DOCSLIB.ORG

Power Generation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Power Generation Appendix A – Power Generation In balancing the pro-development bias of EN3 against EN1 (duty to ‘Protect and Enhance the Character of the District’) the only benefit of this proposal would be the production of some ‘renewable’ electricity. Wind farm output is calculated as: Installed Capacity x 8760 (hours in a year) x Capacity Factor (CF). The CF (actual output/installed capacity) depends on turbine design, turbine reliability and wind speeds. It varies from year to year and is difficult to predict. Average CF for the whole UK is around 30%, but only if offshore turbines (with higher and more consistent wind) are included. Developers often quote 30% even for onshore wind farms but renewableUK (the industry trade body) use 26.35% and DECC has used 25%. The average UK onshore CF (2006-2011) was 26.5%. It could be argued that the latest turbines are more efficient, but the existing data is mostly for Northern upland areas. The most suitable sites for wind farms have already been taken . The average output of a wind farm drops markedly over its operational life 1. Again, there is considerable variability in the figures, but it seems a typical onshore wind farm might start with a CF of 27%, dropping to around 11% after 15 years, and continuing to decline until the turbines are abandoned, scrapped or replaced. Wind farm operators willingly accepted the recent government plans to replace the current subsidy scheme with a more generous guaranteed price that only lasts for 15 years. RWE assume a 29.9% CF for Temple Hill in their calculations (with 2.5MW turbines) [PS] but have not provided any evidence to show that this would be attained, let alone maintained over 25 years. This is important because an over-estimate of maximum output and/or CF means an over- estimate of electricity produced and an over-estimate of CO2 savings. A more realistic CF (but still optimistic, at least in the longer term) would be 27%. So: 5 x 2.05MW turbines = 10.25MW installed maximum capacity Average output = 10.25 x 27% = 0,002.77MW In contrast: RWE Staythorpe power station (gas) = 1,735MW New Hinkley C (nuclear) = 3,200MW Drax (Bio/coal) power station = 4,000MW Temple Hill Annual output = 2.7675 x 8760 (hours) = 24,243 MWh Turnover (£100/MWh fixed price) = £2.42 million A conventional power station would earn £0.969 million for the same power Wind Power Subsidy = £2.42million - £0.969million = £1½ million per year Landowner payment = £2.42 x 5% (estimate) = £121,000 RWE has not justified what appears to be a gross over-estimate of the electricity produced. It is misleading to claim [D&AS 3.1.1] that the site would have a generating capacity of ‘between 9-15MW of clean, renewable energy’ when the total capacity will only be 10MW and the average amount generated only around 2.7MW. Also, the electricity produced is no more ‘ clean ’ than any other electricity. 1 The Performance of Wind Farm in the United Kingdom and Denmark (Prof G Hughes) Link S13/2699: reVOLT response Draft A Appendix A – Page 1 CO2 Saved / Homes Powered Although refusing to state the actual power output of the turbines, the application makes illustrative claims for the CO2 emissions that could be saved and the number of homes that could be powered. But, the actual amount of electricity generated would be erratic; whenever there is no wind (or less than 6.7mph), no electricity would be generated at all. The rationale for industrial wind power is to reduce UK CO2 emissions by replacing fossil-fuel powered electricity generation. The relevant factors in the calculation are: 1. The electricity produced by the wind farm over it’s operational life (see above); 2. Thus the reduction in CO2 emissions from fossil-fuelled generation; 3. Less additional CO2 emissions involved in construction of the wind farm. Reduction in Fossil Fuel CO2 - Baseline Using their optimistic CF, RWE [PS] quote figures for CO2 offset against gas and coal-fired conventional power. Current generation is a mix of these fuels and low carbon alternatives. The standard figure for CO2 offset recommended by DECC is 0.43kg CO2 per kWh, which is at the lower end of the range of values quoted by RWE. Also, the alternative is not to build more 1960s type coal-fired power stations. Old power stations (where carbon capture is uneconomic) are being replaced by various types of low carbon plants. The baseline for CO2 offset should be the likely alternative power sources in 2025, not those in 2010. The CO2 offset has been compared against legacy, coal-fired alternatives . Backup Power The intrinsic variability of wind means that back-up generation must be provided to meet electricity demand. The wind industry lobby claims that ‘the wind is always blowing somewhere’ and suggest that if enough additional power lines are built ‘surplus’ wind power could be transferred across the country, or across continents. In practise, long periods of very light winds are caused by high pressure weather systems, which frequently cover the whole of Northern Europe at the same time. It’s also suggested that ‘surplus’ wind power can be stored. The only way to store significant amounts of