sensible approach to replace these with generating plants along
side these weirs. BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock
has a fall of 7-8 ft.
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful
difference to CO2 reduction?
It's this line of argument that I have a problem with. What would be
'enough saved', then, for you? How big would a scheme have to be
before you'd vote for it?
On 18 Jan 2025 at 21:37:02 GMT, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 18:48:37 GMT, "Fredxx" <[email protected]d>
wrote:
The River Severn at Gloucester has an average flow rate of 100
m^3/s
So if you have a fall at a weir of say 1m, than makes the drop
with this quantity of water have the energy of 100kW.
If you think that's fuck all then I can see where you're coming
from.
OK so we get 100kW from the Severn. Care to tot up how many such installations would make sense and how much power that would
produce? Think you could reach, say, 20MW? That is fuck all in the
scheme of things and would most likely cost a lot to maintain.
Why d'ye think that, historically, power stations have been built
typically to produce 500MW and upwards? Economies of scale, that's
why.
I don't think anyone's suggesting it'll replace all sources currently
feeding into the grid. Just maybe consider it in situations where it
can contribute. That's all.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:27:46 -0000 (UTC)
Which maybe takes us back to the starting point of the thread. I
believe the context was US farms or other private land that have a
stream or very small river running through them, where it might be
possible to generate enough power to run the farm household. I don't
believe that a DIY context covered contributions to the national power
grid.
There were many problems controlling the water flow and the speed of the wheel. It was a balancing act between the amount of water, the position
of where the water fell into the buckets and the speed of the wheel. Not enough water and the wheel wouldn't turn - too much water and the speed
of the wheel "ran away" which was not too good for rest of the connected equipment, nor the mechanical interconnects. The buckets had to be
completely empty of water before continuing their upward journey on the return side of the wheel.
At 20kW it would take 10 years to pay back, and not be an eye-saw in the
mean time.
I can remember, as a child, seeing demonstration models of tide and
wave generators on programmes like Tomorrow's World and Futurama.
The point is best illustrated on this group on the demand side - people who fill the kettle to make one cup of tea. From past discussions, about half of this group. Because to boil just enough would make 'no meaningful difference'.
I don't think anyone's suggesting it'll replace all sources currently feeding into the grid. Just maybe consider it in situations where it can contribute. That's all.
On 19 Jan 2025 at 09:33:30 GMT, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
I can remember, as a child, seeing demonstration models of tide and
wave generators on programmes like Tomorrow's World and Futurama.
Indeed, and demonstrations were all that they were. And issues related to scaling them up or what they might cost to run/maintain, were never mentioned.
River nearby? Set to it . . .
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
On 18/01/2025 09:06, RJH wrote:
River nearby? Set to it . . .
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
The Old Mill at Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire has an Archimedes screw to
help with electric generation.
What it cost to buy & install, the running costs & how much it saves are
all unknowns.
On 20/01/2025 09:51, wasbit wrote:
On 18/01/2025 09:06, RJH wrote:
River nearby? Set to it . . .
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
The Old Mill at Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire has an Archimedes screw to help with electric generation.
What it cost to buy & install, the running costs & how much it saves are all unknowns.
In most of the cases mentioned in this thread the infrastructure to
manage the water was already in place before the generator was placed
there. There was an existing weir or mill race to supply, and more
important, control the head of water. There was little expense to modify
the river flow.
These generators will have been designed for a fixed head of water and
amount of water flowing though the turbine/screw etc. A weir can control
the head water as long as the weir is wide enough to cope with the
variation in river flow. There is a good reason why weirs tend to be
built on the widest parts of rivers. The example I linked to on the
river Teme is situated at the side of a very wide weir, 200+ metres(?).
Consider also the sites of old water driven mills. Many were not
situated in ideal places for commerce or close to villages or farms but
in the limited places where they could actually be made to work.
What some are now advocating is that rivers should be lined with 10s or
100s of these generators, possibly without an understanding of how the
water has to be managed to allow them to work.
Some river authorities are actually removing (defunct) weirs for better
river flow in flood conditions and/or for environmental reasons such as
fish migration.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:27:46 -0000 (UTC)
RJH <[email protected]> wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 21:37:02 GMT, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 18:48:37 GMT, "Fredxx" <[email protected]d>
wrote:
The River Severn at Gloucester has an average flow rate of 100
m^3/s
So if you have a fall at a weir of say 1m, than makes the drop
with this quantity of water have the energy of 100kW.
