Pre - Feasibility Study Micro-Hydro Scheme

PRE - FEASIBILITY STUDY
DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRO SCHEME

ON COED GWERN STREAM
Client: CAT Holdings Plc

Consultant: Nick Jeffries, Engineer
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………… 4
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………. 6
2. REPORT STRUCTURE…………………………………………………….. 6
3. SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………… 6
4. SURVEY DATA ……………………………………………………………...10

Topographical survey
Hydrological survey
5. SYSTEM DESIGN……………………………………………………………. 11
Civil Works
Electro-mechanical Equipment
Grid Connection
6. SYSTEM OPTIONS…………………………………………………………. 13
Methodology
Summary of Turbine Options
Optimising the system
Turbine Choice
Pre-fabricated options
7. COSTS v. REVENUE…………………………………………………………19
Revenue
System Costs
Errors
How payback period may be reduced
8. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………… 24
9. RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………… 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
A - Topographical and Hydrological Survey Data

B - Typical Run-of the River Arrangements
C - Detailed Spreadsheets
D - Expected Feed in Tariffs
E - Performance Envelopes for Different Turbine Types
F - Efficiencies of turbines at partial flows
G – Performance of Cross Flow Turbines at partial flow
Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 2|Page

List of Figures, Tables and Photos
Site Location Plan
Photo 1 – Typical section of stream with natural cascades and underlying bedrock
Photo 2 – Single Phase and three phase grid connection near to proposed site
Figure 1 – Basic Layout of Civils Structures

Figure 2 – Process to determine power/energy output for different systems
Figure 3a – Energy v. flow at different pipe diameters
Figure 3b – Power v. flow at different pipe diameters
Figure 4 – Energy Output v Flow from Hydra and Low Flow Data
Table 1 – Key Characteristics of Coed Gwern Stream

Table 2 – Flow Data for Coed Gwern Stream
Table 3 – Small v Large Turbine – Pros and Cons
Table 4 – Typical Design flows v CFs for micro-hydro-systems
Table 5 – Power, annual energy output, penstock diameters and design flows
Table 6 – Optimization of system for max annual energy output
Table 7 – Specific Speeds including approx. runner diameter for impulse turbines
Table 8 – Comparison of energy output from Francis and Cross Flow
Table 9 – Annual Revenue - ROCs v Feed-In Tariff
Table 10 – Annual Revenue for different penstock diameters
Table 11 – Estimated Costs for different system options
Table 12 – Costs v benefits for choosing bigger systems

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The site proposed by the Client for the possible development of a hydro scheme, to
generate annual cash revenue through sales of energy to the National Grid, is attractive
from the very outset. This is due to the Client’s ownership of the land adjacent to the
stream, the good vehicle access via a parallel gravel track and through the close
proximity of a grid connection.
The attractiveness of the potential scheme is further enhanced after a brief desk study
and site investigation reveals:
• Good height difference (head) head difference – more than 10m

• Constant flow – average 200l/s
• Solid bedrock - i.e. good foundation for Civils works.
• Likely low ecological concerns
• Imminent introduction of feed in tariff incentives
The characteristics and topography of the site would suit a run-of-the river scheme. This
would comprise several structures that divert water from the main stream (while
maintaining a compensation flow), remove any debris, convey water to the turbine, and
return water back to the stream. The engineering works would include: intake and weir,
forebay structure with debris screen, penstock pipe and the powerhouse containing a
turbine, generator and control systems. Finally a tailrace that returns the diverted flow to
the stream.
To export the power generated to the local grid – an inverter will convert the DC to AC
current, and a buried/overhead cable connection will convey the energy to the grid.
Based on the measured head, distance between intake and powerhouse, annual
variations in flow and the choice of penstock pipe – it is possible to generate a matrix of
power and energy outputs. As the Client wants to maximize annual revenue we can then
optimum to suit this governing criterion.
Optimization of system for max annual energy output

Pipe Diameter Peak Power Annual Energy Annual
(mm) (kW) Output (kWh) revenue
250 4.1 19058 £4,383
300 6.3 24353 £5,601
350 9.3 27876 £6,412
400 10.1 30393 £6,990
Turbine choice can be assisted by considering that the stream discharges approximately
80% of its annual volume during a 4 month ‘spatey’ period. Therefore it is easy to see
that for maximum energy output - high efficiency turbines are preferable over turbines
that maintain output over a large range of flow.

An estimate of costs reveals a range of capital outlays between £40, 000 – 80,000, from
the smallest to the largest options. Pipe costs represent between 36 – 51% of the four
options considered. Running costs have been estimated as between 1.5 – 2.5%of
capital costs - giving payback periods between 12.5 and 14 years.
These costs and revenues represent an idea of the scale and time duration of the
investment. In the detail design stage, these will be firmed up as more accurate data on
flow variations and construction costs is collected.
A number of ways in which the cost/revenue situation could be improved have been
suggested including – specifying cheaper materials and equipment, client labour force
used to undertake some of the work, scheduling of maintenance in summer, limit output
to avoid potential grid connection cost issues, use of recycled materials or materials from
other CAT sites, use students and volunteers from nearby CAT to design, install and
supervise works.
If the Client decides to proceed with the project, then flow monitoring should begin
immediately. EA, DNO and adjacent landowners should also be contacted at first
opportunity, to identify any potential issues.