energy is pumped hydro-electric power (pumping water uphill). The UK has 2 such schemes, but these are already committed to their original purposes – meeting spikes in demand and emergency backup. The maximum capacity of these schemes is equivalent to about 45 minutes of total UK demand. Estimates for the proportion of backup power required for wind farms vary from 90-100% of the installed capacity. This means either that existing power stations are retained or that new generating capacity has to be built. In practise older coal-fired power stations are being kept on standby for the months when sustained periods of low winds are likely. In addition, gas fired power stations are forced to cycle up and down to meet variations in supply (as well the normal daily variations in demand). This has financial and efficiency impacts on these generators. In addition, it may be necessary to augment modern (CCGT 2) gas power with less efficient but faster-reacting (OCGT) gas power. As total generating capacity is being drawn down, the margin of reserve capacity (previously used to allow for unplanned maintenance) may not be enough to 2 CCGT = Closed Cycle Gas Turbine / OCGT = Open Cycle Gas Turbine S13/2699: reVOLT response Draft A Appendix A – Page 2 meet demand each time wind energy drops off. Diesel-powered generators, many of them purpose built, are being used to provide the extra capacity (at very high cost). Standby coal-stations, OCGT gas power, cycling CCGT gas power and diesel power create considerably more CO2 emissions than would CCGT power stations running at optimal levels. Some studies suggest that generating capacity based on wind power with OCGT/diesel backup emits more CO2 than the same generating capacity using only CCGT. Since saving carbon is the fundamental objective, in order to justify its claim to be fully ‘renewable, wind farm developers should demonstrate in a measurable way how much carbon will be saved. The requirement for backup power has not been factored into CO2 calculations. CO2 used in Wind Farm Construction . Wind farm developers often quote ‘payback’ times for CO2 as 2 - 10 months, but a House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report estimated 1 - 3 years. The actual payback time depends on the actual CO2 saved and the additional CO2 used in construction and transport. No allowance has been made for the additional CO2 used in construction and transport . The applicant refuses to say which turbine model will be installed of even the type of base construction. The following are likely to result in significant CO2 emissions: ° Extraction, processing and transport of the iron ore used in foundations and structure; ° Manufacturing of the turbine mechanism, housing and 15 blades; ° Transport from mainland Europe or China; ° Manufacture and transport of the turbine tower structure; ° Extraction, processing and transport of the cement, stone and steel for turbine bases; ° Extraction and transport of the aggregate for the 3.2km of extra/upgraded tracks, crane bases etc; ° Extraction and removal of tons of sub-soil; ° Additional HGV journeys for cranes, compound construction, trenching, cabling, etc. DEFRA state that an articulated lorry travelling at 50mph emits 756 tonnes of CO2 per year 3. There has been no national study to measure whether industrial wind farms produce any net reduction in CO2 emissions. Alternatives We recognise the need to generate electricity efficiently and cleanly and for more efficient use of energy (note that the latter ‘Includes energy for heating and cooling as well as generating electricity’ [NPPF]). It is not our role to suggest alternative means of achieving these aims, although they exist. Nor do we oppose all forms of wind energy. However, we dispute the claims made by RWE in the context of this application for an industrial development. 3 ‘Standard Road Transport Fuel Conversion Figures’ DEFRA S13/2699: reVOLT response Draft A Appendix A – Page 3 The SPD (2.4) repeats NPPF guidance about encouraging renewable/low carbon energy, but it does not mandate any particular technology. SKDC could comply with this guidance by encouraging greater use of heat pumps, shared heating schemes, solar energy, growing biofuels or by mandating higher building standards. Indeed there is already a high take-up of heat pumps, solar energy and biofuels in the local area. Alternative ways of reducing CO2 emissions include: 6000 households turn heating down by 1° C = 1,800 tons per year (300kg per home) Not building 6000 new houses = 480,000 tons (@ 80 ton per house) There are alternative ways of producing clean energy, or saving energy, without damaging the local environment or impacting local residents.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pembroke Power Station Environmental Permit
