Canals to power 45,000 homes

[fender]

This is interesting, but it is nothing new. Its more appropriate in today's energy climate. Just think on it, the canals could even provide clean electrical power for boats, and also serve as a water distribution system to channel water where appropriate in times of water shortage.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7656748.stm

 

PS just edited to say that its interesting that this news has been released ahead of the BW AGM being held in Birmingham later today

Edited October 8, 2008 by fender

[stuart]

Partnerships for Renewables, a privately-funded group that works with public bodies on renewable energy projects, will develop, construct and manage all the equipment at an estimated cost of £150m.

 

They say the scheme will raise more than £1m a year, which will be used for waterway upkeep.

 

Great, so according to that article its costing £150 million to run and returns £1 million profit per year ! Some payback !

 

or are BW just renting the land to the "Partnerships for Renewables" team?

Edited October 8, 2008 by stuart

[sociable_hermit]

BW won't be paying the £150m, though, so does that matter?

 

As well as direct revenue I think they should be asking for some cheap elastictrickery for BW workshops, offices, pumps etc..

 

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of Network Rail lineside equipment cabinets are now fitted with either solar panels or wind gennies? It just goes to show that even the dinosaur organisations are taking an interest in renewable energy now.

[carlt]

Could sort out the "continuous moorer" problem:

 

[US Marines]

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that a lot of Network Rail lineside equipment cabinets are now fitted with either solar panels or wind gennies? It just goes to show that even the dinosaur organisations are taking an interest in renewable energy now.

Yep, there are plans afoot to fix small wind generators along motorway safety fencing - the natural wind field being enhanced by the 'wash' from vehicles....

 

Maybe, after installing their (our ?) generators, BW will raise the speed limit a bit......?

 

Could sort out the "continuous moorer" problem:

 

 

Now, I don't think that was supposed to happen......!

 

They're (usually) fitted with variable pitch blades and, up to the maximum wind speed they can operate in, are programmed to rotate within a relatively tight velocity range regardless of the wind speed. When the max operating wind speed is exceeded, the blades are supposed to turn 90 degrees to the wind and stop....

 

Was this a test do you know...or someone in the right place at the right time with a video camera ?

[carlt]

It's not that uncommon an occurrence:

Clicky

 

Personally I think they have been rushed into production, before the materials research was complete. Sticking a huge motor, on top of a spindly tower, in the windiest places, requires some major testing, before placing them under populated areas and this doesn't seem to have been done, adequately.

 

I think that they should remain offshore until they can be certain this won't happen.

[Machpoint005]

As you can tell from the commentary, which although in Danish is not panicky and sounds unconcerned, this was a test to destruction in high winds. The braking system was not activated, and the blades were not feathered, either of which would have prevented the catastrophic failure. Vestas did it on purpose!

 

The film is, unfortunately, leapt on by the anti-wind-turbine lobby, who fail to mention that despite the installation of tens of thousands of similar machines all over the world, this is the only instance of a modern turbine failing. Large (2.5MW - 3MW) turbines rotate much more slowly than the one on the film, and the blades are much stronger.

 

As you may have guessed, I'm wholly in favour of wind energy - but then, I do know something about it.

 

(edited following Carl's post)

The safety issue is exactly why there are minimum separation distances between any onshore turbine and a dwelling. The partisan 'do I feel lucky' line on the linked web site fails to mention that you would have to be nearby in a high wind - walk under the turbine disc in any reasonable weather and you would be safe - well, at least 100 times safer than driving up the motorway, anyway.

 

The exaggeration on the site is typical of the NIMBYs who would rather have a fossil fuel station in someone else's back garden than a wind turbine they can see from theirs.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Machpoint005

[carlt]

this is the only instance of a modern turbine failing. Large (2.5MW - 3MW) turbines rotate much more slowly than the one on the film, and the blades are much stronger.

 

As you may have guessed, I'm wholly in favour of wind energy - but then, I do know something about it.

Thank goodness this one (and many others) was an April Fool then:

 

news.bbc.co.uk

 

I too know a bit about wind turbines, especially the material science bit, and they are not ready for use in populated areas.

 

I am, also, wholly in favour of wind energy and think that the usual nimby "spoiling my view" argument against them should be dismissed straight away.

 

 

The safety issue is exactly why there are minimum separation distances between any onshore turbine and a dwelling.

So what are the minimum separation distances, then?

