Low Head Hydro Potential in South East England

Low Head Hydro Power in the South-East of England –
A Review of the Resource and Associated Technical,

Environmental and Socio-Economic Issues
February 2004
Low head hydro in the South East
TV Energy reference: TV017
Prepared by: Ian Bacon (TV Energy)
Ian Davison (MWH)
Approved by: Keith Richards

Managing Director
TV Energy
TV Energy 2 of 139
MWH
PREFACE
This report has been prepared on behalf of regional stakeholders wishing to better
understand the prospects for harnessing the low head hydro resource in the SE of
England. The resource is not large when compared to other renewable energy resources
such as wind, bioenergy or solar power, it is nevertheless significant and can contribute to
regional sustainability objectives. Locally, individual projects can make a great deal of
difference creating environmental, social and economic benefits for our communities.
The key result of this study has been the bringing together of the industry with the
regulator along with other concerned parties. The very fact that they agreed to work
together showed the essential goodwill that existed in the search for a practical solution to
mobilising the SE low head hydro resource. A resource sadly neglected in recent times.
We are already seeing a number of projects moving through to development as a result of

the work carried out by Ian Bacon with technical support from Ian Davison, a hydro
engineer. I hope that this excellent ‘new start’ will be built upon and allow the SE to
utilise one of the most natural sources of green energy for local benefit.
TV Energy acknowledges the financial support of the following organisations as well as

their input in the preparation of this report. It is also acknowledged that the views
expressed in this document are not necessarily the views of the supporting organisations:
TV Energy also recognises the significant expertise and information made available by
the following organisations:
• Hampshire Mills Group

• National Mills Archive Trust
• IT Power
• Institute of Hydrology
Dr Keith Richards
Managing Director, TV Energy
TV Energy is a not-for-profit regional energy agency established under the auspices of the European
Commission’s SAVE energy programme in 2001. TVE is supported by a range of public and private sector
organisations including the Environment Agency, SEEDA, GOSE, The SE England Regional Assembly, 16
Local Authorities across 5 counties, The Countryside Agency, Industry (MWH, Slough Heat and Power,
Powergen, Waitrose, Shanks Waste Solutions), NGOs (Friends of the Earth, RSPB) and academic
institutions (University of Reading, Oxford Brookes University). Its mission is to educate, promote and
deliver renewable energy solutions within the Thames Valley and beyond wherever this is environmentally
sensible and of benefit to local communities. See www.tvenergy.org for more information.
TV Energy 3 of 139
MWH
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 9

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................ 10
1.1 Background to the study ................................................................................... 10
1.2 Aims of the study .............................................................................................. 10
1.3 Key organisations involved............................................................................... 11
1.4 Hydro power basics........................................................................................... 12
1.4.1 Energy potential ........................................................................................ 13
1.5 Definitions of ‘low head’ .................................................................................. 14
2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 15
2.1 Site Identification Desk Study .......................................................................... 15
2.2 Site Visits .......................................................................................................... 16
2.3 River Flow Data................................................................................................ 17
2.4 Power Assessment ............................................................................................ 18
2.5 Appraisal of Schemes ....................................................................................... 18
3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL OPTIONS ....................... 20
3.1 Key technical issues.......................................................................................... 20
3.2 Low Head Turbines........................................................................................... 21
3.2.1 Principal options....................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Specific Speed ........................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 Part-flow performance.............................................................................. 22
3.2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 24
3.3 Micro-hydro solutions....................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Tube turbines ............................................................................................ 25
3.3.2 Siphon turbines ......................................................................................... 27
3.3.3 Open flume propeller turbines .................................................................. 27
3.3.4 Pit-Kaplan (right-angle drive).................................................................. 29
3.3.5 Submersible turbines (mini-bulb turbines) ............................................... 29
3.4 Waterwheels and Archimedean Screws............................................................ 30
3.5 Trash Racks....................................................................................................... 32
3.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 32
3.5.2 Raked Bar Screens .................................................................................... 32
3.5.3 Other screen types..................................................................................... 34
3.6 Technical Conclusions ...................................................................................... 35
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS FOR LOW HEAD
DEVELOPMENTS .................................................................................................. 37
4.1 The EA position on hydropower....................................................................... 37
4.1.1 The EA’s Duties ........................................................................................ 37
4.1.2 Regulation by the Agency.......................................................................... 39
4.2 Environmental Assessments ............................................................................. 40
4.3 Licensing........................................................................................................... 40
4.3.1 Requirements for abstraction and impounding licences........................... 41
4.3.2 Safeguarding river flows........................................................................... 41
TV Energy 4 of 139
MWH
4.3.3 Costs and benefits ..................................................................................... 42

4.3.4 Acceptability of proposals and applicant's reasonable requirements ...... 42
4.3.5 Works agreements..................................................................................... 43
4.3.6 Flow information ...................................................................................... 43
4.3.7 Time limited licences................................................................................. 43
4.3.8 Measurement, monitoring and controls.................................................... 44
4.3.9 Charges ..................................................................................................... 44
4.4 Water Quality Issues ......................................................................................... 44
4.4.1 Areas of concern ....................................................................................... 44
4.4.2 Control and regulation ............................................................................. 45
4.5 Fish.................................................................................................................... 45
4.5.1 Impacts on fish populations ...................................................................... 45
4.5.2 Minimum flows.......................................................................................... 47
4.5.3 Upstream fish passage .............................................................................. 47
4.5.4 Fish passes for migratory fish .................................................................. 47
4.5.5 Fish Passes for non-migratory trout, coarse fish and eels ....................... 48
4.5.6 Fish pass design........................................................................................ 48
4.5.7 Downstream fish passage ......................................................................... 48
4.5.8 Screens for migratory salmonids .............................................................. 48
4.5.9 Screen design ............................................................................................ 48
4.5.10 Screens for non-migratory trout, coarse fish, eel, lamprey and shad....... 49
4.5.11 Types of screen.......................................................................................... 49
4.6 River management issues.................................................................................. 49
4.6.1 Design of hydropower works .................................................................... 50
4.6.2 Development within flood plain areas ...................................................... 50
4.6.3 Use of existing sites................................................................................... 50
4.6.4 New sites or modifications to existing sites .............................................. 50
4.6.5 Land drainage consent.............................................................................. 51
4.7 Additional environmental impacts.................................................................... 51
4.7.1 Schemes located in environmentally sensitive areas ................................ 51
4.7.2 Mitigation and Compensation................................................................... 52
4.7.3 Surveys ...................................................................................................... 52
4.7.4 Monitoring ................................................................................................ 53
4.7.5 Consultees ................................................................................................. 53
4.8 The role of the Local Planning Authority ......................................................... 53
5 THE ECONOMIC ISSUES OF LOW HEAD HYDRO
DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................... 55
5.1 Costs.................................................................................................................. 55
5.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 55
5.1.2 Division of costs........................................................................................ 56
5.1.3 Turbine costs............................................................................................. 57
5.1.4 Economic constraints................................................................................ 58
5.1.5 Conclusions............................................................................................... 58
5.2 Current energy trading issues and indicative prices ......................................... 58
5.2.1 The Renewable Obligation........................................................................ 59
5.2.2 Renewable Obligation Certificates ........................................................... 59
TV Energy 5 of 139
MWH
5.2.3 Climate Change Levy and Levy Exempt Certificates................................ 60

5.2.4 Recent Prices ............................................................................................ 61
5.3 Options for community groups/co-operatives ........................................................ 62
5.3.1 The Nature of a community hydro scheme................................................ 62
5.3.2 Financial structures .................................................................................. 62
5.4 Funding sources ................................................................................................ 66
6 THE SOUTH EAST HYDRO RESOURCE ......................................... 67
6.1 Romney Weir, Windsor, Berkshire................................................................... 67
6.1.1 Scheme Overview ...................................................................................... 67
6.1.2 Physical characteristics ............................................................................ 68
6.1.3 Key issues.................................................................................................. 68
6.1.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 70
6.2 Marlow Weir, Marlow, Buckinghamshire ........................................................ 70
6.2.1 Scheme overview....................................................................................... 70
6.2.3 Key issues.................................................................................................. 71
6.2.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 72
6.3 Allington Lock, Maidstone, Kent ..................................................................... 72
6.3.1 Scheme overview....................................................................................... 72
6.3.3 Key features .............................................................................................. 73
6.3.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 74
6.4 Grove Mill, Grove, Oxfordshire ....................................................................... 74
6.4.1 Scheme overview....................................................................................... 74
6.4.3 Key issues.................................................................................................. 75
6.4.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 77
6.5 Sonning Mill, Sonning, Berkshire .................................................................... 78
6.5.1 Scheme Overview ...................................................................................... 78
6.5.3 Key Issues.................................................................................................. 79
6.5.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 81
6.6 Osney Mill and Weir, Oxford, Oxfordshire...................................................... 81
6.6.1 Scheme overview....................................................................................... 81
6.6.3 Key issues.................................................................................................. 82
6.6.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 84
6.7 Guildford Mill, Guildford, Surrey .................................................................... 85
6.7.1 Scheme Overview ...................................................................................... 85
6.7.3 Key Issues.................................................................................................. 86
6.7.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 90
6.8 Whitchurch Silk Mill, Whitchurch, Hampshire................................................ 91
6.8.1 Scheme overview....................................................................................... 91
6.8.2 Physical characteristics…………………………………………………… .91
6.8.3 Key issues.................................................................................................. 92
TV Energy 6 of 139
MWH
6.8.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 92

6.9 Headley Mill, Lindford, Hampshire.................................................................. 93
6.9.1 Scheme overview....................................................................................... 93
6.9.3 Key issues.................................................................................................. 94
6.9.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 95
6.10 Yalding Weir, Yalding, Kent ............................................................................ 95
6.10.1 Scheme overview....................................................................................... 95
6.10.3 Key features .............................................................................................. 97
6.10.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 97
7 CASE STUDIES ............................................................................................... 98
7.1 Case Study 1 – Borrowash, Derbyshire, UK .................................................... 98
7.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 98
7.1.2 The Scheme ............................................................................................... 99
7.2 Case Study 2 – Beeston Weir, Derbyshire, UK .............................................. 101
7.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 101
7.2.2 The Scheme ............................................................................................. 102
7.3 Case Study 3 – Wallbridge Mill, Somerset, UK............................................. 103
7.3.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 104
7.3.2 The Scheme ............................................................................................. 105
7.4 Case Study 4 – Iles Mill, Gloucestershire, UK............................................... 106
7.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 106
7.4.2 The scheme.............................................................................................. 106
7.5 Case Study 5 - Östra Kvarn, Sweden.............................................................. 107
7.5.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 107
7.5.2 The Scheme ............................................................................................. 108
7.6 Case Study 6 – Linne Weir, Netherlands........................................................ 110
7.6.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 110
7.6.2 The Scheme ............................................................................................. 111
7.7 Case Study 7 – De Haandrik Weir, Netherlands............................................. 113
7.7.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 113
7.7.2 The Scheme ............................................................................................. 114
7.8 Case Study 8 - Roeven Hydroplant, Nederweert, Netherlands....................... 114
7.8.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 114
7.8.2 The Scheme ............................................................................................. 115
8 THE REGIONAL POTENTIAL .............................................................. 116
8.1 The South East low head hydro potential ....................................................... 116
8.1.1 The technical resource............................................................................ 117
8.1.2 The practical resource ............................................................................ 119
8.1.3 The specific resource relating to mills.................................................... 120
8.2 Problems facing low head hydropower schemes n the SE ............................. 122
8.2.1 The problem of fish screening................................................................. 123
8.2.2 Time and expense issues relating to Abstraction Licences..................... 124
8.2.3 The particular case of the Thames weirs ................................................ 124
8.2.4 Finance ................................................................................................... 125
TV Energy 7 of 139
MWH
8.2.5 Technical................................................................................................. 126

8.2.6 Planning.................................................................................................. 126
8.2.7 Promotion and education........................................................................ 127
9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................ 128
9.1 The last word................................................................................................... 130
Annex 1 - List of potential hydro sites visited ......................................... 131
Annex 2 - List of manufacturers, suppliers and installers ................ 133
Annex 3 - Planning, developing and operating small hydro ........... 137
Annex 4 - Thames locks with associated heads...................................... 139
TV Energy 8 of 139
MWH
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The low head hydro resource in the SE of England has been utilised for many centuries.
For example, the region is festooned with a myriad of old mills which historically used
water power to grind corn to make flour. Use of such a natural resource is a part of our
heritage. Using it again to produce energy can make environmental and economic sense
providing real benefits to local communities and the region.
The study explores the various sources of low head hydro power available, namely from
old mill sites and from weirs. It concludes that there are an enormous number of
potential sites that might technically be used for energy generation (electricity). The
technical resource is estimated to be more than 13MWe assuming a minimum size of
3kWe or an equivalent likely head of at least one metre. This is based on 525 sites
considered across the region and uses information gleaned from a subset of 50 sites
analysed in great detail following more than 100 individual site visits and appraisals.
Bearing in mind the effect of non-technical constraints such as sites where the
environmental impact is likely to be an over riding issue, planning, poor economic
potential and site access then this potential is reduced to a practical resource of
6.28MWe based on 157 potential sites. A further estimate is given of the likely short
term realisable resource that might be mobilised to meet the 2010 regional renewables
target. This takes into account the likelihood of owners of sites progressing with projects.
This final resource size is estimated to be 2.024MWe and compares with the SE regional
target (2010) of 0.8 MWe based on 5 schemes (Ref: Harnessing the Elements, May 2003).
The work reported here uses ten case studies that best highlight the many issues
surrounding the successful implementation of small scale schemes. They are not the ten
sites with the best potential in the region. A number of overseas projects are also
referenced to give a broader perspective. The role of the Environment Agency (EA) is
clearly seen to be a critical factor in all the projects. The EA is always the regulator but
often the landowner. An early increase in the number of low head hydro developments in
the region is basically dependent on the EA enabling more activity. The EA should be
asked to consider whether and how this might be possible
The industry also needs to step up to the challenge and provide better support and more
imaginative technical solutions to sites that have sensitive environmental and other issues
surrounding them. The possibility of using one or more developments as research test
beds might be a useful way forward.
The report concludes with an upbeat message on several projects that are making
significant progress, largely as a result of the dialogue established as a part of this work
between the regulator and the industry. More needs to be done to build on this work and
establish a ‘cluster’ of small developments perhaps linked to a regional ESCO or Energy
Services Company able to support SME enterprise.
TV Energy 9 of 139
MWH
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
Within the South East of England production of sustainable (green) energy is extremely
low and stands at a fraction of a single percentage point of installed electrical capacity.
This is a poor position given that the South East sees itself as the ‘powerhouse of UK plc’
(Councillor Keith Mitchell, Chair of the Regional Planning Committee), and has the
largest and fastest growing economy of all the regions of the UK. Clearly, this is not a
position that the region can feel comfortable with and a range of local agencies have
given priority to improving the situation.
In particular, regional governance is aware of the need for action and has a stated vision
that, “By 2026 at least 14% of the region’s electricity generation capacity will be
provided from renewable sources”.
Whilst the main drive to develop renewable energy sources will be focused on wind,
solar and biomass technologies, low head hydropower is an important and traditional
resource and should not be ignored. Previous estimates for hydro potential vary widely
in the South East with, for example, the potential from the Thames alone using weir
based schemes to lie in the order of 5 to 35MWe (based on various expert assessments).
In undertaking this study, it has been recognised that weirs certainly offer scope for
medium to longer term development. Mills, on the other hand, offer more short term
opportunities and a chance to really ‘get the ball rolling’ for river based renewable energy
generation.
Interest in low head hydro has been growing within the region over the last few years,
with the various energy agencies, local government and industry involved in hydro
schemes fielding increasing numbers of enquiries. All organisations felt the need to
become more pro-active and in particular to carry out a regional techno-enviro-economic
assessment that could review and build on the work of previous studies. The work to
take account of the changing economic conditions and technology options. It was also
decided that it would be useful to bring the myriad of issues arising within this field
together into one piece of work and to attempt to address the issues that still restrain this
particular technology.
1.2 Aims of the study
• To promote low head hydro power as a viable and applicable energy resource
within the South East of England
TV Energy 10 of 139
MWH
• To review the level of hydro resource available in the South East of England
• To highlight the issues and problems involved and steps to take in developing
sensitive and practical micro and pico low head hydro projects and in stimulating
the uptake of the technology in general
• To stimulate interest from mill and run of river structure owners in developing the
hydro resource within the region
• To improve understanding from all parties of the role that the various government
agencies have to, can and could play in low head hydro development within the
region
• To highlight current and seek additional funding streams for both research and
development in the low head hydro field
1.3 Key organisations involved
TV Energy (TVE) is leading this work. TVE is a not-for-profit, independent energy