    Environment Agency appropriate assessment: Pembroke Power Station Environmental Permit Report – Final v 2.5 - 1 - PROTECT - Environmental Permit EA/EPR/DP3333TA/A001 Executive summary Purpose An ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (AA) as required by Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (in accordance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), has been carried out on the application for an environmental permit for a 2100 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station, near Pembroke. This Appropriate Assessment is required before the Environment Agency can grant an Environmental Permit and consider the implications of the environmental permit on the Pembrokeshire Marine / Sir Benfro Forol Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Afonydd Cleddau / Cleddau Rivers SAC. Approach The purpose of the AA is to ensure that the granting of an environmental permit does not result in damage to the natural habitats and species present on sites protected for their important wildlife. In this sense, the AA is similar to an environmental impact assessment with special focus on wildlife of international and national importance. In technical terms an, AA is a legal requirement to determine whether activities (not necessary for nature conservation) could adversely affect the integrity of the conservation site(s), either alone or in combination with other activities, and given the prevailing environmental conditions. It is required before the Agency, as a competent authority, can grant permission for the project. An adverse effect on integrity is one that undermines the coherence of a sites ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables the site to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or levels of populations of the species for which the site is important.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Outlook Report 2009/10
    1st October 2009 Winter Outlook Report 2009/10 Winter Outlook Report 2009/10 Outlook for winter 2009/10 Introduction 1. This document, the final report, sets out our analysis and views for the coming winter (October 2009 to March 2010), and reflects responses received through the consultation process. Ofgem plans to hold a seminar for industry parties on 14 th October 2009 in London. The preliminary winter report and previous year final reports are published on our website at http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/SYS/outlook/ . Industry Feedback 2. We would like to thank the organisations that responded to the consultation. In all five responses were received, which we have reviewed and reflected in our final report. Whilst the formal consultation process has now closed, we continually seek feedback on our outlook reports to increase their usefulness to the industry and to reflect all changes in trends when they become apparent. To feedback comments on our outlook report please contact us at [email protected] . Roles and Responsibilities 3. The competitive gas and electricity markets in Great Britain have developed substantially in recent years and have successfully established separate roles and responsibilities for the various market participants. In summary, the provision of gas and electricity to meet consumer demands and contracting for capacity in networks is the responsibility of suppliers and shippers. National Grid has two main responsibilities: first, as the primary transporter, for ensuring there is adequate and reliable network capacity to meet anticipated transportation requirements; second, as system operator of the transmission networks, for the residual balancing activity in both gas and electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Modified UK National Implementation Measures for Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System
    Modified UK National Implementation Measures for Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System As submitted to the European Commission in April 2012 following the first stage of their scrutiny process This document has been issued by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, together with the Devolved Administrations for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. April 2012 UK’s National Implementation Measures submission – April 2012 Modified UK National Implementation Measures for Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System As submitted to the European Commission in April 2012 following the first stage of their scrutiny process On 12 December 2011, the UK submitted to the European Commission the UK’s National Implementation Measures (NIMs), containing the preliminary levels of free allocation of allowances to installations under Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading System (2013-2020), in accordance with Article 11 of the revised ETS Directive (2009/29/EC). In response to queries raised by the European Commission during the first stage of their assessment of the UK’s NIMs, the UK has made a small number of modifications to its NIMs. This includes the introduction of preliminary levels of free allocation for four additional installations and amendments to the preliminary free allocation levels of seven installations that were included in the original NIMs submission. The operators of the installations affected have been informed directly of these changes. The allocations are not final at this stage as the Commission’s NIMs scrutiny process is ongoing. Only when all installation-level allocations for an EU Member State have been approved will that Member State’s NIMs and the preliminary levels of allocation be accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Drought Plan 2019 Statement of Response