1. INTRODUCTION
CAT Holdings Ltd (“the Client”) has recently purchased an area of land in mid-Wales
which it plans to develop into a Survival Training venue in preparation for Energy
Armageddon. The Client has appointed Nick Jeffries (“the Consultant”) to assess the
potential of developing a hydro scheme on a stream which runs through their site.
The Client’s wish is that the scheme can generate annual cash revenue that will
contribute to the future running costs for the Survival Centre.
The desired outcome of this pre-feasibility study is
• to state whether such a scheme is viable or advisable

• to describe its main features
• to estimate potential revenue and anticipated capital and running costs
The result should be that the Client has enough information on which to base a
decision whether to develop a micro hydro scheme.
2. REPORT STRUCTURE
The report starts by presenting the results of an initial desk study and site visit
carried out by the Consultant. The purpose of this first assessment was to decide
quickly whether it was worth proceeding to the more in depth pre-feasibility study i.e.
if there were any technical or policy constraints which could fundamentally affect the
viability of the scheme.
The next section looks in detail at the physical characteristics of the site, particularly
its hydrology and topography - important in determining the available flow and head
for the future scheme as they are the key parameters for calculating potential energy
output. Any likely abstraction limitations set by the local planning authorities will be
considered here.
Having defined the site - the report will go on to describe the structural components
of a micro-hydro scheme and look at various options based on different turbines
types and other system components. Each of these options will be analysed to
produce estimated annual revenue. Costs will then be estimated by considering
capital outlay for installation as well as the anticipated running costs.
This information will be presented as a table of cost v revenue for each option – that
will show the scale of required investment and the approximate payback period.
The report will finish by recommending the next steps in the development of the
scheme.

3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located in a forest near to the A487 above the village of Penterperthog
near Machynnleth. The stream flows approximately NW – SE down the steep sides
of the River Dyfi Valley collecting run-off from its mostly forested catchment. The key
characteristics of the stream are set out in Table 1.
The section of stream between the proposed intake and powerhouse varies in width
between 1.5 – 3 m and ‘funnels’ through the forest 2 – 5 m below the level of the
access tracks. The length of this section is about 200m and the fall about 10m. There
are a number of natural rock cascades (see photo1) which reveal solid underlying
bedrock. The SW side of the stream is generally steeper sided, however along much
of it there is a natural shelf which could be used to support the future penstock.
Ownership of the project site is on the SW side by the Client and NE side by the
Forestry Commission.
Access to the site is via forestry track which runs on both sides along the entire
section proposed for the scheme. A National Grid overhead power supply cable is
located along the A487 about 200-300m below the proposed powerhouse location.
Table 1 – Coed Gwern Stream

Key Characteristics
Stream Name Coed Gwern
Stream Length 3 – 3.5km
Fall ~ 1 in 10
Terrain Pine forest
Catchment Area 3 km2
Rainfall (approx) 2300mm (from Wallingford - Hydra)
Runoff (approx) 1500mm
Annual mean flow ~200l/s
Total Annual run-off ~5 million cubic metres
Source: OS maps, initial walkover survey and data from an initial Hydra1 model.
Assuming design flow is 50% annual mean, the power output would be 10kW. On
this basis as well as the favourable access and grid connection - the Consultant
has recommended that the Client proceed to a pre-feasibility study.
Environmental
The stream runs through land in the SW corner of the Dyfi Forest. The flora is
typically pines, other trees, ferns, lichens and mosses (see photo 1). The land is
managed on both sides by the forestry commission for timber production. The stream
is fast flowing and emanates from run off 3km upstream, and does not seem to have
any significant aquatic fauna. All in all the section of stream appear to be of low
ecological value and therefore unlikely to produce any significant issue in an
Environmental Assessment, beyond the standard requirement of maintaining a base
flow throughout the year.
1
Hydra is a flow modeling software from CEH Wallingford.

Site Location Plan
Forestry
Commission Land
Proposed
Intake
Penstock
Client’s
Powerhouse Single Phase
Land
G id C
Grid Connection
ti
Site
Access
3 – Phase
Grid Connection
SITE LOCATION PLAN

Photo 1 – Typical section of stream with natural cascades and underlying bedrock
Photo 2 – Single Phase and three phase grid connection near to proposed site

4. SURVEY DATA
4.1 Topographical survey
A topographical was carried out on the 21st September by the Consultant’s survey
team. The results have been included in Appendix A1. The survey was closed with
an agreement of 0.2%, within the allowable 1% error.
Based on these results, a static head = 10.2m will be used for the initial design.
4.2 Hydrological survey

A hydrological survey was undertaken to understand the flow regime of the stream,
and enable an appropriate design flow to be selected for the scheme. If the Client
decides to go ahead with the project, flow monitoring will be recommended to allow
more precise measurements to be collected.
For the survey – three approaches were taken:
• Hydra modeling in the Consultant’s office using OS Map Data

• Flow data2 for the nearby Dyfi River was scaled down to the project
catchment area.
• A Low Flow survey was commissioned from CEH Wallingford.
Having compared the data available, in particular the methodology and correlation
with Hydra, Low Flow data was selected as the basis of the energy output analysis
(see Appendix A2).
Table 2: Flow Data for Coed Gwern Stream

% Exceedance Flow m3/s
Q5 5% 0.666
Q10 10% 0.466
Q20 Basin Area: 3.199km2
20% 0.287
Base‐Flow Index: 0.44
Q30 30% 0.202 Annual Mean Flow: 0.198m3/s
Q40 40% 0.149 Q95: 0.023 m3/s
Q50 50% 0.114
Q60 60% 0.087 Data source: CEH Wallingford
Q70 70% 0.065
Q80 80% 0.045
Q90 90% 0.03
Q95 95% 0.023
Q99 99% 0.014
Note: Q95 – the flow that the EA will likely require to be kept in the stream for
ecological and aesthetic reasons.
2
http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/webdata/064001/g.html
Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 10 | P a g e

5. SYSTEM DESIGN
Small hydro schemes can be divided into 2 categories: impoundment (i.e. with dam)
or run-of the-river. For this project –there is no natural lake, the valley shape is steep,
narrow and forested –so an impoundment structure would be inappropriate.
Run-of-the-river systems have a number of possible arrangements (see Appendix B).