agency based just outside of Newbury supported by both regulating bodies and the
industry. They are sponsored by local authorities, the EU SAVE programme and various
private sector organisations. Their remit is to educate, promote, facilitate and assist in the
development of renewable energy projects. They believe in strong community
involvement and the sensitive positioning of renewable energy technologies.
Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) has more than 230 years of environmental
engineering expertise. From London to Los Angeles, MWH has engineered, built,
managed and financed many of the largest and most technologically significant
environmental projects in the world. Particular specialisms include building wastewater
treatment plants, creating soil and groundwater remediation systems, and conducting
hydrogeologic evaluations. In the UK, MWH headquarters are based at High Wycombe,
Buckinghamshire and MWH are a partner organisation of TV Energy. They are TVE’s
main partner in this work and their environmental and hydrological expertise has been
utilised extensively in the production of this report.
The South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) was established by the
Government through the Regional Development Agency Act 1998, with the intention of
taking the strategic lead in promoting the sustainable economic development of the
region. SEEDA are the leading RDA in the UK for renewable energy. SEEDA’s
mission is to work with partner organisations to make the South East of England a world
class region, achieving sustainable development and enhanced quality of life as measured
by economic prosperity, environmental quality and social inclusion. The aims of this
project were deemed to fall under SEEDA’s remit and, consequently they are a major
funding partner of this work.
TV Energy 11 of 139
MWH
The Environment Agency (EA) is the environmental regulator and leading public body for
protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales. The EA work to ensure
that air, land and water resources are protected so that tomorrow's generations inherit a
cleaner, healthier world. The wide ranging remit of the EA has a great bearing on many
of the issues associated with low head hydro development and recognising their key role,
they have provided their support, both financial and in staff time, to this study.
Hampshire County Council provides a range of services to 1.1 million people within the
county of Hampshire. As an organisation, the council take seriously their role as
promoters and facilitators of sustainable development. Having recognised the potential
for low head hydro schemes within their geographical area and particularly with respect
to local mills, they have provided funding for this study.
Hampshire Mills Group and the National Mills Archive - The Mills Group involvement
was seen as essential given their considerable understanding of mills and issues
surrounding mill management and development. Their enthusiasm is enormous equalled
only by their database of information on mills! Early on in the project it was recognised
that many mill owners were interested in generating electricity and, somewhat
surprisingly, this was often not out of a desire for financial gain, but down to a desire to
see their mill generating power again and/or for environmental reasons. It was
recognised that any work with mills is liable to be sensitive, due to the very nature of the
buildings (a conclusion borne out by this study), as well as looking at the other associated
aspects, such as types of technology available, water flow rates, head heights,
environmental issues, grant funding and opportunities for grid connection.
IT Power is one of a few international companies with specialist expertise in micro hydro
(projects generally less than 500 kW, and on occasion less than 1 kW). Such projects
demand a different engineering approach to larger schemes in order to keep designs
flexible and costs realistic, and require a broad understanding of all the diverse technical
and non-technical elements that contribute to a successful scheme. With this in mind, IT
Power have provided a constant input into the work of this project, particularly within the
technical section.
1.4 Hydro power basics
The key things to consider when looking at the development potential for a low head
hydro site are the energy potential and costs (discussed in later sections), which are
essentially split into machinery, the need for civil works, electrical works and external
costs.
TV Energy 12 of 139
MWH
1.4.1 Energy potential
The power developed at a site is the product of head, flow and system efficiency. For a
small turbine installation the power, ‘water to wire’ may be taken as –
P = 6.9 x Q x H
Where Q is in cubic metres per second and H is in metres
The energy available from a site is a product of power and time and is normally measured
in kilowatt hours (kWh).
Head refers to the height that the water falls through the hydro installation. The gross
head, which is used in initial evaluations, is the difference between the upstream water
level and the downstream level.
Flow information is also important for initial calculations, as a site on a river with a very
variable flow may not have the potential to produce as much energy as a site on a river
with a lower peak flow but a higher mean flow. An easy way of assessing this is to draw
up a flow duration curve based on recorded water flows. This will show, graphically, the
probability of the number of days in a year a particular flow will be exceeded. An
example is shown below –
Information required for flow duration curves can be obtained for large streams and
rivers from the EA, or from the Institute of Hydrology at Wallingford, Oxfordshire.
TV Energy 13 of 139
MWH
Additionally, available flow needs to be considered. This is the percentage of the flow
that can be directed through the turbine and is rarely the entire flow, due to physical
constraints and/or environmental conditions. A figure often quoted in this context is the
Q95 which is calculated by working out the minimum flow that occurs at least 95% of the
time.
The final variable, system efficiency, refers to the technology employed, as different
turbines work at differing levels of efficiency over a differing range of flows and heads,
and all this must be considered when selecting the type and size of machinery for a site.
1.5 Definitions of ‘low head’
The term ‘low head’ hydro is typically used to refer to schemes with an available head of
less than 5m. Until recently it was thought that schemes with less than 3m head were not
economically viable and any sites below 3m head were often called ‘ultra low head’. In
the flat South East of England it is difficult to find any hydro project sites with a head
greater than 3m.
When it comes to output power, small scale hydropower has various degrees of
‘smallness’. A maximum of 10MW is the most widely accepted value worldwide for
‘small’ hydro, although the UK uses 5MW. ‘Mini’ hydro typically refers to schemes
below 2MW, micro hydro below 500kW and pico hydro below 10kW. These are
arbitrary divisions and most of the principles involved apply to both smaller and larger
schemes.
In the context of low head hydropower in the South East of England, almost all possible
schemes will fall into the bracket of micro hydro. There will also be many small sites,
typically at old mills, where the schemes could be considered as ‘pico hydro’. However,
using the terms micro and pico can be misleading in the context of ultra low head sites,
because the size of the machinery is by no means small. A 200kW turbine on such a site
might involve a propeller-type runner of over 2m diameter.
Low head hydro is almost always “run-of-river”; in other words there is no significant
storage of water. The scheme operates when the river provides enough flow, but may
have to shutdown during periods of low rainfall.
TV Energy 14 of 139
MWH
2 METHODOLOGY
This study has a number of differing but intertwined aims and a variable approach has
been taken to get the best overall result for the study work. For example, the review of
the level of hydro resource available in the South East required a degree of pre-study
consideration as to how this would be approached and presented arguably the greatest
challenge. The hope had been to visit the majority of potential sites having eliminated a
great deal of initial sites through a desk study filter. This proved to be impractical given
the sheer number of sites identified and the difficulty of rejecting sites without first
having visited them. The methodology for this segment of the study is explained in
further detail below in section 2.1 to 2.5.
A more qualitative approach has been taken in exploring some of the other aims of the
study, such as examining the issues and problems involved in developing low head hydro
projects and improving understanding from all parties of the role that the various
government agencies have to, can and could play in low head hydro development. Here,
the study focused on in depth discussions with the key players from all sides of the low
head hydro development spectrum and sought to make sense of the various positions that
had been taken with respect to the key issues concerned.
The key to these discussions was the involvement of the hydro development industry, the
lead regulator (the EA) and site owners (potential and operational) which helped to define
and understand the critical issues. Additional discussions were conducted with other
leading players such as planners, electricity traders, equipment manufacturers and
financiers. The document was then drafted and made available to the consultees for
comment and then finally amended as needed.
Prior to sending the document to the key consultees, it was felt that as much comment as
possible from the EA and from the industry would be useful. The feedback received is
gratefully acknowledged and has in large part been incorporated into the final text of the
report.
Finally, longer term aims, such as those concerned with stimulating interest and
uptake in the technology are already coming to pass as publicity concerning this study
seeps out into the wider community and a number of potential schemes have already
been identified. Follow on work from this study will build and expand on this positive
outcome.
2.1 Site Identification Desk Study
A preliminary list of sites was developed from a desk study. A number of primary
sources of information were utilised; 1:50,000 scale Ordnance Survey maps for the
region’s weirs and mills, County Mills Groups information and a specifically
TV Energy 15 of 139
MWH
commissioned Mills Archive Trust report based on their records for the South East.
Additional potential sites were added to the list by the EA from their list of structures for
the Southern Area. Finally, local knowledge of the study participants also proved to be
beneficial, although this was more focused in the north of the region. At the end of this
stage several hundred potential sites had been identified.
The Ordnance Survey maps could only be used to give an indication that a structure
exists at a certain location. They do not give any indication of the available head or flow
at the identified weir or mill. Even with large scale maps this information is not
available.
However, reviewing the maps does give an idea of catchment areas, which in turn can be
related to the potential river flow (a proportionate relationship where larger catchment
might equate to larger potential flow). This is not a strict relationship though and the
geology in particular must also be taken into consideration. For example, where the
study area is chalk, rivers are mainly fed from groundwater sources and although these
flows are more regular throughout the year the average flows tend to be less than for
other catchments.
The information provided by the Mills Archive Trust was more focused and in several
cases proved to be very accurate, although in others, the age of the information held
meant that changes to various sites had occurred. This work did, however, allow for a
more focused approach regarding the mill sites.
Additional data on head heights for the locks on the River Thames was taken from the
booklet entitled, ‘A Users Guide to the River Thames’ published by the EA and this
confirmed the heights of the sites already visited and was used for the head heights of
those sites not physically inspected.
This period of work highlighted the number of potential sites that exist when simply
undertaking a desk study, but was not as defined as had been hoped for in rejecting those
sites of poor potential due to head and flow restrictions. It was felt that many sites would
not offer any potential for these two reasons alone. The information required for most
sites identified could only be determined by a site visit. During the study period it was
not possible to visit all of the sites identified by the initial desk study list so a
representative set of sites based on location and likely scale were chosen for this purpose.
An initial 50 sites were selected in this way supplemented by a number of additional sites
as more site information emerged during the study.
2.2 Site Visits
Each of the sites on the selected list was visited with the aim of reviewing the following
items:
• Assess head between upstream and downstream water levels, i.e. gross head
• Consider access problems. Is there a good access road or is it a long walk along a
narrow canal tow path?
TV Energy 16 of 139
MWH
• Consider environmental problems such as visual, noise, flooding, erosion and

‘siltation’ (the degree to which silt may become a problem)
• Consider the proportion of the flow in the river that was likely to be available for
power. Flow is often split between different channels or if the river is very wide
and shallow it is not possible to pass all of the flow through the turbine
• Identify location for turbine/generator
• Sketch layout of the site
• Photographic record of site
• Identify possible consumers of electricity within 500 metres
• Assess restrictions on flow i.e. mill lades
• Assess existing flow i.e. flow through sluices
• Identify landowners if possible
• Identify other potential problems if possible i.e. weir is EA gauging station
Many of the sites could be removed from the list of potential locations following physical
inspection. This was generally due to either too low a head, in some cases the weir
shown on the map was only a few hundred millimetres high, or it was obvious that there
was insufficient flow available. Many mills were discounted because of the small
amount of available flow. Although the flow is sufficient to turn a waterwheel and drive
a millstone or other slow moving machinery, hydro turbines require faster flows to
generate electricity. Therefore the presence of a mill does not necessarily mean that a
turbine can always be installed. Additional problems arose, mainly with mills, with
regards to access as the mill or weirs were often on private land and public access was
difficult or impossible.
2.3 River Flow Data

River flow data is available for many main river sites from the National Water Archive
(http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/index.htm) on the internet. This web site provides details
of 99 gauging stations in the EA’s Southern region and 177 stations in the Thames
region. The following basic information is provided for each station and for some
stations daily mean flows are also available.
Grid Reference: 61 (TR) 116 554

Operator: EA
Local number: 654400001
Catchment Area: 345.0 km2
Level of Station: 12.5 m OD
Max. Altitude: 205.0 m OD
Mean flow: 3.24 m3s-1
95% exceedance (Q95): 1.026 m3s-1
10% exceedance (Q10): 6.193 m3s-1
61-90 Av. Ann. Rainfall: 747 mm
TV Energy 17 of 139
MWH
The flow data for the nearest gauging station for each of the selected sites was abstracted
from the water archive. Daily mean flow data was also obtained for relevant rivers and
this data was converted into flow duration curves.
Not all of the water that flows past a particular site is available for power generation.
Flow is often required for other uses such as fish passes, eel ladders, or navigation locks.
Also for rivers that are wide in relation to the size of the turbine, it is not possible to
direct all of the flow through the turbine. In these situations it is difficult to estimate the
percentage of the flow that it is possible to utilise. For the larger schemes in the study
area, such as the weirs on the River Thames, the size of the scheme is restricted by the
number of floodgates or other locations that are available for development. The flow is
therefore restricted by the capacity of the available turbines. With smaller schemes it is
harder to obtain the capacity of suitable machines as there are no “off the shelf” turbines
for this type of development. In order to obtain an initial assessment of the flow to
estimate the potential installed capacity, the 67% ‘exceedance flow’ has been used.
2.4 Power Assessment
The power assessment in the report has been based on the installed capacity and no
estimates have been made at this stage on the annual energy output. As described in
Section 1.4.1, the installed capacity can be calculated from the product of head, H and
flow, Q. Based on the head information estimated during the site visits and the flow data
obtained in Section 2.3, installed capacities have been calculated for each of the sites
identified during the desk study.
2.5 Appraisal of Schemes
Each of the schemes identified on the desk study, were examined in terms of the installed
capacity, accessibility, closeness of end user, and general layout. Ten schemes were then
selected for further study. These schemes were selected in order to highlight both good
and poor examples for both weir structures and existing mill sites. The full list of sites
visited is included in Annex 1 and the selected schemes are listed below, with the case
studies described later in this report under Section 6.0.
Location Potential Installed Capacity
Romney Weir, Berkshire 200 kW
Marlow Weir, Buckinghamshire 177 kW
Allington Lock, Kent 68kW
Grove Mill, Oxfordshire 3 kW
Sonning Mill, Oxfordshire 18 kW
TV Energy 18 of 139
MWH
Location Potential Installed Capacity
Osney Mill and Weir, Oxfordshire 42 kW
Guildford Mill, Surrey 35 kW
Whitchurch Silk Mill, Hampshire 5 – 10 kW
Headley Mill, Hampshire 5 – 10 kW
Yalding Weir, Kent 45kW
TV Energy 19 of 139
MWH
3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL OPTIONS
3.1 Key technical issues
There are certain features of low head projects which make these schemes quite different
from the normal pattern of higher head schemes, and introduce new problems.
Utilising existing structures

A potential advantage of low-head sites is that the fall has already been created by an
existing structure i.e. a weir or sluice. In many cases there may also be a water passage
leading to an old mill. However, although the presence of an old mill can save on civil
engineering work, the design of the old structures can also restrict the volume of flow that
can be utilised by a new hydropower scheme. The most common solution is to construct
a new power plant around the edge of the weir, but this involves major civil engineering
costs and is often not viable for smaller projects. There is still scope for innovation in
how to retro-fit a hydro scheme to different designs of weir.
Low head, high flow

Hydraulic power is proportional to both the head across the turbine and the flow passing
through it. If the head is very low, high volume flow rates are needed to achieve a given
power output. High flow rates require large flow passages, so low head turbines are
inevitably large, yet they need to be accommodated within a small vertical height. This
creates a number of engineering challenges. One approach to this problem has been the
use of siphons, discussed below.
Loss of head during high flows

Low-head schemes can suffer from major head variations because tailwater levels tend to
rise significantly in high river flows. This can mean that a 3m head might be cut to 1.5m
for part of the rainy season. The reduced head also reduces the flow through the turbine,
so even though there is plenty of water, a 50% loss of head can lead to a 65% loss of
power.
Low power-to-weight ratio