    DRAFT DROUGHT PLAN 2019 STATEMENT OF RESPONSE Prepared by the Water Resources Strategy Team Water Services Severn Trent Water Limited August 2018 1 Severn Trent Water: draft Drought Plan 2019 Statement of Response Statement of Response Introduction We published our draft Drought Plan (2019-2024) and the accompanying SEA and HRA for consultation in June 2018. The consultation period ended on 8th August 2018. We were pleased to receive comments on our draft Drought Plan from seven different stakeholders. We received representations from the following organisations: Organisation Abbreviation Bristol Water - The Consumer Council for Water CCWater The Environment Agency EA National Farmers Union NFU Natural Resources Wales/Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru NRW RWE Generation UK - Staffordshire Civil Contingencies Unit Staffordshire CCU All of the respondents gave us feedback on our draft Drought Plan document only, there was no separate feedback given on our SEA or HRA. This is our Statement of Response (SoR) and it shows how we have addressed all of the comments and suggestions that we have received. In this document we list the comments that we received from each organisation, and in Chapter 2 we explain what we have done as a result. In some cases we have made changes to our draft Drought Plan, which will be reflected in the final version when it is published. In other cases, while we don’t need to change our draft Drought Plan, we explain how we can address the comment separately. Where we have revised our draft plan or the response requires further detail or evidence, we have provided this in Chapter 3 of this SoR document.
    [Show full text]
  • Northsealand. a Study of the Effects, Perceptions Of
    NORTHSEALAND. A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS, PERCEPTIONS OF AND RESPONSES TO MESOLITHIC SEA-LEVEL RISE IN THE SOUTHERN NORTH SEA AND CHANNEL/MANCHE A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities. 2013 James C Leary School of Arts, Languages and Cultures List of Contents Abstract 9 Declaration 10 Acknowledgements 13 Preface 15 Abbreviations 20 Chapter 1 Recognising Northsealand 1.1 Introduction 21 1.2 Palaeogeographies, palaeoevironments and sea-level curves 26 1.3 Sea-level rise, the Mesolithic period, and society 43 1.4 This study 53 Chapter 2 The place of nature and the nature of place 2.1 Introduction 59 2.2 The place of nature 60 2.3 The nature of place 74 2.4 Chapter summary 81 Chapter 3 Shaping the world with ice and sea 3.1 Introduction 84 3.2 Deglaciation and sea-level rise 84 3.3 Sea-level change: A story of complexity 88 3.4 Methods of establishing relative sea-level change 92 2 Sea-level index points 93 Age/altitude analysis 93 Tendency analysis 94 3.5 Problems with sea-level curves 95 3.6 Scales of change, variation and tipping points 97 Variation 97 Thresholds and tipping points 98 Scales of change 104 3.7 Chapter summary 108 Chapter 4 Thinking the imagined land 4.1 Introduction 110 4.2 Area 1: The Outer Silver Pit region (upper North Sea) 115 4.3 Area 2: The delta plain and Dover gorge 131 4.4 Area 3: The Channel River (eastern Channel/Manche) 146 4.5 People in their environment 163 4.6 Chapter summary 170 Chapter 5 Changing worlds and changing worldviews 5.1
    [Show full text]
  • Staythorpe Power Station Screening Opinion by the Secretary of State
    Energy Infrastructure and Planning Team Level 3 Orchard 2 By email only: [email protected] 1 Victoria Street [email protected] London SW1H 0ET T: 020 7215 5000 Chrissie Matthews E: [email protected] Environmental Permitting and Consenting Advisor www.beis.gov.uk RWE Generation UK plc Windmill Hill Business Park – Trigonos Whitehill Way Swindon SN5 6PB Your ref: STC/S36/BEIS/001 Our ref: 24 May 2021 Dear Ms Matthews, THE ELECTRICITY WORKS (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) REGULATIONS 2017 – REQUEST FOR A SCREENING OPINION BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER REGULATION 10 Proposed S36C Variation application under the Electricity Act 1989 to Increase Generation Capacity at Staythorpe Power Station, Staythorpe, Newark, Nottinghamshire, NG23 5PS 1. I refer to your letter of 13 March 2021 requesting an environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) screening opinion from the Secretary of State under Regulation 10 of the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 (“2017 Regulations) in respect of a proposed section 36C variation application to authorise the operation of Staythorpe Power Station at an increased electrical capacity of up to 1,850MW. Your letter confirmed that RWE had, prior to making this application to the Secretary of State, undertaken consultation with the relevant local planning authority, Nottinghamshire County Council and Newark and Sherwood District Council on the EIA Screening documents and whether this project requires an EIA to accompany the proposed S36C variation application. Nottinghamshire County Council and Newark and Sherwood District Council’s response to that consultation was provided by RWE to the Secretary of State with this screening request.