Those that could be considered in this scheme are: (a) open channel, (b) combined
channel/penstock or (c) penstock only. Channels are normally only suitable for
countries where labour is cheap compared to pipe costs, or for a particular
combination of topography, river alignment and terrain.
For this project the most appropriate system would be for a penstock only – fed by
an intake/diversion structure and piping water directly to the powerhouse.
5.1 Civil Works

Civils works are those structures required to divert water from the main stream (while
maintaining a compensation flow), remove any debris, convey water to the turbine,
and return water back to the stream:
• Intake and weir – controls the amount of water taken from the stream
• Forebay structure and screen – removes debris and delivers water to the
penstock
• Penstock – pipe that conveys water to the turbine. Needs to be able to
withstand the pressure of the water plus an allowance for ‘surge’ pressure.
• Powerhouse – contains the turbine, generator and control systems
• Tailrace – returns the water to the river
Figure 1 – Basic Layout of Civils Structures
Source: http://www.energyhimalaya.com/sources/images/

5.2 Electro-mechanical Equipment
A turbine and generator convert the energy of the flowing water into electricity. The
equipment will be located in the powerhouse. The shaft speed of the turbine should
be 1500 or 3000RPM to match the frequency of the grid frequency (50 Hz). If it does
not, then there will be a requirement for a gearbox or for a belt drive between the
turbine and generator.
Turbine types are discussed in section 6.4. Generators can be either the more
expensive synchronous type or for small systems the cheaper asynchronous or
induction type.
The powerhouse will also contain electrical wiring, a control system, and potentially
an inverter (see next section) and transformer to match the electricity output to the
frequency and voltage of the grid.
5.3 Grid Connection

The nearest grid location appears to be a single phase line on the main road serving
the buildings at the entrance to the site. There is also a 3-phase power line on the
other side of the Dyfi River (see Site Location Plan and Photo 2). There will need to
be either an overhead or buried cable connecting the powerhouse to the nearest
junction box of the grid.
If a synchronous generator is used a grid tie inverters (or synchronous inverters) will
need to be included to convert DC to AC current and synchronise output allowing it
to feed into the grid. If an inductor generator is specified (more likely) then either an
electronic soft start or mechanical drive will be required to get the generator up to
synchronization speed and then a DC-AC inverter to allow a connection.
Before the initial connection, assuming the system output is below 16A/phase3, an
approval process will need to be undertaken by the DNO to check it conforms to the
G83/1 Regulations.
3
Equivalent to approximately 11kW output for 400V 3-Phase generator.

6. SYSTEM OPTIONS
The sizing of a micro-hydro system will be determined mainly by the Client’s
intended end use for the electricity generated. For a standalone system where
electricity is used only in local buildings or processes, a smaller turbine may be
selected that provides a steady supply for a longer period of the year, whereas for a
grid connected system where all of the electricity is exported, a different system may
be specified.
Table 3 sets out the advantages and disadvantages at the extremes of each site’s
potential generation range.
Table 3 – Comparison of Small v Large Turbine

Turbine Size
(kW)
(proportional to Advantages Disadvantages
max possible
output)
-More efficient - More expensive
-Peak output higher -Lower capacity factor4
-In seasonal countries output -Longer periods of non-
Large may match demand curve generation
-Greater overall electricity
output
-Good for standalone systems -Less efficient
-Provides a more consistent - Requirement for ballast
supply of electricity resistor or other way of
Small
-Cheaper dumping energy
-Higher capacity factor
For this project the Client has stated that the intention is to sell all the energy
produced to the local grid to gain as much cash revenue as possible. Therefore the
governing factor for turbine sizing will be:
Maximize total annual energy (kWh) output
6.1 Methodology
The selection of the correct turbine size is carried out using an iterative process (see
fig 2) that calculates power (kW) output and the corresponding energy outputs (kWh)
for a range of design flows.
The scope of the analysis is expanded by considering different pipe diameters (D) for
particular flows. Varying D will change the working head, H, driving the design flow –
thereby changing the power and energy output. The result is a matrix of maximum
turbine power output, annual energy production and pipe diameter which enables
revenue and system costs to be estimated thus allowing the cost-benefits of different
systems to be compared (see Appendix C).
4
Capacity Factor = [Energy Generated/yr (kWh/yr)]/[Installed Capacity (kW) x 8760]

Figure 2 – Process to determine power/energy output for different systems
If we adopt the British Hydro Association’s guideline5:
“ for a good return on investment on micro-hydro systems aim for a capacity factor (CF)
of 50 – 70%”
This corresponds approximately to the design flows shown in table 4:
Table 4 – Typical Design flows v CFs for micro-hydro-systems