The power of a turbine increases with the square of the runner diameter (D2). However
the weight of a turbine increases roughly with D3. Hence the power-to-weight ratio is
proportional to 1/D. This means that as turbines get larger to absorb high flows at low
head sites, less power is obtained for the weight of material deployed.
Trash
Large rivers carry a heavy load of natural and man-made ‘trash’. In high-flow seasons,
trash can build up at an incredible rate and trash removal can represent a significant part
of the total operating costs. Trash racks need to be built to stop large items such as
complete tree trunks, but the resistance to flow must be low enough to keep head loss to
no more than a few centimetres.
TV Energy 20 of 139
MWH
Small items (leaves, sticks) can be allowed to pass through the turbine, but fish must be
kept out unless they are small enough to pass through the turbine unscathed. The
combination of fish and trash screening is a critical area for new projects which can be
very expensive to solve, and could benefit from new innovation.
3.2 Low Head Turbines
3.2.1 Principal options
Although the technology for high and medium head Figure 1 - Propeller-type turbine
hydropower sites is now mature, this is not the case for
low head technology (<5m head). While good low
head solutions exist (based around the Kaplan turbine
–a propeller turbine with adjustable blades), these were
developed for multi-megawatt projects and are not
necessarily the optimum economic design for projects
of a few 100kW and smaller (the large majority of
unexploited low-head sites in the UK). Hence there is
still room for innovation and optimisation to develop
technology that is suitable for the remaining low head
resource.
The main turbine options which are currently applied Figure 2 - Open-flume Francis turbine
to low head schemes are:
1. Propeller-type turbines, with 4 main variations:
• basic propeller turbine (fixed rotor blades, fixed guide
vanes)
• Kapellar (fixed propeller rotor, adjustable guide-vanes).
• Semi-Kaplan (fixed guide vanes, adjustable rotor blades)
• Full Kaplan (adjustable guide vanes, adjustable rotor
blades)
2. Crossflow (Banki) turbines (adjustable inlet vane)
3. Open-flume Francis turbines (adjustable guide

vanes)
The propeller/Kaplan and Francis turbines are reaction

turbines which run full of water and create pressure
differences across the blades to extract energy from the
available head. The crossflow turbine is principally an
impulse turbine, rotated by the high velocity jet created
by the pressure head.
TV Energy 21 of 139
MWH
Figure 3 - Crossflow turbine

These options can be separated by:
(i) specific speed

(ii) part-flow performance
(iii) cost
The first two of these are discussed in more detail
below, with the issues of cost being covered in section
5.1.3
3.2.2 Specific Speed
All turbines run more slowly at lower heads, which is generally a disadvantage for
driving an electrical generator producing electricity at 50Hz (e.g. a standard 4-pole
generator needs to be driven at 1500rpm). A propeller turbine is the most suitable turbine
for low heads because it has the highest specific speed of all turbine types. Specific speed
(Ns) is a number that is purely a factor of the geometry of the turbine and describes the
performance characteristics of a given design, independent of size. It enables the
operating speed of a turbine to be expressed as follows:
5
Ns H 4
n= 1
P2
where n is the speed (rpm), P is the power (kW), and H is the head (m).
It follows from the equation that a high specific speed is preferable for low-head turbines.
Propeller-type turbines can be designed with specific speeds in the range 400 to 1200. A
high specific-speed implies a smaller, faster turbine and can save on the cost of the shaft,
generator and gearbox (which increase in cost in inverse proportion to the speed).
However a high specific speed leads to a faster flow velocity through the rotor, so
increasing friction losses.
3.2.3 Part-flow performance
A water turbine running at a certain speed will draw a particular flow. If there is not
sufficient flow in the river to meet this demand, the turbine will start to drain the river
and its performance rapidly degrade. It therefore either has to shut down, or it has to
change its internal geometry – a process known as regulation. Regulated turbines can
move their inlet guide vanes and/or runner blades in order to increase or reduce the
TV Energy 22 of 139
MWH
amount of flow they draw. They cost more, because they are more complex, but this may
be worth it for their superior part-flow performance. The efficiency of different turbines
as flow reduces is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4 - Part-flow efficiency of low-head turbines

100
90
80
70
Kaplan
Semi-Kaplan
Efficiency (%)
60
Propeller (regulated guide vanes)
50 Propeller (fixed geometry)
Francis
40 Crossflow
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Q/Qdesign
The crossflow and Francis turbines have low specific speeds, so they are larger, slow-
running and generally less cost-effective for low head schemes. The open-flume Francis
is often found in old mill sites but is an obsolete turbine which would only be supplied as
a replacement for an existing machine.
Claims are made that the crossflow is appropriate for low heads (down to 2m), but this
can only be a serious consideration at very low powers (i.e. <10kW). Figure 5 depicts the
extremes of head and power that propeller and crossflow turbines can realistically operate
within, based on their range of specific speeds and ‘useful’ rpm for electricity generation.
TV Energy 23 of 139
MWH
Figure 5 - Range of operation for crossflow and propeller-type turbines

100
1500rpm Propeller
Crossflow
CROSSFLOW 1500rpm
Head (m)
10
150rpm PROPELLER
Range of interest in SE England
150rpm
1
10 100 1000
Power (kW)
3.2.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that for heads below 3m, it is propeller-type turbines which hold
the key to future developments, either as a fixed geometry machine or as a full-Kaplan or
semi-Kaplan variant and these are therefore the main focus for the rest of this technology
summary.
For larger schemes (>500kW per turbine) which can bear higher costs, the bulb-turbine
and vertical-shaft Kaplan are well-proven solutions first implemented in the 1930s and
illustrated in Figure 6. The real challenge lies in machines below 300kW and heads
below 3m, when it becomes uneconomic simply to scale down these ‘large hydro’
solutions.
TV Energy 24 of 139
MWH
Figure 6 - Conventional low-head turbine arrangements
(a) Bulb-Kaplan (b) Vertical-axis Kaplan
3.3 Micro-hydro solutions
In order to make smaller sites more cost-effective, manufacturers of propeller-type

turbines have come up with a range of different methods for implementing their turbines
to suit the site conditions while keeping costs down. The basic components are always
the same: an intake, a set of guide vanes, a runner, and a draft tube. The four most
widely used options are currently as follows:
1. Tube turbines
2. Open flume turbines
3. Pit Kaplan (right-angle drive)
4. Submersible turbines (mini-bulb turbines)
3.3.1 Tube turbines
A tube turbine describes a propeller machine in which the tube surrounding the propeller
has an ‘elbow’ put into it so that the shaft of the runner can be brought out to mate up
with the speed-increaser and generator. The choice of layout of a tube turbine is dictated
by the existing site conditions, the available head, and most importantly the ratio of the
head to the rotor diameter (H:D ratio). The diagrams in Figure 7 are shown in order of
decreasing H:D ratio.
TV Energy 25 of 139
MWH
Figure 7 - Tube turbine layout examples for decreasing head

a. Horizontal shaft, 90° elbow, vertical draft tube b. 45°shaft, 45° elbow, 45°draft tube
c. Horizontal shaft, S-type elbow, horizontal draft d. 45°shaft, siphon elbow, 45°draft tube
tube
Figure 8 - Tube propeller turbine
TV Energy 26 of 139
MWH
3.3.2 Siphon turbines
A special case of the tube turbine is the siphon turbine. This is worthy of special mention
because of its suitability for ultra-low head sites. The specific advantages are:
The siphon creates extra height to fit the turbine so involves much reduced excavation
and civil works.
Without excavation requirements, the design becomes applicable for installing onto
(rather than in place of) existing civil structures such as weirs or sluices.
System shutdown can be effected simply by breaking the siphon, so no intake gate is
required, which is a significant cost-saving.
Both turbine and generator can be above upstream water level for ease of inspection and
maintenance, and there is no need for a draft tube gate.
Turbine and draft tube can be supplied as a complete, precision unit assembled in the
factory for rapid installation (or removal) on site, and not embedded deep in the civil
works.
With its greater elevation, the scheme will have a greater visual impact and may also
require extra sound-proofing to ensure that noise disturbance is minimised.
Figure 9 - Siphon turbines

Siphon turbine in Italy 15kW turbine at Borrowash Mill, Derby
3.3.3 Open flume propeller turbines
An open flume turbine is one in which there is no intake section narrowing down to feed
the flow into the turbine, instead the guide-vanes sit in a large open chamber. This
arrangement is usually most suited to replacing old open-flume Francis machines in
existing mill structures. There are fewer turbine components, but more work required on
site to assemble the machine. Possible variations are shown in Figure 10.
TV Energy 27 of 139
MWH
Figure 10 - Open-flume propeller turbine arrangements

a. Vertical shaft, open-flume (axial), vertical draft b. 45° shaft, open-flume, 45° draft tube
tube
c. 45°shaft, open-flume, horizontal draft tube
Figure 11 - Intake to an open-flume propeller turbine (Newmills Hydro)
TV Energy 28 of 139
MWH
3.3.4 Pit-Kaplan (right-angle drive)
The Pit-Kaplan was originally devised as a low-cost alternative to the bulb turbine. In this
arrangement the shaft of the runner passes into a sealed ‘pit’ which runs from the base of
the intake up into the powerhouse. The flow passes either side of the pit to reach the
guide-vanes and runner. The pit itself contains a right-angle drive gearbox from which a
vertical shaft ascends into the powerhouse to drive the generator. An alternative
arrangement utilises a belt drive in place of the gearbox to reduce costs. The pit-Kaplan
has been common among recent low-head schemes in Germany and is now offered by
Newmills Hydro in Northern Ireland.
Figure 12 - Pit-Kaplan
This arrangement from Sulzer uses a belt
drive rather than bevel gearbox.
3.3.5 Submersible turbines (mini-bulb turbines)
The conventional bulb turbines were designed so that the bulb was large enough for
human access to allow inspection and maintenance of the gearbox and generator. This
concept becomes unworkable for very small schemes. However mini-bulb turbines are
now available in which the generator is submerged in a small water-tight bulb, a design
transferred from submersible pump technology. With this concept, there is no need for a
powerhouse above the turbine, the generator automatically receives water-cooling and the
visual and noise impacts of the scheme are greatly reduced.
TV Energy 29 of 139
MWH
Figure 13 - Submersible bulb turbine (Waterpumps Oy, Finland)
3.4 Waterwheels and Archimedean Screws
The waterwheel is just about the oldest form of renewable energy known to man,
however, prior to the mid-eighteenth century, few were designed to scientific principles
and accordingly suffered from low efficiencies. The advent of steel and hydraulic
engineering led to greater efficiencies, but the arrival of steam engines and electric
motors stalled further progress and it is only now that the development of waterwheel
technology is experiencing a renaissance.
This renaissance has come about through a desire to utilise lower heads and at a more
economic price. Whilst waterwheels are less efficient than modern low-head turbines,
some hydro practitioners claim that they can be cheaper to build, install and maintain and
can operate in a wider range of flow conditions.
Waterwheels come in two types –
• Overshot wheels: the water is fed into the wheel from the top into buckets or
‘cells’ and releases the water at the lowest possible elevation
• Undershot wheels: the water is fed into the wheel from a height below the wheel
axis
German companies appear to be at the forefront of this technology and Hydrowatt Ltd.
have built 16 wheels over the last decade. All are of typical cell wheel design, with
diameters of 1.8 - 4.4m and widths ranging from 0.25 - 4m. Installed head heights have
ranged from 2.1 – 4.4m and been utilised to generate electrical outputs ranging from 10 –
55kW. Efficient flow rates range from 0.03 – 0.8m³/s. Wheel speeds are controlled
through the power take-off system, so that mechanical governors are not required.
Hydrowatt have also built and installed 15 ‘Zuppinger’ undershot wheels over the last ten
years. Diameters have ranged from 4 – 7.5m and widths 0.5 – 3m. Hydraulic heads
TV Energy 30 of 139
MWH
utilised ranged from 1 – 2.2m with typical flow rates of 1.5 – 3.1m³/s (although up to
6m³/s is acceptable), giving outputs of 4 – 45kW of electrical power. Wheel blades are
made of wood in order to save weight and costs. Undershot wheels require a trash rack in
order to prevent debris from entering the wheel and blocking it.
Efficiencies for both types of wheel are around 60% compared to 75 – 80% for Kaplan
and 70 – 75% for crossflow turbines, however, due to the very flat efficiency curve of
waterwheels, the effective operation time at nominal capacity can be expected to be
longer than 6,000 hours usually assumed for turbines.
Costs of complete overshot wheel installations in Germany, including civil, mechanical

and electrical works, range from 2,200 to 2,500 £/kW for power outputs of 10 – 55kW,
whereby the price per unit rating decreases with increasing rating. Undershot wheels
have been costing 4,900 to 5,500 £/kW, with the power outputs stipulated earlier. In the
UK it is estimated that these costs would probably be lower due to labour costs. These
costs compare to around 33 – 66% of a comparable Kaplan turbine based installation.
Finally, waterwheels, due to their low speed of operation are considered by the EA to be
fish friendly and do not create vibration and noise problems (although some debate
continues over this).
Figure 14 – modern waterwheel installations in Germany
The Archimedean screw has been known since antiquity as a simple machine for lifting
water. Today, Archimedean screws are still in widespread use as pumps for sewage and
grain for example. It has the advantage of being a very simple machine, with only one
moving part and two bearings. The screw can handle floating particles and small
pieces of debris very well. It was recently noticed that the screw could also—in its
reverse role—be employed as an energy converter, termed an hydraulic screw.
TV Energy 31 of 139
MWH
Large-scale experiments with a hydraulic screw of 8.6 m length and 2.35 m drop
have been conducted at Prague Technical University in order to assess the performance
of a hydraulic screw in a power generation mode. The screw was designed for a
maximum flow rate (Qmax) of 0.35 m3/s. At an angle of 30° the power screw reached an
efficiency of 70% at 40% of maximum flow and 80% for 60–100% of maximum flow.
The screw rotates at 53 rpm, so that fewer gear ratios than for a comparable waterwheel
are required to achieve the speed necessary for electricity generation. Larger screws
would rotate at slower speeds, for example 30 rpm for a 2.2 m diameter screw with 28
kW electrical output (3 m head). The large-scale model was also used to determine the
angle for optimum performance, which was found to be 30°. It is believed that at least
five hydraulic screws are currently in operation on the Continent.
For more information on this subject, see ‘Old Watermills – Britain’s new source of
energy?’ – Muller & Kauppert, Civil Engineering 150, November 2002, pgs 178-186,
from which much of the above has been drawn.
3.5 Trash Racks
3.5.1 Introduction
A section on trash screening has been included in this report because, for low-head
schemes, the large majority of operating problems and maintenance costs can be traced
back to a problem with the screening system. The clearing of trash can also be seen as
important additional benefit of new hydro projects, since it can result in large volumes of
man-made litter being removed from the river and disposed of in a controlled manner.
The most widespread method for screening a hydro intake is a raked bar screen with
narrow bar-spacing, described in more detail below. However the first line of protection
should, in most cases, be a floating boom angled across the flow upstream of the intake.
This will catch large items of floating debris before they reach the trashrack. However
such debris will eventually make it under the boom unless cleared within a few days.
3.5.2 Raked Bar Screens
The standard, and most obvious, screening solution which has been used since the days of
waterwheels, is to place a rack of bars in front of the intake, with the bars spaced so that a
rake can be used to drag the accumulated debris up to the top of the screen. This is still
the standard solution for small hydro, and there are now a range of automatic raking
devices available to clean the screen.
In Germany, new low head plants (i.e. last 10 years) all have very similar screening
arrangements: a bar screen with 20mm bar spacing and an automatic rake which lifts the
debris to the top of the screen and onto a conveyer belt. The conveyer belt deposits the
TV Energy 32 of 139
MWH
debris into a skip and, by law, has to be disposed of on land rather than returned to the
river.
Recent systems have developed methods of raking the debris into a bywash without it
leaving the water, hence circumnavigating the regulations on trash disposal. However the
site layout often makes this solution difficult to achieve in practice.
The most common raking devices are operated by hydraulic arms, as shown in Figure 15,
which mimic the physical motions used in manual raking. These rakes are completely
out of the water when not in use and have been found to be more favourable than a rake
operated by chain (Figure 16) because of the difficulty of lubricating the chain and other
parts permanently submerged in water. Furthermore, a hydraulic rake can be mounted on
a mobile base so that a single rake can service a long screen, or more than one intake bay.
A chain operated rake cannot be mobile, so one rake per bay is required.
Pros and cons: Important issues to note with regard to raked bar screens are as follows:
• As the bars get thinner for narrow bar spacings, corrosion effects become more
significant so stainless steel has to be used.
• As bar-spacing is reduced, trash collection can become overwhelming. If it is not
removed, there will rapidly be a serious loss of head leading to plant shut-down. If it is
removed, there is a constant need to dispose of skip-loads of debris unless the debris
can be diverted downstream without leaving the river.
• If the rake cannot clear high volumes of trash quickly, it can get jammed against the
screen by the head differential that builds up across the screen.
• Sensors to detect a level difference across the screen are often used to shutdown the
turbine but a sensor fault should not result in the screen collapsing. Therefore the
screen must be capable of withstanding a significant pressure head across it, preferably
equivalent to a total blockage to its full depth. Hence it has to be supported by robust
steel sections (which, in themselves, obstruct the flow and create a head loss).
• If components are required to operate under water, they should be self-lubricating.
Figure 15 - Bar screen with hydraulic rake Figure 16 - Bar screen with chain-driven rake,
depositing trash into a skip
TV Energy 33 of 139
MWH
3.5.3 Other screen types
It is worth making brief comments on the relevance, or otherwise, of other common

screen types with respect to low head hydropower. The systems described below are all
physical screens. There are also a number of ‘behavioural’ screen technologies now
available for deterring the entry of fish into turbines using vortices, sound waves, bubbles
or electric fields, which can be used in combination with a physical trash screen. For a
more detailed review of fish screening options in the UK, refer to the 1998 ETSU
published document, ‘A UK Guide to Fish Screening Regulations, Policy and Best
Practice’ by Turnpenny, Struthers and Hansen.
Drum screens
In a drum screen the water enters around the periphery of a three quarters submerged
drum, which is placed across the flow and has one end blanked off. The water exits
through the open end and out through a close fitting hole into the turbine intake pipe.
The drum wall is made of a fine mesh which allows the passage of water but excludes all
debris and fish. A spillway on the downstream side of the drum has a lip that maintains
the water-level and allows a few inches of water to flow outwards from within the drum.
The drum is slowly rotated by the flow (or an electric motor) and debris is carried over
the top and meets the spillwater coming from within the drum and is washed off over the
spillway.
Drum screens are effective at keeping fish and trash out of the turbine(s) but leaving it in
the river, and are approved by the Environment Agency as long as the mesh is fine
enough. They are usually only cost-effective for relatively small flows (typically
<1 m3/sec). At higher flows, they become huge, expensive and require a large physical
space within the civil works.
Figure 17 - Drum screen manufactured by Evans Engineering
Band screens
Similar to the drum screen, a band screen consists of a flexible mesh set-up in a
conveyor-belt formation so as to lift the trash up into a raised spillway. This meets with
the Environment Agency’s approval and generally works well.
TV Energy 34 of 139
MWH
However, because the mesh is a continuous loop passing up and then down the back of
the screen, twice the amount of screen material is needed, (which is generally fairly
expensive stainless steel mesh). Also the water flows through both ‘up’ and ‘down’
layers giving twice the head loss, and the flexible material is easily damaged by large
debris so a coarse screen is needed upstream of the band screen.
Band screens Wedge-wire screens