    [Show full text]
  • National Rivers Authority Severn Trent Region TRENT LICENSING POLICY REVIEW DRAFT FINAL REPORT
    National Rivers Authority Severn Trent Region TRENT LICENSING POLICY REVIEW DRAFT FINAL REPORT 'O-'ZrR'l. o VERSION PURPOSE PREPARED BY /CHECKED BY REVIEWED BY K1051/060/0/Q19 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 089502 TRENT LICENSING POLICY REVIEW DRAFT FINAL REPORT CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION 3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE CATCHMENT 5. USES OF THE RIVER TRENT 5.1 Water Abstraction 5.1.1 The Power Generation Industry 5.1.2 Public Water Supply 5.1.3 Industry 5.1.4 Agriculture 5.2 Fisheries 5.3 Recreation and Conservation 5.4 Navigation 5.5 Effluent Disposal 5.6 Flood Defence 5.7 Other Uses 6. EXISTING STATE OF THE CATCHMENT 6.1 River Flows 6.2 Water Quality 6.3 Conclusions 7. PROPOSALS FOR WATER ABSTRACTION 8 . POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSALS 9. OPTIONS FOR LICENSING POLICY 9.1 Key Points 9.2 Licensing Strategy 9.3 Prescribed Flow Conditions 9.4 Other Considerations 9.5 Conclusions APPENDICES A. MINUTES OF MEETINGS B. ACTUAL ABSTRACTION FIGURES C. POTENTIAL CHANGES IN IRRIGATION DEMAND WITHIN THE RIVER TRENT CATCHMENT 1ST OF FIGURES igure 4.1 The Trent Catchment igure 5.1 Power Stations and in the Trent Basin igure 5.2 Mean Monthly Abstraction and Evaporation - Rugeley igure 5.3 - Mean-Monthly Abstraction and Evaporation — Drakelow igure 5.4 Mean Monthly Abstraction and Evaporation - Millington igure 5.5 Mean Monthly Abstraction and Evaporation - Castle Donnington igure 5.6 Mean Monthly Abstraction and Evaporation - Ratcliffe- on-Soar igure 5.7 Mean Monthly Abstraction and Evaporation - Staythorpe igure 5.8 Mean Monthly
    [Show full text]
  • Power Station Workers Walk out Over Safety Fears
    Power station workers walk out over safety fears. Gran Bretaña, Times Online, Febrero 16, 2010. Recuperado el: 15 de febrero de 2010. Disponible en: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/indu strials/article7028743.ece From Times Online February 16, 2010 Power station workers walk out over safety fears (Rui Vieira/PA Wire) A demonstration was staged and roads were blocked near the site of Staythorpe power station in Nottinghamshire Staythorpe power station was once again the centre of controversy today after hundreds of workers walked off a construction site after an alleged health and safety breach. As many as 500 employees at the plant, which is currently under construction near Newark, in Nottinghamshire, staged a demonstration and blocked roads near the site after walking off. However, Alstrom, the main contractor on the site, said the protests, which it said were unofficial and not supported by unions, were over by midday. It added that an independent assessment of the allegations found there was no evidence there was a problem. The allegations had centred around allegations some scaffolding had been interferred with. Andy Fletcher, of the GMB union, said: “This is a very serious matter for the industry. “The UK construction industry safety record is very good, but unless issues such as this are addressed and sorted out, it will not retain that reputation for long and people will be hurt.” The action comes after a dispute earlier this year at the plant over a difference in pay for British and Italian contractors after it emerged that Italian construction workers building the gas-fired power station for RWE nPower had been paid on average £1,140 a month less than their British colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • 1St Local Transport Plan
