revista hidraulica

FEBRUARY 2009

Serving the hydro industry for 60 years: 1949-2009

Decommissioning dams

Trends in training

Project financeEstimating the costs of E&M equipment

0

Understand the challenges and opportunities of small hydro power

Register online now at: www.waterpowermagazine.com/smallhydro2009Email: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0) 20 7753 4268 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7915 9773

Small Hydro 2009Tuesday 28 and Wednesday 29 April 2009, Vancouver BC, Canada

Und e rs ta nd the chall enges a nd PLUS 10

CASESTUDIES

In depth analysis of your key challenges covering all the issues you are facing today

Analyse the future of small hydro power

Discover the potential of small hydro power in the current energy context

Assess the natural resources in Canada and in Europe

Discuss the investment opportunities

Identify the up rating and refurbishment challenges

Review the latest projects and technology

•

•

•

•

•

•

LEADING INTERNATIONAL SPEAKERS INCLUDE:

Steve Davis, President, Independent Power Producers of British Columbia (IPPBC), Canada

Bernhard Pelikan, President, ESHA, Belgium

Jeremy Haile, President, Knight Piésold Ltd., Canada

Pierre Dufl on, Regional Manager BC, Andritz, Canada

Brian Yanity, Project Engineer, NANA Pacifi c, US

Loic Petillon, Project Manager, BPR, Canada

Nik Argirov, Manager of Vancouver Operations, MWH, Canada

Mohammad Eslamipour, Project Manager, Mapna Generator Co, Iran

Michael Tauber, Project Manager, Kirchdorfer Group, Austria

David de Montmorency, President, Rapid-Eau Technologies, Canada

Wayne Krouse, CEO, Hydro Green Energy, USA

ENDORSING ORGANISATIONS

SPONSORS

VIBeventsOrganised by

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

&DAMCONSTRUCTIONWaterPowerEditorCarrieann StocksTel: +44 20 8269 [email protected]

Contributing EditorsPatrick ReynoldsSuzanne Pritchard

Editorial AssistantsElaine [email protected]

Tracey [email protected]

Group Advertisement ManagerScott GalvinTel: +44 20 8269 [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerNatalie Kyne

Production ControllerLyn Shaw

Sales DirectorTim Price

Commercial DirectorMaria Wallace

Publishing DirectorJon Morton

OfficesUnited Kingdom: Progressive Media Markets Ltd,Progressive House, 2 Maidstone Road,Foots Cray, Sidcup, Kent DA14 5HZ, UK.Tel: +44 20 8269 7700, Fax: +44 20 8269 7804,Email: [email protected]: Ediconsult Internazionale, Piazza Fontane Marose3, 16123 GENOVA, ItalyTel: +39 010 583 684, Fax: +39 010 566 578Japan: Masayuki Harihara, Yukari Media Inc., 3-4Uchihiranomachi, 3 Chome chuo-ku, Osaka 540-0037,Japan. Tel: +81 6 4790 2222, Fax: +81 6 4793 0800.Email: [email protected]

Subscription OfficeInternational Water Power & Dam Construction,PO Box 251, Southall UB1 2DB, UK.Tel: +44 20 8606 7515, Fax: +44 20 8606 7301.Email: [email protected] single copies or back issues please contact:International Water Power & Dam Construction,PO Box 935, Finchingfield, Braintree, Essex, CM7 4LN,UK. Tel: +44 1371 810433, Fax: +44 1371 811065.

North America onlyInternational Water Power & Dam Construction (ISSN0306-400X) is published monthly by Progressive MediaMarkets Ltd, Progressive House, 2 Maidstone Road, FootsCray, Sidcup DA14 5HZ, UK. Periodicals postage paid atRahway, NJ. Postmaster: send address corrections toInternational Water Power & Dam Construction c/o BTBMailflight Ltd, 365 Blair Rd, Avenel, NJ 07001. US agent:BTB Mailflight Ltd, 365 Blair Rd, Avenel, NJ 07001.

Subscription Rates 1 YEARUK UK£245USA/Canada airspeed US$515Europe, inc EU, airspeed Euro 418Rest of world airspeed UK£259These rates for IWP&DC include the Yearbook and digi-tal edition of the magazine

Published byProgressive Media Markets Ltd,Progressive House, 2 Maidstone Road,Foots Cray, Sidcup, Kent DA14 5HZ, UK.

© 2008 Progressive Media Markets Ltd.Printed by Williams Press Ltd.

CONTENTS

COVER: Diagrams have beendeveloped to estimate the cost ofE&M equipment in powerhouseson pp21-25. Photo by CesarAlvarado-Ancieta

30

36

16

DAMENGINEERING

ModernPowerSystemsCOMMUNICATING POWER TECHNOLOGY WORLDWIDE

INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION • ISSN 0306-400X Volume 61 Number 2 • FEBRUARY 2009 3

46 PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY48 WORLD MARKETPLACE

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM

MEMBER OF THE AUDIT BUREAU OF CIRCULATION

R E G U L A R S

4 WORLD NEWS10 DIARY

F E A T U R E S

INSIGHT12 Tidal power primed for breakthrough

Can tidal power really complete with other forms of powergeneration? Neil Ford investigates

GENERATORS16 Generating interest under water

Detailing the UW 100 submerged generator and itspotential for use in the hydro industry

18 Bringing small hydro to GuatemalaHydroelectric power is bringing much needed relief tothe community of La Florida in Guatemala. SamRedfield tells IWP&DC of his work developing this smallscale scheme

PROJECT COSTS21 Estimating E&M powerhouse costs

Useful diagrams have been developed to allow a close costestimation of electrical and mechanical equipment inpowerhouses with Pelton, Francis, Kaplan, Kaplan-Rohr,Bulb and Francis Pump turbines

ENVIRONMENT26 Green hydro pioneers – ten years on

As the Low Impact Hydropower Institute celebrate’s its10th anniversary, members of the LIHI governing boarddiscuss how successful the institute has been, whilesharing their hopes for the future

30 Decommissioning dams – costs and trendsDrawing from recent US case studies of dam removals,Kevin Oldham explores trends across three key areas:costs, sediment management and removal methodology

TRAINING36 Gaining through training

An overview of the International Centre forHydropower’s course programme for 2009

38 Playing it safeDennis K Neitzel provides an insight into trainingrequirements to ensure electrical safety

TUNNELLING40 Grouting works at Jinping

Detailing the post-grouting work and classification of thewater inflows in access tunnel B at Jinping hydro scheme

The paper used in this magazine is obtainedfrom manufacturers who operate withininternationally recognised standards.The paper is made from Elementary ChlorineFree (ECF) pulp, which is sourced fromsustainable, properly managed forestation.

12

WORLD NEWS

4 FEBRUARY 2009 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

WORLDNEWS

WORLDNEWS

www.waterpowermagazine.com

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OFChina's (PRC) push to make itsenergy sector cleaner and more

efficient is to receive increased sup-port from the Asian DevelopmentBank (ADB).

ADB will provide three technicalassistance grants totalling US$2.8Mto support government initiatives toreduce sulfur dioxide gas emissions,increase energy savings, and

ADB loan to help strengthenChina's energy sectorstrengthen a fund that supports cleanenergy projects.

Over the past two decades thePRC's economy has grown at an aver-age rate of over 9.5% a year. But theheavy reliance on coal for the bulk ofits surging energy needs has resultedin harmful levels of sulfur dioxide andother air pollutants that are the primarycause of acid rain.

“PRC is confronted with serious envi-ronmental challenges that not onlyaffect domestic production, but alsohave significant links with climatechange,” said Anil Terway, Director,Energy Division of ADB's East AsiaDepartment.

To support the government's targetof cutting sulfur dioxide emissions by10% between 2006 and 2010, an ADBtechnical assistance grant of$500,000 will be used to design andimplement a national emissions trad-ing system. This will provide a financialincentive to companies to curb emis-

sions and complement other govern-ment measures to reduce air pollu-tion. It follows ADB backing of a pilotsulfur dioxide trading scheme inTaiyuan City in 2004.

ADB will also provide technicalassistance totalling $1.5M to sup-port the government's goal ofmaking energy savings of 20% by2010. It will be used to look at stepsneeded to attract international finan-cial institutions to invest in energyefficiency and conservation projects.Presently, provincial governments inthe PRC lack the capacity to readilyinitiate energy projects that couldpotentially tap external financing.The technical assistance will alsohelp improve the scheduling ofpower generation by giving higher pri-ority to zero- and low-carbon dioxideemitting power plants.

The PRC's China CleanDevelopment Mechanism Fund –designed to encourage clean energy

projects that generate certified emis-sions reductions (CERs) that can thenbe sold to developed countries thatneed them – is also getting ADB policyand advisory assistance worth$800,000. It will be used to build upthe capacity of the Fund for promotingand supporting climate change-relat-ed projects. The PRC is estimated tohave the potential to generate about50% of total worldwide annual CERsunder the Clean DevelopmentMechanism established in the KyotoProtocol.

The financial support is in the formof grants with $1.4M coming fromADB's regular technical assistancefunding program and $1.4M from itsClimate Change Fund.

This Fund was established in May2008 to help developing membercountries put in place projects thatmitigate the adverse impacts of cli-mate change and bolster energysecurity.

Endesa Chile ends suit over water regulationELECTRIC POWER UTILITY

Endesa Chile has ended its suitover restrictions on how it is

allowed to be involved in regulationof water use for hydro power.

Progress with various parties, suchas those involved with irrigation inriver basins in Chile, has led the util-ity to drop the suit against theTreasury dept.

Endesa Chile said some agree-ments have been reached that willenable it to become involved in futurein some regulatory committees. Itadded that its collaborative approach

has received cooperation from thegeneral waters authority DGA(Direccion General de Aguas) and thehydraulic works authority (Direccion deObras Hidraulicas).

The suit against the Governmentwas brought just over a year agoand both parties have agreed toits termination.

More than 70% of the utility'salmost 4.8GW installed generatingcapacity in Chile is hydro power. Keyplants are: Ralco (690MW);Pehuenche (570MW); Pangue(467MW); El Toro (450MW); Rapel

(377MW); Anluco (320MW); Abanico(136MW); Curillinque (89MW); Sauzal(76.8MW) and Isla (68MW). ThePalmucho plant (32MW) was commis-sioned just over a year ago.

Better hydrology in Chile in 2008helped to offset the effects of higherfuel costs elsewhere in the utility'sgeneration portfolio.

In total, including assets in otherLatin American countries, it hasinstalled capacity of 12.7GW.

A key foreign asset is El Choconscheme (1320MW) in Argentina, whichcomprises El Chocon (1200MW) and

Arroyito (120MW). In 2008, the utilityexperienced weaker hydrology in the ElChocon area.

In Colombia, the utility's prime hydroassets are Guavio (1163MW), Betania(540.9MW), Guaca (324.6MW) andParaiso (276.6MW).

The key asset in Brazil is theCachoeira Dourada plant (665MW) inGoias, which is held by Endesa Brasil.

Endesa Chile's main hydro assetsin Peru are Huinco (247MW), Chimay(151MW), Matucana (128MW),Callahuanca (80MW) and Moyopampa(65MW).

Brazil hydro aces gas; funding for Santo AntonioIN HYDRO DEVELOPMENT IN BRAZIL

the country has seen such high levelsof precipitation recently that it is look-

ing at a strategic cutback in importednatural gas, and project developmenthas also seen major funds provided forone of the largest schemes of recentyears – Santo Antonio.

The Ministry of Mines and Energy(MME) said that the current high stor-age levels in reservoirs had givensecurity of energy supply in the cur-rent season, and so presented anopportunity for a reduction of gasimports.

Rainfall in December and Januarywas much higher than average, andthe trend is expected to continue thismonth.

Based on the good hydrologicalconditions, the Electricity SectorMonitoring Committee (CMSE) haddecided to review the imports of gas,said MME.

In a further major step forward forhydro power in the country, Brazil'snational development bank, BNDES,has approved R$6,100M(US$2,575M) of funds to help theconcessionaire build the 3150MW

Santo Antonio project. The financingequates to 46.6% of the projectbudget, and, when combined withfunds from other financial organisa-tions, brings the total debt to almosttwo-thirds of the budget.

The concession was won byMadeira Energia SA (Mesa), a consor-tium led by Furnas and Odebrecht andincluding Andrade Gutierrez, Cemigand a private equity fund held bySantander and Banif.

BNDES is providing the funds toSanto Antonio Energia (SAESA), whichis a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mesa.

Mesa has contracted ConsorcioConstrutor Santo Antonio (CCSA) tobuild the project, with the first of 44generation units expected to be com-missioned by May 2012. The JVincludes Odebrecht, AndradeGutierrez, Alstom Hydro EnergiaBrasil, Areva Transmissao andDistribuicao de Energia, Siemens,Andritz Hydro, Voith Siemens andBardella.

Santo Antonio is one of two projectsin the 6450MW Madeira scheme. Itssister project is the 3300MW Jirauscheme.

WORLD NEWS

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM FEBRUARY 2009 5

In BriefIBERDROLA ISpreparing to build the AltoTamega scheme inPortugal which will callfor Euro 1.7B (US$2.24B)of investment. Thescheme, to be completedby 2018, calls for theconstruction of four dams– Gouvaes, Padroselos,Alto Tamega and Daivoes.Four power plants willalso be built – two pumpturbine facilities with totalcapacity of 900MW, andtwo conventional genera-tion plants with 234MW.

CAVICO HAS BEENawarded a tunnellingcontract valued atUS$9.8M on the 37WSong Giang 2 project inVietnam. The Vietnamesecontractor's subsidiaryCavico HydropowerConstruction is to con-struct a 3.9km longheadrace tunnel, two subtunnels of 650m in totallength, and a 42m highsurge tank. Site prepara-tion work begins duringthe first quarter of theyear, and the contractperiod is 20 months.

OCEAN POWERTechnologies (OPT) andLockheed Martin havesigned a Letter of Intent(LoI) to collaborate on autility-scale project usingOPT's proprietary systemPowerBuoy. No detailswere available to quantifythe scale of the proposedproject or schedule.However, they said theproject is expected to beeither off the coast ofCalifornia or Oregon. Thecompanies have previouslyworked together usingPowerBuoy for UShomeland security andmaritime surveillance.

Russia, Georgia in pact for Inguri opsAMEMORANDUM OF UNDER-

standing (MoU) has beensigned between Russia's Inter

RAO and the Government of Georgiato help improve the efficient operationof the 1.3GW Inguri hydro power plant.

The MoU proposes a 10-year pro-gramme of measures to improve theefficiency of Inguri's plant, dam andreservoir, which are spread across theborder between Georgia and Abkhazia.

Abkahzia declared its independenceof Georgia a decade ago. Russia last

year formally recognised Abkhazia asindependent of Georgia, following theconflict between the countries overanother region, South Ossetia.

Inter RAO said that talks with lead-ers of power sectors in Georgia andAbkhazia had taken place in prepara-tion for the pact.

The plant is a major power facility inthe region. It is located on the Inguririver and includes a 271.5m highdouble curvature arch dam with acrest length of 680m. The project was

completed in 1980 with an initialinstalled capacity of 400MW. It nowgenerates approximately 4500GWh ofelectricity per year.

In the late 1990s work waslaunched to improve safety of the dam,supported by funding from theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment (EBRD). The dam isfounded on complex geology, princi-pally comprising limestone anddolomite, and there are tectonic cracksand fractures in the area.

Severn tidal shortlist down to five options

THE UK GOVERNMENT HASannounced a proposed shortlistof five project options to exploit

tidal energy in the Severn Estuary insouthwest England. A feasibility studyof 10 project options lasted about ayear before the proposed five short-listed alternatives were chosen:• Cardiff Weston Barrage (8.6GW,costing £19.6B-£22.2B (US$27.6B-US$31.2B));• Bridgwater bay Lagoon (1.36GW,generating 2.6TWh/year and costing

£3.4B-£4.1B (US$4.8B-US$5.75B));• Fleming Lagoon (1.36GW, generating2.3TWh/year and costing £4.1B-£4.9B(US$5.75B-US$6.9B));• Shoots Barrage (1.05GW, generating2.7TWh/year); and,• Beachley Barrage (625MW, generat-ing 1.6TWh/year and costing £2.1B-£2.5B (US$3B-US$3.5B)).

The Department of Energy andClimate Change (DECC) haslaunched a three-month public con-sultation on all 10 projects and its

proposed shortlist. The consultationends 23 April. Following analysis,a final shortlist will be issued togo forward to the next stage ofstudy, which will be followed by afurther public consultation.

DECC said a final decision on thetidal power exploitation at the Severnis to be made next year.

The DECC also announced £0.5M(US$0.7M) to fund development workon technologies such as tidal reefsand fences.

IRAN EXPECTS TO HAVE FIVElarge dams completed by itsyear end, in late March, out of

the total of 94 major projects underconstruction.

The country has had lower rainfallin many areas and is pushing aheadwith its dam building programmedespite limited materials suppliesover the past year. Limited fundingwas also an issue and theGovernment has increased credits tothe water sector, said the Ministry ofEnergy and Water Affairs.

Iran dam building pushing ahead

STATKRAFT HAS CLAIMED THEEuropean renewables crown fol-lowing the completion of its

asset swap with E.ON. The assetswere legally transferred at the end ofDecember with the total value of theswap almost Euro4.5B (US$5.95B).

Under the deal a large number ofhydro power plants were transferred toStatkraft. The transfer included 40plants in Sweden (900MW), 11 inGermany (262MW) and one in the UK(56MW).

To implement the Khoda-Afarin andQiz Qalasi hydro power plants theGovernment has given Euro 85M(US$109.9M) and Euro 40M(US$51.7M), respectively, it was sep-arately reported by Mehr News Agency.

The agency added that the 78mhigh Alborz embankment dam, inMazandaran province, is due to becompleted by mid-2009. The dam isbeing built by Mazanaran RegionalWater Co, which is also constructingthe Galvard dam and that project isjust over a quarter completed.

Half a year ago the Ministry gave thetotal number of dams at about 90, andin late 2007 it noted that the countryhad 176 potential large projects.

In reviewing the number of projectsbuilt, the Ministry said Iran had14 dams built between the 1950sand 1979, and since thenapproximately 500 structures (180large and 320 small).

The Ministry added that the Iraniandams sector is also involved in imple-menting water-related projects in adozen other countries.

European renewable crown forStatkraft on asset swap completion

The deal also brought theNorwegian utility five district heatingplants, two gas-fired plants and a4.17% stake in E.ON AG.

In return, Statkraft gave its 44.6%stake in E.ON Sverige plus a hydropower plant. The deal gives E.ON fullownership of E.ON Sverige.

The deal was announced in late2007 and developed over a number ofmonths to be finalised later thanexpected, in mid-2008, before beingcompleted in December. It makes

Statkraft the largest generator ofrenewable energy in Europe.

In other news, Statkraft alsoannounced it has opened a mini-hydro plant at Rodberg to furtherexploit cascade potential and hasapproval to build the Eiriksdal sta-tion. The 2.9MW Rodberg plant hasbeen built between the Nore 1 andNore 2 plants, and generates electric-ity using the minimum releases fromthe Rodberg dam. It is expected to gen-erate an average of 15.5GWh per year.

Our HyService is electrifying!

www.ms

w.de

Why do more hydro power owners choose Voith Siemens Hydro as their reliable partner for services, products and solutions? Because of our expertise. We are the pre-ferred supplier of state-of-the-art hydro power generation equipment, solutions and service: HyService!

Our service, maintenance and operational skills are unsurpassed. Whether you want us to trouble-shoot a generator or upgrade an entire facility, you get the best service through HyService!

www.voithsiemens.com

WORLD NEWS


In BriefANDRITZ HASchanged the name of thecompanies in its recentlyexpanded group toAndritz Hydro and isdropping the use of VATech Hydro. The expan-sion of the group tookmajor strides forward in2006 when Andritzacquired VA Tech Hydro,and the purchase wasfollowed by Tigep in2007. Most significantly,last year it bought theGEHI joint venture, whichheld the majority of GE'shydro portfolio, butAndritz also then took theremaining hydro activitiesof GE. The re-branding ispart of the consolidationof the business which, lastOctober, Andritz saidwould see the GE experi-ence being used tobroaden market coverage,especially for Francisturbines. Going forwardthe group wants averagesales growth of 10%per year.

CHILEAN POWERgenerator Colbun hassecured financing for twonew hydroelectric schemesin the country, with acombined generatingcapacity of 500MW.According to reports fromReuters, the company saidit is planning to invest$1M to build the SanPedro and Angosturaschemes. Work is expectedto start on the San Pedroproject - located 800kmsouth of Santiago - inMarch or April this year,subject to environmentalapproval. An environmen-tal impact study is stillunderway for theAngostura project, tobe located 590km southof Santiago.

RIVERBANK POWER CORP HASreceived the greenlight to beginstudies for a 1GW underground

pumped storage plant in the US stateof New Jersey.

The US independent power pro-ducer (IPP) has signed a deal withSparta, NJ, to study the use of theLimecrest Quarry and bedrock belowto form the upper and lower reser-voirs of a “closed-loop” pumped stor-age system.

Riverbank Power gets OK to study1GW buried pumped storage plant

Riverbank Power is about to begin adetailed site investigation study andformal environmental assessment ofthe plans for the site. The lower reser-voir would be approximately 610mbelow the flooded quarry.

With permissions and approvals, itaims to invest US$2B and expects theconstruction phase would take fouryears, completing by 2015.

The company, backed by ventureinvestor Blackrock, aims to build at

least five closed-loop pumped storageplants, each with installed capacity of1GW, in North America. The systemdesign is branded “Aquabank”.

Developing major peak power plantsare important to help grid stabilitywhen integrating wind power intoregional and national energy mixes.

The local government authority andproperty owner Limecrest QuarryDevelopers are collaborating in thestudies for the project.

THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENTBank (AfDB) has approvedfinancing of US$ 16.4M to

improve electricity supply in Lesotho,including the restoration of a 2MWhydro scheme and development offurther small hydro schemes.

The Board of Directors of the AfDBapproved a combined loan and a grantof 11 million Units of Account, (UA)equivalent to US$16.4M, to financethe country’s Electricity Supply Project.The UA 8.9M loan and UA 2.1M grantwill support investment in electricitysupply infrastructure to enhance elec-tricity access rate and ensureimproved efficiency, reduce shortagesand assist the country to reduce pover-ty and achieve the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs).

The project is consistent with theimplementation framework of theAfrican Development Fund, whichfocuses on investment in infrastruc-ture, governance and regional integra-tion, vital for the development ofmarkets to support growth. On com-

AfDB approves US$16M to improveelectricity supply in Lesotho

pletion, it is expected to improve livingconditions for the population and con-tribute to poverty reduction and eco-nomic growth by providing expanded,sustainable electric power at afford-able cost, using renewable energyresources.

Under the project, electricity pro-duction shortages will be alleviated byexploiting renewable energy sourcessuch as hydro power and energy con-servation and demand management.The project envisages restoration ofthe 2 MW hydro plant to make up forproduction shortages by 17MW whichis quite significant for Lesotho. The lowelectricity access rate will beaddressed through the expansion ofthe transformation and distributionsystem in Maseru, Hlotse, Mphaki andMantšonyane, in keeping with thecountry’s 2007 Rural ElectrificationMaster Plan as well as its 2020 Vision.

The project is in line with the areasof focus and strategic intervention pil-lars of the Poverty Reduction andGrowth Strategy (PRGS) and Country

Strategy Paper (CSP) for Lesotho(2008-12), which are, in turn, derivedfrom the Vision 2020. Improved energyinfrastructure will bolster private sector-led economic growth envisaged for themining, manufacturing, textile andtourism sectors.

The project also conforms worth theBank’s Clean Energy InvestmentFramework (CEIF) approved by theBoard in March 2008, which focuseson promoting clean energy develop-ment and contributing to global emis-sions reduction efforts, by steadilyraising energy efficiency on the supplyside and encouraging a culture ofenergy saving on the demand side,increasing the contribution of renew-able energy sources, and paying closeattention to environmental and socialexternalities of energy production.

The total project cost is estimatedat UA 15.18M. The AfDB loanaccounts for 72.48 % of the costs. Theremaining 27.52% will be financed bythe government and the LesothoElectricity Corporation (LEC).

ZENERGY POWER PLC HAS BEENcommissioned by RWE Power toevaluate the potential increase

in output that could be achieved fromRWE’s existing run-of-river hydroplants using superconductor variablespeed generators.

At the end of January 2009 RWEcommissioned the Group’s whollyowned subsidiary, Zenergy PowerGmbH, to provide a detailed evalua-tion on the potential of its supercon-

Zenergy Power commissioned to study use ofsuperconductor technology at RWE plants

ductive technology to increase effi-ciency and output. Zenergy will nowreceive data from a selected repre-sentative hydro plant location situatedon the river Mosel in Germany.

The results of the study will then beused as the basis for estimating howsuperconducting variable speed gen-erators could contribute to increasesin efficiency and output of a furthereight similar hydro sites operated byRWE along the river Mosel. The results

of which are expected later this year.In total, RWE operates ten run-of-

river hydro plants on the river Moselwhich together generate over 800GWhof electrical power every year. Oncereceived and evaluated, the data fromthe Group’s study will be used by RWEto compile an economic evaluation ofthe business case for replacing con-ventional generators in run-of-riverhydro plants with generators based onsuperconductor components.

WORLD NEWS


TendersAN INVITATION TOtender has been issued forthe supply and installationof control, protectionand monitoring equipmentto the Dokan andDerbandikhan hydropower projects in Iraq. Thework is part of a rehabilita-tion scheme being carriedout at the two plants and ispart funded by a creditfrom the InternationalBank for Reconstructionand Development.Deadline for submission ofbids is 1 April 2009.

The 400MW Dokan and249MW Derbandikhanschemes are the largestpower plants in theKurdistan Region of thecountry, and both areconnected to the NationalGrid. Each plant is partof a multipurpose schemefor power productionand irrigation.

The scope of work onboth schemes includes thedesign, manufacture,factory testing, delivery,civil works, installation,training, site testing andcommissioning of thefollowing main equip-ment: control andmonitoring systems;turbine governors; genera-tor, transformed andturbine protection sys-tems; energy meters.

