Whalley weir 'micro-hydro station' set for refusal (From Lancashire Telegraph)

'If approved the proposed lean-to building housing the turbine would be made of timber and stone and covered by solar panels'.
No wonder it's being knocked back as there is nothing more ugly than solar panels.
Why not try timber and stone building covered in turf which has better thermal / acoustic properties and would be a lot more pleasing to the eye in a natural surrounding.

Or why bother with planning permission anyway? just build it because you'll get it granted later ..... just pretend it's a car wash.

So many misleading or missing details:
there is no 'education facility';
the building is not covered with solar panels, just the rooof which faces south away from the Conservation Area;
there is no visible access track;
the building is no bigger than a double garage; it will look just like a small agricultural building;
Most hydro schemes are in National Parks or AONBs. That's where the water resources are!
Conservation is not about never changing anything and leaving the world as it was before 1900. The 21st century should also leave its legacy of architecture and engineering to posterity. Conservation is the story of progress through time to cope with the changing demands of economic progress and the needs of society. We shouldn't be trying to freeze the process and choke off all change.
The visual impact of this proposal will be minimal compared with the benefits it can bring.

just put a onion dome on top
then you wont neen any planning.

The generating plant at Settle is very small consisting of a stone built building. So what's the problem. As with all these types of project if their well designed and executed there shouldn't be a problem.

This isnt planning its just plain old economics. Say that this tubine, can feed 100 homes. Now think about the revenue, lost to power companys if it works well. eg:- 100 homes @£600 each ayear for elecric thats £61,000 they lose. But thats not all!, if the project works. How many other vilages have a practial water souce,? hundreds. At £60 grand each lost!.( the board of directors of power compainys will be pulling their hair out!.) SO the truth is the power compainys, push the council.( Power compainys just threaten to cut the councils bulk discount for electic an jobs done?.> Their defianitely,"all in it togerther"). They then push the planning, and its in the bin.( AND THEY USE THE REASON IT WILL SPOIL THE LOOK OF THE AREA? PITY THEY DONT FEEL THE SAME ABOUT THE MOBILE PHONE MASTS??????. ITS just corruption and nothing more. No! change their?. ttfn

The Settle scheme does indeed look to be quite a significant scar on that part of the river. That scheme has recently been in the news (Yorkshire Post). It appears that noise, the low frequency throb from the Archimedes screw is scaring off the migrating salmon. The result is that locals and tourists can no longer see the salmon jumping the river falls, and anglers' catches are very substantially lower since the scheme was built. Maybe the salmon, denied access to its spawning grounds will soon become absent from the river. It seems likely that there will be an effect on coarse fish too. There is evidence available, that the screws mash fish that try, in error, to ascend the screw itself rather than ascending the fish pass.
But there is another problem with these schemes: they are usually built as "flagships" much lauded by the local council, and usually paid for by "green" locals wth money to spare, convinced that they are doing a "good thing". However they fail to realise that the small scale hydro is an aquatic version of solar power, and as such is heavily subsided for every KWh generated and fed back into the National Grid. So the electricity consumer/taxpayer pays heavily for the priviledge of any town that has its own pet hydro. Profit is made by the installation company, the shareholders will almost certainly never get their dividends or money back, whilst the rest of us pay through the nose, and see our environment degraded. If you look at the Torrs Hydro Scheme in New Mills, the first to be built: it made an operating loss in each of the two years for which it has published accounts. A loss despite the feed-in tariff/subsidy. These schemes should only be allowed to be built if they are fully self financing, and they should be switched off during the fish breeeding and migrating seasons.
Many more such schemes are planned, they should be universally opposed, unless they can prove they are self financing, not a burden to the taxpayer, will not damage wildlife, and are not a detriment to the landscape..

JJayZS is probably either a fisherman, a climate change denier or both. The thing they have in common is they never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Yes, the schemes are subsidised in the short term, but are expected to pay their way in the long term. If we want less build up of carbon in the atmosphere and greater energy security in a volatile energy market, what does JJayzs suggest we all do? Or perhaps he doesn’t think it’s a problem and knows better than 99% of informed scientific opinion. The Government has set a target of 20% of electricity from renewables by 2010, so presumably a lot of people think we have a problem and need to do something about it, even to the expense of subsidising it short-term.

