Pico hydroelectricity for my pond

[alaindici]

Hello to all,

I have a pond at home, it overlooks a river, say 1,50m. It is also equipped with an overflow (20cm tube) which, during half of the year therefore creates a "waterfall" of 1m with a flow rate that seems interesting to me (but that I didn't not estimated).
Does anyone have one or more solutions to exploit this fall to produce electricity. My research puts me above all in front of my abysmal ignorance of electricity and turbines.
Thank you in advance for your help, advice and possible plans.
Very good day.
Alain

[izentrop]

Hello, with so little drop height, we can consider the Archimedean screw

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

It's not the height that matters most, it's the flow.
Then, for low heights, there are the "Kaplan" turbines.

Ps: 160 W for the Archimedean screw, LOOOOOOL !!!

[Ahmed]

The potential hydraulic energy of a waterfall is a function of the height differential and the flow rate.
Here, the height is low and the flow is qualified as interesting, but it is probably quite modest (tube of 20!); moreover, it is intermittent ... All this hardly pleads in favor of an investment in electricity production.

[Exnihiloest]

Hello to all,

I have a pond at home, it overlooks a river, say 1,50m. It is also equipped with an overflow (20cm tube) which, during half of the year therefore creates a "waterfall" of 1m with a flow rate that seems interesting to me (but that I didn't not estimated).
Does anyone have one or more solutions to exploit this fall to produce electricity. My research puts me above all in front of my abysmal ignorance of electricity and turbines.
Thank you in advance for your help, advice and possible plans.
Very good day.
Alain

The flow rate should really be estimated, this is the crucial point (measuring how long it takes for a container of a certain volume to fill).
From there we can calculate the potential energy available and get an idea of ​​the order of magnitude of the possible electrical energy.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Thank you Blédina, that's what I answered above.

[izentrop]

It's not the height that matters most, it's the flow.
Then, for low heights, there are the "Kaplan" turbines.

Ps: 160 W for the Archimedean screw, LOOOOOOL !!!

Have you ever seen kaplanes with such a low flow?
The power of the fall with 20 l / s = 9.81 X 20 x 1 m = 196.2 W

An overall efficiency of 80%, perhaps exaggerated?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

An overall return of 54% is already not so bad

Thank you Blédina, that's what I answered above.

You did not give the flow

No one did not give the flow .... hence my reflection * "It is not the height that counts the most, it is the flow".
Missed again Izy, still next door.
Now for Kaplan turbines, the minimum height required is (approx) 1m ... Still next. You beat all your previous records!

Turbiwatt offers three ranges of turbines for professional use, designed around three different diameters which cover almost the entire hydroelectric potential for net waterfalls of 1,20 m up to 7,00 m in height and flow rates from 70 liters to over 4000 liters / second.

https://www.turbiwatt.com/fr/second-men ... rbine.html


* And that of Blédina

[izentrop]

I made a mistake, it was a drop in the video, I corrected

"It's not the height that matters most, it's the flow".

Both count

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I made a mistake, it was a drop in the video, I corrected

"It's not the height that matters most, it's the flow".

Both count

Did you find this on your own ??? 1L / s over 100m high, it's cool but blah ...
Except that the author of the topic had mentioned the height: 1m 50
100% misfires, Izy.