DESIGN FLOW (Qo) CF
Q mean 40%
0.75 Q mean 50%
0.5 Q mean 60%
0.33 Q mean 70%
source: BHA
We can now begin to calculate power and energy outputs.
5
Pg. 10 Mini Hydro Guide, BHA

6.2 Summary of Turbine Options
Table 5 below is a summary of the key outputs from the analysis (for detailed
spreadsheets Appendix 3). The highlighted values are the maximum annual revenue
for each pipe diameter at the specified flow.
Table 5 – Power, annual energy output, penstock diameters and design flows
Design
Flow
100% 75% 50% 33%
(%
Qmean)
Pipe Max Annual Max Annual Max Annual Max Annual
Diameter Power Output Power Output Power Output Power Output
(mm) (kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh)
250 0.0 0 0.1 160 4.0 14706 3.9 17735
280 0.5 1244 4.9 13636 5.6 20459 4.4 19955
300 4.8 10912 6.8 18889 6.2 22702 4.6 20821
350 10.4 23782 9.3 25884 7.0 25688 4.9 21973
400 12.8 29338 10.4 28903 7.4 26976 5.0 22470
Notes:
1. An abstraction regime limited turbine flow to 50% above Q95. This is more rigorous,
than typical limits of 25% to ADF, and 50% above ADF.
2. The pipe diameters selected were those sizes commonly available from pipe suppliers
3. Assumed partial flow efficiency – 75% - in later calculations this is further refined to
match established performance curves.
6.3 Optimising the system

If we plot the relationship between annual energy output (figure 3a) and peak power
output (figure 3b) against flow for each of the pipe diameters, we see that maximum
annual energy is actually achieved at the optimum flow conditions shown in Table 6.
Table 6 – Optimization of system for max annual energy output:

Pipe Optimum
Peak Net Head
Diameter Flow % QMean
Power (kW) (m)
(mm) (cumecs)
250 0.063 32% 3.9 8.08

300 0.09 45% 5.8 8.55
350 0.132 67% 8.7 8.65
400 0.132 67% 9.5 9.43

Figure 3a – Energy v. flow at different pipe diameters
Energy Output v Flow
35000
Annual Energy (kWh)
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Flow (cumecs)
Figure 3b – Power v. flow at different pipe diameters
Power v Flow
16
Power (kW)
14
12
10
9.5kW
8.7kW 8
5.8kW
3.9kW
6
4
2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Flow (cumecs)
400mm 350mm 300mm 250mm
An interesting and useful result from this optimization stage is that in most cases, as
annual energy output reaches its maximum value, peak power output has reduced. The
corollary of this is a smaller turbine (less cost) and larger output (more revenue).

6.4 Turbine Choice
The type of turbine is based on a number of factors but can be narrowed down by
considering the available head in the system:
• Low head sites – Francis, Propeller, Kaplan

• Low - Medium head – Crossflow, Banki
• High head – Pelton, Turgo
The precise selection of turbine within the overall design is an important step to realizing
the optimum potential from the scheme. To assist in this process graphical tools can be
used such as the performance envelope (see Appendix E); or a conceptual quantity
called ‘specific speed’, Ns , that is a function of turbine shaft speed (RPM), power output
and head:
Ns = 1.2 RPM √kW

H1.25
For Ns =
12 - 30 Pelton;
20 - 70 Turgo;
20 - 80 Crossflow;
80 - 400 Francis;
340 - 1000 Propellor and Kaplan.
Table 7 – Specific Speeds including approx. runner diameter for impulse turbines
Shaft Speed (RPM)
Pipe Diameter
(mm) 400 600 800 1000 1500
250 70 104 139 174 261
300 79 119 158 198 297
350 97 146 194 243 364
400 92 138 184 230 344
Approx. Runner
280 186 140 112 75
Diameter (mm)
The results suggest either a Francis or Crossflow turbine, however there are significant
overlaps between different turbine types and therefore other factors need to be
considered to refine the choice, such as:
• Cost
• Availability
• Flow variability
• Performance of turbine at variable flow rates
Crossflow turbines are accepted as cheaper to fabricate due to their comparatively

simpler structure. Although their efficiency at peak output is lower than other turbine
types, they have a better performance over a range of flow conditions compared (see

Appendix G). Francis turbines have a higher efficiency in the 60 – 100% Design flow
region, but their performance drops off sharply below 50% design flow.
If we apply the efficiencies from the efficiency v. flow graphs (appendix F) to the design
data for the optimum conditions (table 6), we can compare outputs from Francis and
Cross Flow turbines:
Table 8 – Comparison of Outputs from Francis and Cross Flow

Francis Crossflow % Difference
400mm kWh 30393 29877 1.7%

kW 10.1 9.0
350mm kWh 27876 27404 1.7%
kW 9.3 8.3
300mm kWh 24353 22794 6.4%
kW 6.3 5.5
250mm kWh 19058 17976 5.7%
kW 4.1 3.7
As water flow corresponds to power (kW) and volume discharged corresponds to energy
output (kWh), then knowing that our stream discharges approximately 80% of its annual
volume during a 4 month ‘spatey’ (high flow) period of the year – it is easy to see that for
maximum energy output - high efficiency at higher flow is more important than
maintaining output at lower flows.
6.5 ‘Off the shelf’ options

