Ivan's Creek: Low-head hydro-electric power

  • Thread starter Thread starter Integral
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Power
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for a hydroelectric power installation at Ivan's Creek, exploring the feasibility, environmental considerations, and technical aspects of such a project. Participants share personal experiences related to the creek and discuss various implications of building a dam and generating power.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest the idea of installing a hydroelectric plant upstream, considering the creek's flow rates and potential power output.
  • One participant outlines estimated costs for dam construction, turbine installation, and expected power production, while expressing skepticism about the project's overall feasibility.
  • Concerns are raised about the environmental impact of dam installation, including the creation of a lake and the need for studies and permits.
  • Another participant mentions the possibility of using a Banki crossflow turbine, noting its advantages in design and construction.
  • Some participants discuss the regulatory landscape, mentioning that low-head hydro systems may face fewer regulations compared to larger projects.
  • There is a recognition of the uncertainty involved in maintaining the creek bed and ensuring adequate head for turbine efficiency.
  • Personal anecdotes about the creek's condition and past flooding events are shared, highlighting the dynamic nature of the environment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of enthusiasm and skepticism regarding the hydroelectric project. While some are supportive of exploring the idea, others raise concerns about environmental regulations and practical challenges, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the creek's seasonal flow and the absence of certain fish populations, which may influence regulatory requirements. There is also mention of the need for collaboration with neighboring property owners, which adds complexity to the feasibility of the project.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in small-scale renewable energy projects, environmental impact assessments, and hydroelectric power generation may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Ivan Seeking said:
How much money did you want?
5 dollars and 67 cents. Double quarter pounder meal. I'm hungry
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
At three feet of head the first guy is probably off the power curve - the water falls too fast wrt to its forward velocity so the second impulse is out of time [I should say that the angles of the blades are wrong], which causes turbulent flow - but even then the efficiency can be as high as 50%.
 
  • #33
I moved this to engineering as a low-head hydro-power thread. There are times that this seems to be worth doing; esp here in the Pacific Northwest. In my case, the creek is probably too dynamic to tame for a 5KW, 8 month per year installation.
 
  • #34
Maybe this is being done now, but the idea of a variable load to match the source seem to be key with LHH. Consider electric space heat run in constant duty mode - say for example if we run 5KW at a 90% duty cycle, with a low speed fan mode [on the space heater], at opposed to the typical 20KW over a 23% duty cycle. This should allow space heat to run almost exclusively on hydro-power. Also, by adding the water pre-heater in front of the water heater, I calculated that we could utilize the average 5KW most of the winter with no other energy storage. IIRC, space and water heat are about 80% of a typical home's energy usage.

If you look at the average power usage in any home, it is surprising how little power is really needed if one could avoid the large, low duty cycle loads. Smart loads are I think a key concept needed to make this type of alternative supply practical.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Okay, here is a nice page for the Banki turbine.
http://home.carolina.rr.com/unclejoe/

According to this, the paper that I read must have been the translated paper - Bulletin #25 - and someone at OSU built and tested it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Integral said:
http://home.comcast.net/~integral50/scenery/streamlr.JPG
The state of the stream today... Not nearly as exciting.

Have you considered the "rustic" approach? Can't tell a whole lot about the topography, just picturing an undershot wheel 'tween the trees and bridge, 'bout even w' the bar.

How much cutting goes on during the high water?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Anything but a crossflow turbine is too inefficient to be worth doing. It just wouldn't be enough power to be useful in a practical way that would offset the cost. Undershot wheels can run as low as 20% efficient...in fact I think that's more like a best case.

And it does move an amazing amount of rock during heavy flows. The little island seen in the one shot was formed in about one day. I have seen it dig straight down through six feet of rocky clay in a week.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
I didn't even notice that the original paper is linked at the end.
http://home.carolina.rr.com/unclejoe/banki_scan.pdf

Also, ignore all of the whining about the paper. I had no trouble reading it and then designing my own turbine. [Yes, unfortunately I got that far].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
One more thought here: I think a major trap for the alternative energy crowd is the idea of selling power back to the power company. At $10K for the safety switch that is legally required in order to prevent back-feeding the lines during an outage and possibly killing a lineman, I don't think it's worth trying to sell the power back unless we are talking about a very large installation. But in many more cases it does make sense to isolate the system from line power and design the loads to follow the supply power available - to keep the system operating at max efficiency. The plan was to design one of the four heater modules [~5KW each] so that by using triacs, a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 KW load could be selected so as to maintain a nearly constant turbine speed. This seemed a best option as opposed to trying to PWM a highly inductive load or trying to vary the load linearly. In both cases the potential complications seemed best to avoid altogether. But this was a judgement call and unique to my situation. Linearly variable loads would probably work fine in most cases. The additional water heater element would be a fixed load in this plan, which would cause some additional losses, but it calculated out that those losses would be relatively small, and acceptable.

If the creek was more stable with an easily had four feet of effective head, and assuming a typical Oregon winter, this installation calculates out as being worth about $250 per month, eight months of the year. And keep in mind that a typical flow is about 16% of that seen here. Integral came by because of the unusually large flow due to a month of heavy rain.

Late edit [sorry]: for those who don't know this, one of greatest sources of energy loss and expense for alternative energy systems is the need for energy storage. This design seeks to avoid this problem. Also, the final parameters were for a variable 1- 10 KW load as the flows in the creek vary over the season. The max efficiency of the system occurs at a constant turbine speed and is otherwise independent of the load or the power being generated.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Concept subsea PHES system, /advice with calculations
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Is in-stream, low-flow, micro-hydro production of great power a fantasy?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K