Combining construction and renovation works to increase techno-

economic feasibility of very low head run of river hydro power

S.R. van Erp & J.D. Bricker

Delft University for Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geoscience, The Netherlands
P. Buijs & H.G. Voortman
Arcadis NL, Ports and Hydraulic engineering Department, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
M. Marence
IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT: In the Lower Rhine river two hydro-power plants have been built at weirs. The
third, most upstream weir at Driel was considered as well, but at the time (1988) could not be
made feasible due to the low head difference at Driel. Developments in low-head hydro-power
have given new possibilities and reason for reassessment.

Locations such as Driel, where a discharge and a small head-difference are available, are common,
but many are not utilised for power production. Additionally, a large number of existing weir
complexes are nearing the end of their design life-time or are in need of renovation. Combining
the construction and/or renovation works with the implementation of hydro power can signifi-
cantly lower the costs, increasing the economic feasibility for low head locations.

The research shows that it is indeed possible with current state of the art technology to extract
sufficient amounts of power. Turbines that start at low head-differences or enhancements to in-
crease the pressure difference over the turbine can be used to make sure the turbines reach com-
parable capacity factors (percentage of full-load-hours in a year) to existing run-of-river-plants
with larger head-differences. In terms of economic performance it is necessary to use every op-
portunity to keep investment costs as low as possible, like using planned maintenance work to
also implement the power-house.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Low head hydro power

Extracting energy from water with a turbine requires a height difference and a discharge. In
mountainous regions both can often be found, however, densely populated delta regions like the
Netherlands generally lack the elevation differences for large scale hydro-power-plants. Still, on
a smaller scale, power can be produced. The challenge for making low-head hydro-power feasible
is to produce enough energy and thus revenue to repay the costs of creating, running and main-
taining the plant. Due to the vicinity to highly urbanised areas, the operational regime of such
power plants doesn’t just impact power supply, but also water supply, flood safety, shipping,
agriculture, etcetera, and is thus of great importance to these parts of the fluvial system and must
often be in coordination with other control structures such as weirs.

1.2 Case in Driel

A location that has potential for low head hydropower is the weir in the Nederrijn (Lower
Rhine) river near the village of Driel, one of the branches in the Rhine Delta in the Netherlands.
Driel is the most upstream weir in a series of 3, that, unlike its two downstream counterparts, has
no hydro-electric installation yet. The main reason for this is that the head difference in this loca-
tion is on average 1 or 2 m lower than the other two.

When a hydro-power retrofit was considered at the weir directly downstream of Driel, near the
village of Maurik, the conclusion was drawn that with the state of turbine technology at the time
(1988) Driel was not an economically viable location.
Turbine technology developed further since and the modern state of the art Kaplan turbines are
capable of starting operation with head-differences from as low as 0.3m, although peak efficiency
is reached at a higher head difference (Pentair Faribanks Nijhuis, 2019) and (Grevelingendam
TTC; Broers, M.A., 2020). This compared to the commonly documented 1 to 2m minimum head
of older, existing Kaplan Bulb turbines (Bozhinova, Hecht, Müller , Schneider, & Kisliakov,
2011) and (Pandey & Karki, 2017)). This lower “cut in head” provides a much larger range of
flow-situations that the plant can produce power with, increasing the amount of full-load hours in
a year.

However, it is still challenging to reach high capacity factors in the Lower Rhine. For Maurik,
capacity factors between 23% and 28% are common historically. This is due to the fact that, in
large discharge cases often no head is generated by the movable weir, i.e. the gate is opened (flow
regime ‘a’), for flood safety reasons. When the weir-gate is fully closed, it is due to a shortage of
discharge required to keep the water level high enough for shipping (flow regime ‘c’). Only when
the weir is semi-closed (flow regime ‘b’) is there both a supply of water and a head-drop that can
be utilised by a turbine.
This is also true for Driel, as can be seen in Figure 1. Looking at this figure it becomes clear
that just considering the descending flow-duration curve is not enough to give a realistic estima-
tion of the annual production. The related head-differences and their changes with different flow
situations need to be taken into account as well. Note that they are ordered with the discharge of
the same date and time. The darker line running through the points gives a moving average of the
head-differences indicated by the dots. Theoretically, not taking into account any efficiencies or
losses, only 11,02 GWh is available for hydro-power production.

Figure 1. Flow duration curve (Q , left vertical axis) and related head-differences (∆ , right vertical axis)
for 48 years of flow data from location Driel.
2 TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
2.1 Kaplan bulb
As a start, the regular Kaplan bulb turbine design was used to estimate production. 5 different
sizes of discharge area and number of turbines were analysed in the case study, based on a dis-
charge area estimation (van Erp, 2019). Variant 0 is in terms of hydraulic parameters a copy of
Maurik and the others were chosen in a range of expected economically viable discharge areas.