For further informationcontact: Mr Fatih SaeedSalih, General Directorateof Electricity ofSuleimaniah. Tel: +964(0)770 158 0336. Email:[email protected] Federico Ciampitti,ELC Electroctroconsult,Tel: +39 023 833 51.Email: [email protected]

IADB agrees loan to helpmanage Caroni catchment

HYDRO GREEN ENERGY (HGE)has installed the first com-mercial hydrokinetic turbine,

and the second unit is to be placedaround April at the site nearHastings, Minnesota.

First power is expected to be avail-able from the project's initial unit thismonth. The project only won approvalof the US Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (FERC) in December.

The units will be attached to afloating barge in the tailrace of theUS Army Corps of Engineers' Lock &Dam No2 on the Mississippi river.USACE approved the project inNovember. Each unit has a capacityof 35kW, said FERC, and HGE notedthey nameplate capacities of 100kW.

FERC has said the project isimportant as it combines newtechnology with a conventionalhydro power dam. USACE's existingplant at Lock & Dam No2 has aninstalled capacity of 4.4MW.

WAVEGEN AND NPOWER HAVEreceived consent for theSiadar wave energy project

in Scotland using oscillating watercolumn technology (OWC).

Approval for the 4MW project, to belocated on the island of Lewis, wasgiven by the Scottish Government.

The plant will be constructed of a250m long breakwater and 40 x100kW turbines. Using Wells turbines,the plant is to be commissioned bylate 2010.

WaveGen is a subsidiary of Voith

THE INTER-AMERICANDevelopment Bank (IADB) hasagreed to give Venezuela a loan

to help improve the management ofthe catchment area of the Caroniriver, including enhancing hydroelec-tric potential.

A US$14M loan has been agreed bythe bank to help the Ministry ofPopular Power for the Environment tosustainably manage the watershed.

The bank said that the long-termobjective of the programme is toenhance the hydroelectric potential ofthe Caroni catchment.

It said that goal could be achievedby encouraging the sustainable andintegrated management of localresources.

The Ministry is to use the funds pri-marily for institutional strengthening of

those organisations in charge of themanagement and development of theCaroni catchment.

Key aspects of the work also includeprotecting land rights, promoting appro-priate land use practices and improv-ing living conditions for localcommunities, including indigenouspeoples.

Venezuela is rich in hydro powerpotential and under construction atpresent on the Caroni is the ManuelPiar Tocoma scheme, which will havean installed capacity of 2330MW andis to be completed by 2012. The clientis state-owned utility CVGElectrificacion del Caroni (Edelca).

Almost two years ago the AndeanDevelopment Corp (CAF) agreed toloan US$600M over 18 years to helpbuild the scheme.

HGE installsfirst commercialhydrokineticturbine

Wavegen, npower getsapproval for Siadar project

Siemens Hydro Power Generation,being a member of the group's OceanEnergy division. RWE Innogy owns theutility npower.

The scheme would be eligible toreceive revenue support via theGovernment's Renewable Obligationscheme.

The companies have been workingon the project together since 2006.Wavegen has a grid-connected 500kWtest plant for the technology on theisland of Islay, and it began operationsin 2000.

Renewables global agencyIRENA launched

THE INTERNATIONAL RENEWABLE Energy Agency (IRENA) has beenlaunched today at the beginning of a two-day establishing conference inBonn, Germany.An initiative spearheaded by Germany, with support from Denmark andSpain, the agency has had dozens of countries signed up so far.The agency is argued to be a key step in helping to address climatechange, which supporters said will help parties to take informed decisionsand use renewable energies in cost effective ways.Supporters aim to make the agency the main driving force to promoterapid transition to widespread and sustainable use of renewable energy ona global scale. It is envisaged by them that the agency will act as the'global voice' for renewable energies and facilitate access to all relevantinformation, including data, best practices, effective financial mecha-nisms, and technological expertise.Pre-launch activities included a side event at the UN Climate ChangeConference (COP14) last month, which followed significant developmentactivities throughout 2008.

ACONTRACT TO EQUIP THREEhydro power plants in Turkeyhas been awarded to a joint ven-

ture of Alstom Hydro and GES bydeveloper Enerjisa Enerji Uretim.

The contract value is approximatelyEuro100M (US$136.5M) to cover theturbines, generators and other equip-ment required for the Turkish-Austriandeveloper's three plants, which have acombined installed capacity of 417MW.

Alstom will design, supply, trans-port, supervise and commission theseven vertical Francis turbines andgenerators to be supplied to the threeplants – Kavsakbendi, Kopru andMenge – which are to be commis-sioned over 2010-11. The equipmentvalue is approx. 70% of the contract.

Kavsakbendi will have an installedcapacity of 183MW (3 x 61MW) andthe generators are rated at 66MVA.

The Kopru plant will have aninstalled capacity of 148MW (2 x74MW) with generators of 80MVA.

Menge will have a capacity of 86MW(2 x 43MW) and its generators rated at50MVA.

GES is to deliver the balance ofplant and is responsible for the overallinstallation of the equipment.

Alstom equipsTurkish plants


DIARY

Let IWP&DC’s readers know about your forthcoming conferences and events.For publication in a future issue, send your diary dates to: Carrieann Stocks, IWP&DC, Progressive Media Markets Ltd, Progressive House,

2 Maidstone Road, Foots Cray, Sidcup, Kent, DA14 5HZ, UK. Alternatively, email: [email protected].

DIARY OF EVENTS

May

13-15 MaySecond National Symposium onDam SafetyEskisehir, Turkey

CONTACT: Eskisehir OsmangaziUniversity, Earthquake ResearchCenter, 26480 Bah Meselik,Eskishehir, Turkey.Email: [email protected];[email protected].

17-21 MayWorld Environmental & WaterResources CongressKansas City, Missouri, US

CONTACT: Adele C. Dicken,CMP, Conference Manager, ASCEWorld Headquarters, 1801Alexander Bell Drive, Reston,

June

24-26 JuneIHA Congress 2009Reykjavik, Iceland

CONTACT: InternationalHydropower Association, FifthFloor West, Nine Sutton CourtRoad, Sutton, Surrey. UnitedKingdom, SM1 4SZ.Tel: +44 20 8652 5290.Fax: +44 20 8770 1744.Email: [email protected].

April

20-22 April2nd Int. Conference on Hydro-power Technology & EquipmentBeijing, China

CONTACT: Wang Yu, Lei Dingyan,Sun Zhuo, Rm. 431, Main Building,No.1 Lane 2 Baiguang Rd. XuanwuDist, Bejing 100761, China.Tel: 86 10 63414390; 63414391;63414394.Fax: 86 10 63547632.E-mail:[email protected]/ichte/en/index.jsp.

28-29 AprilSmall Hydro 2009Vancouver, Canada

CONTACT: Carrieann Stocks,Editor, International Water Power& Dam Construction, 2 MaidstoneRoad, Foots Cray, Sidcup, KentDA14 5HZ, UK.Tel: +44 (0) 208 269 7777.Fax: +44 208 269 [email protected]/smallhydro2009.

March

3-5 March

Underwater Intervention 2009New Orleans, US

CONTACT: Rebecca Roberts,5206 FM 1960 West, Suite 202,Houston, TX 77069 US.Tel: +1 281 893 8539.Email: [email protected].

10-12 MarchRenewable Energy WorldConference & ExpoLas Vegas, US

CONTACT: Jan Simpson,Conference Manager.Tel: +1 918 831 9736.Fax: +1 918 831 [email protected].

12-13 MarchWater Power & Climate Change –Annual Conference on HydraulicEngineeringDresden, Germany

CONTACT: Prof Dr-Ing habil R.Pohl, Institut Fur Wasserbau undTechnische Hydromechanik,Technische Universitat Dresden, D-01602 Dresden, Germany.Tel: +49 351 463 33837.Fax: +49 351 463 [email protected].

16-22 March5th World Water ForumIstanbul, Turkey

CONTACT: 5th Forum Secretariat,DSI, Libadiye Caddesi No.54,Küçükçamlica - Üsküdar, 34696Istanbul, Turkey.Tel: +90 216 325 49 92.Fax: +90 216 428 09 [email protected].

30-31 MarchArabian Power & Water Summit2009Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

CONTACT: Middle East BusinessIntelligence, Dubai Media City, PO

Box 25960, Al Thuraya Tower 1,20th Floor, Dubai, United ArabEmirates.Fax: +971 4 368 8025.www.meed.com.

July

27-30 JulyWaterpower XVISpokane, Washington, US

CONTACT: HCI Publications,410 Archibald Street, Kansas City,MO 64111, US.Tel: +1 816 931 1311.Fax: +1 816 931-2015.Email: [email protected].

October

27 September – 1 OctoberDam Safety 2009Florida, US

CONTACT: Association of StateDam Safety Officials (ASDSO),450 Old Vine Street, LexingtonKY 40507, US.Tel: +1 859 257 5140.Fax: +1 859 323 1958.Email: [email protected]://www.damsafety.org.

3-8 OctoberCanadian Dam AssociationAnnual ConferenceBritish Columbia, Canada

CONTACT: Canadian DamAssociation, PO Box 4490, SouthEdmonton Postal Station,Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6E4X7.Tel: +1 780 432 7236.http://www.cda.ca.

12-13 October2nd International Conference onLong Term Behaviour of DamsGraz, Austria

CONTACT: LTBD09 OrganizingCommittee, Technikerstraße 4/II8010 Graz, Austria.www.ltbd09.tugraz.at.

26-28 OctoberHydro 2009Lyon, France

CONTACT: Hydropower &Dams Editorial Office,Aqua~Media International Ltd,123 Westmead Road, Sutton,Surrey SM1 4JH, UK.Tel: +44 20 8643 [email protected].

August

10-14 AugustInternational Association of

Virginia 20191-4400, US.Email: [email protected].

20-21 MayAll Energy 09Scotland, UK

CONTACT: Media GenerationEvents Ltd, 34 Ellerker Gardens,Richmond, Surrey, TW10 6AA,UK.Tel: +44 20 8241 1912.Fax: +44 20 8940 6211.Email: [email protected]

24-29 May23rd ICOLD CongressBrasilia

CONTACT: Brazilian Committeeon Dams, Rua Real Grandeza 219,Bloco C S/1007 Botafogo, Rio deJaniero, Brazil.Tel: (055 21) 25285320.Fax: (055 21) 25285959.www.cbdb.org.br.

Hydraulic Engineering & Research33rd Biennial CongressVancouver, BC, Canada

CONTACT: Stacey Ann P.Gardiner, CMP, CongressManager, ASCE WorldHeadquarters, 1801 AlexanderBell Drive, Reston, Virginia 20191-4400, [email protected]


INSIGHT

WHILE wind and solar powerprojects can be unpre-dictable because of varia-tions in output, tidal power

has long been mooted as one of the fewrenewable energy technologies that can beused to provide a base load for nationalpower systems. Tides certainly can be pre-dicted but although developers have beenslow to turn scientific promise into com-mercial reality, significant breakthroughsare now being made. A combination ofcompanies specialising in tidal energy,large power corporations and govern-ments keen on promoting energy securityand tackling climate change are providingthe investment that should turn hypo-thetical potential into low carbon powerproduction

Two trends can be discerned. Most pro-jects involve the deployment of small num-bers of relatively small scale turbines thathave already been tested over several yearsand which could later be deployed in theirhundreds to generate large amounts ofelectricity at many different locations. Ahandful of schemes, most notably in SouthKorea, are being developed that involvethe installation of large turbines and hun-dreds of megawatts of generating capacityin the first instance, utilising technologythat has been specifically designed for theproject in question.

South Korea is a prime example of acountry that promotes tidal power in aneffort to boost energy security. With verylittle oil, gas or coal of its own, Seoul haslong relied on imported feedstock and aburgeoning nuclear sector to supply theelectricity that powers the thriving econo-my. Although liquefied natural gas (LNG)prices have fallen markedly in East Asia inthe past six months, South Korea remainseager to reduce its dependence on energyimports through a two pronged strategy ofnew nuclear reactors and substantial invest-ment in renewable energy schemes.

Under Seoul’s Second Basic Plan forNew & Renewable Energy Technology

Development and Dissemination, the pro-portion of renewables in the generationmix is scheduled to increase from just1.4% in 2003 to 5% by 2011 and 10% by2020. While solar power will make somecontribution towards achieving this target,large scale tidal power projects willaccount for the lion’s share. A tidal powerpark is being created on the WandoHoenggan Water Way, where new tidaltechnologies will be tested at the same timeas selling the electricity they produce.

Korean Midland Power Company andBritish firm Lunar Energy have already testedtheir 1MW, 11.5m turbine in the area andare currently undertaking a feasibility studyinto the construction of a 300MW tidalscheme at the park, which will require theinstallation of 300 turbines by 2015. The tur-bines will be manufactured by RotechEngineering and Hyundai Heavy Industriesand the chairman of Lunar Energy, WilliamLaw, says that the joint venture “will com-bine the subsea engineering skills of Rotechwith the known fabrication expertise ofHyundai.”

Another major investor in WandoHoenggan is Voith Siemens Hydro PowerGeneration, which has taken a 51% stake inKorea Current Power Joint Venture, along-side partners Korea Hydro & Nuclear PowerCompany (KHNP), renewable power com-pany Renetec, the government of JeonnanProvince and South Korean conglomeratePosco. The joint venture plans to test tidalpower equipment at the site.

However, it is the Sihwa Tidal Power Plantclose to Ansan City on Inchon Bay inGyeonggi Province, which is the country’sbest known tidal power project. DeveloperDaewoo Engineering & Construction forKorea Water Resources Corporation(KWater) expects the project to come onstream as planned by the end of this year,when it will become the world’s biggest tidalscheme with generating capacity of 254MW,ahead of the 240MW La Rance plant inFrance. The total generating capacity isimportant but it is the sheer size of the tur-

bines involved that could allow Sihwa tochange the face of the global tidal powersector. Its ten bulb type 25.4MW turbines arebeing supplied by Andritz Hydro as part ofa €75M (US$99.5M) contract that alsoincludes electromechanical equipment andengineering services.

Despite the progress that has been madewith tidal power technology in recent years,it is unlikely that the Sihwa scheme wouldbe economically viable if it were not for$250M of government support and theobvious environmental benefits of the pro-ject. In 1994, a 12.4km wall was built toseparate Sihwa Lake from the sea but thishas allowed waste from industrial opera-tions on the lake to build up over the past15 years. By allowing 60 billion tonnes ofsea water to enter and then leave the lakeeach year as part of the tidal energy scheme,it is therefore hoped that pollution will beremoved. The ten turbines will be locatedon the sea wall and will be powered by themovement of the water between the sea andthe lake, using the head between the hightide and reservoir levels.

Yet the South Korean national andprovincial authorities remain committed toexploiting the country’s tidal power poten-tial, even where such environmental bene-fits are not apparent. Incheon municipalauthority hopes to develop a much biggerpower scheme by constructing 7.8km ofbarriers between four islands close to itscity. It is estimated that this could support600MW of generating capacity but Incheon

Tidal power primedfor breakthroughCan tidal power really compete with other forms ofpower generation? Neil Ford aims to answer this ques-tion by investigating what projects are actually beingdeveloped on a commercial basis, and detailing wherefuture breakthroughs look likely

The SeaGen turbine from Marine Current Turbineshas been tested in Strangford Lough

EDF plans to test its own 3-6MW turbinesin the same area from 2011, following anassessment of the tidal potential of sitesalong the coast of Brittany.

OpenHydro is also interested in develop-ing tidal power projects in the nearbyChannel Islands, where interest in tidalpower is even greater. Although Britishcrown dependencies, the islands of Jersey,Guernsey, Sark and Alderney lie much closerto France and so are ideally placed to exportelectricity to the European mainland, if andwhen tidal power schemes are developed intheir waters.

In November, the Irish company bought a20% stake in Alderney Renewable Energy(ARE), which has a 65-year licence to devel-op tidal power projects around the island.OpenHydro has drawn up plans for a284MW scheme but ARE suggests that thereis 3GW of tidal power generating potentialin total. Brendan Gilmore, the chairman ofOpenHydro, said: “Alderney’s waters con-tain one of the world’s largest resources ofmarine energy. We are delighted to invest inAlderney Renewable Energy Ltd and to pro-vide our technology to harness this uniqueresource. This resource will deliver securityof energy supply and further economic ben-efits for the residents of Alderney, and willprovide Europe with long term carbon freerenewable tidal energy.”

The plans are not without controversy,particularly as the island’s legislature, theStates of Alderney, has voted to shelve aplanned two year pilot scheme in favour ofmoving on to the 284MW phase more quick-ly. Given the lack of commercial track recordfor the technology in question, this certainly

INSIGHT


does not benefit from existing sea walls, sototal construction costs are expected to bein excess of $2B. A development consor-tium has yet to be created to pursue theproposed project and it seems likely thatIncheon council will wish to see the suc-cessful operation of Sihwa before it com-mits its own funds.

FRENCH CONNECTION

Although La Rance came on stream in 1966,France made relatively little progress onexpanding its tidal power sector for severaldecades. However, French interest in renew-able energy seems to have exploded over thepast year, and ambitious plans for new wind,solar, geothermal and tidal power projectshave been drawn up. According to Frenchfirm Electricité de France (EDF), about 80%of all European tidal power potential is locat-ed around the UK and France, so it is not sur-prising that France is the second biggestcentre for tidal power investment in Europeafter the UK.

EDF has asked potential investors tosubmit bids for tidal schemes that willreceive priority connection to the nationalgrid. OpenHydro of Ireland was unveiled asthe first successful investor in October andwill test its Open Centre turbines, with gen-erating capacity of 2-4MW each, in thePaimpol-Brehat region off the coast ofBrittany. The company hopes that its tech-nology will overcome a great deal of theopposition to tidal power projects fromenvironmental groups because they aremounted on the sea bed and so do not affectsea views and allow ships to pass overhead.

seems a bold move. However, GordonFitton, the chairman of the AlderneyCommission for Renewable Energy (ACRE),says that the pilot project is not neededbecause of thorough testing at the EuropeanMarine Energy Centre.

Competition between the variousislands, which are all governed separately,seems to be driving enthusiasm for tidalpower. Guernsey Electricity is a sharehold-er, alongside EDF and Triodos Bank, inMarine Current Turbines, which hasalready tested its 1.2MW SeaGen turbinein Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland.The company is undertaking a thoroughsurvey of tidal flows around the Bailiwickof Guernsey, which a UK governmentreport has already concluded has some ofthe most attractive tidal resources inEurope. The Guernsey company certainlyseems to have a bright future: it was namedthe leading marine power developer inEurope in a survey by Library House andThe Guardian in September.

Jersey is keen to follow its neighbours’lead. In December, the Jersey States’ tidalpower steering group concluded that tidalenergy could make “a real contribution” tothe island’s energy security, as well as pro-viding a new source of income by exportingelectricity. New legislation and an environ-mental impact assessment on likely projectsare now expected. The steering group’schairman, Dan Murphy, commented: “Webelieve that Jersey’s waters offer an oppor-tunity for us to harness significant amountsof renewable energy both for Jersey but alsopotentially for export to European mar-kets.” The island is keen to hold talks with

Bird’s eye view of Sihwa tidal plant,South Korea. Photo courtesy of Daewoo


INSIGHT

the other Channel Islands regarding coop-eration on exporting electricity from tidalpower schemes and indeed it would makecommercial sense to develop a shared inter-connection with the French grid.

BRITISH LEADERSHIP

While the Channel Islands boast some ofthe best tidal power potential in Europe,there are numerous other sites around theUK that have the potential to turn the coun-try into the world leader in such technolo-gies. Indeed, both London and the Scottishgovernment appear to have grasped thepotential of tidal and wave power, both toprovide low carbon, high security generat-ing capacity and to create a new hi-techsector and much needed employment. In theearly 1980s, the UK had the potential tolead the way on wind power technology butgovernment support was withdrawn,enabling German and Danish firms to dom-inate the industry. London is keen not tomake the same mistake again and is pro-viding a range of financial incentives to tidalpower investors.

Scotland’s tidal power potential has longbeen discussed but it has taken rather toolong to move from optimistic academicresearch to developing commercially viableprojects. However, the Scottish govern-ment has steadily provided more financialsupport and a string of projects are nowunder development. All are on a small scalebut most are being designed with rapidexpansion in mind. Estimates published bythe Scottish government suggest that thereis more than 20GW of tidal power poten-tial along its west coast and around theislands, from the Shetland Islands andOrkney, down the west coast to Kintyreand Galloway.

A development agency, Highlands andIslands Enterprise (HIE), is funding a studyby Aquaterra to survey the tidal potentialaround Orkney and in the Pentland Firth,and applications for tidal projects havealready been invited. A 2MW turbine isbeing tested in the Pentland Firth byAtlantis Resources Corporation of HongKong. In December, the companyannounced that it had signed a memoran-dum of understanding with CLP Group ofChina to develop tidal power turbines forcommercial projects, although no financialdetails of the deal were revealed. Atlantisand HIE also plan to set up a central tidaldata centre in Caithness to provide techni-cal information.

Marine Current Turbines, which wasmentioned earlier in relation to GuernseyElectricity, is confident that its SeaGen tur-bine will be ready for widespread distrib-ution in the near future. In December, theturbine, which produces electricity for upto 22 hours a day, operated at its maxi-mum capacity of 1.2MW for the first timeat the Strangford Lough site, which thecompany claims is “the highest power so

far produced by a tidal stream system any-where in the world”.

The managing director of Marine CurrentTurbines, Martin Wright, commented:“Generating at full power is an importantmilestone for the company and in particularour in-house engineering team. It demon-strates, for the first time, the commercialpotential of tidal energy as a viable alterna-tive source of renewable energy. SeaGen isnow running exactly as we said it would, buttesting will continue to be carried out, notonly to check SeaGen’s performance overextended periods of operation but also toevaluate how components are standing up tothe harsh conditions and to determine howthe design might be improved.”

While most interest in British tidal energyis concentrated on western coasts, someinvestment is being made on the North Seacoast. Experimental units are being testednear Immingham in the Humber Estuary byPulse Tidal that could generate electricityin areas not generally considered suitablefor tidal schemes. In a statement, the com-pany argued: “Much of the tidal resourcein UK waters and elsewhere is less than20m deep and is not suitable for technolo-gies based on rotating turbines. Shallowsites tend to be closer to shore where instal-lation, connection and maintenancebecome more straightforward than inremote locations.”

Yet like South Korea, the UK has its ownambitions for jumbo tidal power projects.The most high profile potential site is theSevern Estuary, which has the second high-est tidal range in the world. A 16km barrieracross the entire estuary has been mootedthat would cost £19.6B-22.2B (US$27.6B-31.2B) and provide generating capacity of upto 8.6GW, making it by far the biggest tidalenergy scheme in the world.

However, it is feared that such a structurewould have a detrimental environmentalimpact over a wide area of the estuary andthe Severn Basin. Opponents argue that amore modest scheme based on a series oflagoons around the estuary to be filled athigh tide would be more economical than asingle barrier. The government appointedengineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff tohelp assess the various designs and a short-list of the five most attractive schemes waspublished at the end of January (see newsstory p5). A three month public consultationon the five designs is currently underway.

FURTHER AFIELD

Elsewhere in the world, tidal power is play-ing a more modest role in the dash forrenewables, but there are great hopes foralternative tidal power technology in Italy.A 500kW unit is being tested by Fri-ElGreen Power in the Straits of Messina,which separates Sicily from mainland Italy.When developed on a commercial scale,each unit will comprise a floating platformthat is attached to the sea bed and which

has four cables connected to it. Each cableis kept on the surface of the sea by fivebuoys and has five 4m turbines attached toit that provide 1.2MW generating capacityon each cable. A spokesperson for the com-pany said: “These tidal power plants are aneconomical way of producing electricity.The system is comparatively inexpensive tobuild and also to maintain, not least becauseit is based on modules, which can also beeasily transported.”

Water speeds in the test area reach 2.5m asecond and change direction every six hoursbut the turbines have been designed to allowthe blades to move 180 degrees to captureenergy in both directions. The companyhopes that its technology can be deployed ona large scale to provide base load energy,while in the longer term it expects that it canbe deployed far out to sea. At present, it hasproved uneconomical to locate such devicesmore than 100km from the coast but Fri-ElGreen Power aims to use electrolysis to turnthe energy produced into hydrogen, whichcould then be collected by tanker to beshipped to the mainland.

The Canadian province of Nova Scotia isreputed to have the highest tides in the worldand so it is not surprising that it will be hometo Canada’s first commercial tidal powerventure. Three companies, Nova ScotiaPower, Minas Basin Pulp and PowerCompany, and Clean Current Power Systemsare to each invest $10-15M in testing theirown turbines in the Bay of Fundy. The chiefexecutive of Clean Current Power Systems,Glen Darou, commented: “Tides are betterthe farther you are from the equator, soCanada is in a good position. Tidal energyreally has some special features because thetides are cyclical, which gives you pre-dictability. When it comes to energy, that isvery attractive.” The government of BritishColombia is also assessing its tidal potentialon the opposite side of the country, on thePacific coast.

It is clear from the wide range of investorsand new projects under development thattidal power is coming of age. It remains tobe seen whether the industry will become amainstream element in the generation mixof any country but technological advancesare bringing production costs down at atime when governments are becomingincreasingly concerned about energy secu-rity and fluctuating oil and gas prices. Yetwhile power production costs could becompetitive with thermal power plants onhighly prospective sites such as the SevernEstuary, the environmental implications ofsuch major projects will need careful assess-ment. Smaller scale ventures, particularlythose that do not require barriers overcomethis obstacle but generate electricity at a farhigher cost. The real challenge for the indus-try will be to demonstrate, as the windpower sector has done, that mass produc-tion of a range of different technologies canbring down production costs to a moresustainable level. IWP& DC


GENERATORS

THE UW 100 submerged generator has been manufacturedby Ampair for 20 years. It is a three-bladed turbine intend-ed for use in fast flowing water, requiring zero head, and isused worldwide to supply battery systems as an alternative

to solar panels or a diesel generator.The UW 100 generates a maximum of 100W of DC current at

12V, 24V, or 48V. The turbine is 312mm diameter and the genera-tor body is 139mm in diameter which reveals the design’s origin assuiting a nominal 6in turbine and a nominal 5in generator.