 

Edited October 8, 2008 by carlt

[US Marines]

As you can tell from the commentary, which although in Danish is not panicky and sounds unconcerned, this was a test to destruction in high winds. The braking system was not activated, and the blades were not feathered, either of which would have prevented the catastrophic failure. Vestas did it on purpose!

 

Ah - sorry, just realise that the speakers are turned off !

 

Years and years ago you needed a mean annual wind speed of around 8 m/s to make these big wind turbines financially viable - which is why, at that time, they were only suited to a few mainland UK locations.

 

Obviously, due to the technology improving and energy costs rising, they will be financially viable in many more places now - anyone know what the 'rule of thumb' annual average wind speed is for viability these days ?

[bottle]

they are not ready for use in populated areas.

 

I hope you are wrong, there is a rather large one near Reading, on a large office complex, about a rotor blades distance from the M4.

[Collectors]

Must admit that i personally think the things are a blight on the land scape & very noisy in certain conditions. Believe me you wont want to be mooring within a mile of one of these things on a windy night. The only reasons these are going up on the canals, is that some one is making a lot of money out of the project outside the people that use, live & run the canals.

Personally I'm still in favorer of flooding more valleys & going with hydro schemes. This will also give space to build more marinas & accommodation for canal & other boat users.

The bonus is also looking at beautifully lake's & hill's, & not these giant monstrosity's perched on top of a hill that every one can see & hear from miles away.

[carlt]

Personally I'm still in favorer of flooding more valleys & going with hydro schemes. This will also give space to build more marinas & accommodation for canal & other boat users.

The bonus is also looking at beautifully lake's & hill's, & not these giant monstrosity's perched on top of a hill that every one can see & hear from miles away.

Which particular valleys do you think are suitable, then?

[sociable_hermit]

Must admit that i personally think the things are a blight on the land scape & very noisy in certain conditions. Believe me you wont want to be mooring within a mile of one of these things on a windy night. The only reasons these are going up on the canals, is that some one is making a lot of money out of the project outside the people that use, live & run the canals.

Personally I'm still in favorer of flooding more valleys & going with hydro schemes. This will also give space to build more marinas & accommodation for canal & other boat users.

The bonus is also looking at beautifully lake's & hill's, & not these giant monstrosity's perched on top of a hill that every one can see & hear from miles away.

 

Yeah, that scruffy old one on the top of the hill at Napton is a monstrosity!

[tidal]

Must admit that i personally think the things are a blight on the land scape & very noisy in certain conditions. Believe me you wont want to be mooring within a mile of one of these things on a windy night. The only reasons these are going up on the canals, is that some one is making a lot of money out of the project outside the people that use, live & run the canals.

Personally I'm still in favorer of flooding more valleys & going with hydro schemes. This will also give space to build more marinas & accommodation for canal & other boat users.

The bonus is also looking at beautifully lake's & hill's, & not these giant monstrosity's perched on top of a hill that every one can see & hear from miles away.

 

well speaking as one who spent a year moored exactly 125.6m from these

 

( If picture works)

 

the noise was rarely audible never mind intrusive

[GSer]

Which particular valleys do you think are suitable, then?

 

 

The Thames valley would be a good start

[carlt]

Personally I'm still in favorer of flooding more valleys & going with hydro schemes. This will also give space to build more marinas & accommodation for canal & other boat users.

The bonus is also looking at beautifully lake's & hill's, & not these giant monstrosity's perched on top of a hill that every one can see & hear from miles away.

So to flood thousands of acres of countryside, destroying natural habitats and, invariably, peoples' homes, after building a gigantic concrete monstrosity (they don't make the quaint stone turreted dams you find in the peak district, anymore) to hold the natural river flow back is better for the environment than a few wind turbines?

 

And how long, do you think, hydro-electric energy will take to pay back the huge amounts of energy consumed in manufacturing, transporting and constructing the giant, ugly dam, bearing in mind existing hydro-electric schemes, such as the Dinorwig Hydro Electric Power Station are hardly ever switched on?

Edited October 8, 2008 by carlt

[bottle]

So to flood thousands of acres of countryside, destroying natural habitats and, invariably, peoples' homes, after building a gigantic concrete monstrosity (they don't make the quaint stone turreted dams you find in the peak district, anymore) to hold the natural river flow back is better for the environment than a few wind turbines?

 

And how long, do you think, hydro-electric energy will take to pay back the huge amounts of energy consumed in manufacturing, transporting and constructing the giant, ugly dam, bearing in mind existing hydro-electric schemes, such as the Dinorwig Hydro Electric Power Station are hardly ever switched on?