Figure 2. Estimated annual production Kaplan Bulb turbine variants in [MWh / year]

Table 1. Estimated production values of design variants.

Energy Production in [MWh]
Design Rotor Rated Aver- 10-year 30-year
variant Diameter Power in age average average
[m] [kW] year
0 4 4.00 2975 6669 7180 5713
1 2 2.80 1470 3559 4499 2996
2 3 3.40 2550 5843 6453 4944
3 4 3.60 2800 7003 7356 5858
4 5 3.90 3000 7879 8118 6612

Clearly from Figure 2 it can be seen that variant number 4 produces the most in all considered
years. However, in the dry years the values for all variants are closer together.

2.2 Venturi Enhanced system

A way to increase the head difference is by using the Venturi principle. Per Bernoulli, pressure
drops as the flow-velocity increases in a narrow part in a pipe. Using this, the pressure behind the
outlet of the turbine pipe can be reduced, while keeping the pressure before the turbine unchanged,
effectively increasing the head-difference. This goes at the cost of discharge. A part of the flow
now goes through a bypass (Fig. 3), that would otherwise not discharge via the turbine.

Figure 3. Venturi Enhancement to a Kaplan Bulb turbine setup.

Figure 4. Venturi Enhancement working principle with conflux zone.

When the two pipes meet again there is an exchange in energy from the high velocity bypass
flow to the lower velocity turbine flow (Fig. 4). Making use of this principle, an exchange can be
made from discharge to head, increasing the time in a year that a turbine can run.

Using a theoretical hydraulic model, the research (van Erp, 2019) shows that an increase in
head-difference can be achieved and that this difference can even be larger than the one available
over the weir. Also, a net gain in power (kW) and most importantly a higher annual production
was observed in the analysis, when comparing open and closed bypass pipes for most of the head-
differences analysed.
Note that this is with different discharges, i.e. the system with a Venturi enhancement uses
more discharge and therefore has a higher power output, but due to a more complex pipe system,
it has more energy losses and thus a slightly lower efficiency, of the order of magnitude of 85%
versus 90-95%. In Table 2 below the results of the Venturi Enhanced system are shown.

Table 2. Estimated production values of design variants for Venturi Enhanced Kaplan Bulb Turbine.
Energy Production in [MWh]
Design No. of Rotor Rated Average 10 year 30 year
variant turbines Diameter Power in year average average
[m] [kW]
0 4 4.00 3673 8087 6307 6565
1 2 2.80 1699 3994 3184 3312
2 3 3.40 2909 7105 5508 5741
3 4 3.60 3510 8097 6372 6654
4 5 3.90 3977 9256 7334 7603

In a situation where a larger Kaplan turbine would not be economically viable, because it would
have less full-load hours, as it would not be able to run in low flow situations with high head, the
bypass provides an excellent opportunity to increase energy output, without having to change the
turbine.
Additionally, if the bypass pipe is only used in high flow situations it is not so costly to have it
unused in lower flow conditions, whereas having an extra turbine standing still for that time would
decrease the capacity factor significantly and would introduce extra maintenance costs that aren’t
covered by revenue.
2.3 Archimedes Screw Turbine
The last considered alternative is the Archimedes Screw Turbine (AST). Near Sint-
Michielsgestel such a turbine was successfully implemented to produce low-head hydro-power in
a retro-fit location (Marence, Ingabire, & Taks, 2016). ASTs have a lower efficiency than Kaplan
turbines, about 80% versus 90-95%. To utilise a similar discharge as the Kaplan turbines, many
more ASTs are required, which means that investment costs can be reduced due to design repeti-
tion. This makes the choice of the amount of turbines quite important, because having too many
can reduce the capacity factor significantly, as can be seen in Table 3. For the economic perfor-
mance having a capacity factor of about 20 to 28% is required to even repay the investment costs.

ASTs are much less capable of handling varying water-levels than Kaplan turbines, further
reducing the efficiency of ASTs. However, at Driel the head-difference is quite low to begin with,
so the interval of variation of the water level and the range of the AST are quite compatible. That,
in combination with the relatively low total investment costs of the reference project near Sint-
Michielsgestel lead to the decision to include it in the analysis.