    ontents Executive Summary I-IV 1. Introduction 1 2. The Context For A Lincolnshire Local Transport Plan 3-9 2.1 Rationale 3 2.2 Key Facts About Lincolnshire 4 3. Vision, Objectives and Policy Framework 11-16 3.1 Background 11 3.2 The Vision 11 3.3 Objectives 11 3.4 The Policy Framework 12 3.5 The Transport Policy Framework For Lincolnshire 15 4. Issues and Strategic Themes 17-23 4.1 The Issues 17 4.2 The Strategic Themes 17 4.3 Developing Strategic Networks 18 4.4 Integrating Approaches in the Major Urban Areas 18 4.5 Integrating Approaches in the Large Market Towns 21 4.6 Serving the Rural Heartlands 21 4.7 Widening Travel Choices 22 4.8 Safe and Inclusive Communities and a Better Quality of Life 22 4.9 Managing Transport and Related Resources in an Efficient Way 23 5. The Strategy 25-27 5.1 From Themes to Key Strategies 25 5.2 The Key Strategies 25 5.3 Integration Between the Key Strategies 26 6. Consultation, Partnership And Cross Boundary Issues 29-32 6.1 Public Participation in The Local Transport Plan 29 6.2 Partnerships 30 6.3 Cross Boundary Working 31 7. Targets And Monitoring 33-41 7.1 Introduction to the LTP Approach 33 7.2 Developing the Indicators 33 7.3 Monitoring 39 8. Resources 43-45 8.1 Background 43 8.2 The Bid 43 9. Economy and Regeneration Schemes 47-66 9.1 Strategy for Economy and Regeneration Schemes 47 9.2 The Freight Hub 48 - Issues 48 - Transport and The Food Supply Chain 48 - The South Holland Rural Action Zone 49 - A151 Weston Bypass 49 - A1073 Spalding - Eye Improvement 51 - Boston Southern Link 54 - A52 Grantham East - West Improvement 56 9.3 Coastal Access 57 - Issues 57 - Roman Bank Quality Bus Initiative, Skegness 60 - Lumley Road Improvement Scheme, Skegness 60 - C541 Gunby/Ingoldmells Route Improvement 60 - A158/C541 Coastal Access Improvement 62 9.4 Other Economy & Regeneration Schemes 62 - Grantham Town Centre Improvement 62 - Lincoln Rail Corridor 64 - Gainsborough Waterfront 65 9.5 Longer Term Major Schemes 65 - Lincoln Eastern Bypass 65 - A17 Dualling 66 - Other Longer Term Schemes 66 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Screening at Intakes and Outfalls: Measures to Protect Eel
    Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel The Eel Manual – GEHO0411BTQD-E-E i Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel We are The Environment Agency. It's our job to look after your environment and make it a better place – for you, and for future generations. Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink and the ground you walk on. Working with business, Government and society as a whole, we are making your environment cleaner and healthier. The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a better place. Published by: Environment Agency Horizon house, Deanery Road Bristol BS1 5AH Tel: 0117 934 4000 Email: enquiries@environment- agency.gov.uk www.environment-agency.gov.uk Further copies of this report are available © Environment Agency from our publications catalogue: http://publications.environment- All rights reserved. This document may be agency.gov.uk or our National Customer reproduced with prior permission of Contact Centre: T: 08708 506506 the Environment Agency. E: [email protected]. ii Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel Executive summary Why eels and elvers are at risk Eels are a catadromous species: they spawn in oceanic waters and migrate into coastal and inland waters to grow to adulthood. Their need to move through estuaries and rivers to complete their life cycle puts them at risk of being accidentally drawn into water intakes and outfalls: • Intakes – adult silver eels are particularly vulnerable when they actively follow currents downstream (‘positive rheotaxis’). • Outfalls – juveniles (glass eels, elvers or smaller yellow eels) are more at risk during active migration upstream (‘negative rheotaxis’).