Do hydro schemes really stop migrating fish going upstream? The weir at Whalley has been a barrier to migrating fish since about 1380, so that they could only get upstream if water conditions were perfect. The scheme at Whalley will have a fish ladder. The Environment Agency insists on them so that fish can get upstream for most of the time. What’s not to like about that?

Never let the facts......Nice cliche you throw in at the start of your post there. As inaccurate in your context as it is overused of course.
What do I suggest? The solution is quite simple: nuclear. It is the only form of energy likely to be sufficient long term for our needs, whilst not adding to the greenhouse effect. The UK is not on any significant geological fault lines, so any plant we build will not be living with the risks the Japanese plants did. Modern designs rule out another Chernobyl. So: nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.

I have seen figures to show that if ALL potential small scale hydro sites were to be built, they would in total contribute less than one per cent of UK electricity needs. That is hardly giving us the energy security you agree we need! A lot of investment, and a lot of devastating effects on our countryside and wildlife for a very expensive no show. A major drain on the taxpayer. Money that could be far better spent. The government may have committed itself to the 20% reduction, perhaps it is now realising that it has committed itself in haste? Feed in schemes are not subsidized SHORT TERM, but for the long haul, 25 years I believe, and so it is highly interesting to read recent changes proposed by the government to limit the feed-in tariffs for both solar and wind power. It would be rather nice if they added small scale hydro-electric to that list. In the current UK financial situation we simply cannot afford to waste money on feed-in subsidies.

It is probably somewhat terminal for the main push of your argument, but I am actually very highly scientifically qualified, and hence I fully accept that global warming is indeed a problem, AND that is is largely a result of man's activities. But small scale hydro is not going to have any noticeable positive effect on reducing UK greenhouse gases.

Whatever has made you think I don't like fish ladders? Especially as you suggest I am an angler? Fish ladders are excellent, but are of no use if the noise from adjacent machinery scares fish away from the ladder. This is what is believed to be happening at Settle. I have no problems with fish ladders, nor with eel passes. Some weirs do inhibit, or actually prevent fish progress upstream, and I understand the EA supports a policy of removing some weirs no longer in commercial use. We don't need a hydro to be able to have a fish ladder. The two are not as conjoined twins.

It is all well and good to be green, but we must not be so short sighted as to be green at any cost. And as can be clearly seen with these hydro schemes, some men's green is also another's dirty brown. Many greenies wander around, bright eyed with ideas, without having the basic common sense, or the scientific background to be able to see any downside at all. The same sort of one dimensional thinking that led animal rights protesters to release mink into the countryside. Their "solution" then became a problem.

By all means build hydroelectric schemes, but only if they are truly cost effective and not unduly detrimental to the environment. The current tranche of schemes fail badly on many counts.

Touché. You’re scientifically qualified and so am I. That’s good to know; also that you acknowledge man-made climate change, because a large proportion of objectors to alternative energy schemes don’t.

Yes, nuclear can play its part for me, especially if this scheme that has recently surfaced (GE + Hitachi) of getting virtually all the potential from spent fuel (depleted uranium and plutonium) can be developed commercially. That would overcome a major worry I used to have with nuclear which was all the waste and the problems we will be leaving to future generations. The problem I still have with nuclear is the potential for catastrophic accidents and more prosaically where is all the uranium going to come from? Won’t it probably run out at about the same time as the oil – especially if all the major developed countries start to go nuclear?

Your argument that, because the energy produced each individual small hydro would not have a major impact on the carbon effects of energy production, there is no case for such projects is pathetic (sorry but it is). Such arguments could be used to reject any small project and indeed to suggest that no citizen should reduce their own carbon footprint. In reality, it is universally accepted by all who have looked carefully at the science that we need both small scale and large scale action if we are to prevent climate change. Small scale distributed energy schemes are inherently more efficient than large power stations that need vast networks of pylons and cables to get electricity to where it’s needed.

I am no expert but your arguments about fish ladders and turbines are contradicted by everything I have been told by the Environment Agency and what its mandatory guidance in hydro schemes says. Fish are attracted towards the fastest moving water in any river so for this reason they insist that the bottom of the fish ladder is placed as close as possible to the outlet of the turbine. I’m sure they wouldn’t be saying this unless they had the experience to vindicate it.

Fish ladders and hydro schemes aren't as you say conjoined twins, but it's a fact that hydro schemes with their lavish subsidies (!) are often the only thing that will pay for them; unless of course you prefer to take down the weir, which in the case of Whalley has been there since about 1380.