Wedge-wire screens are the option most favoured by the Environment Agency for
excluding all forms of fish from small water intakes because they can accommodate bar-
spacing down to 3mm. These screens are also used on high-head hydro-schemes for
flows less than 1 m3/sec (often known as ‘Coanda’ screens). For the high flows
considered by this study, they are totally impractical because of the shear size, high cost
and cleaning implications of the screen.
3.6 Technical Conclusions
1. In the SE of England, almost all possible low-head hydropower schemes will fall into
the bracket of micro hydro i.e. below 500kW and exploiting less than 3m of available
head. The turbine machinery will be relatively large because of these ultra-low-
heads.
2. Small, low head projects have certain features which differentiate them from other
hydropower developments, in particular there will be:
Options to exploit existing civil structures (mills, weirs, sluices, etc.)

A need to absorb high flows to achieve a reasonable power
A reduction in head during high flow conditions
A low power-to-weight ratio of the turbines
High levels of trash to be collected and disposed of
3. The biggest environmental constraint facing new low head projects on UK rivers is the
issue of the protection of fish. Further research is needed to investigate the function
and performance of fish screens and the effect of low-head turbines on different fish
species.
The only turbine type which can realistically exploit low-head sites of 3m of less is
the propeller-type turbine, either as a fixed geometry machine or as a full-Kaplan or
semi-Kaplan. There are a range of different methods for implementing these turbines,
of which the four most widely used options are:
• Tube turbines, particularly in a siphon arrangement for ultra-low-heads
• Open flume turbines
• Pit Kaplans (right-angle drive)
• Submersible turbines (mini-bulb turbines)
TV Energy 35 of 139
MWH
However, there are UK and European manufacturers specialising in micro-hydro

technology who have developed simple and robust technologies which, combined with a
more innovative and flexible approach, have been able to bring down costs for small-
scale schemes. There remains scope for further improvement and innovation in this field.
NOTE: The majority of this technology section has been written by Olly Paish, then of IT
Power, now with Derwent Hydropower.
For more detailed technical information please refer to companies listed in Annex 2 and
to material supplied in Annex 3.
TV Energy 36 of 139
MWH
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS FOR LOW HEAD

DEVELOPMENTS
There are a range of environmental implications that may arise from low head hydro
developments and these are largely dealt with by the EA. The EA have to balance the
requirements of developers with protection of the environment and to this end, a recently
revised manual, ‘Hydropower – A Handbook for Agency Staff’ seeks to explain the EA’s
position on hydropower. This publication is widely available. This work is drawn on
heavily in the following sections.
4.1 The EA position on hydropower
The EA has a position statement and policy on hydropower which is reproduced in its
entirety in Section 3 of its ‘Handbook’. There are three key policy statements which
impact on their guidance to hydro developers:
• The EA strongly supports the Government’s targets for the use of renewable
energy. It recognises the cumulative contribution which hydropower schemes can
make to the reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases and in achieving a
sustainable, cost-effective climate change programme.
• The EA recognises the potential benefits of small-scale hydropower to rural

communities and in meeting local needs for power. Where a proposed scheme is
inappropriate for its location it will advise a prospective developer at as early a
stage as possible. However, the EA will not unduly rely on the precautionary
principle as a reason for inaction. It will take a positive view of reasonable and
well designed proposals for hydropower schemes and will work with developers
and others in attempting to agree a viable, sustainable project.
• The EA seeks to work constructively with the hydropower industry in achieving

the aspirations of Government, the Agency and the industry.
4.1.1 The EA’s Duties
In relation to water management, the EA is responsible for making sure that any proposal
which may affect waters in England and Wales is satisfactory. This means assessing the
impact of the proposal on the environment and other water users, and making sure that
the development is designed so that its construction and operation is acceptable.
The main statutes relating to the EA’s regulation of hydropower are the Water Resources
Act 1991 (WRA91) and the Environment Act 1995 (EA95). These impose a range of
aims and duties upon the EA.
TV Energy 37 of 139
MWH
The EA has a wide remit, as set out in the EA95, as follows:-
Section 4 states it shall be the principal aim of the EA, in discharging its functions
so as to protect or enhance the environment, taken as a whole, as to make a
contribution toward achieving sustainable development.
Section 6(1) requires the EA to generally promote, to such an extent as it

considers desirable:
• the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of

inland and coastal waters and of land associated with such waters;
• the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic
environment;
• the use of such waters and land for recreational purposes.
The EA also has specific legal obligations when dealing with applications for consents
and licences:-
Section 7 states it shall be a duty of the EA in formulating or considering any

proposals relating to any function to:
• exercise its powers to further the conservation and enhancement of natural

beauty and of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical
features of special interest;
• have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites
and objects of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest;
• take into account any effect on the beauty or amenity of any rural or urban
area or on such flora, fauna, buildings, sites or objects;
• have regard to any effect on the economic and social well being of local
communities in rural areas.
Section 9 permits the drawing up of a Code of Practice – one has recently been updated
and the EA refers to this in regard to specific matters relating to conservation and
recreation.
The EA’s water resources duties are contained in Section 6(2) Environment Act 1995 and
require the EA to take "all such action as it may consider ... necessary or expedient" for
the purpose of conserving, redistributing or otherwise augmenting water resources and
securing the proper use of water resources.
Provisions in the WRA91 include:-
A duty under Section 20 to make arrangements with water undertakers for

securing the proper management or operation of waters, reservoirs, apparatus or
other works used by water undertakers.
TV Energy 38 of 139
MWH
The points set out in Sections 38 to 40 are those which the EA must consider
when granting impounding and abstraction licences. These include the
reasonableness of the applicant's requirements, representations from the public,
the possibility of derogation, the requirements of existing lawful users i.e.
agriculture, industry, water supply or other purposes, and effects on water flows.
In essence, these must provide enough water of adequate quality to safeguard
public health, to meet the requirements of existing lawful users (including
agriculture, industry, water supply or other purposes), and the requirements of
navigation, fisheries and land drainage.
Duties in other legislation relevant to regulation of hydropower developments by the EA

are:-
• to achieve water quality objectives;

• to have regard to the interests of fisheries, including sea fisheries;
• to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to flood defence, and in
relation to main rivers act as the consenting authority for the erection of structures
in, over or under a main river;
• duties in relation to some watercourses as a navigation, harbour or conservancy
authority;
• to have regard to the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 which
impose certain requirements in relation to effects upon Special Protection Areas
under the Birds Directive and Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats
Directive. Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), as amended by the Countryside
and rights of Way Act.
4.1.2 Regulation by the Agency
As already stated, the effects of hydropower proposals can be far reaching, and they
usually cut across the responsibilities of most of the EA functions. These are summarised
below and are described in more detail later on.
The water resources function controls impoundments and abstractions, and a licence for
one or both is frequently required by a hydropower scheme. These licences, and works
agreements associated with them, provide core control. This is not only on the use of
water itself, but also in the design and operation of measures to avoid water quality,
conservation and other problems which are primarily the concern of other EA functions.
Impacts of hydropower on water quality vary. Occasionally, hydropower will result in

improved oxygenation and so have a beneficial impact on water quality. More
frequently, the diversion of water away from a turbulent overfall into a weir pool to the
energy depleting flow through a turbine may reduce oxygenation. Reduced and/or
altered flows may also have adverse effects arising from inadequate dilution of effluents,
while substances used in the operation or maintenance of the hydropower works may
pollute the water and require the consent of the EA for their use
TV Energy 39 of 139
MWH
Hydropower can have a serious effect on fisheries as installations can act as a barrier to
fish movements (up and downstream) and can kill or damage fish passing through the
turbines. The habitat supporting fish, invertebrates, mammals and flora can be damaged
from both the construction and the altered flow regime.
The EA's flood defence function is concerned with hydropower schemes from the point
of view of their possible effects on land drainage and flood defence. Depending on its
nature the scheme may require a separate consent from flood defence.
The conservation of the natural environment is likely to be a key issue and an

assessment of a scheme’s impact, and measures to mitigate it, may be necessary.
4.2 Environmental Assessments
The vast majority of low-head hydro schemes in the South East of England will be under
0.5MW in size and will not legally require a full environmental impact assessment.
Having said this, in the absence of the requirement for a formal Environmental
Statement, an Environmental Report may be required from the developer to support
applications for EA permissions. Section A of the Appendix in the EA ‘Hydropower
Handbook’ contains current EA guidance on this topic. NOTE that this will be updated
from time to time and one should check for the current version.
4.3 Licensing
There are a number of legal consents issued by the EA that may be needed for any project
and these include:
ABSTRACTION LICENCE: If water is removed from a river and then returned to the
flow, it is considered 'abstracted' and must be licensed. Projects below 5MWe are not
charged on an annual basis but may still need to have a licence
IMPOUNDMENT LICENCE: when new structures are created (or, in some cases, when
existing structures are altered) on a watercourse to protect water rights downstream
LAND DRAINAGE CONSENT: for any structure in, on, under or within 8 metres of a
river/ stream to protect people and property – see section 4.6.5
The licences and consents above may have conditions attached to take account of
protective measures required for the environment.
SALMON & FRESHWATER FISHERIES APPROVAL: To provide for the movement
of migratory fish such as salmon and sea trout up and down the river. Formal ‘Consent’ is
not required, but agreement is. This may be a fish pass of suitable form and dimensions.
TV Energy 40 of 139
MWH
In a recent review of the fisheries legislation, it has been recommended that this provision
be extended to all fish species.
4.3.1 Requirements for abstraction and impounding licences
The requirement for licences under the Water Resources Act for hydropower schemes
will be determined by the configuration of the installation and any associated channels or
pipework for diverting water to the turbine or wheel.
Installation of a hydropower device achieved by the construction or alteration of any

work that obstructs or impedes the flow of a river will require an impoundment licence.
Most development of lowland small scale hydropower sites are associated with existing
structures, where alterations are required to install the turbine and provide the necessary
controls. An impounding licence is therefore likely to be a requirement of virtually all
such schemes. In some cases an agreement under s158 WRA91 may also be required (see
below), depending on the degree of potential impact and the need to ensure ongoing
control.
When the flow of water to operate the turbine is through a ‘run-of-river’ structure, such
schemes are often not regarded as abstractions and may not require an abstraction licence
(this may be the case in some mills), but may require and impoundment licence. Where
water is diverted in a controlled manner around an impounding structure and away from
the main line of flow of the river, such as via a mill leat, an abstraction licence will be
required.
The guidance given below generally applies to applications for new licences and
variations to existing licences. If doubts exist, it is suggested that advice be sought from
the local water resources licensing team at the nearest EA office.
4.3.2 Safeguarding river flows
Hydropower developments do not normally involve a net loss of water to a catchment.

However, they do have the potential to have an impact upon the flow regime and local
hydrodynamics of a river, whether due to the flow control exerted by the impounding
controls or because of flow deprivation between the abstraction and return points.
Therefore, the consideration of the need for licence conditions to safeguard river flows is
an essential aspect of the licence determination process. In some cases the requirement
will be to safeguard flows for ecological, amenity or visual reasons, or to ensure the
passage of both upstream and downstream migrating fish. In sensitive areas, ecological
protection of the deprived reach will be a primary consideration. The requirements of
any existing protected rights of abstractors also need to be taken into account. The
impact of prolonged reductions in flow in sensitive locations will require careful
consideration and the precautionary approach will be adopted.
TV Energy 41 of 139
MWH
Historically, flows have been protected by means of a single prescribed flow condition on
a licence. However, it is now recognised that this approach may result in a severe impact
upon the aquatic environment by prolonged periods of low flows, a particular risk with
hydropower schemes involving diversion of flow from the main stream or river.
Therefore, in addition to safeguarding a low flow, it is important to provide for adequate
flow variability in the deprived reach of watercourse. At sites involving the transfer of
flows between multiple channels, it may be necessary to ensure that an agreed flow is
also maintained at all times in side channels, leats and weir pools, so as to maintain the
habitat and avoid stagnation.
The methodologies used by the EA to assess river flow requirements are under constant
development. They should be applied to hydropower developments in accordance with
accepted national practice at the time.
4.3.3 Costs and benefits
In carrying out its regulatory powers, the EA is required to take into account likely costs
and benefits of the applicant’s proposals alongside reviewing the potential environmental
impacts. This must include the costs to the developer, society and the environment.
Where practical and reasonable, the EA will seek to achieve environmental gain in
association with the development. For hydropower, the environmental cost may arise
from the physical impact of the hydropower structure and from the abstraction of water
from the watercourse. Benefits could include any local benefits to the river, to rural
communities and the benefits of renewable energy.
Despite this, there is no specific methodology for undertaking this task and a detailed cost
benefit analysis is not required. The decision reached does however, have to be auditable.
4.3.4 Acceptability of proposals and applicant's reasonable requirements
In designing the installation and seeking the necessary licences, the applicant will be
primarily concerned with the economic viability of the project. There are a number of
guiding principles that the developer is likely to follow in designing the installation and,
where necessary, assessing requirements for abstraction quantities, including:
• to maximise revenue;
• to maximise plant capacity;
• to minimise payback period;
• to maximise summer abstracted volumes.
In determining an application for an abstraction licence, the EA must have regard to the
reasonable requirements of the applicant. Deciding how to assess these requirements will
depend upon site specific details and each case must be determined on its own merits, the
question being "are the applicant's requirements for water as applied for reasonable,
TV Energy 42 of 139
MWH
considering the information provided by the applicant and the hydraulic characteristics of
the generation site?”
4.3.5 Works agreements
Hydropower developments can exercise significant control over the flow regime of a
river. This may be due to the operation of sluices, weir construction, sudden closure of
turbines etc. Many of these influences will occur, or will have consequences, when
hydropower generation is not taking place and after the completion of construction of
impounding works. As such, they may not be controllable under the conditions of an
abstraction or impoundment licence. In such situations, an agreement under Section 158
WRA 1991 is a means to ensure control by the EA in order to protect environmental and
other interests.
For impoundments, the conditions in the impounding licence must relate to the
construction of the impounding works and the safeguards that need to be employed
during construction and filling. The agreement will deal with the subsequent
maintenance and operation of the works.
For abstractions, any works or method of operation outside the period when abstraction is
actually taking place must be in a Section 158 agreement. All conditions relating to the
operation of the abstraction during the period when water is being abstracted should go in
the licence.
4.3.6 Flow information
The assessment of the flow regime at a potential hydropower site is of course of key
importance, both to the developer in terms of assessing generating capacity and to the EA
in ensuring the protection of the water environment.
The responsibility to provide this information lies primarily with the developer. However,
the EA should make available to the developer any relevant flow data or hydrological
flow assessments in its possession. An early appreciation of the flow regime at the site,
how it will be altered by the proposed scheme and the scope of and need for possible
further data gathering requirements by the developer are to the mutual advantage of all
parties concerned. The EA has a role of auditing the data and any assumptions derived
from it and may carry out check measurements.
4.3.7 Time limited licences
The duration of abstraction and impoundment licences depends on the watercourse on