    [Show full text]
  • RWE Npower 2007 Corporate Responsibility Report.Pdf
    RWE npower Corporate Responsibility Report 19/06/2008 09:40 About us Strategic challenges Who we are, what we do, and how we How we plan to provide a secure, produce energy for our customers. sustainable and affordable energy supply in the future. Meet the CEO Responsible business An interview with our CEO, How we run a responsible business, Andrew Duff. and what we’ve achieved in 2007. This is our fifth full Corporate It has also replaced our traditional printed Responsibility (CR) report. CR report, in order to make the information In this site, we explain how we approach contained in the report more accessible and the different elements of corporate comprehensive. We have, however, responsibility, from our environmental produced a printed summary of what we challenges to how we protect vulnerable achieved in 2007. If you’d like one of these, customers. We also report on what we have please contact us. achieved in the period January to December 2007, and the targets we set ourselves for Finally, the information in this web report 2008 and beyond. has been assured by an independent organisation, csrnetwork. Please read their This site is about RWE npower, part of the report here. RWE Group. It also covers the activities of npower renewables (which became part of RWE Innogy on 1st February 2008), but not the UK operations of RWE Supply and Trading. Archive Disclaimer Glossary of terms Site map http://www.npower.com/rwenpowercr/index.html Page 1 of 1 RWE npower Corporate Responsibility Report - About us 17/06/2008 16:39 Our business Our sites Our history How we produce energy Britain’s brightest energy company Our performance RWE npower is a leading integrated UK energy company and is part of the RWE Group, one of Europe’s leading utilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Flow Diagram Gone Green 2014/15
    Figure C1.1: GB Power Flow Diagram Gone Green 2014/15 400kV Substations 275 kV Substations 132kV Substations Offshore AC Platform Offshore DC Platform 400kV Circuits 275kV Circuits 132kV Circuits Offshore AC Cable Offshore DC Cable Interconnectors Dounreay Thurso Major Generating Sites Including Pumped Storage 220 Mybster Connected at 400kV Cassley Beatrice Stornoway Dunbeath Connected at 275 kV Hydro Generation Lairg Moray Firth Brora Shin 1234 Power Flow MW 66 Flow Direction Grudie Bridge Mossford Alness Conon Fraserburgh Offshore Wind Projects (as of 2014) Luichart Orrin Elgin Macduff Ardmore St. Fergus Deanie 112 Keith Round 1 (in construction or operation) Culligran Dingwall Strichen Nairn Blackhillock Aigas Kilmorack Inverness Dunvegan Peterhead Beauly 775 504 40 Round 2 (in construction or operation) Fasnakyle Knocknagael Dyce Kintore Persley Glen Braodford 26 Morrison Woodhill Willowdale Round 1 / Round 2 (under development) Caennacroc Foyers Boat of Clayhills Fort Augustus Garten Quoich Tarland Glendoe Craigiebuckler Redmoss Scottish Territorial Waters Sites Invergarry 25 Round 3 (under development) Kinlochleven Fiddes Fort William Errochty Power Station 225 Errochty 275 Rannoch Clunie Tummel Bridge 140 Tealing Cashlie Dudhope Arbroath Lochay Lyndhurst Milton of Graigie Argyll Array Taynuilt Killin Charleston Dalmally Finlarig Inch Cape Cruachan Glenagnes Dudhope Burghmuir 100 St. Fillans Nant Inverarnan Clachan Neart na Gaolthe SCOTTISH HYDRO-ELECTRIC270 Cupar Inveraray Sloy TRANSMISSION Glenrothes Firth of Forth 311 Leven 210
    [Show full text]