Table 3. Estimated production values of design variants with Archimedes Screw Turbines (AST)
Design Nr. of Production Capacity Cost based on Investment per
variant tur- in factor in % reference pro- production in
bines [MWh / year] ject in [ €] [€ / kWh / year]
0 33 7440 16,5% 51,4 6,90
1 11 4460 29,7% 17,1 3,84
2 23 6770 21,6% 35,8 5,29
3 30 7320 17,9% 46,7 6,38
4 36 7500 15,3% 56,0 7,47

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
3.1 Cost estimation
The cost estimation for all the variants was based on reference projects. The cost per kW was
determined for the reference projects and this was linearly scaled to the design variants. For the
Kaplan Bulb variants the reference was the existing hydroelectric plant near Maurik and Sint-
Michielsgestel was the reference for the Archimedes screw turbines. The Venturi Enhanced
Kaplan turbines were estimated to be 20% more expensive due to the added civil works of the
bypass pipes and larger power houses as a result of that, which with the higher power output gives
a cost per kW rise of about 8,3%.

Table 4. Magnitude of investment

Design Investment in Cost per kW
variant [ €] in [€]
Kaplan 1988 (copy of Maurik) 0 19,3 6480
Kaplan Pentair Turbine 1 9,6 6480
2 17,1 6480
3 19,6 6480
4 20,5 6480
Venturi Enhanced turbine 2 20,4 7020
4 27,9 7020
Archimedes Screw turbine 1 17,1 10.000
2 35,8 10.000

3.2 Levelized Cost of Electricity & internal rate of return

A common measure to compare economic performance of power plants regardless of their fuel
or source of energy, is the levelized cost of electricity or “LCOE”. It is the price of electricity
such that at the end of the design life-time, the sum of the present value of all expenses and reve-
nues is zero. It uses an interest rate to determine the present value, which for the case study has
been set at 3,3% as this was the interest rate used by Triodos Bank (Triodos Bank, 2019) for
investments in sustainable energy at the time the research was conducted.
 Present value of the expenses were calculated with the following relation:
x
 (1 + infl.)  (1)
PVExpense (yearx ) = PVExpense (year0 )   
 (1 + r) 
Where PV is present value, r is the rate of interest, infl. is the rate of inflation, which is on
average 2% for the Netherlands (Triami Media BV and HomeFinance, 2019), and x is the year
considered for the present value. For the revenue a similar formula is used, i.e. the present value
of revenue including SDE subsidy (benefit per kWh) was calculated with the following:
x
 (1 + infl.)  (2)
PVRevenue+SDE (jaarx ) = (E annual  (PoE + SDE) -OC)   
 (1+r) 
Where is the annual production, PoE is the price of electricity, SDE is a subsidy per
kWh, that can be requested for sustainable energy projects in the Netherlands, and OC is the
operational costs per kWh. Keep in mind that the SDE Subsidy is only present for the first 15
years, after that the only income is revenue.

6,00E+06
3,00E+06
Present Value in [€]

0,00E+00
-3,00E+06 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Major Expenses PV
-6,00E+06 Revenue+SDE
-9,00E+06 Revenue PV
-1,20E+07 NPV+SDE
-1,50E+07 NPV
-1,80E+07
-2,10E+07
Time in years

Figure 5. Present Value Curve of Kaplan Bulb design variant 4.

The summation of these values over time gives the Net Present Value, also shown in Figure 5.
In this figure, the blue solid line follows the Net Present Value including the SDE subsidy and the
purple dashed line only revenue. The major expenses like initial investment and replacement of
parts over the years are indicated with the red bars and the blue and green bars respectively indi-
cate the revenue with and without the SDE subsidy for each year.
To find the Internal rate of return (IRR), the same is done as for LCOE, only now the variable
to be solved for, is the rate of interest r and a fixed price for the energy is chosen.

4 RESULTS CASE STUDY DRIEL

From the results of the research (van Erp, 2019), the best performing variants from each of the
solutions are shown below in Table 5.

The Kaplan Bulb variant 4 performs best in terms of LCOE and IRR. However, variant 1 has
half the investment costs and has similar values for LCOE and IRR making it interesting if only
a smaller investment budget is available. The Venturi Enhanced turbine scores highest on pro-
duction and the Archimedes screw scores worst for this case study on most fronts.

The LCOE’s found are quite high. Other hydropower projects can reach values as low as 0,05
€/kWh. It has to be kept in mind that the LCOE is more a cost price for the electricity company,
not the actual sales price. The company has to also add transmission costs of the network, general
overhead of the company, energy taxes and finally a profit margin. Although, to be fair this last
addition is in a way already incorporated in the rate of return r used for the LCOE. In any case,
the values found in this case-study doesn’t leave a lot of room to supply energy in a competitive
way to the energy market.

