Solar farm plans for West End

Work could start as soon as December

Work could start as soon as December

First published in Eastleigh Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

A SOLAR farm with more than 25,000 panels could be created on Hampshire countryside.

Energy company Solarcentury wants to create the facility at Chalcroft Farm in Burnetts Lane, West End.

The 25,632 panels, which would generate up to 7.3mw of electricity, would take up nearly 200,000 square metres of farmland.

A footpath that currently crosses the proposed site would be diverted to the northern boundary under the plans.

There would also be inverter cabins and a small substation built on the land, so that the electricity generated could be distributed on the National Grid.

Work on the solar farm would be carried out in two phases.

News of the plans comes just weeks after proposals were announced for a 200,000 panel facility near Fareham – which would be the country’s biggest solar farm.

German company IB Vogts have come up with a distinctive Schnauzer-shaped design for the farm, which is expected to cost £40m.

Solarcentury say that if the plans for a solar farm in West End are approved, work could start as soon as December and the project could be completed in January.

Eastleigh Borough Council is running a consultation until Thursday, November 1.

Related links

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:05pm Mon 22 Oct 12

southy says...

Wrong direction, we need to use the streams, brooks and rivers to generate power.
Wrong direction, we need to use the streams, brooks and rivers to generate power. southy
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Mon 22 Oct 12

solents says...

southy wrote:
Wrong direction, we need to use the streams, brooks and rivers to generate power.
excuse my ignorance but can you say why.....
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Wrong direction, we need to use the streams, brooks and rivers to generate power.[/p][/quote]excuse my ignorance but can you say why..... solents
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Mon 22 Oct 12

southy says...

look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years. southy
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Mon 22 Oct 12

S Pance says...

Yay! Build this!

This is CLEAN power, guys.
Yay! Build this! This is CLEAN power, guys. S Pance
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Mon 22 Oct 12

downfader says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Non-renewables get more tax breaks than solar and wind power.

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/environment/bl
og/2012/jun/18/campa
igners-end-fossil-fu
el-subsidies
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Non-renewables get more tax breaks than solar and wind power. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/bl og/2012/jun/18/campa igners-end-fossil-fu el-subsidies downfader
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Mon 22 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion? skin2000
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Mon 22 Oct 12

cantthinkofone says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
I agree about them only being viable due to tax breaks. I'd far rather the money was spent on research into geothermal and fusion. Both of which, although challenging, appear to this non-scientist to have far more long-term potential.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]I agree about them only being viable due to tax breaks. I'd far rather the money was spent on research into geothermal and fusion. Both of which, although challenging, appear to this non-scientist to have far more long-term potential. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

downfader wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Non-renewables get more tax breaks than solar and wind power.

http://www.guardian.

co.uk/environment/bl

og/2012/jun/18/campa

igners-end-fossil-fu

el-subsidies
You won't win arguments with a clearly biassed report that smears its selective scope so far as to include "the military cost of safeguarding supplies", not to mention the apparent subsidies in developing countries desperately trying to trade their only commodities of value to earn foreign currency. Ah well, better just to get the UN to ship them sacks of grain instead. Perhaps in the interests of balance the unbiassed reporter might like to consider the worldwide monopoly being deliberately engineered by China in controlling supplies of rare metals used in industries such as battery and solar cells - a lot of which come from Africa.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Non-renewables get more tax breaks than solar and wind power. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/bl og/2012/jun/18/campa igners-end-fossil-fu el-subsidies[/p][/quote]You won't win arguments with a clearly biassed report that smears its selective scope so far as to include "the military cost of safeguarding supplies", not to mention the apparent subsidies in developing countries desperately trying to trade their only commodities of value to earn foreign currency. Ah well, better just to get the UN to ship them sacks of grain instead. Perhaps in the interests of balance the unbiassed reporter might like to consider the worldwide monopoly being deliberately engineered by China in controlling supplies of rare metals used in industries such as battery and solar cells - a lot of which come from Africa. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