If you think that's fuck all then I can see where you're coming
from.
OK so we get 100kW from the Severn. Care to tot up how many such
installations would make sense and how much power that would
produce? Think you could reach, say, 20MW? That is fuck all in the
scheme of things and would most likely cost a lot to maintain.
Why d'ye think that, historically, power stations have been built
typically to produce 500MW and upwards? Economies of scale, that's
why.
I don't think anyone's suggesting it'll replace all sources currently
feeding into the grid. Just maybe consider it in situations where it
can contribute. That's all.
Which maybe takes us back to the starting point of the thread. I
believe the context was US farms or other private land that have a
stream or very small river running through them, where it might be
possible to generate enough power to run the farm household. I don't
believe that a DIY context covered contributions to the national power
grid.
On 20/01/2025 09:51, wasbit wrote:
On 18/01/2025 09:06, RJH wrote:
River nearby? Set to it . . .
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
The Old Mill at Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire has an Archimedes screw
to help with electric generation.
What it cost to buy & install, the running costs & how much it saves
are all unknowns.
In most of the cases mentioned in this thread the infrastructure to
manage the water was already in place before the generator was placed
there. There was an existing weir or mill race to supply, and more
important, control the head of water. There was little expense to modify
the river flow.
These generators will have been designed for a fixed head of water and
amount of water flowing though the turbine/screw etc. A weir can control
the head water as long as the weir is wide enough to cope with the
variation in river flow. There is a good reason why weirs tend to be
built on the widest parts of rivers. The example I linked to on the
river Teme is situated at the side of a very wide weir, 200+ metres(?).
Consider also the sites of old water driven mills. Many were not
situated in ideal places for commerce or close to villages or farms but
in the limited places where they could actually be made to work.
What some are now advocating is that rivers should be lined with 10s or
100s of these generators, possibly without an understanding of how the
water has to be managed to allow them to work.
Some river authorities are actually removing (defunct) weirs for better
river flow in flood conditions and/or for environmental reasons such as
fish migration.
In article <[email protected]>,
alan_m <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 09:51, wasbit wrote:
On 18/01/2025 09:06, RJH wrote:
River nearby? Set to it . . .
https://www.instructables.com/The-Waterwheel-Project-V20/
The Old Mill at Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire has an Archimedes
screw to help with electric generation.
What it cost to buy & install, the running costs & how much it
saves are all unknowns.
In most of the cases mentioned in this thread the infrastructure to
manage the water was already in place before the generator was
placed there. There was an existing weir or mill race to supply,
and more important, control the head of water. There was little
expense to modify the river flow.
These generators will have been designed for a fixed head of water
and amount of water flowing though the turbine/screw etc. A weir
can control the head water as long as the weir is wide enough to
cope with the variation in river flow. There is a good reason why
weirs tend to be built on the widest parts of rivers. The example
I linked to on the river Teme is situated at the side of a very
wide weir, 200+ metres(?).
Consider also the sites of old water driven mills. Many were not
situated in ideal places for commerce or close to villages or farms
but in the limited places where they could actually be made to
work.
What some are now advocating is that rivers should be lined with
10s or 100s of these generators, possibly without an understanding
of how the water has to be managed to allow them to work.
Some river authorities are actually removing (defunct) weirs for
better river flow in flood conditions and/or for environmental
reasons such as fish migration.
On the River Wey, a fish "ladder" has been built round one weir.
This, of course, has been done in Scotland with some of the
hydro-electric schemes,
On 18/01/2025 20:53, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a sensible
approach to replace these with generating plants along side these weirs.
BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8 ft.
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful
difference to CO2 reduction?
Thousands, but how many weirs are there in the UK? Every bit helps.
The scheme I linked above generates around average of 20kW and cost
£400k ten years ago. The output varies month to month by 4:1.
At 20kW it would take 10 years to pay back, and not be an eye-saw in the
mean time.
It's another technology that requires a backup for when the water
doesn't flow too well in the river.
Except a weir creates a dam in it's own right where water levels could
be allowed to drop during times when it doesn't blow or is sunny.
All 'green' sources of power have issues of availability, apart from
nuclear of course.