which the scheme is located. There is only a marginal variation and the current standard
time span for a low head hydro site would be between 10-15 years.
TV Energy 43 of 139
MWH
4.3.8 Measurement, monitoring and controls
It is essential for the EA to be satisfied that the proposed hydropower scheme will
incorporate effective controls and suitable instrumentation for measurement and
recording, e.g. of abstracted quantities and residual river flows. Requirements should be
discussed with the developer at an early stage, based upon the detailed drawings of the
installation which will need to be submitted with the licence application.
4.3.9 Charges
In accordance with the EA’s Abstraction Charges, a fee is payable when applying for a
licence to impound and/or abstract water for hydropower purposes. However there is no
annual charge provided the scheme generates no more than 5MW. Impoundment and
Abstraction Licences each cost £110 at the time of writing, although if both are required,
the combined cost, with one public notice is held at £110.
It should also be borne in mind that applying for an Abstraction Licence will require
advertising for two weeks in the local press and once in the London Gazette, which
involves additional costs.
4.4 Water Quality Issues
Hydropower schemes can affect water quality in several different ways, both directly and
indirectly and these have an impact on other areas such as conservation, fisheries and
abstraction. These potential impacts are very site specific and in view of the complex issues
involved, they need identifying at an early stage, preferably before submission of planning
and licence applications. In the context of low head hydro in the South East of England,
however, these issues are unlikely to be of major importance, except for larger projects.
4.4.1 Areas of concern
As water quality effects can be very site specific, proposals require individual assessment.
In general, the most likely areas of concern will be:
• effects on water quality classification and compliance with water quality objectives
based on statutory requirements, for example EC Directives1, and the Surface
Waters (Rivers Ecosystem) (Classification) Regulations 1994;
• effects on existing effluent discharges into the affected river reach. These may
include reduced available dilution for sewage works discharges, and effects of
modified flow patterns on the impact of storm sewage overflows;
1
75/440/EEC (surface water abstracted for potable supply), 78/659/EEC (freshwater fisheries);
76/464/EEC (dangerous substances) and its daughter directives; 91/71/EEC (urban waste water
treatment - sensitive areas); 91/676/EEC (nitrates).
TV Energy 44 of 139
MWH
• implications for other possible or proposed developments, such as future water

company investment programmes;
• effects on the quality of water to be abstracted for water supply and other uses, such
as fish farms, industrial and agricultural abstractions;
• effects of changes in suspended solids - for example, impact on fish spawning areas
(siltation), visual amenity, and light penetration;
• water quality implications where water will be transferred between rivers, including
transfer of pollutants and changes in water quality that will affect the ecology of the
recipient river;
• changes in flow regime which may affect water quality indirectly, such as enhanced
algal growth or siltation;
• changes in water temperature, such as caused by discharge of cold bottom water
from impoundments;
• effects of operational practices associated with the hydropower development. These
may include discharges from pipe/tunnel cleaning and the use of biocides and anti-
fouling preparations.
Finally, it should be noted that a responsibly operated hydropower scheme may bring some
benefit to water quality, through increased oxygenation and removal of river borne trash.
4.4.2 Control and regulation
Many of the concerns outlined above result from physical flow diversion and alterations to
flow patterns. Water quality legislation is not designed for these problems. Usually the best
way of preventing adverse water quality impacts will be for EA water quality staff to make
an effective input into the impoundment and/or abstraction licensing process and local
authority planning consultation.
4.5 Fish
Regulation of fisheries under the Environment Act 1995 (or Salmon and Freshwater
Fisheries Act (SAFFA) 1975 as amended by the EA 1995), WRA 1991, SAFFA 1975 and
other legislation is one of the EA's core functions. Hydropower schemes can potentially
disrupt fisheries. So, preventing, minimising or mitigating this is a key part of the design of
schemes.
4.5.1 Impacts on fish populations
The hydropower developer must either be able to demonstrate the lack of impact of the
operation of the scheme on the fish population, or else, after demonstrating impact,
provide suitable mitigative measures. Clearly the risks are likely to be much more
serious for major migratory (diadromous) species like salmon, sea trout, eels, lampreys
TV Energy 45 of 139
MWH
and shad, however, they can be significant for non-migratory (potadromous) trout and
coarse fish species as well.
A distinction can be drawn between new impoundments and existing impoundments.

Generally low head hydropower proposals will be to retro-fit generating equipment to
existing impounding structures. In this case the potential effects on the fish are generally
limited to phases of their life-cycle when they are migrating, whereas in the case of new
impoundments there are potential effects on habitat diversity and quality as well.
In the case of existing impoundments risks include:
• disruption of upstream migration (adult migratory salmonids, trout, coarse fish,

adult lamprey and shad; juvenile eels), involving prevention of, delay of, or
reduction in efficiency of, passage over the structure including any existing fish
pass;
• damage or mortality of downstream migration (juvenile migratory salmonids,

trout, coarse fish and shad; adult migratory salmonid kelts, coarse fish, juvenile
lamprey and adult eel).
• Modification of habitats through changes in discharge regime.
These may be through physical risks, such as turbine blade strike or cavitation, or through
risk of modified behaviour, such as attraction to turbine discharge or subtle changes in
flow regime. In these cases assessment methods are likely to include trapping and
tracking, and possibly broader population studies.
In the case of new impoundments (or raising of existing impoundment levels), or

alternatively those involving a major diversion and long length of river between intake
and return point, then there are likely to be significant other risks in addition to those
above. These could include:
• habitat degradation through loss of diversity

• major changes in flow variability
• water quality changes
• increased predation of migrators
• loss of orientation of migrators
Assessment methods are much more likely to include detailed and quantitative studies of
fish population dynamics in addition to the type of studies above. They might also
include the use of habitat simulation and prediction models, such as PHABSIM. In
addition some consideration may need to be given to sociological changes, for example
the potential affects of altered flow regimes on angling opportunity.
Whatever pre-appraisal studies are or are not required the developer will probably be
required to carry out (if necessary) post-appraisal studies to demonstrate either a
TV Energy 46 of 139
MWH
negligible effect or else that any mitigative measures are as successful as proposed. In
the event that mitigation cannot be wholly accomplished, or that it fails to be as
successful as proposed, then arrangements will need to be considered to modify the
structure, for compensation for any long-term damage caused by the scheme, or its
complete removal.
4.5.2 Minimum flows
For any fish, but particularly for salmonids, flow reduction and flow variability may impact
all life stages, from egg to adult, since each life stage has its own specific requirements.
Many people think that the ecology of a stream can be protected provided there is a 95%ile
flow (i.e. the flow which is exceeded for 95% of the time). According to the EA, this is a
dangerous and unproven assumption and a preferred approach might be to use an
Incremental Flow Model. However, this is a developing science and, as yet there are no
accepted techniques for this for either salmonids or coarse fish. It is also worth mentioning
that minimum flow rates also impact on other issues such as sediment deposition which
require consideration. EA staff covering this issue and developers are advised to refer to the
Salmanoid Fisheries Science Group and Coarse Fisheries Science Group for advice on the
latest best practice.
4.5.3 Upstream fish passage
The need for passage of major migrators like salmon, sea trout, eel, lamprey and shad to
reach spawning or feeding areas is well known. The need for brown trout and some other
freshwater species to do the same is also fairly well appreciated. It should be borne in
mind that many of the local indigenous potadromous (wholly freshwater) species may
make local migrations for a variety of other reasons, e.g. for feeding, shelter,
colonisation, re-colonisation following displacement (by floods or episodic pollution
events for example). Considerations will usually focus around the effects of the turbines,
and any changes which their operation will cause to the local flow patterns and
variability, for example they may attract fish away from an existing fish pass or area
where they previously found passage, or alter spawning habitat.
4.5.4 Fish passes for migratory fish
Where a hydropower scheme is in any waters frequented by salmon or migratory trout, and
creates or increases obstruction to the passage of such fish, the EA can formally require the
developer to install a suitable fish pass. The need for this will, in practice, be at the
discretion of the regional EA’s fisheries function. The fish pass needs to be of such form
and dimensions as will meet with the approval of the EA. It is an offence for the owner or
occupier of the installation not to make such a fish pass, or not to maintain it in an efficient
state, if required to do so by the EA.
TV Energy 47 of 139
MWH
4.5.5 Fish Passes for non-migratory trout, coarse fish and eels
The specific fish pass provisions of the SAFFA 1975 only currently apply to salmon or
migratory trout. A recent Government review of fisheries legislation has recommended that
these provisions be extended to all other species. However, fish passes for other species can
be required using the more general powers under the Land Drainage and Water Resources
Acts 1991. Currently, where a fish pass is necessary to protect non-migratory trout, coarse
fish, eels or diadromous species such as shad, it will normally be made a condition of the
impounding and/or abstraction licence that a suitable fish pass is installed. Positive action in
this area will often help to create a favourable view within the EA of the overall scheme.
4.5.6 Fish pass design
Advice on fish pass design can be sought from the EA National Fish Passage Panel
(NFPP)2.
4.5.7 Downstream fish passage
Again the need for downstream migration of the major migrators is well known.
However it is becoming increasingly clear that there are important migrations of juvenile
coarse fish in their first summer, and possibly also as pinhead fry and fish between one
and two years old. Attention will focus on measures to prevent the damage or mortality
of fish passing through the turbines, where high mortalities (>50% of smolts for example)
can occur. A mortality rate of greater or equal to 5% will generally be regarded as
significant for any one site, but the cumulative effect of multiple sites on any one
watercourse or catchment also has to be taken into account.
4.5.8 Screens for migratory salmonids
Where a hydropower scheme is in any waters frequented by salmon or migratory trout the
developer is obliged to install screens and by-passes that prevent their descent into the
turbines, and is constructed and located to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that
they are not injured or damaged by it5. In any case screening can be required for any
species as part of any new abstraction licence under the general powers of the WRA1991.
4.5.9 Screen design
In Scotland, some Salmon Boards require that physical screens should have a mesh
spacing no larger than 12.5mm x 25mm to ensure that salmon smolts are excluded from
turbines. The EA, who enforce the SAFFA in England and Wales, do not have a standard
specification for fish-screens, but some recent hydro schemes have been requested to use
bar spacings of 10mm or lower in order to minimise the impact on juvenile coarse fish.
2
National Fish Pass Officer, EA Wales, Llys Afon, Hawthorn Rise, Haverford West, Pembs, SA61 2BQ
TV Energy 48 of 139
MWH
It is not possible to stipulate a standard screen specification, since each site is specific and
has to be considered on its merits (location, fish species size and mix etc.). Physical
mesh sizes required to exclude different species and sizes of fish are well known and can
be predicted and an accepted range of approach velocities are well publicised in the
literature on this subject.
4.5.10 Screens for non-migratory trout, coarse fish, eel, lamprey and shad
Screens should be required as part of any new abstraction licence under the general
powers of the WRA1991. The developer can also be made aware of Section 2(2) SAFFA
1975, which make it an offence knowingly to kill or injure immature freshwater fish.
4.5.11 Types of screen
There is a range of different screens available including both physical and behavioural
ones. Physical screens are capable of being configured in such a way that they can
completely exclude fish or even their eggs. Behavioural screens cannot be expected to
achieve 100% efficiency.
Useful references include Solomon, Turnpenny, and the Agency Section 14 training
material:-
Solomon Dr D J.
Diversion and Entrapment of Fish at Water Intakes and Outfalls. R & D Report No. 1.
National Rivers Authority 1992.
Turnpenny AWH, Struthers G, & Hanson P.

A UK Guide to Intake Screening Regulations, Policy and Best Practice with Particular
Reference to Hydroelectric Power Schemes. ETSU Report H/06/00052/REP. 998.
Environment Agency SAFFA Section.14 Training Course, May 1997.
4.6 River management issues
The modern approach towards river management is to move away from heavy engineering
and canalisation towards restoring more natural rivers with soft engineering techniques.
According to their ‘handbook’, the EA view hydropower developments, particularly low-
head proposals, as tending to work against this objective.
The EA's flood defence function becomes involved in hydropower developments for two
reasons:
TV Energy 49 of 139
MWH
• as part of its general responsibility for river management, it is there to ensure that
proposals are not detrimental to the river, either locally, or to the river system as a
whole;
• where proposed works affect a main river and require consent under s.109 WRA 1991
or an ordinary watercourse under s.23 Land Drainage Act 1991. In the latter case the
EA or the relevant Internal Drainage Board may be the responsible body.
4.6.1 Design of hydropower works
The EA evaluates structures and works proposed for hydropower installations as it does any
other similar river works. However, some aspects do require special consideration.
4.6.2 Development within flood plain areas
The EA's policy of not building within flood risk areas may be relaxed in appropriate
situations because the very nature of hydropower requires structures in and adjacent to
watercourses. However, impact must be minimised, and therefore-
• size of buildings must be the minimum necessary to house equipment;

• plant must be selected with due regard to size;
• the location, orientation and level of buildings and other structures must create minimum
obstruction to both in-channel and flood flows. Optimum arrangement may require
modeling;
• the developer must compensate for any adverse effects such as obstructions to flow and
infilling in the flood plain. He/ she may achieve this, for example, by providing
additional channel flow capacity, flood plain flow capacity, or flood plain compensatory
storage on a level for level basis
4.6.3 Use of existing sites
A low-head scheme involving, for example, renovation of an old mill site with an existing
"fall" and a building to house equipment, is unlikely to be of much concern with regards to
flooding defence issues. However, there must still be a check to make sure it will not
prejudice the scope for future flood defence or land drainage improvement schemes. The
EA consider that the presence of an operating, licensed hydropower installation may
constrain options for future improvements.
4.6.4 New sites or modifications to existing sites
The EA will treat works for a hydropower proposal as it will any other proposed structure or
works in a watercourse. However, these schemes do make for several areas of potential
conflict with flood defence policies, and particular attention is required to the following:
TV Energy 50 of 139
MWH
• there must be no overall reduction of channel capacity;

• obstruction of flood flows and any reduction of flood plain storage must be fully
compensated for;
• there must be no detriment to land drainage as a result of raising water levels;
• there must be no impact on water level recording and flow measurement installations;
• any deepening of the channel downstream to add to available head must have due regard
for conservation, recreation, landscape and fisheries impacts, as well as stability of
banks and structures. Similarly, siltation processes may change if bed gradients alter
and this aspect must be considered too;
• proposals must not prejudice scope for future flood defence or land drainage
improvements.
4.6.5 Land drainage consent
As mentioned previously in section 4.3, any structure in, on, under or within 8 metres of a
river/ stream will require land drainage consent. Forms are available from the EA and
sketches of the proposed scheme in relation to the local area will need to be submitted.
The cost of the consent is, at time of writing, £50 and is a one off fee.
There will be instances where the information required for the land drainage consent
overlaps that required for an impoundment licence and in some cases one or other of
these legal requirements have been dropped as the remaining licence/consent covers all
the relevant issues.
4.7 Additional environmental impacts
The EA ‘Hydropower Handbook’ states that low head schemes are usually on large rivers
with high flows and make use of existing structures (e.g. weirs) for head. They view likely
impacts as:-
• bed scouring and changes in gravel/silt shoals

