Comments on: Hydro!

By: engsjb

engsjb — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:21:27 +0000

I would query Sharon Ashton’s statement above that “Titus was using renewable energy 150 years ago.” I know of no evidence that this is the case. The weir at Saltaire was built to service the three water wheels of Dixons Mill, which stood on the site for 200 years before Salts. Sir Titus’s operation, however, was steam-driven (and thus used non-renewable coal supplies), and the original Salts Mill was by the canal, not by the river (a canal has no water power to speak of). As I understand it, New Mill utilised the old Dixons mill race as a water supply, but nobody I have spoken to about this believes that the waterwheels were ever put back into operation.

By: Sharon Ashton

Sharon Ashton — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:03:08 +0000

Ps. Saltaire is Unesco listed. This is a site of international importance, we are merely custodians and have a responsibility to make sure Saltaire gets the very best care. In that sense it is our park because we are closest to it.

By: Sharon Ashton

Sharon Ashton — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:58:49 +0000

Council officers including Neill have had to admit if government feed in tariffs change ( they are up for review, by no means set in stone) this project will be unviable. The business case for this scheme is yet to be proved. There is an alternative on the other side of the weir in New Mill. This is what it was designed for, Titus was using renewable energy 150 years ago, without it impacting on the park !

By: engsjb

engsjb — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:15:01 +0000

Neill Morrison, Energy Manager at Bradford Council and the man responsible for the hydro plan, read this blog and emailed me with a useful clarification on the question of ‘net carbon gain’, mentioned above: “schemes of this type are assessed to have an energy payback of between 30 and 300 over their life,” he notes, which is “the best energy payback of any technology. This means that a small scale hydro scheme will generate between 30 and 300 times the energy used in construction over the generator’s life.” So that pretty convincingly deals with the net/gross argument. Thanks Neill!