Lastly as a nuclear supporter you will know that the subsidies paid to the nuclear industry have dwarfed and will probably continue to dwarf those paid to aternative energy schemes by a factor of hundreds if not thousands. And 20 years isn't long for a subsidy when you consider the scale of the problems we will face if we don't tackle energy security and climate change. I'm not against subsidising nuclear if there appears to no other way of tackling these two problems.

Ah! Now who is using facts to mislead? The man in the street does not understand statistics, and often, does not understand how to compare like with like. You do, but nevertheless choose to compare the total cost of subsidies for nuclear, with a cost per unit feed-in tariff for hydro and solar generation.
Had the nuclear industry been subsidised at 44.3 pence per unit, electricity would have been largely unaffordable to most. Subsidies per unit generated for nuclear are not even on the same sheet of graph paper, and are reflected in a current (sorry) cost of electricity that is far less than the tariff.
If we all generated our own power with a feed in tariff akin to that of hydro/solar, our electricity bills might well be low, but we would be paying that 44.3 pence per unit, and more, in increased taxes. Every subsidised unit of electricity has to be paid for by that man in the street, that man who does not understand the maths or the science. He should be wondering why he is paying for his neighbour to profit from solar power.

And, yes, of course each of those 60 million or so men in our streets can make a difference. 20 MILLION houses, each using efficient light bulbs and other economy measures adds up to a lot. But have you all noticed how much those bulbs have rocketed in price since the demise of the incandescent filament bulb? Green does not usually come cheap, and at the top end some green is unaffordable, and comes with very damaging side effects. Hydro electric small scale schemes are in no way efficient. Had they been so there would have been a rush of companies eager to take advantage BEFORE the feed-in tariffs were invented. The hydro companies are run by clever people who have quite simply seen a way to use feed-in to make profit from the taxpayer. Then, in an additional stroke of pure genius, they used the green bandwagon to get the local community to pay for the capital costs. Absolute financial brilliance. Give those men a bonus.

Fish do indeed often rush towards the greatest flow. Google with the words: angling trust hydro. the picture that appears on the first hit shows exactly what happens when fish are attracted to the greatest rush of water. That greatest flow is often the turbine outlet. The photo shows a shoal of perch that were sliced and diced by the turbine blades. Is the EA therefore correct in suggesting the fish pass entrance be best placed near the turbine outlet? Look again at the picture and judge. If the EA knows so much, why did they not specify that the inlet and outlets to turbines be screened against fish access?

The Whalley weir may well have been constructed in 1380. It would have then been constructed for some commercial purpose, a water mill or some such. It is now no longer needed for that, and I would have no objection to the removal of weirs as an alternative to building a fish pass.

Incidentally although I don't have figures yet for the year before last, I am informed that last year the Torr's hydro made yet another loss ( despite tariffs). Its electricity production over the last 4 years has been enough to keep only about a dozen kettles on the boil. All that investment, all that building and cabling, all that environmental impact, the possible complete extermination of salmon from the river, for just a measly dozen kettles.

It is perhaps high time for the "greens" to start campaigning for something that is even more important. Why are they, and our governments, so afraid to tackle the tricky question of ever rising human populations?

JJayZS wrote:
Never let the facts......Nice cliche you throw in at the start of your post there. As inaccurate in your context as it is overused of course.
What do I suggest? The solution is quite simple: nuclear. It is the only form of energy likely to be sufficient long term for our needs, whilst not adding to the greenhouse effect. The UK is not on any significant geological fault lines, so any plant we build will not be living with the risks the Japanese plants did. Modern designs rule out another Chernobyl. So: nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.

I have seen figures to show that if ALL potential small scale hydro sites were to be built, they would in total contribute less than one per cent of UK electricity needs. That is hardly giving us the energy security you agree we need! A lot of investment, and a lot of devastating effects on our countryside and wildlife for a very expensive no show. A major drain on the taxpayer. Money that could be far better spent. The government may have committed itself to the 20% reduction, perhaps it is now realising that it has committed itself in haste? Feed in schemes are not subsidized SHORT TERM, but for the long haul, 25 years I believe, and so it is highly interesting to read recent changes proposed by the government to limit the feed-in tariffs for both solar and wind power. It would be rather nice if they added small scale hydro-electric to that list. In the current UK financial situation we simply cannot afford to waste money on feed-in subsidies.