On 18/01/2025 23:35, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/01/2025 20:53, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
ft.
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a
sensible approach to replace these with generating plants along
side these weirs.
BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful
difference to CO2 reduction?
Thousands, but how many weirs are there in the UK? Every bit helps.
The scheme I linked above generates around average of 20kW and
cost £400k ten years ago. The output varies month to month by 4:1.
At 20kW it would take 10 years to pay back, and not be an eye-saw
in the mean time.
It's another technology that requires a backup for when the water
doesn't flow too well in the river.
Except a weir creates a dam in it's own right where water levels
could be allowed to drop during times when it doesn't blow or is
sunny.
All 'green' sources of power have issues of availability, apart
from nuclear of course.
Now consider how much environmental damage will be caused by messing
the river flow up. No more shallow fast flowing bits for a start.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:01:42 +0000
Vir Campestris <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 23:35, Fredxx wrote:
On 18/01/2025 20:53, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
ft.
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a
sensible approach to replace these with generating plants along
side these weirs.
; BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful
difference to CO2 reduction?
Thousands, but how many weirs are there in the UK? Every bit helps.
The scheme I linked above generates around average of 20kW and
cost £400k ten years ago. The output varies month to month by 4:1.
At 20kW it would take 10 years to pay back, and not be an eye-saw
in the mean time.
It's another technology that requires a backup for when the water
doesn't flow too well in the river.
Except a weir creates a dam in it's own right where water levels
could be allowed to drop during times when it doesn't blow or is
sunny.
All 'green' sources of power have issues of availability, apart
from nuclear of course.
Now consider how much environmental damage will be caused by messing
the river flow up. No more shallow fast flowing bits for a start.
I am curious as to whether sufficient numbers of wind turbines will be
built to begin to affect wind patterns on a large scale, which will of
course cause..... climate change.
On 18/01/2025 23:35, Fredxx wrote:But a lovely calm pike pond gets created...
On 18/01/2025 20:53, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 18:52, Fredxx wrote:
Many rivers have weirs for navigation and so it would seem a
sensible approach to replace these with generating plants along side
these weirs.
BY way of example the Avon or Tewkesbury Lock has a fall of 7-8 ft.
How many of such schemes would it take to make any meaningful
difference to CO2 reduction?
Thousands, but how many weirs are there in the UK? Every bit helps.
The scheme I linked above generates around average of 20kW and cost
£400k ten years ago. The output varies month to month by 4:1.
At 20kW it would take 10 years to pay back, and not be an eye-saw in
the mean time.
It's another technology that requires a backup for when the water
doesn't flow too well in the river.
Except a weir creates a dam in it's own right where water levels could
be allowed to drop during times when it doesn't blow or is sunny.
All 'green' sources of power have issues of availability, apart from
nuclear of course.
Now consider how much environmental damage will be caused by messing the river flow up. No more shallow fast flowing bits for a start.
Andy
Higher temperatures mean generally stronger winds, so perhaps this is a
good thing.
On 20/01/2025 17:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
Now consider how much environmental damage will be caused by messingBut a lovely calm pike pond gets created...
the river flow up. No more shallow fast flowing bits for a start.
Andy
On 20/01/2025 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
Now consider how much environmental damage will be caused byBut a lovely calm pike pond gets created...
messing the river flow up. No more shallow fast flowing bits for a
start.
Andy
But full of weed an algae that will clog the filters and perhaps the generating mechanism - especially with run away temperatures caused
by climate change.
On 20/01/2025 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
Now consider how much environmental damage will be caused by messingBut a lovely calm pike pond gets created...
the river flow up. No more shallow fast flowing bits for a start.
Andy
But full of weed an algae that will clog the filters and perhaps the generating mechanism - especially with run away temperatures caused by climate change.
On 20/01/2025 20:00, alan_m wrote:
On 20/01/2025 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2025 17:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
Now consider how much environmental damage will be caused by messing
the river flow up. No more shallow fast flowing bits for a start.
There are no runaway temperatures caused by climate change, outside ofBut a lovely calm pike pond gets created...
But full of weed an algae that will clog the filters and perhaps the
generating mechanism - especially with run away temperatures caused by
climate change.
the Guardian...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 28:05:36 |
| Calls: | 12,107 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,228 |