• changes to flow patterns and velocities
• disturbance to marginal and bank vegetation
• bank revetment (sheet piling etc.)
• raising upstream water levels if weir height increased
• lowering of upstream levels when the turbines are operating at full capacity causing a
pull down effect
• general loss of habitat, habit disturbance during construction and loss of habitat structure
such as bankside trees and in channel gravel shoals
• general loss of habitat, tree felling, bank loss, grassland disturbance etc.
TV Energy 51 of 139
MWH
Increasingly schemes may well be proposed on small rivers and these issues apply equally
in this context. Each case is different and a number of these issues could come up with any
scheme. How the EA deals with these is discussed below.
4.7.1 Schemes located in areas of known conservation interest
Occasionally, a scheme will be located in a National Park, Special Area for Conservation
and Special Protection Area (under the Habitats and Birds Directive), Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI), Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or other designation
relating to special interest land or water. In such cases it is essential that the appropriate
organisation is consulted at an early stage to ensure protection to important sites.
4.7.2 Mitigation and Compensation
It is important that mitigation measures are considered in detail before proposals receive the
go-ahead i.e. with planning consent and the granting of necessary licences. Such measures
may include re-creation of lost habitats, shallow riffles, shoals, trees, and bankside and
marginal vegetation and/or provision of a fish pass.
Mitigation is something that makes the development less ‘bad’ and compensation is to
replace what is lost in the medium to long term. Either or both may be required, dependent
on circumstance.
4.7.3 Surveys
If some form of an environmental appraisal is required it is essential to have good base-line

data: "what is there now that will be affected?" The developer may need to do surveys,
which should be carried out according to the guidelines described in the EA’s ‘Hydropower
Handbook’. The level of detail and matters to concentrate on will differ from site to site and
will be matters for the EA and developer to agree in order to ensure that local Biodiversity
Action Plans are considered. The EA's Review of Nature Conservation Survey
Methodologies describes these in more detail. Essentially, it is necessary to have information
about the following topics:-
• General watercourse character

• All flora, including wet grasslands and woods of the riparian zone and wider river
corridor
• Vegetation and animal species and communities
• Ditches and dykes
• Trees
• Invertebrates
• Birds
• Mammals
TV Energy 52 of 139
MWH
• Amphibians and reptiles

• Fish
• Geomorphology
4.7.4 Monitoring
Environmental assessment should not be seen as a "snapshot". Developers should have a

monitoring programme, which will update baseline surveys and record changes over 1, 2
and 5 years. This may be incorporated in an s.158 agreement.
4.7.5 Consultees
Usually, in the south-east of England, the EA will consult with the following bodies over
hydropower proposals:-
• English Nature
• Countryside Agency
• Council for the Preservation of Rural England
• County wildlife trusts
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• County ecologists
• Local planning authorities
• English Heritage (where listed structures and Scheduled Ancient Monuments are
involved)
• County Archaeologists
4.8 The role of the Local Planning Authority
Planning permission may be required for a low head hydropower development. This and
related procedures (such as building regulation approval), is the responsibility of the local
planning authority (LPA). As discussed below, the requirements of the planning
authority may play an important role in achieving satisfactory overall environmental
control. The planning authority may also be the authority formally requiring the
developer to carry out an environmental impact assessment.
Some planning authorities may adopt a policy whereby planning permission will not be
granted until the necessary EA permissions have been granted. Conversely, the EA may
not grant an abstraction licence until the developer has obtained planning permission,
thereby demonstrating a reasonable need for water.
TV Energy 53 of 139
MWH
It is important that EA staff liaise closely with the LPA at an early stage of the
development process, thus making it easier for the developer to design a scheme to
overcome any outstanding concerns. In the early stages of a development it is good
practice to:
• arrange a meeting involving the EA, the developers and the planning authority,
preferably on site
• that a list of EA concerns is given both to the LPA and to the developer
• that the EA obtains from the LPA a full understanding of their requirements in so far
as they may relate to EA regulation, e.g. visual amenity of water related features
• agree the scope of environmental impact assessments required to satisfy both the
needs of the EA and the LPA.
Full liaison between LPAs and the EA will also help to reduce the risk of inconsistencies
between the conditions of planning and EA permissions
Other areas that fall under the remit of the LPA that can have a bearing on hydropower
developments include –
• Archaeology - The developer should always consult the county archaeologist in case
the proposal will affect sites of archaeological value.
• Landscape - The Institute of Environmental Assessment in conjunction with the
Landscape Institute is (1995) publishing Guidelines for landscape and visual impact
assessment. The developer should consult the local authority for advice on
constraints and opportunities.
• Noise – This may be an issue both in operation and construction. In practice, the
noise of the river should mask turbine noise, although in some cases attention should
be paid to ‘white noise’ (high frequency noise, heard by a small percentage of the
population)
TV Energy 54 of 139
MWH
5 THE ECONOMIC ISSUES OF LOW HEAD HYDRO

DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Costs
5.1.1 Overview
Given the different layout options, and different levels of turbine sophistication possible
for a low head hydro scheme, it is only possible to give general guidance on equipment
and project costs.
The most important parameter in dictating overall viability is the available head. The
lower the head, in general the higher the cost per kW of the scheme. This is because for
any specific turbine, a halving of the head height will translate to production of only one
third of the power output for the same capital cost. This is the main reason why low head
projects are so difficult to realise.
Figure 18 illustrates the typical trend in total project costs per kW for schemes in the
power range 100kW to 10MW and for heads in the range 2-5m. With the current value
of renewable electricity in the UK in the range 5-6p/kWh, total scheme costs need to be
below £3000/kW to be worth considering, and below £2000/kW to appear attractive.
The chart illustrates that projects below 2m head and/or below 100kW in size are difficult
to make cost-effective using standard methods.
TV Energy 55 of 139
MWH
Figure 18 - General trend of project costs for low-head hydro schemes
5.1.2 Division of costs
In round numbers, for small low head schemes, the cost breakdown is of the following
order of magnitude:
Turbine(s): £800-
1500/kW
Civil works and powerhouse: £500-
1500/kW
Other items (grid connection, screening, engineering £500-
inputs): 1000/kW
Although the head is the most critical parameter in determining the specific cost, other
areas which can greatly affect cost are:
Distance to the grid and cost of connection

Access to site (for cranes, diggers and ready-mix lorries)
Screening requirements and means for disposing of the trash.
The decision on one area of the design will also have knock-on effects to the other areas.
Hence, there is the option of spending more on the turbine in order to save on civil costs
(this applies particularly to the siphon and submersible turbine options), or savings can be
made on civil costs by using the existing works and accepting a smaller but more cost-
TV Energy 56 of 139
MWH
effective scheme. The variation in turbine costs is examined in more detail in the next
section.
5.1.3 Turbine costs
Low-head hydropower equipment in Europe generally falls into 3 cost bands,

summarised as follows:
Band Cost Peak Efficiency (Turbine) Regulation Part-flow performance

1 High Optimum (90-92%) Double Excellent
2 Medium High (80-90%) Single Good
3 Low Moderate (70-80%) None Poor
Figure 19 illustrates the unit costs in the 50-200kW power range for these 3 bands, as
they apply to turbine units only (i.e. excluding generator, control system and civil works).
This graph was compiled from manufacturers’ data applying to heads of 2-4m. Costs
decrease with head (as well as power), so the width of the bands is partly due to the head
range covered. However, the graphs illustrate that there can be an order of magnitude
rise in costs in moving from the low-cost band to the high-cost band.
In general, the high-cost band can be attributed to large-hydro manufacturers (Escher

Wyss, VA Tech) scaling their sophisticated equipment down for small hydro, whereas the
middle and low-cost bands tend to be companies whose major business is small hydro.
There are also European manufacturers specialising in micro hydro technology who have
developed simple and robust technologies which, combined with a more innovative and
flexible approach, have been able to bring down costs for small-scale schemes.
Figure 19 - Cost per kW of turbine units from European manufacturers
2500
2000
High cost
£/kW 1500
1000
Medium cost
500 Low cost
0
0 100 200
kW
TV Energy 57 of 139
MWH
5.1.4 Economic constraints
System sizing
The choice of design capacity (i.e. rated power) for a low-head installation is largely
dictated by economics. Although the investment cost per kW is generally lower for a
larger installation, the capacity factor will also be lower (capacity factor is the annual
output of the scheme as a percentage of its maximum possible output). A smaller scheme
will generate less energy (and income) but will allow the turbines to run flat out for more
of the time (high capacity factor) and so may lead to a quicker return on the investment.
Short financing timescales

It is well-proven that most small hydro schemes have a lifetime of more than 50 years if
correctly operated and maintained. However, it is often difficult to secure debt funding
with a payback of more than 7-10 years. There is currently a clear need for encouraging
a longer-term financing approach to small hydro projects, which takes proper account of
the long lifetimes of the technology.
5.1.5 Conclusions
1. The most important parameter in dictating costs is the available head. The higher
the head available, the lower the cost per kW of the scheme. This is the main
reason why low-head projects are so difficult to realise. Other aspects which can
greatly affect cost are:
• Distance to the grid and cost of the connection

• Access to site
• Screening requirements and means for disposing of the trash.
2. With the current value of renewable electricity in the UK, total scheme costs need
to be below £3000/kW to be worth considering, and below £2000/kW to appear
attractive. These figures are difficult to achieve when the head is below 3m or the
project size below 100kW.
5.2 Current energy trading issues and indicative prices
For grid connected options, electricity must be sold to a registered supplier according to a
negotiable contract or Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). This is the only way that a
small generator can trade electricity. The PPA does not necessarily have to be with the
local distributor and there is a very competitive sellers market at the moment. PPA’s are
typically available with prices fixed for up to five years. Longer term contracts are more
difficult to obtain at a good price, due to the unpredictability of the market as explained
below.
TV Energy 58 of 139
MWH
The value of the power cannot be confidently predicted because the electricity market has
undergone huge reforms over the past few years. Until recently, Non Fossil Fuel
Obligation (NFFO) contracts could be obtained, which guaranteed the generator an index
linked, fixed price per unit of electricity generated, for a period of 15 years. The new,
replacement market conditions should favour renewable energy resources, however,
small generators are likely to be disadvantaged when competing with large operators who
have both generation and supply businesses. Long-term predictions are 5-6p/unit but this
is difficult to assess accurately.
There are a number of brokers who will carry out the process of arranging the best
contract to meet the particular needs of the client and Unit(e) have recently announced a
tariff specifically directed at the sub 5kW renewables generation market.
What follows is a summary of the current market incentives that aim to promote
renewable energy and how these impact on low head hydropower schemes.
5.2.1 The Renewable Obligation
The Renewable obligation (RO) is the mechanism by which the Government is intending
to achieve its target of 10% renewable electricity (RE) supply by 2010. It is a
requirement on all licensed electricity suppliers in England and Wales to supply a
proportion of their electricity from RE generation. The obligation on each supplier will
rise from 3% in the first obligation period (2002/3), to 10.4% by the year ending 31st
March 2010. The RO will run until 2026 providing a market for renewable energy for
the next 23 years. The expected market for eligible renewables is expected to expand
three fold from the present level of 10TWh to 25TWh in 2010.
There will effectively be four products, each with its own value, related to renewable
energy generation:
• Electricity (actual kWh)

• Renewable Obligation Certificates
• Levy Exemption Certificates
• Recycle value (from split of ‘buy-out’ revenue).
The value associated with each of these component parts cannot be guaranteed, but the
following sections will provide an indication of the price range that could be expected,
and therefore the total overall value of RE generation.
5.2.2 Renewable Obligation Certificates
Each year, licensed electricity suppliers will be obliged to meet a certain volume of their
electricity from RE sources. This will be calculated as an appropriate percentage of their
own electricity sales volume. Compliance with this regulation will be monitored by
TV Energy 59 of 139
MWH
Ofgem using a system of tradable certificates known as Renewable Obligation

Certificates (ROCs). Each ROC represents 1MWh of generated electricity.
ROCs can be traded independently from the electricity generated. Effectively the RO de-
couples electricity generation from the green credit and each can be traded separately in
two different markets.
Suppliers of electricity have the following options in order to comply with the obligation:
• Contract RE generation in tandem with the ROC

• Buy ROCs separately from either RE generators, from other suppliers who have
excess ROCs or from traders who purely deal in the trading of ROCs
• Buy-out. This last option means that if the supplier fails to secure enough ROCs
to cover their Obligation, then they must ‘buy-out’ the remainder. The cost of this
will be set at around 3 pence per kWh generated (3p/unit) and is expected to rise
in line with the Retail Price Index each year. The buy out clause effectively sets a
ceiling on the price paid for RE generation. If RE generation is too expensive,
then the supplier will opt to ‘buy-out’ and this limits the cost of compliance to the
supplier and hence the cost to the consumer.
Funds raised from the buy-out option will be recycled to compliant suppliers in
proportion to the amount of ROCs they redeem. Within the generation industry there is
considerable support for the recycling of these funds as it effectively increases the value
of the ROC if the market is short, (i.e. short of available ROCs). By purchasing ROCs, a
supplier not only avoids paying the buy-out, but they also get a larger share of the re-
cycled buy out fund.
It should be noted, that if the market is short, i.e. insufficient RE capacity compared to
the given periods obligation, then the market value of ROCs will remain stable and quite
high – a sellers market. Similarly, the buy out fund could also be high because there is
insufficient affordable RE generation and so suppliers will choose to buy-out.
Conversely, if there is a significant increase in affordable RE capacity, then fewer
suppliers will choose to buy out and therefore the overall buy-out fund will reduce. This
means that there are fewer funds to redistribute to compliant suppliers, and therefore, not
only will the value of RE generation be reduced, but the value of the buy-out will also be
reduced. This demonstrates that market forces will determine the value of ROCs.
5.2.3 Climate Change Levy and Levy Exempt Certificates
The Climate Change Levy came into force on April 1st 2001. It imposes a tax of
0.43p/kWh on all electricity consumption in the public, commercial and industrial
sectors. It does not apply to domestic consumers. The levy is intended to incentivise
users into a more efficient use of energy as part of the government’s strategy to reduce
CO2 emissions, as well as to stimulate demand for RE.
TV Energy 60 of 139
MWH
Renewably generated electricity is exempt from this climate change tax and is therefore
eligible for Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs). The idea is that end users will request
renewable electricity to save paying the tax. What actually happens is that the supplier
will offer a proportion of the 0.43p/kWh saving to the end user, apportion some value for
themselves, with the remainder going to the generator. Hence RE generators don’t
realise the total value of the LEC. Current contracts reflect around 60-85% of the total
CCL value, or between 0.28 and 0.34p/kWh.
To summarise, the total price per unit of renewable electricity that might be expected is
listed in the table below.
Total Value Share to Generator

Available generator (%) revenue
(p/unit) (p/unit)
System supply price of electricity 1.5 100% 1.5
Renewables Obligation – Buy- 3.0 70 - 85% 2.1 - 2.55

Out Value
Renewables Obligation – Recycle Up to 2.0 0 - 80% 0 - 1.6
Value
Climate Change Levy 0.43 65 - 80% 0.28 - 0.34
Total 4.9 – 6.9 3.9 – 6.0
There are also variations in price due to the reliability of supply. For a scheme that can
reliably predict its output, a higher price will be available. For a scheme that is less
predictable, such as most RE schemes, a lower price would be available.
5.2.4 Recent Prices
The table below shows recent indicative prices and terms being offered by a number of
leading electricity suppliers during the autumn of 2002 for a ‘bundled package’
(electricity, ROC’s, CCL and recycle).
Purchaser Length of contract (yrs) Total (p/kWh)
Npower 10 4.83
Unit(e) 5 5.43
Ecotricity 3 (min.) 4.61
Scottish and Southern 3 (min.) 4.13
Scottish Power 5 3.20
TXU Energie 15 4.39
TV Energy 61 of 139
MWH
More recently, some traders have been offering contracts of 6.00p/kWh and above for 5
year periods.
5.3 Options for community groups/co-operatives
The information below is based on work undertaken by DULAS on behalf of ETSU and
can be viewed in more detail in, ‘Commercialisation of small hydro through community
participation’, Ruth Stevenson, 1999.
5.3.1 The Nature of a community hydro scheme
In some locations a community may come together to develop a site. This could be an
old mill owned by a community group, or it could be a group of like minded individuals,
keen to invest in renewable energy, that have identified a possible site (possibly owned
by an additional party, such as the EA). Developments of this type are going to involve a
certain amount of legal paperwork, but they do offer interesting, if time consuming
options for funding.
There currently appear to be two main options for community groups; a private company
limited by shares, or a co-operative. Each has the potential for good levels of return on
investment, they are flexible in that they may qualify for Enterprise Investment Scheme
(EIS) relief, as well as being able to be used as an investment club to obtain investors and
being relatively easy to form and administer. The former has been used by Windcluster
Ltd. and the latter by Baywind Energy Co-operative for community schemes involving
wind energy.
EIS is a mechanism through which the government is trying to encourage the start up of
small enterprises within the UK. It is important as it allows for income tax relief at 20%
on investments greater than £500. This will greatly improve rates of return for this type
of scheme.
The ability to form an investment club is important too. To offer shares to the public
would normally require the production of a very detailed prospectus which can cost as
much as 10% of the project capital required. ‘Investment Clubs’ however, are exempt
from this requirement under the Financial Services Act of 1986.
5.3.2 Financial structures
There are many ways in which the community can invest in a small renewable energy
project, irrespective of the legal structure that the Project Company eventually adopts.
Variables such as the amount of debt brought into the project, the number and type of
project partners, past experience, and suitability for EIS relief all play a part in forming
the financial structure.
TV Energy 62 of 139
MWH
The principle barrier to community led and owned renewable energy schemes has been
the fact that the financial risks in developing a project from the beginning are very high,
with large amounts of money being speculated on obtaining a power purchase contract
and planning consent. These financial risks increase into construction and
commissioning, with low risks present during the operation of the project.
A community group must be very focused and committed in order to see a project
through. As yet, there has not been a community willing to take these financial risks
directly on a hydro project in the UK and risk has been redirected at other stakeholders.
Below are four scenarios (see following diagrams as well) that aim to satisfy maximum
returns to investors, minimum set-up costs, attractiveness to banks or large utilities, have
a large degree of community acceptance and enthusiasm and most importantly, create the
probability of the project progressing effectively.
Co-Developers (Delayed Investment, Community without debt)

