BlueAge PDF

BlueAGE
Blue Energy for A Green Europe

Strategic study for the development of Small Hydro Power in the
European Union
ESHA – European Small Hydropwer Association

Renewable Energy House, Rue du Trône 26, B - 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium
Tel: +32.2.546.19.45 Fax: +32.2.546.19.47, e-mail: esha@arcadis.be
This Report has been prepared on behalf of the European Small Hydropower Association by:
Istituto di Economia delle Fonti di Energia – IEFE

Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
Viale Filippetti 9, I-20122 Milano
Italy
Phone +39 025836 3820
Fax: +39 025836 3890
Arturo Lorenzoni arturo.lorenzoni@uni-bocconi.it
Franco Pecchio franco.pecchio@uni-bocconi.it
Michele Fontana michele.fontana@uni-bocconi.it
SERO - Sveriges Energiföreningars RiksOrganisation

Vretlundavägen 36, S-731 33 Köping
Sweden
Phone +46 221 197 65
Fax +46 221 197 65 olof.karlsson.koping@telia.com
Christer Söderberg soderberg.sero@telia.com

Tommy Hoberg t.hoberg@telia.com
Bo Bergander bo.bergander@sweco.se
Owe Olsson
For further information please contact:
ESHA – European Small Hydropower Association

Renewable Energy House
26, rue du Trône
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
T : +32 2 546 1945
F : +32 2 546 1947
E : esha@arcadis.be
I: www.esha.be
Strategic study for the development ofSmall Hydro Power in the European Union
Executive Summary
This study develops six main subject-areas concerning the possible exploitation of SHP energy
in Europe.
Firstly, it gathers data on the actual state-of-the–art of the SHP development in the European
continent, assessing the total amount of capacity installed, the contribution to the annual
electricity demand and the main characteristics (average size, age) of the existing plants.
Secondly, it assesses the potential for future SHP development, both in terms of upgrading the
oldest existing plants and building new sites. In doing so the study has tried to point out the
difference between the so-called “technical potential” – i.e. the capacity and the corresponding
SHP production that could theoretically be developed given the current available technology and
water resource availability – and the “realistic potential”, that is, what could be exploited given
the existing economic, administrative and environmental constraints.
Thirdly, the report analyses the economics of SHP sources in order to understand how
competitive SHP is today with respect to the other principal power generation technologies, why
SHP deserved to be developed, and how it can be promoted by the decision-makers.
Fourthly, the analysis focuses on the main constraints which the countries analysed put on the
development of SHP plants. In particular, it examines the length and average cost of the
administrative procedures in several countries, trying to point out the main obstacles to the
future SHP exploitation.
Fifthly, the study analyses the situation and competitiveness of the EU manufacturing industry in
the SHP sector.
Finally, the report aims to give some concrete recommendations concerning the role that local,
national and European decision-makers can have in promoting SHP development in the short
and medium term, suggesting some good policies and “best practices” to achieve this goal.
This study is based on data from more than 95 % of the total electricity produced in the EU and
from over 90 % of the total electricity production in other European countries that are not yet EU
member states. Data from more than 17 400 different SHP power plants in Europe which
contribute 1.7% to the annual European electricity supply are included in the study. Their share
of the total hydro power production is currently just below 10 %.
State of the art
The fifteen EU countries and the fifteen other European countries have been asked to fill in a
questionnaire concerning SHP data. Of these 30 countries, 26 have answered the questionnaire
in a more o less detailed form (see Annex 2).
There are slightly more than 17 400 SHP plants installed in the 26 countries surveyed,
corresponding to a capacity of about 12.5 GW of SHP. The average size of a SHP plant is 0.7
MW in western Europe, and 0.3 MW in the Eastern European countries.
Based on the questionnaire data (the data given normally refer to an average year), the
countries in the study have an average total production of 50.1 TWh per year. This corresponds
to around 1.7 % of the total electricity production in the same countries and to about 9.7% of the
total hydropower production.
A large share of this capacity (11.8 GW) comes from Western European countries: roughly 86%
is concentrated in 8 countries, namely Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and Norway. As for the Eastern European countries, the Czech Republic alone –
with 250 MW - accounts for almost 34% of the total capacity.
I
The SHP plants situated in the EU countries are also the oldest; almost 45% are over 60 years
old and 68% over 40. The eastern European countries have the highest share of young plants
(38% are less then 20 years old). The three non-EU western countries (Iceland, Norway and
Switzerland) are in an intermediate position, with a slightly lower percentage of young plants
(34% are less than 20 years old ) but the highest percentage of plants that are less than 40
(about 59%).
SHP potential in the EU
The small hydropower potential in the EU is considerable. Since around 1950, SHP has had a
negative development in some EU member countries. Many SHP plants have been shut down
because of age and competition from new, larger plants.
The potential from reinstalling these plants and upgrading existing, underdeveloped SHP plants
is estimated at an annual electricity production of approximately 4 500 GWh.
Based on the questionnaire answers furnished by the EU member states, the potential of new
plants, reduced when economic and environmental constraints have been taken into account, is
calculated to be about 19 600 GWh per year.
According to this study, the remaining potential from SHP will be some 2 700 MW and 11.5 TWh
annually at 2015, which is rather less than the 18 TWh in the year 2010 that was estimated by
the EU Commission in the White Paper issued in 1997.
Based on the present annual production of 40 TWh, we have estimated the possible total
production from SHP in the EU at 51.5 TWh at 2015 with a capacity of some 12 850 MW, while
the. EU White Paper foresees 55 TWh from 14 000 MW at 2010.
If the economic situation for producers improves, and the environmental constraints decrease,
the total contribution from SHP in the EU 15 member countries could probably reach 60 TWh at
2020 - 2030.
SHP and the environment
The SHP relation to the environment is twofold.

Environmental groups which oppose SHP point to the negative local environmental impact of
SHP. Most of these arguments are, however, based more on theories than or scientific
research. Some arguments are related to specific cases and may be relevant, but they do not
generally apply to SHP. In some cases, the criticism seems to be emotionally charged.
New technology and improved methods of operating SHP shows how it is possible to reduce the
local environmental impact.
There are, however, many positive effects resulting from SHP operations such as replacing
fossil power production which produces harmful emissions, and reducing the risks of river
flooding. In some cases SHP can also increase biological diversity.
The current SHP production in Europe amounts to 40 TWh. It replaces fossil production and
protects nature and society from many harmful emissions such as the greenhouse gases and
sulphur dioxide which have the worst environmental impact. SHP production reduces
greenhouse gases, CO2, by 32 000 000 tons annually and sulphur dioxide by 105 000 tons
annually. Therefore, the positive impact of SHP on the environment outweighs the negative
effects.
The study on SHP and the environmental aspects has led to several proposals such as
modifying authorisation procedures, establishing an institutional body that will permanently
II
monitor national targets etc.. These proposals are explained in greater detail in chapters 3, 4, 6
of this report.
Another positive feature of hydropower is that the energy factor, produced energy in relation to
energy consumed for construction, operation and disposal along the plant life is the best of any
electricity production technology.
SHP technology
The SHP-technique is well developed. The ongoing development research will concentrate on
new materials such as composite materials. For small heads development is concentrated on
small units in multiple arrangements, using technique for variable speed and frequency
conversion.
The powerformer generator, which can already be used for small hydro between 5-10 MW,
might, in the future, even be adapted for use in the smaller plants.
Depending on various technical developments, cost reductions are primarily related to
operational costs such as computerised systems, and this decreases the need for personnel
resources. Minor cost reductions can be related to other technical developments such as higher
efficiency, variable speed etc. because new developments usually depend on long
manufacturing series in order to give full economic benefit.
SHP market for manufacturers
The invention of the water turbine in France in 1827 led to the early development of modern
hydropower in Europe.
Subsequently, the European SHP equipment manufacturers became the market leaders. They
successfully developed hydro technology and became the main exporters of equipment in the
world. Indeed, it can be rightfully said that Europe gave light to the world.
Although EU equipment manufacturers still hold a leading position in the world, this position is
being threatened since member countries are not very motivated to invest in new SHP and to
keep up existing SHPP.
This situation is caused by a decreasing economy for energy producers in the deregulated
electricity market and the increasing obstacles created by environmental and legal constraints.
The margins for producers are still good in a few countries like Germany and Spain and
consequently the markets in these countries are better.
The non-EU market is still promising and offers good prospects for EU manufacturers but
financing the hydro-projects is a serious problem as well as differences in business culture.
Small companies are finding it difficult to deal with such problems.
The world is strongly in favour of electricity from renewable energy sources and the small scale
format is well suited and not just for developing countries. But there still seem to be too many
obstacles for this to happen and for European manufacturers to show their competitiveness.
The European SHP manufacturers seem to be in a negative spiral and many of them are
choosing to leave the SHP market.
If this negative spiral cannot be stopped, the EU might lose its dominant industrial position as
well as the competence it has built up over the years. Such competence is hard to recover
because of the special technology related to hydro power.
The producers might no longer have a competent industry should investments and refurbishing
start up again.
III
The turbine companies, other SHP equipment manufacturers and consulting companies will
only stay in business as long as the market gives them enough work.
It would be wise for European manufacturers to make arrangements with export offices and
export credit institutions so they can successfully penetrate the non-EU market.
It is also advisable to initiate a study on ways to strengthen the manufacturers in the short term
so that they will be well prepared when both the EU and non-EU markets become stronger.
Constraints
From the data collected it appears that the environmental constraints that affect the SHP, are
mainly related to fishing and water regulations. In almost all the countries the fishermen’s lobby
has the power to influence the decisions of the regional authority. Moreover, in many European
countries, environmental groups are trying to prevent local river areas from being used by
companies for industrial purposes, (mainly power production) since it would negatively impact
the river environment (this is particularly a problem in northern countries).
On the other hand, in many countries the lengthy water licensing process mainly caused by the
complicated and time-consuming procedures of the public administration and by the number of
subjects involved that can refuse authorisation makes it difficult to set up new SHP plants and
find proper financing schemes (this problem is common in many southern European countries).
Principal recommendations
The current policies regarding SHP include many improvements that could be implemented. In
the medium term, these improvements might lead to a substantial growth of this energy source.
In the current economic framework which is converging towards a common European market,
the European Commission can play a fundamental role in spurring economic forces to support
Small Hydro Power.
The BlueAGE study has shown the benefits that can be achieved by developing SHP at the
economic and environmental level. However, these benefits can be achieved only if there is a
synergy at the European, national and local level. These three levels must work together since
the efforts at only one level are doomed to fail.
The challenge for European authorities involved in the development of Small Hydro Power and
other renewable energy sources is to placate the market by reducing uncertainty. Although this
is not an easy task, some measures can be taken to promote the interest of European citizens
in the sustainability of the energy sector. These measures are summarised in the following
table.
IV
Issue Recommended Measures Potential Benefit

Authorisation procedure Establishing the single window Reduces ineffective
for driving the licensing bureaucratic procedures and
process and collecting all cuts administrative costs
permits
Authorisation procedure Establishing an environmental Prevents the unjustified

analysis on a standardised list rejection of requests for new
of indicators provided by the water rights justified; makes
administrative authority the environmental assessment
uniform
Authorisation procedure Introducing an opportunity for Allows opposition to emerge

discussion between interested during the initial development
parties during the authorisation phase and initiates a
process democratic discussion on
water use
Regulation Setting quantitative targets for Makes a strong commitment to
new capacity at the national develop new sites
level
Regulation Promoting the creation of Allows demand for

green prices and green environmental friendly
certification systems electricity promotes new
opportunities for SHP
Regulation Reducing uncertainty by long- Helps the financial world

term regulations finance SHP investments
Price setting Implement the internalisation Makes SHP competitive with

of external costs fossil sources on the electricity
market
Information Disseminate competent and Facilitates the dialogue of

precise information on small investors with administrators
hydro power and with the financial world
Organising settings Annual following up Certify that EU targets are

fulfilled
V
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... I
State of the art .................................................................................................................. I
SHP potential in the EU ................................................................................................... II
SHP and the environment................................................................................................ II
SHP technology .............................................................................................................. III
SHP market for manufacturers ....................................................................................... III
Constraints...................................................................................................................... IV
Principal recommendations............................................................................................. IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................ X
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11
1.1. Aims of the study .................................................................................................... 2
1.2. Methodology of analysis ......................................................................................... 2
1.3. The national questionnaire ..................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. Structure........................................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Main results ...................................................................................................................4
1.4. Review of the existing literature in the sector of Small Hydropower in Europe....... 4
2. STATE OF THE ART: PRESENT SITUATION OF SHP IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
8
2.1. Hydropower and total electricity production............................................................ 8
2.2. The contribution of SHP to the electricity demand.................................................. 9
2.3. A view outside Europe.......................................................................................... 10
2.4. Summary .............................................................................................................. 12
3. POTENTIAL OF SHP AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF ENERGY
PRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 13
3.1. Upgrading existing SHP plants, recovery and increase in efficiency of plants that
are underdeveloped or have been shut down ...................................................... 13
3.2. Technical potential of new SHP............................................................................ 14
3.3. Constrained potential for realisation of new SHP capacity ................................... 14
3.4. Environmental and legal aspects.......................................................................... 21
3.4.1. General........................................................................................................................21
3.4.2. Reported problems ......................................................................................................21
3.4.3. Effects of building hydro power ....................................................................................22
3.4.4. Methods for solving conflicts........................................................................................24
3.4.5. Balancing different interests.........................................................................................24
3.4.6. Considerations and proposals .....................................................................................25
3. 5. A forecast for the Year 2015................................................................................. 28
3.6. SHP possibility to reduce environmental impact from other sources.................... 29
VI
3.7. Summary .............................................................................................................. 35

4. ANALYSIS OF THE PRESENT TECHNOLOGY, TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS
AND COST REDUCTIONS ........................................................................................ 37
4.1. Background .......................................................................................................... 37
4.2. General trends in water power plant designs ....................................................... 37
4.3 Building structures................................................................................................ 38
4.4 Mechanical equipment.......................................................................................... 38
4.4.1 Turbines ......................................................................................................................38
4.4.2 Gear boxes..................................................................................................................40
4.4.3 Headrace penstocks....................................................................................................41
4.4.4 Gates, trash racks .......................................................................................................41
4.5 Electrical equipment ............................................................................................. 41
4.5.1 Generators ..................................................................................................................41
4.5.2. Power and control equipment ......................................................................................42
4.5.3. Variable speed installations .........................................................................................42
4.5.4. Summary .....................................................................................................................42
5. THE EUROPEAN SMALL HYDROPOWER MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY........... 44
5.1. Historical background and manufacturing ............................................................ 44
5.1.1. Types of water turbines ...............................................................................................44
5.1.2. Market situation ...........................................................................................................45
5.2. Trends of different markets................................................................................... 47
5.3. Competition .......................................................................................................... 47
5.4. Manufacturing competence .................................................................................. 47
5.5. Barriers and access to customers ........................................................................ 48
5.5.1. Language and cultural barriers ....................................................................................48
5.5.2. Access to potential customers .....................................................................................48
5.6. Manufacturing development ................................................................................. 49
5.7. Future markets for SHP manufacturers ................................................................ 49
5.8. Markets for new equipment .................................................................................. 50
5.9. Markets for service, refurbishing and modernisation ............................................ 50
5.10. Summary .............................................................................................................. 51
6. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHP PLANTS : REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES... 52
6.1. Developing a SHP plant: principal legal conditions............................................... 52
6.2 The use of water................................................................................................... 53
6.2.1. The costs of using water: water charges, concession fees ..........................................53
6.2.2. Competing uses of water: fishing, agricultural use, municipal uses, recreational uses .56
6.3. SHP exploitation ................................................................................................... 57
6.3.1. Process to obtain new licenses....................................................................................57
6.3.2. Authorisations procedures including EIA......................................................................57
6.3.3. Duration of a licence ....................................................................................................58
6.3.4. Refurbishment of a SHP plant .....................................................................................60
6.4. Non technical barriers........................................................................................... 60
6.5. Developing a SHP plant: financing schemes........................................................ 61
6.5.1. Most common financing schemes................................................................................63
6.5.2. Innovative financing schemes......................................................................................64
VII
7. FROM PRODUCTION TO CONSUMPTION: THE DELIVERY OF SHP ELECTRICITY

65
7.1. Connecting to the grid: contracts and costs.......................................................... 65
7.2. Using the electricity grid: possibilities, priorities, and costs .................................. 67
7.3. Recognising the real value of SHP electricity ....................................................... 67
7.4 Selling SHP electricity .......................................................................................... 67
7.5. Alternative sources and requirements for a support ............................................. 69
8. SUPPORTING SHP.................................................................................................... 71
8.1 Various forms of State support for SHP electricity production .............................. 71
9. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 74
9.1 SHP Potential ....................................................................................................... 74
9.2 A EU action plan ...................................................................................................... 75
10. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 77
10.1. Literature .............................................................................................................. 77
10.2. World Wide Web links .......................................................................................... 81
VIII
Index of figures
Figure 2-1 – present situation of hydro power in the countries analysed..........................................8
Figure 2-2 - Age structure of SHP plants in different groups of countries.........................................9
Figure 2-3 - Relation between HP dependency and SHP installed capacity. .................................10
Figure 3-1 – Potential upgrading and refurbish old SHP................................................................13
Figure 3-2 – Potential from construction of completely new plant ..................................................15
Figure 3-3 - Potential from new plant and refurbishment ...............................................................16
Figure 6-1 – Constraints of building a SHPP in Western European countries. ...............................56
IX
List of abbreviations
CFD ................................. Calculated Fluid Dynamics
EIA .................................. Environmental Impact Assessment
ESHA............................... European Small Hydropower Association
HP ...................................Hydro Power
HPP ...............................Hydro Power Plant
IEA ..................................International Energy Agency
LCA ................................. Life Cycle Analysis
MVA.................................Mega Volt Ampere (1 MVA is approximately 0.8 MW)
RES ................................. Renewable Energy Sources
RES-E ............................. Renewable Energy Sources Electricity
RMF................................. Reserved Minimum Flow
SHP ................................. Small Hydro Power
SHPP............................... Small Hydro Power Plant
TWh.................................TeraWatthour (1 TWh = 1 000 GWh = 1 000 000 MWh)
X
1. INTRODUCTION
The present study is part of the Fourth Framework Programme of the European Union under the
ALTENER II Project and has been co-financed by UNAPACE, the Italian association of
independent electricity producers, and a pool of Swedish companies. The European Small
Hydropower Association, ESHA, has spearheaded the promotion of a technical-economic study
on the development of Small Hydropower in the European Union. This was mainly due to the
commitment of European Countries to achieve a goal of 12% of the total energy demand
covered by Renewable Energy Sources in keeping with their environmental policies.
During the twentieth century, hydropower made a dramatic contribution to the development of
the electricity sector in Europe and most of the best sites have been exploited for big plants.
Nevertheless, an important role in achieving European renewable energy goals can still be
played by small hydropower resources which are distributed on the continent and can offer all
the benefits of dispersed renewable generation.
This document is mainly addressed to policy makers at the EU and national level and aims to
provide a detailed description of the technical and economical prospects of small hydropower in
the changing European electricity sector and investigate the most suitable measures to further
exploit the small hydropower potential in the EU.
Section 2 shows the present situation of small hydropower (SHP) in European countries, the
capacity installed, the electricity production and the share of total electricity production, giving a
detailed set of data on the whole SHP sector.
Section 3 looks at the potential for new SHP schemes and for the recovery of abandoned sites
in each country, distinguishing between the technical potential, which is the capacity obtainable
on the purely technical level, and the economic potential that takes into account the cost of
generating electricity and its sustainability on the electricity market. The figure obtained is then
compared to the environmental constraints which are currently curbing the development of new
SHP schemes in most European countries. With all these aspects taken into account, a
scenario is given at 2015 for SHP production, considering the benefits that it allows in terms of
reduction of external costs.
Section 4 gives an overview of the technical improvements recently achieved in the SHP sector,
both in the mechanical and structural design and in the reduction of environmental impact. The
cost reductions achievable in the SHP investments are also shown as an important step
towards competition in the European market.
In section 5 the status of the European manufacturing industry is described, paying attention to
the competitive advantages of European manufacturers in the world market, the trends in
industrial organisation and the evolution of market structure. The strategic role of service and
refurbishing is highlighted as regards the existing SHP plants, whose average age is high in
most European countries. An overview of the education in the area of SHP is also given in this
section.
Section 6 provides a detailed analysis of the regulation of investments in SHP and the operation
of the plants and considers the administrative procedures for authorisations, the fees for the use
of water and the non-technical barriers to SHP development. An overview of the most
successful financing scheme is also given, with attention to the innovative financial means
designed to face the new market challenges.
XI
Section 7 focuses on the relationship between the plants and the grid: the costs of connection,
the use of system charges, the structure of feed in prices and the likelihood of selling directly to
the final users and to make best use of the electricity generated.
Finally, in section 8 the means to support SHP are presented both at the national and European
level. Some policy suggestions are made as regards the proper evaluation of SHP resources in
Europe and the role that the European Commission can most effectively play in the take-off
campaign of the Altener programme to support the growth of this sector which has such a long
tradition.
1.1. Aims of the study
In the framework of the electricity market restructuring, new challenges are emerging for small
hydropower generation and other renewable energy sources. The implementation of a fair
regulation for RES is vital to increasing their contribution and achieving European and national
environmental goals.
The BlueAGE project aims to investigate the conditions for new small hydro electricity
production in each European Union country with respect to the potential for:
• improving existing plants,
• recovering existing resources (waterworks, irrigation channels, SHPP that have been shut
down),
• creating new schemes.

