Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

The AECB accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. Views given in posts are not necessarily the views of the AECB.



    • CommentAuthorbobo
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2008
     
    I have this river that runs down from the mountains and drops about 20ft from one side of my land to the other.It never dries up and always has a good flow.
    What would be the best way to use it's power ?
    Thanks.
    http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1438/0003766qs1.jpg
    http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/1536/0003763mm5.jpg
    http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4904/0003765cw4.jpg
    http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/2293/0003767rw3.jpg
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2008
     
    • CommentAuthorbobo
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2008
     
    Thanks Tom.
    I was thinking more along the lines of a simple turbine like the Navitron ones.
    Are these any good ?

    ps........its Snowdonia :wink:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2008
     
    Ah yes, Snowdonia - Dartmoor, Teign Gorge, me. Are the Navitron ones different from http://www.british-hydro.co.uk/download.pdf ? Do you mean a water wheel that just dips into the passing water? Very little power there.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2008
     
    You will need to use the full 20 ft = 6m head and do some substantial engineering to dam the river enough to collect the water and pipe it to a turbine at the lowest point on your land. It would be good to measure the water flow possibly using a v board and then estimate the output. From previous experience this could be disappointingly low but it could be more in winter when you need it most but the capital cost will go up to do that and then not be used to its full in the summer.

    Do calculations first, then cost it, then decide.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2008
     
    And what (low) %age of that flow are you prepared to divert down the pipe, so it no longer comes over your fabulous rocks and falls? Maybe you only take flow (a high %age) when it's in spate? Economics.
    •  
      CommentAuthormrswhitecat
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2008 edited
     
    Would a GSHP set up (I've seen sketches of them with the slinky affair dipping into a water source) save the prettiness of the river?
    • CommentAuthorpahuk
    • CommentTimeAug 4th 2008
     
    In my experience, I have found the Environment Agency and Planning Authorities very negative when discussing small hydro electric power plants.

    I have been deterred from applying for any licenses by very broad brush attitudes from EA officers with comments like 'of course you will need to change the flow of the water and we can't allow that' and 'the impact on water life will be devastating, what if a fish swims into the turbine'

    I feel a lot of this has to do with a lack of education and understanding within the relevant authorities (especially where planning is concerned) and a presumption that all hydro electric plants are the same as the huge civic hydro electric dams but on a smaller scale.

    As a result, I'm afraid I have absolutely no experience with building anything like them, even though I really want to.

    I hope it is not all doom and gloom and wish bobo the best of luck and would be interested to see how you get on.
  1.  
    What about an old fashioned over-shot waterwheel with some of the water fed along wooden troughs? The whole thing could be home-made.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2008
     
    A 12ft diam overshot wheel only generates 1 horsepower per ft of width - but huge torque.
  2.  
    But it would look nice, wouldn't need engineering works like dams etc, needn't interfere with the natural river at all, as you could regulate the flow with a wooden sluice gate and just operate the mill when you wanted the power.
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2008
     
    Posted By: fostertomA 12ft diam overshot wheel only generates 1 horsepower per ft of width - but huge torque.

    Does that torque translate in practice into a higher output for any generator connected to the wheel? If so, how do the calculations work?
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2008
     
    Power is proportional to volume (weight of water) x fall ------------ torque is a red herring in thinking about this problem.
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2008
     
    So for an overshot water-wheel presumably (the amount of water held on the falling side of the wheel) x (the height of fall during which the water stays on the wheel)? For which you'd need to know the capacity and exact shape of the 'buckets' on the wheel (excuse my ignorance of overshot water-wheel component terminology). And the flow would come in to it, because the wheel would have to be designed to accommodate as much water as possible to maximise power, but would maybe be inefficient if it was handling a lot less than its designed capacity?
    I'm intrigued, because there's a semi-derelict mill near where I live; the wheel, about 12 foot diameter, is there but almost collapsed, the mill-house is crumbling, but the mill-race is intact, about a hundred foot run all neatly lined with big pieces of slate, with nice stone sluices all ready to open. The owner has refused to sell the place to anyone, evidently preferring to let it rot, but it had occurred to me that one day it could be a good spot for a little private hydro-electric project.
  3.  
    I was involved in a mircohydro (6Kw) project in the early nineties
    It was in a national park
    a catchment point was constructed at the highest point in a convient pool in the stream , then a 150mm pipe was run about 60m+across pasture the most direct route possible to the lowest point and the generator shed ,then on to feed back into the stream
    it was all done in a very low keys way
    As far as I'm aware ita been happily generating energy for the last 18 year without problem and the knowledge of any authorities
    • CommentAuthorjoe.e
    • CommentTimeAug 8th 2008
     
    Jamesingram, do you remember what the height difference was, roughly?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2008
     