skin2000 wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?
It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power?
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?[/p][/quote]It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Mon 22 Oct 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Andy your figures work for a dam power with centrifugal force, power conversions its not figures for drawing rotation power from the outter edge.
The two calculations are totally different, and have got to be look at differentlly.
How many water mills grinding wheat was there on the Test, and your talking very high friction a lot more than you would find on a dam centrifugal driven wheel its unlikely that one would be able to turn a grinding stone, where as the mill at nursling use to run 3 at the same time.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Andy your figures work for a dam power with centrifugal force, power conversions its not figures for drawing rotation power from the outter edge. The two calculations are totally different, and have got to be look at differentlly. How many water mills grinding wheat was there on the Test, and your talking very high friction a lot more than you would find on a dam centrifugal driven wheel its unlikely that one would be able to turn a grinding stone, where as the mill at nursling use to run 3 at the same time. southy
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Mon 22 Oct 12

southy says...

Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3.
Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.
Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth. southy
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Mon 22 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3.
Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.
.. yes, southy.

It's so incredibly efficient and produces such overwhelming amounts of power, almost for free, that there are veritable queues of power generators just waiting to get started.

You never listen, do you.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.[/p][/quote].. yes, southy. It's so incredibly efficient and produces such overwhelming amounts of power, almost for free, that there are veritable queues of power generators just waiting to get started. You never listen, do you. freefinker
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Mon 22 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?
It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power?
Andy on many things I agree with you but on this I can't.
Liquid Air can now be used as a storage for Electricity produced by Solar Panels so giving energy for 24hours the same can be done with Wind so the arguments against both of these are no longer valid so bring on Solar
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?[/p][/quote]It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power?[/p][/quote]Andy on many things I agree with you but on this I can't. Liquid Air can now be used as a storage for Electricity produced by Solar Panels so giving energy for 24hours the same can be done with Wind so the arguments against both of these are no longer valid so bring on Solar loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Mon 22 Oct 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built.
the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Mon 22 Oct 12

Huffter says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian
Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian[/p][/quote]Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too! Huffter
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Mon 22 Oct 12

downfader says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
downfader wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production.
This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that.
This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Non-renewables get more tax breaks than solar and wind power.

http://www.guardian.


co.uk/environment/bl


og/2012/jun/18/campa


igners-end-fossil-fu


el-subsidies
You won't win arguments with a clearly biassed report that smears its selective scope so far as to include "the military cost of safeguarding supplies", not to mention the apparent subsidies in developing countries desperately trying to trade their only commodities of value to earn foreign currency. Ah well, better just to get the UN to ship them sacks of grain instead. Perhaps in the interests of balance the unbiassed reporter might like to consider the worldwide monopoly being deliberately engineered by China in controlling supplies of rare metals used in industries such as battery and solar cells - a lot of which come from Africa.
So the report puts subsidies into scope and you cry "bias"..


..ok then.

How did the fossil fuel industry, even the UK car industry, get off the ground here? Government subsidy and tax breaks. They've had it for years, and now another industry that can benefit us also needs it and people decry "no, a waste of my money" whilst conveniently forgetting the money put in the pockets of others.

That my buoy is true bias.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Non-renewables get more tax breaks than solar and wind power. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/bl og/2012/jun/18/campa igners-end-fossil-fu el-subsidies[/p][/quote]You won't win arguments with a clearly biassed report that smears its selective scope so far as to include "the military cost of safeguarding supplies", not to mention the apparent subsidies in developing countries desperately trying to trade their only commodities of value to earn foreign currency. Ah well, better just to get the UN to ship them sacks of grain instead. Perhaps in the interests of balance the unbiassed reporter might like to consider the worldwide monopoly being deliberately engineered by China in controlling supplies of rare metals used in industries such as battery and solar cells - a lot of which come from Africa.[/p][/quote]So the report puts subsidies into scope and you cry "bias".. ..ok then. How did the fossil fuel industry, even the UK car industry, get off the ground here? Government subsidy and tax breaks. They've had it for years, and now another industry that can benefit us also needs it and people decry "no, a waste of my money" whilst conveniently forgetting the money put in the pockets of others. That my buoy is true bias. downfader
  • Score: 0