The community invests in shares in the project in which a financially stronger partner
(e.g. electricity company or bank) has financed the construction. It would be usual for
the partner to keep majority control of the project and thus, only 10-25% of the project
would be available to the community. However, a follow up option is for the developer
to sell the totality of the project to the community. The Partner Company takes the
financial risk, and thus enables the community to invest at low risk. This partner may
choose to bring debt into the project at the same time as the community investment and
hence increase the long term returns of the project.
This scenario is useful in circumstances where the community of investors are content
with minimal control of the project and possibly lower rate of return than the partner.
Co-Developers (Upfront Investment, Community without debt)

This is very similar to the above, with the main difference that the community invests
before construction of the project through a joint venture with a financially strong
partner. The community investors share the construction risks with the partner company.
As with the above, this is valid for those communities who not wish to have a majority
control over the project, but they are willing to take a greater risk to receive greater
rewards. This scenario is also more applicable to a more proactive community of
investors, to the point where the community are also the developers.
Community Developer (Upfront Investment, Community with Debt)

This scenario involves the community having sole ownership of the project. Typically,
the community investors would need to raise at least 20% of the equity, in order to
finance the rest through bank debt. There are no partners in the project, and hence most
of the risks fall upon the community. The community may also be the developer of the
project from its inception, or may use consultants to carry out all of the technical and
planning work. It should be stressed that this is potentially a financially risky venture.
TV Energy 63 of 139
MWH
Community Developer (Upfront Investment, Lease)

Similar to the above, with the difference being that instead of seeking debt through
project- finance or personal loans, the Project Company leases some or all of the hydro
plant from a financier or manufacturer. Given the breakdown of the costs involved in a
small hydro scheme, the hydro turbine may account for only 20% of the total, and hence
a leasing arrangement for this equipment will not offset the majority of capital that a
community will need to raise. There may be significant advantages however with respect
to operation and maintenance, as this may be carried out by the manufacturer under the
terms of the lease. The duration of the lease will typically be 7-10 years.
Figure 20 – Model of co-developers (upfront Investment, community without debt)
TV Energy 64 of 139
MWH
Figure 21 – Model of community development (upfront Investment, community with debt)
Figure 22 – Model of community development (upfront investment, with lease)
TV Energy 65 of 139
MWH
5.4 Funding sources
The main funding source for low head hydro schemes is the Government’s Clearskies
grant programme and more information is given below. Other than this, there are no
specific funding sources although funds may exist for mill restoration projects. The
March 2000, IEA Technical Report, ‘Financing Small-scale Hydropower Projects’,
Jenssen and Gjermundsen offers good general advice on this issue.
There are often other more general environment based grant programmes running and
these may fund a low head hydro scheme, although they are normally only aimed at
community type projects. Similarly, a number of the utilities have ‘green’ funds that may
also support projects of this nature. TV Energy keeps up to date on these programmes
and for more information, call 01635 817420 or visit the website www.tvenergy.org.
Finally, as mentioned in the previous section, it is possible to secure finance from the
banking sector and both Triodos Bank (www.triodos.co.uk) and the Cooperative Bank
(www.coop-bank.com) have expressed an interest in these types of schemes.
Clearskies
Clear Skies, funded by DTI and managed by BRE, aims to give householders and
communities a chance to realise the benefits of renewable energy by providing grants and
access to sources of advice. One of the technologies covered by this grant programme is
micro hydro. There are two grant streams:
• Household grants are set at £1000 per kW installed up to a maximum of £5000.

Systems must be a minimum size of 0.5kW. Installations larger than 5kW are
allowable but capacity above that level will not incur a grant.
• For community groups or more accurately, ‘not-for-profit’ organisations, grants

are available for which ever is the lower of 50% of installed cost or £100,000.
Community groups have also, until early 2004, been able to apply for feasibility funding
of 75% of costs for studies or £10,000, whichever is the lower, to help address key issues
such as technical viability, legal and planning issues, and access to finance. It is hoped
that this funding will become available again. Organisations wishing to carry out a
feasibility study had to use one of the consultants from the feasibility consultants register
held by BRE.
Funding is not available for refurbishment of old turbines, however, it may be available
for the remaining kit requirements, as long as this is new and approved technology and
indications are positive in this area.
More information on this grant programme is available on the web at www.clear-

skies.org or by phoning the BRE on 08702 430 930.
TV Energy 66 of 139
MWH
6 THE SOUTH EAST HYDRO RESOURCE

During the course of this study, the study team have visited in the region of 100 sites
within the South East. This has been slightly biased to the west of the region due to local
knowledge and the quality of information provided by various parties.
These sites have been logged and ten have been chosen to highlight the range of sites
available and the various issues associated with them. They are not necessarily the best
sites, but along with the UK and international case studies included in the next section,
they provide an insight into the advantages and problems associated with low head hydro
development in the South East.
6.1 Romney Weir, Windsor, Berkshire

Grid reference: OS Landranger series maps 175: SU968775
6.1.1 Scheme Overview

Innogy Hydro is proposing to install a 200 kW low head hydro scheme on the River
Thames at Romney Weir, Windsor. The installation will be the first of its kind in the
South of England. The electricity generated by the scheme will be exported to Windsor
Castle and will save approximately 600 tonnes of CO2 per year.
The scheme will incorporate one hydro turbine in each of the two weir bays on the
southern end of Romney Weir. The weir has 10 such bays as depicted in Figures 23 and
24. Following the construction of the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton Flood Relief
Scheme, Romney Weir has two redundant gates and its flood performance will be
unaffected by this development.
The scheme will be constructed using barges moored within the main river channel and
the construction period will be approximately 16 weeks. The majority of works will take
place within the existing apron of the weir structure with a small amount of land on
Romney Island required for the temporary storage of construction materials.
Figure 23 – Downstream of Romney Weir with two redundant gates to the left. The river was in
spate when this photo was taken and generation could not take place under these conditions.
TV Energy 67 of 139
MWH
6.1.2 Physical characteristics
Once operational, the plant will pass up to 14m³/s of water through the turbines and it is
estimated that this amount of water will be available on average for 65% of the year. The
turbines will be controlled automatically to ensure a minimum wetting flow of 2m³/s is
maintained over the weir and the turbines will shut down once water levels fall below the
minimum threshold to allow 100% of the flow to pass over the weir. The turbines will be
housed within an enclosure to ensure noise levels for nearby residents are well within the
required levels for this riverside environment.
The visual impact of the scheme will be minimised through careful consideration of the
materials and colours used to construct the enclosure over the turbine. The structure will
be adjacent to the bank of Romney Island but will be almost invisible from public
footpaths on Romney Island and the Windsor Bank. The scheme is only visible from the
flats on the Eton bank (100m distant) and the north half of Windsor Bridge (300m).
Figure 24 - Aerial view of scheme Figure 25 - Montage of developed scheme from Eton riverside
location
6.1.3 Key issues
Technical innovation
The proposed installation will use two propeller-type turbines mounted in a siphon
arrangement. This arrangement uses only the existing foundations of the weir so keeping
in-river works to a minimum. Identical turbines have been installed in France, but this
would be the first such system in the UK.
Site ownership and leasing

The EA owns the weir structure and the relevant land around the control hut at the
southern end. They also own the two spillways, tow-path and lock-keepers’ land. The
public are barred from getting onto the weir and will not be able to get close to the
TV Energy 68 of 139
MWH
turbines. A formal agreement has been drawn up committing the EA to lease the two
weir bays for a minimum period (at least 20 years) and defining the various technical and
financial obligations on each party.
This is a first for the EA within the Thames Region and has been carefully constructed to
act as a model should similar schemes need to lease run-of-river structures from the EA.
Fisheries issues
Considerable care has been put into the design of the scheme to minimise the impact on
fish in the river. Robust fisheries protection measures have been included in the scheme
design, in consultation with the EA. This has been a protracted process due to the
importance of the site and the lack of similar developments on the Thames from which
previous experience can be drawn. The final design has had to be precautionary and this
has led to delays in implementing the scheme, as well as adding significantly to the initial
development costs.
During the main construction phase, impacts will potentially occur to fish habitat due to
the dredging required for barge access and from the cofferdam/draft tube installation.
Parts of potential refuge areas (particularly in shallows) may be lost during the
construction period. These are important for juvenile fish and as a suitable habitat for
invertebrates that form the diet of many fish species. However, these impacts will be
temporary and relatively short lived as the barge navigation area will revert to the normal
river bed levels, as has happened when this area has been dredged in the past.
Sedimentation will occur and the habitat would recover relatively quickly.
During operation the direct impact of the scheme is largely the potential for fish,
particularly juveniles, to be drawn into the turbine intake. Upstream screening will be in
place to prevent this. The increased flow on the westerly side of the weir is likely to
attract migratory fish toward the fish pass and provided adequate screening is in place, it
is hoped that there will not be any deleterious effects.
Upstream screening will involve the installation upstream of the turbines of a bar screen
with 40mm spacing, which will prevent all adult fish and eels from entering the turbine.
In order to prevent the entry of salmon smolts, a 10mm bar screen will be added as a
minimum during the smolt season (approximately March-June). The design and timing
of this secondary screen will remain flexible to allow changes to be made following
results from scheme monitoring.
The flow approaching the screen will be below 0.5m³/s, which is within the escape speed
of a salmon smolt. The screen has been sized and angled to ensure that there is no
acceleration of the flow as the water approaches and passes through the screen. The
screen will be cleaned automatically by a hydraulic rake. This will ensure that higher
approach velocities are not created by partial blockage. Small juvenile fish such as
coarse fish fry will be able to pass through the screen and turbine. This type of slow-
rotating propeller turbine should ensure a very low mortality rate for small fish.
TV Energy 69 of 139
MWH
It was previously proposed to use the site for detailed monitoring of fisheries impacts and
it is expected that this opportunity will be available again.
6.1.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Large utility developer with Protracted planning process incurring additional
necessary resources to ‘see the costs and loss of momentum
scheme through’
Utilisation of large Thames resource No precedent for EA to work from, so caution
required over environmental impacts
Large scheme with new technology in Reduced positive economics due to need for
UK strong precaution with regard to fish based issues
Potential replicability elsewhere on
the Thames
* Outline planning permission for this scheme was given on 11th February 2004
6.2 Marlow Weir, Marlow, Buckinghamshire

6.2.1 Scheme overview

Located on the Berkshire/Buckinghamshire border, this site demonstrates physical
characteristics that are good in the context of the region and it encapsulates a number of
the key issues relating to the other weirs on the River Thames. It is also a site that is
often mentioned amongst interested parties when the options for hydro development
along the Thames are discussed.
Figure 26 – Marlow Weir
In the EA’s “A users guide to the River Thames”, a figure of 2.15m head height is given
for the lock and it is assumed that a similar head exists for the weir.
TV Energy 70 of 139
MWH
The EA have a gauging station at Reading, upstream from Marlow, and there are no
significant tributaries or distributaries between the two sites, so the following figures are
considered to be fairly accurate: Mean flow of 40.27 m3/s, Q95 of 5.38 m3/s and Q10 of
106 m3/s.
The design flow has been estimated at 12m³/s (67% exceedance) giving an installed
scheme potential of 177kW. This is a very approximate assumption and takes no account
of physical barriers to construction. This last point is important, as the only obvious
location for a turbine is on the main weir as a replacement to some of the sluice gates or
radials.
6.2.3 Key issues
Securing development
The site is in the hands of the EA. There are no policies in place to promote or to
actively develop low head hydro schemes on EA operated weir structures within the
South East. As mentioned above, it may be possible to lease part of the weir structure,
however, a developer would need to come through with an acceptable scheme to trigger
debate as to the suitability of this site.
The current Thames Weir Strategy involves the refurbishment and replacement of a
number of Thames weirs. Marlow weir is a second stage priority on the list of those
weirs requiring work. If a hydro scheme were to be considered for this weir (or any of
the Thames weirs) then the obvious time to do so would be when other engineering work
is taking place, but, as stressed above, it would require a developer to express an interest.
The EA are currently reviewing the Thames Weir Strategy and there is the possibility that
they may take a more proactive stance in the future. This would be a step forward as
hydropower was left off the list of issues for consultation with Thames stake holders
when the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was undertaken for the original
strategy. An expert in the SEA field has suggested that given the strategic nature of the
task and the assets owned, that this was an opportunity that would not normally have
been ignored.
This particular issue is wider than this focus on Marlow Weir and is discussed further in
Section 8.2.3.
Environmental concerns
If a scheme is to go ahead at the site, impact on the fish population would be a major
concern and it has to be assumed that based on current legislation, EA requirements
would mirror those downstream at Romney Weir. However, it is important not to view
the two, and potentially other, sites in isolation. Whilst one site may have mitigation
measures that are acceptable and pose no threat to the environment, a series of sites may
be too much for the environment to bear and attention would need to be given to potential
cumulative impacts.
TV Energy 71 of 139
MWH
Noise and visual impacts are considered to be negligible at this site, particularly as the
noise of the weir would compensate for any additional turbine acoustics.
6.2.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Potentially good resource due to flow and Concerns over flood defence
head – subject to EA authorisation
Proximity to several sites with reasonable Concerns over impact on fish population
power requirements
Similar engineering requirements to Romney
Weir, so precedent may soon exist
6.3 Allington Lock, Maidstone, Kent

Grid reference: OS Landranger series map 188: TQ748582
The site is located on the River Medway, 4 km downstream from the centre of
Maidstone, close to the M20. The structure is a set of three large sluice gates that form
the limit of the tidal portion of the River Medway. A large twin set of navigation locks
passes around the left side of the sluice gates. An old mill lade passes round the right
side of the sluices and may be a suitable location for a turbine.
Figure 27 - The sluice gates at Allington Figure 28 - Close up of the gates
From a visual inspection of the site the gross head was estimated as up to 3m depending
on the state of the tide.
TV Energy 72 of 139
MWH
Figure 29 – Allington site schematic

The EA have a gauging station at Teston
Navigation Loc ks
approximately 10 km upstream of the site and this
provided the following flow data: Mean flow, 11.2
Tidal river m3s-1, low flow (Q95), 1.53 m3s-1 and high flow,
Museum
(Q10) of 25.04 m3s-1.
Floodgates Using the flow that is exceeded 67% of the time as

a guide to the flow over the weir, the estimated
design flow is 3.3 m³s-1. With a system efficiency
of 70% the installed power capacity is rated at 68
River Medway
kW. This output would be reduced if the estimate
of head or flow is too high and the quote of 68kW
installed capacity is only indicative.
A turbine could possibly be installed to the right of the existing structure where there is
an old mill lade. This channel discharges through the retaining wall immediately
downstream of the sluices. The scheme would be well screened by vegetation.
6.3.3 Key features
Land ownership
Ownership of the weir is unclear, but is thought to be with either the EA or British
Waterways. Ownership of the surrounding land is unknown. Access to the site is good
as the site is served by a road connection.
Funding
The lock and sluice gates are located close to a large public house, motel and the
Museum of Kent Life. Any of these establishments could become interested in
developing this site as a source of local, renewable electricity, but whether this has ever
been considered is unknown. Additionally, the EA could find a use for the electricity to
power the floodgate and navigation lock.
Securing grant funding for commercial organisations is difficult, however, certain

financial institutions are aware of the issues involved in developing a hydro scheme and
offer competitive rates and are amenable to such projects.
Alternatively, a local community group, or the museum as a ‘not-for-profit’ organisation

could potentially access a Clearskies grant for a proportion of the required funding. The
local authority or Kent County Council might be able to assist in this scenario, as has
happened elsewhere.
Other issues
The environmental/ecological sensitivity of the site is currently unknown and the advice
of the EA would need to be sought with regards to impacts and mitigation for fish and
other species. Acoustics would not be expected to pose a problem at the site as the
TV Energy 73 of 139
MWH
nearest buildings are sufficiently far away. Likewise, existing vegetation should screen
any visual intrusion.
It is not clear how the interface between the tidal and non-tidal elements of the River
Medway would affect the scheme, but at the least, there could be issues for the level of
head available at certain times of the day.
6.3.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Reasonable resource available Funding required
Space to locate turbine Requirement for detailed feasibility study to
assess environmental and river control issues
Potential for excellent exemplar project
6.4 Grove Mill, Grove, Oxfordshire