The radial flux permanent magnet generator is housed within apressure compensated oil filled cast aluminium casing. The casing isextremely well sealed, with dual redundant seals throughout, and thereare only two transits into the generator section: firstly for the turbineshaft and secondly for the electrical cable. The turbine is bi-directionalbut because of flow obstruction by the body it is most efficient if facinginto the current.

The electrical output is a four-wire cable carrying AC that is takento the external rectifier mounted on a heatsink in a dry location, suchas in a waterproof enclosure or in a suitable building. This rectifier andheatsink is supplied with the UW as is the first 5m of cable which is awaterproof marine grade section. Additional cable must be joined ontothis to reach the battery location and the additional cable must be largeenough that the voltage drop is kept within safe and economical limits.

The DC output from the rectifier is ordinarily fed into a batterybank, often via a battery charge controller. The battery output thenfeeds DC loads or a sine wave inverter that supplies 115 or 230VAC loads. It is necessary to match the turbine voltage to the batterybank, for example a 12V turbine for a 12V battery bank.

Most users will need to fit a battery charge control regulator to pre-vent the batteries becoming overcharged and it is strongly recom-mended that the Ampair regulators are used. Almost all standard solarregulators are unable to handle the relatively high open circuit voltages

Generating interest under waterThe submerged generator from Ampair hasthe potential for many applications withinthe hydro industry

Left: UW 100 ready for installation in a mill bypass stream, England; Below left:UW 100 supplied with cable and rectifier; Below right: UW 100 dimensions

213

mm

ø31

2m

m

367 mm

from wind or water turbines. This is because a nominal 12V solar panelwill yield approximately 18-20V maximum open circuit voltage where-as a turbine will yield approximately 100-120V maximum open cir-cuit voltage. The commercial pressures on solar charge controllers aresuch that the input components are not rated for these high open cir-cuit voltages. This is why Ampair manufacture charge controllers suchas the new Ampair Voyager range which can accept input voltages ofup to 480V for the 48V version of the UW submerged generator.

The cut-in speed of the UW is 1m/sec (2 knots) but Ampair do notrecommend installation below 1.5m/sec because most clients overes-timate their average water speed. Maximum water speed with the stan-dard prop is 4m/sec (8 knots) and a low RPM prop is manufacturedfor very high water speeds of up to 7m/sec (14 knots). Depending onwater temperature the UW can be oversped without damage.

The UW is ordinarily fitted with a cast aluminium clockwise rotat-ing turbine. It can also be supplied with an anti-clockwise turbine.This is only needed if two UW units are mounted on a float and thereare concerns about directional control. Even with two units on afloat the directional stability of the float is ordinarily sufficient thattwo clockwise turbines can be used.

WHAT ARE THE BEST APPLICATIONS FOR THE UW?The UW submerged generator was developed for use in oceanographicresearch vessels which need to stream instrumented floats on long towlines behind the ships, and need to power scientific equipment andnavigation lights on the floats without running a power cable downthe tow line. The small float area meant that solar panels were inad-equate and so the users asked Ampair to develop an alternative.

Initially they used the Aquair towed generator which has a 30mlong towed turbine dangling behind and underneath the float. Butthis was impractical in shallow waters which is why the UW wasdeveloped as a more compact alternative.

The scarcity of very low-head pico hydro products available onthe commercial market mean that other users have also taken to theUW generator for use in what Ampair term the ‘land’ market. Asany user of solar or wind will tell you, a 100W generator may notsound very powerful until the 99% capacity factor of the UW istaken into account, and compared with the very low capacity factorof small scale solar (typically 10-20%) or wind (typically 5-10%).In the company’s experience all successful UW users are charac-terised by the following environmental conditions:

• Water velocities in the range 1.5 – 4m/sec (3 – 8 knots).• Minimum channel size of 320 x 320mm.• Economically feasible mounting opportunities.• Short cable runs to a suitable battery location (max 25-50m).

Because of these characteristics the many enquiries from coastal loca-tions are almost always unattractive. In practice most tidal streamsrarely peak above 3-knots at pier ends which are the only locationswhere the cable run constraint can be achieved. Furthermore theseare peak tidal speeds and the daily average tidal speed is typicallyonly one knot.


Obviously mountainous areas tend to be hard enough rock towithstand the erosive flow rates required for success. But even thenthe cable length constraint eliminates many high speed mountain-ous streams because storm events can flood battery houses locatedadjacent to the stream bank. If the stream is small enough to remainwithin its bank then many streams are simply too shallow.

The most successful land market users tend to be industrial clientswho are already working in the hydro sector and seeking dependablepower for instrumentation such as water quality, water speed, depth,or fish counters. These tend to be used for reservoir outlet or canalmid-point monitoring by utilities or environmental and defence agen-cies. Ampair always recommend installing the UW in conjunctionwith solar panels as experience is that in the summer months watervelocity is low and the sun is strong, whilst in the winter the sun isweak or non-existent and the water velocity is high.

Another client sector that has some success is the domestic user inthe polar regions where there is no sun in mid-winter, and wherethey have small streams that continue to flow under ice cover.Obviously mill streams are a possibility but in practice they eitherhave sufficient head to warrant a head-based generator, or are on-grid in which case the UW is not economically attractive. Ampairhave built a grid-connected UW but it is not economic at present.

In all cases it is vital that the client constructs a suitable mount-ing solution. These vary widely to suit the many sites and are entire-ly at the client’s discretion as this is not an aspect that Ampair canbecome directly involved in. Typical mountings are: poles verticallydown into the water, or occasionally vertically up from the bottom;gantries cantilevered from the bank, often with rigging braces; flowconcentrators such as culverts that become submerged duringfloods; and moored floats.

Ampair continues to develop the UW series and in 2008 the tur-bine hub was upgraded to shroud the seals from damage caused byfishing line and fine weed. This year the new Ampair Voyager regu-lator is being released which includes an RS-232 output with batterymonitoring functionality to assist interfacing with SCADA systems.

Further work with the UW series is always being considered butthe investment must be commensurate with the necessarily limitedmarket size. The company appreciates that the UW has a very lowenergy conversion efficiency but that is a necessity of it being an openstream device – if it had a higher efficiency the flow would stall andbypass the rotor – and this is a fundamental limitation that restrictsthe commercially attractive development opportunities.

Ampair is also taking its first steps into the head-based pico-hydromarket with the HT-series of turbines for grid-connected clients andfor battery charge clients. These are built to order and cover themarket segment from 6m–20m of head and from 20l/sec – 60l/secflow rate. The first is already installed in southeast UK producing300W into the grid from 6m at 18l/sec which is typical of a smallovershot mill wheel site.

David Sharman, Ampair, Park Farm, West End Lane,Warfield, RG42 5RH, Berkshire, UK

www.ampair.com

GENERATORS

Above from left to right: UW 100 in a potable water canal, California (photo courtesy PGE); UW 100 mounted vertically in Wales (photo courtesy EnvironmentAgency); UW 100 cantilevered & stayed – note downstream orientation, Canada

IWP& DC


GENERATORS

realised that my efforts at small scale hydro would be a nice fit withtheir work bringing electricity to rural areas in the developing world.

Based in Boston, with field offices in Haiti and Guatemala,AIDG works to promote green technologies to underdevelopedcountries and to incubate small businesses to manufacture thesetechnologies. Focused on clean water, clean air, sanitation, andenergy, AIDG seeks to provide services by developing systems thatare affordable to people with modest means. They develop cleanburning cook stoves, biodigesters, water filtration, wind andhydroelectric power and solar hot water systems. By incubatingsmall local businesses to manufacture, maintain and distribute thesystems within the communities that they serve, AIDG offers boththe hope of better services for the underserved and the prospect ofincome-generating projects for the businesses that they help create.

In January 2008 I began work with AIDG in Guatemala. Thesmall community of La Florida in western Guatemala was chosenas my test site as it had recently lost what little electrical services it

MY INTEREST in small scalehydroelectricity was born at mysummer home in the Catskills ofupstate New York in the US. My

house is set on several acres with a steep hilland small waterfall just outside. The waterfall’ssource, a spring high above the house, offeredenough head and flow for a small impulse stylehydroelectric generator. Using an existing cis-tern formerly used to supply the house, I ran a2in pipe down the hill achieving a head ofabout 15m. When I narrowed the aperture atthe bottom of the pipe I achieved a strongsteady stream of high pressure water. I was inbusiness. I still had to build the generator, butI knew that I had the power to drive it.

After experimenting with several design con-cepts, I came up with a hydroelectric generatorhoused in a five gallon bucket and made almostentirely from PVC and hardware acquired atthe local home centre. The power was pro-duced using a permanent magnet alternator(PMA) driven by a turbine made from PVCinside the bucket. Made from 8 ¾in, 45 degree PVC couplings cutin half and mounted on a hub, the turbine had a total of 16 spoons.

To drive the turbine, I created a manifold at the top of the gener-ator and split the flow into four parts culminating in nozzles arrayedaround the turbine. Though not terribly efficient, I was able toachieve more than the 13.7V necessary for a 12V system. I realisedthat because of its simplicity, ease of construction and the fact thatit was relatively cheap to make, the generator might be useful in thedeveloping world where many communities do not have access tothe electricity grid. Though I didn’t know it at the time, my newinterest would gain momentum and I began a journey that wouldultimately take me to the highlands of western Guatemala.

DEVELOPING POWER

My tenure with an NGO called Appropriate InfrastructureDevelopment Group (AIDG) began when I learned of their work. I

Bringing small hydroto GuatemalaDeveloping countries are beinghit particularly hard by today’seconomic realities, but smallhydro offers a solution thatmakes sense. Sam Redfieldtells the story of one man’sjourney to bring hydroelectricpower to Guatemala

Top, from left to right: A five gallon bucket fitted with metal screen is used as the trash rack at thetop of the penstock; The original factory rotor with the rotor that was designed in Guatemala; Manypeople don’t have access to the grid in rural Guatemala but they do use cell phones. Ten Cell phonescan be charged in about an hour, or 240 in a day; Middle from left to right: Mario, a local boy helpedwith the installation; After descending a steep hill, the penstock crosses a small road to reach thegenerator site; Curious children look on as the bucket generator charges their parents cell phones;Sam Redfield developed the bucket generator to fill the need for low cost energy in developing coun-tries; Bottom from left to right: Toyota alternator with factory rotor removed and newly fabricatedneodymium magnet rotor installed; Nozzles used to drive the turbine prior to turbine installation;Turbine made from 45 degree PVC couplings cut in half and mounted to bucket lid.

had. It also had the abundant water and mountainous terrain nec-essary for small scale hydroelectricity. The people of La Florida, witharound 100 families, had to travel an expensive and time consum-ing two hours by bus to a town with electricity to pay a service tocharge their phones.

There are no land lines in these areas and cell phones provide crit-ical contact with the outside world. They are important economi-cally as well, as they enable small farmers to seek the best price fortheir crops (in this case coffee) and often cut out the middle man.Also, cell phones have become an important way for people totransfer money when buying and selling goods. They are a life lineto people in remote areas for contact with family, the market andmedical services.

I proposed to install a system at La Florida to charge cell phones.The challenge was to make the entire installation (generator, pen-stock, trashrack and associated electronics – regulator, battery andinverter) cheap enough so that the operator of a charging servicewould have a reasonable chance of making a profit, while payingback the cost of the generator and installation over time.

Tying into an existing canal cut into the side of a mountain at LaFlorida, we used a five gallon bucket fitted with hardware cloth asa trashrack. At the bottom of the bucket we plumbed the top of thepenstock and installed a plastic valve for service. With the help of alocal farm boy and machetes provided by the community, we cutour way through the jungle down the mountain to our generatorsite. At close to 60 degrees of incline this was no easy task. Once thearea was cleared we began laying pipe. To secure the pipe, it wastied off to trees along the route. At the bottom of the initial descentmore pipe was laid across a relatively flat area and an additionaldrop in elevation was achieved by crossing a small road and descend-ing still further into the valley below. In all we laid about 90m of 2inpipe for a total head of a little more than 29m. At the generator sitewe installed another valve for service.

With economy in mind, the system uses only one standard auto-motive battery. Systems of this size typically use a large bank of deepcycle batteries that are quite expensive. To make the system afford-able we would use only one lead acid battery. The battery is neverdischarged significantly because the system uses only as much energyas it can produce in real time. More batteries and greater capacitycan be added later but to put the system in the hands of our con-stituency it needed to be as cheap as possible. Because the system ison line all the time, if the load is equal to or less than the energy pro-duced by the generator, the battery is never depleted very much,giving it the same lifespan as if it was in an automobile.

Once the generator was installed, a dump load regulator, batteryand inverter were wired to the generator. After hooking up a coupleof power strips for the phone chargers, we slowly opened the valveto the generator. Everything seemed to work perfectly. I was gettinga mere 60W, but it was enough energy to charge many cell phonessimultaneously without depleting the battery. My I-pod needed abump so it would be the guinea pig. It didn’t catch fire and was fullycharged in short order.

After determining that everything was working well, we gatheredthe cell phones from the community. We were able to charge ten cellphones at a time without discharging the battery. At an average ofan hour’s charging time per phone, if ten phones are being chargedat a time, the system could charge 240 phones in a 24-hour period.More than enough for La Florida.

Once on site, the entire installation took two people less than aday to finish. At the time of the installation, the generator costaround US$350 and a car battery about US$75. We made a dumpload regulator for US$30 and the 100W inverter that we used wasalso about US$30. The PVC pipe and valves were expensive atUS$200. With the trashrack, the entire system cost about US$700.

If financed over a one-year period , say 5% interest, the hydro-electric system would cost US$2 a day in principle and interest. Ifthe proprietor of such a service were to charge an average of 20 cellphones a day at 25 cents per charge, that would be a profit of morethan US$3 per day. That is more than US$1000 a year of income. Ifone is living on US$6 a day, or US$2190 a year, as many people in


Guatemala do, US$1000 represents a major pay raise and couldmake a big difference in someone’s life.

BREAKTHROUGH

Since the installation at La Florida we have made some importantbreakthroughs. One of the biggest challenges for energy schemes inthe developing world is making systems that are affordable to peoplewho make almost nothing. At US$700, my system compares wellwith equal sized wind and photovoltaic systems, but because ourconstituency are under constant economic pressure, the prospect ofincurring a debt of this size is difficult for them to imagine.

The challenge then was to make the generator even cheaper. Thegenerator that I developed in the US, though relatively inexpensiveat around US$350, was still a bit pricey. The vast majority of thecost associated with the generator, the permanent magnet alterna-tor that I got in the US, was too expensive. Plus there was the costof shipping. My thought was to build my own PMA using materi-als readily available in Guatemala.

I settled on the Nipo Denso alternator from Toyota’s 22R engineas it is the most common alternator in the developing world. It isthe alternator found in most Toyota light trucks ubiquitous inGuatemala.

Rebuilding the rotor inside the alternator from scratch, we made arotor using neodimium magnets arrayed around a core made fromsheet metal laminates. The core was then attached to a spindle of thesame size as the factory rotor and installed in the alternator. After benchtesting the PMA it proved to be an excellent fit with the rpm’s that Icould achieve with the generator. The cost with labour to manufac-turing the new PMA was around US$200, about US$100 less than thecost of the PMA from the US and it could be manufactured locally.

The only element of the generator that could not be sourced inGuatemala were the Neodymium magnets. Though the magnetswould have to be shipped from the US, shipping the magnets was alot less expensive than buying and shipping the entire PMA, plus thePMA could be built by locals benefiting the local economy. XelaTeco, an alternative energy business incubated by AIDG inGuatemala could build the entire generator including the PMA inGuatemala. If mass produced the generator could be producedcheaply and benefit a lot of people.

Ongoing work includes the prospect of creating micro utilities inwhich super efficient LEDs could be used to light several homesusing the generator. The operator would charge a monthly fee andmake a modest profit while paying back the generator over time.Another prospect that we are exploring is the charging of small bat-teries. Used in flashlights and radios, these batteries represent amajor expense to individuals and blight to the environment whenthey are disposed of on the land. Again, the operator would chargea small fee and both the producer and consumer would benefit.

LOOKING FOR PARTNERS

I returned to Guatemala in January 2009 to continue our workdeveloping small scale hydroelectric power. This year we hope to doseveral permanent installations of the generator, training operatorsand providing the necessary credit for them to get started.

Developing countries are being hit particularly hard by today’seconomic realities. It is more important than ever to find solutionsto the world’s energy needs and small scale hydroelectricity offers aclean affordable solution that makes sense. AIDG is always lookingfor partners in our endeavours and we welcome any contributionand support.

If you want to contact AIDG, see what we do, or find out how tocontribute to our work, visit www.aidg.org or contact [email protected].

Sam Redfield is a freelance lighting technician for film andtelevision in New York City, US and volunteers for AIDG

for part of each year.

GENERATORS

IWP& DC

OUR WORLD LEADING TECHNOLOGY WILL HELP YOU CONVERT EVERY DROP

INTO EFFICIENT HYDROPOWER

In a crowded market, to stay competitive your hydropower plant needs to run at peak performancewhenever you need it. Alstom is the expert in building new and refurbishing old hydropower plants.Using our advanced technology, we’ll breathe new life into your plant - delivering you a higheroutput of clean, renewable and flexible energy, with better reliability and efficiency. Or as we say,hydro efficiency.To learn more, visit www.power.alstom.com


PROJECT COSTS

equipment in powerhouses which feature Pelton, Francis, Kaplan,Kaplan-Rohr (for low heads up to 15m), Bulb or Francis pump tur-bine units have been developed based on the compilation of statis-tical data for over 81 hydro power projects. The data was obtainedfrom existing publications, journals, call for tenders, award of ten-ders, websites and suppliers of E&M equipment. The data also con-tains projected costs from some projects – found on existing reportsor national authority references.

COMPILED DATA

The compiled data corresponds to information of the E&M contractsfor powerhouses only, which include costs of turbines, governors,valves, cooling and drainage water systems, cranes, workshops, gen-erators, transformers, earthing systems, control equipment, telecom-munication systems (including remote central control room) andauxiliary systems (including draft tube gates, heating and ventilation,domestic water and installation). Other electrical and mechanical

MANY mathematical formulae (Gordon-Penman, 1979;Nachtnebel, 1981; Gordon, 1981, 1983; Gordon-Noel,1986; Aggidis-Luchinskaya-Rothschild-Howard, 2008)have been developed for estimation of costs, or gener-

ating costs, of small and large hydro power projects. These oftenfocus on specific topics such as costs of the dam type, tunnellingwork, penstock installation, civil works for powerhouses, electricaland mechanical equipment for powerhouses, etc. Focusing on E&Mequipment, the existing formulae have been developed taking intoaccount specific cost data for a region or country, while also consid-ering global costs of planning a hydro plant.

When working on a project, hydro consultants need to carry out acost estimation analysis for each specific case. This can be a time-con-suming task when carrying out feasibility studies and final reports.Therefore, a detailed analysis of costs continually needs to be carriedout. The author has developed a simplified methodology based oncurrent information from E&M equipment contractors or suppliers.

Useful diagrams which allow a close cost estimation of E&M

Estimating E&M powerhouse costs

The cost includes turbines, governors, valves, cooling anddrainage water systems, cranes, workshop, generators,transformers, earthing system, control equipment,telecommunications systems and auxiliary systems.

AustriaCongoGermanyLaosNicaraguaRep. DominicanaSouth AfricaUSA

CanadaEcuadorIcelandMadagascarPakistanRwandaSudanBrazil

ArgentinaChileEl SalvadorIranMexicoPeruRomaniaTurkey

ArmeniaChinaEthiopiaKenyaNepalPortugalRussiaUganda

1000

1000

100

10

11 10 100 1000 10000

P [MW]

Cos

t[U

S$x

106 ]

Cost of electrical and mechanicalequipment in a powerhouse(data series 2002-2008)Valid for 2009

After compiling statistical data on costs of electrical and mechanical equipment for 81 selectedhydro power projects (60% 2007-2008 and 40% 2002-2006), useful diagrams which allow aclose cost estimation of E&M in powerhouses with Pelton, Francis, Kaplan, Kaplan-Rohr, Bulbturbine or Francis pump turbines have been composed. Paper by Cesar Alvarado-Ancieta

Figure 1: Costs of E&M equipment and installed power capacity in powerhouses for 81 hydro power plants in America, Asia, Europe and Africa


PROJECT COSTS

equipment not suitable for use in powerhouses are not included. Theglobal amount of contracts obtained from suppliers comprises theitems mentioned above with a few exceptions (mainly due to the factthat some suppliers only provide either electrical and mechanicalequipment and not both). However, these main suppliers are alwaysin consortium – meaning the global cost of E&M is not affected.

The data, which is presented on Table 1, corresponds to 81 hydropower projects in 32 countries. The data comprises approximately28 hydro power projects in America (90% Latin America), 9 inEurope, 35 in Asia and 9 in Africa. From these, 33 are from 2007and 16 from 2008. The remaining 40 corresponds to the periodbetween 2002 and 2006.

The hydro plants have net heads ranging from 9m to 800m andpower capacities from 0.5MW up to the 800MW per unit. Taking intoaccount the cost inflation over the past few years, the costs of E&Mequipment for the period 2002-2008 have been revised and updated.These include different factors such as price of metals, project region,index of prices, exchange rates, escalation of prices and cost confidence.

METHODOLOGY

The result of this analysis is the availability of 81 points to be plot-ted with data on installed power capacity (P in MW), net head (H inm), design discharge (Q in m3/sec), number of units and total costsof E&M equipment (Cost in million US$) in order to provide 81points per generating unit. These are divided by type of turbine:Pelton, Francis, Kaplan, Kaplan-Rohr, Bulb or Francis pump-turbine.

Figure 1 shows the 81 points available on E&M equipment plot-ted by global costs and installed power capacity. A general tenden-cy is found as a function of the power capacity, which serves as areference for estimation of E&M equipment in generating costsunder the proposed formula:

Cost = 1.1948P0.7634 Generating cost for E&M equipment inMillion US$, 12/2008.

where P is the power or installed capacity in MW.

Formulae based on parameters such as head, design discharge,power and/or number of units have a large range of variablity in theresult of costs, therefore they should be limited depending on dif-ferent range of heads, discharge, etc. These type of formulae cannotbe easy applied for cost estimation of E&M equipment of the dif-ferent type of units. Therefore, the methodology followed here isbased on the appliance of cost estimation diagrams, which are con-sidered more suitable taking into consideration the parameters avail-able for a hydro plant.

In order to plot the data the envelope curves for the three maintypes of turbine were defined according to available informationfrom manufacturers. The rated flow and net head determine theset of turbine types applicable to the site and the flow environ-ment. Suitable turbines are those for which the given rated flowand net head plot within the operational envelopes (the envelopecurves are described on Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5). A point defined asabove by the flow and the head will usually plot within several ofthese envelopes. It should be remembered that the envelopes varyfrom manufacturer to manufacturer and those plotted here are theusual operational envelope curve for Pelton, Francis, Kaplan,Kaplan-Rohr and Bulb turbines. Together with the defined enve-lope curves for the range of head and discharges, the additionalscale for installed power has been plotted. This means the para-meters of head (H), discharge (Q) and power (P) are available foreach plotting position. These are defined together with a cost perunit. The different points define the probable curve of cost amongthe available points.

DIAGRAMS FOR ESTIMATING E&M EQUIPMENT COSTS

Costs of E&M equipment for hydro plants with Pelton unitsThe available data comprises 20 plotting positions for HPPswith Pelton units (see Figure 2). The range for determinationof costs starts from a lower cost of US$0.5M for an installedpower below 1MW to an upper cost of US$60M for 200MWinstalled power.

2.80 M$7 MW

1 MW

0.1 MW

0.1 MW

10 100 10001

1 MW

Q [m3/s]

2.68 M$5.35MW

5.25 M$25 MW

13.65 M$60.5 MW

17.75 M$79.30 MW20.05 M$65 MW

11.78 M$16.85 MW

8.33 M$12.67 MW 13.50 M$

40 MW

21.43 M$65 MW0.82 M$

2.5 MW

2.52 M$4.85MW

12.15M$, 25 MW 38 M$,150 MW38.90 M$,170 MW

32.5 M$,110 MW29.93 M$,105 MW

53.57 M$,99 MW

58 M$,70 MW

21M$,25 MW

H[m

]

10 MW

10MW

100 MW

100M

W

1000 MW

1000

MW

The cost includes turbines, governors,valves, cooling and drainage water systems,cranes, workshop, generators, transformers,earthing system, control equipment,telecommunications systems and auxiliary systems.