8:17am Tue 23 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Huffter wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian
Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too!
Look at the amount of open ground you could quite easily grow vegetables if you wished to.
I've seen on my allotment people grow all sorts of vegetables on less land but I don't know if it would be commercially viable there?
Maybe allow it to be used as Allotments as well?
[quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian[/p][/quote]Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too![/p][/quote]Look at the amount of open ground you could quite easily grow vegetables if you wished to. I've seen on my allotment people grow all sorts of vegetables on less land but I don't know if it would be commercially viable there? Maybe allow it to be used as Allotments as well? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:26am Tue 23 Oct 12

downfader says...

loosehead wrote:
Huffter wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian
Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too!
Look at the amount of open ground you could quite easily grow vegetables if you wished to.
I've seen on my allotment people grow all sorts of vegetables on less land but I don't know if it would be commercially viable there?
Maybe allow it to be used as Allotments as well?
My little cousin grows lots of fruit and veg. She's not yet 14 and has been doing it for years. Figuring out that when the garden is small you build UP her Father got some old shelves and put those up in the garden and thats where the growing happens.

Carrots, beans, strawberries.. Fruit and veg can still grow in a moderately shady environment as long as the sun hits it for a small percentage of the day. Their garden isnt exactly bathed in sunlight.. :-)
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian[/p][/quote]Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too![/p][/quote]Look at the amount of open ground you could quite easily grow vegetables if you wished to. I've seen on my allotment people grow all sorts of vegetables on less land but I don't know if it would be commercially viable there? Maybe allow it to be used as Allotments as well?[/p][/quote]My little cousin grows lots of fruit and veg. She's not yet 14 and has been doing it for years. Figuring out that when the garden is small you build UP her Father got some old shelves and put those up in the garden and thats where the growing happens. Carrots, beans, strawberries.. Fruit and veg can still grow in a moderately shady environment as long as the sun hits it for a small percentage of the day. Their garden isnt exactly bathed in sunlight.. :-) downfader
  • Score: 0

10:49am Tue 23 Oct 12

loosehead says...

downfader wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Huffter wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian
Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too!
Look at the amount of open ground you could quite easily grow vegetables if you wished to.
I've seen on my allotment people grow all sorts of vegetables on less land but I don't know if it would be commercially viable there?
Maybe allow it to be used as Allotments as well?
My little cousin grows lots of fruit and veg. She's not yet 14 and has been doing it for years. Figuring out that when the garden is small you build UP her Father got some old shelves and put those up in the garden and thats where the growing happens.

Carrots, beans, strawberries.. Fruit and veg can still grow in a moderately shady environment as long as the sun hits it for a small percentage of the day. Their garden isnt exactly bathed in sunlight.. :-)
Thank You point proven ( I've got an allotment & we've been hit bad by blight this year how's your daughters crop this year?)
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy many farmers are having at least a field of Solar panels built. the land under them & around them can be used for grazing so is not going to stop the production of food unless your a vegetarian[/p][/quote]Non-vegetarians eat vegetables too![/p][/quote]Look at the amount of open ground you could quite easily grow vegetables if you wished to. I've seen on my allotment people grow all sorts of vegetables on less land but I don't know if it would be commercially viable there? Maybe allow it to be used as Allotments as well?[/p][/quote]My little cousin grows lots of fruit and veg. She's not yet 14 and has been doing it for years. Figuring out that when the garden is small you build UP her Father got some old shelves and put those up in the garden and thats where the growing happens. Carrots, beans, strawberries.. Fruit and veg can still grow in a moderately shady environment as long as the sun hits it for a small percentage of the day. Their garden isnt exactly bathed in sunlight.. :-)[/p][/quote]Thank You point proven ( I've got an allotment & we've been hit bad by blight this year how's your daughters crop this year?) loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:30am Tue 23 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.
I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.[/p][/quote]I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