A number of manufacturers have responded to the increase in demand for micro-
turbines by producing a number of low cost, modular, off the shelf systems using
standardized parts for fabrication. Examples of such systems include Toshiba ‘E-Kids’6
and The Ossberger Turbine7.
The advantages claimed are:
• Flexible application
• Rapid assembly
• Simple installation
• Lower construction costs
• Reduced O and M costs
These are fairly innovative systems, which in the case of Toshiba may still not be
competitive in the European market as they are only assembled in Japan. However if
demand in Europe continues to increase, it may mean that these systems become viable
when the project reaches detail design stage.
6
http://www.tic.toshiba.com.au/product_brochures_and_reference_lists/ekids.pdf
7
http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine/

7. COSTS v. REVENUE (for detailed calculations refer to Appendix C)
7.1 Revenue
The potential revenue from generating renewable energy is set to increase
significantly as the new feed-in tariff (FIT) incentive scheme is due to come into
effect in April 2010, replacing the existing ROC8 scheme.
FITs oblige utility companies to pay a premium rate set by the government, for each
kWh produced by RE systems. The rate is significantly above the market rate for
conventional power generation (see Appendix D – for provisional rates). The effect
on potential revenues for a range of annual kWh outputs is set out in Table 9 based
on a FIT rate of 17p/kWh compared to the existing ROC system that pays 2 ROCs
for every MWh of electricity. ROCs currently sell at about £45/ROC (ref:
http://www.nfpa.co.uk/ auctionprices.html). At these rates the potential increase in
revenue amounts to 53%.
Table 9 – Annual Revenue ROCs v Feed-In Tariff

REVENUE
Feed-in
ROCs Electricity
kWh/year Tariff ROC FIT
Value (6p/kWh)
(17p/kWh)
10000 £900 £1,700 £600 £1,500 £2,300
20000 £1,800 £3,400 £1,200 £3,000 £4,600
40000 £3,600 £6,800 £2,400 £6,000 £9,200
80000 £7,200 £13,600 £4,800 £12,000 £18,400
100000 £9,000 £17,000 £6,000 £15,000 £23,000
If we apply FIT to Table 6, we can generate a table of annual revenue for our
optimum conditions:
Table 10 –Annual Revenue for different penstock diameters

Pipe Diameter Peak Power Annual Energy Annual
(mm) (kW) Output (kWh) revenue
250 4.1 19058 £4,383
300 6.3 24353 £5,601
350 9.3 27876 £6,412
400 10.1 30393 £6,990
Assumptions
1. 4% reduction on final output for breakdown or maintenance days
2. Turbine efficiency at peak output – 90% Francis; 80% Cross flow
3. Partial flow efficiencies – see table in Appendix G
8
Renewable Obligation Certificate

4. Gear box/belt drive efficiency – 97%
5. Generator efficiency – 95%
6. Grid tie inverter efficiency – 95% (from Fronius – see Appendix E)
7.2 System Costs v. Revenue

In order to analyse the financial viability of a hydro scheme it is necessary to
compare revenue to costs. Costs can be divided into:
• Capital costs
• Running Costs
• Annual revenue
At the pre-feasibility stage it is difficult to ascribe precise costs to all elements of the
design and operation. However it is possible to start building up a first estimate - by
costing some key items accurately, comparing to similar completed projects and
using established industry guidelines. This will at least enable options to be
compared and the scale of required investment to be understood:
Table 11 –Cost for different system options

Peak Power Output (kW) 4.1 6.8 9.3 10.1
Pipe Diameter 250mm 300mm 350mm 400mm
%
CAPITAL Capital
C1 Planning Design £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000
C2 Management and Finance £1,500 £1,500 £1,500 £1,500
C3 215m pressure water pipe £15,171 £23,753 £30,506 £38,246
C4 Other Civil Works £8,000 £8,000 £10,000 £10,000
C5 Electro- Mechanical £4,152 £6,886 £9,006 £9,781
C6 Distribution of Electricity £4,000 £4,000 £4,000 £4,000
C7 Contingency 10% £3,782 £4,914 £6,001 £6,853
£41,605 £54,053 £66,013 £75,379
RUNNING
R1 Insurance 0.5% £208.02 £270.27 £330.07 £376.90
R2 Annual Inspection Fixed £150.00 £150.00 £150.00 £150.00
R3 Maintenance Fixed £300.00 £300.00 £300.00 £300.00
R4 Rates 0.4% £166.42 £216.21 £264.05 £301.52
R5 Administration Fixed £55.00 £55.00 £55.00 £55.00
Cost per year £879 £991 £1,099 £1,183
REVENUE
Expected annual revenue £4,164 £5,321 £6,091 £6,640.87
Less Running Costs £3,285 £4,330 £4,992 £5,457
Pay back (yrs) 12.7 12.5 13.2 13.8