    Posted By: joe.ethe wheel would have to be designed to accommodate as much water as possible to maximise power, but would maybe be inefficient if it was handling a lot less than its designed capacity?
    Not particularly - you mean if the buckets were half empty? You don't need to know the shape of the buckets as long as they're big enough.
    Posted By: joe.eone day it could be a good spot for a little private hydro-electric project
    Only inasmuch as water extraction rights exist (or not, if they've lapsed or been sold). You wouldn't use the leat, wheel or mill building - it would be done as jamesingram describes, which means it could be done anywhere, regardless of previous waterworks. http://www.british-hydro.co.uk/download.pdf has everything you need to know.
  4.  
    I've been trying to remember more details , I was paid in food and drink (whiskey)for my efforts so my memory of the job is a bit cloudy
    thinking about it, the run must have been 100m+ and very roughly the head was around 30m
    • CommentAuthormike7
    • CommentTimeAug 9th 2008
     
    I think CAT has good information on this subject.
    Old geezer remembers ..... I made a working model cross flow turbine for them about 25 yrs ago. It drove a bike dynamo.
    • CommentAuthorCliff Pope
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2008
     
    With a waterwheel you could have some fun operating machinery directly, rather than thinking in terms of generating electricity first. What about a saw mill? Either a geared-up wheel, or a slow cutting straight saw you could feed tree trunks past. I watched a tiny engine at a show geared down with a leather belt with a crank hitched to a large reciprocating saw. He just put a 2 foot tree trunk on the ground and left it to saw away.

    Drill
    Pumps
    Grinding corn
    The uses must be endless one you have rotating shafting in a workshop.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2008
     
    mechanically driven heat pump, for infinite COP! (in terms of bought fuel)
  5.  
    Posted By: fostertommechanically driven heat pump, for infinite COP! (in terms of bought fuel)


    COP is always defined as (power output) / (power input) - it makes no mention of the cost of that input power. Though it would be a good use of that river, that's for sure since it would be both the source of the heat and the mechanical power needed to make it useful.

    Paul in Montreal.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2008
     
    In this case it meant coefficient of pocketmoney.
  6.  
    Posted By: fostertomIn this case it meant coefficient of pocketmoney.


    Howabout Coefficient Of Parsimony? That would certainly appeal to my fellow Yorkshiremen ;)

    Paul born in East Yorkshire and now in Montreal
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2008
     
    Aha! Actually, why didn't those early mill engineers invent heat pumps? History might have been very different!
    • CommentAuthorDavipon
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2008
     
    Excuse my ignorance,how does water run a heat pump & be the source of heat,blooming cold there!
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeAug 11th 2008
     
    Posted By: Paul in MontrealCOP is always defined as (power output) / (power input) - it makes no mention of the cost of that input power.


    If what you say was true then the long-term average COP of all devices would be exactly one.

    To make sense COP counts the paid-for power in and useful power out. E.g., a split air-conditioner type heat pump in heating mode might have:

    1. Electrical input: 3 kW.
    2. Heat delivered to the room: 9 kW.
    3. Heat absorbed from the outside: 6.5 kW.
    4. Heat and noise wasted to the outside world: 0.5 kW.

    Adding all the inputs and outputs you'd get a COP = (9 + 0.5) / (3 + 6.5) = 1.

    More sensibly, you take the useful heat to the room (9 kW) and divide by the paid-for electricity (3 kW) and get a COP of 3.

    In other words, you ignore the energy going in which has zero cost. If Tom wants to regard the power from his water mill as zero cost then that's up to him. Personally, I think there's at least an opportunity cost there.
  7.  
    Posted By: Ed Davies
    To make sense COP counts the paid-for power in and useful power out. E.g., a split air-conditioner type heat pump in heating mode might have:


    It's not paid for power - it's power you supply to run the pump in the form of mechanical work. So my comment still stands - COP = power output / power supplied to run the pump

    The heat moved by the pump is not counted in the COP calculation.

    Paul in Montreal.
    • CommentAuthorMiked2714
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2008
     
    pahuk. Sorry to hear about your negative experiences with people from the Environment Agency. The attitude you mentioned is not even in keeping with their own policies. People's experiences must be dependent on individual officers as there are plenty of micro hydro schemes going ahead with Agency support. Can anyone please post something if in the future they run into problems of this nature and I will endeavour to help.
    • CommentAuthorpahuk
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2008
     
    Miked2714.
    It seems that it is very dependant on the area you are in and not necessarily the merits of the scheme as to the response obtained from the Environment Agency, I wonder if this has something to do with education rather than policy.
    For an example, a project I had some involvement in (not huge technical involvement though so please don't ask me for all the facts and figures) was the reuse of an existing mill with existing chase but having lost its wheel some time ago.
    The project was to re-insert an overshoot water wheel into the existing chase (is that the right word?) and use it to generate a small quantity of power and use the mechanical movement for other demonstrations within the old working mill to grind corn etc.
    The Environment Agency's response was less than helpful and felt like a huge hurdle jumping exercise with comments like those I posted before being banded about and a renewal of a historic extraction licence being the subject of our misery.
    Despite the fact the chase was not dry, i.e. it already had water running through it, and to all intensive purposes the mill was in working order, with the exception of the mill wheel, the EA refused to allow the occupants to control the water on 'environmental and flood grounds'
    I would be happy to hear of peoples successful applications as this is of interest to me in the future.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press