11:34am Tue 23 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

loosehead wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?
It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power?
Andy on many things I agree with you but on this I can't. Liquid Air can now be used as a storage for Electricity produced by Solar Panels so giving energy for 24hours the same can be done with Wind so the arguments against both of these are no longer valid so bring on Solar
I like the sound of that Loosehead - I assume daytime power is used to drive compressors which compress air that is used later to drive turbine generators at times of high demand. I imagine the capital cost of such an installation would be incredibly high though. I'd be interested in seeing the efficiency of that process and the potential sustainable output. Do you have reliable figures?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?[/p][/quote]It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power?[/p][/quote]Andy on many things I agree with you but on this I can't. Liquid Air can now be used as a storage for Electricity produced by Solar Panels so giving energy for 24hours the same can be done with Wind so the arguments against both of these are no longer valid so bring on Solar[/p][/quote]I like the sound of that Loosehead - I assume daytime power is used to drive compressors which compress air that is used later to drive turbine generators at times of high demand. I imagine the capital cost of such an installation would be incredibly high though. I'd be interested in seeing the efficiency of that process and the potential sustainable output. Do you have reliable figures? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Tue 23 Oct 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3.
Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.
.. yes, southy.

It's so incredibly efficient and produces such overwhelming amounts of power, almost for free, that there are veritable queues of power generators just waiting to get started.

You never listen, do you.
I would prefer to listen to the people in the know, I work along side Watermills restorer engineers in the pass, and they tell me that using the outter edge of a wheel is more efficient for transfer of power than using the center of a wheel like dams that produce power, Like a dam power transwheel would never be able to turn a 5 foot milling stone in grinding, the friction is two great, and yet the old water wheel technology kick started the industal revolution, and just think how many looms, spinning wheels, turning beams and other stuff that use to run off the water wheel. and that old technology, when most beams where made of Oak wood.
And the only reason why we not gone back to this technology and up dated the technolog is because it will employ more people, your going to need at lest 2 people base there all the time, where ae with solar and wind people will not be needed to be there all the time, you could have 1 or 2 people looking after 4 or more wind or solar farms
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.[/p][/quote].. yes, southy. It's so incredibly efficient and produces such overwhelming amounts of power, almost for free, that there are veritable queues of power generators just waiting to get started. You never listen, do you.[/p][/quote]I would prefer to listen to the people in the know, I work along side Watermills restorer engineers in the pass, and they tell me that using the outter edge of a wheel is more efficient for transfer of power than using the center of a wheel like dams that produce power, Like a dam power transwheel would never be able to turn a 5 foot milling stone in grinding, the friction is two great, and yet the old water wheel technology kick started the industal revolution, and just think how many looms, spinning wheels, turning beams and other stuff that use to run off the water wheel. and that old technology, when most beams where made of Oak wood. And the only reason why we not gone back to this technology and up dated the technolog is because it will employ more people, your going to need at lest 2 people base there all the time, where ae with solar and wind people will not be needed to be there all the time, you could have 1 or 2 people looking after 4 or more wind or solar farms southy
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Tue 23 Oct 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.
I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source.
your still thinking in the wrong direction
at Testwood (salmon Leap) it is dam up, here the old lock gates are kept closed, up a bit higher where the Blackwater branches off, (where the pumping station is) the river here is about 50 to 70 feet across, and about 3 to 4 feet deep, speed of river at this point is about 6 knots. At Nursling mill, the river is a about the same, but theres a bend in the river at this point, theres a wier that crosses the river, the Mill channel above the wier is about a foot wide and about a foot deep, fall in a river only matters when your dealing with a centrifugal wheel, it don't matter when your tending to use the otter edge of the wheel.
Tanners brook between winchexter. romsey road junction to where it use to enter the river had 3 mills along this streach and the fall here is less than the river test. and this was with old technology using solid oak wood 2 foot by 2 foot beams, driving 1 flour mill stone, 6 wooden oak hammers, bellows, iron pounder, you way of thinking would not be able to drive these things.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.[/p][/quote]I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source.[/p][/quote]your still thinking in the wrong direction at Testwood (salmon Leap) it is dam up, here the old lock gates are kept closed, up a bit higher where the Blackwater branches off, (where the pumping station is) the river here is about 50 to 70 feet across, and about 3 to 4 feet deep, speed of river at this point is about 6 knots. At Nursling mill, the river is a about the same, but theres a bend in the river at this point, theres a wier that crosses the river, the Mill channel above the wier is about a foot wide and about a foot deep, fall in a river only matters when your dealing with a centrifugal wheel, it don't matter when your tending to use the otter edge of the wheel. Tanners brook between winchexter. romsey road junction to where it use to enter the river had 3 mills along this streach and the fall here is less than the river test. and this was with old technology using solid oak wood 2 foot by 2 foot beams, driving 1 flour mill stone, 6 wooden oak hammers, bellows, iron pounder, you way of thinking would not be able to drive these things. southy
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Tue 23 Oct 12

southy says...

Whats factor is coming into all of these green energy policy, is not some much how much it cost to build, but how many people it will employ (smaller the number the better) and how big of a profit will be made, the profiteers don't care if it green or not, it boils down to those to factors.
Whats factor is coming into all of these green energy policy, is not some much how much it cost to build, but how many people it will employ (smaller the number the better) and how big of a profit will be made, the profiteers don't care if it green or not, it boils down to those to factors. southy
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.
I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source.
your still thinking in the wrong direction at Testwood (salmon Leap) it is dam up, here the old lock gates are kept closed, up a bit higher where the Blackwater branches off, (where the pumping station is) the river here is about 50 to 70 feet across, and about 3 to 4 feet deep, speed of river at this point is about 6 knots. At Nursling mill, the river is a about the same, but theres a bend in the river at this point, theres a wier that crosses the river, the Mill channel above the wier is about a foot wide and about a foot deep, fall in a river only matters when your dealing with a centrifugal wheel, it don't matter when your tending to use the otter edge of the wheel. Tanners brook between winchexter. romsey road junction to where it use to enter the river had 3 mills along this streach and the fall here is less than the river test. and this was with old technology using solid oak wood 2 foot by 2 foot beams, driving 1 flour mill stone, 6 wooden oak hammers, bellows, iron pounder, you way of thinking would not be able to drive these things.
Sorry Southy old chum but you are confusing friction with angular momentum. The friction (resistance) on a wheel is the same, but you are right that it is easier for the water to push a wheel at the outer edge than near the middle, but this is just like gears on a racing bike expressed another way. My figures weren't based on the effiicency of the "conversion engine" whatever method is used (small wheel, big wheel, turbine etc) - they were based on the maximum possible energy that could be extracted from the water by a 100% efficient engine (which doesn't exist btw) your edge-driven water wheels would work fine but they can't extract more energy than the river posesses, and I estimated that at less than 100Mw even if you used the entire river source to mouth!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.[/p][/quote]I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source.[/p][/quote]your still thinking in the wrong direction at Testwood (salmon Leap) it is dam up, here the old lock gates are kept closed, up a bit higher where the Blackwater branches off, (where the pumping station is) the river here is about 50 to 70 feet across, and about 3 to 4 feet deep, speed of river at this point is about 6 knots. At Nursling mill, the river is a about the same, but theres a bend in the river at this point, theres a wier that crosses the river, the Mill channel above the wier is about a foot wide and about a foot deep, fall in a river only matters when your dealing with a centrifugal wheel, it don't matter when your tending to use the otter edge of the wheel. Tanners brook between winchexter. romsey road junction to where it use to enter the river had 3 mills along this streach and the fall here is less than the river test. and this was with old technology using solid oak wood 2 foot by 2 foot beams, driving 1 flour mill stone, 6 wooden oak hammers, bellows, iron pounder, you way of thinking would not be able to drive these things.[/p][/quote]Sorry Southy old chum but you are confusing friction with angular momentum. The friction (resistance) on a wheel is the same, but you are right that it is easier for the water to push a wheel at the outer edge than near the middle, but this is just like gears on a racing bike expressed another way. My figures weren't based on the effiicency of the "conversion engine" whatever method is used (small wheel, big wheel, turbine etc) - they were based on the maximum possible energy that could be extracted from the water by a 100% efficient engine (which doesn't exist btw) your edge-driven water wheels would work fine but they can't extract more energy than the river posesses, and I estimated that at less than 100Mw even if you used the entire river source to mouth! Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Tue 23 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.
Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?
Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?
It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power?
Andy on many things I agree with you but on this I can't. Liquid Air can now be used as a storage for Electricity produced by Solar Panels so giving energy for 24hours the same can be done with Wind so the arguments against both of these are no longer valid so bring on Solar
