Hmmmm....
Are you sure about that? I'm from New Zealand and there over 10% of the energy is hydroelectric. I doubt that it would be used if it didn't deliver.
Here's a pic for the pro-nuclear to enjoy.
- Thread starter blacktimberwolf
- Start date
Hmmmm....
Are you sure about that? I'm from New Zealand and there over 10% of the energy is hydroelectric. I doubt that it would be used if it didn't deliver.
Yes I'm sure. Hydro was used for load balancing prior to gas fired power stations. We were also very lucky to escape the destruction of Glen Nevis to hydro.
Sorry Tinderbox
I read the statistics elsewhere recently, but that was just the first link I came across when I googled looking for them.Before anyone has a go, I'm not opening a political debate, simply trying to find clear statistics, and reckoning that if it can be done in Scotland it can be done most anywhere.............and BR, I haven't voted Green apart from a place in the proportional representation ballot and I've a loooong way to go to oap status
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Facts
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-sources/19185/
cheers,
Toddy
Don't they use hydro power in the day time when power is needed most through the country and then the water pumped up to the top lake during the night when they have an excess to requirements as not so many are using it.
Of course this is when it is a two lake system, many places are probably using a different system like the Elan Valley in Wales do, they have turbines in the bases of a lot of the Dams which only flow one way.
Of course this is when it is a two lake system, many places are probably using a different system like the Elan Valley in Wales do, they have turbines in the bases of a lot of the Dams which only flow one way.
Bang on!
Dinorwic is definitely of the former design, whilst most other 'conventional' hydro schemes are of the latter.
80% renewable is not fantasy, it is achievable, although probably not within the timeframe specified. The work within NAREC's development centre in Blyth has to be seen to be believed. Where else in the world can/will test 100 metre long turbine blades? If you link this in with the likes of Clipper and Vestas, it is likely that Scotland, and the UK in general, will be at the forefront of Wind turbine technology. Surely this will go some way towards the specified figure for renewables?
The thing is Toddy, I just don't believe we are doing it, or that these numbers bear any relation to reality. I wish I could give you the real figures, but it would probably take me months of full time research to come up with them. What I rely on is a BS detector, it's a lot quicker to go through figures and spot that they're being fudged. What does concern me is that one of the prices of so called green energy is large scale destruction of the environment.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Tinderbox.
I look at a bleak moorland (and they are bleak, I've fieldwalked them, excavated on them, camped on them, roamed on them) with a windfarm on it, and I see potential. I don't find them any more intrusive than the pylons that brought light to the homes of our great grandparents.
I don't see the hydro schemes as disastrous to the environment, indeed the upper Clyde is diverted near New Lanark and on certain days they let the water free to crash over the linns, the earth shudders with the force of it, but we're used to the small flow now, so even that is special.
Loch Awe is damned for hydro, as are many others, it's not considered a horrendous issue now, it's just settled in.
We have an enormous coastline, the potential there is incredible. Wind, Sun and Rain may all be fickle, but twice a day the tide comes in and goes out regardless of whatever else is happening.
The Yorkshire coast is being eaten away metre by metre....the potential power gathering has also the potential to provide a protective barrier...........and as our technology develops, and is refined, then I find no problem envisioning these energy sources providing for our needs.
Hydrocarbons are too useful for us to continue to be so profligate with them.
Nuclear energy is I suppose an unnatural application of a natural process. Again, our technological advances are improving things there all the time and incidents like Three Mile Island, the Japanese site hit by the Tsunami, Chernobyl are incredible warnings to get it right.
Just my 2p worth
cheers,
M
I look at a bleak moorland (and they are bleak, I've fieldwalked them, excavated on them, camped on them, roamed on them) with a windfarm on it, and I see potential. I don't find them any more intrusive than the pylons that brought light to the homes of our great grandparents.
I don't see the hydro schemes as disastrous to the environment, indeed the upper Clyde is diverted near New Lanark and on certain days they let the water free to crash over the linns, the earth shudders with the force of it, but we're used to the small flow now, so even that is special.
Loch Awe is damned for hydro, as are many others, it's not considered a horrendous issue now, it's just settled in.
We have an enormous coastline, the potential there is incredible. Wind, Sun and Rain may all be fickle, but twice a day the tide comes in and goes out regardless of whatever else is happening.
The Yorkshire coast is being eaten away metre by metre....the potential power gathering has also the potential to provide a protective barrier...........and as our technology develops, and is refined, then I find no problem envisioning these energy sources providing for our needs.
Hydrocarbons are too useful for us to continue to be so profligate with them.
Nuclear energy is I suppose an unnatural application of a natural process. Again, our technological advances are improving things there all the time and incidents like Three Mile Island, the Japanese site hit by the Tsunami, Chernobyl are incredible warnings to get it right.