0.5

2

35

1015

2030 405060 Mio US$

1 Mio US$

Cost of electrical and mechanicalequipment in a powerhouse perunit with a Pelton Turbine(data series 2002-2008)Valid for 2009

1000

100

101

Figure 2: Costs of E&M equipment in powerhouses per unit with Pelton turbine


PROJECT COSTS

Table 1 – Hydro power parameters and E&M cost statistics for dataseries, years 2002-2008.# Year Country Hydropower Power Unit Net Head Design Unit E&M Contract/ E&M Updated Contract/ Type of # of E&M Updated Cost

Project P [MW] Power H [m] Flow Q Flow Qu Projected Cost 12/2008 Tubine units 12/2008 [Mio. US$]Pu [MW] [m3/s] [m3/s] Cost [Mio.] [Mio. US$] per Unit

[US$] [EUR]

1 2008 Peru Pucara 130 65 475 30 15 40 0 42.86 Pelton 2 21.432 2007 Cheves III 212 106 443 50 25 45 0 49.01 Francis 2 24.503 2004 Poechos I 15.4 7.7 42 45 22.5 12 0 14.40 Kaplan 2 7.204 2007 Poechos II 10 5 17 60 30 8 0 8.57 Kaplan 2 4.295 2008 Machu Picchu II 99 99 345 32 32 50 0 53.57 Pelton 1 53.576 2008 Santa Rita 255 85 220 126 42 77 0 80.00 Francis 3 26.677 2006 El Platanal 220 110 600 45 22.5 0 25 65.00 Pelton 2 32.508 2006 Nicaragua Larreynaga 17 8.5 90 22 11 11.2 0 12.92 Francis 2 6.469 2008 El Salto YY 25 12.5 90 32 16 16 0 16.00 Francis 2 8.0010 2008 Pakistan Daral Khawar 38 12.7 293 19.5 6.5 25 0 25.00 Pelton 3 8.3311 2003 Allai Khwar 121 60.5 662 21 10.5 21.8 0 27.30 Pelton 2 13.6512 2003 Duber Khwar 130 65 516 29 14.5 32 0 40.10 Pelton 2 20.0513 2007 Madian 160 80 160 116 58 51.6 0 55.29 Francis 2 27.6414 2006 Gabral Kalam 135 45 200 75 25 36 0 41.59 Francis 3 13.8615 2007 Turkey Umut-1 4.1 2.1 81 6 3 2.2 0 2.40 Francis 2 1.2016 2007 Umut-2 22.1 7.4 145 18 6 12 0 12.86 Francis 3 4.2917 2007 Umut-3 11.8 5.9 77 18 9 8 0 8.57 Francis 2 4.2918 2007 Ege-1 8.2 2.7 114 8.5 2.8 3.8 0 4.11 Francis 3 1.3719 2007 Ege-2 7.8 2.6 80 11.4 3.8 3.4 0 3.60 Francis 3 1.2020 2007 Ege-3 11.9 4.0 93 15 5 5.8 0 6.17 Francis 3 2.0621 2007 Yaprak-1 9.69 4.8 81 8 3 4.7 0 5.04 Pelton 2 2.5222 2007 Yaprak-2 10.7 5.4 144 9 3 5 0 5.36 Pelton 2 2.6823 2007 Basak 6.85 3.4 120 10 4 3.5 0 3.75 Francis 2 1.8824 2007 Tuna 33.7 16.9 502 20 10 15.2 0 23.56 Pelton 2 11.7825 2007 Uzuncayir 96 32 55 210 70 0 33 49.43 Francis 3 16.4826 2008 Ilisu 1200 400 130 1080 360 0 164.5 246.75 Francis 3 82.2527 2007 Borcka 300 150 87.5 600 200 0 67.6 101.26 Francis 2 50.6328 2008 Akocak 80 40 250 23 11.5 0 18 27.00 Pelton 2 13.5029 2007 Akkoy I 103.5 34.5 149 81 27 0 24.7 37.00 Francis 3 12.3330 2008 Laos Nam Pha 120 60 130 108 54 49.5 0 49.50 Francis 2 24.7531 2007 Rwanda Nyabarango 29 14.5 66.5 50 25 16.9 0 18.05 Francis 2 9.0332 2005 Madagascar Sahanivotry 14 7 240 7 3.5 3.5 0 5.60 Pelton 2 2.8033 2007 South Africa Lima 1520 380 629 140 70 372.3 0 398.89 Francis-pump 4 99.7234 2008 Nepal Upper Tamakoshi 317.2 79.3 802 44 11 71 0 71.00 Pelton 4 17.7535 2002 Middle Marsyangdi 72 36 120 70 35 0 20 29.90 Francis 2 14.9536 2007 Kenya Tana1 11 5.5 73 15 7.5 8.4 0 9.00 Francis 2 4.50

Tana2 15.2 7.6 58 30 15 12.6 0 13.52 Francis 2 6.7637 2005 Armenia Gegharot 2.5 2.5 297 1 1 0.8 0 0.82 Pelton 1 0.8238 2008 Austria Obervellach II 50 25 795 17.6 8.8 0 16.2 24.30 Pelton 2 12.1539 2006 Limberg II 480 240 365 144 72 0 33 80.85 Francis-pump 2 40.4340 2004 Kopswerk II 450 150 800 72 24 0 60 114.00 Pelton-pump 3 38.0041 2007 El Salvador Cerrón Grande, Unit 3 87 87 57 170 170 42 0 45.00 Francis 1 45.0042 2008 Chile Lircay 19 9.5 106 20 10 12 0 12.00 Francis 2 6.0043 2007 La Confluencia 163.2 81.6 344 52.5 26.3 37.5 0 39.99 Francis 2 20.0044 2007 Ecuador Pilatón-Sarapullo 50 25 120 45 22.5 39.2 0 42.00 Pelton 2 21.0045 2007 Toachi-Alluriquín 140 70 191 82.4 41.2 108.2 0 115.93 Pelton 2 57.9646 2007 Mazar 162 81 162 120 60 0 39.9 59.77 Francis 2 29.8947 2007 Abitagua 220 55 123 206 51.5 88.8 0 95.14 Francis 4 23.7948 2005 Germany Rheinfelden 114 28.5 9.2 1500 375 0 52 78.00 Kaplan-Rohr 4 19.5049 2006 Waldeck I 74 74 200 28 28 0 24 35.88 Francis-pump 1 35.8850 2007 China Jinping II 4800 600 318 1760 220 0 120 567.96 Francis 8 71.0051 2004 Three Gorges Right Bank 2800 700 138 2400 600 198 0 440.00 Francis 4 110.0052 2006 Caojie 512 128 20 3220 805 0 51 153.00 Kaplan 4 38.2553 2008 Dagang-shan 2600 650 210 1440 360 0 75 336.00 Francis 4 84.0054 2005 Xiaowan 4284 714 216 2280 380 0 60 540.00 Francis 6 90.0055 2003 Longtan 4900 700 140 4095 585 0 81 700.00 Francis 7 100.0056 2006 Brasil Anta 28.8 14.4 30 118 59 25.7 0 29.64 Kaplan 2 14.8257 2002 Pedra do Cavalo 165 82.5 105 180 90 0 32 64.00 Francis 2 32.0058 2002 São Salvador 250 125 22.8 1340 670 0 30 75.00 Kaplan 2 37.5059 2008 San Antonio 3150 72 13.9 28600 650 318* 0 365.76 Bulb 12 30.4860 2008 Jiraú 3300 75 15.1 27500 625 636* 0 636.00 Bulb 19 33.4761 2007 Iceland Kárahnjukár 690 115 600 135 22.5 0 99 148.30 Francis 6 24.7262 2006 Canada Revelstoke, Unit 5 512 512 145 400 400 82.6 0 95.26 Francis 1 95.2663 2007 Portugal Picote II 248 248 125 230 230 0 46 69.00 Francis 1 69.0064 2008 Alqueva II 260 130 72 406 203 0 94 141.00 Francis-pump 2 70.5065 2008 Romania Lotru-Ciunget 510 170 800 75 25 0 77.8 116.70 Pelton 3 38.9066 2005 Congo Imboulou 120 30 17 1200 300 69 0 87.63 Kaplan 4 21.9167 2007 Uganda Bujagali 255 51 22 1375 275 87 0 113.10 Kaplan 5 22.6268 2007 Argentina Los Caracoles 125.2 62.6 150 90 45 45 0 48.21 Francis 2 24.1169 2006 Sudan Merowe 1250 125 50 3000 300 0 250 525.00 Francis 10 52.5070 2005 Gilgel

Gibe II 420 105 487 92 23 0 60 119.70 Pelton 4 29.9371 2004 Ethiopia Beles 460 115 308 180 45 0 77 115.50 Francis 4 28.8872 2007 Iran Sia Bishe 1000 250 500 224 56 0 64.5 193.24 Francis-pump 4 48.3173 2002 Karen IV 1020 255 162 740 185 0 22 239.80 Francis 4 59.9574 2002 Upper Gotvand 1016 254 141 840 210 0 23 248.40 Francis 4 62.1075 2007 Russia Uglich 70 70 12 700 700 0 24.9 32.37 Kaplan 1 32.3776 2008 Motygin-skaya 1250 125 27 5250 525 0 350 350.00 Kaplan 10 35.0077 2008 USA Cannelton 84 28 6.5 1500 500 0 40.9 61.35 Rohr 3 20.4578 2008 Smithland 72 24 5.9 1500 500 0 39.6 59.37 Rohr 3 19.7979 2005 Rep. Dominicana Pinalito 50 25 590 10 5 0 7 10.50 Pelton 2 5.2580 2008 Mexico El Gallo 30 15 44 80 40 18.7 0 19.80 Francis 2 9.9081 2008 Chilatán 14 7 75 22 11 11.7 0 12.40 Francis 2 6.20

Reference sources for contract costs were existing publications, journals, calls for tenders, websites of E&M equipment suppliersReference sources for projected costs were existing reports of studies and national authorities.The contract cost for San Antonio and Jiraú is for 12 and 19 units respectively.


PROJECT COSTS

1 MW

0.1 MW

0.1 MW

10 100

100908070

6050

40302520151052

0.5

1M

ioU

S$

110

120 MioUS$

10001

1 MW

Q [m3/s]

1.37

M$,

2.7

MW

1.2

M$,

2.07

MW

1.2

M$,

2.59

MW

1.88

M$,

3.43

MW

2.06

M$,

3.95

MW

4.5

M$,

5.5

MW

4.29

M$,

5.88

MW

6.21

M$,

7M

W6.

46M

$,8.

5M

W

6 M$, 9.5 MW

13.86 M$, 45 MW

24.72 M$, 115 MW

24.5 M$, 106 MW20 M$, 81.6 MW

28.88 M$, 115 MW26.67 M$, 85 MW

29.89 M$, 81 MW

71 M$, 600 MW

24.75 M$, 60 MW62 M$, 254 MW

50.6

3M

$,15

0M

W

60 M$,255 MW27.64 M$, 80 MW

6.76

M$,

7.6

MW

8M

$,12

.5M

W

9M

$,14

.5M

W12

.33

M$,

34.5

MW

14.9

5M

$,36

MW

24.1

1M

$,62

.6M

W23

.79

M$,

55M

W

16.4

8M

$,32

MW

32M

$,82

.5M

W

100

M$,

700

MW

110

M$,

700

MW

45M

$,87

MW

69M

$,24

8M

W

52.5

M$,

125

MW

82.2

5M

$,40

0M

W95

.26

M$,

512

MW

9.9

M$,

15M

W

4.29

M$,

7.37

MW

H[m

]

10 MW

10MW

100 MW

100MW

1000 MW

1000

MW


90M

$,71

4M

W84

M$,

650

MW

Cost of electrical and mechanicalequipment in a powerhouseper unit with Francis Turbine(data series 2002-2008)valid for 2009

1000

100

101


5M

ioU

S$

40M

ioU

S$

10 15

20

30

0.1 MW

1 MW

0.1 MW

10 100 10001

1 MW

Q [m3/s]

7.20 M$,7.7 MW 14.82 M$, 14.4 MW

22.62 M$, 51 MW

35 M$,125 MW 37.5 M$,

125 MW

38.25 M$, 128 MW

32.37 M$, 70 MW20.45 M$,28 MW19.79 M$,24 MW

19.50 M$,28.5 MW

21.91 M$, 30 MW33.47 M$, 72 MW30.48 M$, 75 MW

5.36 M$,5 MW

H[m

]

10 MW

10MW

100 MW

100MW

1000 MW

1000

MW

Cost of electrical and mechanicalequipment in a powerhouse per unitwith Kaplan, Kaplan-Rohr, Bulb Turbine(data series 2002-2008) Valid for 2009

1000

100

101

Figure 3: Costs of E&M equipment in powerhouses per unit with Francis turbine

Figure 4: Costs of E&M equipment in powerhouses per unit with Kaplan, Kaplan-Rohr and Bulb turbine


PROJECT COSTS

Costs of E&M equipment for hydro plants with Francis unitsThe available data comprises 43 plotting positions for plantsequipped with Francis units (Figure 3). The determination of costsranges from US$0.5M for 1MW installed capacity up to a maxi-mum cost of US$120M for an 800MW plant.

Costs for hydro plants with Kaplan, Kaplan-Rohr, Bulb UnitsThe available data comprises 14 plotting positions for plantsequipped with Kaplan/Rohr/Bulb units (see Figure 4). The range fordetermination of costs on E&M equipment starts from a lower costof US$5M for an installed power of 5MW up to US$40M for aninstalled power of 150MW.

Costs hydro plants with Francis pump-turbine unitsThe available data comprises five plotting positions for plantsequipped with Kaplan, Kaplan-Rohr and Bulb units (Figure 5). Therange for determination of costs on E&M equipment starts from alower cost of US$20M for an installed power of 70MW up toUS$70M for installed power of 380MW.

CONCLUSIONS

• Diagrams have been developed to estimate water to wire powerplant equipment costs within an accuracy of 5 to 10 %.

• Equipment costs are currently escalating at about 8 to 10% perannum for projects from 2008. Price escalation of hydro powerprojects from the year 2002 can reach between 70 and 80% for aperiod of seven years. It is expected, however, that inflation costswill come down as a result of the current credit crisis.

• The diagrams presented were found suitable for a close estimationof costs of E&M equipment per unit under a comparison of costsfrom current hydro power projects. These diagrams have beendeveloped to provide a quick way to determine costs of electricaland mechanical equipment (at pre-investment, due diligence study,pre-feasibility and feasibility level) based on main parameters suchas head, design discharge and power.

• The value of the cost curves in the diagrams needs to be updatedeach year.

• The original data set was composed of 89 plotting positions, buteight points have unsuitable locations in the diagrams, particular-ly the Francis turbine and pump-turbine charts. Such points werenot used. As an example, the cost of E&M equipment for La MuelaII pumped storage project in Spain – according to the informationreported in July 2008 – was US$55M for four units of 213MWeach, a head of 520m and a unit discharge of 48m3/sec. It will meana cost per unit of around US$14M. It is considered that some fac-tors influence the cost estimation of these units, leading to an under-estimated contract cost value. Seven points of projects awarded inthe last two years had similar underestimated contract cost. Thecauses for these underestimated values were not found.

• An improvement in data available could be performed taking intoaccount the type of turbine axis. This can have a significant impacton E&M equipment costs.

Cesar Adolfo Alvarado-Ancieta, Civil Engineer, Dipl.-Ing., M. Sc., Hydropower, Dams, Hydraulic Engineering

Email: [email protected]

References[1] Gordon, J.L. and Penman, A.C. (1979). Quick estimating techniques forsmall hydro potential. Water Power & Dam Construction, V. 31, p. 46-51.

[2] Gordon, J.L. (1981). Estimating hydro stations costs. Water Power &Dam Construction, V. 33, p. 31-33.

[3] Gordon, J.L. (1983). Hydropower costs estimates. Water Power & DamConstruction, V. 35, p. 30-37.

[4] Gordon, J.L. and Noel, C.R. (1986). The economic limits of small andlow-head hydro. Water Power & Dam Construction, V. 38, p. 23-26.

[5] Nachtnebel, H.P. (1981): Bewertung der Kleinwasserkraftwerke, in:Österreichische Wasserwirtschaft, Jahrgang 33, Heft 11/12.

[6] Aggidis, G.A. - Luchinskaya, E. - Rothschild, R. - Howard, D.C. (2008).Estimating the costs of small-scale hydropower for the progressing of worldhydro development. Hydro 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia - The InternationalJournal on Hydropower & Dams.

IWP& DC

0.1 MW

1 MW

0.1 MW

20M

ioUS

$

10 100 10001

1 MW

Q [m3/s]

10 MW

10MW

100 MW

100M

W

1000 MW

1000

MW

30 M$, 74 MW

60 M$, 130 MW

30 4050

6070


H[m

]

Cost of electrical and mechanicalequipment in a powerhouse per unitwith a Francis Pump Turbine(data series 2002-2008) Valid for 2009

66 M$, 380 MW48.31 M$, 250 MW

54 M$, 240 MW

1000

100

101

Figure 5: Costs of E&M equipment in powerhouses per unit with Francis pump-turbine


ENVIRONMENT

1999 and officially launched the certification programme in January2000. The institute received its first application for certification inMay 2000. As of 1 January 2009, the institute has certified 37 pro-jects (103 dams) in 22 states from Maine to Alaska with a com-bined installed capacity of 2135.58MW (see certification list).

Through its certification programme, the institute serves a broadconstituency with a variety of stakeholders including environmen-talists, consumers, renewables and green energy labeling groups,power marketers, and the hydro power industry.

The institute serves these various interests by providing a nation-al independent and objective mechanism for identifying hydropower facilities that are low impact relative to other hydro facili-ties. By providing a voluntary certification programme centered onenvironmental criteria, consumers are able to choose low impacthydro power over other hydro when purchasing electricity.

There are also non-commercial groups that are identifying orlabeling energy products as green or environmentally preferable.These groups generally set standards for the amount and type ofrenewable energy that can achieve their label, and these energyproducts are then available for customers in competitive markets.The groups typically look at a range of renewable energy productssuch as solar, wind, and biomass. However hydro power, due to itsenvironmental effects, can prove difficult to include in the renew-ables mix. In addition, due to the complex statutory and regulato-ry scheme surrounding hydro power generation, addressing hydroeffects requires some specialised knowledge and focus.

The institute provides this expertise through its rigorous pro-gramme focused solely on hydro power and provides these groupswith the ability to utilise the certification programme, backed bythe strength and credibility of a governing board well-versed inhydro power issues.

Hydro power project owners who want to gain a competitiveedge in the new energy markets now have a way of obtaining recog-nition for their well-operated and well-sited facilities by gettingthem certified as low impact by the institute. Moreover, the indus-try can obtain this certification regardless of the size of its facility– as long as it meets the criteria, the facility will be identified as lowimpact.

Back in March 2002, I wrote an article on the institute forIWP&DC when it was the ‘new kid on the block’. I didn’t knowmuch about them, but after interviewing their then executive direc-tor, Lydia Grimm, I walked away from the interview very impressedwith what they had done to create a unique organisation.

At the time I wondered if it could survive without a robust greenmarket and the support and interest of the hydro power industry.Well, it did survive and one of the reasons I believe it has been sosuccessful is the efforts of its volunteer governing board. I caughtup with three veteran board members who have been with the

THE Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) wasestablished in the US as an independent non-profitcorporation dedicated to providing a voluntary certifi-cation programme for identifying low impact hydro

power. The concept for the institute developed from the efforts ofAmerican Rivers (a national river conservation organization) andGreen Mountain Energy (a marketer of green electricity) to devel-op appropriate mechanisms for identifying environmentallypreferable hydro power for use by consumers in the emergingcompetitive electricity markets.

The institute’s governing board met for the first time in November

The Low Impact Hydropower Institute will celebrate its tenth anniversary in 2009. Here,Executive Director Fred Ayer interviews three members of LIHI’s governing board andasks these green hydro pioneers to take a look back at the institute’s ten-year record

Green hydro pioneers:ten years on

LIHI: who’s who?Richard Roos-Collins (LIHI Chair) has servedas the Director of Legal Services at theNatural Heritage Institute in San Franciscosince 1991. He is a director of the NaturalHeritage Institute, a public interest law firm inSan Francisco, where he represents bothpublic and private clients in matters toimprove the management of water, othernatural resources and energy, andemphasises settlements to restoreenvironmental quality consistent witheconomic growth.

Steve Malloch, (LIHI Treasurer) works onWestern water resources issues for theNational Wildlife Federation from Seattle. Hehas been involved with hydro power since themid-1990’s as a consultant and lobbyist forconservation organisations on federallegislation. As a consultant to AmericanRivers, he helped shape the strategy andorganisation for the Low Impact HydropowerInstitute (LIHI) and continues to serve on itsboard of directors.

Sam Swanson (LIHI Secretary) is Director ofRenewable Energy Technology and MarketAnalysis at the Pace Law School Energy andClimate Center. His work aims to reduce thebarriers to the deployment of sustainablerenewable energy technology and to encouragethe growth of voluntary clean energy markets.

Fred Ayer is the Executive Director of the LowImpact Hydropower Institute and can bereached at [email protected]

organisation since 1999. I wanted to ask them a few questions andget their sense on how successful the institute has been since its cre-ation and their hopes for the future.

Ayer: As one of the founders of LIHI, you were very involved increating the organization. Has it turned out the way you had orig-inally envisioned? If not, do you have any sense why?

Roos-Collins: Foolish plans of mice and men, right? LIHI has large-ly met my original expectations. Let me explain what they were.The founders intended our programme to enhance environmentalquality at existing hydro power projects by encouraging licenseesto exceed the regulatory minimums which the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission (FERC) would otherwise impose inlicences. Specifically, our criteria ask whether a given project fol-lows the recommendations for flow releases, fish passage, and otherenvironmental enhancements as proposed by resource agenciesunder Federal Power Act section 10(j).

In 1999, FERC frequently rejected such recommendations on itsown initiative, and licensees rarely reached settlements with otherstakeholders. Our programme was intended to help change thatreality. We believed that FERC was more likely to incorporateenhancement measures into a project licence if the licensee affir-matively said that it accepted them as a business decision. Whywould a licensee do that? We expected that our certification wouldincrease project revenue – indeed, more than the cost of acceptingsuch measures – since many electricity customers would pay a pre-mium for such green power.

So, how has the world turned? Today, just nine years later, mostlicences are based on settlements between licensees, resource agen-cies, and other stakeholders. Such settlements typically incorporateagency recommendations under Federal Power Act section 10(j).That positive trend mostly reflects a widespread recognition in thisregulatory community of the comparative benefits of settlementversus litigation in relicensing proceeding. For some licensees, ourcertification programme provided the extra benefit necessary forthem to accept that new approach.

Malloch: When we started this effort more than ten years ago itlooked like we would have robust retail competition for electricity.Deregulation and breaking the utilities up was a foregone conclu-sion. We saw an opportunity to differentiate power in a way thatfurthered our goals of improving river health. We wanted to makecertified hydro power like organic food – good for you and goodfor the environment.

In addition, we wanted to provide an incentive for accepting pos-itive public benefit and environmental health terms in the FERCrelicensing process and support settlement.

We got up and running, with our first few certifications under-way, when the electricity system went crazy, undercutting our strat-egy. Deregulation and retail competition went out. But it turned outthat hydro power owners still wanted recognition for the goodthings they were doing, especially as a result of relicensing. Thatgot us through a few lean years.

Now there is increasing institutional and corporate demand forgreen power as part of a drive for corporate responsibility and sus-tainability. That is driving many hydro power owners to seek cer-tification – some are getting real premiums by selling certified powerto institutional buyers. There is also a growing interest in includingcertified hydro power as part of renewable portfolio standards(RPS).

LIHI’s story is similar to many startups. The initial market targetturned out to be wrong, for reasons we could not foresee. But bystaying alive and continuing to work at developing a niche, we final-ly found a real opening. From here, we think we can grow the busi-ness, and continue to seek improvements to the way hydro powerprojects are operated.

Swanson: I envisioned that the creation of LIHI would quickly iden-tify the hydro power facilities that meet minimum standards for


their environmental quality and the impacts they have on keyecosystem attributes. I envisioned that this certification programmewould help the public understand that some hydro power has rel-atively few adverse impacts and that some pose very significantproblems. I think LIHI is fulfilling this vision but it is taking longerto accomplish this than I anticipated at the start. With LIHI wewanted to make sure that hydro power marketed as green poweror clean power really was power generated by hydro power facili-ties that did not cause serious environmental problems.

When we started there was a disturbing trend by policy makerstoward distinguishing low impact hydro power on the basis of thesize of the unit, not the specific impacts on local fisheries or waterquality or other attributes that relate to local conditions. LIHI hashelped people understand that not all small hydro power facilitiesare benign and that not all large hydro power facilities producesevere impacts. Nevertheless I find many people continue to assumethat small hydro facilities pose few risks and that large ones areproblematic.

Ayer: How much has the climate change debate altered the wayenvironmental organisations think about hydro power’s role in thefuture?

Roos-Collins: A sea change is underway. For many decades, adebate has occurred about whether hydro power is renewable.Licensees argued that their projects use a renewable source, water,to generate power, while environmental groups focused on the sig-nificant impairments of renewable resources, the fish and wildlifespecies which depend on natural flows. In my view, that debate isstale. It focuses on existing projects. That ignores the imperativethat we develop new renewable power to replace existing coal andother thermal generation, in order to lessen the rate of climatechange and increase energy independence. LIHI now certifies retro-fits of non-hydro power dams to add such renewable capacity. Thatreflects the principle that new renewable power must be designed,built, and operated to protect the local aquatic ecosystem, not justthe global commons.

Malloch: There has always been a tension between the notions that‘dams are bad’ and that ‘hydro power is good’ in both environ-mental organizations and the broader population. Climate changeheightens that tension, but I have not seen a major shift in thinkingabout hydro power.

In most organisations the thinking is that we need new non-hydropower renewables. Hydro power is seen as a mature resource, withlittle new generation potential from new traditional projects becausethe best sites are used or off limits. However, there is interest inretrofitting existing non-power dams with generators and uncon-ventional hydro power. Other resources, especially wind, solar andnon-food based biofuels are seen as having the most promise.

When we get a carbon-constrained economy, and have to run anelectricity grid with more intermittent generation sources, we mightsee renewed appreciation of hydro power.

Swanson: The climate change crisis has had the effect of elevatingthe concern about power sources that contribute to climate change,and consequently reducing the priority to other ecosystem impacts.I endorse this focus because the inattention given to the climatecrisis for the last two decades has reduced the time available andincreased the difficulty of addressing this.

Nevertheless, I believe the ecosystem impacts that LIHI focuseson in its certification programme remain important and are crucialto long term efforts to find sustainable paths to meet our local andglobal energy needs. The LIHI plays an important role in offeringscience-based criteria for identifying and mitigating the importantimpacts caused by hydro power construction and operation. Allenergy production sources pose varying environmental risks. LIHIplays an important role in encouraging facility owners to take stepsto reduce impacts that are not addressed in the hydro power licens-ing process.

ENVIRONMENT


ENVIRONMENT

Ayer: Some have suggested that the LIHI certification programmeshould be used as the eligibility metric of any national renewableportfolio standard (RPS) that Congress passes. What do you think?