I like the sound of that Loosehead - I assume daytime power is used to drive compressors which compress air that is used later to drive turbine generators at times of high demand. I imagine the capital cost of such an installation would be incredibly high though. I'd be interested in seeing the efficiency of that process and the potential sustainable output. Do you have reliable figures?
Andy I can only tell you a TV program showed the inventor & his Liquid Air powered car. Then they showed you a factory that saved all waste hot air & steam & also had Solar panels & small wind turbines they then had a liquid air generator/battery which they could use to produce power from.
They actually said it was a cheap way to store & produce Electricity when it was needed from both wind & Solar power.
I can only suggest you type in Liquid Air Generators & see what it comes up with or contact I think it was ITV & ask for the inventors name or information on it?
It looks a brilliant breakthrough.
I hope this is useful(might have been BBC?)
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: look at the space these panels are going to take up, space that will be needed for food production. This is one of the countrys that the old water mill coverted into a small power station would work in, Rain is some thing we get alot off. theres enough energy in Tanners brook to produce the same amount of power as the planed Bio-mass in the docks (so I been told), also with this type of power production the only Co2 being emitted would be on the building of such a place, and not the running, it takes up a lot less room than solar panel or wind turbines, and will not fail because theres no wind, or a drop in power if its a cloudy day, Most lower streams carry on running even in drought years.[/p][/quote]Southy, I've told you on more than one occasion exactly how much energy you can get from a volume of water and you and your "source" are so, so wrong. Ask your friend to put his calculations on here to show how much electricity he thinks can be generated from a given volume and fall of water whether it's in Tanners Brook, the Test or anywhere else, and I'll happily do the maths for you. I can't say fairer than that. This Solar Farm idea is a waste of money that only exists because of UK tax breaks and forced energy purchase, yet all the people who objected to Helius on these very same grounds are strangely silent here. Why such double standards around Millbrook and Freemantle?[/p][/quote]Andy Still being condescending to people who have differing views to yourself. Do you ever doubt your opinion?[/p][/quote]It's the maths Skin - it's not an opinion. You cannot create energy if it isn't there and I've done the sums several timeson her eto illustrate it. I didn't make the rules - they are universal. Do you believe Tanners Brook can produce over 100MW of power?[/p][/quote]Andy on many things I agree with you but on this I can't. Liquid Air can now be used as a storage for Electricity produced by Solar Panels so giving energy for 24hours the same can be done with Wind so the arguments against both of these are no longer valid so bring on Solar[/p][/quote]I like the sound of that Loosehead - I assume daytime power is used to drive compressors which compress air that is used later to drive turbine generators at times of high demand. I imagine the capital cost of such an installation would be incredibly high though. I'd be interested in seeing the efficiency of that process and the potential sustainable output. Do you have reliable figures?[/p][/quote]Andy I can only tell you a TV program showed the inventor & his Liquid Air powered car. Then they showed you a factory that saved all waste hot air & steam & also had Solar panels & small wind turbines they then had a liquid air generator/battery which they could use to produce power from. They actually said it was a cheap way to store & produce Electricity when it was needed from both wind & Solar power. I can only suggest you type in Liquid Air Generators & see what it comes up with or contact I think it was ITV & ask for the inventors name or information on it? It looks a brilliant breakthrough. I hope this is useful(might have been BBC?) loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Tue 23 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.
I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source.