Assumptions
1. C1, C2, C6 and R2, R3 and R5 – assumed to be the same for all options.
2. C3 – Class B U-PVC pipe from - http://www.epco-plastics.com/
3. C5 includes Turbo-generatorset (http://www.swithenbanks.co.uk/); grid tie
inverter (http://www.brightgreenenergy.co.uk/fronius_inverters.asp) and an
allowance for control systems.
4. C1, C4, C6, C7 have been estimated and scaled according to size o f scheme.
5. Overall running costs – guided by industry norm of 1-2% of capital cost/year for
running costs.
6. Insurance and Rates percentages – adapted from DTI, 1999
The above economic analysis, which is a fairly cautious, straight-line payback

calculation, has been carried out to demonstrate the basic ‘attractiveness’ of the
scheme. The Client now has a better appreciation of the scale of investment and the
duration involved to recoup this investment.
By way of validating our estimates – the Consultant is aware of a similar (9.5 kW)
scheme9 in Northern Ireland on a site which had particular special structural cost
issues that cost £78, 000 to install and commission.
If time and scale is acceptable to the Client, then the next project stage should
include a more sophisticated analysis that incorporates accurate costs based on
actual quotations and measured drawings as well as the application of discount and
bank interest rates. Table 9 shows the kind of data that may be considered in such
an analysis.
Table 12 – Costs v benefits for choosing bigger systems

4.1kW 6.8kW 9.3kW 10.1kW
Pipe costs as % of
36% 44% 46% 51%
overall costs
Revenue as % of
10.0% 9.8% 9.2% 8.8%
capital costs
Increase in capital cost
- £12,448 £24,408 £33,774
from cheapest option
expressed as % - 29.9% 45.2% 51.2%
Increase in revenue
compared to cheapest - £1,157 £1,927 £2,477
option
expressed as % - 27.8% 46.3% 59.5%
9
Designed and constructed by NewMills Hydro, Carrickfergus, N.I. Cost and size of scheme provided by
Managing Director of New Mills Terry MacGuire during phone conversation on Fri 27th Nov.

7.3 Errors
Flow
Annual energy output is sensitive to small changes in the variables used to calculate
it and also in the way the data is presented. This is illustrated when comparing the
effect of using flow data from Low Flow model compared to Hydra model when
calculating energy. Both sets of data are presented as a series of stepped
increments (see Appendix A2), the difference being that more steps have been
included in the Hydra data set.
For each data set a different optimum flow and overall energy output is returned:
Hydra Low Flow Difference

Optimum Flow 0.140 0.132 6.1%
Annual Energy Output(kWh) 31522 30622 2.9%
Fig 4 presents this graphically:
Figure 4 – Energy Output v Flow from Hydra and Low Flow Data
Comparison of Energy Output v Flow for Hydra and Low Flow

35000
Annual Energy (kWh)
30000
25000
400mm
20000
15000
10000
250mm
5000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Flow (cumecs)
400mm 250mm 400mm Hydra 250mm Hydra
This result is more surprising if one considers the overall volume discharged from the
Hydra model is 0.11% less than the Low Flow model i.e. less potential energy is

generated. The issue highlights the need for accurate flow monitoring during the
project development period.
Pipe Length
The pipe length was estimated using a distance measuring wheel along the
proposed penstock route which is steep, forested and difficult to access.
Pipe costs are significant in the overall costing of the project (250mm - £70/m;
400mm - £180/m), so establishing accurately the length of pipe will be an important
part of the next design stage.
7.3 How payback period may be reduced

The cost/revenue figures presented in section 7.2 are quite cautious; there are
several ways in which the situation could be improved:
• Pipe costs based on information available at this time. Cheaper pipes may be
available.
• As land is private with no vehicle loading, penstock pipe could be laid partly
above ground thereby reducing excavation/backfilling costs.
• If plant and labour is available Client can potentially undertake following
works (with supervision): intake works, installation of penstock pipe,
construction of powerhouse and tailrace
• Calculations include 4% downtime for maintenance i.e. 15 days. If
maintenance is carried out in low flow period this will have only small effect
on energy output.
• Limit output to ~3.7kW (Single phase) and ~11 kW (3 phase) i.e. less than
16A/phase, thereby avoid potential grid connection cost issues.
• Specification of inductor generator over synchronous generator – will be
cheaper and will not require expensive grid tie inverter
• Use of recycled materials or materials from other CAT sites
• Use students and volunteers from nearby CAT to design, install and
supervise works.

8. CONCLUSIONS
The site has several characteristics that point favourably to the development of a
micro-hydro scheme:
• Site owned by Client

• Easy access for construction
• Proximity to grid connection
• Likely low ecological concerns
• Reasonable head difference with constant flow.
• Solid bedrock allows for good foundation for Civils works.
The situation is further enhanced by the expected introduction of the feed-in

tariffs in April 2010 which will create an even more economically sound case for
developing the project.
The estimate of potential revenue from electricity sales against estimated costs
for four different systems suggests a payback period of 12.5 – 14 years for an
investment between £40,000 - 80, 0000. This does not include an allowance for
discount rates.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to develop the scheme further the following actions are recommended:
• Start collecting accurate flow data. If a measuring weir is used, this can
be incorporated into final design of intake works
• Determine size of investment available
• Think clearly how you would like energy to be used in the future – if
eventually energy is to be used on site this will effect the final design
• Contact Environmental Agency to establish any potential ecological
constraints
• Contact DNO to advise of plans
• Contact Forestry Commission

Bibliography
1. British Hydro Association (BHA), A Guide to UK Mini-Hydro Developments

Version 1.2, Jan 2005.
2. T.Kirk (1999), Small Scale hydro-power in UK. CIWEM, Water and

Environmental Journal. Vol 13. Issue 3. Pages 207 – 212.
3. DTI, 1999 - New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st
Century: Supporting Analysis, - http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file21102.pdf
4. Boyle, G (2004) – Renewable Energy – Power for a Sustainable Future. Second

Edition. Oxford Press.