It is probably somewhat terminal for the main push of your argument, but I am actually very highly scientifically qualified, and hence I fully accept that global warming is indeed a problem, AND that is is largely a result of man's activities. But small scale hydro is not going to have any noticeable positive effect on reducing UK greenhouse gases.

Whatever has made you think I don't like fish ladders? Especially as you suggest I am an angler? Fish ladders are excellent, but are of no use if the noise from adjacent machinery scares fish away from the ladder. This is what is believed to be happening at Settle. I have no problems with fish ladders, nor with eel passes. Some weirs do inhibit, or actually prevent fish progress upstream, and I understand the EA supports a policy of removing some weirs no longer in commercial use. We don't need a hydro to be able to have a fish ladder. The two are not as conjoined twins.

It is all well and good to be green, but we must not be so short sighted as to be green at any cost. And as can be clearly seen with these hydro schemes, some men's green is also another's dirty brown. Many greenies wander around, bright eyed with ideas, without having the basic common sense, or the scientific background to be able to see any downside at all. The same sort of one dimensional thinking that led animal rights protesters to release mink into the countryside. Their "solution" then became a problem.

By all means build hydroelectric schemes, but only if they are truly cost effective and not unduly detrimental to the environment. The current tranche of schemes fail badly on many counts.

Nuclear power certainly does add to global warming. All electricity from nuclear ends up as heat which adds to the greenhouse burden. We cannot be saved by ignoring this and thinking that we can continue with business as usual.

JJayZS wrote:
Never let the facts......Nice cliche you throw in at the start of your post there. As inaccurate in your context as it is overused of course.
What do I suggest? The solution is quite simple: nuclear. It is the only form of energy likely to be sufficient long term for our needs, whilst not adding to the greenhouse effect. The UK is not on any significant geological fault lines, so any plant we build will not be living with the risks the Japanese plants did. Modern designs rule out another Chernobyl. So: nuclear, nuclear, nuclear.

I have seen figures to show that if ALL potential small scale hydro sites were to be built, they would in total contribute less than one per cent of UK electricity needs. That is hardly giving us the energy security you agree we need! A lot of investment, and a lot of devastating effects on our countryside and wildlife for a very expensive no show. A major drain on the taxpayer. Money that could be far better spent. The government may have committed itself to the 20% reduction, perhaps it is now realising that it has committed itself in haste? Feed in schemes are not subsidized SHORT TERM, but for the long haul, 25 years I believe, and so it is highly interesting to read recent changes proposed by the government to limit the feed-in tariffs for both solar and wind power. It would be rather nice if they added small scale hydro-electric to that list. In the current UK financial situation we simply cannot afford to waste money on feed-in subsidies.

It is probably somewhat terminal for the main push of your argument, but I am actually very highly scientifically qualified, and hence I fully accept that global warming is indeed a problem, AND that is is largely a result of man's activities. But small scale hydro is not going to have any noticeable positive effect on reducing UK greenhouse gases.

Whatever has made you think I don't like fish ladders? Especially as you suggest I am an angler? Fish ladders are excellent, but are of no use if the noise from adjacent machinery scares fish away from the ladder. This is what is believed to be happening at Settle. I have no problems with fish ladders, nor with eel passes. Some weirs do inhibit, or actually prevent fish progress upstream, and I understand the EA supports a policy of removing some weirs no longer in commercial use. We don't need a hydro to be able to have a fish ladder. The two are not as conjoined twins.

It is all well and good to be green, but we must not be so short sighted as to be green at any cost. And as can be clearly seen with these hydro schemes, some men's green is also another's dirty brown. Many greenies wander around, bright eyed with ideas, without having the basic common sense, or the scientific background to be able to see any downside at all. The same sort of one dimensional thinking that led animal rights protesters to release mink into the countryside. Their "solution" then became a problem.

By all means build hydroelectric schemes, but only if they are truly cost effective and not unduly detrimental to the environment. The current tranche of schemes fail badly on many counts.

Nuclear power certainly does add to global warming. All electricity from nuclear ends up as heat which adds to the greenhouse burden. We cannot be saved by ignoring this and thinking that we can continue with business as usual.

Apologies. You are correct in that it does adds heat. My error. I had actually intended to say that it was a low carbon system, and as such does not have major impact on greenhouse levels during operation. In itself heat is less critical than greenhouse gases, which tend to retain that heat within the Earth's system. Without the greenhouse effect , heat is quite naturally lost into space. The additional heat retention that comes with extra CO2 etc, leads to the average temperature increase that we have been experiencing. Avoid the greenhouse gases, and the nuclear generated heat will radiate away without lasting problems.

