• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Pool: Archimedean hydro electric screw

Would you like to see this installed near you.

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 16.7%

  • No

    Votes: 18 75.0%

  • Not arsed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • They should be on all weirs

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • Total voters
    24
G

Glenn Cunningham

Guest
Poll: Archimedean hydro electric screw

This is a poll post

Would you like to see an Archimedean hydro electric screw generator installed on a weir near you that does kill large fish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgwDBYq1hS8
Video clip taken of the Archimedean hydro electric screw in New Mills, Derbyshire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes the research done does show most fish can pass down the screw but some are struck and stunned or even killed by the leading edge.

The makers for the Archimedean screw state that most fish between 8cm and 58cm pass unharmed but when I called them in Germany they refused to comment on what happens to fish under 8cm and fish over 58cm.

Note: I feel its important to add that these systems are being install on small convenient low head weirs where a fish pass is not really needed. They are many weirs over 2m plus that desperately need a fish pass and due to the higher head are able to generate a usable amount of electricity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that there is an intention to site as many as three on the River Tees. If they make as much of an impact on Migratory fish as the Tees Barrage then I oppse them strongly. It's just a case of grasping at straws in the face of a storm.
 
I was bored to death by an EA presentation on these and after listerning to the so called experts I didnt feel there was a problem with them.

But after reading all the info on the various threads I would be dead against them now

Cheers
Jason
 
Well on the basis that they require water to work and fish can only be injured or killed if they're present.
If installed along the Cherwell you'd be lucky to generate enough electricity too boil a kettle and it'll be fairly fish safe, cos there ain't none:rolleyes:.

But in view of the fact that they produce so little power and potentially can do so much harm I have voted no.

What's wrong with harnessing wind or tidal energy, stupid me, they spoil the aesthetics, can't possibly spoil the views:rolleyes:.
Even if once removed the landscape and ecology remains unchanged and therefore unharmed.:eek:
 
Colin Gordon said:
What's wrong with harnessing wind or tidal energy, stupid me, they spoil the aesthetics, can't possibly spoil the views:rolleyes:.
Even if once removed the landscape and ecology remains unchanged and therefore unharmed.:eek:
Click to expand...
This is not totally accurate. Wind generation sites are presently usually placed on areas of peat. The disturbance of this peat, building of access roads and foundations releases a considerable amount of C02. Dependent on the site, the amount of C02 put into the atmosphere by the building of a wind turbine is met by operating a turbine for between 8-12 years. As most have a life expectancy of 10 years, do the maths and see why a large number of wind turbines have little or no effect on overall C02 emissions (the reasons supposedly for building them) as well as permanently disfiguring the environment. Objections to wind turbines are not purely based on aesthetics (although why it should be so wrong to value how the countryside looks is beyond me) but als because they offer no solution to present problems.
Wave generation is even more problematic. Incredibly expensive and no real understanding of the long term consequences for coastal errosion, fish stocks etc. The same people saying these are a good idea are the same as those who proposed the Salmon farms. Equally the scientists who warned of the long term consequences of salmon farms are now warning about building off shore generators.
If you want to continue to generate energy at the present levels (impossible in the long term really) the only solution is nuclear. All the other stuff is just window dressing. Wind generation and small hydro schemes are fine for places in the Scottish Highlands where sustainability is the key, but for the industrialised parts of the country they are a nonsense.
It is not a case of if we don't have hydro, we should have wind turbines. Neither are what is required to deal with the long term consequences of our over reliance on energy. We must reduce consumption and use nuclear where possible if we are not to suffer the inevitable consequences of every higher oil and gas prices. It is not a coincidence that the economic downturn in the UK started at exactly the same time as we, for the first time in 30 years, became a net importer of energy, rather than a net exporter. As the gas field run ever dryer this will get worse and worse.
 
Colin Gordon said:
Well on the basis that they require water to work and fish can only be injured or killed if they're present.
If installed along the Cherwell you'd be lucky to generate enough electricity too boil a kettle and it'll be fairly fish safe, cos there ain't none:rolleyes:.

But in view of the fact that they produce so little power and potentially can do so much harm I have voted no.

What's wrong with harnessing wind or tidal energy, stupid me, they spoil the aesthetics, can't possibly spoil the views:rolleyes:.
Even if once removed the landscape and ecology remains unchanged and therefore unharmed.:eek:
Click to expand...

Pete, this post was placed as a sarcastic riposte to the obvious knee jerk reaction that the powers that be just jump onto the latest fad new fangled 'in ideas', hence the usage of the rolling eyes sarcastic smilie :)rolleyes:).

Sorry my sarcastic humour eluded you;).
 
I reckon that this could actually be a good thing for fishing! If every installation included a fish pass on the weir in question, then it would make movement of fish to and from the upper reaches to spawn more likely. Is there not a simple way to protect large fish from harm with these devices?

Ultimately, however, this may ruin barbel fishing on our rivers - we won't be able to afford a ticket when the salmon arrive(!)

Rob
 
Robert Hellawell said:
I reckon that this could actually be a good thing for fishing! If every installation included a fish pass on the weir in question, then it would make movement of fish to and from the upper reaches to spawn more likely. Is there not a simple way to protect large fish from harm with these devices?

Ultimately, however, this may ruin barbel fishing on our rivers - we won't be able to afford a ticket when the salmon arrive(!)

Rob
Click to expand...
Its a pretty expensive way of building a fish ladder...tens of thousands of pounds and complete disruption to the river and its flow, for something that should be present on every weir anyway (a fish ladder). And all subsidised by the taxpayer.
What is actually happening on the ground is that lots of fish pass schemes, replacing and rebuilding passes damaged by neglect and the floods of 2007 and essential not only for salmon and sea trout runs, but also providing relief areas for many coarse fish on spate rivers, such as the Teme, where fish can no longer get up the feeder streams because passes have been damaged; are put on hold whilst the applications for Hydo schemes that every landowner with a weir on a small river has been encouraged to submit by the various "green" hydro companies set up to exploit the taxpayers largesse is investigated.
This has already delayed the much need repairs to fish passes on Teme tributaries and hopefully, one of the first acts of any new government looking for some cuts will be to reject all these silly schemes allowing weirs to be removed or fish passes to be repaired where ever possible.
 
They cost between 400k to 800k.

Click the video link in the first post to hear it running
 
The hydro made so much noise that it was shut down at night until a modification was made to reduce it.

Its not known if this modilfication reduces the amount of electricity made by slowing the rotation the hydro screw or if it effects the well-being of the fish.
 
No hydro's for Stockport just yet, they only raised 100k out of the needed 750k :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top