 

Hear! Hear!

[John Orentas]

Hear! Hear!

 

 

I am not really paranoid, not on this topic anyway but I always sense a regional element to many of these issues.. I would feel a bit happier if were to occasionally read about a proposed power station near Sevenoaks and a few copses of wind generators on the Essex marches.. It could be said that a 100,000 acre reservoir in Kensington would greatly add to natural environment.

 

It always it seems to be another Aluminium plant in North Wales or more open cast mining in Yorkshire..

 

An Olympic stadium with its associated accommodation and parkland? Oh yes that must be in London.

[sociable_hermit]

Hydro schemes don't need to be big, or ugly. The Swiss have mini hydro plants on relatively small mountain streams and they manage to blend them in fairly well (the only reason they stick out at all is that anything would be ugly compared to the scenery).

 

I think there's a role for solar, wind and hydro schemes, and for schemes to reduce energy consumption. All of these options are more attractive to me than traditional power stations or nuclear plants. Don't fall into a BW-style divide and conquer trap!

 

Given that we might end up mortgaging energy in manufacturing the equipment to gather heat and power in the future, lifespan and output relative to initial energy cost is the most important issue here. We might have to invest the last of our fossil fuels in building alternative energy schemes - if we get this wrong, it'll be too late to change anything.

 

In the short term, it's disappointing to see that the Whispergen concept never took off. Being green on a boat is tricky - coal stoves and red deisel The only saving grace is that you're heating something 10x smaller than the average house.

[Yoda]

Carl, Dinorwig is a peak lopping power station that recycles its water, so is hardly ever 'on'

[carlt]

I am not really paranoid, not on this topic anyway but I always sense a regional element to many of these issues.. I would feel a bit happier if were to occasionally read about a proposed power station near Sevenoaks and a few copses of wind generators on the Essex marches..

The London array project will have 341 turbines, between Margate and Clacton.

 

48 turbines are being built at Gunfleet Sands

 

Kentish Flats has been generating for 3 years, now.

 

Carl, Dinorwig is a peak lopping power station that recycles its water, so is hardly ever 'on'

I know. I imagine a canal related system would have to operate in a similar way.

Edited October 8, 2008 by carlt

[US Marines]

Carl, Dinorwig is a peak lopping power station that recycles its water, so is hardly ever 'on'

Whadya mean, there are actually quite a few advert breaks in Coronation Street, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks etc !

 

We agree that a mix would seem to be best - horses for courses and all that...

 

We also agree with GSer about at least one major potential site for hydro-electric...

 

And, neatly, this seems to fit in with John's thoughts too....!

 

We're still interested in the mean annual wind speed that you need to make these large wind turbines viable....if anyone out there knows ?

(see our post above)

Edited October 8, 2008 by US Marines

[carlt]

Hydro schemes don't need to be big, or ugly. The Swiss have mini hydro plants on relatively small mountain streams and they manage to blend them in fairly well (the only reason they stick out at all is that anything would be ugly compared to the scenery).

 

I think there's a role for solar, wind and hydro schemes, and for schemes to reduce energy consumption. All of these options are more attractive to me than traditional power stations or nuclear plants. Don't fall into a BW-style divide and conquer trap!

I agree entirely but I was responding to the ridiculous notion that we should be damming valleys, not utilising smaller (and unnavigable) rivers and streams.

 

We're still interested in the mean annual wind speed that you need to make these large wind turbines viable....if anyone out there knows ?

(see our post above)

I'm not sure about mean speeds, or indeed the large monopole turbines but the Vertical Array jobbies (popping up at retail parks, these days), kick in at 2.5m/s, a lot sooner than the monopoles.

Edited October 8, 2008 by carlt

[KenK]

We're still interested in the mean annual wind speed that you need to make these large wind turbines viable....if anyone out there knows ?

(see our post above)

 

Try looking at the Wind Reports produced by EON. Google "Wind Report 2004 or 2005", they make interesting reading as they are produced by one of the major suppliers of wind energy, surprisingly they are very negative if you look at their own facts and figures.

 

Ken

[fender]

The only singularly successful scheme on our waterways - as far as I know - is the HEP installation at Guildford on the Wey.

 

As a lifelong environmentalist, I'm not against any of this stuff - but it does need to be done with real dedication and sensible planning - not be just some cheap score-point job.

 

Other news pages on the topic so far:

 

http://www.greenbang.com/5615/canals-to-ge...nd-hydro-power/

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/7846262