JJayZS a few points:
1) You can not dwell on this 1% issue. As Hardcastle mentions, if we don't do the small things then nothing will get done. The UK contributes to 1.7% of the total world CO2 emissions, does that mean the UK doesn't need to do anything to combat Climate change?
2) Most weirs prevent any kind of upstream fish migration. Despite the anglers being so passionate about their sport, they don't seem prepared to pay for fish passes. These fish passes are the reason these hydro schemes are not economically viable. I think hydro installers being responsible for their installation is probably the best compromise between the stakeholders that we'll get.
3) You obviously read somewhere something about kettles and Torrs, however I think you got a little muddled. The figures you're looking for are: Torrs has produced 500,000kWh which is equivalent to boiling a kettle (the most energy intensive household appliance at 3kW) constantly for 57 years.

I am pro hydro as its efficiency (45-60%) is so much greater than wind (20%) and solar (12%). Obviously though, I'm not pro chopping up fish or damaging ecologies! I think these installations are about more than just numbers, they're about changing peoples habits and understanding of our limited resources and the way we live. I just hope a compromise/medium can be achieved....

Hello Stephany:
1) Yes the UK does need to keep working to keep its CO2 down, but the money and effort wasted on uneconomic hydro schemes could be far better used, and with far less negative environmental impact.
2) Most weirs I have seen do not prevent fish from passing upstream. I have seen salmon clear weirs 6 feet in height, and at high water after rain the weir's effective height is reduced further, ( some actually disppearing from view under spate conditions) enabling even easier fish passage. Only really high weirs impede salmon and sea trout.
It is also highly inaccurate of you to say that the fish passes are what makes the hydro schemes uneconomic. That is utter rubbish and I would challenge you to provide data to back that up. Micro hydro is uneconomic because the capital costs, and interest on that capital, is more than could be recouped from the sale of generated electricity at regular unit rates.
Anglers pay a yearly £27 fee to the EA, who have an intent to remove some weirs, and who do install some fish passes themselves...using the anglers cash?
3) Not at all muddled. 500000 KWh (a figure not quite achieved yet) in 4 years does indeed equal 1 kettle continuously for 57 years, which is the same as 14 kettles for those 4 years of generation. That is quite close to my own figure, is it not?
4) The fact remains that most hydro schemes, although once installed may well reach your quoted efficiency figures, they are a drain on taxpayer finances. There is an article that can be downloaded just below that mangled fish picture. One of its premises is that almost all small scale hydro systems are a waste of money...before even considering their environmental impact. Worth a read, makes many points similar to mine, but adds others too.

Just a couple of quick facts to correct JJayZS on two of the deliberately (?) misleading statements he has slipped in.

Well designed hydro schemes do not mince fish. The EA insists that all intakes are screened, often with a fine mesh. Most often they also insist on an Archimedean screw turbine through which fish can pass unharmed.

Readers might get the idea from one of his earlier posts that the subsidy for hydro is 44p per kW. It’s nothing like that. 44p is the subsidy only for small scale solar pv systems and this is soon to be halved. The subsidy rate for hydro (15-100mW) is 17.8p and only 11p for schemes larger than 100kW. Money well spent I’d say. How much has the state spent or is about to spend on decommissioning old nuclear plants?

Oh those poor fish. I would like to see if Harcastle would risk passing through an archimedes power screw unharmed.
Did you know that the Torrs Hydro was making no electric at all for 6 months last year due to repairs.
6 months waiting for that kettle to boil, but I suppose we should be grateful it wasnt 57 years before Icould have my cup of tea..

Only 17.8 pence then? Not 44.
So have I got this right? I buy a share in my community hydro project. Probably getting no returns if, like the Toors, there is a yearly loss. then as a taxpayer I pay about twice the normal rate for the electricity my share of the turbine creates. And THEN when I swich on my toaster I pay yet again?
I suggest that all those who think these hydros are money well spent pay 3 times their electricity bills and let us taxpayers off the hook.

Nothing deliberate Hardcastle, but even at 17.8 pence, as Naomissy suggests the price is still overly high, as is any such subsidized generation.
The sliced fish picture would suggest that the EA does NOT insist on suitable screening. 7 fish killed in just one incident would suggest that fish kills are quite substantial. I simply cannot see how fish could pass through a spin and rinse cycle without suffering death of damage. Any evidence to support your claim?
Screening would present problems for the intakes and outflows in any case. There is a considerable amount of transit of leaves down spate rivers, especially in Autumn, Winter and in times of flood. These, together with plastic bags and other rubbish would soon block up any screened intake, and generation would cease. The screen would need to be regularly cleaned, involving manpower or some automated expensive self cleaning process. The Torrs 6 month outage, mentioned by Naomissy was caused by the downstream transit of large amounts gravel and rock during a spate, which both blocked off and damaged the turbine intake. Leaves would have a similar, if undamaging effect on the intakes, if they were screened. For that reason I can see hydro schemes fighting tooth and nail to avoid screens.

I’m entirely unapologetic about the need to subsidize alternative energy systems in general and hydro schemes in particular. Governments do it all the time, subsidizing enterprises, infrastructure and activities they consider desirable while taxing others they find less desirable. If subsidies are necessary to encourage a greater degree of energy security and help reduce carbon emissions, then that’s what we will have to do. It was ever thus. How far back and how many examples do you want me to give? If the subsidy becomes too generous because technology drives the cost of investment down, then Government’s need to reduce it like they have recently proposed with solar photvoltaics.

What would JJayZS prefer we do? Leave it entirely to the market? How does he explain that apart from, I think, one reactor in Finland, there has been virtually no investment in nuclear for the past 20 years? Governments appear pretty impotent in many areas of economic activity at the moment, but energy security and the challenges to our future lifestyles and prosperity presented by climate change are areas that they must not give up on. Governments have to spend and invest where it is needed. If we rely only on the market with all its leads and lags, it will be too late. As I said in an earlier post, I would not be against a subsidy for nuclear if we cannot achieve energy security in any other way.

On the question of damage to fish, let me answer both JJayZS and Naomissy together. I can’t answer for every instance and the example cited may relate to an old installation of a very different type to an Archimedean screw. Yes, a different type of turbine with no screening could well slice a few fish but that is not what is proposed at Whalley. The EA virtually insist on 'fish-friendly' Archimedean screws these days.

I am over 6 foot tall and weigh 85 kilos, so, yes, I would not fair well in an Archimedean screw! But a good sized fish probably weighs just one or two kilos and the clearance between the screw and the channel it sits in is a matter of millimeters, so there is very little chance of damage if it enters the screw. There was a film demonstrating this on television (Countryfile?) not that long ago. Moreover there is careful screening, which is set at an angle so that it deflects a good proportion of the debris, but undoubtedly needs to be cleaned regularly either automatically (using free electricity?) or manually especially in Autumn.

Keep these arguments coming.

Jayzs, you did not help by using the wrong numbers. But I do see and agree with most of your points.
Q. How many homes would install solar without the subsideis?
A. Veryfew
Q How many companys would build hydros if the local people did not pay for them and there were no subsidy.
A Very few.

Q So how many of the above are really being green and how many are just grabbing after tyhe money.
A nearly all. So much for their green intentions.
I watched a fish on the river dove last year. I was told it was a greyling. What a beautiful creature. Iwanted to cuddle it and take it home. Absolutely gorgeous. but most people only see fish in the fishmomnger. Which is why you can not win JJayzs. They are not furry cuddly things. Until cats take up swimming and fluffy kittens and otters are turned into sausage meat, no one will care.
To hardcastle. the fishpicture was in an article mainly about the Settle hydro. so it was probablt taken near thet archimedes screw. Which is a quite new one.
The is not much distance between scisser blades, but they cut meat quite well once they move. Turbine blades move. Why would they not cut up fish?
As jjaysz has said, i think the money could be spent far better.

Hardcastle asks "How do I explain that apart from, I think, one reactor in Finland, there has been virtually no investment in nuclear for the past 20 years? "

So I thought I would have a look, as the statement appeared very unlikely. So from the World Nuclear Association, Feb 2012: Straight cut and paste:

--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--
Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries
(Updated February 2012)

Over 45 countries are actively considering embarking upon nuclear power programs.
These range from sophisticated economies to developing nations.
The front runners after Iran are UAE, Turkey, Vietnam, Belarus and Jordan.