Roos-Collins: Yes, as a permissive eligibility metric for hydropower. Let me start with the negative. It might be inappropriatefor RPS to use our certification as the sole and mandatory metric,since that would delegate public policy to the control of a non-profit corporation. By contrast, using our certification as a per-missive metric would make common sense. As the only

certification programme for hydro power in the US, we have aten-year track record of fairly applying our criteria. We activelysolicit, consider, and respond to public comments on each appli-cation. Our decisions are public records. Our certifications haveresulted in new revenues and other substantial business benefitsfor project owners, who uniformly seek renewal at the expirationof original certifications.

In sum, our programme provides a public service – distinguish-ing superior performance in environmental enhancement – that maybe incorporated into RPS or other public policies designed to

Low Impact Certification list, January 1, 2009Project Certificate Number, Name, Owner State Size Certification Date

LIHI Certificate # 00001 Stagecoach (Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District) CO 0.8 MW (1 dam) March 27, 2001

LIHI Certificate # 00002 Island Park (Fall River Rural Electric Coop) ID 4.8 MW (1 dam) June 7, 2001

LIHI Certificate # 00003 Putnam (Putnam Hydropower) CT 0.575 MW (1 dam) April 10, 2002

LIHI Certificate # 00004 Falls Creek (Falls Creek Hydropower ) OR 4.3 MW (1 dam) June 3, 2002

LIHI Certificate # 00005 Skagit River (Seattle City Light) WA 690 MW (3 dams) May 15, 2003

LIHI Certificate # 00006 Black Creek (Black Creek Hydro Inc.) WA 3.7 MW (1 dam) April 10, 2003

LIHI Certificate # 00007 Beaver River (Reliant Energy) NY 44.8 MW (8 dams) July 16, 2003

LIHI Certificate # 00008 Nisqually (City of Tacoma) WA 114 MW (2 dams) April 15, 2003

LIHI Certificate # 00009 Strawberry Creek (Lost Valley Energy) WY 1.5 MW (1 dam) October 27, 2003

LIHI Certificate # 00010 Worumbo (Miller Hydro Group) ME 19.4 MW (1 dam) February 19, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 00011 Pawtucket (Pawtucket Hydro LLC) RI 1.3 MW (1 dam) April 23, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 00012 Tallassee Shoals (Fall Line Hydro Company LLC) GA 2.3 MW (1 dam) April 23, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 000013 Hoosic River (Brascan) NY 18.5 MW (2 dams July 9, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 000014 Raquette River (Brascan) NY 160.3 MW (14 dams) July 9, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 000015 Bowersock (Bowersock Mills and Power Company) KS 2.5 MW (1 dam) July 9, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 000016 Winooski One (Winooski One Partnership) VT 7.4 MW (1 dam) July 29, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 000017 Summersville (Gauley River Partners) WV 80 MW (1 dam) November 10, 2004

LIHI Certificate # 000018 Tapoco (Alcoa Power Generating , Inc.) TN and NC 326 MW (4 dams) July 25, 2005

LIHI Certificate # 000019 West Springfield (A&D Hydro , Inc.) MA 1.4 MW (1 dam) August 29, 2005

LIHI Certificate # 000020 Salmon River (Brookfield Power Corporation) NY 36.25 MW (2 dams) November 14, 2005

LIHI Certificate # 000021 Buffalo River (Fall River Rural Electric Coop) ID .25 MW (2 dams) April 27, 2006

LIHI Certificate # 000022 Black Bear Lake (Alaska Power & Telephone) AK 4 .5 MW (1 dam) May 19, 2006

LIHI Certificate # 000023 Raystown (Allegheny Electric Cooperative) PA 21 MW (1 dam) August 11, 2006

LIHI Certificate # 000024 Mother Ann Lee (Lock 7 Partners LLC) KY 2.04 MW (1 dam) October 11 , 2006

LIHI Certificate # 000025 Pelton Round Butte (Portland General Electric) OR 366.8 MW (3 dams) October 30, 2006

LIHI Certificate # 000026 Goat Lake (Alaska Power & Telephone) AK 4 MW (1 dam) October 23, 2006

LIHI Certificate # 000027 West Branch St. Regis (Brookfield Power) NY 6.8MW (2 dams) September 14, 2005

LIHI Certificate # 000028 Champlain Spinners (Champlain Spinners Hydropower Co.) NY 2.2 MW (1 dam) August 31, 2007

LIHI Certificate # 000029 Jordanelle Dam (Central Utah Water Conservancy District.) UT 12.0 MW (1 dam) June 10, 2007

LIHI Certificate #000030 Lake Chelan (PUD#1 of Chelan County) WA 48.0 MW (1 dam) September 26, 2007

LIHI Certificate #000031 Boulder Creek (S & K Holding Company) MT 350 kW (1 dam) October 24, 2007

LIHI Certificate #000032 Newton Falls (Brookfield Power, New York) NY 2.22 MW (2 dam) November 1, 2007

LIHI Certificate #000033 Willamette Falls (Portland General Electric) OR 15.18 MW (1 dam) November 2, 2007

LIHI Certificate #000034 Black River (Brookfield Power, New York) NY 37.6 MW (6 dams) December 7, 2007

LIHI Certificate #000035 Oswego River (Brookfield Power, New York) NY 25.5 MW (4 dams) December 7, 2007

LIHI Certificate #000036 Tieton River (Tieton Hydro LLC) WA 14 MW (1 dam) March 3, 2008

LIHI Certificate #000037 Kingsley Dam (CNPPID) NE 67.5 MW (26 dams) May 22, 2008

TOTAL 2,135.58 MW (103 dams)


encourage renewable power development. Similarly, certificationprogrammes for other goods are administered by private corpora-tions, such as Green-E (other sources of renewable power), ForestryStewardship Council (lumber products), or Underwriters’Laboratories (electrical and other residential goods).

Swanson: I believe that the underlying criteria that support LIHIcertification should be used in any RPS. Whether certificationadministered by a non-government organization can or should beused for qualifying resources for a federal or state regulated policyis a question that has to be addressed if LIHI certification is to beconsidered. More important is the current focus of LIHI certifica-tion on existing hydro power facilities. RPS policy focuses on addi-tions to the supply of qualifying renewable energy generatedelectricity. This diminishes the role LIHI certification could play inthe RPS programme.

Ayer: If you could go back to 1999 during the days of creatingLIHI, what would you do differently?

Roos-Collins: Water under the bridge. Let’s talk about the future!

Malloch: Hindsight being what it is, I would have put more atten-tion towards developing demand for certified power from the ulti-mate customers rather than just on the hydro power owners. Wemight have seen that retail competition was difficult and focusedinstead on large commercial and institutional power users. I wouldhave also worked harder at our revenue model. Initially we reliedon foundation grants and certifications. Now modest annual feesallow us to do more marketing and to get the word out about LIHI,which benefits certification holders.

Swanson: I would have liked to see LIHI commit resources to edu-cating the public about river systems and the way hydro powerfacilities pose threats to river systems. Resource limitations, includ-ing the time of the LIHI executive director and board of directors,were barriers to addressing that while also focusing on administer-ing the new certification process. I hope the LIHI will succeed inconnecting with the communities around hydro facilities, pointingout what is working and what continues to threaten the health ofAmerica’s rivers and streams.

Ayer: LIHI does not accept certification applications for projectsoutside the US. Can you see a day when the LIHI certification pro-gramme might be extended to Canada or South America?

Roos-Collins: Unlikely in the next few years. Our programmereflects the regulatory and other legal requirements for hydropower in the US. Essentially, we ask: does a project exceed the min-imum requirements of the Federal Power Act? We would have tostart from scratch in Canada or South America, which of coursehave very different legal requirements. Plus, the LIHI staff andboard will have our hands full keeping up with certificationrequests from domestic projects if federal RPS legislation recog-nises our programme.

One possibility is redesigning the program to state objective cri-teria, such as the degree of control and alteration of natural flows.In that form, it would apply anywhere. The founders consideredand rejected that approach in 1999. Even if objective on paper, suchcriteria would require the LIHI board to use substantial judgmentand discretion in considering the facts of a given application. Sinceseeking our certification is still voluntary, why would a projectowner trust us to apply criteria where a rational answer could beyes or no?

Malloch: International certification is a direction we want to go. Itwill take some work, because the licensing systems are different,but we think that we can develop approaches that work indepen-dent of the regulatory system.

Swanson: I hope that this happens. It is particularly important tohave a LIHI certification process applied in Canada where there areso many large existing and yet untapped hydro power resources. Ilive in Vermont where we currently depend on hydro power fromQuebec, Canada for a large proportion of our electricity supply. Itis difficult to sort out the conflicting claims about the environmen-tal impacts of the hydro power imported from Canada. It would bevery helpful if there were an independent organisation in Canada,like the LIHI providing certification of the hydro power importedto the US.

Ayer: What is LIHI’s future? Where will it be in five years?

Roos-Collins: Our future will be influenced by RPS and otherrenewable power policy, which will change more in the next fiveyears than the past 20. Having said that, I hope that LIHI will maketwo changes on our own initiative. We should offer different levelsof certification, such as basic to exceptional. This would encourageowners to go the extra mile in protecting the local ecosystem.

Second, we should expand our programme to include new pro-jects, both inland and marine. Our programme today reaches exist-ing projects, including retrofits. As I said above, new generation –unlike fine-tuning existing generation – will be necessary to miti-gate climate change and contribute to energy independence. LIHIshould be part of that solution.

Malloch: We see LIHI continuing to grow rapidly as the demandfor green power grows among consumers. There are better hydropower projects that should be rewarded for their efforts. There arealso projects that need to improve their environmental performance.We serve a real role in helping to distinguish between the two. Thereis also a role for LIHI in RPS programmes for the same reason.Most RPS systems use a size limit for hydro power, but small hydrois not necessarily better hydro. We want RPS systems to includeonly better hydro.

Swanson: My hope is that our nascent efforts to market LIHI cer-tification will gain a strong foothold among environmental educa-tion organisations, their members, and the millions of otherAmericans who treasure our environment and are committed towrestling with the difficult trade-offs involved in meeting our energyneeds in a way that is sustainable in the long term. We are makingprogress but I think we still have a long way to go.

Ayer: My personal goals for the institute have not changed much,and I don’t have much to add to what Richard, Steve, and Sam havesaid. However, I do have some updated goals for the next five years:

• Continue to be recognised as the gold standard for certifying lowimpact hydro power.

• Certify between 60 and 70 hydro projects as low impact and havethose projects be recognised and compensated for that status.

• Continue to be a credible and knowledgeable voice. To helpthe green market evolve to the point that state and federalgovernments go beyond arbitrary, and relatively meaningless sizeand date of construction criteria, for determining eligibilityof existing hydro projects in procurement programmes and RPSeligibility standards.

If you’d like further information please contact Fred Ayerat: [email protected] or visit the LIHI website at

www.lowimpacthydro.org

Previous articles on the LIHI are available online atwww.waterpowermagazine.com. Simply enter the

keyword LIHI in our archive for a full listing

ENVIRONMENT

IWP& DC


tual removal of four dams on the Klamath River. Sceptics point outthat the Klamath River Agreement is really an accord to keep thedams until 2020, to study the feasibility of removal, and for the stateand utility to split the costs if the dams are eventually removed [2].However, even sceptics would admit that the agreement sets thedirection [3]. The eventual removal of the Klamath dams would rep-resent an important victory for dam removal activists, especially ina state with ambitious goals in renewable energy generation.

The US has approximately 79,000 significant dams [4] and prob-ably has the most experience in removing them. Over the twentieth

COMPLETION of the 2080MW Hoover Dam on theColorado River in 1935 was a significant moment in thehistory of dam building in the US. Some say that it was atipping point that fired the imagination of dam builders

and led to a surge of dam building across America [1]. Howeversmaller scale hydroelectric dams were being built all over the USfrom the turn of the century. What building the Hoover Dam reallyfired was the confidence of dam-builders: if the Colorado Rivercould be tamed, then they could dam any river.

However not everyone considered the dams to be progress, andover the decades movements to prevent new dams being built, andto remove old ones, have grown stronger.

Recently, works have commenced to prepare for removal of theElwha and Glines Canyon dams in Washington State. These damsare relatively tall: the Glines Canyon dam is 64m high, but theirpower output is small, with a combined total of 28MW. What reallysets them apart however is the cost of their removal. A price tag ofover US$300M sets a new high-water mark in the price that thenation is prepared to pay to restore it’s rivers.

So does this represent a tipping point in the opposite direction –towards removal of dams?

Another example, this time from California, might suggest that atipping point has been reached. In November 2008 an agreementwas signed between owners and protagonists concerning the even-

An alternative to refurbishment of dams is the retirement and removal of structures whichhave reached the end of their life cycle. Over 450 dams have been removed in the US alone,with some of the largest being hydro dams. So what has been learnt? Here, Kevin Oldhamdraws from recent US case histories of hydro dam removals, exploring trends across threecritical interlinked areas: costs; sediment management; and dam removal methodology

Table 1: Dam removal in the USYear of removal Number Average Maximum

removed height (m) height (m)

1920-1950 16 4 7.9

1951-1980 31 7.5 17.1

1981-1990 92 7.1 38.1

1991-2000 137 6.2 48.8

2001-2008 154 3.5 18.3

Note: Includes only dams for which height and year of removal are known

Decommissioning dams –costs and trends

Demolition of the Marmot dam on the SandyRiver, part of the Bull Run hydro project.

Courtesy of Portland General Electric

century 467 dams were reported to have been completely or par-tially removed across the US [5] and the total number of removalsnow stands at over 600 [6]. The pace of removal is reported to havepicked up over the decades, coinciding with the 50 year licensingcycle under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rules[7] (Table 1 and Figure 1).

The average size of removed dams appears to have decreased inrecent decades. This may be due to an increase in funding forremoval of small dams over this period. For example AmericanRivers administers a grant programme for the removal of small damsas part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) Open Rivers Initiative.

In an analysis of 417 case studies Pohl [8] found that environ-mental reasons were most commonly cited for dam removal (39%),followed closely by safety (34%).

HYDRO DAM REMOVALS

There is no single source of useful and accurate information on hydro-electric dams removed in the US. The information has been collatedfrom a range of official sources – such as the FERC, state registers,and the US Army Corps of Engineers and from unofficial sources, suchas the Stanford University National Performance of Dams Programmeand University of California Berkeley Clearing House for DamRemoval Information, Idaho National Laboratory and from damremoval activist literature (such as American Rivers). Where possiblethe information has been cross checked against original sources.

Our research found reasonably complete information for 17 ofthe 23 hydro dams reported as having been removed to date. A fur-ther two removals are underway (counting the two Elwha dams asa single scheme) and six were classified as “planned”, including thefour Klamath dams. Dams were only entered into the “planned”category if the dam owner has agreed to remove the dam, or beenordered to remove the dam, within a set timeframe. Counting damremovals planned and underway, the data set consists of 25 reason-ably complete sets of data (Table 2) [9].

Several observations are immediately apparent from the data onhydro dams removed to date:• The dams tend to be of moderate height (range 5m to 18m).• Most of the dams had a small installed generating capacity (0.4 to

10MW).• The dams are reasonably old (average age 87 years at removal).• Many of the hydro schemes had already been retired at the time

of removal (86%)While the removed dams are often small in generating capacity, com-parison against data for hydro dams recognised by FERC revealsthat that, the size distribution of removed dams is reasonably rep-resentative of the stock of dams in the US, at least for dams below100MW installed capacity (Figure 2).

The decommissioned hydro dams represent 1.8% of the totalnumber of FERC recognised hydro schemes, but the total genera-tion capacity of 40MW decommissioned to date represents only 0.05% of the 78,000 W total installed generating capacity of hydroschemes in the US [10]. This is because a small proportion of largedams provide most of the installed capacity and none of those havebeen removed. Dam removal projects currently underway willincrease the total generating capacity removed to over 100MW.

Whether a tipping point has been reached is a moot point, but thedata is consistent with an emerging trend towards: removing largerhydro schemes with greater installed capacity; removing operatinghydro schemes, not just retired hydro dams

SEDIMENT REMOVAL

Sediment management is a major consideration in dam removal, andprobably the most significant issue on most decommissioning pro-jects. In recent times there has been a trend to use more naturalprocesses to manage sediments (Box 1). Current examples includethe Condit Dam and the Bull Run hydro scheme removals, both ofwhich are due to be completed in 2009 [11].


ENVIRONMENT

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cou

nt

1920-1950

1951-1980

1981-1990

1911-2000

2001-2008

Year of removal

1631

92

137154

Above – Figure 1: US dam removals. Please note figure only includes dams forwhich height and year of removal are known. Below – Figure 2: Distribution ofdams removed, underway and planned, versus remaining FERC hydro projects

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

Current FERC dams

Removed dams

0-5 5-20 20-100Installed capacity (MW)

100-500 500+

1. Removal oftwo dams inMichiganSturgeon DamThe 16m high Sturgeonconcrete arch dam was built onthe Sturgeon River, Michigan, in1919 to supply 0.8MW ofhydroelectric power. In 1998 thedam owner agreed to removethe dam, stating that it was no longer economic to operate [13]. The damwas progressively removed in three stages of 5m, 5m and the remainder, onthe first, third and fifth years of the removal programme [14]. Removalcommenced in 2003 and was completed in 2007 [15] at a cost ofapproximately US$2M [16].

Stronach DamThe 10m high Stronach Damwas built on the Pine River inMichigan in 1912, generating2MW through an adjacentpowerhouse. High sedimentloads in the Pine River filled the27ha reservoir just 18 yearslater, in 1930. The hydro plantoperated for another 23 years,but was retired in 1953 [12].

The Stronach powerhouse was demolished in 1996. A series of stoplogswere inserted and progressively removed: one 150mm high stoplog perquarter, until the river was back down to its natural level by 2003. Thisgradual removal was aimed at reducing environmental effects downstream ofthe dam, by gradually releasing stored sediment back into the downstreamriver. Riprap was placed in some locations within the reservoir to prevent theaccumulated sediment from eroding too quickly.

Sturgeon Dam after Phase 1 of removalin August 2003. Courtesy MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources

Stronach Dam in November 2003, withremoval almost complete. CourtesyMichigan Department of NaturalResources


ENVIRONMENT

COST OF DAM REMOVALHistorical costs of dam removal were inflated to 2008 US dollarsusing the US Army Corps of Engineers construction cost index fordams [17]. To allow a range of project sizes to be compared,removal costs were also expressed as a percentage of the construc-tion cost to build an equivalent facility (Table 3). A hydroelectricproject cost model developed by the US Department of Energy [18]was used to estimate current US construction costs for those hydro-electric projects. The model is based on only one input variable,being the installed electricity generation capacity, so the estimatedcosts are not site-specific and are indicative only. Nevertheless thedata suggests that removal costs are typically 5 to 50% of con-struction costs.

There is some evidence that hydro dam removals are getting cost-lier. For instance prior to 1999, removal costs were typically less than10% of the cost of building an equivalent hydroelectric scheme ofthe same installed generation capacity. Since 1999 the cost of damremovals has increased, typically costing 20-40% of new construc-tion costs. It is possible that the early removals were biased towardsthe easiest dams to remove, where low costs made it relatively easyto justify a removal decision. While local factors will affect anyremoval decision, it is logical to expect that dams that are inexpen-sive to remove will tend to be removed earlier than others.

One cost stands out in Table 2, being the Elwha dams removalwhich is being conducted by the US National Parks Service. This isclearly an outlier when compared to the other data. Reasons whythis removal project is so expensive are examined in Box 2, but canbe summed up in a single word: sediment.

FACTORS AFFECTING COST OF REMOVAL

Regression analysis was used to indicate the most significant factorsinfluencing cost of dam removal. Elwha data was excluded becauseit is an outlier, and the four Klamath dams were excluded becauseof the uncertainty regarding the timing of their eventual removal anddue to the wide variations in projected removal costs reported in theliterature. All costs for the 18 remaining dams in the data set werebrought to 2008 dollars using the USACE cost index.

Simple linear regressions indicated that installed capacity, and damheight were the most significant factors. A multiple linear regressionanalysis found that these two factors combined accounted for 83%of the variation in removal cost.

Estimates of reservoir area were only available for nine dams. Asimple regression analysis tentatively indicated that reservoir area isimportant, ranking below installed capacity as a predictor of cost,but ranking above dam height.

Table 2: Removal of hydroelectric projects in the US - selected case studiesRemoval FERC Dam River State Dam Installed Reservoir Inflated Built Age at Retired Reason forComplete No. Height Capacity Size Removal Removal Retirement

Cost(year) (m) (MW) (Ha) ($M) (year) (years) (year)

Completed

1973 Lewiston Clearwater ID 14 10 2.9 1927 46 Reservoir full of sediment

1973 2482 Fort Edwards Hudson NY 10 2.85 78.9 2.0 1898 75 1969 Cost of repairs to agedstructures

1991 10694 Willow Falls Willow WI 18 1 40.5 1.0 1870 121 1985 Flood damage

2000 2306 Newport No 11 Clyde VT 6 1.8 0.4 0.8 1957 43 1996 Partial collapse

1998 10696 Mounds Willow WI 18 0.4 23.1 0.7 1926 72 1963 Economic reasons

1999 2389 Edwards Kennebec ME 7 3.5 462.6 4.2 1837 162 1999 FERC denied relicensing forfish reasons

2000 3688 East Machias East Machias ME 5 1.5 0.7 1926 74 1962 Inadequate power generation

2001 10781 Orienta Iron WI 13 0.8 0.7 1947 54 1985 Flood damage

2002 7118 Smelt Hill Presumpscot ME 6 1.1 0.4 1898 104 1996 Flood damage

2002 4180 Sennebec St. George ME 5 0.4 0.4 1916 86 1961 No longer of use with theadvent of larger generators

2003 2580 Stronach Pine MI 5 0.8 27.3 1.1 1912 91 1953 Reservoir full of sediment

2005 7490 Embrey Rappahannock VA 7 6 11.5 1910 95 1968 Inefficient compared to largerdams

2006 20 Cove Bear ID 8 7.5 3.0 3.5 1917 89 circa 2004 Cost of repairs vs. revenue

2006 11433 Madison Sandy ME 5 0.547 0.5 1903 103 2006 Relicensing requiredElectric Works fish ladders - too expensive

2005 2471 Sturgeon Sturgeon WI 15 0.8 100.4 2.3 1919 86 Mitigation for operation ofother We Energies projects

Underway2009 477 Marmot & Sandy ME 14 22 22.5 1912 97 Upgrade costs and fish

Little Sandy

2012 Elwha and Elwha WA 65 28.1 265.1 227.0 1910 102, 86 Restore the river and fish runsGlines Canyon & 1926

Planned2009 2342 Condit White Salmon WA 38 14.7 526.1 27.8 1913 96 No longer economically

viable with risingenvironmental costs

2012 2659 Powerdale Hood OR 3 6 6.5 1923 89 1/04/2010 Cost of fish compliance

2082 J.C. Boyle Klamath OR 21 80 170.0 20.4 1958 Restoration of riverCompany (600 miles) for fish runs

Copco No. 1 CA 38 20 404.7 22.1 1918 Restoration of river(600 miles) for fish runs

Copco No. 2 CA 10 27 16.2 4.0 1925 Restoration of river(600 miles) for fish runs

Iron Gate CA 53 18 382.0 40.0 1962 Restoration of river(600 miles) for fish runs

www.r izzoassoc.com

PROUDLY

BUILDING ON

YEARS

OF RCC & DAM

CONSTRUCTION

EXPERIENCE.

25ON

DAM

CTION

E.


ENVIRONMENT

FACTORS INFLUENCING DAM REMOVALIt has already been seen that most hydro dams removed to date hadalready been retired. Clearly this is a good predictor of likelihood ofremoval. Other factors influencing the likelihood of dam removalwere expected to include:• Size – smaller dams being may be more likely to be removed.• Rank – smaller dams in a portfolio owned by an operator could

be more likely to be removed (for example as a form of mitigationfor continued operation of others).

• Region – dams on pacific salmon rivers may be more likely to beremoved.

In fact, when compared to the FERC database, no significant over-

all difference was found in likelihood of a dam being removed dueto the size (Figure 2), at least for dams below 100MW installed gen-erating capacity. Rank was also examined but only a weak relation-ship was found, which may have simply been chance. The overallhistorical data showed no compelling evidence of regional differencesin the likelihood of dam removal (Table 4). However closer inspec-tion of the data shows that many of the early hydro dam removalswere on the Atlantic coast, but most recent and planned damremovals are on the Pacific coast. This emerging trend may indicatethat activism focused on Pacific salmon rivers is beginning to havean effect. In summary none of these additional factors were found tobe good predictors of the likelihood of a dam being removed.

2. Removal of dams on the Elwha RiverThe 33m high Elwha and 65m high Glines Canyon storage dams produce a combinedtotal of 28MW of electricity, but they also isolate spawning areas in the headwatersof the Elwha River for several threatened fish species. These privately-owned damswere built in 1910 and 1926, predating formation of the Olympic National Park inwhich they are now located.

The US National Parks Service is proposing to spend a total of US$308M topurchase and remove both dams by 2012, and has already commencedconstruction of downstream mitigation works, in preparation for dam removal [19].The first contracts are for improvements to water supplies to downstreamcommunities, which will be adversely affected by high sediment loads in the firstfew years after dam removal. In fact the cost of removing the dams and works tostabilise silt in the Elwha reservoirs represents a minority of the overall cost (seefigure opposite). Excluding purchase of the hydro schemes, the estimated cost ofthe Elwha removal project is 181% of cost of building equivalent new hydroelectricpower plants.

Much of the Elwha project costs are for downstream mitigation works, such as building new water treatment plants to cater for elevated sediment loads andreplacing septic tank systems in floodplains, which will now be inundated again. These mitigation works exceed the cost of removing the dams. A major factor isthat the proposed sediment management method is to let the river erode the accumulated sediments over a relatively short period of time. Over the first threeyears following dam removal it is expected that high sediment loads will affect the quality of water supplies for downstream communities and industrial users.Sediment will also temporarily raise the river bed levels, requiring additional flood protection works [20].