Just my 2p worth
cheers,
M
I certainly think hydro has a place in the scheme of things, particularly if you're blessed with a suitable countryside - lots of hills/mountains, lots of rain etc. Scotland falls into this category, and also has the benefit of having a large but predominantly unpopulated footprint. So energy demands are less, and natural resources greater than England for example.
Windpower? Currently massively inefficient and high capital/high maintenance per KW produced. and of course it doesn't work when the wind's not blowing. Wavepower - all of the windpower costs, plus huge additional ones involved in locating and maintaining in a saltwater environment. There are certain rivers which can be partially dammed to use tidal currents/bores, but cost and environmental considerations again come into play. (And you think the Greens are aggressive? The RSPB make them seem like a bunch of pacifists, so no chance of being located in places with migratory birds etc - which includes pretty much all mudflats )
Windpower? Currently massively inefficient and high capital/high maintenance per KW produced. and of course it doesn't work when the wind's not blowing. Wavepower - all of the windpower costs, plus huge additional ones involved in locating and maintaining in a saltwater environment. There are certain rivers which can be partially dammed to use tidal currents/bores, but cost and environmental considerations again come into play. (And you think the Greens are aggressive? The RSPB make them seem like a bunch of pacifists, so no chance of being located in places with migratory birds etc - which includes pretty much all mudflats
)
???? I've never even heard of a serious hydroelectric plant that was anywhere BUT at the base of a damn. Re-pumping water back uphill seems just silly.
It's "settled in" for the people perhaps. But what of the dam's effect on fish migration? Water temperature (downstream and upstream) which effects everything from water plant growth to fish reproduction? What about the silt build up caused by restricted flow? Many of these problems don't become apparent until long after the fact. These are issues that are causing many legislators here to consider dismantling long established dam's (Hoover Dam is one example) due to the detrimental effects it has had on the Colorado River. Not that I believe those considerations will ever gain enough momentum to happen (Hoover Dam provides most of the electric power to all of Southern California and Nevada; a population in the millions) but the detrimental effects to the environment are very real and hence NO NEW dams have been built in decades.
I agree that nuclear plants have their dangers. BUT! They are definitely the ONLY proven technology that produces little or no environmental footprint unless an accident occurs. In that light it would seem that the best course would be continued development of the safety of these plants. Perhaps build them inland (away from tsunamis or hurricanes) and deep underground? (the way the last nuclear tests were carried out)
Here's a question for the members here: Does anyone know how many civilian reactors there are worldwide? In over 60 years with ever how many that number is, there have only been 3 accidents. 1 of those was caused by a tsunami and another (possibly both) of the remaining 2 were caused by an aging reactor that wasn't properly maintained. ALL of those SHOULD have been foreseen and prevented.
Last edited:
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
We currently have a "lingering big debate" here about the wind power generators. I've come to the conclusion that yes, they deface the landscape, are ugly, the conctracts the landowners are pressured into accepting are not exactly favorable, but that wind power has one huge advantage over anything else used in Sweden today (ok, solar is in the same boat): we can fairly easilly tear it down "tomorrow" if there is a reason, and things wil be back where they were. Ok, minus piles of rubble in the woods, but that is minor, really. Hydro? I have never read any studies on how long it might take a river ecosystem to return to normal if the dams were all removed: my WAG is century. Nuclear? The waste is a big issue, and the mines are mostly horrible open pit things. Fossil is mostly used for transport here these days, and we all desperately wait for sane alternatives that work for all use cases.
Nuclear suffers from the fact that the costs are so damn visible, because the happen all at once in a spectacular manner. The effects of coal are, I am given to understand, greater but more spread out, and thus more invisible.
In the longish run (next 50-100 years) I expect that we should -- and will, kicking and screaming in some cases -- aim for a combination of renewables and nuclear. Despite it being fairly safe I would rather not have the latter ("better than coal" is damning by faint praise), but I do not think we have a real choice. But I'm looking closely at Germany: if they can pull it off without just externalizing the environmental impact that would be great, and the way to go.
Nuclear suffers from the fact that the costs are so damn visible, because the happen all at once in a spectacular manner. The effects of coal are, I am given to understand, greater but more spread out, and thus more invisible.
In the longish run (next 50-100 years) I expect that we should -- and will, kicking and screaming in some cases -- aim for a combination of renewables and nuclear. Despite it being fairly safe I would rather not have the latter ("better than coal" is damning by faint praise), but I do not think we have a real choice. But I'm looking closely at Germany: if they can pull it off without just externalizing the environmental impact that would be great, and the way to go.
