I was there in the summer; struck me as prime opportunity well spotted way back in the 1920's and the site was right, I presume the levels make the waters pretty much impassable for fish anyway?

Is there any knowledge of negative effects on fish being shredded through the plant / system though, couldn't spot the intake or outlet?

Simple and genuine questions these, not political, just ones that came to mind when I visited in August.

__________________

Help fund the WTT study of the Softmouth

It should also be the principle used in the design of the modern archimedes screw generators.
each of the three generators in the lanark (clyde system) has its own individual intake and outlet, which then feeds into the river.
However, main point about their placement is that they are above the last part of the river negoitable to migratory species.
regards
bert.

The fish can only get as far up as Stonebyres falls. To my knowledge there is no facts widely available for fish losses. In fact you're only the second person ever to mention that to me.

I'm assuming large volume, large level difference means the inlet can be low flow?

I'm guessing it was above above the big weir I saw (I think?) ... assuming with a large volume / low flow inlet, fish might not get sucked into the system; similarly, an outlet in low flow / large volume spot would mean fish don't chase up there either?

I know in this instance the migratory fish are at a barrier but assuming they could move up the main channel then the take off for the Hydro might not be detrimental if the flow was minor compared to the main channel?

In mini plants, presume the sites are being chosen by landowners / developers and not by strategic assessment of best locations?

Strikes me as the first principles for possible site assessments shouldn't be about getting things through planning but the natural potential of the sites?

Might read that design guidance over Christmas!

__________________

Help fund the WTT study of the Softmouth

I've seen the outflow and the fish can get there. Would we not find mutilated carcasses being washed downstream?

How do I know I'm miles away, I'm asking you bud', you're the local ? ...sounds like that's a no though?

I've just been leafing through that guidance: http://publications.environment-agen...10BSCT-E-E.pdf .

Appears Mini Hydro and low head is a different kettle, so Lanark falls is perhaps a different deal, page 3-4 of the guidance sets out a few disclaimers which makes me think that the document is just a little bit suck it and see:

There has been little monitoring of the ecological impacts of low head hydropower schemes. The
Environment Agency will undertake a programme of work to investigate these impacts, but this is
likely to require a number of years data pre and post hydro installation

This Good Practice Guide will also require regular revision in the light of operational experience.

This guidance is for application on existing impoundments (weirs) and may affect existing
or proposed hydropower generation.

The recommendations that follow were developed for Low head hydropower schemes –
weirs usually less than 4 metres high – but the principles may apply to High Head hydro
schemes.

Any proposals for new impoundments would be required to undertake more detailed
Environmental Impact Assessments.

__________________

Help fund the WTT study of the Softmouth

Dear Richard

As you are aware I'm in the process of making a short film about the likely ecological impacts of a planned hydro-scheme at Kelham Island in Sheffield. The film will go live on-line in mid-Jan along with DVD distribution to politicians and other significant agencies. The film came about as a direct result of a post by Paul Gaskell of the WTT on these forums. Paul kindly agreed to take part in it, as did the Don Catchment Rivers Trust and a formidable local opponent. I've also consulted EA and others on this, including the Calder and Colne Rivers Trust who have significant knowledge of hydro's demise in Sweden. The film was originally intended to be 3-4 minutes but is now approximately 30 minutes as there is so much to go at, not just from the perspective of the proposed site but the implications that micro-hydro can have wherever it is located in a low-head situation. It will therefore stand as an educative on-line tool and the blog I will host it from - Waterfeature - will hopefully be packed full of resources about micro-hydro. Most importantly it will also host a petition which I trust members of these forums will have no hesitation in signing.

In the meantime I'm still waiting to hear back from the BBC regarding their terribly biased feature in early November (I've pasted this in below). Hopefully, they're doing their research as I write, although I very much doubt it.

You have my e-mail address.

All the best for the Christmas season

Ant


** THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A COMPLAINT YOU SUBMITTED TO THE BBC VIA BBC - Complaints - Home . IF YOU DID NOT SUBMIT A COMPLAINT AND HAVE RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE CONTACT US ASAP TO LET US KNOW BY COMPLETING THE WEBFORM AT BBC - Complaints - Home **

This is an automated email confirming we have received your complaint, a copy of which is attached below for your records. It will be read and logged shortly.