This sediment management solution was chosen by the National Parks Service in 1995 because it was cheaper than dredging the reservoirs to remove thesediment. The US National Parks Service has an aggressive policy of removing such dams from national parks [21] and the federal declaration of several speciesof fish present in the Elwha as threatened, and other factors may have precluded a slower and possibly cheaper, staged removal process.

Downstream mitigations44%

Buy hydro26%

Remove30%

Breakdown of Elwha decommissioning costs

Table 3 Removal costs of hydroelectric projects in the USDam Height Installed Physical removal Removal cost Removal cost inflated to Estimated 2008 construction Ratio removal to Est.

capacity complete cost 2008 using USACE Index Cost (INEEL) construct cost(m) (MW) $USm $USm $USm

Historical

Lewiston 14 10 1973 0.6 2.9 47 6%

Fort Edwards 10 2.85 1973 0.4 2.0 17 12%

Willow Falls 18 1 1991 0.6 1.0 20 5%

Newport No 11 6 1.8 2000 0.6 0.8 12 7%

Mounds 18 0.4 1998 0.17 0.2 7 3%

Edwards 7 3.5 1999 3.0 4.2 19 22%

East Machias 5 1.5 2000 0.5 0.7 10 7%

Orienta 13 0.8 2001 0.5 0.7 6 11%

Smelt Hill 6 1.1 2002 0.3 0.4 8 5%

Sennebec 5 0.4 2002 0.3 0.4 4 9%

Stronach 5 0.8 2003 0.8 1.1 6 19%

Embrey 7 6 2005 10.0 11.5 31 37%

Cove 8 7.5 2006 3.2 3.5 37 9%

Madison Electric Works 5 0.547 2006 0.5 0.5 5 11%

Sturgeon 15 0.8 2005 2.0 2.3 6 37%

Underway

Marmot & Little Sandy 14 22 2009 17.06 22.5 92 24%

Elwha and 65 28.1 2012 227.0 227.0 126 181%Glines Canyon

Planned

Condit 38 14.7 2009 17.5 27.8 65 43%

Powerdale 3 6 2012 6.3 6.5 31 21%


ENVIRONMENT

TIMING OF REMOVAL OF OPERATING DAMS

When the case histories are examined in depth, as part of a processof relicensing, then an interesting pattern emerges. What appears tohappen, time and again, is that the owner agrees to decommissionan operating dam and, in return, the dam is allowed to run on for anumber of years to pay for it’s own removal.

This achieves a classic win-win: the river restoration activists winby getting another section of the river restored, and the portfolioowner wins because, having accepted that the dam will be removed,the hydro then generates it’s own removal fund. Savvy hydro port-folio owners use the removal of one dam to burnish their environ-mental credentials, while ensuring that the vast majority of theirhydro generation capacity portfolio is relicensed.

SUMMARY OF HYDRO REMOVALS

While a large number of dams have been removed in the US, thishas started from a very large base, in a country with a long historyof industrialisation.

The arguments for planning the removal of dams are cogentlysummarised by John Seebach of American Rivers: “Dams are tools,but like all tools, they eventually wear out and stop serving a usefulpurpose: even a revenue-generating benefit like hydro power doesn’talways outweigh the cost associated with a dam’s environmentalimpacts or public safety hazards. When these costs begin to outweighthe benefits, it’s time to take a serious look at decommissioning.Removal should always be an option in relicensing, but since manyof our hydro dams are still quite functional and produce benefitsthat are deemed worth the costs, it’s not going to be a serious optionin the majority of hydro licensing cases.

“ The problem with hydro dams is that, even though they’redesigned with a non-permanent 100-200 year life span at best, theyaren’t planned that way: the question of what to do with them whenthey’ve outlived their usefulness is one that’s not dealt with serious-ly during the initial permitting and construction of a dam, which isassumed to be a permanent fixture. As a result, when a dam needsto be removed, the taxpayer is often stuck with the bill, even if thedam was constructed, owned, and operated by private investors whoprofited from that investment. We need to consider the entire life-cycle of infrastructure when we decide to build it, rather than push-ing that cost onto future generations of taxpayers.”

Removal of the Elwha dams and the recent Klamath DamsAgreement may represent a tipping point, where the appetite fordam removals will rapidly grow. However it is more likely that itrepresents a rebalancing of the relative weight given to electricitygeneration, recreational and environmental considerations.

Kevin Oldham, Director, SPX Consultants Limited, POBox 25 953, 11A Polygon Rd, St Heliers, Auckland, New

Zealand. Tel: +64 9 575 5758. Email:[email protected]

Table 4: Proportion of hydrodams removed by regionRegion Total No. of FERC Total No. of Hydro % of Total

Recognised DamsHydro Projects Removed

FERC FERCLicensed Exempt

Pacific 257 247 504 12 2.4%

Desert 30 27 57 1 1.7%

Central 210 65 275 5 1.8%

Great Lakes 52 10 62 2 3.2%

East Atlantic 487 254 741 10 1.3%

Continental US 1036 603 1639 30 1.8%

[1] Source: Lowry, W. (2003). Dam Politics. Georgetown University Press, p 84.

[2] Source: Fimrite, P. (2008 November 14). Step taken toward removingKlamath River Dams. San Francisco Chronicle. Accessed athttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/11/14/MNA21441S7.DTL

[3] Source: http://www.sustainablenorthwest.org/quick-links/press-room/press-releases/klamath-dam-removal-agreement-is-the-cornerstone-for-a-comprehensive-plan-to-restore-the-klamath-basin-1

[4] Dams in the NID meet one of three sets of criteria: 1) over 6 ft high andimpounding over 50 acre ft of water (1.8m and 67,000 m3): or 2) over 25ft high and impounding over 15 acre ft (7.5m and 20,000 cubic metres):or 3) pose a serious downstream hazard.

[5] Dam Removal Success Stories: Restoring Rivers Through SelectiveRemoval of Dams that Don’t Make Sense, American Rivers/Friends of theEarth/Trout Unlimited, 1999

[6] Source: FAQ on Dam Removal (2005) American Rivers,http://www.americanrivers.org/site/DocServer/FAQ_on_Dam_Removal.pdf?docID=2981

[7] Doyle et al, (2000), Dam Removal : Physical, Biological and SocietalConsiderations, Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers JointConference on Resources Planning and Management, Minneapolis, July 30-August 2, 2000

[8] Pohl, M. (2002). Bringing down our dams: Trends in American damremoval rationales : Dam removal.. Journal of the American WaterResources Association. 38, 1511-1519.

[9] Due to space limitations not all of the collated data can be presentedhere. A copy of the complete information, on Excel spreadsheet, isavailable for download from www.spx.co.nz.

[10] Source: US Energy Information Administration (2008). ExistingCapacity by Energy Source, 2006

[11] Decommissioning Plan for the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project, Filed byPortland General Electric Company with the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission Office of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, D.C. FERCProject No 477, Nov 2002

[12] Stronach case study largely drawn from Morris, G.L. and Fan, J (1997).Reservoir Sedimentation Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 1997. p17.15. Sturgeoncase study drawn from Michigan Department of Natural Resources

[13] WEPC (1998). 10-K405 Filing, SEC File 1-01245, Accession Number107815-98-5. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, 1998.

[14] Emery, L. (Undated). The Sturgeon River Project: A Case Study,Office of Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,Washington DC

[15] Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources:http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_27415-80309—,00.html. Accessed 28 October 2008.

[16] DEQ (2007). State of the Great Lakes Report: Restoring the Lakes.Annual Report Prepared by the Office of the Great Lakes, MichiganDepartment of Environmental Quality, 2007.

[17] UASCE (2008). Civil Works Construction Cost Index System(CWCCISEM 1110-2-1304), US Army Corps of Engineers, 31 March 2000,updated to 31 March 2008.

[18] Model developed by Idaho National Laboratory of DoE from an analysisof several hundred hydropower projects of between 1MW and 1300MWcapacity constructed in the US since 1940. Refer INEEL (2003), Estimationof Economic Parameters of U.S. Hydropower Resources , Idaho NationalEngineering and Environmental Laboratory, US Dept of Energy, June 2003.

[19] Source: US National Park Service Press Release athttp://www.nps.gov/olym/parknews/elwha-restoration-project-update.htm

[20] Source: p312 of Elwha River Restoration Draft Sediment Managementand Monitoring Plan, Appendix B in Elwha River Ecosystem RestorationImplementation Final Supplement to the Final Environmental ImpactStatement, US National Parks Service, July 2005.

[21] The US National Park Service had removed over 100 dams on NPSland by the turn of the century. Source: The World’s Water 200-2001, PeterGleick, Island Press, 2000

Sources

IWP& DC


TRAINING

planning, this course introduces participants to procedures thatshould be followed in order to comply with today’s requirementsfor good environmental planning. The international financing ofhydro depends on this, and the well being of millions of peoplerelies on it.

Participants learn how Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)are typically organised and carried out through the concept ofAdaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM). Asa result they become better prepared to analyse results and identifyproper mitigating measures. The focus is on pro-active planning ofhydro power developments as part of integrated watershed man-agement to ensure sustainable utilisation of natural resources.

Special attention is given to social and cultural issues and theeffects of hydro power on vegetation, aquatic and terrestrial wildlifeas well as issues related to sediment transport. Theoretical input islikewise illustrated and emphasised through field trips to variouscatchments and projects in the middle and southern part of Norway.

3) HYDROPOWER FINANCING AND PROJECTECONOMY

Meeting the Challenges of Financing Hydropower Projects inLiberalised Markets – 1 week course

Hydropower Financing and Project Management (HFPE) aspires toprovide participants with insights into a variety of financing modelsfor hydro power projects looking at both private and public require-ments and solutions. Participants are introduced to the concepts nec-essary in the assessment a hydro projects economic viability, withan emphasis on the challenges of a liberalised energy sector.

The course focuses on project financing and the role of energy ina country’s economy as well as legal and institutional framework.The planning process of a project, with emphasis on the economicand financial considerations and assessments, are elaborated.Environmental and social considerations and risk analyses are alsointroduced.

The course is aimed at management personnel and executives withresponsibilities in the planning and decision process of hydro powerprojects on a national/regional or company level. A technical or aneconomic background is relevant.

THE International Centre for Hydropower (ICH) acts as ajoint international forum for industry and institutions inthe field of hydro power and related areas. The centre sup-ports the hydro power industry by gathering, developing

and marketing know-how on environmental, social, technological,economic and administrative aspects of hydro.

Its objective is to act as a showcase for and to promote the indus-try in general by organising courses, workshops and conferences.The current programme consists of the following six courses.

1) HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ANDMANAGEMENT

The Planning and Management of Hydropower Resources in theContext of Integrated Water Resources Management – 3 week course

The objective of the course is to provide participants with the knowl-edge of the fundamentals of planning and management of hydropower resources development, in the setting of integrated waterresources management as well as part of mixed energy systems. Byfocusing on both theoretical and practical issues, course participantswill be able to contribute more effectively in the management ofenergy resources in their own organisation/country.

The course deals with questions related to current internationaltrends with regard to the restructuring of the power sector whereeconomic/financial questions and environmental issues are centralthemes together with legal and institutional framework.

Theoretical input is illustrated and emphasised through field tripsto various catchments and projects in the middle and southern partof Norway. Executives and middle management personnel frompower companies, ministries, private and public agencies will bene-fit from this course.

2) HYDROPOWER AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Management of Environmental and Social Aspects of HydropowerDevelopment – 3 week course

Aimed at senior professionals who deal with environmental issuesin hydro power and dam projects, or those that influence project

The International Centre for Hydropower (ICH) was established in 1995 as a hydropower portal in Norway. Its main focus is to raise standards of competence for industrypersonnel in both developed and developing countries. Carole M Rosenlund gives anoverview of ICH’s current course programme

Gaining through training

Participantsattend astudy tour

A study session at the ICH

4) CONTRACTUAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS INHYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT

Enhancing the Development of Hydropower through EfficientManagement System – 1 week course

Considering today’s challenges faced by agencies and professionalsdealing with water resources and energy legislation, political andcommercial trends, this course is aimed at decision makers and exec-utive management personnel from public agencies, ministries andpower companies that are, or soon will be, dealing with water man-agement and energy related questions.

The main objective of the course is to provide the participants withan updated knowledge of how to create workable management sys-tems based on the legislation that exists or is evolving, or is devel-oped as part of bilateral institutional cooperation. The focus is onthe intermingled challenges of developing, at the same time, the nec-essary legal framework, the institutional development, the hydroand energy development/management and the parallel process ofcreating skilled key personnel who are capable of managing the legalregime in an efficient manner.

The course focuses on improving the management of the legislationthrough harmonising overlaps in the policy, regulatory and operationalfunctions of public institutions. An efficient management of legalframework will also support the financing of hydro power develop-ments, by avoiding legislative obstacles that hamper financial solutions.

5) SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT COURSE

(Online training programme for sound Social Impact Assessmentprocesses)

The SIA (Social Impact Assessment) course introduces participantsto procedures that should be followed in order to comply with today’srequirements for a sound social impact assessment process, includ-ing strategic priorities and national guidelines. It will also help to pro-vide tools for planning hydro power and other water-related projectsin the best possible way on a national, regional and local level.

The course is tailor-made for distance learning on-line. The com-plete course consists of 13 modules, estimated at five hours work-load per module. Each module should be completed within a week;ie the normal course duration is 13 weeks.

To complete the course, participation in discussions as well aswritten exercises must be completed and a course diploma is issuedupon completion. The course is aimed at power companies, author-ities, NGOs, relevant private enterprises and others working withdevelopment of resources requiring a structured knowledge process.It is required that course participants for SIA should have a rele-vant university education, a minimum five years of working expe-rience in the water resource sector, moderate computer skills, goodcommand of the English language and access to a computer and anemail account.


6) ELECTRICITY REGULATORY INITIATIVESEMINAR - ELRI

ELRI is a training programme for regulators, primarily from devel-oping countries. Organisers are the Norwegian regulator (NVE) incooperation with ICH. The 2008 seminar was the sixth in the series.Previous seminars have been attended by participants from a numberof regulatory institutions in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Intended for executives of power companies, ministries, waterresource and energy agencies, and relevant private sector enterpriseswith management responsibility, the ELRI course is also of value toengineers interested in developing their career within power markets.

This course aims to introduce participants to the key features andexperience with power sector reform in the Nordic power market,details the different regulatory systems used in the Nordic powermarket and examines the relevance of these experiences to electric-ity industries in developing countries.

Towards the end of the course, a panel discussion of senior fig-ures in the Norwegian power sector is arranged to answer partici-pants’ questions and a special topic addresses the implications ofindependent power producers for poverty in developing countries.

NEW COURSES

ICH is continuously developing new courses for the benefit of theindustry. Topics for these courses are based on feedback from courseparticipants and surveys conducted in several countries. The latestadditions to the 2009/2010 portfolio are courses on:• Dam safety – An introduction to the inspection of dams and

hydraulic structures with a focus on how to identify deficienciesthat may affect safety both in the long and short term. The courseis aimed at participants from government agencies, dam operatorsand dam owners.

• Risk Management – to be introduced in the 2010 course programme.• Small Hydro – scheduled for 2010.• Negotiation techniques – The course concerns the art of negotiat-

ing contracts related to hydro power developments. Numerouscases during recent years have shown that this is a topic necessaryfor many developing countries in particular in order to reduce thegap of skills when meeting very professional and skilled negotia-tors from law firms, contractors and financial institutions.

• Condition Monitoring and Maintenance Planning of Turbines –These courses cover Francis, Pelton and Kaplan Turbines, are partweb-based (online) and designed for management and technicalstaff at existing power plants. To be launched this year.

FUTURE PLANS

The International Centre for Hydropower is looking to continuedeveloping its current course programmes and to introduce newcourses that will benefit the industry significantly.

This October, ICH has organised a regional training programmefor Central America in Guatemala and a new course will be offeredagain next year. It is hoped to regionalise ICH activities in CentralAmerica as well as in Africa.

Together with the GTIEA secretariat (Greening the Tea Industryin Eastern Africa) in Kenya and the Kafue Gorge Regional TrainingCentre(KGRTC) in Zambia, ICH has prepared a project proposalfor Norad that contains a four-year training programme for smallhydro development and operation in the tea industry in eight EasternAfrican countries. ICH is also keen to develop similar training pro-jects in cooperation with companies and authorities in Tanzaniaas well as other African countries.

Carole M. Rosenlund is responsible for the e-learningsystems and online turbine series of courses at the

International Centre for Hydropower

Please visit www.ich.no for more informationor email: [email protected]

TRAINING

IWP& DC

Other activitiesRegularly updated development plans form the basis of ICH’s activities andpriorities. Over the years it has also been engaged in:

• Secretariat and project management for the International Energy Association’sImplementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programmes; AnnexV: Education and Training (four-year project with Japan, Sweden, Norway)

• Project management for the three-year extension of IEA’s HydropowerAgreement in the new Annex VII: Hydropower Competence Network inEducation and Training (Japan, Sweden, Norway)

• The implementation of a five-year development plan for a hydraulic laboratoryin Kathmandu, Nepal. ICH was a Norwegian partner, in cooperation withNTNU, sponsored by Norad.

• International networking – ICH also works with the InternationalHydropower Association (IHA); International Network on Small Hydropower,China (IN-SHP); International Association for Small Hydro (India); and theEuropean Small Hydro Association (ESHA).


TRAINING

ELECTRICAL HAZARDS ANALYSISThe results of an electrical hazards analysis constitutes one of themost important factors in the selection of personal protective equip-ment, developing a training programme for qualified persons, anddeveloping an effective electrical safety programme.

OSHA requires the employer to perform a hazard assessment ofthe workplace to determine if personal protective equipment (PPE)is necessary. NFPA further defines what is required in the hazardassessment by requiring a shock hazard analysis and a flash hazardanalysis for equipment operating at 50V or more. The shock hazardanalysis is used to determine the voltage exposure, shock protectionboundaries, and the required PPE necessary to protect employeesand minimise the possibility of electrical shock.

As a result of the hazard assessment OSHA also requires training.Each employee shall be trained to know at least the following: whenPPE is necessary; what PPE is necessary; how to properly don, doff,adjust, and wear PPE; the limitations of the PPE; and the proper care,maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE.

NFPA addresses the requirements for arc-rated, flame-resistant(FR) protective clothing and personal protective equipment forapplication with a flash hazard analysis. When work is to be per-formed within the flash protection boundary, the flash hazardanalysis must be used to determine the incident energy levels thatthe employee will be exposed to. The incident energy value is thenused to select the proper arc-rated, flame-resistant (FR) personalprotective clothing and equipment to be used by the employee forthe specific task to be performed.

Other PPE that is often overlooked is the requirement to use insulat-ed hand tools. OSHA requires that when working near exposed ener-gised conductors or circuit parts, each employee shall use insulated toolsor handling equipment if they might make contact with such conduc-tors or parts.

A common misconception is that when using insulated tools,rubber-insulating gloves are not needed. The primary purpose ofrubber gloves is shock protection and the primary purpose of insu-lated tools is to prevent an electrical arc-flash. They must be usedtogether in order to help avoid electrical hazards.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY PROGRAMME

OSHA states that safety related work practices must be employedto prevent electric shock or other injuries resulting from either director indirect electrical contact, when work is performed near or onequipment or circuits which are or may be energised. Energised workapplies to work performed on exposed live parts (involving eitherdirect contact or by means of tools or materials) or near enough tothem for employees to be exposed to any hazard they present.Conductors and parts of electric equipment that have been de-ener-gised, but have not been locked out or tagged, shall also be treatedas energised parts, and this applies to work on or near them.

If the exposed live parts are not de-energised, other safety relat-ed work practices must be used to protect employees who may beexposed to the electrical hazards involved. Such work practices willprotect employees against contact with energised circuit parts direct-ly with any part of their body or indirectly through some other con-ductive object.

Only qualified persons should work on electric circuit parts orequipment that have not been de-energised. Such persons should becapable of working safely on energised circuits and must be famil-iar with the proper use of special precautionary techniques, person-al protective equipment, insulating and shielding materials, andinsulated tools. If work is to be performed near overhead lines, thelines shall be de-energised and grounded, or other protective mea-sures shall be provided before work is started.

Dennis K. Neitzel currently serves as the Director of AVOTraining Institute in Dallas, Texas, US.

[email protected]

ELECTRICAL power systems today are often very complex.Protective devices, controls, instrumentation and interlocksystems demand that technicians be trained and qualified ata highly technical skills level. Safety and operating proce-

dures utilised in working on these systems are equally as complex,requiring technicians to be expertly trained in all safety practices andprocedures. The goal of any training programme is to develop andmaintain an effective and safe work force.

In the US, one objective of the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) and the National Fire ProtectionAssociation (NFPA) is to protect employees from electrical hazardsin the workplace. There must be a strong emphasis on qualified per-sons only performing work on or near exposed energised and de-energised electrical systems and equipment in all industry sectors.An understanding of the potential hazards of electricity, whichinclude electrical shock, arc-flash and arc-blast, must be addressedas a major part of training and qualifying employees.

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

One of the most important aspects of electrical safety is to ensurethat all employees who are or may be exposed to energised electri-cal conductors or circuit parts are properly trained and qualified.The first thing that must be discussed is to identify who a qualifiedperson is. This has always been a point of debate throughout indus-try, but is clearly defined by the National Electrical Code (NEC),NFPA 70E, and OSHA. The NEC defines a qualified person havingthe ‘skills and knowledge related to the construction and operationof the electrical equipment and installations and has received safetytraining on the hazards involved’.

In addition, NFPA states that employees are required to be trainedto understand the specific hazards associated with electrical energy,the safety-related work practices and procedural requirements. Thesetraining requirements are necessary to help protect employees fromthe electrical hazards associated with their respective job or taskassignments as well as to identify and understand the relationshipbetween electrical hazards and possible injury. Training in emergencyprocedures is also required when employees are working on or nearexposed energised electrical conductors or circuit parts.

OSHA regulations require employers to document that employ-ees have demonstrated proficiency in electrical tasks. A needs assess-ment is required before any significant training can be developedand implemented for a qualified person. This assessment involvesrelevant company personnel who are aware of the job requirementsand all applicable codes, standards and regulations. Information thatis collected will provide insights into any past or present performanceproblems that must be addressed in the training programme.

Dennis K. Neitzel gives an insight into trainingrequirements to ensure electrical safety

Playing it safe

Hydro training and electrical safetyIn recent years the AVO Training Institute has worked with the following hydro utilities:

Hydro Ottawa

Western Area PowerAdministration (WAPA)

PacifiCorp

Avista Utilities

Grant County PUD

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

IWP& DC

Seattle City Light

Salt River Project

Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA)

PSEG

FirstEnergy

23-26 June 2009 • Reykjavik • Iceland

AdvancingSustainableHydropower

www.hydropower.org

The International Hydropower Association is pleased to announce its initial World Congress sponsors and partners:

Registration for the IHA 2009 World Congress is now open.Register online at www.hydropower.org or contact us today to find out more:Tel: +44 20 8652 5290 Email: [email protected] Web: www.hydropower.org

nels are twin tunnels – one was expected to act as a drainage tunnelwith the other for transportation and removal of blasted debris.

However, the many inflows experienced in the tunnels led tosevere problems with the excavation work, delaying construction.In some areas the inflows did not reduce as much as assumed, withpost grouting work proving difficult. An earlier paper on the waterinflows at Jinping was published in the October 2008 issue ofInternational Water Power & Dam Construction, where the authorsdescribed the inflows and related geological structures – and thechange in strategy in dealing with the inflows. This new paper is anattempt to characterize the water inflows and the water bearingzones, and introduces the principles, key equipment and grout mate-rials found useful in sealing the cavities and faults.

WATER INFLOWS AT JINPING

Types of groundwater inflows encounteredDuring excavation, the twin tunnels experienced large water in-burstsand gushing water. Before break-through of Tunnel B in May 2008and Tunnel A in August 2008, inflows in the east side tunnels hadaccumulated up to 7m3/sec (Huang and Wu, 2008). After the firstwater in-burst on 8 January, 2005 – when the east side of tunnel Bhad been excavated to about 3055m – efforts were made to drain thewater and seal inflows through post-grouting. These post-groutingworks are still being carried out, becoming more effective over time.

Of the many water inflows that were encountered at various loca-tions, there were 11 significant water in-bursts with more than200L/sec entering the tunnels (Huang and Wu, 2008). The watercame from joints, joint zones and faults, often karstified to formchannels and cavities, with almost continuous water flow.

Sometimes the blast holes were so close to the water bearing zone,that the blasting actually encountered the water. Or, after blasting,the pressurized water in the cavity split the fractured rock massesand burst into the tunnel. The statistical data shows that, quite often,water inflows with a large volume and high pressure occurred atsingle locations. Based on the difference in flows, the water inflowsmay be classified as follows (Norconsult Report No. 3, 2004): a)Seepage for volumes < litres/day; b) Dripping for volumes oflitres/day to m³/hour; c) Water inflow for volumes of m³/hour to manym³/minute; d) Water in-burst for volumes > many m³/sec; e) Gushingwater or jetting water for pressurized inflow of water many litres/sec.

Water-conducting zonesAccording to geological investigations and observations carried out,the surface water enters into the ground through faults and fissuresin the soluble and brittle carbonate rocks which, over time, devel-oped karst phenomena like open joints, channels, and even largecavities. The high water pressures – sometimes more than 8MPa –caused severe problems for the tunnel excavation works.

Table 2 shows the estimated lengths of rocks in the main geologi-cal units along the twin access tunnels. In the Zagunao formation inthe west side of Tunnel B, in the section BK2+683-BK2+696m and


TUNNELLING

THE 17.5km long access tunnels for the Jinping hydroscheme are located in the Jinping Great Bend region andconsist of two parallel (twin) tunnels spaced 35m apart(axis to axis) (Huang and Wu, 2008). Their construction

has allowed traffic from the Jinping I and Jinping II hydro projectsto avoid 138km of roads located in steep valleys often subjected toearthquakes, and allows for more convenient communicationbetween the two projects. Passing beneath the Jinping mountains,the tunnels have up to 2500m overburden and are mostly located inlimestone and marble (see Figures 1 and 2 and Table 1).