Appendix A – Topographical and Hydrological Survey Data
A1 -Levels
UP SURVEY DOWN SURVEY
Forward Back Height Forward Back Height
3.98 0.1825 3.7975 2.91 0.31 2.6
3.8375 0.1375 3.7 3.51 0.325 3.185
3.702 0.375 3.327 1.2325 3.842 ‐2.6095
3.925 0.55 3.375 0.0325 3.98 ‐3.9475
3.315 1.415 1.9 0.0325 3.918 ‐3.8855
0.125 3.715 ‐3.59 0.17 2.8275 ‐2.6575
0.735 2.91 ‐2.175 1.26 2.77 ‐1.51
1.328 2.814 ‐1.486
TOTAL 10.3345 10.311
A2 - Low Flow and Hydra Stream Data
Low Flow Hydra
% %
Flow m3/s Volume m3 Flow m3/s Volume m3
Exceedance Exceedance
‐ ‐ 2.0% 0.8 504576
‐ ‐ 3.0% 0.7 220752
5% 0.666 1050149 5.0% 0.58 365818
10% 0.466 734789 10.1% 0.41 659418
‐ ‐ 15.0% 0.33 509937
20% 0.287 905083 20.0% 0.26 409968
30% 0.202 637027 29.1% 0.2 573955
40% 0.149 469886 39.7% 0.15 501422
50% 0.114 359510 50.0% 0.11 357303
60% 0.087 274363 60.3% 0.09 292339
70% 0.065 204984 70.9% 0.07 233997
80% 0.045 141912 80.0% 0.05 143489
90% 0.03 94608 89.9% 0.03 93662
95% 0.023 36266 95.0% 0.02 32167
‐ ‐ 97.0% 0.02 12614
‐ ‐ 98.0% 0.02 6307
99% 0.014 17660 99.0% 0.01 3154
Total 4926239 Total 4920877
Difference ‐0.11%

Appendix B – Typical Run-of the River Arrangements

Appendix C – Detailed Spreadsheets

Energy Output Estimation, 350mm, 75% Qmean
Catchment area 3.199 sq.km Design Turbine Flow 0.149 cumecs

Annual mean Flow 0.198 cumecs Min turbine flow (% of max flow) 10%
Pipe diameter 350 mm Min. turbine flow 0.015 cumecs
Pipe length (m) 215 m
Static Head (m) 10.3 m
Head Loss(Pipes/Fittings) 1.85 m
Net head (m) 8.26 m
0.75 x Qmean
Flow ‐ Q95 50% above Turbine Flow Compensation Power Output Power output
% Exceedance Flow m3/s (m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.149 0.518 9.3 4082

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.149 0.318 9.3 4082
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.132 0.155 7.4 6479
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.090 0.113 5.0 4393
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 3.5 3092
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.5 2233
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 1.8 1571
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.2 1031
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.000 0.045 0.0 0
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 26962 kWh/yr

Breakdown/maintenance (‐4%) 25884 kWh/yr
Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Price/kWh £0.06
Qmean (m3/sec) 0.198 Feed in tariff £0.17
Average Gross £5,953
Efficiency max partial flow
Turbine 84% 75%
Gear Box 97%
Generator 95%

Net head (m) 8.23 m
0.5 x Qmean
Flow ‐ Q95 Turbine Flow Compensation Power Output Power output
% Exceedance Flow m3/s (m3/sec) 50% above Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.099 0.567 6.2 2710

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.099 0.367 6.2 2710
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.099 0.188 6.2 5420
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.090 0.113 5.0 4375
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 3.5 3080
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.5 2224
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 1.8 1564
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.2 1027
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.011 0.034 0.6 538
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 23647 kWh/yr

Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Price/kWh £0.06
Turbine 84% 75%
Gear Box 97%
Generator 95%

Annual mean Flow 0.198 mm Min turbine flow (% of max flow) 10%
Net head (m) 7.96 m
0.5 x Qmean
5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.065 0.601 3.9 1720

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.065 0.401 3.9 1720
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.065 0.222 3.9 3440
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.065 0.137 3.9 3440
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 3.4 2977
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.5 2150
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 1.7 1512
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.1 992
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.011 0.034 0.6 520
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 18471 kWh/yr

Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Price/kWh £0.06
Turbine 84% 75%
Generator 95%
Grid tie inverter 97%
Energy Output Estimation, 400mm, Qmean

Net head (m) 8.51 m
Q mean
% Exceedance Flow m3/s
(m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.198 0.468 12.8 5603

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.198 0.268 12.8 5603
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.132 0.155 7.6 6670
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.090 0.113 5.2 4523
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 3.6 3184
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.6 2299
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 1.8 1617
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.2 1061
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.000 0.045 0.0 0
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 30560 kWh/yr

Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Breakdown/maintenance (‐4%) 29338 kWh/yr
Qmean (m3/sec) 0.198 Price/kWh £0.06
Feed in tariff £0.17
Efficiency max partial flow Average Gross £6,748
Turbine 84% 75%
Gear Box 97%
Generator 95%
Energy Output Estimation, 350mm Optimum

Net head (m) 8.65 m
Q mean

5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.132 0.534 8.7 3798

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.132 0.334 8.7 3798
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.132 0.155 8.7 7595
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.090 0.113 5.2 4598
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 3.7 3237
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.7 2338
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 1.9 1644
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.2 1079
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.000 0.045 0.0 0
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 28086 kWh/yr

Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Price/kWh £0.06
Turbine 84% 75%
Gear Box 97%
Generator 95%

Net head (m) 8.55 m
Q mean

5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.090 0.576 5.8 2561

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.090 0.376 5.8 2561
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.090 0.197 5.8 5121
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.090 0.113 5.2 4547
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 3.7 3201
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.6 2312
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 1.9 1626
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.2 1067
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.011 0.034 0.6 559
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 23554 kWh/yr

Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Price/kWh £0.06
Turbine 84% 75%
Gear Box 97%
Generator 95%

Annual mean Flow 0.198 mm Min turbine flow (% of max flow) 10%
Net head (m) 8.08 m
0.5 x Qmean
5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.063 0.603 3.9 1694

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.063 0.403 3.9 1694
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.063 0.224 3.9 3387
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.063 0.139 3.9 3387
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 3.9 3387
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.5 2184
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 1.8 1536
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.2 1008
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.011 0.034 0.6 528
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 18807 kWh/yr

Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Price/kWh £0.06
Turbine 84% 75%
Generator 95%
Grid tie inverter 97%

Net head (m) 9.43 m
Q mean

5% 0.666 0.643 0.322 0.132 0.534 9.5 4141

10% 0.466 0.443 0.222 0.132 0.334 9.5 4141
20% 0.287 0.264 0.132 0.132 0.155 9.5 8281
30% 0.202 0.179 0.090 0.090 0.113 5.7 5013
40% 0.149 0.126 0.063 0.063 0.086 4.0 3529
50% 0.114 0.091 0.046 0.046 0.069 2.9 2549
60% 0.087 0.064 0.032 0.032 0.055 2.0 1792
70% 0.065 0.042 0.021 0.021 0.044 1.3 1176
80% 0.045 0.022 0.011 0.000 0.045 0.0 0
90% 0.03 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.030 0.0 0
95% 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.0 0
99% 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.0 0
TOTAL 30622 kWh/yr

Q95 (m3/sec) 0.023 Price/kWh £0.06
Turbine 84% 75%
Gear Box 97%
Generator 95%
Appendix E – Performance Envelopes for Different Turbine Types
Figure 3 – Performance envelope for different turbines
Source: DBERR Report 2004 and BHA 2008

Appendix F – Efficiencies of turbines at partial flows
Source: Kirk, 1999
Table of partial flow efficiencies - derived from above graph
Qmax/Qo Francis Crossflow

100% 90% 80%
90% 90% 82%
80% 90% 83%
70% 89% 85%
60% 86% 85%
50% 84% 854%
40% 80% 84%
30% 73% 80%
20% 62% 70%
18% 0% 65%
10% 0% 30%

Appendix G – Performance of Cross Flow Turbines at partial flow
Source: http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine/

Pre - Feasibility Study Micro-Hydro Scheme

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Pre - Feasibility Study Micro-Hydro Scheme

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PRE - FEASIBILITY STUDY

DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRO SCHEME

Client: CAT Holdings Plc

4. SURVEY DATA ……………………………………………………………...10

A - Topographical and Hydrological Survey Data

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 2|Page

Site Location Plan

Figure 1 – Basic Layout of Civils Structures

Table 1 – Key Characteristics of Coed Gwern Stream

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 3|Page

• Good height difference (head) head difference – more than 10m

Optimization of system for max annual energy output

250 4.1 19058 £4,383

300 6.3 24353 £5,601

350 9.3 27876 £6,412

400 10.1 30393 £6,990

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 4|Page

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 5|Page

The desired outcome of this pre-feasibility study is

• to state whether such a scheme is viable or advisable

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 6|Page

Table 1 – Coed Gwern Stream

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 7|Page

SITE LOCATION PLAN

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 9|Page

4.2 Hydrological survey

For the survey – three approaches were taken:

• Hydra modeling in the Consultant’s office using OS Map Data

Table 2: Flow Data for Coed Gwern Stream

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 10 | P a g e

Run-of-the-river systems have a number of possible arrangements (see Appendix B).

5.1 Civil Works

Figure 1 – Basic Layout of Civils Structures

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 11 | P a g e

5.3 Grid Connection

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 12 | P a g e

Table 3 – Comparison of Small v Large Turbine

Maximize total annual energy (kWh) output

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 13 | P a g e

If we adopt the British Hydro Association’s guideline5:

This corresponds approximately to the design flows shown in table 4:

Table 4 – Typical Design flows v CFs for micro-hydro-systems

We can now begin to calculate power and energy outputs.

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 14 | P a g e

250 0.0 0 0.1 160 4.0 14706 3.9 17735

280 0.5 1244 4.9 13636 5.6 20459 4.4 19955

300 4.8 10912 6.8 18889 6.2 22702 4.6 20821

350 10.4 23782 9.3 25884 7.0 25688 4.9 21973

400 12.8 29338 10.4 28903 7.4 26976 5.0 22470

6.3 Optimising the system

Table 6 – Optimization of system for max annual energy output:

250 0.063 32% 3.9 8.08

400 0.132 67% 9.5 9.43

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 15 | P a g e

Energy Output v Flow

Figure 3b – Power v. flow at different pipe diameters

400mm 350mm 300mm 250mm

Nick Jeffries, REBE Module 3 Hydro 16 | P a g e

• Low head sites – Francis, Propeller, Kaplan

Ns = 1.2 RPM √kW

250 70 104 139 174 261

300 79 119 158 198 297