----------

YOUR COMPLAINT:

Complaint Summary: Portrayal of Micro Hydro Power Scheme in Derbyshire

Full Complaint: I am writing to complain about the portayal of Micro-Hydro Power Scheme (MHPS) development on the River Derwent in your Countryfile programme of 13th November 2011. There are many serious ecological implications of the implementation of such schemes, most of which are by no means easily surmountable, and some of which have never been fully reconciled with current technology. Further, the financial return on investment in MHPSs is far from the clear-cut banker that your programme claimed. However in the seven minute presentation about MHPSs you chose to have just twenty seconds devoted to just one aspect of the ecological arguments against them, and chose to have this relayed by a clear supporter of such schemes. This individual said only that there are genuine concerns about 'fish-mincing' - despite the fact that there are many wide-ranging ecological impacts of the implementation of MHPSs which have all been well documented – and who went on to say, 'there are many things that you can do'. He then gave just one example of mitigation, that of fish-screens; these alone pose significant operational difficulties for the optimum running of MHPSs but no room for discussion about that detail was allowed in your programme. The rest of the presentation claimed a 'win-win' economic return on the schemes but gave only one example of the site of a retired gentleman in Derbyshire. You then had your presenter gleefully claim that, according to the British Hydro Power Association (BHA), MHPSs could provide up to 2GW of energy for the UK every year, the equivalent of 2 million UK homes. The BHA, according to its own website, 'works to maintain its position as the leading trade association representing the intetests of the UK hydropower industry (from micro to large) and its associated stakeholders in the wider community, both in the UK and overseas' (sic). Indeed the first stated aim of the BHA's MO is, 'Effective lobbying of government and other agencies/NGOs'. In a presentation of such great imbalance there is therefore clear evidence of bias towards the economic investment/return of such schemes and their perpetuation to the complete detriment of any argument about ecological impacts. This, alongside the concluding statements quoting the BHA, clearly demonstrates a breach of the impartiality you, by your constitution, are required to uphold and maintain.

Of course any objective portrayal of MHPSs should take into account the state of the nation's rivers with particular regard to how much water is actually in them, or likely to be in them as climate change develops over the next few decades, and would then take into account what that might mean for the sustainability of such schemes in the coming years, not least when discussing their economic efficacy. Amazingly, despite having sung the praises of the advancement of MHPSs earlier in the programme, stating that rivers are, 'the lifeblood of this region, enabling this spectacular landscape to thrive', Countryfile then went on to show that a neighbouring river, the River Lathkill, is currently suffering significant drought, the result of the driest 12 months that the area has seen since record-taking began in 1910. How can it be that these two articles – MHPSs and Lathkill drought – so obviously having great relevance to each other, were not remotely linked in any way in the programme? At best this is sloppy programme-making but one must also seriously question the quality of research by the Countryfile team. Had such research been conducted properly a far more balanced argument would have been the outcome of the overall programme. Clearly your researchers hadn't consulted with the makers of other BBC content that have considered similar issues such as the Panorama documentary 'Drinking Our Rivers Dry' broadcast on 19th September 2011 which examined the ecological implications of water abstraction, a process which is also necessary in most MHPSs. Had they even considered the fact that Sweden, once a great pioneer and advocate of MHPSs, has uninstalled all but two of its operational micro-hydro plants?

Climate change is currently very high on the public and political agenda and we should quite rightly seek out sustainable alternatives to the present mainstream methods of power generation while significantly reducing our overall power consumption. However, your programme sets out, without any semblance of proper questioning, a case that Micro-Hydro Power Schemes are a bona fide, entirely feasible, and lucrative alternative, and does not pay any due consideration to any of the complications of their implementation. Nor does it look at the significant and likely ecological impacts that the implementation of such schemes can have on both a local and cumulative basis. The programme, and therefore the BBC, is wholly misleading in its representation of Micro-Hydro Power installations on British Rivers and should, at the very least, devote a future feature of Countryfile or produce equivalent documentary content that will redress the wholly imbalanced argument that this programme has put into the public domain.

----------

Please do not reply to this message. We aim to respond within 10 working days, depending on how long it takes to investigate your complaint.

All feedback we receive is appreciated as it helps to inform decisions in the future. For information about the BBC complaints process please visit the how we handle your complaint page:

BBC - Complaints - How We Handle Your Complaint

Thank you again for contacting us.

BBC Complaints

NB: Please do not reply to this email. It comes from an automated account which is not monitored

Interesting Ant, keep us posted.

__________________

Help fund the WTT study of the Softmouth

These Hydro schemes represent progress and a realistic way of meeting our energy needs without burning fosil fuels.

Chickenfish, you are mistaken, sorry. In theory some schemes might well do a good job but EVERY site is different. To generate a tiny amount of electricity for the sake of serious ecological damage is a travesty. This is particularly true of low-head schemes. Are you aware that Sweden pioneered micro-hydro and is in the process of tidying up the terrible mess that it very regrettably caused over the last 40 years? Micro-hydro is a smokescreen for proper sustainable alternatives. I've no time at the mo to go into all the details but, as said above, a video response is on it way.

In the meantime, thanks to Richard for pointing out the latest development which I've just blogged here - Waterfeature: Hydro Good Practice Consultation

Merry Xmas
Ant