The study focuses on the small hydro power sector in all aspects. In addition to studying the
sector’s potential, the prospects of the European industry has also been evaluated in the
broader context of the world market.
The study aims to be an operational document which might prove useful in designing wise
policy measures to regulate in a fair way small hydropower electricity generation at different
administrative levels.
1.2. Methodology of analysis
The rather ambitious goal has been constructed on a solid basis of information collected at the
national level; different approaches have been applied to the study: technical, economic,
regulatory, strategic.
It is obvious that effective policy measures must now be set at the European level; in other
words, no national policy can conflict with the European regulation. It therefore seemed useful to
make a comprehensive analysis of the regulatory measures of different countries and their
technical and economic conditions so as to identify the most successful initiatives to improve the
contribution of SHP in covering the electricity demand. The collected data have been processed
to extract as much information as possible and a data base has been created with the answers
to the national questionnaires sent to national experts.
Moreover, in different European countries various experts in the field have been contacted to
carry out the analysis on an operational level. This part of the study proved to be extremely
useful in understanding the trends underway in the SHP sector.
This report tries to be concise and focuses on the hot topics, in order to assist decision makers
and investors design effective policies for SHP development.
2
1.3. The national questionnaire
A detailed questionnaire was prepared to obtain first-hand information regarding the current
conditions for SHP development in Europe from the technical, economic and regulatory point of
view.
It was sent to a total of 32 qualified persons in different countries: consultants, university
professors, managers, researchers in organisations involved in the energy sector: 26 answered
and furnished sufficiently satisfactory figures and data regarding the present situation in their
country (see Annex 2). Unfortunately, not all the country information has the same level of
accuracy and the final data processing takes such biases into account. The analysis of such
documents made it possible to:
• investigate the conditions for new small hydro electricity production in each European Union
country,
• estimate the influence of the liberalisation of the EU electricity supply industry on the
development of Small Hydro Power (SHP) and highlight the new opportunities emerging,
• forecast the SHP market up to 2015, paying attention to: 1) the EU, 2) the extra-EU
countries (particularly the Eastern European countries, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland), 3)
the rest of the world, to a lesser extent,
• investigate the new technical frontiers of SHP, such as very low head schemes and the
environmental constraints,
• provide a European-wide comparison of the technical, environmental, institutional and legal

conditions in order to identify technical and non-technical impediments,
• identify successful support mechanisms compatible with the creation of a EU wide electricity
market,
• review the levels of small hydro energy manufacturing and service capability in each EU
country and evaluate the competitiveness of the industry on the global market.
1.3.1. Structure
The questionnaire was divided into two parts:
a) Technical, Environmental and Industrial issues;
b) Economic and Policy issues.
Each part was divided furthermore in sections in order to obtain the broadest information
regarding the different sectors.
Part A asks for figures about the present situation of the installed electricity power in each
country and a general outlook of the potential of new hydro power: such a potential comes from
the refurbishing of old abandoned plants and the installation of new ones.
Technical aspects like the new techniques implemented in the last years (small heads, new
design of turbines…) and the technical and economic constraints put on the development of
new sites have also been taken into account.
The last questions in part A concern manufacturing and service capability with particular
attention to the core business of the companies.
3
Part B part of the questionnaire focuses on institutional, economic and strategic issues with
open questions on prices, support mechanisms, legislative framework and forthcoming
measures.
The first section focuses on the legal conditions of the authorisation process for small hydro
power plants and on the licensing process.
The second section contains questions about the structure of the price selling to the grid, the
fiscal aid for the development and the environmental policy regarding hydro power.
The last section concerns strategic issues as to prospects and new arrangements regarding the
main obstacles to developing SHP in each country.
1.3.2 Main results
Although the information given does not cover all the European countries, the answers to the
questionnaire have generally been satisfactory. The present situation shows different rates of
exploitation in the countries surveyed, even though the potential has still not been fully used due
to many different reasons.
The obstacles to developing new plants have been mainly:
• environmental protection related to a reserved minimum flow and the recreational use of
water in certain countries (Finland, Austria, Germany);
• economic, due to price uncertainty and the policy framework for renewables resources with
ambiguity regarding the ongoing support for renewables following the EU parliament
proposal;
• bureaucratic, due to the length of the licensing process and the time it takes to obtain
authorisation from the different bodies.
The first observation that can be made about the answers is that there are huge differences
between the countries regarding the problems of SHP. In some countries there is still potential
ready to be exploited but environmental constraints due to water uses are strong and prevent a
serious SHP policy from developing.
1.4. Review of the existing literature in the sector of Small Hydropower in Europe
The study began by collecting the literature on the sector of SHP. An impressive list of
references has been collected and duly filed, as reported at the end of the report. The collected
papers have been filed in the references, while in Annex 3 the articles found but not read by the
authors have been reported.
Even if the material available on SHP is quite a lot, the studies done seem to be not very well
co-ordinated at the international level and a reference institution is lacking for the collection of
information. The difficulties met in carrying out the enquiry of the BlueAGE project is also a sign
of the poor collaboration of the SHP operators. The fact that no one of the 8 persons contacted
in France did accept to answer to the questionnaire shows the lack of interest for the
international co-operation. SHP seems to be more a sector of local interests rather than an
international business opportunity.
A considerable number of Internet sites related to Small Hydropower have been reviewed and
listed in a special section of the reference list. This part of the work has proved useful, as
various overlapping works have been identified. We noticed that many studies are poorly
distributed and that a programme of dissemination could support SHP to develop its relationship
with the regulatory bodies.
4
Table 1.1: Small hydro power capacity (<10 MW) installed in EU countries
Country Capacity installed 1992 Capacity installed 1998
(MW) (MW)
Italy 2 047 2 200
France 1 900 2 000
Spain 1 090 1 548
Germany 1 291 1 380
Sweden 964 970
Austria 774 820
Finland 300 305
Portugal 154 245
UK 154 165
Belgium 51 60
Ireland 67 55
Greece 30 44
Netherlands 37 40
Luxembourg 27 35
Denmark 9 11
Total EU 8 895 9 878
Source: EurObserv’ER (http://www.observ-er.org)
The references have been filed according to different criteria (geographic, by author, area of
interest etc), in order to have easy access to this information. The organisation of this
information as a database makes it possible to make it available on the Internet.
Table 1.2: Small hydro power sector in EU countries in 1998, 1 MW<SHPP<10 MW
SHP today
Country MW GWh N. of plants
Austria A 463 2 095 160
Belgium B 70 251 42
Denmark DK
Finland FIN
France F 1 045 4 255 250
Germany D 901 4 384 236
Greece GR 12 18 3
Ireland IRL
Italy I 1 801 7 414 519
Luxembourg L 20 87 3
Netherlands NL - - -
Portugal PT 44 117 12
Spain E 609 1 281 167
Sweden S
UK UK
NON EU COUNTRIES
Switzerland CH 599 246 168
Croatia and Slovenia HR+SLO 84 267 13
Czech Republic CZ 144 500 na
Poland PL 114 na 36
Romania RO 44 na 9
Slovenia SLO 28 87 8
Source: UCTE 1999
5
It has been interesting to compare the data concerning the SHP installed capacity and
production, finding very different values in different studies. Some tables concerning the SHP
sector from different sources are reported below, demonstrating the difficulty of collecting
reliable data on the capacity installed and the production of plants. The data in table 1.3 do not
correspond exactly to those collected with the questionnaires, which have been taken as the
basis for the BlueAGE study.
Table 1.3: Small hydro power (< 10 MW) production, 1999
Country MW GWh
Austria A 848 4 246
Belgium B 59 204
Denmark DK 11 27
Finland FIN 304 1 328
France F 1 997 7 131
Germany D 1 418 6 277
Greece GR 44 146
Ireland IRL 55 112
Italy I 2 210 8 321
Luxembourg L 35 154
Netherlands NL 2 1
Portugal PT 247 566
Spain E 1 506 5 231
Sweden S 936 4 448
UK UK 161 242
Total 9 833 38 433
NON EU COUNTRIES
Iceland ICE 43 235
Norway NO 1 028 4 566
Source EUROSTAT Database
6
GWh
9.000
8.000
EU SHP production (1998 Eurostat data)
7.000
6.000
6.603
5.000
5.583
4.428
4.000
4.333
2.705
3.000
3.589
4.143
2.000
1.849
1.718
1.548
1.541
1.171
1.000
897
859
UK 204
Portugal 523
0
Luxembourg
Denmark
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Belgium
Espana
Greece
France
Netherland
Austria
Italy
Ireland
Iceland
Finland
SHP < 1 MW SHP 1 - 10 MW
Figure 1.1 – Eurostat data on SHP production
MW
2.500
EU SHP installed MW (1998 Eurostat data)
2.000
1.500
1.804
1.577
882
1.000
1.297
905
573
765
500
536
420
406
274
142
275
228
209
171
0
Luxembourg
Denmark
Germany
Sweden
Norway
Belgium
UK
Greece
Espana
Portugal
France
Austria
Italy
Ireland
Netherland
Iceland
Finland
SHP < 1 MW SHP 1 - 10 MW
Figure 1.2 – Eurostat data on SHP capacity
7
2. State of the art: present situation of SHP in European countries
2.1. Hydropower and total electricity production
The results briefly presented in this section, concerning the current and potential state of
development of SHP in the medium-long term are related to the 26 Countries that have
answered in relatively clear terms the questionnaire sent at the beginning of the research
project. 13 belong to the EU (Austria, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, Denmark and Sweden); 3 are Western countries outside
the EU (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland), and 10 belong to the Eastern European group (Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and
Turkey).
30.000
99%
23%
HP present situation
30%
25.000
35%
20.000
51%
76%
15.000
65%
41%
10.000
50%
4%
18%
33%
5.000
60%
32%
12%
75%
93%
78%
6%
0.5%
14%
3%
0.1%
9%
0.5%
34%
76%
[MW]
5%
1%
1%
- A B DK F D GR IRL I L NL PT E S UK NO CH HZ CZ H LV LT MT PL RO SK TR
ICE
FIN
EST
SLO
Big Hydro Power Small Hydro Power % HP of total installed electrical power
Figure 2-1 – present situation of hydro power in the countries analysed
As often happens with studies based on questionnaires, some of the countries mentioned could
not fill in the questionnaire completely, so in a few cases there are some relevant pieces of
information missing from the picture presented in report. Nevertheless, the rather good quality of
the answers given, in addition to the relatively high number of countries considered, have
allowed us to draw a very realistic picture of the current state of SHP exploitation and its
possible future development.
The answers to the questionnaires come from areas covering more than 95 % of the EU’s total
SHP production.
For the non-member countries in Europe the figures in this report cover about 90 % of the total
SHP production of the countries that are neighbours to the EU (Russia excluded).
8
2.2. The contribution of SHP to the electricity demand
There are slightly more than 17 400 SHP plants installed in the 26 countries mentioned,
corresponding to a capacity of about 12.5 GW of SHP. The average size of a SHP plant is 0.7
MW in Western Europe, and 0.3 MW in Eastern countries and they contribute annually to
Europe electricity supply with some 50 TWh.
Based on the data collected with the questionnaire (that only refer to one recent year, and
therefore have to be taken just as a rough approximation of the average SHP and HP
production in each country) and from the literature, SHP accounts for some 7.1% of the total
hydropower production in Europe and 1.8% of the total installed capacity. The average
production of the European SHP plant is some 2.9 GWh.
The bulk of this capacity (11.8 GW) is located in Western Europe. Roughly 86% is concentrated
in 8 countries: Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway. As
regards the Eastern European countries, the Czech Republic alone – with 250 MW - accounts
for almost 34% of the total production of the area.
SHP plants age distribution

100%
27
7
13
14
45
90%
51
1
11
5
380
80%
9
2981
15
1000
72
70%
2
01
77
682
12
60%
170
93
10
50
60
20
50%
987
120
90
364
40%
1406
3
3
20
33
11
63
30%
114
22
90
500
440
16
20%
400
563
0
60
227
100 15
10%
6
41
10
675
1
1
0%
A
L
PT
LT
PL
LV
B
DK
FIN
D
GR
UK
CH
SK
TR
IRL
CZ
MT
NO
E
S
ICE
0-20 years old 20-40 years old 40-60 years old > 60 years old
Figure 2-2 - Age structure of SHP plants in different groups of countries
The SHP plants situated in EU countries are also the oldest, with almost 47% over 60 years old
and 68% over 40. Eastern European countries have the highest share of young plants (36.4%
are less than 20 years old). The three non-EU Western countries are in an intermediate
position, having a slightly lower percentage of young plants (34% are less than 20) years old)
but the highest percentage of plants less than 40 (about 59%). Within each group of countries
(and in particular the EU member countries) there are, in any case, quite substantial variations:
for instance, in the UK, Greece, Spain and Portugal, most of the SHP plants are less than 20
years old; in Iceland 70% of the SHPP are over 40 years old.
9
120%
100% NO
% of HP over total installed L
80% ICE CH
A
capacity
60% HZ
PT S
40% E
TR I
F
20% FIN
CZ D
0%
- 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500
installed SHP (MW)

Figure 2-3 - Relation between HP contribution and SHP installed capacity.
As appears from the figure, there is no definite correlation between the “strength” of hydropower
production (defined as the percentage of hydropower over total capacity ) in a given country and
the amount of Small Hydropower Capacity installed. In other words, the fact that the hydro
source is intensively used in a given state does not at all involve an enhanced development of
Small HP plants. The figure might even suggest a negative – although very weak – correlation
between the two factors mentioned, maybe suggesting that when a resource (hydropower
capacity, hydro sources of power generation) is scarce, one is more willing to exploit even the
smallest possibility of using it.
2.3. A view outside Europe
The countries outside Europe are today the most interesting part of the market for SHP
European manufacturers. Even if this study is not aimed at studying in detail such markets, a
look at the status of some national cases can be of interest for the comprehension of the future
development of the SHP world market. In particular, India and Canada have been monitored.
India
In India there is a great demand for electricity, especially in the hilly regions in the north. As the
topography there is unfavourable to construct electrical grids, the request mainly covers small
areas with a limited grid or stand-alone schemes. But the demand in general for electricity is
growing fast and India has many areas suitable for hydropower. In order to speed up the
development, the Government decided in 1992 to set up a Ministry (Ministry of Non-
conventional Energy Sources, MNES) to develop small hydropower (SHP)and other renewable
energy sources (RES)1.
In India the definition of SHP has been schemes up to 3 MW, but in November 1999 the limit
was raised to 25 MW.
Present production
Indian figures are given in capacity, not in annual average energy production. The present SHP
total capacity is calculated to 1 327 MW. (would probably result in an annual energy production
1
Information collected from Mr I.M. SAHAI, international consultant in Hydropower, New Delhi, India.
10
of around 5 TWh) Of this capacity 223 MW is installed in schemes with a capacity of less than 3
MW.
Potential
The estimated SHP potential in India is 10 000 – 15 000 MW. This means that only about 10 %
of the total SHP potential has so far been exploited. The Ministry (MNES) has a target to add
another 2 000 MW of capacity from SHP until 2012, which means that the total SHP production
in 2012 should be 3 200 MW.
Buy-back rates
There are no fixed buy-back rates covering all Indian states but a common figure is Rs. 2.25 per
kWh (around 50 EURO per MWh).
The market for equipment manufacturers
The market for equipment manufacturers is growing in India and so far the majority of the need
has been satisfied by domestic manufacturers. European manufacturers have sometimes co-
operation agreements with Indian companies or daughter companies in India. Foreign investors
are allowed to invest in Indian SHP schemes.
Obstacles to development
There are very few environmental obstacles to SHP development in India and no difficult
licensing procedure. But lack of basic infrastructure in some areas and slow licensing
procedures due to bureaucracy hampers a fast utilisation of Indian SHP resources.
Canada
Canada is a country with a long tradition in using hydropower. Most of the hydropower is large
but small hydropower is developing, especially as a replacement for expensive diesel
generation in remote, off-grid communities.
Present production
The Canadian SHP has a capacity of 1 500 MW producing 6 500 GWh annually. This
production is 2.5 % of the total hydropower production in Canada.
Potential
There is a vast potential for SHP in Canada. A recently completed inventory of Canadian small
hydro sites identified over 3 600 sites with a potential of 9 000 MW and a potential production of
40 000 GWh annually. Only about 15 %, 1 350 MW, of this potential would be economically
feasible under current socio-economic conditions.
If the capital costs can be reduced by 10-15 %, which should be achievable through further
technical improvements, a further 1 800 MW of economically exploitable SHP capacity will be
available.
Apart from new plants, many Canadian stations are now at an age where maintenance and
refurbishment are critical. With new technique it is now considered possible not only to restore
older plants but actually to improve their performance.
Technical development
Canada has an ambitious technology development program to promote appropriate technology
to enable a greater range of small scale and low-head hydro resources to be exploited
economically. The primary effort is how to develop tools and techniques to reduce equipment
and construction costs.
11
Micro-hydro
Micro-hydro, stand alone generator systems have been successfully developed in Canada and
have become popular because of the special Canadian infrastructure.
2.4. Summary
This study is based on data from more than 95 % of the total SHP electricity produced in the EU
and from 90 % of the total SHP electricity production in other European countries that are not
yet members of the EU. Data from about 17 400 different SHP power plants in Europe which
annually contribute to supply 1.7% of the European electricity are included in the study. Their
percentage of the total hydro power production is at present just over 9.7 %. Their annual
production contributes to the European electricity supply with some 50 TWh.
12
3. Potential of SHP and environmental aspects of energy production
3.1. Upgrading existing SHP plants, recovery and increase in efficiency of plants
that are underdeveloped or have been shut down
[MW]
800
700 Potential of upgrading old SHP
80%
600
90%
500
40%
400
0,0%
50%
40,1%
300
38,9%
200
23,8%
37,8%
66,7%
33,3%
61,5%
0,6%
16,7%
75%
0,0%
50%
0,0%
100
0
A B FIN F D GR IRL I S NO CH CZ ES LV LT MT SK SLO
% loss due to constraints without constraints with constraints
Figure 3-1 – Potential upgrading, refurbish and restart of old SHP
When we speak of upgrading we mean the replacement of existing equipment with more
efficient one. That normally means increase in power production and/or reduced cost of
maintenance. Refurbishment, instead, means a more extensive overhaul of a power plant that
can include change of equipment but it is not aimed at increasing power production, only to
make it sustainable for a long time.
About 65% of SHP plants located in Western Europe and 50% of those installed in Eastern
Europe and Turkey are more than 40 years old. Proper maintenance and refurbishment of these
plants – specially those in the poorest conditions and with obsolete technologies - could
considerably contribute to the development of the SHP potential. There are, of course, some
limits to the exploitation of this kind of potential. In some cases, refurbishment is too costly
compared to what can be realistically obtained from it – in terms of additional capacity and
production. In other cases environmental constraints (e.g. strict regulations as regards reserved
minimum flow) hinders increased plant production.
From the purely technical point of view (i.e. without considering any economic, legal or
environmental constraint), the estimated potential capacity increase resulting from an extensive
upgrading of the existing plants and restarting abandoned plants in the EU and non-EU
countries has been estimated according to the data collected in our enquiry with national
experts at around 18 % of the existing installed MW. There are, however, rather considerable
differences among the single countries mentioned: the Irish experts say that, technically
speaking, the current capacity installed could be increased of 63%; whereas in Greece, Spain or
Portugal only an additional 6 % – 7% is estimated to be recovered.
13
Concerning the environmental constraints, they are estimated to reduce the recoverable
capacity 2 080 MW to 1 111 MW with important differences among countries: whereas Italy and
Switzerland have a reduction of the recoverable capacity of 80 % and 90 % respectively and the
British say it is problematic to increase the SHP capacity by refurbishing the plants, Norway and
German experts repute the reduction of the constraints to no more than 40%.
Thus, when the economic and environmental constraints placed on increasing the capacity are
taken into account, the potential capacity increase in Western European countries is reduced to
some 10% of the installed capacity. In other terms, about 47% of the technical potential cannot
be reached either because of lack of economic competitiveness, or because of environmental
constraints.
As regards Eastern Europe and Turkey, the analysis of the potential increase of existing SHP
capacity and production is less detailed because of incomplete answers of experts. The
estimated potential increase is not remarkable in any of the surveyed countries.
The respondent EU-countries estimate 1 111 MW annually the capacity increase achievable,
corresponding to a production of 4 500 GWh and in the non-member countries 270 MW with an
annual production of 1 150 GWh. The total upgrading potential in these EU-member states and
non-EU member states is 1 380 MW corresponding to an annual electricity production of more
than 5 670 GWh. Without taking into account environmental and economic constraints, such
increases in all the surveyed countries are 2 920 MW and 10 950 GWh.
3.2. Technical potential of new SHP
Questions also concerned the technical potential in each country in order to estimate how much
energy SHP plants can theoretically develop with current technology but without environmental
and economical constraints. The method gives a hint of the impact which these different
constraints have on the development of SHP in each country. Despite the difficulty in estimating
this technical potential, it has been possible to calculate it for most of the countries. The figures
show that without any constraints and with current technology the contribution of SHP in EU-
member states could be almost doubled (9 615 MW, +95%) and in non- member states by
about 190 % (+ 4 650 MW), mainly thanks to the capacity not yet exploited in Norway and
Switzerland. The increase in the production is estimated 38 000 GWh (+95%) in EU countries
and 17 500 GWh (+170%) in the other surveyed European countries.
3.3. Constrained potential for realisation of new SHP capacity
As for the refurbishment and upgrade, economic and environmental constraints are quite
important in reducing the feasibility of new plants. The figures given in the paragraph 3.2 are
substantially reduced when such factors are taken into account. Under such realistic restrictions
in the EU countries the potential for new SHP capacity is estimated to be 4 828 MW and 1880
MW in the other European countries. The production estimated of such new power plants is
19650 GWh (+ 49 %) in the EU and 9 482 GWh (+ 92 %) in extra EU countries (where data are
actually less complete and not all the countries have fully reliable figures). Please note that in
extra EU countries, it has not been taken into account the potential estimated for Iceland of
6000 GWh, because there is very little increase in domestic demand and in export possibilities
and the potential almost certainly will not be realised.
14
The graph in figure 3.4 showing the reduction of the potential for the case of Sweden clearly
explain how different factors contribute to reduce the feasibility of new investments in the SHP
sector. Even if sometimes this fact is due to a correct preservation of the environment, in some
cases these reductions are the effect of the barriers and inefficiencies often highlighted by the
operators of the sector, that should be eliminated to boost the growth of SHP.
2500
59%
65%
Potential of new SHP
2000
33%
24%
62%
1500
78%
78%
1000 57%
23%
36
46%
72%
500 %
50%
100%
33%
53%
36%
0%
32%
62%
69%
0
FIN
IRL
SLO
GR
LT
MT
NO
A
UK
CH
SK
ES
LV
PT
CZ
B
S
F
[MW]
% of potential loss due to constraints without constraints with constraints
Figure 3-2 – Potential for construction of new SHP plant
15
2500
29%
New and refurbished SHP potential
66%
2000
30%
71%
1500
129%
43%
97%
1000
36%
175%
41%
>1000%
252%
500
86%
128%
56%
179%
215%
613%
32%
28%
274%
194%
248%
[MW]
0%
0
A
LT
B
DK
FIN
D
GR
IRL
E
S
NO
CH
LV
SLO
I
PT
UK
CZ
H
MT
PL
ICE
SK
installed capacity forecast potential (new & upgrading) % of increase
Figure 3-3 - Potential from new plant and refurbishment
16
Graph; different potentials (example

Sweden)
Potential
100% A A. Natural potential
65% B B. Technical potential
45% C C. Potential; economic constraints

taken into account
35% D D. Potential; environmental

constraints taken into account
30% E E. Potential; technical, environmental

and economic constraints taken into
account
Figure 3-4: Example for Sweden of the reduction of potential due to constraints
An example from Sweden showing how different constraints affect the potential in SHP is
reported above: the natural potential is reduced when technical factors are considered, giving
the technical potential. Taking into account environmental and economic constraints the feasible
potential for SHP is calculated, which is on average some 20 % – 30% of the natural potential.
17
Table 3.1: Present capacity and potential of SHP in EU countries as estimated by the national experts in the BlueAGE questionnaire and used in various
figures and tables of this report.
Potential Potential with economic and

(technical constraints only) environmental constraints
SHP 1999 Upgrading New SHP Upgrading New SHP
Country MW GWh Number MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh

Austria 848 4 246 1 110 212 1 062 1 272 6 369 127 637 967 4 840
Belgium 95 385 39 13 100 38 229 5 36 26 156
Denmark 11 30 38 0 0 0 0 - - - -
Finland 320 1 280 225 42 150 150 600 32 130 100 400
France 1 977 7 100 1 700 300 1 200 1 500 6 000 300 1 200 1 000 4 000
Germany 1 502 6 253 5 625 350 1 300 1 100 4 000 210 800 240 900
Greece 48 160 17 3 8 200 1 300 2 5 100 600
Ireland 32 120 44 20 90 76 360 5 20 36 165
Italy 2 209 8 320 1 668 700 2 500 1 300 4 800 140 500 500 1 850
Luxembourg (*) 39 195 29 - -
Netherlands (**) - - - 19 95
Portugal 280 1 100 60 20 60 610 2 400 20 60 470 1 850
Spain 1 548 5 390 1 056 100 350 2 419 7 800 100 350 1 000 3 224
Sweden 1 050 4 600 1 615 300 1 200 700 3 000 150 700 300 1 200
UK 160 840 126 20 80 250 1 200 20 80 70 365
Total 10 118 40 019 13 352 2 080 8 100 9 615 38 058 1 111 4 518 4 828 19 645
(*)Data for this country does not come from the answers to BlueAGE questionnaire; Source: http://www.cegedel.lu/fr/pro/producthydro.html
(**)Data for this country does not come from the answers to BlueAGE questionnaire; Source: [89]
19
Table 3.2: Present capacity and potential of SHP in European extra EU countries as estimated by the national experts in the BlueAGE questionnaire and
used in various figures and tables of this report.
Potential with technical Potential with economic and

constraints only environmental constraints
SHP 1999 Upgrading New SHP Upgrading New SHP
Country MW GWh Number MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh

Iceland 43 220 20
Norway 941 4 305 547 180 800 2 300 10 000 110 500 800 3 500
Switzerland 757 3 300 1 109 500 1 400 1 000 2 000 50 250 220 2 000
Croatia Hervastzka* 30 na 13
Czech Republic 250 677 1 136 30 100 370 1 148 15 50 200 700
Estonia 1 5 10 6 50 13 55 5 30 5 20
Hungary 9 38 35 2 3 22 68 2 3 22 68
Latvia 2 14 57 36 90 60 150 36 90 60 150
Lithuania 9 30 29 17 58 130 585 17 58 40 186
Montenegro 9 21 7 3 7 100 300 3 7 300
Poland 127 705 472 - - 320 1 600 320 1 600
Romania ** 44 na 9
Slovakia 31 175 180 37 174 58 261 23 120 37 178
Slovenia 77 270 413 30 170 280 1 300 10 50 180 780
Turkey 138 500 67
Total 2 467 10 259 4 104 841 2 852 4 653 17 467 270 1 158 1 884 9 482
* Data for this country does not come from the answers to BlueAGE questionnaire; Source: [90]
** Data for this country does not come from the answers to BlueAGE questionnaire; Source: [88]
20
3.4. Environmental and legal aspects
3.4.1. General
This chapter aims to identify and develop successful strategies and methods that might
improve the development of Small Hydro Power Plants (SHPP) in Europe.
3.4.2. Reported problems
Most countries that have replied to the questionnaire regarding the environmental problem
have indicated that conflicts with competing and opposing interests exist. The only
countries that have indicated very few conflicts are Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and
Iceland (for instance, it has been noticed that in Greece a few projects have been
cancelled due to environmental or cultural reasons). A short summary of the replies to the
questionnaire is now given.
Finland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Austria mention conflicts with natural scenery
and fisheries. However, none of these countries mentions any problems with respect to
competition, potable water supply or transportation. These countries, together with
Slovenia, also indicate that environmental groups constitute a major problem in
connection with the licensing process.
Portugal mentions obstacles and problems arising from competing interests and from
regional authorities. Spain reports conflicts regarding natural scenery and fisheries. In
addition a very laborious licensing process is a hindrance. Poland reports conflicts with
fisheries and also points out that it is generally difficult to obtain a license to construct
hydropower plants. Even Denmark reports that the possibility of further harnessing
hydropower is limited. Similar conflicts exist in Czech Republic.
Other types of obstacles could include Slovakia’s problems as regards unclear ownership
of rivers and streams. Ireland and Belgium reported problems with noise from hydropower
plants situated in populated areas.
Slovenia and Germany report that the requests from authorities as regards minimum flow
are not based on proper information regarding the real requirements but instead on
general wishes and desires with no scientific basis. Montenegro points to problems
regarding sensitive cultural environments as well as ecological and seismic problems.
Questionnaire answers concerning the environment indicate that resistance to the
construction of SHP varies among countries. The reasons for this resistance differ from
country to country and SHP projects. In many cases, it is believed that the resistance is
based on strong emotional commitment as well as an awareness that earlier development
of hydropower did not take into account environmental interests and opinions.
The conflicts with different opposing interests and the competition with other activities
differ from one country to another. However, a common feature is that, with some
exceptions, the competition with potable water supply etc. seem to be greater in densely
populated areas than in those that are not. On the other hand, the conflicts with other
interests related to the impact on previously virgin nature, seem to be less serious.
The degree of competition and conflicts is obviously linked to the actual type of plant – a
power plant with appurtenant reservoirs evidently implies a greater encroachment on the
waterway and surrounding area than a run off the river SHP especially if only part of the
flow is required.
The questionnaire answers reveal that there is a resistance from various local and
national environmental groups. The replies also account for problems with legislation and
21
regional or local authorities. The resistance to harnessing hydropower often does not
seem to be based on scientific facts.
In the licensing proceedings the developer is often in a weak position and is forced to be
on the defensive since he has to use facts only when refuting the opposing parties’ often
less well founded arguments. After presenting a correct and complete review of the
possible consequences of the project, it is very important for the licence applicant to do
his utmost from the very beginning. The developer should provide credible information to
the decision-maker regarding the consequences of building a hydropower plant as well as
the consequences of the doing-nothing-alternative (zero-alternative).
3.4.3. Effects of building hydro power
In order to judge the effects of building a SHP, it is necessary to perform inventories of
various environmental effects etc. before construction and then asses what the
consequences will be for these interests after the construction. Positive effects have to be
weighed against other effects. All this information regarding the project is subsequently
presented to the authorities concerned and other parties in order to make the right
decisions. To obtain a high degree of credibility and reliability it is important for the
analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to be as comprehensive and complete as
possible. Many countries have legislation regarding Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA).
Positive effects
Reduced emission of substances into the atmosphere – the main advantage of
hydropower is no contribution of greenhouse gases and in addition no emissions of
acidification substances, dust particles etc. The use of hydropower might therefore
decrease the use of fossil fuel.
Reduced risk of flooding – the maintenance of reservoirs and dams can moderate the
effects of flooding. Reservoirs and dams function as “shock absorbers” and thus reduce
the risk of flooding. Only in case of gates out of order and no possibility to control the
water level the risk of flooding is increased. In the past gates with too low capacity were
constructed and this could lead to flood problems, but these gates have in most cases
been modified.
Experience from Sweden in July 2000 when there was a bad flood showed that 75 % of
the damages occurred in non-regulated rivers.
Emergency preparedness - the building of SHP can create a more diversified electricity
system that can provide production of electricity in smaller distribution systems when the
production system is disrupted. Furthermore, since the SHP is located close to the
consumers, transmission losses will be reduced.
Flexibility in the electrical power system – waterpower functions as an excellent base
and necessary prerequisite to exploit wind power since hydropower has extraordinary
regulation qualities.
Competing activities
Recreation and tourism – use of the watercourse for fishing, canoeing etc. Such
activities may, under certain circumstances, constitute an opposing interest.
Agriculture and wood industry – the impacts of SHP can be positive as well as
negative. The construction of a dam can put land under water but at the same time the
risk of temporary overflow may be reduced.
Potable water supply – hydropower does not consume water but issues of water supply
may have a serious impact on the construction of SHP. Studies may be required in order
22
to establish whether SHP construction can be performed without jeopardising a safe water
supply.
Transportation – in many cases, waterways are used to transport goods or persons.
Even if SHP often is less of a problem, competing interests may arise. Through planning it
might be possible to solve the problem by keeping waterways open by, for example, using
locks.
Opposing interests
Visual intrusion – in a landscape not affected by human activities a SHP will have an
impact. These effects can be minimised by planning and adapting dams, waterways and
buildings. However, in rural areas, the facilities should be adapted to surrounding
settlement etc.
Biological diversity – according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the
negative impact on fauna and flora is often mentioned as an obstacle to the development
of hydropower. It reports that the impact of hydropower can often be serious at a local
level although at a national level there are only few or no examples that hydropower alone
is responsible for the extermination of a species in Sweden [56, p 185]. There are reasons
to believe that this is the case also in other countries with the same natural geographic
conditions as Sweden. Biological diversity can sometimes benefit from hydropower; for
example, new wetlands can be created that can be used by birds for breeding or migration
purposes ([61], p. 90).
Fishery – A SHP can destroy fishways thus reducing or exterminating migrating fish. Fish
which have been exterminated can be replaced by other fish species. The conflicts can
decrease through minimum flow that keeps a certain flow in river or fish ways by passing
SHP [88]. A method to mitigate the effects of hydropower on migrating fish is the fish
guidance system described in the box at the end of § 3.6.
Noise – It can cause problems in rural areas and put certain demands on the construction
or design of SHP.
Table 3.3: Summary of the resistances to SHP development
EU Countries
Degree of gravity, (1=no impact, 5=severe impact)
1 2 3 4 5 Average
Visual impact 2 4 3 2 1 2.7
Fishery 1 0 1 4 7 4.2
Water regulation 1 3 6 2 1 2.9
Competition with other uses of 4 1 6 2 0 2.5
water, irrigation, recreation, …)
Extra EU Countries
Visual impact 4 2 3 3 0 2.4

Fishery 1 2 2 5 2 3.4
Water regulation 3 6 1 2 0 2.2
23
Competition with other uses of 5 5 0 2 0 1.9

water, irrigation, recreation, …)
3.4.4. Methods for solving conflicts

Conflicts can be divided into two separate categories:
a) conflicts that can be solved by additional communication between concerned
parties,
b) conflicts generally depending on more fundamental attitudes or opinions.
The first category of conflicts is usually simpler to solve. The second conflict category is
more complex and might sometimes be impossible to solve.
With negative attitudes towards increasing the development of hydropower, potential
further studies and discussions may not solve conflicts. However a planning and licensing
process can solve conflicts or make the emerging conflicts clearer by determining the
motive behind the conflicts. This can help the decision-maker understand the conflicts and
create a balance between different interests.
There are various ways to solve conflicts or make adjustments to satisfy different
interests. Apparently it is very important to design a project in such a way as to avoid
conflicts (location of power stations, dams, transmission lines etc). The introduction of
tunnels or tubes may reduce the need for damming in order to create the necessary head.
The avoidance of conflicts in early planning phase are also a cost effective means if it is
considered when a specific localisation is not settled.
When the specific site is selected, conflicts can be minimised through fish-passes,
minimum flow and environmental adaptation of the facility through weirs or dams. The IEA
project [62] contains a systematic compilation of such efforts.
Compensation can be used to manage more fundamental conflicts. Compensation means
to replace harmed interests with money or renewed natural or cultural values as a
substitute for those values which was spoiled by construction of a hydro power plant.
Other examples of compensation are fish release to replace fish affected or wiped out by
SHP.
If it proves difficult to solve or mitigate the consequences by avoiding, minimising or
compensating, the best solution could be to abandon the project or try other alternatives.
It is important to show the consequences by not implementing a project – “zero
alternative” or “doing nothing alternative”. It contains a description of what happens on the
site in the future when not building a SHP and how the electricity from the planned plant is
replaced.
It is important to mention that the choice of method to avoid, minimise or compensate
conflicts should be judged from case to case. A small run of the river SHP does not
require an extended planning and licensing process whereas a large project requires
more material for planning and licensing.
3.4.5. Balancing different interests
In the IEA project [59] attempts have been made to compare the environmental effects of
different electricity production alternatives. It is possible to gather information that in a
relevant way compare emission of carbon dioxide and acidification substances. The basic
problem when comparing different options is that fossil fuel combustion facilities bring
24
about small conflicts of land use but major conflicts when releasing emission of
greenhouse gases, acidification substances and particulate. Hydropower and Wind power,
however, might bring about greater local land use conflicts but no emission into the
atmosphere. How to conduct a balance between different options and interests is
sometimes a question of policy. It must be emphasised that the problem of greenhouse
gases and global warming seems to be connected to a more general environmental threat
rather than to local environmental problems.
In a Life-Cycle-Assessment (LCA) it is possible to compare products or activities during
the entire life cycle – from the “cradle to the grave”. LCA can be an important tool in
comparing different electricity producing facilities. Yet, as with other tools for comparisons,
the same problem still arises because there are no methods which can compile, compare
and analyse the effects of combustion with effects that emerge when building and running
hydropower and wind power plants. As mentioned in the IEA report, the reliability and
flexibility that hydropower provides for the electricity network is often forgotten [58].
When making a comparison, it is necessary to compile and weigh together quantitative
data like emissions in tonnes and kg as well as over-flooded land in km2 with qualitative
judgements like the impact on biodiversity etc. It is therefore extremely important for all
information to be put on the table in a structural planning and licensing process. The IEA-
project [60] has studied in greater detail the different country guidelines and legislation
regarding IEA regarding hydropower.
3.4.6. Considerations and proposals
Current technology as regards the use of hydropower has greatly improved over the
years. Environmental awareness has also increased. This has resulted in greater
consideration of different interests in connection with hydropower. Strong environmental
movements in various countries have also contributed to this development. The
fundamental global threat deriving from the greenhouse gases has also led to new or
improved technology for power production by facilities with low or no emission of
greenhouse gases. This matter has been put on the agenda of many countries and
international organisations.
At the same time the impact of SHP seems to create few conflicts compared to those
mega hydropower projects that are being developed in Asia and South America with
resettlement of a lot of people [57]. In the debate, however, seldom are any differences
made between those big projects and building of SHP but all hydropower is treated in the
same way.
The assessment of the situation regarding SHP in Europe shows that environmental
groups have created such obstacles and limitations that continued development of SHP in
Europe is almost blocked. An analysis of the situation has led to proposals for future work
in the following areas:
• National goals
• Planning and licensing process
• Simplification of the licensing process
• System for follow-up and evaluation etc.
• Implementation of demonstration projects
• Co-operation with other bodies
The first three areas involve recommendations with regard to planning and licence issuing
in different countries. The last three touch upon various efforts within the EU primarily
linked to a function for SHP that should be created within an existing or a new
organisation.
25
National goals
In order to exploit the undeveloped hydropower potential different countries must try to
define their ambitions or goals with regard to continued building of SHP. Experiences
show that it is important for countries to be able to define a measurable and quantitative
goal for continued development. Such a goal should take into consideration both the
proposal for the directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable sources in the
domestic electricity market as well as the specific condition in different countries.
Proposal 1: Within the framework of the proposed EU-directive for renewable
electricity production, all countries should formulate an objective to further utilise
SHP.
Planning and licensing process
One problem related to increased hydropower production is that in many countries
legislation is so complex that many companies do not even apply for licences. The weak
economy for SHP often implies that the costs of the licensing process are particularly
burdensome. There are two related aspects of this problem, namely, the high cost of
preparing an EIA and other documents required for the licensing process and time it takes
to obtain a general legal position on the project. Thus the licensing process required is
time consuming and the outcome is uncertain.
The EU has drawn up a special directive for EIA which concerns the development of
hydropower and other industrial activities. This directive should represent a way to settle
disputes and establish prerequisites for exploitation. At present a directive for regional EIA
studies has been presented to the EU parliament.
The following aspects of the planning and decision-making process are particularly
important for opposing interest groups and for the developer and decision-maker in order
to obtain an overall picture of the project and its consequences.
Timesaving and efficient – the interval between the time an application is submitted and
the time a decision is made should be as short as possible and, in any case, be subject to
a limit. A limited time for the licence issuing process should be of great interest to both the
applicant and competing or opposing interests.
At an early stage being able to assess the possibility of realising the project - costly
studies etc. will be limited or avoided if an early assessment shows that the prerequisites
for exploitation does not exist.
A comprehensive and transparent basis – systematically analyse and judge all
conceivable effects of the project and give all opposing groups and interested parties the
possibility of participating in the process.
Proposal 2: On the basis of the existing national legislation and applicable EU
directives regarding EIA, all countries should review their own legislation in
accordance with what is mentioned above.
Simplification of the licensing process
The possibility of simplifying the licensing process should be considered if it is obvious
beforehand that building SHP will not imply any basic objections or conflicts. The ways
and means of achieving such simplification will depend on the situation in each country.
In some countries it may be possible to select a simplified process for power plants with
an installed capacity below, say, 5 MW – in Norway the limit for a simplified process is 1
MW. In other countries it may be possible to introduce a simplified process if a detailed
plan exists for exploiting SHP in a complete water catchment area. Alternatively, a
26
simplified licensing process may be adopted for run of the river SHP since generally such
plants imply less conflicts than power plants which regulate the water flow.
A further possibility could be to use the comprehensive licensing process only for
particularly vulnerable water catchment areas. What is preferable must be judged from
one case to another. In the proposal for the directive, all countries shall review the
possibility of simplifying the licensing process for those subject to directive limitations.
Proposal 3: All countries should investigate the possibility of simplifying the
licensing process for SHP and report the result in connection with the follow-ups
and evaluations proposed in the following.
System for follow-up and evaluation etc.
At regular intervals, a general overview should be obtained of the rate with which
renewable energy (including SHP) replaces conventional energy sources in different
countries. Through the mechanisms described in the proposed EU-directive concerning
renewable electric energy production, such general reviews will be performed at regular
intervals. It is important that the questions mentioned in this study be subject to analysis
on the basis of the general reviews. This effort is needed to follow up the trends for
developing SHP in Europe. Drawing up common criteria and definitions could be an
important tool to promote the further development of SHP.
Proposal 4: Create a system to facilitate the exploitation of SHP linked to an
existing or new institution especially created for this purpose. Such a body could
be the European Small Hydro Association (ESHA).
Implementation of demonstration project
There is a great need to systematically demonstrate the construction of SHP in various
countries and situations. This need is not only related to the actual construction but also to
the planning and licensing process. Through such a demonstration project valuable
experience could be obtained.
Proposal 5: Implementing a number of SHP projects including planning, licensing,
execution and operation.
Co-operation with other bodies
A large number of activities regarding SHP are in progress in different countries and
international organisations. It can be noted that a special project is going on within the
framework of International Energy Agency in Paris to improve the use of hydropower in an
environmentally sound manner: Implementing Agreement for hydropower technologies
and program. The implementing agreement also includes SHP.
Proposal 6: Extend the international co-operation between EU and other institutions
aiming to promote development and utilisation of hydro power.
27
3. 5. A forecast for the Year 2015
In the questionnaires each country was asked to forecast the capacity and production at
the year 2015, in order to understand the future development of the sector as perceived
by the operators. This forecast can be substantially different from the potential wherever
the uncertainty and the barriers are perceived as strong. The figures received from EU-
countries show an annual SHP production of electricity of 51.5 TWh which is 11.5 TWh or
29 % more than the present annual production of SHP plants. For the non-EU member
states the situation is more difficult to analyse because of unclear legislation or because
important political decisions on SHP are “in the pipeline”. Our data give a forecast 2015 of
13.3 TWh (+ 29%) for the non EU countries surveyed.
In the EU White Paper on promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources [21] the
forecast for 2010 is estimated to be 55 TWh in the EU member countries. In 1995
production of SHP was 37 TWh, so the addition is estimated to be 18 TWh. According to
our questionnaires the EU member Countries have estimated the production to be 51.5
TWh in the year 2015, from 40 TWh in 1999, considerably less increase despite a five
year longer period.
This indicates that the member countries are more pessimistic than the Commission
regarding the growth of SHP. The lack of a joint position on RES promotion is probably
the reason for this pessimistic view.
Table 3.4: Forecast of SHP in 2015 according to BluEAGE questionnaires for European countries
Country MW GWh Country MW GWh

EU Extra EU
Austria 1 176 5 889 Iceland 43 220
Belgium 112 520 Norway 1 190 5 750
Denmark 10 30 Switzerland 787 3 400
Finland 325 1 340 Czech Republic 325 1 000
France 2 750 11 000 Estonia 10 50
Germany 1 700 7 000 Hungary 31 106
Greece 80 320 Latvia 56 152
Ireland 42 160 Lithuania 30 100
Italy 2 550 9 600 Montenegro - -
Luxembourg n.a. n.a. Poland 250 1 300
Netherlands* 19 95 Slovakia 60 350
Portugal 400 1 600 Slovenia 140 900
Spain 2 248 7 560 Turkey n.a. n.a.
Sweden 1 250 5 400
UK 200 1 050
Total 12 862 51 564 Total 2 922 13 328
* This figure is taken from [89]
28
3.6. SHP possibility to reduce environmental impact from other sources
Today the biggest environmental threat are emissions from the burning of fossil fuels,
accidents with oil transport and continuous and accidental poisoning of rivers, lakes and
seas.
The latter comes from various types of industries and the emissions into the water can be
rather low and allowed although the accumulated effect is considerable. Large emissions
of poison as occurred in Romania in 2000 is not so common but has both an immediate
large impact and a long-term one. The resulting damage can affect several countries.
The first two threats are connected to the use of fossil fuels and can only be decreased by
lower use of fossil fuels. Therefore, it is more important to start phasing out the use of
fossil fuels since this energy source is also limited; some experts claim another 60 years
only as regards oil. It is therefore important to start replacing these sources with others.
The natural replacement is renewable energy sources including hydropower. SHP has
had a long lasting development in Europe since it is the origin of most hydropower
development.
SHP, hydropower plants less then 10 MW according to EU-definitions, has had periods of
expansion as well as periods of contraction. Many SHPPs were built during the 1920-1960
period but received competition from large-scale power plants like big hydro, nuclear
power and fossil power.
When the time came to renovate the small hydro plants, the choice was often to shut them
down because the competition from the large, new plants was too hard. This started a
considerable reduction in the number of SHPPs, as shown in graph of the Swedish
situation from 1900 to 1995.
In Europe, the energy demand grew rapidly after World War Two and the production from
the small plants was normally replaced by fossil-fuels powered plants.
During the 1970´s the price of oil rose considerably and access for the western world was
limited. Most European countries found that they were much too dependent on oil and the
price of oil and they consequently acted in order to reduce this dependency by developing
their own energy sources.
This interest increased during the 1990´s because the negative impact of fossil fuel
burning on health and nature became obvious. Thus the interest in producing electricity
from sustainable energy sources free from harmful emissions grew much stronger at the
end of the 1990´s.
This has been demonstrated, among other things, by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the
1997 EU White Paper which promotes renewable energy sources.
The White Paper aims to double the use of energy from renewable energy sources over a
15- year period, from 1995 to 2010. The target includes a 50 percent increase in electricity
from SHP.
29
In 1995 the EU production from SHP is calculated at 37 TWh (37 000 000 MWh). This
production has eliminated the need to produce corresponding amount of electricity mainly
from fossil power. As hydropower has no emissions at all, the amount of emissions
eliminated every year by producing 37 TWh in SHP instead of fossil power is :
Carbon dioxide, CO2 : ............................................ 30 000 000 tons
Sulphur dioxide, SO2 .................................................. 100 000 tons
Nitrogen oxides, NOX: ................................................... 85 000 tons
Fly ash etc : ............................................................. 1 850 000 tons
The emission figures are collected from official statistics concerning coal power issued by
the Danish Energy Board.
Therefore, in 1995 SHP could save nature and society a considerable amount of harmful
emissions.
If the EU White Paper target for SHP is fulfilled (overshooting the forecast of our enquiry),
the production from SHP will be 55 TWh in the year 2010, an increase of 18 TWh in 15
years which means more than 1 TWh every year. During the first five years this rate of
growth has not been achieved.
If the target is fulfilled, the 18 extra TWh produced in SHP will save the environment the
following emissions every year:
Carbon dioxide, CO2 .............................................. 14 000 000 tons
Sulphur dioxide, SO2 .................................................... 47 000 tons
Nitrogen oxides, NOX: ................................................... 41 000 tons
Fly ash etc : ................................................................ 900 000 tons
30
The possibility of reaching the target of 55 TWh by 2010 and the subsequent decrease in
harmful emissions depends on the willingness of EU member countries to promote
electricity from renewable energy sources.
If the proposal of a directive that was issued by the Commission in May 2000 is approved
by the European Parliament and the council of Ministers in the nearest future and get a
strong profile, it will be possible to reach this target or come close.
Box 3.1: A wise example of use of the technology for environmental protection
A METHOD TO GUIDE MIGRATING FISH
Salmon type of fish migrate upstream to reach their spawning grounds. Both big salmon
and smolt salmon migrates downstream and the small smolt salmon should be prevented
to enter the turbine because of risk of injury. A deflection (diverting) system is therefore a
desirable device in rivers with smolt migration.
An interesting deflection system has been designed by Fish Guidance System in UK.
This system is not based on mechanical deflection (diversion) of smolt but a combined
sound-bubble barrier. In principle it consists of a perforated pipe connected to an air
compressor and a sound generator. The pipe is submerged upstream of the turbine intake
(intake channel) with an angle to the waterflow. At the most downstream located end of
the pipe (barrier) there is an opening in the weir leading to a fishladder or other device to
support the migration of the smolt.
This system has been used in several power plants since 1994 and has shown an
efficiency of generally 60 – 90 %. It has been installed in a number of European countries
since its introduction. The Fish Guidance system has also been used in other applications
like in water pumping stations, nuclear power stations and water treatment works.
An interesting installation has been done at the Beeston hydroelectric plant near
Nottingham in UK. The improvement of the water quality has made the small salmon
population to start to grow in number. In order to further enhance the growth of the salmon
population it was decided to install a diverting system for the migrating smolt at this 1.3
MW hydropower plant. This hydropower plant has been constructed at an existing weir
and the result regarding fish migration has been good so far.
Box 3.2: An example of environmentally sound design for a SHP project in a protected
area
Environmental constraints for a small hydro plant in a protected area
The reference plant

A reference case for the integration of new SHP power stations in the environment is the Rino hydroplant which is
situated in the Adamello Regional Park in the Italian Alps (Lombardy Region). The owner of the plant is a textile
local firm, Franzoni S.p.A. of Esine (BS).
The project obtained a financial support from the E.U. programme Thermie 1995, which supports the
implementation and diffusion of technical innovation in the renewable energies field.
The area of the Natural Park of Adamello is very rich of water. Among the factors of this richness, we have to
describe:
• the presence, on the highest elevation of the mountain (above 3000 m a. s. l.), of the most extended glacier of
2
the Italian Alps. This glacier, with an extension of more than 15 km and a thickness of more than 100 m in
certain points, represents a natural reserve of a great amount of water, and it is very important to determine the
climate of the area;
• the rainfall, that is abundant (more than 1500 mm/year as an average of the area) and well distributed over the
year, with a good presence of snow;
• the irrelevant urbanisation of the slopes, that are well vegetated and contribute to spread over the time the
31
restitution of rainfalls to collectors.
Such a situation is very favourable for the use of water for industrial and energetic purposes: today the area of the
park, rivers and streams are used for power generation, and there are twenty artificial reservoirs, mainly built on
the basis of pre-existent natural lakes.
In an area with such a situation new opportunities of uses of water for the production of electricity have to face the
following statements:
• the need for nature preservation in general, and for the preservation of the free-flowing water in particular;
• the possibility to use only small basins, due to the fact the water is already used.
The Adamello natural park authority put severe constraints for the construction of the plant:
• use of local materials (tonalitic rock) for the external parts of walls;
• diversion system at the level of the stream bed, with a system for fish passing;
• use of naturalistic engineering techniques for the river slope restoration in the area of the diversion;
• study of the position of the reservoir in order to minimise tree cutting and visual impact for people approaching
the area;
• use of the pre-existing roads for the first 1.7 km underground penstock, with restoration of the original condition
of the roads when relevant for landscape;
• minimisation of tree cutting for the last part of the penstock;
• use of raw material and soil from excavation for the restoration of degraded sites of the area;
• realisation of a picnic area in a wooded area near the reservoir.
More essential, in order to preserve the ecological quality of the area, was the determination of the DMV. This
parameter is very important and very difficult to determine, because it implies both ecological and economic
consequences. The river authority for the Po river valley, determined in that period a stochastic formula in order to
assess DMV on the streams of Italian alpine region. The park adopted that formula to determine DMV. The formula
is the following:
-1
DMV (l sec ) = 1.6 x P x A x Q x N x S
where:
P = rain factor (from 1 to 1.8)
A = height factor (temporarily equal to 1)
Q = environmental quality factor (from 1 to 1.3)
N = naturalist factor (temporarily equal to 1)
S = drainage area
The application of the formula, with a degree of uncertainty with respect to some of the correction factors, brought
to a DMV equal to 70 l/s.
This was one of the first practical applications of the formula, and showed that it is very difficult to use it for small
basins, where the result tend to zero regardless the correction factors.
Technical information about the hydroelectric plant

The plant uses the water of Remulo river in the catchment basin of Oglio river, right tributary of Po river. The
2 2 2
drainage area is 35 km , of which 18 km are utilised by another plant belonging to ENEL, while 17 km are at Rino
plant full disposal.
The plant characteristics are the following:
• Average altitude of the drainage area 1,830 m a. s. l.
• Geodetic head 446 m
• Maximum flow rate 780 l/s
• Average utilised flow rate 415 l/s
• Installed capacity 3,700 kVA
• Expected energy production 12 GWh/year
• Building start up 31 August 1995
• First kWh produced 24 October 1996
The plant uses the water for different purposes: first of all to produce energy, but also to irrigate and even for
tourist aims.
Intake structures
The intake is of the “trap” (sub-channel) type with the following characteristics:
• Altitude above the sea level 1,127 m
• Total width 15.20 m
• Catchment width 13.00 m
• Fish passage width 2.00 m
• Grid length 1.00 m
• Grid slope 17 °
•
3
River maximum flow rate 220 m /s
•
3
Maximum diverted flow rate 1.2 m /s
Accumulation basin
A small accumulation basin has been built to transfer part of daily production from the night hours (21.30 ÷ 6.30) to
32
the peak hours (6.30 ÷ 21.30) in order to maximise the valorisation of the sold electricity.
Power station
The power station building is very small and is composed of three parts: the generators hall, the control room and
the room for the operators during the maintenance periods. Moreover, close to the building the electric power
station with three transformers (6/15 kV) is located.
Electromechanical equipment
The plant is equipped with two Pelton turbines; the solution with only one group with two jets could have been
chosen, but we preferred two machines, completely independent, to make the plant more reliable.
Environmental constraints in the designing phase

The authorisation procedure started before the creation of the Adamello Park and was particularly difficult. It
needed long time (13 years !) to obtain the necessary authorisations and the designing had to be completely
revised in order to cope with the new laws.
The original project of 1983 had been made on the basis of a "classical" concept of the plant, i.e. intake, basin,
open channel, high pressure penstock, power station, in order to make the best of economic performance.
The new project was made thinking that it was necessary to make the plant compatible with the existing natural
and anthropic environment, believing that it was impossible and expensive too to solve the environmental problem
only in the erection phase.
Intake structures
The intake structures which were already in the first project of the "trap" type, were the best solution with the least
impact on the river morphology and so on its hydraulic and on its look. So the problem of visual impact could be
left to the phase erection.
An important variation to the project of 1983 was the creation of a "fish passage" to be used also to guarantee the
reserved flow. The type of this fish passage was decided together with the technical staff of Lombardy Region and
consists of small basins at different levels.
Basin
Unlike the intake structures, the visual impact of the basin was a relevant problem, because it is situated in an area
important from the touristic point of view as it is the starting point to climb Adamello mountains.
The place chosen seemed suitable to the aim: in fact the area near the intake structures was characterised by a
light slope, just like the river. That has allowed to reduce the earthwork in an area which is quite delicate from the
hydro-geological point of view.
The visible surfaces of the works had to be entirely covered with the local stone reminding the slopes of the river
which had been covered with stones after the ruinous flood which in 1987 had hit a great part of North Lombardy.
In any case the basin could not be a relevant modification of the background: as it could not be made invisible, it
was transformed into something pleasing and useful.
The tourist use of the basin has been improved by the construction of a recreation area nearby. For that reason a
small wood has been kept near the basin and in it 5 picnic sites have been placed with wood tables, stone barbecues,
fountains, a brook with little bridges, a car parking and toilettes block. People seem to greatly appreciate this area.
Low pressure penstock

The open supply channel was substituted by an underground penstock at low pressure.
As the designers were no more obliged to follow a precise altimetric line, they choose a plot that could avoid a fen
area of relevant environmental interest. The new plot follows the existing secondary road and so they did not have
to occupy non urbanised areas and they had to cut only a few trees. This fact obliged to make a part of the
penstock in reverse gradient and this of course complicate the mechanic aspect. In the lowest part of the reverse
gradient, the penstock has been equipped with discharge valve, while in the upper part of the penstock an
automatic vent valve had been placed.
High pressure penstock
During the designing phase the designers thought to put all the penstock underground. But apart the very high
costs, the result, on the environmental impact, was an unattractive one. The big earthwork required by the digging
in are not advisable on mountain slopes of great gradient, because of the instability of the embankment. Moreover
the erection phase has usually a great impact on the environment. For security reasons, because of the high
pressure, the penstock should be checkable as easy and as soon as possible. That's why it was decided to
maintain open air the part of the penstock at high pressure and to dig in the low pressure one.
To attenuate environmental impact they tried to reduce deforestation and to use materials and colours belonging to
the natural mountain landscape. The visual impact was lessened by using anchoring blocks “uncovered pipe"
shaped which are usually more expensive than the "covered pipe" ones. In these last ones the penstock is
completely wrapped in the concrete, while in the first ones the concrete structure stops 50 cm under the penstock
and can be usually put underground. To get the best results the upper parts of the blocks have been completely
covered with the local stone.
Another aspect that was taken into consideration during the designing phase was the possibility for men and wild
animals to cross the penstock so that it didn't become an obstacle line in the Park. For that reason some parts of
33
the penstock have been raised in order to make underpasses while, on the parts close to the ground, small wood
and stone bridges have been built.
Power station and tail race
The original project has been modified in the course of the works also on the basis of the indications of the
different institutions involved: Town Council, Mountain Council, Adamello Park, Lombardy Region.
The change which had the worst consequences on the production was the moving of the power station upriver
from Rino di Sonico village with a loss of about 60 m of head.
Environmental constraints in the erection phase

In the erection phase the designers took in great consideration the impact of the permanent works, but also the
temporary ones, which are usually neglected, have been particularly minded.
Intake structures
The original project has been modified and the river banks near the intake structures and the basin have been
rearranged with stones, among which soil and willow trees have been put.
Concrete has been used only for the parts exposed to the violence of water flow.
Low pressure penstock
When digging the penstock in, great care was devoted to the environmental restoration in the area. It has still an
aspect of rural mountain village, even if nowadays it lives mostly on an eco-compatible tourism. The penstock has
been placed only for small parts in private grounds and the track has followed, mostly, the small existing footpath.
For paths restoration, only local material and traditional technologies have been used, in particular the sustaining
walls have been made of dry stone.
High pressure penstock
The open air penstock was the work with the greatest impact because it couldn't be dug in without consequences
on the slope stability because of the gradient of the side it had to be placed on.
To reduce also the visual impact they tried to avoid big external works and also deforestation which depends on
the way the placement is made as well as on the maintenance needs.
Just to grant the access also in the future, some permanent facilities are used for the erection, like inclined plane
and cableway.
Recently also the helicopter is being used, but it requires the deforestation of a large strip close to the penstock.
The concrete piers have been made with a plan top and steel support over-structures, saddle shaped, which are
quicker to erect, less bulky and less visible.
Comments
A small hydro plant in a Park or, anyway in an area of great environmental value, implies having to cope with some
constraints which can surely be overcome by means of suitable technologies. These technologies can be not
exactly absolutely new, but they became innovative in that specific field. Actually, the problem is not a technical
one, but an economic one because the costs to protect the environment can nullify the project revenue.
Referring to Rino plant, it was calculated the higher costs between the first project, made when the Park was not
created yet, and the final one, after the creation of the Park.
It was not so easy to update the 1983 costs to 1996 ones, but the approximate results are the following.
• Intake structures
variation: fish passage; stone facing;
increase: 30 MLit.
• Basin
variation: stone facing;
increase: 120 MLit.
• Penstock
variation: open canal substitution; dug in blocks; stone facing;
increase: 170 MLit.
• Power station
variation: landslide consolidation; stone facing;
increase: 260 MLit.
• Environment restoration works
variation: recreation zone; exchange chamber with the irrigation pipeline, trees, dry stone walls, roads for the local
communities;
increase: 220 MLit.
• Designing
variation: environmental re-designing;
increase: 70 MLit.
• Total cost of the plant
7 900 MLit
• "Environmental" costs
34
970 MLit equal to 12% of total amount
The cost increase because of the environmental protection is not excessive, while the "environment" effect on the
plant performance is heavier.
In particular
• Production loss because of reserved flow:
1 250 000 kWh/year (about 10%) equal to about 200 MLit/year.
• Production decrease because of the head lowering
1,600,000 kWh/year equal to about 280 MLit.
The annual production loss implies a loss of income of 480 MLit/year, that capitalised on 30 years with a rate of
10% leads to 4,500 MLit, 1,900 MLit of which for the reserved flow and 2,600 MLit for accidental cause, related
only to the plant taken into consideration.
Vittorio Ducoli Nino Frosio

Director of “Parco Nazionale Technical Director of
delle Colline Casentinesi” Studio Frosio
Via Guido Brocchi, 7 Via P.F. Calvi, 9
52015 PRATOVECCHIO (AR) 25125 BRESCIA
ITALY ITALY
3.7. Summary
The small hydropower potential in the EU is considerable and bigger than the potential of
large hydropower in relative terms, but not in absolute.
Since around 1950, SHP had a negative development in some EU member countries,
many SHP plants have been shut down because of age and competition from new, larger
plants.
The potential from reinstallation of these plants and upgrading of existing, underdeveloped
SHP plants is calculated at an annual electricity production of approximately 4 500 GWh.
The potential in new plants, reduced when economic and environmental constraints have
been taken into account, is calculated at more than 19 000 GWh per year based on
answers to the questionnaire given by the EU member countries.
The possible remaining potential from SHP would be some 24 TWh annually, even if the
forecast at 2015 made by the experts interviewed is of an increase of 11.5 TWh respect to
the 40 TWh produced in 1999, remaining below the goal of 55 TWh in 2010 of the White
Paper of the EU Commission in 1997.
If the economic situation of producers improves and the environmental constraints
decrease, the total contribution from SHP in the EU could probably reach the 64 TWh of
the estimated potential.
The potential of the other surveyed European countries outside the EU is of 1.1 TWh from
upgrading and refurbishment and 15.5 TWh from new SHP plants.
The SHP relation to the environment is twofold.
Environmental groups opposing SHP point to negative local environmental impact of SHP.
Most of these arguments are, however, based more on theories than scientific research.
The same arguments are related to singular cases, where they are relevant, but they do
not cover SHP in general. The criticism in some cases seems to be an emotional reaction.
New technology and changed methods of operating SHP demonstrate that it is possible to
reduce environmental impact.
35
There are, however, many positive effects resulting from SHP operations, such as
replacing fossil power production, which saves harmful emissions, and a reduction in risks
of river flooding. In some cases SHP can also increase biological diversity.
The present SHP production in the EU, 40 TWh, replacing fossil production, saves nature
and society from many harmful emissions including greenhouse gases and sulphur
dioxide which have the most severe environmental impact. The SHP production reduces
greenhouse gases, CO2, annually with 32 000 000 tons and sulphur oxide annually with
105 000 tons.
Therefore, the positive impact of SHP on the environment seems to outweigh the
negative.
36
4. Analysis of the present technology, technical improvements and

cost reductions
4.1. Background
The BlueAGE Study aims to review the new technical improvements related to SHP. The
questionnaire sent out included a number of specific points to answer, if any new
technique had been used in construction and design and whether any progress had been
made as regards utilising low heads.
From the replies received it is apparent that no revolutionary technical advances have
been made during the last few years. In most cases, old, well-known techniques are
generally used as regards main components such as turbines and generators.
During the twentieth century, the exploitation of water power was characterised by
continuous technical development. Turbine efficiencies of some 95 to 96 per cent were
achieved. As regards generators, the efficiency figures reached 98 to 99 per cent. This
implies that only marginal improvements may be anticipated with respect to efficiency.
According to Hutton’s and Moody’s law the efficiency of smaller turbines is lower than that
of bigger ones and the efficiency figures have to be reduced due to scale effects. For mid
size turbines some 1,5 % could be a suitable reduction figure and for small turbines 3-4
%.
The peak efficiency point of the efficiency curve is seldom to be found at max capacity but
is for Francis turbines normally at 80 % of maximum flow capacity and for Kaplan turbines
at 60-70 %. The efficiency curve of the Kaplan and Pelton turbines is flat and nice but for
the Francis turbine, with simpler design, it is difficult to obtain a similar curve, unless at
high heads. At heads above 200 m the Francis curve is similar to the Kaplan curve.
Therefore, development work has, to a great extent, been aimed at improving the design
and construction of SHP in order to reduce the costs of manufacturing of essential parts
and also to simplify the operation and maintenance of SHP. Operation and monitoring
equipment has been simplified by using computer techniques.
In order to illustrate the current technical development the questionnaire replies have
been evaluated and manufacturers and other technical experts have also been contacted.
A technical seminar was held in Stockholm in June 2000 to review current and new
techniques; participants were mainly consultants and a leading manufacturer.
A review of current techniques will be illustrated below. Current development work that
should be of significance for hydropower in general, including SHP, is also highlighted.
4.2. General trends in water power plant designs
With respect to general trends, a common feature in the design of water power plants is
that environmental and safety issues have been given a more important role. This, in turn,
implies that they influence the design from the very beginning. When considering the
environment, in particular fishing, it is generally required that a certain amount of water be
discharged in water courses which would otherwise be left dry. The optimal design and
layout of a water power plant may therefore be influenced by such a demand. Other non-
technical parameters also require particular consideration at an early stage of the design
and planning work.
Safety issues with regard to operations as well as. dam safety play an increasingly
important role. Remote control and monitoring of water power plants have become
37
increasingly common and this, in turn, requires the safe functioning of the plants in all
respects. In addition to the demand regarding delivery safety for the power consumer, the
safety for third parties must always be provided for.
Usually SHP plants do not require big or high dams. However, some accidents related to
dams of moderate heights show that issues regarding dam layout and operations have to
be given high priority also as regards SHP.
Small SHP plants are often located close to, or in the vicinity of, existing dams. It is
therefore important that such dams be upgraded and refurbished to meet modern safety
demands. Remote control and monitoring imply that it will even be possible to carry out
water discharge automatically. Such facilities may require relatively high investments
which could be very burdensome for SHP plants. Attempts are increasingly being made to
design SHP with overflow dams with sufficient capacity to discharge the maximum turbine
design flow in all circumstances. When utilising an overflow dam for discharge, one is not
dependent on moving mechanical parts whose function, moreover, depends on a reliable
electrical power supply. However, the use of an overflow dam always requires obtaining
permission to raise the upper retention level. Such permission may sometimes be difficult
to obtain especially as regards an existing dam with an upper retention level established
long before.
4.3 Building structures
As regards the building structures, traditional materials and methods are completely
predominating. Because it is strong, heavy and easily moulded, concrete is still
unbeatable as the main material for the most common SHP structures. Obviously,
development work focuses on techniques using concrete with the aim of improving the
use of concrete with respect to strength and water tightness. However, no break-through
of any significance have been made or are expected to be made in the near future.
With respect to very small SHP plants, attempts have been made to pre-fabricate major
parts or even the entire power station but such endeavours have not been crowned with
much success. In order to influence the economy to any appreciable extent prefabrication
of a series of power stations with approximately the same layout is required. Such
conditions are rarely at hand. Furthermore, the location of dam and power stations, as
well as the head and flow is almost always unique implying that the layout and design has
to be specifically adapted to the location.
Tunnelling methods for full-face boring have been developed but have not resulted in any
noticeable economic gains. Full-face boring implies certain environmental advantages as
long tunnels can be excavated from one point only. The construction time may, in many
cases, be shortened by using this technique. However, the technique is seldom applicable
to SHP projects as other types of waterways are more economical when considering the
discharges normally related to SHP.
4.4 Mechanical equipment
4.4.1 Turbines
As for all water power plants, turbine equipment for SHP plants is dominated by turbines
of Kaplan or Francis types. In countries with topographical conditions implying high heads,
the Pelton turbines have their place. New types of turbines of any importance have not
been developed. Instead, technical development has been concentrated on the above-
mentioned three main types. By means of advanced computer techniques (Calculated
Fluid Dynamic, CFD) the flow stream lines upstream, through and downstream of the
turbine can now be calculated and illustrated with a great degree of certainty. However,
38
the efficiency improvements foreseen for the future are, in any case, relatively small as
the efficiencies for big turbines have already reached about 96 per cent.
Therefore, development now aims to use new materials and possibly utilise low heads. As
regards the material sector, tests are being made to introduce new composite materials
which, apart from having sufficient strength and durability can also compete with
traditional materials with respect to costs.
Low heads
Low heads are difficult to exploit economically as the physical dimension of the turbine
increases when the head is reduced. Therefore, heads below 2.5 to 3 m are rarely
exploited on the basis of the conventional turbine technique. There are developments
underway related to fast running propeller/semi Kaplan turbines with the aim to eliminate
the need for gear boxes between turbine and generator.
This development project is being carried out jointly by an Irish-Swedish group based at
Galway University. Prototypes are already in operation and the results are promising (so
far 8 units of the Swedish-Irish Polyturbine concept have been delivered). The technique,
continuously improved since the beginning 15 years ago, aims at increasing the rpm when
the head is low at the expense of efficiency. In this way, it will be possible to use standard
generators and a lower overall cost solution could be obtained.
The concept still represents new technique since during this period no similar design is
known and the concept low head and direct driven generator is unique so far. The aim has
been to construct small modules, duplicated depending on available flow.
Figure 4.1 shows a unit designed for a head of 2 m and a capacity of 32 kW. The water
way is manufactured from fibre glass that has been cast in concrete. Runner and stay
vanes are manufactured in aluminium bronze, the shaft in stainless steel.
A development project aiming to introduce modules for SHP plants with small heads is
also underway. The general aim of this project is to standardise components which result
in longer manufacturing series and thereby reduce costs.
A Danish-Swedish-German group is currently involved in another project which concerns
harnessing wave energy. The technique aims to utilize kinetic energy in waves. Applicable
wave heights are in the order of 1 to 5 m. The project is already at an advanced stage and
ready for full-scale testing. The general concept for the equipment being developed is
applicable to units with variable rpm and frequency conversion ( see 4.5.3 below) (EU
JOR3-CT98-7027).
There are also other wave power projects supported by EC for example in UK and
Portugal. The project Wave Dragon (EU: JOR3-CT98 -7027) is a multi-country project
lead by Denmark.
Although it is not specifically SHP, the results obtained in these projects can influence the
development in the sector low head/variable head of SHP.
39
4.4.2 Gear boxes

Gear boxes are not appreciated by hydropower owners because of noise and short life
time.
In the older days almost all plants were constructed with direct driven low speed, high cost
generators. Due to economical reasons the low speed generators have been replaced by
the concept high speed generator/gearbox, because this is quite cheaper. The difference
in efficiency is negligible as the high speed generator has approximately 1.5 % higher
efficiency which is as much as you loose in the gearbox.
For many SHP projects with heads lower than, say 10 m an increase of the turbine speed
is often necessary in order to use available standard generators.
Standard generators/motors are used in other industrial activities and are therefore
manufactured in large series meaning lower prices. Gear boxes are also manufactured for
other activities and can be obtained at reasonable prices. The gear boxes are almost
entirely of the toothed wheel gearing type, which often means a sound emission that is
difficult to accept in the power station as well as in the immediate surroundings.
Introduction of a gear box will result in an efficiency loss in the order of 1 to 1.5 per cent.
Moreover, gear boxes have a more limited service life compared to other equipment and
although there does not seem to be any development in this sphere of activity, important
work still needs to be done.
Two German wind power manufacturers have gone for direct driven generators. There is
no low cost-low speed generator on the market, but there is a promising development with
permanent magneto rotors that could be an answer to this requirement. The future will
show if the cost for this type of generator can be competitive to the present common
concept.
40
4.4.3 Headrace penstocks

Topographical conditions often lead to solutions implying that the headrace waterway will
be designed as a penstock. Penstocks are manufactured from various materials; steel and
wood and, to a certain extent, concrete are the more traditional materials. During the last
two decades penstocks manufactured from various types of plastic materials have also
been put on the market. Glass fibre reinforced plastic penstocks which, on the whole, are
just as strong as steel have been developed. The technique as well as manufacturing
methods are relatively well developed implying that further development is not expected in
a near future. Because of environmental considerations, the penstocks have been placed
underground whenever possible and this influences the choice of material, joint design,
etc.
4.4.4 Gates, trash racks
Gate structures for dams, intakes, etc have not undergone any major technical changes in
recent years. For low dams various types of rubber gates have been introduced with,
however, little impact on the market. Intake trash racks wholly or partially manufactured
from composite material, have also been tested but also with low market impact.
4.5 Electrical equipment
4.5.1 Generators
In SHP- power plants up to 2-3 MW, asynchronous generators are normally used if the
grid conditions do not require the plant to operate on its own grid. For SHP-plants in the
range of 3-10 MW, synchronous generators are normally used. The generator technique
is well developed and tested during the last century and there is not much more to gain
with regard to efficiency. Development projects therefore aim to use new materials and
existing materials in new ways.
In this connection, one of the developments is the “powerformer”, which is a new type of
generator developed in Sweden by ABB-ALSTOM. By adopting the powerformer-
technique the use of a step-up transformer is not required thus reducing the costs for both
equipment and building. This generator produces electric power with the same voltage as
the connected grid. The construction uses high-voltage cables in the stator winding. A
prototype unit was built at Porjus Power Plant in 1997-1998 and has been operating for
two years. The unit has an output of 11 MVA and delivers the power directly into the grid
at a voltage of 45 kV. The running speed is 600 rpm. The concept has been incorporated
by three other generators which have been put on the market. The first is a turbo-
generator in a combined heat and power plant in Eskilstuna Sweden. The unit output is 42
MVA and the voltage 136 kV. The speed is 3000 rpm. The running tests began in June
2000.
The second is a hydropower generator for Porsi Power Plant in northern Sweden. The unit
output is 75 MVA and the voltage 135 kV. The running speed is 125 rpm. The generator is
under construction on site and has been commissioned for March 2001.
The third commercial powerformer generator was contracted in May 2000 and will be
delivered to Höljebro Power Plant in the middle of Sweden. The output is 25 MVA and the
voltage is 78 kV.
The powerformer has some 0.5 % higher efficiency and the operation and maintenance
costs are lower than for a conventional generator and transformer installation. So far any
powerformer below 11 MVA has not been developed, but the technique is expected to be
used for generators down to 5 MVA.
41
For smaller generators the use of permanent magnet rotors is an interesting development
trend, as for the wind power industry [84].
4.5.2. Power and control equipment
The power equipment for SHP is normally of the standardised type and there are no
changes foreseen for the future. Almost all questionnaire replies point to the computer-
based control equipment as an important new technical development.
For SHP-plants one of the major costs will still be related to operation and maintenance.
Thus attempts will be made to avoid or reduce lengthy visits to the plants. This will be
achieved by using standard industrial components, standardised modular equipment and
cubicles, modern monitoring technology via the Internet, highly automated monitoring
devices, analysing the cause of an error and reporting via the Internet.
One interesting, cost-effective way to monitor plants is to install one or several so-called
web-cameras which will send frequent pictures to a home page on the Internet. Thus the
operator can check the situation wherever he is, and also via a microphone listen to
unusual or disturbing sounds. On the home page other figures can also be shown like
output, water levels, operating hours etc. Remote control via the same system is a
possible extension of the function.
4.5.3. Variable speed installations
Over the last decades the development of variable speed equipment for hydro power
plants has been carried out especially in Japan, the USA and China. According to a
report, presented at a Small Hydro conference in Portugal in May 2000, 14 power plants
equipped with variable speed turbines and generators are now in operation. The plants
have outputs in the range of 18,5-500 MW and are designed in groups of units. The
technique allows the turbine to operate at a speed, which gives the best revenue as
regards efficiency, cavitation etc. The variable speed creates an electric power with
variable frequency, which has to be converted to the desired fix frequency. The
conversion is performed by HVDC – technique or cyclo- converter. With regard to the
turbine the advantages are greater if the head varies. The advantages by variations of the
flow are limited. The variable speed makes a gearbox unnecessary and this is an
advantage as regards operation, maintenance and costs. Equipment for frequency
conversion is complicated and expensive and this makes it necessary to connect several
units to one converter station. That is not likely to be true for SHP as the locations
normally are spread out with relatively long distances between the plants. Certain
developments are now underway in this area.
As an example, reference [85] contains valuable information concerning this technique but
also points out that the technique has to be further developed especially as regards SHP.
The report also concludes that cost reductions for e.g. frequency converters are needed in
order to make this technique commercial. The development of permanent magnet
synchronous generators in combination with frequency converters is also mentioned in the
report. The technique will probably be of importance for SHP, but the reduce of costs for
this kind of equipment is essential.
Another example, in Sweden ABB is developing a technique for wind power with a
variable speed technique as well as the powerformer-technique. The concept called
“Windformer”, is mainly aimed at wind power but, in the future, might also be of
importance for small SHP. A recent study gives a more detailed view on this subject [85].
4.5.4. Summary
The SHP-technique is well developed. Developments now underway will concentrate on
new materials such as composite materials. For small heads development is are
42
concentrated on small units in multiple arrangements, using technique for variable speed
and frequency conversion.
The powerformer generator, which can already be used for small hydro in the range of 5-
10 MW, in the future, might also be adapted for use in smaller plants.
Depending on various technical developments, cost reductions are primarily related to
operational costs such as computerised systems which decrease the need for personnel
resources. Minor cost reductions can be related to other technical developments such as
higher efficiency, variable speed etc. because new developments normally depend on
long manufacturing series in order to give full economic benefit.
43
5. The European small hydropower manufacturing industry

This section deals with the European manufacturers, the development of water turbines in
Europe, the EU manufacturers’ position on the world market, their relations with the EU
and non-EU market and their prospects of expanding to new markets outside the EU.
5.1. Historical background and manufacturing
During the early development of European industry, between 1800 and 1850, the need for
power rapidly increased.
This need was mainly covered by coal-fired steam engines since the steam engine had
been invented by the Englishman James Watt.
Since France had more hydropower potential, it tried to cover its power needs by using
waterwheels extensively. But since waterwheels were slow runners and could not use
higher heads, the French decided to develop a faster and more efficient one.
Thus a prize competition was launched in the early 1820´s and in 1827 the competition
was won by Forneyron who designed the first water turbine.
In France the water turbine rapidly developed and by exploiting the new technology, the
country soon became a leading industrial nation.
The other European countries quickly adopted the new idea of using hydropower. The
Forneyron turbine was developed further into what became known as the Francis turbine.
Francis was an Englishman who lived most of his life in North America. The Francis
turbine is still one of the most commonly used turbines, known for its simplicity and
durability.
Other types of turbines invented in Europe are the cross-flow turbine invented by the
Hungarian Banki at the turn of the century and the double regulated propeller turbine
invented by the Austrian Kaplan between 1915 to 1920.
Today there are four main types of water turbines: Francis, cross-flow, propeller and the
Pelton type. The very common Kaplan and semi- Kaplan turbine is a further development
of the propeller turbine. The Pelton turbine was invented by the American Lester Pelton
and is the only type which was not invented by a European.
Thanks to these inventions and the rapid growth of the energy demand, Europe became
the world leader in the manufacture and development of water turbines which gradually
replaced the steam engine as the most important power source.
In Europe development was strongest in Great Britain, the central European countries and
Scandinavia. Having good natural resources for hydropower, Sweden came on track very
early and started commercial use of water turbines in the early 1840´s.
Since they first appeared, turbines manufactured in Europe have spread all over the world
and it is not wrong to state that it was Europe that gave light to the world.
5.1.1. Types of water turbines
As mentioned earlier, there are four main types of turbines regardless of size. Most were
invented more than one hundred years ago and have developed over a long period of
time.
At the beginning the efficiency was around 50 percent, today there are turbines with
efficiencies up to 95 percent.
44
The Francis turbine. This turbine is used at heads from 3 to 500 metres and is a
relatively simple, single-regulated (guide vanes only) turbine. The efficiency curve at
various flow situations is flat and good at higher heads but not so good at lower heads.
This type is still one of the most commonly manufactured turbines.
The Pelton turbine. This is an action- type turbine (all the others are reaction types) used
at higher heads from 75 to more than 1000 metres.
It is common in mountainous areas where you can find high heads. It is a sturdy turbine,
relatively simple to use, has high efficiency with a flat efficiency curve even at variations in
flow.
The cross-flow turbine. This is the simplest turbine type and the one that is cheapest to
manufacture. It has become popular in developing countries and is suitable for local
production in non-specialised factories.
The cross-flow turbine can be used at heads from 3 to 300 metres. The efficiency is lower
than that of other turbine types and what can be gained at the initial investment can be
lost during the production lifetime, especially in countries with high electricity prices.
The Kaplan and the propeller turbine. The propeller turbine is divided into three
categories:
• Fixed propeller turbine
• Semi-regulated propeller turbine
• Double-regulated propeller turbine

The propeller turbine is used at lower heads from 2 to 50 metres and has the advantage
of running at high revolutions even at low heads. This type of turbine has become popular,
very often as replacement for worn-out Francis turbines at low heads.
The fixed propeller turbine has no regulation of the guide vanes nor of the runner blades
(propeller blades) and is suited for steady flow situations where the turbine can run at or
close to its optimum efficiency point.
The semi-regulated propeller turbine normally regulates the runner (propeller) blade angle
but the guide vanes are fixed.
It can be used in conditions with limited water flow variation where it has similar efficiency
characteristics as the Francis turbine.
The double-regulated propeller turbine is often called the Kaplan turbine after its inventor
Viktor Kaplan from Austria. In 1918 Viktor Kaplan patented a double-regulated propeller
turbine with a vertical shaft. The Kaplan turbine was the starting point for many variations
of the double-regulated propeller turbine.
Both guide vanes and runner blades are adjustable according to flow variations and also
variations in head.
This type of turbine is the most advanced of all turbine types and is thus the most
expensive to manufacture and maintain. It has, however, become popular because of high
efficiency over a wide range of flow conditions and its ability to produce more energy than
other types at variations in flow. Because it is so complex, not all turbine companies
manufacture the double-regulated propeller turbine.
5.1.2. Market situation
The EU hydropower manufacturing industry is experiencing some problems because of
the present market situation.
45
The changes in the EU electricity market is a threat to the competence and leading
position of the EU hydropower industry.
Traditionally, the European industry has kept a leading position in the field of hydropower
technology and manufacturing. This has been the situation since hydropower started
developing 150 years ago. Very little non-European equipment has been installed in
European hydropower plants. The opposite has instead been the rule.
One important reason for European dominance has been the strong home market. By
developing technology and production methods in a fast- growing home market, European
manufacturers have, with few exceptions, kept a leading edge compared to manufacturers
from other parts of the world.
This underlines the importance of a strong and stable home market.
The liberalisation of the European electricity market (directive 96/92 EC, the single
electricity market of the EU) gradually began in early 1999 but some European countries
like the UK, Sweden and Norway, started to deregulate their markets many years before.
Norway has a strong influence on the Swedish and Finnish markets because of a co-
operation agreement that has existed for a long time.
Opening up the electricity market revealed an excessive power production capacity that
had built up during the electricity monopoly which in many case had lasted almost 100
years.
Due to this excessive power production, electricity prices have rapidly fallen and naturally
also buy-back rates to small hydropower.
As a consequence, there is little motivation to build new power plants and, when possible,
planned activities on refurbishing and modernisation are being postponed. Thus orders to
hydropower equipment manufacturers from the EU market are decreasing and resulting in
the need to decrease the number of employees since other markets have not
correspondingly increased.
A January 1998 report [12] estimated that in 1997 the European hydropower
manufacturing industry had employed 10.000 people (including sub contracting
companies) and that there were approximately 80 small-scale water turbine
manufacturers in the EU with a capacity to export equipment. As a comparison only 7
Danish companies operating in the wind power sector employ some 12.000 workers.
Since then more than 15 manufacturers have left the scene and very few have entered.
Over a period as brief as four years, 15 % of the small turbine manufacturers have shut
down water turbine manufacturing. This has been most significant in countries where
deregulation started early. UK and Ireland have lost 6 manufacturers and Sweden 3.
The only countries with a small increase in the number of manufacturers have been those
having a stable buy-back rate system like the feed-in type and long- sighted systems
which give the producers good economy and stability to motivate them to build new
plants, refurbish or reinstall into service older plants. Examples of such countries are
Germany and Spain.
France, with one of the biggest manufacturing capacities in Europe, has now only five
major manufacturers remaining. Their turnover is approximately 25 million EURO per year
and 80 % of their production is for the export market. The French market represents
presently only 10 to 20 installations per year.
If the decrease in manufacturing capacity continues at the same rate as has recently been
experienced, the dominant position of the European industry will be greatly endangered.
46
Contacts with some EU manufacturers have given similar responses as shown in 5.2
below.
Moreover, in order to face competition it is today common practice among the EU well
known manufacturing companies to use subcontractors to a much greater extent,
becoming almost only an assembly workshop. This reduces the risk in periods of scarcity
of orders. Nevertheless, giving out the work to small workshops lacking the knowledge of
turbine design and function makes it almost impossible to maintain the quality leadership
at the world level. Some operators experienced bad quality and mis-organised
relationships in recent supply2.
5.2. Trends of different markets
Home country market ........................ stagnation

Other EU countries ............................ stagnation
Outside EU markets........................... increase in some regions, stagnation in others
5.3. Competition
Competition between turbine manufacturers has increased despite the fact that some
manufacturers have left the scene. The reason for this is obviously that the market has
shrunk quicker than the manufacturing capacity.
Another reason is that some developers try to reduce initial costs in order to get
investments to correspond to the decreasing electricity prices. This means importing
simple and cheap equipment from non-EU manufacturers instead of identifying suitable
suppliers and project co-ordinators from the EU.
This has sometimes given the project-leaders many problems regarding quality,
compatibility, delays in delivery, efficiency and reliability. It has caused project delays,
interruptions in energy production and less energy than estimated so that the economic
fall-out has not been the expected one.
5.4. Manufacturing competence
Water turbine manufacturing is far from standardised mass-production. Most turbines are
individually designed and manufactured in order to optimise the energy that can be
extracted from the falling water. The variables are head, the water-flow to be used by the
turbine or turbines and the flow variations during the year.
There are usually one or two turbines in a SHPP, sometimes three or even more.
This means that since, in most cases, the turbines are individually designed and
manufactured, competent and skilled personnel are needed to match the manufacturing
requirements.
Special requirements must be fulfilled by the designers of water turbines. They need
comprehensive theoretical training combined with in-depth experience and knowledge of
the environment where the turbines operate.
2
Personal communication of leading operator in Italy, October 2000.
47
It is a well known fact that it takes a long time to become a good turbine designer and a
“mentor” is of utmost importance.
Without a skilled and experienced “mentor” the designer has to get his experience “the
hard way” and that will most probably ruin the manufacturing company. Both categories of
personnel are scarce and not easy to find, especially designers and systems engineers.
Manufacturers of other kinds of equipment related to hydropower do not have the same
problems because they are also connected to other markets that do not necessarily
experience the same problems as the hydropower market. Examples are manufacturers
of generators, gear boxes, electrical control equipment and hydraulic equipment. The
products of these manufacturers are normally standard products and therefore, unlike
water turbines, they can be mass-produced.
Because of the smaller economic margins of turbine companies, they often have to pay
salaries that are lower than in other industries like shipbuilding and aerospace. This
makes it more difficult to recruit skilled personnel.
5.5. Barriers and access to customers
5.5.1. Language and cultural barriers

European small turbine manufacturers do not report serious problems communicating with
customers or potential customers in Europe. English is the most common language and
can normally be used even outside the EU. Communicating in German and French is also
common.
The only area that creates language problems seems to be the language of contracts
since they are written in legal language that often needs to be interpreted by a specialist.
Even though there are no serious language problems, producers tend to prefer
purchasing equipment from a manufacturer who speaks the same language. This
tendency is stronger in the French- speaking world.
In the EU differences in business culture seem to be small and not a big problem.
However, the further you go from the EU the greater the differences except in areas like
North America, Australia and New Zealand.
5.5.2. Access to potential customers
Since the size of European market decreased the number of enquires were also expected
to drop. This is not the case because a lot of enquiries can be found on the Internet and
very often they are sent by e-mail directly to the manufacturers. When the European
market went down some other markets, like those in the Balkans, India or Southeast Asia
expanded.
The manufacturers report that even though the requests of quotations have increased
rather than decreased, the type of quotation seems to have changed during the last years.
The requests often indicate that certain conditions must be met for the project to be obtain
the go-ahead; for example, financing must be guaranteed and legal permission must be
obtained.
A lot of inquires are presented as feasibility studies.
This means that the probability of a project being implemented is smaller today than it was
in the past and that the manufacturers have to do a lot of work with no returns.
48
A manufacturer will have to carefully assess each inquiry. Is it a serious request with good
chances of being approved in a reasonable amount of time or not? To prepare a quotation
costs effort and money and a small manufacturer cannot afford unnecessary costs.
Today it is also more frequent for the enquiry to contain a request of financing by the
manufacturer.
5.6. Manufacturing development
Although European turbine manufacturers have small margins, they have still managed to
develop their manufacturing processes.
This development, however, has mainly taken place in other parts of the manufacturing
industry and the results obtained have been adopted by the turbine manufacturers.
Developments worth mentioning include using numerical machines, adopting new
advanced alloys and using self-lubricating materials. Not all new methods from other
industries can be adopted because of the typical single unit manufacturing of the turbine
industry.
Using self-lubricating materials in a water-turbine deletes the risk of oil-leakage to the
water and is thus considered an environmental improvement.
On the design side the use of CAD CAM systems have been very common and have led
to increased design capacity. The ongoing development of CFD-programs (CFD or
calculated fluid dynamics) has reduced the needs for expensive model testing in hydraulic
laboratories.
CFD is especially beneficial when upgrading existing designs.
New prospects related to the rapidly developing IT communication systems must also be
mentioned. This enables a designer to work far from the design office or to immediately
transfer his drawings from a design office to a HPP under construction.
5.7. Future markets for SHP manufacturers
As mentioned above, the market situation for SHP turbine manufacturers is in a critical
stage.
Environmental and legal obstacles together with falling European electricity prices, caused
by deregulation of the electricity market, have decreased the capital invested in new
schemes and in refurbishing existing plants.
In the short term the European market will not allow European manufacturers to keep up
their competence and capacity. A change in the European situation might occur if the
proposal of the EU commission to issue a directive promoting electricity from renewable
energy sources is approved by the European Parliament and if the commitments of the
Kyoto Protocol lead to the adoption of concrete measures by the member states.
The best markets for European SHP manufacturers can be divided into the following:
• the market for new equipment
• the market for service, renovation and modernisation.

In some cases the latter activity includes a considerable amount of new equipment.
49
5.8. Markets for new equipment
These are the markets where the demand for electricity is rapidly growing or where a
change of the electricity production system is necessary due to environmental reasons or
to fulfil the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
In the EU, Germany, Spain and Greece are examples of such countries. Their electricity
production system is still heavily based on fossil fuels but they are spurring the production
of electricity from renewable energy sources. Systems to guarantee buy-back rates have
been introduced in the form of feed-in systems that motivates investors to enter this
sector. In these countries the SHP electricity production is growing more rapidly than in
the other EU member countries. But there are still legal and environmental obstacles
preventing the SHP from expanding.
Outside the EU, the following areas are the most promising:
• The Baltic countries
• Poland
• The former Yugoslavia and Turkey
• Southeast Asia
• South America
• Some African countries

The limitations to European expansion in these areas include financing, lack of stable
framework and to finding a reliable local company to co-operate with.
5.9. Markets for service, refurbishing and modernisation
The best market for the EU manufacturers concerning work on existing plants is still the
EU home market.
A high percentage of this kind of work consists of human labour and work at the customer
plant. Thus travel costs and living expenses represent a substantial part of the total cost
and such costs rise according to the distance.
Therefore a manufacturer or service and repair industry has a considerable advantage
working in a home-market, especially in his own country.
This kind of work will most probably increase in the EU where today there are more than
13 000 SHP plants. Most are over 40 years old and a considerable number are in need of
refurbishing and modernisation.
Currently producers are reluctant to enter this kind of work because of low buy-back rates
and uncertainty of future regulations. Therefore, the decision to go ahead with refurbishing
is often postponed. This tendency is more evident in countries such as the UK Norway
and Sweden which were the first to deregulate the electricity market.
The low activity of EU producers may cause further turbine companies to leave the scene
and when they can no longer put off renovating and modernising their plant there will be
very little remaining capacity in the industry and many plants might be forced to shut
down.
This negative development is a threat to SHP production and should be given thorough
consideration.
50
Because of the reasons described above, non-EU manufacturers find it difficult to

compete with the European manufacturers on the EU market of refurbishing and
modernisation of SHP.
5.10. Summary
The invention of the water turbine in France in 1827 led to the early development of
modern hydropower in Europe. Subsequently, the European SHP equipment
manufacturers became the market leaders. They successfully, developed hydro
technology and became the main exporters of equipment in the world. Indeed, can be
rightfully said that Europe gave light to the world.
Although EU equipment manufacturers still hold a leading position in the world, this
position is being threatened since member countries are not very motivated to invest in
new SHP and keep up existing SHPP.
This situation is caused by a decreasing economy for energy producers in the deregulated
electricity market and the increasing obstacles created by environmental and legal
constraints. The margins for producers are still good in a few countries like Germany and
Spain and consequently the markets in these countries are better.
The non-EU market is still promising and offers good prospects for EU manufacturers but
financing the hydro-projects is a serious problem as well as differences in business
culture.
Small companies are finding it difficult to deal with such problems.
The world is strongly in favour of electricity from renewable energy sources and the small
scale format is well suited and not just for developing countries. But there still seem to be
too many obstacles for this to happen and for European manufacturers to show their
competitiveness.
The European SHP manufacturers seem to be in a negative spiral and many are choosing
to leave the SHP market.
If this negative spiral cannot be stopped, the EU might lose its dominant industrial position
as well as the competence it built up over the years. Such competence is hard to recover
because of the special technology related to hydro power.
The producers might no longer have a competent industry its investments and
refurbishing should start up again.
The turbine companies, other SHP equipment manufacturers and consulting companies
will only stay in business as long as the market gives them enough work.
It would be wise for European manufacturers to make arrangements with export offices
and export credit institutions so they can successfully penetrate the non-EU market.
It is also advisable to initiate a study on ways to strengthen the manufacturers in the short
term so that they will be well prepared when both the EU and non-EU markets will
become stronger.
51
6. The development of SHP plants : regulations and procedures
6.1. Developing a SHP plant: principal legal conditions
The principal legal condition for building a new SHP plant or for recovering an old,
abandoned are mainly the permits and licenses that the power producer has to get from
the administrative bodies : the permits are almost similar in all the countries analysed:
water use or abstraction, hydropower generation right, building permit and compliance of
all the bodies involved in the process. Moreover, it should be pointed out that some
lobbies can influence the licensing procedure and introduce new parts for the SHPP:
usually fish-passes to comply with the fishing lobby and a bigger RMF for both fishermen
and environmentalists.
At the very first step of the process there is the request for the water licence that allows
the producer to exploit a natural resource that is a property of the state (of all the
community). Some countries have different kinds of permits (irrigation, industrial,
pisciculture, hydro power uses); others, in addition to the simple use of the water, require
a permit just for power production, usually issued by a different administrative body
(Ministry of energy or industry).
Almost all of the countries answered the questionnaire concerning the licensing process
indicated that the state is the owner of the water (public resource principle) and the
permits for water abstract are issued by regional or local administrations.
However, in three cases, northern European countries -Iceland, Sweden and Norway-
there is no public ownership of water resource: it is sufficient to own more than 50 % of
the water that will be used: this means that the SHP producer should have rights over the
land where the river flows or, at the very least, be able to get the river water he needs for
the SHP plant.
When a SHP producer does not own more than half of the land where the river flows, it
means he has no rights over the water,. He can pay for these rights or offer some benefits
to the owner of the other property. For instance, if a producer owns only half of a river, (a
river usually crosses through a piece of property owned by different people) he can buy
part of the water rights from the neighbour by paying a suitable price or by offering him
some concessions like part of the hydro power produced at a lower price.
The license is usually issued by a centralised (national level) department of the Ministry of
Industry, the Ministry of Energy, or the Environmental Ministry. In some cases, a specific
administrative body for water management has been created. In other cases, it is the local
governor or the regional administration
Consideration should be given to the principle of the public ownership of water. First
introduced in the legislation of the late ninth century, this principle still provides the basis
for the water fees and regulations in almost all the countries: water, like other
environmental goods, is owned by the whole community and by the state that supervises
it.
Although this principle is basically reasonable and generally accepted, there is some
evidence that the entire community that uses the water can oppose the exploitation of the
resource for resource private purposes: this causes much conflict regarding the use of the
water, not only for water power purposes, that can impede the licensing process. Even if a
license is issued, sometimes the water can not be used because of the opposition of
different parties.
52
The other legal conditions that are usually related to a SHP plant are environmental
protection and energy use/production laws issued in order to promote the sustainable use
of RES. Although specific national legislation for water management is usually quite old,
regional administrative bodies have enacted different regulations in order to administer
license requests and permits.
At a national level, we usually found a general framework legislation for water abstraction
and power production with different regional laws added on concerning the different
permits needed in different cases:. For instance, there are two kinds of permits. Those
which allow building: the central power station, the civil works for water abstraction inside
the river, the line to connect the central to the national grid and those which allow the
power producer to set up the plant without any environmental constraints: forestry permits
to cut down trees, fishery rights, permits to build in protected areas.
All this usually slows down the licensing process that in some countries has become an
obstacle to new hydro power plants: in Italy, Spain, Portugal the number of permits and
the interminable bureaucratic procedures can delay a licensing process for more than 3
years. Such a delay can put many potential producers out of the SHP business since they
do not have the necessary resources to wait for the licence. In many countries the
legislation concerning energy issues is changing as result of the EU 96/92 directive, and
on the new RES directive and the pressure of RES operators so that also the national
legislation for SHP and in general all RES is now going to be modified or updated.
A good way to deal with the problem of disseminating the current laws and regulations
regarding SHP would be to set up a special office in the regional or local administrations.
However, in order to speed up the licensing process and the collecting of all licensing
permits from all parties, it would be useful to set up a special window, a sort of “leading
office” like the one in Switzerland, that is in charge of collecting all the local sublicenses
and deliver them to the owner so that he could build the new plant while waiting for the
water license (this is quite a normal procedure in all the countries where the licensing
process is very long when submitted approval of environmental assessment of the
project).
The tasks assigned to the leading office would increase the efficiency of the releasing
system so that the producer would have fewer parties to contact, thus speeding up the
legal operations.
6.2 The use of water
6.2.1. The costs of using water: water charges, concession fees

As the interest in the sustainability of environmental resources management began to
increase in the early 1960s, water increasingly came to be considered as a public good, or
a merit good, the use of which should be carefully regulated and monitored.
During the last twenty years both the literature debate and – with some time delay – the
political practice have gradually introduced the principle that the use of water should be
subject to a charge reflecting its opportunity cost for society as a whole. This change of
attitude can not only be explained by the growing interest in environmental resources and
sustainability, but also by the increasing scarcity of water. Even in those countries where
water is relatively abundant in terms of physical quantities, in fact, the rising water
demand for various uses has brought about an economic scarcity of this resource, that
has often lead to conflicts between different current or potential users.
Among the various kinds of water utilisation, as is also shown by the questionnaire results,
the group of “recreational and environmental uses” contribute most to the conflicts over
hydropower generation: in particular, fishing and protecting the local ecosystem – through
53
the implementation of a minimum reserved flow of water – are the most problematic uses
which currently hinder the further development of SHP generation.
However, although it is now more or less recognised – at least in theory – that there are
good grounds for imposing charges for water use, there are some reasons why the use of
water by SHP may be exempt from this principle.
First of all, it has to be emphasised that SHP use is normally “non-consumptive”, i.e. the
water used to produce electricity by turbines is not dissipated, but it is almost entirely
(apart from possible minor losses) sent back to the river. This considerably reduces the
opportunity cost of this kind of water use.
SHP use of water can only be consumptive as concerns those plants that are placed
rather far from the river, or plants that do not put in the same river the water abstracted
leaving the river body with only the RMF. This represents however a very small minority of
the existing and the potential future plants mainly placed in the mountain regions where a
lot of the potential has already been exploited.
All in all, the main opportunity cost linked to SHP use of water – and the main possible
reason for a water charge – is represented by the potential damage of SHP plants to fish
and local ecosystems. However, this problem is usually strictly regulated by the adoption
of reserved minimum flows that guarantee life in water streams, and by the obligation to
build fish-passes that considerably decrease the risk of killing these fish when producing
electricity.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that charging for the use of water in SHP plants may
destroy the (already weak, in many cases) economic appeal SHP has for investors. In
fact, many of the benefits linked to SHP development (no atmospheric emissions,
contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions, etc.) are currently not recognised in the
SHP electricity price, and therefore not considered in business planning. Charging SHP
plants for the use of water can be sound in environmental terms only if other potential
sources of environmental costs are also subject to charges and taxes.
For all these reasons, very few countries impose charges on water uses for SHP
production (by the local or the national administration or both). In the UK, small charges
can be put on water use only in case of water abstraction – which has been identified as a
case where SHP use of water may, in fact, have a relevant opportunity cost. In Germany
there are charges for the use of water for Hydropower generation, but SHP plants (with
capacity lower than 5 MW) are exempt. There are also some costs imposed in Belgium,
but these are a kind of contribution for the maintenance of watercourses (mostly canals
because they have river flow SHP plants) all y users of water have to pay – including SHP
plants. There are only two possible exceptions to this general rule of “not charging” for
SHP water use. A fee for the use of water taken from reservoirs is imposed in Hungary. In
Poland there is a tax on “water lifting” for any HP plant that corresponds approximately to
10-20% of revenues from the sale of electricity. This has been pointed out as one of the
most serious obstacles to further development of SHP. However, the costs that a SHPP
has to pay, for instance, to use the neighbour’s water can be interpreted as a sort of fee
agreed upon by the two parties.
In some countries (e.g. Italy, Norway, Czech Republic) there are annual costs paid to
some public authorities for the use of water in the form of administrative concessions.
These costs are usually quite low, and do not represent an economic obstacle to SHP
exploitation. The obstacle concerning administrative concessions is represented by the
time required to obtain them rather than by the direct costs paid.
54
Table 6.1: Costs for the use of water and length of administrative procedures
Country Fees for the use Length of Time to get Time required
of water authoritative license to start civil
procedures works
Austria EU no undetermined not given not given
Belgium EU yes negotiated not given not given
Denmark EU n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
UK EU no charges under 5 MW; 12 weeks for water 12 weeks if there minimum 12 weeks
small charges for the issue abstraction, are no objections on
and the advertising from 5 planning consent. the water
to 10 MW Scotland: P>1 MW abstraction
permission of the
Scottish secretary of
state
Finland EU n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
France EU
Germany EU yes n.a. not given not given
Greece EU fees for water reserve n. a. 10-12 months n. a.
usage and HP supplying
Ireland EU no n. a. n. a. 2-12 months;
principle of positive
silence
Italy EU yes, yearly fee to the local usually more than one year at least three years
authority and the state one - two years
Luxembourg EU
Netherlands EU
Portugal EU n. a. n. a. 6 years possibility to get the
permission to build
before water
concession
Spain EU none 4-6 years
Sweden EU n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
Switzerland WE n. a. basic time (months): 2-4 months 1-2 months
2-4 license; 1-8
planning; 1-2
realisation permits
(total 4-14). Could
be more if different
constraints exist.
Norway WE n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
Iceland WE no n. a. n. a. n. a.
Eastern Europe
Bulgaria EE
Czech Republic EE only administrative fees n. a. 14-30 days ?
Estonia EE
Hungary EE water reserve usage; HP 10-12 months 10-12 months n. a.
supply (fees determined by minimum
the parliament)
Latvia EE no fees for water use n. a. 1 month n. a.
Lithuania EE 9 € for plant <50 kW; 125 € n. a. 6-12 months n. a.
for plant <1 MW
Poland EE charges for water lifting n. a. 6-36 months n. a.
benefit: 10 - 20 % of
revenue from the electricity
sale
Romania EE
Slovakia EE
Slovenia EE only administrative fees n. a. 6 months (max time n. a.
allowed to the
Ministry of
Environment to
answer)
55
6.2.2. Competing uses of water: fishing, agricultural use, municipal uses,

recreational uses
Competition with other uses of water is not the principal obstacle to the development of
SHP even if in some countries it has became more serious than before. This is generally
due to the increasing lack of natural resources increasing in many part of Europe. In the
Alps, for instance, in addition to the traditional uses of the water (drinking water, irrigation,
power production) there are other kinds of needs to respect like tourism (in ski resorts,
increased amounts of water are used daily to make artificial snow ) and fishing (that is a
common “recreational” use of the water resource).
Western Europe SHP constraints

other resistance visual impact
20% 16%
competition
14% fishing
30%
water regulation
20%
Figure 6-1 – Constraints of building a SHPP in Western European countries.
In order to respect these constraints there are new limits to the exploitation of hydropower,
for instance, the basin level must not have huge variations in the level, or the reserve
minimum flow must be calculated with a higher flow rate in order to comply with the
regulation set by the local administrative body (often enforced, in this way, by local
environmental protests or by a lobby like that of the fishermen which is extremely
powerful).
Summing up the results of the enquiry, the most important problem that has to be taken
into account is the fishery: ladder fish passes are not the only way to preserve the river
life, but there are also sonar devices as well as optical ones that can keep the fish away
from the abstraction pipe.
The competition with other ways of using water has been pointed out. A dangerous level
has been reached only in Slovakia where there are some neglected ownership related to
real estate: in the past years, for instance, there have been some unauthorised
operations.
56
6.3. SHP exploitation
6.3.1. Process to obtain new licenses

There are basically two licences that a SHP producer must have: water permit and
building permit. The water permit gives both the right to take water from a river and return
the same water to the river. The building permit is a word that should state the terms and
conditions for building all the civil works and may also the other permits.
The water abstraction permit is also drawn up like a permit for generating HP or, in the
northern countries, like a land ownership certificate. Water has been regarded as a
primary resource: only in few cases must fees be paid in order to use it; in any case, the
price for the water is low and does not represent a constraint for new operators. However,
in northern European countries, the relative abundance of water has led to a completely
different situation where a resource is not owned by the state but by the private individual
who owns the land. If a river flows through a property belonging to two different persons,
each owns half of the river property. Up to now, this has meant that if a land owner wants
to set up a SHP plant he has to buy part of the right to have access to the water resource
from his neighbour. For instance, this right can be paid for with part of the electricity
produced or by other benefits agreed upon by the two parties like a different form of river
water management.
However, in almost all countries a “water right” or a kind of permit to exploit water to
generate power or for other uses, is normally requested in order to be allowed to build a
new SHP plant. In some countries, water ownership is an inherited right given to a land
owner or to an independent power producer. Today the usual period of concession ranges
between 15 and 80 years decreasing in these years.
In some of the countries analysed obtaining a licence is a time-consuming and frustrating
process. For this reason it might be useful to have a sort of European guideline for SHP
concession requests and authorisation processes. This would be extremely appropriate in
view of a future European market and would allow operators to work in the same
conditions and eliminate the huge differences which now exist between EU countries.
6.3.2. Authorisations procedures including EIA
The EIA, intended as a complete feasibility study which takes into account all the
environmental constraints and opportunities of generating electricity, is never compulsory,
but in almost all countries a EIA has to be done at the beginning of the project, usually at
a feasibility study level.
In this connection, the environmental analysis required and not an EIA, is often just a
statement of environmental issues formally issued by the regional administrative body:
only later can the planning authority request a complete environmental impact analysis.
This fact can be regarded as a suitable way of proceeding since a complete
environmental study is quite an expensive and time-consuming process since all the
information regarding biology and river flow data must be collected.
Although the EIA can hinder the SHP development if it is used to stop and prevent
anything regarded as damaging to the environment, but it can also be used to get all the
building opportunities to divers water more in conformity with the environment.
Possibly the way to use an EIA would be to set few indicators at the very first step of the
authorisation process just for stopping and prevention really environmental damaging
projects, then to set a deep and well conduct EIA after the compliance of the
administrative body in order to set the due action to reduce the impacts found.
57
6.3.3. Duration of a licence

The license for water abstraction or water power production is usually issued for a period
of 10 years or more, basically in order to allow the owners to have time and plan an
investment with an acceptable rate of return. This applies to almost all countries where the
period ranges from 10 (Greece, Poland) to 80 (Switzerland, but in the last years it has
been set at around 30 years) and also permanently with the obligation to use the turbine.
The data collected show that the number of years differs from one country to another
principally due to the history and the resolution adopted by the Parliament of each
country.
At the moment, it seems really difficult to justify a period of more than 30 years. Moreover,
a permanent license would be almost impossible to issue considering the relative scarcity
of water and the problems regarding competition that might, in the near future make it
necessary to employ the permits of the producer to a different use (drinking water or
industrial for instance).
Table 6.2: Age categories of SHP plant for the countries with consistent data available
SHP Plants Age of plants (years)
Country MW N. 0-20 20-40 40-60 >60
Austria 848 1110 440 120 170 380
Belgium 95 39 16 10 2 11
Finland 320 225 41 63 77 45
Greece 48 17 11 0 1 5
Ireland 32 44 22 0 2 20
Luxembourg 39 29 20 6 3 0
Portugal 280 60 60 0 0 0
Spain 1 548 1056 987 27 24 18
Sweden 1 050 1615 100 15 500 1 000
UK 160 126 112 14 0 0
Iceland 43 20 1 5 12 2
Switzerland 757 1109 406 303 200 200
Czech Republic 250 1136 227 114 682 114
Hungary 9 35 0 0 23 12
Lithuania 9 29 6 7 15 1
Poland 127 472 364 9 9 90
Slovakia 31 180 90 72 13 5
Turkey 138 67 10 50 7 0
The renewal process is often a normal procedure in all those countries where the duration
of the license is quite short. Moreover, this renewal can be issued depending on the
environmental compliance of plant conditions. The normal procedure is just an
administrative process established to periodically monitor the SHP plant operations and
the make sure the conditions of the licence are respected.
It would be useful to set a more appropriate renewal process for all those plants that were
licensed more than 40 years ago, particularly with reference to the RMF conditions and
the efficiency of the plant in relation to its use.
58
Table 6.3: Presence of specific requirements for the construction of a SHP plant in European
countries (Our elaboration on questionnaires data)
Country water use/right site use/right authorisation other
for civil
works
Austria EU yes n. a.
Belgium EU yes yes yes n. a.
Denmark EU n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
UK EU water abstraction planning permission n. a. tech. requirements to
licence before building protect the grid
Finland EU no, rights on yes, according to the n. a. n. a.
waterpower, site use no list of banned
water use! waterways from law
France EU n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
Germany EU yes n. a. yes n. a.
Greece EU yes yes yes n. a.
Ireland EU no n. a. yes for the n. a.
generating
station
Italy EU yes yes yes, five permits about 58 different
required before permits from different
getting the authorities depending
authorisation on the local site
Luxembourg EU
Netherlands EU
Portugal EU yes no yes grid connection permit,
authorisation to install
the SHPP
Spain EU yes yes
Sweden EU no yes: the ISHPP must n. a. n. a.
have more than 50%
of the rights to the
water
Switzerland WE waterpower owner is cantons or the local river construction fishery right, forest
the Canton body body administrator, law (canton) is right, water power
river construction law the second part license. A LEADING
of the OFFICE collects all
authorisation the sub-licenses and
procedure delivering them to the
owner of the plant so
that he can build the
plant.
Norway WE no yes: the ISHPP must yes: it lasts for 5 n. a.
have more than 50% years
of the rights on the
water
Iceland WE no yes n. a. n. a.
Eastern Europe
Bulgaria EE
Czech Republic EE yes: issued by the licence for SHP n. a. n. a.
District Environmental exploitation issued by
Departments the Ministry of Industry
Hungary EE yes yes yes 0
Latvia EE no yes, waterpower yes fishery right, permits of
license if the capacity building in protected
is >1 MW zones
Lithuania EE yes yes yes n. a.
Montenegro EE yes yes n.a.
Poland EE n. a. n. a. yes water impact
assessment (not EIA)
Slovenia EE water possession is yes yes n. a.
public
59
6.3.4. Refurbishment of a SHP plant

The number of SHP plants that still have to be refurbished is particularly high in all those
countries that have exploited SHP since the beginning of the century: there are many
turbines designed years ago that can not operate and produce an economically
sustainable result and have been abandoned or plants where the maintenance of all the
galleries and canals is too expensive to justify the final cost of the energy produced.
There are substantial variations in each group of countries (and in particular within the EU
member countries) : in the UK, Greece, Spain and Portugal, for instance, most of the SHP
plants are less than 20 years old; 70% of the SHPP in Iceland are over 40 years old. This
situation is closely connected with the water regulation and the monopolistic energy policy
in these countries where a single national power producer has always preferred non-
renewable methods of generating energy rather than setting up SHP or other RES plants.
The national electricity producer in Greece has, by its nature, generally not been
interested in building SHP plants with a potential under 2 MW of installed capacity. In
Spain and Portugal SHP development has been hindered by the lengthy licensing process
mainly due to the opposition of the national Power Producer to the development of
independent producers: the extremely long licensing process has been a regulatory
barrier.
By now a review of the working conditions, a feasibility study of the work needed to
upgrade and refurbish the shut down plants would be help increase the quantity of SHP
installed in all those cases where these conditions are economically or environmentally
sustainable with no major modifications; we must consider small plants that might have a
good impact on river protection and regulating flow.
6.4. Non technical barriers
Even if in some cases the high cost of SHP electricity can hinder the development of new
schemes, what curbs the growth of small hydro plants most are the constraints at the
administrative and financial level. Almost all the European countries find it difficult to
finance new schemes and have to put up with a long and uncertain number of
authorisations.
The main obstacles to SHP development identified at the EU level are the following:
• Authorisation procedures;
• Regulation site specification;
• Financing;
• Grid connection;
• Electricity sale;
• Regulatory framework uncertainty;
• Lack of correct information;
• Recruitment and education.

The site specification of the regulation, a feature of the countries that give local
administrations the authority over these plants, is an hidden obstacle to using elsewhere
the experience gained in one place and thus reduce possible cost reductions.
60
Whenever the grid operator wants to keep power generation under control the access to
the grid is difficult and the chance to invest dramatically reduced. The access to the grid is
still used in some cases as a control measure by the former monopolist, even if the option
to sell electricity directly to own customers is vital for some SHP schemes.
The stability of the regulatory approach is a key factor for SHP investments that usually
have long-term repayment schemes: without fixed contractual terms, very rarely can the
plant be financed.
There is a lack of correct information whenever the local administrators refuse to authorise
good projects out of ignorance of the technology and its environmental impact. Making
local decision makers more familiar with SHP would surely help exploit the remaining
potential. Moreover, a better way to assess the feasibility of a project would help both the
administrator and the producer: clear regulations will make it easier to present the request
to the authorities and the probability of being accepted becomes higher.
However, it would be useful to have a new organised and accurate environmental and
energy statistics database so that the independent producer does not have to look for all
the construction data needed to speed up operation, thus making it possible to build a less
costly SHP plant with lower environmental impact.
In some eastern European countries (i.e. Latvia) there are environmental constraints due
to the polluted water that can be stored in the reservoir of a SHP. Moreover, during the
warm season there are eutrophication problems that can also affect technical equipment.
In these countries the demand for water in order to dilute the industrial waste water in the
rivers seems to be a constraint: this aspect is closely connected to the RMF regulation.
Another problem is the public acceptance of SHP plants due to the fact that although they
have less environmental and social impact, they continue to modify the river flow and the
possible future uses of the river water.
Like most technical activities, operating SHP requires skilled personnel. Today it seems
that most of the countries concerned are finding it difficult to recruit young people to fill the
different positions in the SHP plants just at a time when the current staff is growing old.
This situation underlines the fact that many EU countries should adopt special measures.
In Sweden, for example, it is impossible to find enough students to fill the classes in
technical education in hydropower at a time when most of the staff today is close to
retirement. The competition with the IT and Telecom industry is very tough. In order to
assure enough skilled personnel in the future strong recruiting activities must start. SHP
plants are often situated in remote areas which makes recruiting even more difficult.
Young people do not seem to prefer employment in rural areas. The manufacturing
industry has similar problems as described in chapter 5.4
6.5. Developing a SHP plant: financing schemes
Even if SHP is a proven technology, obtaining financing for small hydropower projects is
often difficult due to the unforeseeable production in the short term. Very little can be done
with the financial advisors of leading financial institutions who require reliable cash flow
data. They are rarely interested in the hydrological data covering a period of 50 year and
instead ask to see the forecast production of the first year of operation. The uncertainty
about short term output is interpreted as low reliability, forgetting the very high reliability of
data in the long term.
The main risk of a SHP project lies in changing electricity prices. It is much easier to
finance a new scheme under regulatory regimes with stable feed-in tariffs (Spain,
Germany).
61
Hydropower projects, with almost no operating costs, involve large up-front investments,
and are often regarded as high risk compared to thermal power projects. Obtaining good
financing is fundamental to developing a SHP project, where most of the costs are related
to financing the plant construction. In the energy sector many different financing schemes
can be considered. They can be grouped in 5 general categories:
• private finance: the self-finance of individuals or small companies;
• corporate finance: the use of financial resources of a great industrial group with
activities in different sectors;
• participation finance: the involvement of public money through a wide participation in
the project;
• project finance: the creation of special company with industrial and financial partners
specifically designated for the project;
• third party finance (also known as contracting): a third party other than the energy user
develops, finances and operates the energy system for a contractually fixed time. The
energy user in turn has to make periodical payments to the third party.
Accessing low cost capital is thus vital to keeping the cost of SHP low. This is possible for big
utilities having large credit capacity, but rarely interested in developing small schemes, but
much more difficult for small private investors without other assets. SHP development,
carried on mainly by private investors, necessarily requires overcoming the sceptical attitude
of the financial world by means of a well-organised information campaign. It has to be noted
that financial institutions have few persons competent enough to evaluate the feasibility of
energy projects.
Medium- term loans

Even under private financing schemes, part of the capital for the investment is obtained from
financial institutions with medium-term loans. This is the traditional way to finance small-size
industrial projects with the money lent for a certain period at a fixed interest rate. The
disadvantage for small SHP investors is often the premium they have to pay respect to the
big industrial groups. The banks often set higher rates for small investors reputing the risk
higher than in projects developed by large utilities or companies. Nevertheless, the
entrepreneurs are familiar with this kind of financing scheme and commonly adopt it.
An interesting option for SHP is also financing through international financial institutions, like
the European Investment Bank, which is often less demanding in terms of capital cost.
Leasing
In some countries, leasing is becoming quite common in financing small hydro projects.
Financial institutions are favourably disposed towards this option, as they repute the capital
invested safe and the bank remains the owner of the plant until the payment plan has been
fully covered. It is important to define the method of payment and establish some parameters
both technical and economic, (average production, reliability of the investor...); when this is
done, the project risk is very low and even the investor with no financial resources can cover
the plant costs at reasonable conditions.
Project financing
Project financing is a relatively new scheme for energy projects suitable for large-scale
projects (an operator indicated a threshold of some 30 MEuro) that can count on secure cash
flows and the activity of the project is given as guarantee. The advantages of this solution are
the following:
• the equity investment is minimised (up to 15% of the total);
62
• non- recourse financing does not effect the balance sheet of the investors;
• capital cost is minimised;

• risk management is maximised.
What is interesting for the financial partners is the certainty of the cash flows of an electricity
production plant. When a supply contract is signed with the grid operator and the technical
performances are guaranteed by the equipment supplier, the recovery of the investment is
almost certain. This financing scheme is appealing as it optimally allocates the risk
associated to the investment, but is rather expensive for small projects and involves high
transaction costs for contracts. Its application is thus restricted to large investments or when
many similar projects are carried out at the same time.
6.5.1. Most common financing schemes

Small projects are usually privately financed, with partial recourse to different kinds of
loans. Bigger projects are mostly financed by corporations but there are also third party
financing models. The main project risk for hydro power plants lies in varying electricity
prices. Therefore in countries with stable price agreements like Germany or Spain projects
are easier to be financed than in countries where energy prices oscillate.
In some countries, where financing a new scheme is hard, also the Build Own Operate
(BOO) and Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) options are used, whereby the investor has
the right to operate the plant and sell electricity for a certain time under specific terms. At
the end of the period the plant belongs to the investor (BOO) or is transferred to the local
utility (BOT). These contracts are becoming more common mainly in developing countries,
where the local electricity industry is unable to finance new projects and can involve
foreign investors under specific contractual terms.
The following table shows the main financing schemes adopted in some EU countries.
Table 6.4: Main SHP financing schemes (FIRE 1998)
Country Financing scheme Ownership

Austria Corporate finance Small and large utilities
Germany • Private finance • Private
• Participation finance • Limited partnership (GmbH)
• Municipalities (Stadtwerke)
Spain Third party finance Through governmental organisations
Italy • Corporate finance • Private investors
• Third party finance • Local utilities
The • Private finance • Private
Netherlands
• Corporate finance • Utilities
Sweden • Private finance • Partnerships
• Corporate finance • Private (farmers)
• Corporations
63
6.5.2. Innovative financing schemes

SHP is a rather traditional world where there have been few innovations at the financial
level. Nevertheless, during the 90s some interesting measures were adopted in Europe
with project financing schemes aimed at reducing the need for self financing, thus allowing
new investors to enter the sector.
One problem of using limited recourse project financing is related to the relatively small
entity of investments. The cost of the financial architecture does not make it worthwhile to
invest in a single project and has rarely been applied. This obstacle can be overcome by
financing groups of projects, as happens in the wind power sector. Even this possibility,
however, is not common in the SHP sector where the exploitation of new sites is rarely
carried out by a group due to the difficulty of co-ordinating the authorisation procedures.
It is also interesting to note the participation finance that is becoming common in
Germany, where groups of persons collect the money to invest in renewable energy
projects, mainly because they are environmentally aware. If environmental awareness
spreads in Europe as it has done in Germany, this could become a common practice even
in other countries.
64
7. From production to consumption: the delivery of SHP electricity
7.1. Connecting to the grid: contracts and costs
In connection with the liberalisation of the electricity sector, access to the grid is the first
and most important step which allows independent producers to operate in the market and
use the grid under fair conditions. When the costs to connect are unequivocally high, even
attractive prices per kWh are an ineffective measure.
The terms for connecting to the grid are widely different in the European countries.
Together with countries which deliberately favour the connection to the grid leaving only
partial costs to the SHP investors, there are countries where all the costs have to be paid
by the investor (Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Norway, Czech Republic, Lithuania,
Slovakia and Slovenia) and others where the cost for the connection is negotiated by the
national utility and the investor (Austria, Belgium, UK, Hungary) according to capacity,
distance, voltage level.
The following figures show the costs per unit of distance of capacity:
Belgium 37.18 Euro/m
UK 224 Euro/m
Greece 18-30 Euro/m (in main land)
Lithuania 25 Euro/m
Ireland 400 Euro/kW installed
Portugal 93 Euro/kW
It is extremely important to provide transparent and fair connection terms when cross
subsidies must be avoided, with a price structure that reflects the actual costs. When
reputed opportune, the subsidy to SHP investors has to be clearly shown.
65
Table 7.1: The terms for the connection and the use of grid in the European countries
Country Connection charge Use of system charge

Austria Lump-sum payment for connection 0.82 mEuro/kWh for ancillary services
and for grid provision
Belgium Lump- sum payment: average of no charges
300 000 BFr
Denmark
UK Lump-sum payment according to Maintenance charge of 800 Euro/year;
the site (often higher for HP) negotiation with owner of wires
Finland not stated 0.35-1.65 Euro/MWh, of which 0.25 is given
to the owner of the national grid
France
Germany The "real cost" for connection Depending on voltage, capacity, connection
time, distance
Greece lump sum, depending on distance no charges
from the MV lines: varies from 18
000 to 30 000 Euro/km
Ireland lump sum of 400 Euro/kW installed
Italy paid 1/3 by the investor and 2/3 by no charges; only a fixed annual payment
ENEL depending on capacity (MW); but when
selling to a private body there is charge
depending on distance, kW and kWh
Portugal lump sum of 93 Euro/kW no charges
Spain SHP owner has to pay the cost for NOT STATED
building the link with the grid
Sweden Actual connection cost no charges
Switzerland Connection must be built by the < 500 kW: free

utility with a contracted contribution > 500 kW effective cost on a statistical
of the investor (same as basis
consumers)
Norway Investor has the right to connect to Cost made up of (i) a lump sum + (ii) a sum
the grid, covering connection costs per kW/year + (iii) a charge per kWh; (on
average 0.0025 Euro/kWh)
Czech Republic covered by the investor no charges

Hungary Negotiated negotiated
Latvia Lump- sum payment depending on not stated
capacity (kW) and distance; on
average 20 000 Euro
Lithuania cost covered by the investor 0.01 Euro/kWh
Poland Covered by the energy purchaser no charge
Slovakia Covered by the investor no charges to date; privatisation and
liberalisation just beginning
Slovenia Covered by the investor no charges
66
7.2. Using the electricity grid: possibilities, priorities, and costs
Even the use of the system is priced differently in the various European countries. In
some the use of the grid is free, like Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland,
Slovakia and Slovenia. In Italy for plants accepted in a support scheme, the use of the
system is based on a fixed price.
In Sweden the use of the grid is also free and the local grid owner refunds the local
producer for the reduction in grid costs such as reduction in transformation costs and less
need of peak power.
In a perfect world the cost of using the grid would vary according to the time used
(peak/off-peak hours and seasons), the voltage level and the congestion of the grid. The
contribution of the SHPP generation, positive or negative, to the losses into the grid
should be reflected as much as possible. This would lead to the adoption of a system
charge based on marginal costs varying according to time and place, with relatively high
transaction costs, but clearly indicating efficient use of the grid and other system
resources.
For instance, the payment for auxiliary services, in a liberalised system where operators
can be suppliers or consumers of the services of the grid, should by transparent. Instead,
only Austria has a charge of 0.00082 Euro/kWh for auxiliary services; in Italy a charge for
auxiliary services has been introduced for plants selling on the free market.
Nevertheless, even the simplicity of the price system is important to facilitate the
operations of small producers and a system based on average costs could suit these
small plants.
The table in the previous paragraph shows how access to the grid is priced in the
European countries for which the information was available.
7.3. Recognising the real value of SHP electricity
The application of the principle of marginal costs to the purchase of electricity from small
plants in the distribution grid demonstrates the real value of the electricity produced. This
means that the same production in two different bus of the network or at different times
could have a different return. The financial world could regard this as an odd option
because it becomes more difficult to forecast the cash flow of a plant; nevertheless, this is
the only way to give SHP electricity production the real value from the grid point of view.
Obviously, it is then possible to add a premium when some other benefits, which are not
taken into account in market transactions are taken into account:
• minor external costs,
• environmental sustainability,
• local economic development.
7.4 Selling SHP electricity
As is clearly demonstrated in most European countries, the most effective measure to

support the development of SHP is a premium price which remains constant over a
suitable period of time: this is borne out by Germany and Spain.
Even if the price alone can not be an indicator of the conditions for small generators, the
following table gives an idea of the prices paid to SHP plants in Europe.
67
Table 7.2: Buy-back rates in EU countries
Country Price for sale to the grid

Austria 0.0487 Euro/kWh
Belgium 0.09 Euro/kWh
Denmark 0.067 Euro/kWh
UK 0.05 Euro/kWh (in NFFO)
Finland 0.0117 Euro/kWh
France
Germany < 500 kW: 80% of to the average electricity price to
consumers (7.32 cEuro/kWh in 2000)
> 500 kW: 65% of to the average electricity price to
consumers ( 5.95 cEuro/kWh in 2000)
> 5 MW market price
Greece the price amounts to 90% of the end user tariff
Ireland 0.056 Euro/kWh or less
Italy Related to the oil price; for plant < 3 000 kW decreasing
with production (0.08 Euro/kWh up to 1 GWh up to 0.042
Euro/kWh over 10 GWh
Portugal 0.0599 Euro/kWh
Spain 0.06365 Euro/kWh
Sweden 0.03 Euro/kWh (market price plus 0.01 Euro/ kWh)
Switzerland 0.093 Euro/kWh

Norway 0.018 – 0.023 Euro/kWh or market prices
Iceland not indicated
Czech Republic High Voltage: 0.032 Euro/kWh; Low Voltage: 0.034

Euro/kWh
Hungary not indicated
Latvia 0.1063 Euro/kWh first 8 years; 0.05315 afterwards
Lithuania See next table
Poland 0.037-0.06 Euro/kWh. Problems due to monopsony. A new
regulation obliging the State to purchase RE is under
consideration
Slovakia low voltage 0.0319 Euro/kWh; high voltage 0.0295
Euro/kWh
In some countries the price is not fixed and market rules are applied to the sale of SHP
production. This does not favour the development of new schemes, which are easier to
exploit under a system of price that reduce uncertainty and guarantees the cash flow for a
time long enough to satisfy the financial investors.
An example of prices dependent on voltage level is Lithuania, as reported in the following
table.
68
Table 7.3: Lithuanian buy-back tariffs
Metering on the low voltage side

0.4 kV 0.6 kV 10 kV 35 kV ≥110 kV
Electricity price, Euro/kWh
0.068 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.034
The extra prices based on green price schemes are still not developed at the European
level and therefore do not represent an opportunity for SHP producers, even if in the
future these price options could be a valuable source of income, should public demand for
green electricity really develop in Europe.
7.5. Alternative sources and requirements for a support
The return on a SHP investment depends on the income it brings. This is also a function
of the generation costs, which can vary from country to country according to the level of
development of the sector, access to cheap operation and maintenance suppliers and the
average industrial prices.
The table in this paragraph shows the cost range for new plants in the European
countries, highlighting considerable differences.
Higher investment costs are accepted where the feed-in tariff is higher. This fact
demonstrates how the potential is a function of the price of the electricity sold and the
higher the price the higher the potential. Unfortunately, it was not possible to provide a
price/capacity curve for the countries analysed,, even though this information is essential
to understand the cost of a development programme like the one called for by the
European Union for a 12% renewable energy goal by 2010.
If we compare the costs shown in the table with the European market prices, what clearly
emerges is the need of a support system to develop new capacity.
69
Table 7.4: Investment and production costs of SHP plants in European countries
Country Average SHP production costs Range of investment costs
Eurocent/kWh Euro/kW
Austria 3.6 – 14.5 2 900 –4 300
Belgium 1.8 3 700 – 4 960
Denmark
UK 5-7 2 000 – 4 800
Finland 3 – 3.5 2 200
France 1 200 – 3 000
Germany 5 4 000 – 6 000
Greece 2.4 – 4.2 1 000 – 2 000
Ireland 3.75 – 9.1 1 500 – 3 750
Italy 5 – 10 1 500 – 3 000
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal 1 300 – 2 500
Spain 3.5 - 7 1 000 – 1 500
Sweden 4–5 1 500 – 2 500
Switzerland 3 - 15 4 000 – 10 000

Norway 1.5 - 2 1 000 – 1 500
Iceland 1 700 – 3 500
Czech Republic 2.3 1 100 – 2 800

Hungary 4 – 4.6 1 500 – 4 000
Latvia 1 520
Lithuania 1.2 1 100 – 1 500
Montenegro 1 300 – 2 150
Poland 500 – 1 200
Slovakia 1 200 – 1 800
Slovenia 1 000 – 2 000
70
8. Supporting SHP
8.1 Various forms of State support for SHP electricity production
It clearly emerges that a policy to support the exploitation of SHP resources is needed in
order to implement at least part of the potential shown in the previous sections. The main
points we want to underline are the following:
• Simplifying the licensing procedures by possibly creating a single window,
• Simplifying procedures when refurbishing abandoned sites,
• Creating a stable regulatory framework to reduce uncertainty,
• Implementing a price system that takes into account the positive externalities of this
energy source compared to fossil fuels.
Without such measures very little can be done, especially in countries where the SHP
sector is currently hindered as far as new initiatives are concerned, even in the presence
of excellent potential (Austria, Italy, Germany). This problem is less felt in the eastern
European countries, but might also become their problem when the high energy demand
brought about by the restructuring, following the transition to a market economy, ends.
• Investment subsidies
• Soft loans
• Energy Taxes
• Tax credits
• High feed in tariffs
• Supported price (green tariffs, green portfolios, tenders for specific electricity
sources – NFFO).
Public support. Firstly, by giving financial support directly to the investment in new SHP
plants and/or in the upgrading existing technologies. Secondly, as will be discussed more
extensively in Chapter 9, by addressing SHP electricity sales, trying to increase the
amount of kWh purchased and to guarantee that the price paid for SHP electricity covers
the cost incurred by producing it - allowing the investor to pay back his effort in a
reasonable time.
Financial support from public authorities for SHP investments may be justified for various
reasons.
Firstly, at the moment SHP technology and its possibilities are not particularly well known
among the main private financing institutions (e.g. banks). It is therefore more difficult to
persuade them about the soundness and possible economic attractiveness of such an
investment. This can make the access to private loans – which is a very common way to
finance investments in most industrial sectors - more difficult, and possibly more costly.
The public intervention may therefore give a significant starting contribution to
compensate the informational gap and the consequent market distortions of the private
financing bodies.
Secondly, SHP development may favour significant technological innovation, in particular
as concerns new efficient turbines for low water heads and new electronic devices to
control water flows. Supporting the development of new technologies is one of the
possible tasks of a national and/or local government.
71
Last but not least, as already mentioned, SHP production gives significant contributions to
reduce the environmental impact of the power generation sector, in particular as far as the
new SHP developed replaces more traditional (thermoelectric) sources of electricity
production. Drawing from the ExternE (1999) studies it can be mentioned – just for
illustrative purposes - that the generation of one kWh from hydro sources may have an
external environmental cost that ranges from 0.04 to 7x10-3 Euro, while the production of
the same quantity of energy by a thermoelectric plan fuelled with oil has an external cost
ranging from 29 to 109x10-3 Euro: the difference is relevant indeed. Of course the
evaluation methodology (and its results) is subject to some uncertainty; moreover, the
estimates presented for the hydro source are not necessarily adequately representing the
small hydro power generation – although we do not see reasons why this technology
should have higher external costs compared to bigger HP plants. But all in all, the
substantial difference shown by these numbers confirms the smaller environmental impact
of SHP and the justification for a public support to this technology.
As concerns direct support to the investments, there are three main tools that can be used
by national and/or local governments to favour the construction or upgrading of SHP
plants. The first one is a public subsidy to cover part (or the entirety) of the investment
cost. The second one consists in granting loans with favourable conditions for the
investors. Both the provision of a proportion of the capital needed and the reduced
borrowing rates are typically subject to the achievement of given performances
(satisfaction of given environmental standards, presentation of particularly innovative
projects) by the investor and its project. If the administrative procedure is well framed and
efficiently organised, this kind of support can be an effective tool to check that the projects
developed are sound from both the technical and the economic point of view, to help the
investors in improving their plans and to discourage those projects that have not been
coherently planned. In order to get the public funds, in fact, the investors have usually to
submit a project proposal that has to comply with some pre-set standards (established by
the authority) in terms of transparency, data quality, organisation of the information etc.
Obviously, in case the administrative procedure to evaluate proposals is not well framed
and efficiently managed, this process can become at the opposite just an additional
hindrance to the development of new plants.
The third possible direct way to support the investments in SHP plants gives some kinds
of tax reduction or tax exemptions for the investor during a given period. This particular
tool can also be attractive for potential investors; however, it does not solve the most
urgent problems of raising funds – in fact, the support given consists of smaller savings
spread over a longer time span and does not allow in itself the investor to overcome
possible initial difficulties in gathering resources.
Direct supports to the investment costs are used – in variable quantities - by several of the
Western Countries considered. Funds ranging most frequently from 15% to 50% of the
Investment costs can be received by national or by local public bodies in Norway,
Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Greece and Portugal.
Loans with favourable conditions are slightly less used, but still offered in Norway,
Germany, Switzerland and Portugal.
Tax exemptions and/or tax allowances have been used to some extent as a tool to
promote SHP investments in Norway, Ireland, Germany, Spain and Greece. Some
Countries, however, have expressed doubts on the concrete effectiveness of this tool to
promote SHP development.
Public support to SHP investments is much less common in Eastern Countries, where -
apart from few exceptions - the lack of capitals is quite a generalised problems. Lack of
capital is also reflected by the fact that many eastern respondents to the questionnaires
have suggested foreign capitals as the main possible support to SHP development.
72
The Czech Republic is the only country where all the three supporting schemes briefly
described above (loans with reduced interest, direct support to the investment and tax
exemptions) are offered. It is also the Eastern Country with the most considerable amount
of installed SHP capacity (although just 30% of the plants mentioned have been
developed in the last 40 years). Favourable loans for the investors in SHP plants and
State support to cover part of the investment costs are also offered in Poland – where
quite a substantial capacity (relatively to the other Eastern Countries) has been developed
as well. Finally some support to the investments costs is also offered in Slovenia – one of
the Eastern Countries with the wealthiest economy.
73
9. Conclusions
The BlueAGE research project, based on information collected from national experts, has
shown how Small Hydro Power can play an important role in achieving the objectives set
at the European level for the contribution of renewable energy to electricity production in
2010. The long tradition of the technology, together with the important innovations
introduced in the recent past, can ensure a reliable and effective source of electricity for
the coming years, respecting the environment and often giving important benefits to the
local communities.
In Europe there are no uniform regulations which apply to the SHP sector. This will
probably lead to different rates of development in the coming years unless suitable
measures are taken at the national and local level to implement the European Directive
regarding electricity from renewable energy sources which should be approved by the EU
Parliament.
An uncertain contribution will come from the programs of green pricing that are now being
drawn up in many European countries. However, there is not enough evidence of the
public response to the possibility of choosing the electricity supplier (UK, Germany,
Switzerland, The Netherlands). This is certainly a choice which should be given to all
European citizens.
An incentive to the development of new SHP schemes will come from the implementation
of a system of international green certificates linked to the reduction of the greenhouse
gas emission which is one of the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. Recognising the value
of renewable energy in the reduction of CO2 emissions is a requisite for the creation of a
favourable environment for SHP.
9.1 SHP Potential
The potential from the reinstallation of abandoned sites and upgrading existing
underdeveloped SHP plants, is estimated at an annual electricity production of
approximately 4 500 GWh in the EU countries
The potential in new plants, reduced when economic and environmental constraints are
taken into account, is calculated at more than 19 500 GWh per year based on the
questionnaire answers from of the EU member countries.
The possible remaining potential from SHP is therefore nearly 24 TWh annually. This
corresponds rather closely to the estimate of 18 TWh in 2010 reported in the 1997 White
Paper issued by the EU Commission.
In spite of this potential available in theory, based on the present annual production of 40
TWh the forecast total production from SHP in the EU in 2015 is 51.5 TWh, with an
increase of 11.5 TWh only.
What must be pointed out are the effects of environmental constraints that reduce the
technical potential of new SHP plants by half. A prudent environmental policy is extremely
important in promoting the development of new, well-balanced schemes. In fact, the
opposition to using water as a power source, might sometimes be reasonably motivated
and correct and at other times be the result of a strong bias which has nothing to do with
protecting the environment. Clear and transparent regulations, together with a process of
open discussion of these issues between the interested parties during the authorisation
processes will create favourable conditions to exploit the remaining potential while
respecting the environment.
74
9.2 A EU action plan
In the present economic framework which is converging towards a common European

market, a fundamental role can be played by the European Commission in encouraging
economic forces to support Small Hydro Power investments.
The BlueAGE study shows the benefits which can be achieved by developing SHP at the
economic and environmental level. These benefits can only be obtained by promoting a
synergy at the European, national and local level. If the efforts at one level are not
supported by efforts at the other levels the initiative is doomed to fail.
The challenge for European regulators in the development of Small Hydro Power and
other renewable energy sources is to reconcile the market with the reduction of
uncertainty. Even if this is not a simple task, some measures must be taken to increase
public awareness in Europe with regard to the sustainability of the energy sector. These
measures are summed up in the following table.
75
Issue Recommended Measures Potential Benefit

Authorisation procedure Establishing the single window Reduces ineffective
for driving the licensing bureaucratic procedures and
process and collecting all cuts administrative costs
permits
Authorisation procedure Establishing an environmental Prevents the unjustified
analysis on a standardised list rejection of requests for new
of indicators provided by the water rights justified; makes
administrative authority the environmental assessment
uniform
Authorisation procedure Introducing an opportunity for Allows opposition to emerge
discussion between interested during the initial development
parties during the authorisation phase and initiates a
process democratic discussion on
water use
Regulation Setting quantitative targets for Makes a strong commitment to

new capacity at the national develop new sites
level
Regulation Promoting the creation of Allows demand for

green prices and green environmental friendly
certification systems electricity promotes new
opportunities for SHP
Regulation Reducing uncertainty by long- Helps the financial world

term regulations finance SHP investments
Price setting Implement the internalisation Makes SHP competitive with

of external costs fossil sources on the electricity
market
Information Disseminate competent and Facilitates the dialogue of

precise information on small investors with administrators
hydro power and with the financial world
Organising settings Annual following up Certify that EU targets are

fulfilled
76
10. References
10.1. Literature
[1] ESHA, LAYMAN'S GUIDEBOOK on how to develop a small hydro site,

European Commission, 1995
[2] IEA, renewable energy policy in IEA countries, OECD, 1998
[3] RETScreen ™, small hydro project, Internet website, 2000
[4] Austrian Hydropower Professionals, hydro power, Austrian National
Committee on Large Dams, 1999
[5] UE Commission, electricity from renewable energy sources and the internal
electricity market, Internet website, 1998
[6] ESHA, small hydropower - general framework for legislation and authorisation
procedures in the European Union, UE commission DG XVII
[7] THERMIE program, small hydro power in Italy and Portugal, DG XVII, 1999
[8] FIRE research project, FIRE - financing renewable energy system, EC Joule
Thermie, 1998
[9] A. Pessina, small hydro-electric resources in southern Italy, 1995
[10] W. Nussli, renover au lieu d'abandonner, DIANE 10 petites centrales
hydrauliques, 1994
[11] OECD, the price of the water, trends in OECD countries, OECD, 1999.
[12] ETSU, IWuP, Analysis of Export Constraints and opportunities for European
small hydro equipment manufacturers, Report no. AEAT-2295, DG XVII -
THERMIE program, 1998.
[13] EURELECTRIC, Promotion of renewables in the EU and possible
harmonisation, 1999.
[14] APER, Comunicazione n. 4/99, APER, 1999.
[15] APER, Il nuovo assetto del mercato elettrico in Italia: conseguenze per il
settore della minidraulica, APER, 1999.
[16] FEDERPERN, “minihydro” il potenziale della minidraulica in Italia e Portogallo,
FEDERPERN, 1998.
[17] Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica ed il Gas, Deliberazione 8 giugno 1999 n.
82/99, 1999.
[18] ENEA, Libro bianco per la valorizzazione energetica delle fonti rinnovabili.,
ENEA, 1999.
[19] European Parliament, Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996 Common
rules for the internal market in electricity, GUCE, 1996.
[20] European Commission, DGXVII, Position of the advisory committee
concerning a community directive on the conditions of access to the market for
77
electricity generated from renewable energy resources, Internet website,

1999.
[21] European Commission, DGXVII, Energia per il futuro le fonti energetiche
rinnovabili (libro bianco per una strategia ed un piano di azione della
comunità) [COM(97)599 final (26.11.97)], GUCE, 1997
[22] European Commission, DGXVII, Small Hydropower: general framework for
legislation and authorisation procedures in the European Union, 1995
[23] European Commission, DGXVII, Electricity from renewable energy sources
and the internal electricity market, Internet website, 1999
[24] European Commission, DGXVII, Small hydro-electric resources in southern
Italy: actions to overcome the difficulties for the implementation of minihydro,
1995
[25] EEC – University of Genoa, The development of small scale hydroelectric
power plants in the European communities, 1993
[26] UCTE, Statistical Yearbook 1999.
[27] UE DG XVII, Improving market penetration for new energy technologies:
prospects for pre-competitive support, Internet website, 1996
[28] Low-Head Hydropower: new approaches and innovative technologies, Internet
website, 1997
[29] DTI, New and Renewable energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st century.,
Internet website, 1999
[30] DETR department of the environment, transport and the regions, Taking water
responsibly - government decision following consultation on changes to the
water abstraction licensing system in England and Wales, DETR, 1999
[31] Swedish power association, annual report,1999
[32] DTI, New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century,
DTI, 1999
[33] Grubb M., Renewable energy strategies for Europe, The Royal Institute of
International Affairs, 1995
[34] HW Whittington, rehabilitation of small scale hydroelectric stations, ESG ltd.
[35] Cassanelli A., L'esperienza del comune di Bologna nella realizzazione
dell'impianto di Cavaticcio, 1997
[36] G. Chiatti, G.M. De Pratti, R. Ruscitti, impianti idraulici a recupero per gli
schemi idrici dei consorzi acquedottistici marsicano e val peligna-alto sangro,
1998
[37] European Commission DG XVII, (COM(2000)279), Proposal for a directive on
the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal
electricity market, 2000
[38] EU DG XVII - commission staff, working paper: support of electricity from
renewable energy sources in the member states, 1998
78
[39] MICA Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Direttive per l'attuazione delle
norme in materia di energia elettrica da fonti rinnovabili del DL n.79/99, GURI,
1999
[40] G J Shaffer, M. Voogt, M. Boots, J. W. Martens, Tradable green certificates to
stimulate renewable technology in a liberalising market, IAEE/AEE, 1999
[41] IEFE - Università Commerciale L. Bocconi, I meccanismi di incentivazione
delle fonti rinnovabili adottati nei paesi europei, IEFE, 1998
[42] Giunta regionale del Piemonte, DGR n. 27 - 42600, GDRI, 1995
[43] L. De Paoli, A. Lorenzoni, Economia e politica delle fonti rinnovabili e della
cogenerazione, Franco Angeli editor, 1999
[44] ISKB - Interessenverband Schweiz Kleinkraftwerk Besitzer, repertoire des
fornisseurs petits arrangements hydroelectriques, 1999
[45] Diane 10 small hydro, portrait diane project small hydro 1992 - 1997, the
action program energy 2000, 1998
[46] Oliver Paish, the European potential for low head hydropower, it power ltd.
[47] S. Theobald, F. Nestmann, further development in the automatic control of
hydropower plants, low head hydropower: new approaches & innovative
technologies - conference April 1997, 1998
[48] R. J. Amstrong Evans, low cost development of low head waterpower sites,
low head hydropower: new approaches & innovative technologies -
conference April 1997, 1998
[49] H. Leutwiler, the DIANE SHP program and low head power plants in
Switzerland, low head hydropower: new approaches & innovative technologies
- conference April 1997, 1998
[50] S. Lucas, high specific impulse turbines for low head application, low head
hydropower: new approaches & innovative technologies - workshop April
1997, 1997
[51] P. G. Garman, B.A. Sexon, water current turbines for pumping and electricity
generation, low head hydropower: new approaches & innovative technologies
- workshop april 1997, 1997.
[52] P. Garman, water current turbines for drinking water supply, low head
hydropower: new approaches & innovative technologies - workshop april
1997.
[53] H De Vries, P. Ritter, O. Paish, Hydro Soft - a software tool for low head
hydropower resource and pre-feasibility analysis, low head hydropower: new
approaches & innovative technologies - workshop April 1997, 1997.
[54] EU DG XVII, Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy - Green
Paper for a Community Strategy, Internet website.
[55] A. Focacci, ENERGIA E ACQUA una relazione dinamica, Franco Angeli
editore, 2000.
[56] Environmental Protection Agency, Biodiversity – a country study
(Naturvårdsverket in Swedish), Monitor 14, Stockholm 1994.
79
[57] Patric McCully: Silenced Rivers – The ecology and politics of large dams, Zed
books Ltd. London New Jersey 1996 .
[58] IEA, A comparison of the environmental and social impacts and the effects of
mitigation measures on hydropower development, annex I.
[59] IEA, A comparison of the environmental impacts of hydropower with those of
other generation technologies, annex III.
[60] IEA, Legal frameworks, licensing procedures and guidelines for environmental
impact assessments of hydropower developments, annex IV.
[61] IEA, Hydropower and the Environment: Present context and guidelines for
future actions, annex V.
[62] IEA, Hydropower and the Environment: Effectiveness of mitigation measures,
annex VI.
[63] Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment, changed 97/11/EG.
[64] F. Barth, Small Hydro Power in Germany, Internet website, 2000.
[65] Conference papers of small and medium hydropower projects, Berne (CH) 10-
13 June 1997.
[66] Office federal de l'économie de l'eau, Petites amenagements hydro-
électriques en Suisse, 1987.
[67] Ufficio federale dell'energia, I poteri pubblici e la ricerca energetica in
Svizzera.
[68] Ufficio federale dell'energia, Condizioni di raccordo per produttori indipendenti.
[69] Raymond Chenal, Come valutare la fattibilità finanziaria di un piccolo impianto
idroeletrico, La petite Centrale, n.43, p. 38, 1999.
[70] ISKB ADUR, Comments sur la loi sur le marché de l'électricité (LME), La
petite Centrale, n.42, p. 17 , 1999.
[71] ISKB ADUR, Comments sur l'ordonnance sur l'énergie (OEn), La petite
Centrale, n.41, p. 46, 1999.
[72] THERMIE program, low head small hydro-electric power: Belgium, site of
Hoegarden plant, Internet website, 1999.
[73] THERMIE program refurbishment of a 90 years old hydropower plant
Belgium, site of Rotselaar, Internet website, 1999.
[74] Widmer R/Arter A., Village electrification, MHPG vol. 5, 1992.
[75] ILEX ASSOCIATES, CONNECTION AND USE-OF-SYSTEM POLICIES FOR
RENEWABLE GENERATORS IN EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATES, A
Report to the European Commission Directorate-General for Energy July
1997.
[76] Eurelectric, The cost of hydroelectricity, Hydro Power and Other Renewable,
Energies Study Committee, Ref : 03005Ren9713, March 1997.
[77] Eurelectric, Study on the importance of harnessing the hydropower resources
of the world, Hydro Power and Other Renewable, Energies Study Committee,
Ref : 03000Ren9761, April 1997.
80
[78] Eurelectric, Hydroelectricity, energy vector for progress and development

Energies Study Committee, Ref 03005Ren9710, March 1997.
[79] Eurelectric, Hydro Power and Other Renewable, Energies Study Committee,
Minimum flow downstream hydroelectric head installations, ref.
03003Ren93/01, December 1993.
[80] Dulas ltd, Commercialisation of small hydro through community participation,
ETSU K/BD/00190/REP, Crown, 1999.
[81] Fawley acquatic, Risk assessment for fish passage through small, low-head
turbines, ETSU H/06/00054/REP, Crown 2000.
[82] Caledonian Energy Management, Monitoring of successful renewable
obligation small hydro projects, ETSU/H/01/00049/00/REP, Crown 2000.
[83] ECOTEC, Hydro power Products and services from Britain, DTI New and
renewable energy programme, February 2000.
[84] Bianchi N., Lorenzoni A., Design solutions for permanent magnet generators
in wind power applications, Proceedings of the 9th EDPE International
Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 9-11 ottobre 1996.
[85] Bard Jochen, Status Report on Variable Speed Operation in Small
Hydropower, ISET e.V. Kassel December 2000.
[86] Bard Jochen, Status Report on Variable Speed Operation in Small Hydro
Power, Institut für Solare Energieversorgungstechnik (ISET) e.V. Kassel dec
2000.
[87] Hydropower & Dams World Atlas, Annex of International journal of
Hydropower, 1999.
[88] UCTE, Statistical yearbook 1999.
[89] Haas H.P.H., "Hydropower in the Netherlands", Hidroenergia 1999 conference
proceedings, Vienna, 1999.
[90] Ministry of Economy, Republic of Croatia, Energy in Croatia 1995 - 1999
annual Energy Report.
10.2. World Wide Web links
http://smallhydropower.com/links.html
http://www.itc.nl/~klunne/hydro/link.html
http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-19094/hyd_link.htm
http://eww.bchydro.bc.ca/environment/play/start.html
http://www.eeri.ee/index.html.en
http://www.sec.bg/eng/
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/contacts.html#university
81
http://www.geocities.com/wim_klunne/hydro/link.html
http://www.digiserve.com/inshp/
http://www.ceacr.cz/ Czech energy authority
http://www.iskb.ch/ Swiss association of owners of small power plants
http://www.smallhydro.ch/français/français.htm
http://www.serve.com/commonpurpose/contacts.html
http://www.eva.wsr.ac.at/index.htm
http://www.ntnu.no/ich/
http://web.telecom.cz/hydropower/index.html
http://profesionales.iies.es/minas/celpenc/ukindex.htm
http://www.nve.no/english/index.html
http://www.cordis.lu/opet/
http://www.T-online.de
http://www.oeko-netzwerk.de/journal/
http://www.ieahydro.org
http://www.observ-er.org
82

BlueAge PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BlueAge PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BlueAGE

Blue Energy for A Green Europe

ESHA – European Small Hydropwer Association

Istituto di Economia delle Fonti di Energia – IEFE

SERO - Sveriges Energiföreningars RiksOrganisation

Christer Söderberg soderberg.sero@telia.com

For further information please contact:

ESHA – European Small Hydropower Association

State of the art

SHP potential in the EU

SHP and the environment

The SHP relation to the environment is twofold.

SHP market for manufacturers

Issue Recommended Measures Potential Benefit

Authorisation procedure Establishing an environmental Prevents the unjustified

Authorisation procedure Introducing an opportunity for Allows opposition to emerge

Regulation Promoting the creation of Allows demand for

Regulation Reducing uncertainty by long- Helps the financial world

Price setting Implement the internalisation Makes SHP competitive with

Information Disseminate competent and Facilitates the dialogue of

Organising settings Annual following up Certify that EU targets are

3.7. Summary .............................................................................................................. 35

7. FROM PRODUCTION TO CONSUMPTION: THE DELIVERY OF SHP ELECTRICITY

1.1. Aims of the study

• improving existing plants,

• creating new schemes.

1.2. Methodology of analysis

1.3. The national questionnaire

• provide a European-wide comparison of the technical, environmental, institutional and legal

Source: EurObserv’ER (http://www.observ-er.org)

SHP < 1 MW SHP 1 - 10 MW

Figure 1.1 – Eurostat data on SHP production

SHP < 1 MW SHP 1 - 10 MW

Figure 1.2 – Eurostat data on SHP capacity

2. State of the art: present situation of SHP in European countries

2.1. Hydropower and total electricity production

Figure 2-1 – present situation of hydro power in the countries analysed

2.2. The contribution of SHP to the electricity demand

SHP plants age distribution

Figure 2-2 - Age structure of SHP plants in different groups of countries

installed SHP (MW)

2.3. A view outside Europe

3. Potential of SHP and environmental aspects of energy production

700 Potential of upgrading old SHP

% loss due to constraints without constraints with constraints

Figure 3-1 – Potential upgrading, refurbish and restart of old SHP

3.2. Technical potential of new SHP

3.3. Constrained potential for realisation of new SHP capacity

% of potential loss due to constraints without constraints with constraints

Figure 3-2 – Potential for construction of new SHP plant

Figure 3-3 - Potential from new plant and refurbishment

Graph; different potentials (example

65% B B. Technical potential

45% C C. Potential; economic constraints

35% D D. Potential; environmental

30% E E. Potential; technical, environmental

Potential Potential with economic and

SHP 1999 Upgrading New SHP Upgrading New SHP

Country MW GWh Number MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh

Potential with technical Potential with economic and

SHP 1999 Upgrading New SHP Upgrading New SHP

Country MW GWh Number MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh

3.4. Environmental and legal aspects