Nuclear power is under serious consideration in over 45 countries which do not currently have it (in a few, consideration is not necessarily at government level). For countries in bold, nuclear power prospects are more fully dealt with in specific country papers:

In Europe: Italy, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Portugal, Norway, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Turkey.
In the Middle East and North Africa: Iran, Gulf states including UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Kuwait, Yemen, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan.
In west, central and southern Africa: Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia.
In South America: Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela.
In central and southern Asia: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka
In SE Asia: Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand.
In east Asia: North Korea
Despite the large number of these emerging countries, they are not expected to contribute very much to the expansion of nuclear capacity in the foreseeable future – the main growth will come in countries where the technology is already well established. However, in the longer term, the trend to urbanisation in less-developed countries will greatly increase the demand for electricity, and especially that supplied by base-load plants such as nuclear. The pattern of energy demand in these countries will become more like that of Europe, North America and Japan.

--------------------
--------------------
-----------
45 NEW countries investing in nuclear added to pothers already in the market. But the MAIN nuclear growth will be from existing nuclear generating countries. A bit different from your statement of there being just ONE investment in Finland over 20 years?

South Korea has 21 existing installations, and is building 7 more domestic with four more overseas as I write this. By 2035 it hopes to be 60% nuclear. But SK is a forward thinking country,whilst we in the UK are tinkering about with trivial installations, able to power 50 or so houses when the weather is suitable.
Meantime we are importing CO2 generating gas and coal in huge quantities, whilst hoping those supplies will continue to be available to us. We are so very reliant on Russia and the Middle East etc. Risky?
Which country has the better chance of continued security of power? Which will be releasing the most CO2 in 2035?

Naomi , yes grayling are indeed a fabulous looking fish. That orange line along the huge dorsal fin of the male! Our fish, here in the UK, can hold their own against most, if not all of the British bird list.

P.S. A highly enjoyable debate.

My comment was that there has been no major investment in nuclear for about the past 20 years apart from, I think, Finland. Would JJayZS please note two things about that sentence. First the inbuilt hesitation since I am not absolutely sure of the facts, but believe it is broadly true. The second thing is that I have used the past tense. What your quote says is that around 45 countries are actively considering embarking on nuclear power programs, i.e. it uses the present tense and looks to the future. This claim from the industry lobby may be true but it doesn’t of itself negate my statement. As my previous posts have made clear, I am not rabidly anti-nuclear, but merely wish to state that one of the contributing reasons for the paucity (if not complete absence) of new nuclear stations in the past 10-20 years is the fact that they need hefty subsidies and many governments, including notably ours, are reluctant to provide them.

My point on fish mashing bears repeating. If the clearance between the screw blade and its housing is very small, fish are unable to get themselves into a position where they can be damaged. They just get swept down the turbine race in the substantial flow of water. Lots of empirical evidence shows this is true. The EA, with years of experience, obviously believe it, which is why they approve of Archimedean screw turbines.

The WNA public information service also indicates that there are 63 reactors being constructed world wide NOW. Feel free to go look. That is 63 major investments being made now, in this ONE year, let alone twenty. Statement negated sufficiently for you now? From THINKING there was just one in 20 years to there actually being 63 in just a single year of sampling is drifting rather a long way from "not being absolutely sure of the facts". Would you not agree? More akin to plucking something out of thin air.

How far has your assessment of fish mashing drifted from actual facts?
Your statement on fish mashing needs FACTS, not just repeating. The photograph, which appears to be from the Settle installation shows 7 fish sliced, obviously in just one incident. That is a fact. I don't know how big the shoal was, but it would appear that a substantial proportion were sliced.
Fish trying to ascend the screw are obviously going to be in considerable more danger than those heading downstream.

Thinking a little about how the Archimedes screw works: it effectively forms a series of separate little pockets of water. When used as a generator those pockets are moving downhill. So fish moving upstream CANNOT ascend the turbine. They cannot get to the next pocket. But fish are not bright enough to work that out, so any reaching the lower blades will still try to swim up, and will be permanently in the danger area of the blade, assembled at the lower pocket.
This makes it all the more essential to fit screens. Settle Hydro would suggest that either the EA does not insist on screens, or the hydro company just ignored the rules.

Here is a short but very interesting film made by Dr. Paul Gaskell, a freshwater ecologist. It is specifically addressing a hydro scheme on the river Don, but its message is far broader. He says much the same as I have done, but hails from a more relevantly qualified background.


http://waterfeature1
.blogspot.com/