A 4km long test adit excavated before the tunnels’ constructionexperienced large water inflows from the combination of faultsand karst cavities, making it clear that the access tunnels wouldlikely encounter similar large inflows. Originally, probe drillingwas to be carried out to discover any water-conducting structures,which would then be grouted prior to construction of the twin tun-nels. During excavation, however, it was decided that the waterbearing zones would be filled later – the water would be drainedand post-grouting would be carried out once the inflow and pres-sure had reduced. The main reason for this is the fact that the tun-

Since the first pressurised water inflows entered the east side of access tunnel B at the Jinpinghydro project on 8 January 2005, efforts have been undertaken to seal the flows throughgrouting. Ziping Huang and Shiyong Wu introduce some principles of the post-groutingwork, including equipment and grout mixes, classify the water inflows and conducting zones,and present details on the post-grouting works carried out in the west side tunnels

T3 Upper Triassic

Yalo

ngRi

ver

Yalo

ngRi

ver

T2 Middle TrassicT2b Baishan formationT2y Yantang formationT2z Zagunao formationT1 Lower Triassic

T3T3

P2

T3

T3

T2z

T2z

T1

T2y

T2y

T2b

T2b

T2b

Mofanggou Spring

Laozhuangzi Spring

Spring

Jinping II HPP

Jinping I HPP

Jingping access tunnels

0 5km

Figure 1: Geological map with location of the access tunnels. All rocksTriassic (205 - 250. million years old)

Grouting works at Jinping


the tensile fissure zone striking N65~80°W, a karst cavity about 15mlong, 5-6m wide and a maximum 20m high was observed after awater in-burst occurred. The cavity developed along the strike direc-tion of the rocks and in the direction perpendicular to the strike ofthe fissures. The water inflow reduced quickly due to the existenceof dissoluble rocks of schist, shale and sandstone that probably pre-vent large networks of water channels in the marbles, limiting watersupply in this region. In the Baishan formation, there are rich waterbearing zones with continuous water supply through the channel net-works developed as karst channels in the soluble rocks. Although thejoint width should have reduced due to the increasing overburdenpressure, the very high water pressure has probably prevented this.

Considering the behaviour of water inflow, how fast the pressureand inflow drops down, and the structural composition of waterconducting formations, the water bearing zones in the rock may becharacterized as: a) Normal water bearing zone (total inflow of 0.5-20L/sec in a 30m long tunnel section); b) Zone of large inflow (totalinflow of 20-100L/sec in a 30m long tunnel section); c) Zone of verylarge water inflow (total inflow of 100-1000L/sec in a 30m longtunnel section, water pressure greater than 1MPa); d) Zone ofextremely large water inflow (total inflow larger than 1000L/sec ina 30m long tunnel section, water pressure greater than 1MPa); e)Large water inflow from karst channels or cavities.

METHODS FOR POST-GROUTING THE WATER

The ground water conditions at Jinping are more difficult to handlethan in most tunnels, with pressures more than 8MPa and large karstcavities and inflows of several m³/sec to be sealed. It is uncertainwhether a successful result, even with the most modern equipment,materials and experience, will be possible within a reasonable time.A positive effect of the ground being drained before grouting is car-ried out is a potential reduction of the water pressure and magni-tude of the inflowing water.

This is particularly important for the construction of Jinping II hydroproject’s headrace tunnels, which run parallel to the access tunnels.

PrinciplesGrouting is an art. It involves many conditions that interact, includ-ing rocks, joint network and characteristics, geometry, and waterpressure. To ensure a good result, sealing work must be planned inadvance, considering introductory works (such as drainage) and thegrouting works including placing and length of grout holes.

TUNNELLING

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18km

Mainly marble/limestone Layers of marble/limestone No limestone or marble Faults

Test adit

Figure 2: Section along theJinping access tunnels

Table 1: The rock formations and their karst development in the Jinping areaGroup Rocks Karst development

UPPER TRIASSIC (T3) Sandstone, slate, siltstone No karst

Baishan (T2b) Marble, interbedded with crystalline limestone. Pure and continuous *)

(T2) MIDDLE Yantang (T2y) Pure and impure marble and limestone, Alternation of pure and impure marble/ limestone bedsTRIASSIC occasionally with schist layers

Zagumao (T2z) Marble, occasionally interbedded with green schist Pure and continuous *)lenses, thinly bedded slate, and mica schist

LOWER TRIASSIC (T1) Schist, meta-sandstone mudstone, marble, Impure carbonate beds occur between other bedspartly interbedded with schist.

*) pure and continuous = pure carbonate rocks occur continuously throughout the whole group

When grouting, it is important to note that flowing water cannotgenerally be grouted through common methods, as the grout mate-rial will be washed away by the water flow. Therefore, the work hasto be tailored to the site conditions, using the correct type of groutto achieve a successful sealing result within a reasonable time.• Small inflows of water with low pressure can often be plugged by

rapid-hardening cement mix.• Large inflows of water with low pressure must generally be drained

or plugged first. Liquid polyurethane that turns to foam when incontact with water has sometimes been used.

• Large inflows with high pressure, jetting water must be stopped usingsolutions specially adapted to the actual conditions. Such work ismost often difficult and time-consuming. There is no general rule onhow to do these works. A strategy needs to be evolved which looksat the type of grout and the grouting pressure, as well as the place-ment of grout holes and drainage holes. A method for this is to plugthe tunnel and then perform the grouting, as shown in Figure 3.

Temporary drain holes may be used to divert the water flow, asshown in Figure 4. For large water flows, several large drain holeswill be necessary, or sometimes a small adit with drain holes shouldbe used. The zone to be sealed deep around the tunnel should be 6-8m in order to withstand the high water pressure.

As the water-conducting zone may have large openings to fill withgrout – particularly if the zone contains material of which large quan-tities have been washed into the tunnel – the use of a by-pass tunnelis an alternative to the grouting (Figure 5). For such a tunnel, the zonewill have to be pre-grouted before it is excavated to avoid anotherwater in-burst. However, in the access tunnel, a deviation of thetunnel alignment from straight line is not a good solution. Anothermethod could be to plug the tunnel temporarily to handle the flow-ing water in order to perform grouting. The plug can then be removedby blasting, as shown in Figure 3 (Norconsult Report No. 6).

Grouting equipmentDrilling jumbos should, preferably, make the grout holes. A modernjumbo can drill more than 50m long holes. To achieve an efficientgrouting execution, a grouting rig with grout container, mixers, agi-tators, pumps, etc. mounted on a rig is a good solution. Not only isit easy to move a rig to and from the site through the use of a lorry,but an efficient grouting rig could also have the potential to grouttwo or more holes simultaneously.

Key equipment developed specifically to handle the high pressurewater is recommended. The sketch in Figure 6 is a special packer


TUNNELLING

intended for use in situations with high water pressure. It is designedby AMV (Andersen Mek Verksted AS) in Norway. This packer maybe useful when it is not possible to insert a standard hydraulic packerinto the hole due to the high pressure of the gushing water, even withthe use of the rod handling equipment. A standard hydraulic packermay have an inner diameter of ~1/3 of the outer diameter, so thegushing water will give strong resistance against the insertion.

The packer in Figure 6 is designed with an inner diameter equalor larger than the diameter of the drill hole for grouting. The packeris placed in a 102mm hole, which is drilled 3-5m before the probeor grout hole is drilled. In cases where high pressure water is encoun-tered in the hole, the packer can be inserted into the larger drill hole,as the gushing water may pass inside the packer.

Figure 7 is an example of a blow-out preventer used for drillingof grout holes in a difficult high pressure grouting job in Colombia.The device is cast into the rock (as an orifice pipe), before the grouthole is drilled. It can be manufactured of available parts. For theJinping access tunnel the cement anchorage should be placed deeperinto the rock, e.g. 2-5m depending on the rock mass conditions.

Grouting materials• Cement – ordinary Portland cement can be used in the Jinping

access tunnels. Additives of superplastisizer, microsilica slurry orother materials to increase the cohesion and reduce shrinkage are

Drainage hole Grout hole

Table 2: Rock groups of carbonaterocks with possible karstificationalong the twin Access Tunnels

Yantang Baishan Zagunao SUMformation formation formation

East-side tunnels 4.5km 5.0km - 9.5km

West-side tunnels - 3.2km 2.7km 5.9km

A

B

C

D

Figure 3: An alternative, less feasible method for post-grouting: (NorconsultReport No.6, 2006); A: Installation of 2 concrete plugs with sufficient drainagepipes in the lower one; B: Close the pipes and fill concrete in the spacebetween the plugs. Then grouting of the rock surrounding the concrete +check holes; C and D: Drill & blast through the concrete with additionalgrouting ahead of the face.

Figure 4: The use of drainage holes is often used to prevent water fromflowing in the volumes to be sealed around a tunnel. Where several and/orlarge karst channels occur, the drainage may be performed by several largedrainage holes, or small adit with holes also from the adit. After grouting ofthe joint(s) and/or cavity in volumes around the tunnel is finished, thedrainage holes are grouted (Norconsult Report No.7, 2008)

strongly recommended. In addition, additives to accelerate hard-ening (for blocking the grout penetration) will often help in achiev-ing a good result.

• Polyurethane – This is used as a grouting material for high flowing for-mations and as a plug-grout in grouting holes and for post. The mate-rial expands 15 times or more when it comes into contact with water.

• Blocker grouts – It is sufficient for a 5-10m zone around the tunnelto be sealed by grouting. Where larger water channels occur, thegrout tends to float much longer distances than that, meaning thatlarge volumes of grout are pumped through a grout hole withoutany pressure to build-up. To prevent this excess of grout con-sumption, blocker systems have been developed over the last 5-10years (see Figure 8). The principle is that a specially designedcement-based grout hardens at a pre-set time after being injected,blocking further penetration of the grout through that channel.Proper use of a blocker will significantly reduce grout consump-tion and the time needed for grouting.

• Colloidal silica – Also called silica sol, this is an alternative tocement-based materials. It is an aqueous dispersion of discrete col-loid amorphous silica particles. The properties of silica sol, such asthe gelling time, can be changed with different proportions of theadded saline solution. The gelling of Silica sol is determined by theamount of salt added to the mix. The strength of silica sol contin-ues to increase for a long time and is linked to the relative humid-ity. There are several commercial products of silica sol available.

Additives to cement groutsFor the Jinping access tunnels, one of the challenges is finding a suit-able grout mix to penetrate and fill water channels along joints or faultsof varying sizes, which are subject to high water pressure. To cope withthese conditions the grout must have the following properties:1) It is stable, i.e. < 5% sedimentation (bleeding) after 90-100 minutes.2) It has little shrinkage during hardening, so no open parts will

develop along the rock fissure walls.3) The hardened grout has an acceptable strength, low water per-

meability, and high bond strength.

• Impermeable

• Flexible

• Resistant to settlements

• Installed quickly, also underwater

• Durable

• Applicable to all types of structures

• Environmentally friendly

• Efficiently monitored

GEOMEMBRANES ARE:

Belden pressure tunnel, USA 2008 - Exposed PVC geomembrane to waterproof critical section with active cracks. Water velocity > 4 m/s. Anchorage by Carpipatented tensioning system.

CARPI SYNTHETIC GEOMEMBRANES HAVE STOPPED LEAKAGE IN 80+ DAMS

Since 1963

1,200+ projects completed. Design and supply of waterproofing systems fordams, canals, hydraulic tunnels, reservoirs. Dry and underwater installation.

CARPI TECHCorso San Gottardo 86 - 6830 Chiasso - SwitzerlandPh. ++41 91 6954000 Fax. ++41 91 6954009www.carpitech.com e-mail: [email protected]

C

1 • 603 • 448 •[email protected]

Vibrating Wire Piezometersfor Dam Monitoring

High accuracyISO 9001:2000 qualityExcellent long-term stabilityFrequency output allows long cable lengthRugged, reliable designs suited for adverse conditions

•••••

NOTICE INVITING TENDER

(INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING)Notice No.NHPC/CCW/DMTP/01Dt:11.11.2008NHPC Limited, a leading Public SectorEnterprise of Government of India,responsible for development and operationof Hydro Power Projects, invites bids throughInternational Competitive Bidding (ICB) forTurnkey mode of execution of DurgaduaniMini Tidal Power Project (3x1.25 MW).Last date for sale of Bid Document is29.04.2009 and submission of Bid is30.04.2009 (upto 1500 Hrs- IST). For details/downloading, please visit our website:http://www.nhpcindia.com.Subsequentamendments and /or extension of date, if any,for submission of Bid shall be posted only onour website. Contact: Chief Engineer (CivilContracts-III), Tel/Fax: +91 (129) 2256035or e-mail : [email protected]

Regd. Office: NHPC Office Complex,Sector-33, Faridabad-121003 (Haryana), India

EDITORIAL REPRINTS!Make the most of your editorial coverage.

Don’t delay, order your personalised editorial reprint today to send to all your potential customers.

We can produce as 1 page, 2 pages, 4 pages and 8 pages ormore, to whatever quantity you require.

The easiest most versatile marketing toolavailable - at your fingertips!

FLOOD MANAGEMENTCLIMATE CHANGE

Although flood defence is a familiarproblem in the UK climate change will make the issue far more important.New and expanded solutions w ill beneeded, as Karl Hall reports

Although flood defence is a familiarproblem in the UK, climate change will make the issue far more important.New and expanded solutions w ill beneeded, as Karl Hall reports

Hydro power Chinese style

UK gets defensive on floodingUK gets defensive on flooding

Turbine developments in CubaTurbine developments in Cuba


& DAM CONSTRUCTIONWWW.CONNECTINGPOWER.COM

JANUARY 2003

Hydro power Chinese style

Water Power

The number one subscription journal for the dams and hydro power industry


The pathways for flooding are generally by river (fluvial) flood-ing, coastal, high groundwater levels and snowmelt. Sometimes therecan be a combination of factors, for instance in coastal areas wherea high tide combined with high fluvial flows and storm surge createsan unusually high water level, causing problems at both the tidaland inter-tidal zones.

What makes matters worse for the UK (although as we have seenfrom the summer floods in Europe, the problem is a global one) isthe large amount of urban development carried out in flood plainareas. Current estimates place up to five million people at risk fromriver and coastal flooding, with 10,000km2 of land at risk from riverflooding. Rising sea levels will only worsen the scenario, as many ofthe world’s major cities lie in coastal areas. London is an interest-ing example, and although it is considered quite well defended atthe moment, the future situation may be rather different.

Models have been formulated and estimates for future increaseddimensions of the Thames assume there is a risk of inundation ofparts of Hammersmith and the Victoria Embankment, GreenwichPeninsula and large areas of the lower Thames valley, in all some125 km2. Other cities at risk from rising sea levels include Cardiff,Swansea, Bristol, Grimsby and Hull. At the moment there are nomodels that will definitively predict future effects from rising sealevels, but it has been estimated that average global sea levels couldrise by between 10cm and 20cm by the year 2100.

For the UK, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change haspredicted a 30cm rise over the next 50 years. As a result, defenceheights will have to be raised to the tune of up to 6mm per year. Theeffects will not be constant and some areas of the UK will see moredramatic effects than others. In Scotland, for instance, sea levels haverisen at Aberdeen by 70mm since 1900 and many parts of theScottish coast are now at risk from coastal flooding, particularlybelow the 5m contour. In Scotland alone 93,000 properties are atrisk from coastal flooding, and 77,000 from inland flooding.

Some countries are now considering an alternative approach toflood management. Initiatives such as the Rhine Action Plan adopt,in principle, alternative strategies that include widening existingflood plains in conjunction with conveyance methodologies.

Factors affecting the UK include:

• Climate change and increasingly unpredictable rainfall patterns.

• Extensive coastline to all sides.

• Increased run-off from land due to agricultural practices andincreasing urbanisation.

• Long tidal rivers (Humber/Trent, Severn etc).

• Downward land tilt to some areas.

• Inadequate or poorly maintained existing drainage.

• Under-investment in flood protection schemes.

• Large catchment areas into some rivers.

• Difficulty in analysing the probability of severe weather events.

Accepting that there is little that can be done to reduce the futurerisk of flooding (although the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Protocolwere intended to mitigate the worsening climate situation by reduc-tions in greenhouse gas emissions), then a sustainable flood man-agement strategy can at least reduce its effects. Such a strategy mayinclude a combination of factors: reducing building on flood plains;installing additional flood defence measures; reforesting uplandareas; and allowing wider flood plains.

Implementing effective, integrated flood defence schemes requiresa considered approach, taking into account the long term effective-ness of planned measures with regard to capital cost, disruption toamenities and townscapes, downstream effects and maintenance. A

factor that is bound to compromise future flood management is theinexorable rise in demand for housing. Much of this demand is cen-tred on land that lies in flood plains near to existing major centresof population and industry. Unfortunately, some of the ‘brown’(industrial) land that the Government is insisting be re-used is alsowithin flood plains, immediately creating a conflict in those areas.It is however still early days and new planning guidance (designat-ed PPG25 and currently being developed) may help balance theneeds of developers and land users.

An effective flood protection scheme must consider factors includ-ing: the morphology of local rivers; the likely effectiveness of engi-neered flood defences; the downstream effects from theimplementation of engineered defences; and the socio-economic ben-efits that would be derived from such defences.

At present, significant amounts of public money are spent eachyear in simply maintaining existing defences, but many of thesedefences are either nearing the end of their effective lives or will beinadequate to cater for more severe floods in future. The UK’sNational Audit Office estimates that up to 40% of existing hard-engineered defences are in fair, poor or very poor condition (thoseclassified as ‘very poor’ may be considered as derelict or failed, theserepresenting 165 km of defences).

Although the government has already pledged additional capitalresources for flood defence, under the Comprehensive SpendingReview, additional investment is needed to stop long-term declineof the defences.

For coastal areas, a separate strategy may be appropriate, andshoreline management plans assess the balance of factors in termsof producing ‘sustainable policies for the coastal defence of ourshorelines taking into account natural coastal processes and issuesrelating to the environment and human needs’. Coastal effects canbe difficult to model, because alluvial morphodynamics have no real‘equilibrium’ state – what is put into effect today may be less effec-tive in future years as natural processes take effect. There is no betterillustration of this than the east coast, where loss of land is a con-tinuous process and flooding a regular event.

Intervention can have unpredictable results. Providing hard-engi-neered defences to one part of the coast can lead to the denuding ofsediment at adjacent coastal areas, requiring additional defences.Current government thinking tends towards a less-interventionistapproach, allowing natural processes to take their course (‘managedrealignment’), although this is not likely to impress the populationin these vulnerable areas unless the government introduces appro-priate compensation.

There is understandably a good deal of consternation in the publicdomain that can only be allayed by appropriate action from gov-ernment, but it is encouraging to observe that the issues are now seenas requiring a committed long-term strategy. Whatever the effects ofweather and climate turn out to be in the next hundred years, theformulating and instigation of effective flood defence schemes willrequire major political will, planning and investment, based on anholistic approach.

Bauer Inner City Limited, Bauer House, Woodrow Way, Fairhills Industrial Estate, Irlam,

Manchester M44 6ZQ, UK

IWP& DC

Above left: Continuous perimeter Bauer-IBS Flood Defence System protectingEuropean town. Right: Bauer-IBS system in full perimeter protection to town

physical degradation of arable land, with increased run off fromdried-out encrusted areas or saturated land. There may also be inde-terminable natural factors at work which are influencing climatechange and climatic ‘surprises’ such as changes in ocean currents,which could promote further unpredictability.

Assumptions about future climate patterns are, however, a complexmatter, and the UK has undertaken much research in this area. Theresult is a range of predictive climatological models developed by theMeteorological Office’s Hadley Centre under the auspices of theUKCIP. These assume a range of effects, based on various levels ofgreenhouse gas emissions, but whichever yardsticks are taken (low,medium low, medium-high or high, where medium-high, for instance,assumes a 1% per annum increase in CO2 emissions), the outlook isnot favourable, and wetter winters and drier summers are predicted.There is additionally the problem of predictive confidence, and whilstglobal mean temperatures and CO2 levels are considered relatively pre-dictable, factors such as climatic and regional variability are less so.

The difference between low and high predictions is very wide – itcould be as much as 20% – so there is an imperative for more accu-rate research and modelling. The problem in accurate forecastingstems from the fact that a majority of existing data is based on his-toric records and it is widely accepted that this is well out of date.Interpolations derived from existing data are therefore inappropri-ate, as this would assume that the probability of a given rainfall eventcan be calculated and preventive actions can be taken. From thismethodology, we would find that the only resolution is to designschemes to a probability of the worst case occurring approachingzero, which would result in substantially over-engineered designs.


NEW FORM

FLOODING is not a new problem for the UK, and being a nat-ural occurrence it will always be with us. But it is currentlythe frequency and severity of significant flood events that arefocusing attention on the issue, together with the real concern

that future climate patterns will worsen the outlook. Inland flooding is generally the result of high rates of run-off from

land, occasioned by intense local rainfall or by longer-term heavyrain. Most people in the UK remember the 2000 floods as beingnotably bad: it was the wettest autumn since records began andresulted in wide-scale inundation as defences were overtopped orbreached, and drainage systems overwhelmed. Around 10,000 prop-erties were flooded. These floods were in some areas 1 in 200 yearevents (flood levels that would normally be considered as having a0.5% chance of occurring), but the frequency of 100 or 200 yearevents is now increasing. Unfortunately, the historic nature of urbandevelopment has biased it towards rivers so many cities are now atconsiderable risk of regular and damaging flooding.

Hard-engineered (and therefore expensive) solutions appear to bethe only options for alleviation, at least in the short term. This phi-losophy follows on from most previous thinking, which endeav-oured to channel high-velocity flood water and discharge it to thesea in the shortest time. Although the thinking is understandable,this method of flood management has actually made some areasmore vulnerable to severe flooding at little warning.

Research suggests that by the 2080s, winter rainfall may increaseby up to 30%, with potential for greater incidence of flooding. Atthe same time, summer rainfall could decrease by up to 50%, par-ticularly in the south. As the world climate becomes warmer, greaterlevels of evaporation in summer months may be translated intoincreased rainfall and perhaps also at times later in the year thanwas previously expected. There are additional factors involved, in asometimes complex combination of events that include large-scale

in a

Above left: View of full height Bauer-IBS Flood Defence System; Above middle:Bauer-IBS Flood Defence System providing perimeter town defence; Above right:Composite town defence with dwarf wall and Bauer-IBS Flood Defence System

Please call Scott Galvin to get your quotation todayon +44 (0) 20 8269 7820

or email [email protected]

R


TUNNELLING

grout cement or cement mix with sand and special additives, inorder to ensure the water inflow within the 1-3m deep rock iskept under control. Secondly, drainage holes are drilled to divertwater and release the water pressure as shown in Photo 3.Consolidation grouting is then implemented 3-6m deep into therock. Depending on the rock layer conditions, the drill hole willnormally have diameter between 42mm-130mm, with depthapproximately 6.5m. After this is completed, post-grouting willseal the drainage holes. Grouting material is mainly cement,with additives.

• d) In the karst channels or the zones which have experienced waterin-burst, apply one or more of the following sealing technologies:plastic bag grouting, plastic purse grouting and special groutingmaterial. Alternatively, the tunnel can be plugged to allow grout-ing to be performed, as illustrated in Figures 3 and 4.

In cases b), c) and d), consolidation grouting should be carried outin order to form a reinforced rock ring to prevent high pressurewater from jetting into the tunnel. This will also improve the sta-bility of the surrounding rock masses and thus ensure the safety ofthe tunnel. The grouting holes are arranged alternately with spac-ing 2m along the periphery and in the tunnel axis direction. Theparameters are listed in Table 3. At locations with large volume ofwater inflows, the number of grouting holes may be increased. Thegrouting material used mainly includes ordinary Portland cement orcement sand.

Special additives to cement are added to improve the propertiesof the grout. This mainly includes inert fibre and material to accel-erate hardening and reduce the water volume. The grouting pres-sure is about 1 to 2 times the water pressure.

Methods used for post-grouting of large water inflowsThe post-grouting method of large water inflows is as follows:• 1) The grouting holes were placed to intersect the discontinuities.• 2) 6m long grouting holes with diameter between 42mm-150mm

were used. The number of holes were adjusted according to thewater inflow.

• 3) Grout nipples made by pressure steel tubs with diameter of50mm-150mm and length of 1-3m were adapted with special addi-tives and the blow-out preventer at locations with high water pres-sure and large volume water inflow.

• 4) The grout mixes were chosen to fit different conditions of waterinflows, including: normal Portland cement with water/cementratio (w/c) = 0.5:1 (or even thicker grout when needed); cementwith sand and a special environmentally-friendly additive suitablefor use in flowing water with the setting time adjusted for the waterinflow conditions; and a special grout designed to cope with thehigh water pressure, speed, and short set time.

• 5) The grout is pumped. When using two grouts, the type ofmixing depended upon the water inflow conditions: i.e. mixingeither inside the hole or at the borehole collar.

• 6) Generally, the grouting pressure was about 1 to 2 times thewater pressure. To ensure the stability of the surrounding rockmasses, the initial pumping pressure was set to 3MPa and thenadjusted during the grouting.

• 7) When the grout consumption was less than 5L/min under thedesigned grouting pressure, the grouting continued for 10 minutesbefore being stopped.

A process to check the quality of the grouting was developed, includ-ing pictures of the grouting section before and after grouting, andmeasurement of the difference of the water inflows.

4) It has good internal bonding so the grout does not disperse as it pen-etrates, but replaces water as it moves through the water channels.

In order to achieve the first three requirements, thick grouts withadditives were used early on. In the beginning, bentonite was usedas additive, but, as has been shown in many published papers, ben-tonite reduces the quality of the grout. Other additives are more suit-able for changing/improving the properties of grout.

The most common additive today is superplasticizer, which is usedto increase the flow of the grout and improve mixing (dispersion).However, the grout still has to be thick for the mix to be stable(water /cement ratio (w/c) < 0.7).