Santaman, our country is one where fishing is a 'sport' (so much so that legislation prevents most effective fishing methods) so great efforts were made to allow the passage of migrating species; fish ladders are de rigeur on all and any dams or weirs. Most have viewing ports too so that folks can go and have a look at the fish going up or down stream
The old adage, "What can't change, dies." is kind of relevant too, and not just for us. The wildlife does change according to new environmental habitats and restrictions, but careful forethought and planning help mitigate the worst of it. It also helps that our homes are on the Atlantic Islands; water is plentiful for much of the area, long coastlines and deep glaciated valleys and many on hard rock such as granite. Generally the dams are riverine and not very wide anyway, oftimes they're just weirs, like the old millraces but brought up to date, that only take partial flow of the waters.
Flexibility of technology, and infrastructure specific to site really helps.
I know, I'm an optimist, but approach the problems with the attitude that, "we can do this", add some applied pragmatism, and it's amazing what humanity can achieve
cheers,
Toddy
The old adage, "What can't change, dies." is kind of relevant too, and not just for us. The wildlife does change according to new environmental habitats and restrictions, but careful forethought and planning help mitigate the worst of it. It also helps that our homes are on the Atlantic Islands; water is plentiful for much of the area, long coastlines and deep glaciated valleys and many on hard rock such as granite. Generally the dams are riverine and not very wide anyway, oftimes they're just weirs, like the old millraces but brought up to date, that only take partial flow of the waters.
Flexibility of technology, and infrastructure specific to site really helps.
I know, I'm an optimist, but approach the problems with the attitude that, "we can do this
", add some applied pragmatism, and it's amazing what humanity can achieve cheers,
Toddy
Last edited:
Hydroelectric dams have a MASSIVELY detrimental effect on the environment.
A quick google on the "Belo Monte Dam" in Brazil or the "Three Gorges Dam" in China will enlighten any that think otherwise.
It's also worth mentioning that although the exact figures are under debate there is no absolutely no doubt that Hydroelectric dams produce a MASSIVE amount of greenhouse emissions.
People often forget that there are massive amounts of vegetation and trees in the area flooded, these rot underwater giving the same amount of CO2 than if they were burnt, or fossilised and burnt.
Then there is the MASSIVE methane output these dams produce, from thermal stratification.
When they do fail they cause a MASSIVE amount of damage to the environment and the life.
When the Banqiao Dam in China catastrophically failed in 1975 is killed 26,000 people almost instantly, with another 145,000 dieing a slower death after from both famine and epidemics.
It also left 11 million people homeless.
Or there is the Fujinuma Dam that catastrophically failed in the 2011 earthquake.
Difficult to put numbers on the amount of deaths that resulted, it tends to range between 75 and 200, 1800 people did loose their homes though.
Some numbers to chew on here.
Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station 1250 MWe
Hoover Dam 2000 MWe
Didcot B (coal/oil) 1450 MWe
Solar panels needed to produce 1000 MWe will need between 15 square miles to 150 square Km depending on which calculations you trust (here)
Commercial Wind turbines produce up to 5 MWe, that's IF they're being blown 24/7,
Debatable but it's generally rated that they run at less than 25% efficient in real use.
So lets really give wind turbines the benefit of doubt and say they average 1 MWe, you'd need 1250 of them to equal the output of Hinkley B.
What area do they need around 70² meters?
70² x 1250 = 87500²m
87²km needed to house them.
Any other suggestions on a better solution than nuclear power?
A quick google on the "Belo Monte Dam" in Brazil or the "Three Gorges Dam" in China will enlighten any that think otherwise.
It's also worth mentioning that although the exact figures are under debate there is no absolutely no doubt that Hydroelectric dams produce a MASSIVE amount of greenhouse emissions.
People often forget that there are massive amounts of vegetation and trees in the area flooded, these rot underwater giving the same amount of CO2 than if they were burnt, or fossilised and burnt.
Then there is the MASSIVE methane output these dams produce, from thermal stratification.
When they do fail they cause a MASSIVE amount of damage to the environment and the life.
When the Banqiao Dam in China catastrophically failed in 1975 is killed 26,000 people almost instantly, with another 145,000 dieing a slower death after from both famine and epidemics.
It also left 11 million people homeless.
Or there is the Fujinuma Dam that catastrophically failed in the 2011 earthquake.
Difficult to put numbers on the amount of deaths that resulted, it tends to range between 75 and 200, 1800 people did loose their homes though.
Some numbers to chew on here.
Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station 1250 MWe
Hoover Dam 2000 MWe
Didcot B (coal/oil) 1450 MWe
Solar panels needed to produce 1000 MWe will need between 15 square miles to 150 square Km depending on which calculations you trust (here)
Commercial Wind turbines produce up to 5 MWe, that's IF they're being blown 24/7,
Debatable but it's generally rated that they run at less than 25% efficient in real use.
So lets really give wind turbines the benefit of doubt and say they average 1 MWe, you'd need 1250 of them to equal the output of Hinkley B.
What area do they need around 70² meters?
70² x 1250 = 87500²m
87²km needed to house them.
Any other suggestions on a better solution than nuclear power?
Last edited:
