Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A home microhydro plant (2009)

ludens.cl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#41

Post by martin_a »

wongarsu wrote: post #24
acomjean wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how cost effective it is. Most people don’t have a stream they can divert to run power. I’m not sure if the legality of stream diversion for personal use in many jusristrictions, and they seemed to divert a long way.

In Europe there are a lot of small streams that used to house mills before electricity made those redundant. Most of the earth work is alread done, you would just have to change it from a stretch of fast-flowing water to power a mill wheel to a small drop to power a turbine, and add the turbine and electronics. In some places there might even be ancient still-valid permits you could aquire if you buy the original mil…

As you mentioned, this is possible but often followed by lots of regulatory things. I had a look into it for Germany and the easiest way is to buy an old mill and retrofit new technology for power generation.

On the other hand, older mills are often covered by the protection of historical monuments and can therefore not be altered as you like. This should really be looked into before buying anything as it will be an absolute showstopper with no way around it.

And if you try to do what the guy here did you'll most likely run into water way authorities with requirements for fish ladders and so on.

It's doable but it's not as easy as laying some pipe through your garden.

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#42

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

mips_avatar wrote: post #37
BooneJS wrote: post #35

I’m quite certain that any US state’s department of natural resources would take great exception to diversion of streams.

What are the relevant US regulations on doing something like this? I know some streams are crucial ecologically. But is it mostly regulated on a national, state or local level?

I believe it's mostly state level, and at least in my state this would indeed be illegal without a permit, which I'm quite sure would not be granted in this case.

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#45

Post by jacquesm »

mtw wrote: post #10

How much would all this cost in 2019? I'm wondering because I see many more people turn towards solar panels, or alternatively windmills. First time I see a hydro plant of this size.

It's all about head x volume, if you don't have site suitable then you can simply forget about it. Very few pieces of land that you can own privately will have enough height difference and enough volume of water running through it that you can pull this off.

Besides the legality of it, in Northern Ontario, the land I had there had a fair sized creek running through it but over the 400 meters that the creek intersected the property the height difference was only about a meter and a half. You'd have to do major engineering to make usable power from that, the cost of the tubing and the turbine might be just low enough that it would compare favorably with a windmill.

It definitely is a great way to make power though, as long as the creek does not freeze (and as long as your precious tubing and Pelton wheel don't freeze) they'll make continuous power and that is really neat.

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#46

Post by jacquesm »

wongarsu wrote: post #24
acomjean wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how cost effective it is. Most people don’t have a stream they can divert to run power. I’m not sure if the legality of stream diversion for personal use in many jusristrictions, and they seemed to divert a long way.

In Europe there are a lot of small streams that used to house mills before electricity made those redundant. Most of the earth work is alread done, you would just have to change it from a stretch of fast-flowing water to power a mill wheel to a small drop to power a turbine, and add the turbine and electronics. In some places there might even be ancient still-valid permits you could aquire if you buy the original mil…

Your typical height difference in those locations are better suited to applications that use torque rather than pressure. And that's how they were used in the past, to directly turn paddle wheels or bucket wheels to power mechanical activity, not to run generators for electrical power. You might be able to create a neat conversion though, make an old style wheel and then gear up inside the building. But cost wise that would most likely be a complete loss compared to the electricity it would produce, and those wheels are high maintenance.

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#47

Post by jijji »

mips_avatar wrote: post #37
BooneJS wrote: post #35

I’m quite certain that any US state’s department of natural resources would take great exception to diversion of streams.

What are the relevant US regulations on doing something like this? I know some streams are crucial ecologically. But is it mostly regulated on a national, state or local level?

Playing with any water system requires permission from the water management district in your local area, or the health department, or both. Plans would need to be drawn and stamped by a civil engineer, inspected and approved and then final inspected after construction in order to be put to use.

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#48

Post by dmix »

mtw wrote: post #10

How much would all this cost in 2019? I'm wondering because I see many more people turn towards solar panels, or alternatively windmills. First time I see a hydro plant of this size.

The author mentions solar in a later post:

> Another restriction is that there is no power at this place. Bringing power here would require a 350 meter long transmission line through dense forest, or else installing a solar panel, battery and regulator. Due to the low head available between the intake dam and the forebay, a picohydro system to provide some power is hardly feasible. Solar power is quite restricted too, because the place is in a deep valley and gets only about 3 hours of sun a day. Furthermore, in winter there is often no sunny day for a full month! So panels would have to be dimensioned to run on diffuse light from the clouds, and that needs big panels to produce only a little bit of power.

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#49

Post by blattimwind »

MisterTea wrote: post #20
CapitalistCartr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of safety margin built into standard wire insulation. I've exceeded the ratings pretty severely with no ill effects. My concern, were this my project, would be long-term wear on the insulation. 1,000 volts is gonna HURT. 480 hurts bad enough.

line-line potential is 2kV so the wear is worse between conductors. The only saving grace is the current is so low that the wire will see almost no heating which almost eliminates thermal stress.

You are misunderstanding. He runs each wire in a separate, sealed insulating cable pipe. These would most likely be 1-1.5 mm wall thickness PVC.

Re: A home microhydro plant (2009)

#50

Post by funkaster »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #38
BooneJS wrote: post #35

I’m quite certain that any US state’s department of natural resources would take great exception to diversion of streams.

Sure, but this is in Chile.

well... being in Chile does not excuse you from doing this properly. This type of work very likely requires permit. Whether or not someone will go and inspect it, that's a different thing (until it causes a problem).

fyi: I'm also Chilean.

Post reply on HN