The use of microsilica as an additive gives the grout better cohe-sion during its travel trough the water channels. Thus, less grout willdisperse. As the microsilica creates less shrinkage, the grouting willbe more effective. The best result using microsilica can be achievedwith silica slurry. Normal dosage of microsilica is 10-25% of thecement weight.

There are different suppliers for grouting materials. The selectionis a matter of the site conditions, the experience of the grouting per-sonnel as well as the economical aspect. Some manufacturers areBASF, Switzerland, Mapei, Italy and Rescon Mapei, Norway, Elkem,Norway and Sika, Switzerland. Some manufacturers offer on-siteadvice from staff with considerable grouting experience.

THE POST-GROUTING WORKS

PlanningThe following work schemes are applied during the post-grout-ing of water inflows to different water bearing zones in the westside access tunnels:• a) In the normal water bearing zone, for linear water inflows at a

single location with volume between 1.0-5.0L/sec, seal some of theconcentrated water flow from the rock mass discontinuities bypost-grouting. Alternatively, install a drainage hole to divert thewater to a drainage ditch, then apply shotcrete layers 30-40cmthick (C25).

• b) In the rich water bearing zone, seal the concentrated water flowfrom the rock mass discontinuities by post-grouting. Then applyconsolidation grouting to the whole section to ensure a reinforcedrock ring at least 6m thick.

• c) In the very to extremely rich water bearing zones, firstly drillholes and install 1-3m long steel pipe of diameter 50mm to

Table 3: Length, pressure and methodof high pressure groutingHole depth (m) 0.0 ~ 2.0 2.0 ~ 6.5 (8.0)

Length to grout (m) 2.0 4.5 (6.0)

Grout pressure (MPa) 2.0 ~ 4.0 5.0 ~ 6.0

Grouting method Pure pressure Cycle inside the hole

Pre-grouting

By-pass tunnel

Wat

erzo

ne

Figure 5: Possible solution for sealing of very large inflows of gushing water.Two concrete plugs are made at both ends of the inflowing water in whichdrainage pipes with sufficient capacity for the water flow are installed. Then aby-pass tunnel is excavated (while the water is drained) and pre-groutingperformed when passing the water channels. After the by-pass is finished, thepipes are closed (and the water sealed) (Norconsult Report No.6, 2006)


TUNNELLING

Zones with very and extremely high water inflowsThe method for treatment in sections with very large gushing waterin-burst was to use a combination of the described post-groutingwith drainage. After initial drainage and grouting, the rock masseswere reinforced by rock bolting, and shotcrete or concrete lining orwall. Finally after plugging the drain holes, high pressure groutingwas carried out along the whole section with inflows.

Some practical issues here are:• When the water pressure is too high to insert the expanding packer,

a grouting hole should be drilled at the location near the waterinflow but not affected by it. The hole should be drilled into thewater bearing zone with the diameter relatively larger. The blow-out preventer should be installed. Additional drainage holes maybe drilled should it be necessary.

• The fractured tunnel section should be reinforced by systematic rockbolting normally spaced 1m apart, 4.5m long with a diameter of25mm and consolidation grouting. At locations of serious fracturedrock masses, install wire mesh reinforced shotcrete or steel rib.

• Grouting should then be carried out. while monitoring the defor-mation of the rock masses. Water inflows should be measured inthe whole zone. The quality of the grouting should be checked.

Karst channels and cavitiesFor these cases it is necessary to carry out investigations of the actualarea, using probe drilling and suitable geophysical methods to mapthe locations of the channels and cavities, Grouting should beplanned for the results. Special techniques using plastic bag grout-ing, plastic purse grouting and special grouting materials are applied.In large cavities it may be necessary to use concrete or cement mortarto fill the openings. Finally high pressure grouting should be carriedout to reinforce the whole zone, with the quality of the groutingchecked in the same way as described before.

Results of the post-groutingThe water sealing work at the west side of the access tunnels startedin July 2006. Up to 2 August 2007, the total length of zones with

ReferencesHuang, Z and Wu, S. (2008) Dealing with water inflows at Jinping.International Water Power and Dam Construction. October 2008. p24-30.

Norconsult Report No.7. (2008) Norconsult Consulting Report No.7.Support of rock burst, Sealing of water inflows in the tunnels. Onshotcrete. May, 2008.

Norconsult Report No.6 (2006) Norconsult Consulting Report No.6.Methods to increase tunnel progress. Treatment of water inflowsencountered in the tunnels. February, 2006.

Norconsult Report No.5. (2005) Norconsult Consulting Report No.5.Treatment of the water in-burst in East-end Tunnel B and future risk-reducing measures. February, 2005.

Norconsult Report No.3. (2004) Norconsult Consulting Report No.3.Forecasting of ground water, pre-grouting method and emergencytreatment of unexpected flowing water. September, 2004.

51mm 102mm 91mm0.2m 0.2m

3-5m

0.2m

LiningValve dia 3”Metallic tee dia 3”Safety metallic cap

Rubber packers

Valve dia 2”

Cementanchorage

1.00 to 1.50m

Drilling bit

Drilling bar

SA 160

31

253

Cementgrout

Figure 6: Packer developed for high pressure grouting of gushing water(Norconsult Report No.5, 2005); Figure 7: Blowout preventer applied forgrouting in a Colombian tunnel with high water pressure. (Norconsult ReportNo.5, 2005); Figure 8: Application of the BASF accelerator SA 160 mountedin the injection hose close to the grout hole (Norconsult Report No.5, 2005)

large inflows that has been sealed by post-grouting is 706m. The totalsteady water inflows here were reduced from 3m3/sec to 1.3m3/sec.The detailed reduction at locations is shown in the Table 1 and Table2 in the paper included in the October 2008 issue of this journal.

DISCUSSION

If a zone with large, gushing water remains undetected, extensiveflooding can obviously occur in the tunnels. Such an event can bringlarge quantities of mud, sand and rock debris into the tunnel, whichwould then have to be removed once the flow has reduced to anacceptable volume. Fortunately for the Jinping scheme, it has twintunnels with connecting tunnels, and one of the tunnels can be usedto convey the water while the excavation works continue in the other.

The twin Jinping access tunnels have been excavated through verylarge gushing inflows, the largest being at BK2+637 of 15.6m3/sec.The tunnel workers have done a great job working in such very dif-ficult ground conditions.

In a previous paper the shifting of strategy from water forecast-ing and pre-grouting to post-grouting was discussed for the Jinpingaccess tunnels (Huang and Wu, 2008). As mentioned, using one ofthe access tunnels for drainage made the shifting possible and itwill also help reduce water problems for the four headrace tunnelsunder construction at the Jinping II hydro power project. To keepthe drainage, a special drainage tunnel excavated by TBM willfinally replace the access tunnel. As a result, a major task has beeninitial post-grouting of the larger inflows following drainage. Muchexperience has been gained during these works, with the effect ofpost-grouting increasing considerably and even difficult sealingworks have been successful.

There is not yet a report on the ongoing sealing of large waterinflows at the three locations Ak14+762, Ak13+878 andAK13+520. Regarding construction of the headrace tunnels, it maybe more effective to divert the water into the TBM drainage tunnel.For the ongoing works on the headrace tunnels the impact and riskfrom ground water inflows is probably lower, as the pressure andconsequently the rate of inflow will be reduced.

It may be argued that the post-grouting approach caused the delayof construction – but this delay is much less than what it would havebeen had there been a single tunnel. The post-grouting approachdoes increase the safety risk to the crews and equipment, but thisrisk is considerably reduced with twin tunnels, where the crew andequipment can stay in the other tunnel during blasting.

Ziping Huang, Ph.D, Norconsult AS, Sandvika, Norwayand Shiyong Wu, Ph.D, Ertan Hydropower Development

Co (EHDC), Chengdu, China

The authors are grateful to Dr Arild Palmstrom for hiscontribution in review and modification of this paper

based on his work throughout the consulting service forthe design and construction of the Jinping Access Tunnels

IWP& DC

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY


CLA

SS

IFIE

Dw

ww

.wat

erp

ow

erm

agaz

ine

.com

MORE THAN 100 YEARS OF HYDROPOWER ENGINEERINGAND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE

260 Dams and 60 Hydropower Plants (15,000 MW)built in 70 countries

Water resources and hydroelectric development• Public and private developers• BOT and EPC projects• New projects, upgrading and rehabilitation • Sustainable development

with water transfer, hydropower, pumping stationsand dams.

COYNE ET BELLIER9, allée des Barbanniers92632 GENNEVILLIERS CEDEX - FRANCETel: +33 1 41 85 03 69Fax: +33 1 41 85 03 74e.mail: [email protected]: www.coyne-et-bellier.fr

COYNE ET BELLIERBureau d’Ingénieurs Conseils

www.coyne-et-bellier.fr

Over 40 years experience in Dams.CFRD Specialist Design and Construction

! Dam Safety Inspection! Construction Supervision! Instrumentation! RCC Dam Inspection! Panel Expert Works

Av. Giovanni Gronchi, 5445 sala 172, Sao Paulo –BrazilZIP Code – 05724-003Phone: +55-11-3744.8951Fax: +55-11-3743.4256Email: [email protected][email protected]

active worldwide as

Consulting Engineerscovering the multitude of technical disciplinesfor complete in-house engineering of

Hydro power projectsof all designs and capacities with particularemphasis on the• Feasibility studies• Greenfield plants• Rehabilitation of existing plants• Private development as co-developers

Fichtner GmbH & Co. KGSarweystrasse 3 • 70191 Stuttgart • GermanyPhone: ++49 711 8995-0 • Fax: ++49 711 89 95-459Email: [email protected] • www.fichtner.de

Kenneth Grubb Associates LtdConsulting Engineers

Gate SpecialistsWater Control Gate Specialists for:

• Hydropower• Dams• Irrigation• River Control• Flood Defence

Services Provided:• Feasibility Studies and Conceptual Design• Performance Specifications• Detailed Design and Workshop Drawings• Site Inspections/Asset Surveys• Expert Witness/Design Evaluations/FEA

Wessex House, St Leonards Road, Bournemouth, UK. BH8 8QSTel: 01202 311766 Fax: 01202 318472

Email: [email protected] Website: www.kgal.co.uk

Lahmeyer International GmbHFriedberger Strasse 173 · D-61118 Bad Vilbel, GermanyTel.: +49 (6101) 55-1164 · Fax: +49 (6101) 55-1715E-Mail: [email protected] · http://www.lahmeyer.de

Your Partner forWater Resources andHydroelectric Development

All Services for Complete Solutions• from concept to completion and operation• from projects to complex systems• from local to multinational schemes• for public and private developers

Norconsult ASVestfjordgaten 4, 1338 Sandvika, Norway

Tel: +47 67 57 10 00Fax: +47 67 54 45 [email protected]

Power and Water ManagementNorconsult provides multidisciplinary consultancy services within power and water resources development.

www.norconsult.com

• River Basin Studies • Underground Hydropower • Dam Design• Turbine Maintenance and Optimisation • Transmission and Distribution • Environmental Impact Assessments • Financial Engineering • Power Utility Services

# (47) 67 53 15 06 in Norway# (55) 11 3722 0889 in BrazilE-mail: [email protected]: http//www.qtbm.com

35 years experience from more than 30 countries

AF-Colenco LtdTäfernstrasse 26 • CH-5405 Baden/SwitzerlandPhone +41 (0)56 483 12 12 • Fax +41 (0)56 483 17 [email protected] • http://www.af-colenco.com

Consulting / Engineering and EPC Services for:• Hydropower Plants• Dams and Reservoirs• Hydraulic Structures• Hydraulic Streel Structures• Geotechnics and Foundations• Electrical / Mechanical Equipment

formerly Electrowatt-Ekono and Verbundplan

Hydropower and Water Management with Worldwide

Experience and Local Presence Pöyry Energy Ltd., Hardturmstrasse 161, P.O. Box, CH-8037 Zurich, SwitzerlandTel +41 44 355 55 54, Fax +41 355 55 56, www.poyry.com Pöyry Energy GmbH, Laar-Berg-Strasse 43, A-1100 Vienna, Austria Tel +43 50 313 22 586, Fax +43 50 31 31 65, www.poyry.com

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY


CLA

SS

IFIEDw

ww

.wate

rpow

erm

agazine.co

m

Yolsu Engineering Services Ltd. Co.Hürriyet Caddesi No:135 Dikmen, 06450 Ankara,TURKEYTel: +90 312 480 06 01 (pbx) Fax: +90 312 483 31 35

www.yolsu.com.tr [email protected]

Prefeasibilty, Feasibility,Final & Detail Design,Consulting Services:

• Basin development• Dams and hydropower plants• Irrigation and drainage• Water supply and sewerage• River engineering• Highways and railways

Construction Technique for Dams and Water PassagewaysSpilways - Piers, Walls and Chute Slab;

Power Houses - Pillars, Walls and Outlets;Water Intakes - Pillars, Shafts.

Contact:[email protected]: +55 11. 5181. 2527

......SSUUPPPPOORRTTIINNGG AANNDD

CCOOOOPPEERRAATTIINNGG IINN

CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTTIIOONN......

Stellba Hydro AG Stellba Hydro GmbH & Co KGLanggas 2 Badenbergstrasse 30CH-5244 Birrhard D-89520 HeidenheimSwitzerland GermanyTelefon +41 (0)56 201 45 20 Telefon +49 (0)7321 96 92 0Telefax +41 (0)56 201 45 21 Telefax +49 (0)7321 6 20 73Internet www.stellba-hydro.ch Internet www.stellba.deE-Mail [email protected] E-Mail [email protected]

USE WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM TO DRIVE CUSTOMERS TO YOUR SITE

Have you seenour website?

Active links

File hosting

Contact

Content

Multi-layered “microsite” at waterpowermagazine.com12 months on-line advertising for the price of a

single full page ad!! £2500

COMPANY PROFILE

In the last six months, an average of 32,527 unique users did!!With an average of 32,527 unique users visiting www.waterpowermagazine.com and 287,846 page impressions displayed overthe last 6 months, NOW is the time to make the most of this superb opportunity to showcase your company to the world-wide

hydro industry in the most dynamic and cost effective way possible.

WORLD MARKETPLACE


CLA

SSIF

IED

ww

w.w

aterp

ow

erm

agaz

ine

.com

CYLINDERS

RexrothBosch Group

Bosch Rexroth B.V.Cylinders

Application based standard cylinder designs for;radial gates, roller and slide gates, butterfly andball valves, turbine regulation, navigational locks

and movable bridges.

Bosch Rexroth B.V.Contact: Mr Bob Lamers, Tel: +31 411 651 778

www.boschrexroth.comMail to: [email protected]

CRANES

GATES

FILTRATION EQUIPMENT GROUTING

ARSA Int Construction Co. (pjs)

Head Office: No. 12 Shohada StMirzaye Shirazi AveTEHRAN 1586756513, I.R. IRANTel: +98 21 88717220 Fax: +98 21 88721847Email: [email protected] Website: www.arsa.ir

HEAT EXCHANGERS

Enerfin Inc.5125 J.A. Bombardier, St-Hubert

(Quebec) Canada, J3Z 1G4 Tel: + 1 450 443-3366

Fax: +1 450 443-0711 Email: [email protected]

Website: www.enerfin-inc.com

HIGH QUALITY COOLERS FOR:• Hydro Generators• Thrust Bearings• Transformers• Synchronous Condensers• Turbo Generators• Air Preheaters, etc.

Custom Design To Suit Your ApplicationExtruded Fins

Dam & HydropowerDrilling & GroutingPiling & Cast In Place PilesCutoff Diagram WallTunnelingHeavy Concrete Construction

Providing water control solutions through thoughtful engineering,innovative design, attention to detail and outstanding customerservice. Contact us for inflatable water control gates and rubberdams.

PO Box 668, Fort Collins, CO 80522 USATel: 970-568-9844www.obermeyerhydro.com

• Custom Design Hydraulic Cylinders• Servomotors• Piston Accumulators'• Hydraulic Power Units• Control Panels

www.doucehydro.comDouce Hydro FRANCE, USA and GERMANY

Tel France: + 33 / 3 22 74 31 08 ; E-mail: [email protected] USA: + 1 / 586 566 4725 ; E-mail: [email protected]

Tel Germany: + 49 / 177 398 37 78 ; E-mail : [email protected]

BEARINGS

PAN® bronzes and

PAN®-GF self-lubricating bearings

Since 1931

- Superior quality with • Highest wear resistance • Low maintenance

• Or maintenance free - Extended operating life

PAN-Metallgesellschaft

P.O. Box 102436 • D-68024 Mannheim / Germany Phone: + 49 621 42 303-0 • Fax: + 49 621 42 303-33 [email protected] • www.pan-metall.com

BEARING OIL COOLERS

HEXECO, Inc. ... a Heat Exchanger Engineering Co.Tel: +1 (920) 361-3440 • Fax: +1 (920) 361-4554E-Mail: [email protected] • Web: www.hexeco.com

OIL COOLERSFor

THRUST andGUIDE

BEARINGS

CONCRETE COOLING• COLD & ICE WATERPLANTS• FLAKE ICE PLANTS• ICE DELIVERY & WEIGHING SYSTEMS• ICE STORAGES

KTI-Plersch Kältetechnik GmbHCarl-Otto-Weg 14/2

88481 BalzheimGermany

Tel:/Phone: +49 - 7347 - 95 72 - 0Fax: +49 - 7347 - 95 72 - 22Email: [email protected]

Website: www.kti-plersch.com

CONCRETE COOLING

Telephone +44 (0)20 8269 7854


&DAMCONSTRUCTIONWaterPower

WORLD MARKETPLACE


CLA

SS

IFIEDw

ww

.wate

rpow

erm

agazine.co

m

HYDRO CASTINGS

HYDROMECHANICALEQUIPMENT

• Water turbine components• Castings from 100 kg to 30 tons• Latest CAD-CAM capabilities• Certified Quality Assurance ISO 9001• Environmental Management System ISO14001Your contact: Mr. Timo Norvasto, Sales ManagerLokomo Steel FoundryTel: +358 204 84 4222Fax: +358 204 84 4233Email: [email protected]: www.metsofoundries.com

DSD NOELL GmbHHYDROMECHANICAL EQUIPMENTEngineering, design, fabrication andinstallation of hydraulic steel structuressuch as gates, penstocks, stoplogs,trashracks including appurtenant drivesand electrical control systems as well asthe rehabilitation of existing plants.Alfred-Nobel-Straße 20,97080Würzburg, GermanyPhone (+49) 931 903-1215Fax (+49) 931 903-1009Internet: www.dsd-noell.come-mail: [email protected]

HYDRO POWERPLANT EQUIPMENT

! World wide referenced water to wire General Contractor! Turbines and Generators! Electromechanical Equipment! Switchgears! Control Protection Monitoring and SCADA Systems! Balance of the Plant! Turn key projects! Rehabilitation

S.T.E. S.p.a. - Via Sorio, 120 - 35141, PADOVA(Italy)tel. +39 049 2963900 - fax. +39 049 2963901

Email: [email protected] Web: www.ste-energy.comISO 9001 CERTIFIED

ANDRITZ HYDRO GmbHPenzinger Strasse 76, A-1141 Vienna, AustriaPhone: +43.1.89100-2659, Fax: [email protected] • www.andritz-hydro.com

Your partner for renewable energy.Hydro Power.

We focus on the best solution – from water to wire.

Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation GmbH & Co. KGAlexanderstraße 1189522 Heidenheim/GermanyTel. +49-7321-37-0Fax +49-7321-37-78 28www.voithsiemens.com

! Water power plant equipment (electrical and mechanical)! Pumps! Governors! Automation! Modernization of existing power plants! Management services! Ocean energies

INSTRUMENTATION(DAM MONITORING)

Geokon, Incorporated manufactures a full range of geotechnical instrumentation suitable for monitoring dams. Geokon instrumentation employs vibrating wire technology that provides measurable advantages and proven long-term stability.

The World Leader inVibrating Wire Technology TM

Geokon, Incorporated48 Spencer StreetLebanon, New Hampshire03766 • USA

Dam Monitoring Instrumentation

1 • 603 • 448 • 15621 • 603 • 448 • [email protected]

Alstom Hydro offers a complete range of equipment and services forboth new and existing hydro power plants, including:

• Turbines & generators for all sizes• Pump turbines, fixed/variable speed generators motors• Control & protection systems• Refurbishment and upgrade• Services• Small hydro• Hydro-mechanical and lifting equipment

4 Avenue André Malraux,92309 Levallois-Perret Cedex,France.T: +33 1 41 49 20 00F: + 33 1 41 49 37 52E: [email protected]: www.hydro.power.alstom.com

Alstom Hydro:

Vikas Kothari: Executive Director Tel: 91 11 29565552 TO 55Om Metals Infraprojects Ltd. Fax: 91 11 295655514th Floor, NBCC Plaza, Mobile: 91 98110 68101Tower III, Sector 5, Email: [email protected] Vihar, [email protected], New Delhi, 110 017, INDIA Web: www.ommetals.com

Turnkey EPC contracts for:•Radial Gates •Trash Racks & TRCM

•Vertical Gates •Gantry Cranes & EOT

•Penstocks •Mechanical/ Hydraulic Hoists

•Stoplogs •Draft Tubes

Turnkey EPC contracts for:•Radial Gates •Trash Racks & TRCM

•Vertical Gates •Gantry Cranes & EOT

•Penstocks •Mechanical/ Hydraulic Hoists

•Stoplogs •Draft Tubes

Om Metals

WORLD MARKETPLACE


CLA

SSIF

IED

ww

w.w

aterp

ow

erm

agaz

ine

.com

STEEL CASTINGSMALL HYDROELECTRIC

POWER SETS

MICRO/SMALLHYDROELECTRIC POWER SETS

- HYDRO TURBINES PELTON PFRANCIS FKAPLAN

UP TO 10 MW

- CONTROL TECHNOLOGY w

ww

.hyd

ro-e

nerg

y.co

m

Global Hydro Energy GmbH 4085 Niederranna 41, Austria, [email protected]

INSTRUMENTATION(PROCESS CONTROL)

PROCESS CONTROL SYSTEMS• Measuring and control systems for water

treatment and energy management• Equipment, components and complete

systems on a turnkey basis for the segments of:- the water, gas, and electricity supply sectors- the waste disposals sectors (water treatment

and sewage)- hydroelectric power stations- hydrography

• Consulting, design, and project engineering,installation, training, and service

Rittmeyer Ltd.PO Box 464, 6341 BaarSwitzerlandPhone: +41 41 767 10 00Fax: +41 41 767 10 [email protected]

Partial Discharge?www.pdix.com

PARTIAL DISCHARGE DETECTION

INSTRUMENTATION(GEOTECHNICAL)

WORLD MARKETPLACE


CLA

SS

IFIEDw

ww

.wate

rpow

erm

agazine.co

m

TRASHRACK RAKES

VALVES FOR HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS! Butterfly Valves! Spherical Valves! Cone Jet Valves! Needle Valves! Spleeve Valves! Pressure Reducing Valves! Airation Valves

Adams Schweiz AGAustrasse 49, CH 8045 Zürich, SwitzerlandPhone: +41 (0) 44 461 54 15Fax: +41 (0) 44 461 50 20e-mail: [email protected]: www.adamsarmaturen.ch

VALVES

!"# $% &'# ($)*+,-*#.+/"0 1."2%.3&2)#)-$% '/0'452.*/&6 7.*7#-%$) +.1- ."+'6+)$8$(#)9 #7#" /"

(((:7.040)$28:3$1!!"!!"

WATER TURBINES

WATERPROOFING

WATERPROOFING AND PROTECTIONof concrete and RCC dams,

embankment dams, hydraulic tunnels,canals, reservoirs

WITH FLEXIBLE SYNTHETIC MEMBRANESTurnkey projects: design manufacturing,

supply, installation.

CARPI TECH S.A.Corso San Gottardo 86

CH 6830 Chiasso - SwitzerlandTel: +41 91 695 4000 Fax: +41 91 695 4009

Email: [email protected] Web: www.carpitech.com

CKD BlanskoHolding, a.s.Gellhornova 1,678 18 BlanskoCzech Republictel.: +420 516 401 111 fax: +420 516 413 [email protected] www.ckdblansko.cz

ReliableHydro Power

Hydraulic TurbinesFrancis, Kaplan, Pelton, Deriaz, Large and Small Hydro

Hydro-Mechanical EquipmentValves, Gates and Others

Turnkey ProjectsNew Instalations, Upgrading, Refurbishment

Own HydraulicLaboratory

HydroTurbines Specialists for……refurbishment of pel-ton and francis turbines

Partner for… …revision of hydraulic machines and valves

Practitioners with……9 hydro power plants – we speak hydro

Grimsel Hydro3862 InnertkirchenSwitzerland+41 33 982 27 00www.grimselhydro.ch

Stronger together.

TUNNELING

CIFA S.p.A. Via Stati Uniti d’America, 26>> 20030 Senago (MI) >> Tel. +39 02 990 131

>> Fax +39 02 998 1157 >> www.cifa.com

Member of the Group of companiesGlenfield Valves Ltd your specialist manufacturer of Discharge,Control and Isolating Valves for:• Dams and Reservoirs• Water Transmission Pipelines• Power Stations.

For a world wide network ofmanufacturing and serviceorganisations offering localsupport please contact:Glenfield Works, Queens Drive,Kilmarnock, Ayrshire,KA1 3XF, UKT: +44 1563 521150F: +44 1563 541013E: [email protected]: www.glenfield.co.uk

Hydro Power.Tidal Power is more than a big idea.

[email protected]

ANDRITZ HYDRO GmbHPenzinger Strasse 76, A-1141 Vienna, AustriaPhone: +43.1.89100-2659, Fax: +43.1.8946046

This tidal power plant opens up a

new chapter in the renewable energy

development. ANDRITZ HYDRO is

the technology provider and supplier

of core components for the Sihwa tidal

power plant in South Korea. With this

award, ANDRITZ HYDRO takes an

important position in the realization of

the world’s largest tidal power plant.

We focus on the best solution – fromwater to wire.

revista hidraulica

Documents

project manager

potential of small hydro

hydro industry

hydro green energy

progressive house

regional manager bc

project engineer

progressive mediamarkets