your still thinking in the wrong direction at Testwood (salmon Leap) it is dam up, here the old lock gates are kept closed, up a bit higher where the Blackwater branches off, (where the pumping station is) the river here is about 50 to 70 feet across, and about 3 to 4 feet deep, speed of river at this point is about 6 knots. At Nursling mill, the river is a about the same, but theres a bend in the river at this point, theres a wier that crosses the river, the Mill channel above the wier is about a foot wide and about a foot deep, fall in a river only matters when your dealing with a centrifugal wheel, it don't matter when your tending to use the otter edge of the wheel. Tanners brook between winchexter. romsey road junction to where it use to enter the river had 3 mills along this streach and the fall here is less than the river test. and this was with old technology using solid oak wood 2 foot by 2 foot beams, driving 1 flour mill stone, 6 wooden oak hammers, bellows, iron pounder, you way of thinking would not be able to drive these things.
Sorry Southy old chum but you are confusing friction with angular momentum. The friction (resistance) on a wheel is the same, but you are right that it is easier for the water to push a wheel at the outer edge than near the middle, but this is just like gears on a racing bike expressed another way. My figures weren't based on the effiicency of the "conversion engine" whatever method is used (small wheel, big wheel, turbine etc) - they were based on the maximum possible energy that could be extracted from the water by a 100% efficient engine (which doesn't exist btw) your edge-driven water wheels would work fine but they can't extract more energy than the river posesses, and I estimated that at less than 100Mw even if you used the entire river source to mouth!
There's water screws that are successfully producing electricity & what about Pooles idea?
I prefer Solar & Wind with Tidal & wave power but in conjunction with Liquid Air generators
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Andy try putting speed of water, the width and depth, your sums all ways these 3. Like the Test do you know how many gallons a sec pass though Nursling mill when it was operational and at what speed width and depth.[/p][/quote]I love the idea that you think I just have all this data to hand! As it happens I can create a working model. The volume flow of the test at Testwood Totton is around 20 cumecs but the fall is minute. If you dammed it you would be lucky to get 50 cms without flooding the entire upstream flood plain but let's do it anyway just for comparison. So the potential generating capacity (P) = Volume * fall * gravity or W = 20000 * 0.5 * 9.81 = 98.1Kw. A little way off your estimate of 100Mw!. You could put another station upstream but it would have to be above the raised headwater of your first station etc. etc. A quick way to analyse the potential of the entire river is to use half the source height (nr Overton, around 150m) and half the total volume as above - ie the entire river Test dammed and ruined along its entire length could generate around 75Mw. Not bad, but wouldn't you sooner have a beautiful river? Unless you mate has figured how to break the first law of thermodynamics I hope you can see that water mills in southern england are not a viable large scale power source.[/p][/quote]your still thinking in the wrong direction at Testwood (salmon Leap) it is dam up, here the old lock gates are kept closed, up a bit higher where the Blackwater branches off, (where the pumping station is) the river here is about 50 to 70 feet across, and about 3 to 4 feet deep, speed of river at this point is about 6 knots. At Nursling mill, the river is a about the same, but theres a bend in the river at this point, theres a wier that crosses the river, the Mill channel above the wier is about a foot wide and about a foot deep, fall in a river only matters when your dealing with a centrifugal wheel, it don't matter when your tending to use the otter edge of the wheel. Tanners brook between winchexter. romsey road junction to where it use to enter the river had 3 mills along this streach and the fall here is less than the river test. and this was with old technology using solid oak wood 2 foot by 2 foot beams, driving 1 flour mill stone, 6 wooden oak hammers, bellows, iron pounder, you way of thinking would not be able to drive these things.[/p][/quote]Sorry Southy old chum but you are confusing friction with angular momentum. The friction (resistance) on a wheel is the same, but you are right that it is easier for the water to push a wheel at the outer edge than near the middle, but this is just like gears on a racing bike expressed another way. My figures weren't based on the effiicency of the "conversion engine" whatever method is used (small wheel, big wheel, turbine etc) - they were based on the maximum possible energy that could be extracted from the water by a 100% efficient engine (which doesn't exist btw) your edge-driven water wheels would work fine but they can't extract more energy than the river posesses, and I estimated that at less than 100Mw even if you used the entire river source to mouth![/p][/quote]There's water screws that are successfully producing electricity & what about Pooles idea? I prefer Solar & Wind with Tidal & wave power but in conjunction with Liquid Air generators loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree