Give us a fracking break!

Author
Discussion

Efbe

9,251 posts

165 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Efbe said:
turbobloke said:
hidetheelephants said:
Efbe said:
what about Hydro?
It's ok but it can cause a lot of environmental damage if it's not done properly, there aren't that many sites left in the UK to put it as the easy/good ones are already done and it's on a par with offshore wind in the cost stakes.
Also, whatever you say, don't mention the methane emissions from hydro. It doesn't actually matter, but some uninformed types think it's a worse sin against Gaia than tax gas while simultaneously praising hydro's green creds.
wouldn't building dams in hilly areas could create thousands of these across the country.

are there quite strenuous requirements around the flow/speed of water required?
The claim is that most suitable natural sites are taken. Building smaller localised versions to power communities is an option but it's expensive.

I'm not current (no pun intened) on the precise requirements of the different types and designs of hydro, more on the "non-polluting" (not quite) / "environment impacting" aspects
Being up in the pennines, we have literally thousands of old dams on our rivers. Mostly crumbling away and all unused, they used to provide the power for much of the industrial revolution around these parts.

maybe not as big as the hydro plants in scotland I have seen, but surely this is a perfect way of gaining energy. Something that we managed to get working 150 years ago without the technology we have now!

crankedup

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Our coal reserves are humongous, why money can't have been spent on clean coal technology and modern extraction methods is a crime imo.

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
Being up in the pennines, we have literally thousands of old dams on our rivers. Mostly crumbling away and all unused, they used to provide the power for much of the industrial revolution around these parts.

maybe not as big as the hydro plants in scotland I have seen, but surely this is a perfect way of gaining energy. Something that we managed to get working 150 years ago without the technology we have now!
Can you guess why we abandoned it? Go on, get the old grey matter working.

Efbe

9,251 posts

165 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
Efbe said:
Being up in the pennines, we have literally thousands of old dams on our rivers. Mostly crumbling away and all unused, they used to provide the power for much of the industrial revolution around these parts.

maybe not as big as the hydro plants in scotland I have seen, but surely this is a perfect way of gaining energy. Something that we managed to get working 150 years ago without the technology we have now!
Can you guess why we abandoned it? Go on, get the old grey matter working.
because these factories were all processing wool, which now comes from third world countries.

because they didn't have turbines and generators, or an electric grid back then.

Sorry, I fail to see your point.

crankedup

25,764 posts

242 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
turbobloke said:
Efbe said:
turbobloke said:
hidetheelephants said:
Efbe said:
what about Hydro?
It's ok but it can cause a lot of environmental damage if it's not done properly, there aren't that many sites left in the UK to put it as the easy/good ones are already done and it's on a par with offshore wind in the cost stakes.
Also, whatever you say, don't mention the methane emissions from hydro. It doesn't actually matter, but some uninformed types think it's a worse sin against Gaia than tax gas while simultaneously praising hydro's green creds.
wouldn't building dams in hilly areas could create thousands of these across the country.

are there quite strenuous requirements around the flow/speed of water required?
The claim is that most suitable natural sites are taken. Building smaller localised versions to power communities is an option but it's expensive.

I'm not current (no pun intened) on the precise requirements of the different types and designs of hydro, more on the "non-polluting" (not quite) / "environment impacting" aspects
Being up in the pennines, we have literally thousands of old dams on our rivers. Mostly crumbling away and all unused, they used to provide the power for much of the industrial revolution around these parts.

maybe not as big as the hydro plants in scotland I have seen, but surely this is a perfect way of gaining energy. Something that we managed to get working 150 years ago without the technology we have now!
Indeed, part of the infrastructure back then was of course the canal system, another asset which was allowed to crumble away. Fortunately some visionary volunteers stepped in to save our canals, thanks to them we have a truly wonderful amenity enjoyed by countless numbers of people. Not forgetting the income the canals bring into localities.

Much the same with steam railways, shame about the Government ripping out rail links.

Much the same with the trams.

OK it's small beer compared to hydro dams but sometimes we can learn from history, but not our Governments, sadly.

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
XM5ER said:
Efbe said:
Being up in the pennines, we have literally thousands of old dams on our rivers. Mostly crumbling away and all unused, they used to provide the power for much of the industrial revolution around these parts.

maybe not as big as the hydro plants in scotland I have seen, but surely this is a perfect way of gaining energy. Something that we managed to get working 150 years ago without the technology we have now!
Can you guess why we abandoned it? Go on, get the old grey matter working.
because these factories were all processing wool, which now comes from third world countries.

because they didn't have turbines and generators, or an electric grid back then.

Sorry, I fail to see your point.
Nope, they had switched to coal/steam a century earlier. Guess again.

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
Being up in the pennines, we have literally thousands of old dams on our rivers. Mostly crumbling away and all unused, they used to provide the power for much of the industrial revolution around these parts.

maybe not as big as the hydro plants in scotland I have seen, but surely this is a perfect way of gaining energy. Something that we managed to get working 150 years ago without the technology we have now!
There's a really great and interesting episode of The Tweenies (no, really!) where they go inside a Scottish Hydro station carved deep inside a mountain.

Mr Whippy

28,944 posts

240 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
andymadmak said:
Mr Whippy said:
Solar lost out to fracking primarily because of floor space being used up.

If you put them onto building roofs then the biggest negative for solar in that diagram disappeared.
In part, but only part. In this country solar power lost out because, well, it's not very good here. Darkness, snow, heavy rain etc all affect panel performance.
It's OK for heating a finite amount water ( a bit like turning your immersion heater on before taking a bath) but for providing usable energy to drive other household and industrial requirements 24/7 it's about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Part of the issue is how to store excess energy, particularly energy generated from renewable sources. At present we can't do it very well - aside from simple schemes such as pumping some water up a mountain or such like to let it fall back down we need power and the renewable source is offline -
Battery technology is not there yet, and despite many promises it looks like it won't be there for a while to come.

One interesting proposition is to take excess renewable energy and use it to convert something into a storable fuel. I am aware of at least one project that involves taking CO2 and converting it to CH4 using excess renewable energy to facilitate the process.
Exactly my point.

Solar has some fine purposes, but mass-power generation to feed into a national grid isn't really one of them in the UK.

Sticking them on peoples roofs to generate hot water on the other hand seems like a good idea.


My dad has some random glass tube things on his roof and doesn't need to heat any water in summer. He installed them himself. He also plumbed in his cast iron fire which he feeds wood in winter, so that heats his hot water in winter.

That is very localised joined up thinking and it works.

But I can be pretty sure that the big energy companies don't actually like this because they're losing out from being able to basically give you back what you generate (solar on your roof with feed in tarrif) with some value skimmed off.


Which is where we are failing with policy generally. Big centralised power generation/distribution doesn't work with these small novel power generation ideas.
And so big power companies only want stuff they can profit from. But that is backwards unless they're willing to actually put their money where their mouths are and invest in something for the long term that actually works.

Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
The only problem with your suggestion is I suspect many, many people have ripped out their old hot water immersion tanks and now no longer have the space for them!

Efbe

9,251 posts

165 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
Nope, they had switched to coal/steam a century earlier. Guess again.
no they didn't. not where I live.

in the cities yes, but not here. cotton and wool mills were powered by water wheels/mill ponds until the trade came from abroad.

but still you have ignored the important part. they did not have the technology to produce electricity and put it into the national grid then!!! They were used form something completely different.

Pooh

3,692 posts

252 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
The funny thing about this is that hydro electric power generation has caused serious earthquakes where as fracking has not.

https://www.internationalrivers.org/earthquakes-tr...

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Mr Whippy said:
Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave
What do you mean by long term?

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
no they didn't. not where I live.

in the cities yes, but not here. cotton and wool mills were powered by water wheels/mill ponds until the trade came from abroad.

but still you have ignored the important part. they did not have the technology to produce electricity and put it into the national grid then!!! They were used form something completely different.
What? You had operating water driven mills in the 1950's? Wow.

I haven't missed the important part, you have. The reason they stopped being used is because coal/steam plants meant that mill owners no longer had to be tied to building mills in difficult hilly locations with poor transport infrastructure and could now do the same thing in a town or city on the canal and latterly rail network and therefore have much better access to their markets and labour. There was another reason too, droughts and floods; I know the BBC would have you believe that these phenomena only happened after 1980 but there are records going back centuries that talk about windless dry months when people starved to death because the mills had no power.

A small water mill, even one using a pelton wheel and modern generating plant would probably only power a modern house or two and at great expense. The expense part I know about as a friend of mine has a house with land in a perfect location but his ROI is in the decades even with tax breaks (he did the research).

Efbe

9,251 posts

165 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
What? You had operating water driven mills in the 1950's? Wow.

I haven't missed the important part, you have. The reason they stopped being used is because coal/steam plants meant that mill owners no longer had to be tied to building mills in difficult hilly locations with poor transport infrastructure and could now do the same thing in a town or city on the canal and latterly rail network and therefore have much better access to their markets and labour. There was another reason too, droughts and floods; I know the BBC would have you believe that these phenomena only happened after 1980 but there are records going back centuries that talk about windless dry months when people starved to death because the mills had no power.

A small water mill, even one using a pelton wheel and modern generating plant would probably only power a modern house or two and at great expense. The expense part I know about as a friend of mine has a house with land in a perfect location but his ROI is in the decades even with tax breaks (he did the research).
nope, but c1900-20 industry shifted away

anyhow, yes you are starting to answer my initial question, which is what does it take to get hydro working.
what size of river do you need for it?

Mr Whippy

28,944 posts

240 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
jshell said:
Mr Whippy said:
Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave
What do you mean by long term?
Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.

hidetheelephants

23,762 posts

192 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
Efbe said:
Being up in the pennines, we have literally thousands of old dams on our rivers. Mostly crumbling away and all unused, they used to provide the power for much of the industrial revolution around these parts.

maybe not as big as the hydro plants in scotland I have seen, but surely this is a perfect way of gaining energy. Something that we managed to get working 150 years ago without the technology we have now!
These installations were abandoned largely because they were very seasonal and impossible to scale up compared to steam power; they could be used to generate electricity on a micro or pico scale but the capital cost is high, typically 5 times as much as small scale onshore wind. A few community schemes have been built in Scotland in the 50-200kW range but the government binning the FIT criteria brought any unstarted schemes to a halt. I was peripherally involved in a local one but it was still at the fagpacket stage when the plug was pulled, it would have been about 150kW with a capital cost of maybe £1m. The numbers can only be made to add up with FIT payments.

motco

15,919 posts

245 months

Thursday 26th May 2016
quotequote all
crankedup said:
Our coal reserves are humongous, why money can't have been spent on clean coal technology and modern extraction methods is a crime imo.
Extraction by telechiric methods was espoused in the 1970s but met with union resistance I believe.

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Friday 27th May 2016
quotequote all
Mr Whippy said:
jshell said:
Mr Whippy said:
Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave
What do you mean by long term?
Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.
That's a good timescale to solve any energy crisis - properly. None of this windy mill shyte!

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Friday 27th May 2016
quotequote all
Mr Whippy said:
Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.
That's about as long (circa 50 years) as we have had North Sea gas, so not a bad mid-term solution since that the vast majority of UKs heating plant is already based on natural gas.

AdeTuono

7,240 posts

226 months

Friday 27th May 2016
quotequote all
jshell said:
Mr Whippy said:
jshell said:
Mr Whippy said:
Fracking won't last for the long term. We need investment in stuff that works!

Dave
What do you mean by long term?
Long term, as in a long time. Long as in a lifetime.

In 50-100 years time.
That's a good timescale to solve any energy crisis - properly. None of this windy mill shyte!
Wasn't 80-odd the figure originally mooted for fracking gas reserves? Or is that a lie from the big bad energy companies as well?