Table 5. Results of most promising design variants for each technical solution
Description unit Kaplan Bulb Venturi En- Archimedes
Turbine hanced Screw
Kaplan Bulb Turbine
Turbine
Design variant - DV1 DV4 DV4 DV1
Nr. Of turbines # 2 5 5 11
Diameter of turbine m 2,80 3,90 3,90 4,00
Rated Power kW 1.475 3.160 3.977 1.712
Annual Energy MWh 3.559 7.879 9.256 4.460
Estimated investment Mln € 9,6 20,5 27,9 17,1
LCOE with r=3,3% incl. fase 1 €/kWh 0,161 0,154 0,182 0,238
SDE subsidy
LCOE with r=5,3% incl. fase 1 €/kWh 0,191 0,183 0,217 0,283
SDE subsidy
IRR with PoE= €0,207/kWh % 6,2% 6,7% 4,8% 1,7%
incl. fase 1 SDE subsidy

5 CONCLUSIONS
Low-head hydropower is and remains challenging to implement in an economically viable way.
There are ways to ensure that a decent amount of energy is being extracted from the flow. From
the about 11.000 MWh available, the worked-out designs can extract up to 9256 MWh (DV4 of the
Venturi enhanced turbine) from the flow.
The Venturi enhancement increases the amount of energy produced considerably, and making
it an interesting addition in the arsenal of low head hydropower engineers. Due to uncertainty and
lack of reference projects for this technology, the cost estimate was not the most accurate and
might be over-estimated increasing the LCOE and lowering the IRR of it unjustly. Further re-
search into this technology and its costs is recommended. The system can potentially even be
retrofitted to increase performance of existing hydro-electric plants.
It has to be kept in mind though, that the Venturi enhancement is only an improvement if the
designer is struggling with large amounts of flow in combination with too low head differences
to start the turbine. Whenever for instance a well-developed turbine technology such as the Kaplan
turbine can operate in its optimal range of head and discharge for significant time of the year, the
design will be more efficient with a larger turbine with sufficient discharge area, rather than im-
plementing the venturi bypass solution.

The initial investment remains large for all variants developed and a high capacity factor is
required to pay it back over a long period of time. Any possible way to reduce the initial invest-
ment can help make the project feasible. Since many of the structures creating head-differences
in Europe are built more than 30 or 40 years ago, they are scheduled for renovation, maintenance
work or even replacement. This is a prime opportunity to include hydro-power, as certain costs
that are part of the investment can be shared with such renovation or replacement projects. Op-
portunities are: the foundations and the power-house that can be incorporated into dam-like struc-
tures or piers of movable weirs. Also, general overhead will be shared if a joint project is setup,
as well as the possibility for design work to be done in an integral way, thus being able to consider
both hydro-power and other fluvial considerations in the same design process.
REFERENCES

Bozhinova, S., Hecht, V., Müller , G., Schneider, S., & Kisliakov, D. (2011). Hydropower converters
with head differences below 2,5m. Proceedings of the institute of Civil Engineers.
Grevelingendam TTC; Broers, M.A. (2020, 01 17). Demonstration of bi-directional turbine in ultra low
head forced sea current energy-dam (translated). Retrieved from Top Sector Energy -
empowering the new economy: https://projecten.topsectorenergie.nl/projecten/demonstratie-bi-
directionele-turbine-in-ultra-laag-verval-gedwongen-zeestroming-energiedijk-00024483
Marence, M., Ingabire, J., & Taks, B. (2016). Integration of hydropower plant within an existing weir – "a
hidden treasure". Sustainable Hydraulics in the Era of Global Change (pp. 974-978). London:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Pandey, B., & Karki, A. (2017). Hydroelectric energy - Renewable energy and the Environment. Boca
Raton: CRC Press.
Pentair Faribanks Nijhuis. (2019, January). Email correspondence with R&D engineer.
Triami Media BV and HomeFinance. (2019). Historische geharmoniseerde inflatie Nederland - HICP.
(Triami Media BV and HomeFinance) Retrieved 2019, from
https://nl.inflation.eu/inflatiecijfers/nederland/historische-inflatie/hicp-inflatie-nederland.aspx
Triodos Bank. (2019, 06 30). Renewables europe fund - beleggen. (Triodos Bank) Retrieved 07 14, 2019,
from https://www.triodos.nl/beleggen/renewables-europe-fund
van Erp, S. R. (2019). Techno-economic feasibility of Hydropower at weir-complex Driel with assessment
method for low-head run-of-river powerplants. Delft: Delft University of Technology.