PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

positive potential future of nuclear power
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Run of river hydro potential in the UK is pretty small, but I would agree that we should fully tap the resource.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
We wouldnt need Icelandic Geothermal or Norwegian Hydro if we would merely access our own hydro.

Do you have a figure for untapped hydro potential in the UK? I expect it's fairly small, couple at most of current demand. Most of the decent sites are already exploited.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Do you have a figure for untapped hydro potential in the UK? I expect it's fairly small, couple at most of current demand.

Nothing beyond what I've seen with my own eyes, but thats not exactly minor, theres 100l of flow at 2metres of head that I "discovered" walking back from the garage not long ago. That was just a semi natural waterfall I spotted, on a river that eventualy lets out at liverpool some 75+ miles away.
Theres a whole system of weirs already in place elsewhere that even minor works could bring into use, and plenty of opportunity to extend the system down hill, probably only pulling a Kw at each drop, but I have simply no idea how many weirs be put in, or how many already exist further up stream.
If you dont mind the building work, and a huge lake, you build a 20m high dam when it reaches its nearest to my house.

Quote:
Most of the decent sites are already exploited.

Define decent
I'm not exagerating for effect when I say I'd damn ever river in the country. I'm being absolutly serious.
If the Government were really serious, it would fine every outlet to the sea, follow it back up stream building dams as it went

To say our potential is tapped rather pales when we look at the three gorges.
Flooding London might be a step too far, but who would notice if we flooded Liverpool?
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Environment Agency found a bit over 1GW:

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0310BRYF-E-E.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2010/mar/09/map-hydropower-hotspots-uk

That's a couple of % which is not to be sniffed at.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pepperman wrote:
That's a couple of % which is not to be sniffed at.

That's what I expected.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But that only looks at pre existing water falls or weirs, and does so through a lens of fish conservation, not power generation.

It doesnt look at any new large scale schemes, or new small scale for that matter, or even provide a "best case scenario".

Additionaly, it misses Scotland entirely...
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/01/21113034

Seriously it's pretty limited, but all useful contribution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7636

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
...and does so through a lens of fish conservation, not power generation.

What do you have against fish. Surely having fish in rivers is better than an extra GW of electricity?
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont have anything against fish.
I'd burn coal and shale gas till the sun consumes us, but you've said we cant.
So I'll dam rivers and keep them damed till the sun consumes us.

If you say we cant do that either, some people might conclude your goal isnt to prevent global warming or provide sustainable electricity, its to force the world back into an agrarian hell.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pepperman wrote:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2010/01/21113034

Seriously it's pretty limited, but all useful contribution.


Its as much as England and Wales!
And it sounds like the methodolgy used was very similar, it only counts pre existing barriers.

Who knows how much is available with sufficient geoscaping.
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was referring to the total.

I don't think you can simply put hydro in every stretch of river for practical reasons (grid connections etc) but also you can't ignore biodiversity impacts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bandidoz
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
If you say we cant do that either, some people might conclude your goal isnt to prevent global warming or provide sustainable electricity, its to force the world back into an agrarian hell.

Nah - we're all for rapid expansion of renewable energy. It's conservationists who are actually taking us back to an agrarian hell.
"Do hydro instead of wind" is what one set of conservationists say.
"Do wind instead of hydro" is what another set of conservationists say.
End result of the ensemble will be - no progress on renewables and FFs running out....welcome to the neo-agrarian society.
Anyway, I don't see what any of this has to do with the future potential of nuclear....
_________________
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Anyway, I don't see what any of this has to do with the future potential of nuclear....


I had wondered that a couple of posts back
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DominicJ wrote:
Pepperman
I said on another thread recently I'd happily damn every stream and river in the country.

Unfortunatly, the green movement, or perhaps the subsidy chasing part of it, has spent rather a lot of effort discrediting hydro.

We wouldnt need Icelandic Geothermal or Norwegian Hydro if we would merely access our own hydro.

With the others, theres simply little call for wind...


The Green movement has worked against large scale hydro because, in a small, highly populated country, large scale hydro has a disproportionate effect on people and places and wildlife. The Green movement is concerned about the environment as a whole in this country and there are very few unspoilt areas left for us to ruin. There isn't much worse that you can do to an unspoilt area than put up a dam, hundreds of feet high, and then fill behind with water. Also most large scale hydro sites in this country have been used. Filling our last valley for hydro electric power is akin to a Brazilian cutting the last tree in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS so the whole world can eat cheap meat. We need to leave somewhere for nature to thrive. That said we have tremendous potential for small scale and micro hydro at all the old watermill sites in the country.

I will be going to a seminar at the Henley River and Rowing Museum in a few weeks time for their third seminar on micro hydro in the Thames Valley. The Environment Agency, especially, have come a long way from the first seminar when they were quite anti because of the "harm" done to their river environment; all these nasty turbines chopping up the fish that had so recently returned to their newly cleaned up river.

With the advent of the Archimedes Screw turbine they have changed their minds although last year they wanted to get a trial installation off the blocks before they would talk about a large scale turn out. This year, before they have got even one trial site, at Windsor or Goring, going we will be told about how to convert old mill sites in the Kennet valley. So things are changing rapidly. Although this may change for economic reasons because of shale gas (See other thread that I'm going to start).

The potential we have for hydro in this country is nowhere near what can be had from Iceland or Norway. In the UK most of our sites have a head of less than three metres against hundreds of metres in Norway. One average fjord in Norway probably has a few hundred potential sites with nine hundred to a thousand metres head with a snow melt of two or three metres thickness. The energy potential of a site increases with the square of the head so Norway has quite an advantage.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DominicJ



Joined: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 4387
Location: NW UK

PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal wrote:
The Green movement has worked against large scale hydro because, in a small, highly populated country, large scale hydro has a disproportionate effect on people and places and wildlife.


Compared to the imminent destruction of all life on earth?
_________________
I'm a realist, not a hippie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group