Grid reference: OS Landranger series maps 175:SU895399
Situated on the southern edge of Grove, approximately 2km north of Wantage, the 16th
century mill is now part of a recently refurbished residence and is not listed. The
prospect is sited on Letcombe Brook and was originally a flour mill. In the early 20th
century, the mill was a livestock food factory and an Armfield ‘river’ patent turbine was
installed in 1939 to generate electricity for the business, but was disconnected in the
1960’s when the factory closed. The owners are keen to see the mill produce power
again and to resurrect the existing, original turbine.
The proposed scheme would be 3.1kW in size, with annual generation in the region of
10MWh depending on the amount of flow directed through the turbine.
Figure 30 - Grove Mill from the front
TV Energy 74 of 139
MWH
The head was surveyed as 1.44m during a site visit conducted by DULAS Hydro in June
2003. Mean flow at the mill was estimated at being 0.09m³/s. Upstream gauging station
information for Letcombe Bassett gives Q95 as 0.008m3/s and Q50 as 0.05m3/s.
The current turbine, which is a slightly modified open flume, vertical axis Francis
machine is considered to be in a good condition, although it is suggested that it’s
performance, due to wear, may be less than that stated in the manufacturers details. The
scheme would involve reactivating this turbine, as opposed to removing it and replacing
it with a ‘state of the art’ machine.
The turbine housing is an integral part of the mill building and its refurbishment will only
improve the visual appearance of this part of the property.
The turbine, being submerged, will not generate significant noise. The generator and
gearing will generate noise on a level similar to that of a washing machine on a spin
cycle. This can be reduced by careful mounting design of the generator and gearing
mechanism, although further acoustic insulation of the turbine room may be required.
6.4.3 Key issues
Flooding
For the existing turbine to receive its rated flow of 410 l/s, the approximate depth of
water over the turbine sill would have to be 365mm. The height differences between the
turbine sill and the three neighbouring property patios (see below) are 210mm, 180mm
and 250mm. Thus, operating at full flow, all three patios could flood and this is clearly
unacceptable. It is estimated that only 100 l/s (a height of approximately 150mm) can be
safely taken over the turbine sill without flooding the upstream patios.
Potential solutions to this problem would be to lower the height of the existing turbine
sill, or, more expensively, the turbine weir arrangement could be altered to make the weir
longer, thus reducing the water height required over the weir. This second option would
also serve the purpose of increasing the intake screen area which is important at this site.
Having said this, flooding would only occur periodically and it is possible that there is no
legal recourse for the patio owners to oppose the scheme, as the patios were built some
time after the mill and the traditional course of the river would be above their current
location. Nevertheless, a solution to the issue is preferable.
TV Energy 75 of 139
MWH
Figure 31 - Upstream from Grove Mill
Generation and connection

It is envisaged that the system would be connected to the national grid, to maximise
economic potential. As part of this process, it would simplify the generator requirements
if the mill power supply were upgraded from the current two phase connection to three
phase grid connection, although as turbine output would exceed 16A per phase it would
be perfectly feasible to connect a single phase generator with the approval of the district
network operator.
The system must also meet the appropriate standards for network disconnection in fault
conditions. It is anticipated that this scheme would come under the G59 regulation.
However, whilst the new G83 regulation that has come into force in 2003 has a nominal
limit of 16A per phase, the enforcement of this appears to be subject to the discretion of
the network operator.
Approximately 40% - 50% of the costs for this scheme would be absorbed by the
generator and satisfying the electricity connection requirements. There are no short cuts
here and ‘kit’ costs are pretty standard. This will always challenge the economic viability
of small schemes such as this.
Fish
The current physical characteristics of the site already present a significant barrier to the
upstream migration of fish due to the sluice gate height and the significant velocities in
the bypass channel. It may be possible to build steps into the bypass channel to help fish
migration and the EA actively encourage this solution. This would require a low
compensation flow in order to keep the water velocities within limits, which would be
advantageous as regards the abstraction regime.
For downstream migration, an intake screen with a spacing of 10mm, installed diagonally
upstream of the building in an effort to guide fish to the bypass has been recommended
by the EA.
TV Energy 76 of 139
MWH
The key issue however, is the division of water flowing through the turbine as opposed to
the bypass channel and this will have a major impact on the economic viability of the
scheme. This appears to be largely dictated by concerns over the resident fish population
and desires to have as much water as possible unimpeded by the turbine. In reviewing
the economics of the scheme, DULAS Hydro have proposed two options based on Q95
compensation flow (allowing 25l/s flow down the bypass channel) and Q95 + 25%, but it
is unknown at this juncture if this would be acceptable to the EA, who initially were
suggesting a significantly lower figure.
Planning and licensing

The location of the turbine within the boundaries of the building renders the requirement
for an Abstraction Licence as unlikely in the eyes of the local EA licensing officer.
However, Land Drainage Consent would need to be applied for. Planning is not an issue
as the building, unusually for a mill, is not listed.
Refurbishment versus replacement

As pointed out under generation and connection, simply having an old turbine to
refurbish is only part of a scheme and does not mean that a proposed refurbishment will
be economic for not having to buy a new turbine.
However, where an old turbine is in place, the economics relating solely to the turbine
may mean that it is worth accepting lower generation efficiencies against the added cost
of removal and disposal of the old turbine and purchase and installation of a newer
model.
Additionally, not all developers are motivated purely from a financial point of view and
mill owners often have a desire to see what was once an integral part of the mill operating
again to produce power.
Scheme economics
Countering the issues of upstream flooding, installing an adequate upstream screening
mechanism and fitting the required generating technology make this scheme expensive.
Without any grant assistance, payback would be in the region of 35 years.
6.4.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Homeowner prepared to invest in High costs of equipment
renewable energy
Resurrection of old turbine and power Issues of flooding
source
Potentially reduced economic benefit due
to river flow concerns
TV Energy 77 of 139
MWH
6.5 Sonning Mill, Sonning, Berkshire

Situated on the River Thames between Reading and Henley, the mill is home to a
nationally renowned restaurant and theatre company. Milling has taken place on the site
for centuries and is first mentioned in the Doomsday Book of 1086. A wheel and the
original water flow structures are still in place, however, the owners would like to
maximise their resource with the installation of a turbine. The aim is to demonstrate
‘green’ credentials, but also to offset electricity use and ultimately to generate an
alternative source of income.
Figure 32 – Sonning Mill from front and back
The head was surveyed as being typically 1.5m during a site visit conducted by Derwent
Hydropower in late spring 2001.
Flow in the Thames adjacent to the mill, according to local records, is estimated at being
around 50m³/s. Additional estimation for this part of the Thames gives a Q95 of 10m3/s.
Having said this, only a portion of this water flows through the mill structure and it
estimated that the potential flow available for generation is 2.35m3/s.
Flows for the site are considered to be strong year round. The main issue is the loss of
head as flow increases, which can be a significant factor for low head hydro sites. It has
been assumed that this will be fine for eight months of the year, reduced for three and be
redundant for one.
TV Energy 78 of 139
MWH
With the head and flow characteristics mentioned above and a scheme efficiency of 67%,
it is suggested that this site could host an 18.5kW installation, generating 162,000kWh
per annum.
6.5.3 Key Issues
Planning and licensing

The mill is listed and a Listed Building Consent has been granted by the local authority
(South Oxfordshire District Council) for the installation of a siphonic water turbine.
Additionally, the EA have issued a ‘consent to works’ for the installation of a turbine
within the existing mill race and this indicates that they are happy that the scheme will
have no undue effects on river shape, flow, flooding and environmental issues.
The location of the turbine within the ancient boundaries of the building and the
relatively small flow required suggest to the developer that neither an Abstraction
Licence or an Impoundment Licence will be necessary, however, this question has not yet
been put to the EA, who for this region have stated in general terms that all siphonic
turbine installations would require an Abstraction Licence.
Despite this one outstanding area of uncertainty, both planning and licensing issues have
proven to be quick and efficient, which is often unusual for schemes of this nature. This
may be down to individuals within the local authority and EA having a firm grasp of the
issues, although it could be due to the un-contentious nature of the scheme as only a low
flow is being diverted from the main river and the fact that installation of the turbine is
simply restoring an original function of the mill.
Funding
As mentioned earlier, the mill is home to a ‘dinner theatre’. The company that own and
manage the site and business are classed as a ‘Small to Medium Sized Enterprise’ or
SME. As such they exist to make a profit, but are not a large organisation. This status
creates a problem when seeking to access the various funding streams available to small
scale renewable energy in general and low head hydro in particular.
The main source of funding for low head hydro schemes of this nature comes from the
Governments ‘Clearskies’ Initiative (see section 5.4). This provides funding for micro
hydro schemes to householders and ‘not-for-profit’ organisations. It does not provide
funding to the SME sector as this would contravene EU state funding rules.
To undertake a project of this nature is to take an economic risk. If funding is available,

then the risk is reduced. Individual homeowners and ‘not-for-profit’ organisations are
often as likely to act out of altruism and the desire to be ‘green’, as they are to act purely
economically. However, for an SME, with no experience or expertise in micro hydro,
whose core business is completely different, stepping into this unknown area is a major
commitment of scarce financial resources and equally importantly, time.
TV Energy 79 of 139
MWH
A mill is site specific. It can not be taken down and moved elsewhere, unlike a wind
turbine, or a solar thermal system. They are located historically where water power is a
strong resource that is easy to harness. Thus, to see micro hydro reach its true potential, a
failure to facilitate and encourage the uptake of this technology in the SME sector is
short-sighted, as a reasonable percentage of mills host small businesses that are unlikely
to get involved unless it is made more attractive and easy for them and they can see
others in a similar situation who have benefited from the experience.
This is the case with Sonning Mill, where the only thing that stands between them and an
installation is the finance. This issue needs to be solved by the autumn of 2004, as the
various consents will lapse at that time. This whole funding issue in this case is
unfortunate considering all other hurdles have been cleared with the minimum of fuss*.
The turbine
Most turbines are bespoke installations and it does not follow that just because a mill
previously had a generation capacity, that it will be easy and straight forward to replicate
this scenario.
In the case of Sonning Mill the turbine will be located in the wheel pit which is an
unusual shape. Not only will this make installation slightly more complicated, it may
also reduce water flows, leading to a small decline in efficiency of about 5%.
Visual and noise impacts

The turbine will be located in the wheel pit and will not be visible to the public or the
owners. This probably accounts for the lack of problems in gaining planning consent.
Noise has been raised an issue due to the current usage of the mill. Whilst no noise
figures have been produced the hydropower consultant is confident that by selecting the
best transmission system and by the use of cushioned mountings the resultant noise will
be comparable to or less than the water now makes.
Trash and debris

The existing screening would need to be replaced to the satisfaction of the EA. A
spacing of 30mm between the bars would be sufficient for this type of turbine, with a
minimum area in the water of 10m² (more if the spacing needs to be reduced).
As propeller turbines are known to suffer from a build up of small debris on the guide
and runner blades, it may be necessary to automatically stop and start the machine on a
daily basis in order to maximise the output. This is an important issue that needs to be
borne in mind for schemes of this nature. Somebody will need to be delegated to
undertake this work from within the host organisation.
TV Energy 80 of 139
MWH
6.5.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Quick turnaround of planning and licensing Possible requirement for an Abstraction
consents Licence
Strong support from external organisations Lack of financial support for renewable
energy within the SME sector
When installed, an excellent example to Loss of head at times of increased flow
other mill based SMEs
* During the course of this work The Daily Mail, Oxfordshire County Council, and South Oxfordshire
District Council have come forward to provide a portion of the funding for this installation and the project
should now be able to proceed.
6.6 Osney Mill and Weir, Oxford, Oxfordshire

Grid reference: OS Landranger series maps 164: SP503058
Osney Island is a small community of approximately 280 households in the middle of

Oxford. The island is surrounded by the River Thames and associated drainage channels
and is only accessible from a single bridge. The weir is located to the south of the island,
where the EA also has a large depot.
In 2002, members of the community formed the Osney Sustainable Island Group (OSIG)
with the aim of making the island a more sustainable place to live and work. The group
have a particular interest in developing the energy efficiency and renewable energy
potential of their locale.
The mill is located on the west bank of the Thames, opposite the island. It is currently
derelict and privately owned, possibly with plans for redevelopment.
Figure 33 - Osney Weir, with derelict mill in the background
TV Energy 81 of 139
MWH
Preliminary studies of the site have been carried out by a University of Reading
Postgraduate student, Ian Billings, as part of his dissertation (under TV Energy technical
guidance) and by Derwent Hydropower.
The proposed site for hydro development is not actually on the weir, but to the east,
adjacent to a set of buck gates located on a side channel which diverges from the main
stream to the lock and weir. This would allow the scheme to be isolated from the weir,
although the size of scheme is limited by an access road running close to the site.
The size of the channel indicates a maximum realistic flow rate of 4m³/s. The gross head
from the Head Duration Curve calculated by Billings is 1.5m in conditions where the
design flow is available. Allowing for a turbine efficiency and generation efficiencies of
85%, an installed scheme of around 42kW is possible. This could generate in the region
of 225-250,000kWh/yr.
The mill, whilst derelict, still has all its channels in place and is believed to still contain a
turbine, although its condition is unknown. The power house is attached to the side of the
main building, but is not integral to it. Rough initial estimates suggest it could host a
20kW scheme.
Figure 34 - The buck gates, Osney Island, Oxford
6.6.3 Key issues
EA co-operation
The location of the proposed scheme is currently owned by the EA. The hope of OSIG
would be to either lease the land required, or enter into some form of partnership with the
EA. The former is most likely and is not unprecedented.
TV Energy 82 of 139
MWH
There may be an additional opportunity for co-operation as the buck gates at the site are
due for renovation and combining the civil works required could work well for both
parties. However, the timescale for this activity is unknown.
Thirdly, the EA depot adjacent to the proposed scheme has a large electrical load and it
could be beneficial to both parties to examine the EA purchasing the power produced.
Discussions are ongoing on this issue, but clearly EA co-operation is essential for any
scheme to proceed.
Community involvement
From the outset, this project has been driven by the local community. OSIG are fortunate
in that there are a number of individuals within their group who have strong experience
and knowledge regarding renewable energy. The community action on renewables has
also been supported through the TV Energy Community Grant awards scheme (also
partly supported by the EA).
The motives behind this scheme are dominated not by the economic arguments and the
desire to make money, but by environmental concerns and genuine commitment to
locally generated ‘green’ energy. It is hoped that these aspirations will also be adopted
by the EA in this instance and that they will see themselves as part of the Osney Island
community.
Information on the proposed scheme has been communicated to all residents of the island
through a number of means and attitudes have been gauged through a more general
energy survey of all the island households. It is proposed to involve the community
throughout the development of the scheme.
Financing and ownership

For the scheme to progress, funding in excess of £100,000 (even after a Clearskies grant,
if successful) will be required. It is hoped to raise as much of this capital from within the
community and this would be structured along the lines of either a private company
limited by shares or a cooperative. Additional funding could be sought in the form of
bank loans and additional grants.
Setting up the legal structure of the scheme will probably involve outside expertise and
this will add costs to the project. The other key question for discussion is if the necessary
capital cannot be raised solely within the island community, should the offer to
participate be expanded to the rest of Oxford and then into the county?
The above may be necessary, or even desirable, and could possibly lead to
oversubscription. It is at this point that the issue of Osney Mill comes into the equation.
Although not part of the island, it could potentially be developed as a hydro site without
prejudice to additional future development of the mill site as a whole. As it is within
close proximity to the island, the original scheme may wish to approach the owners for a
TV Energy 83 of 139
MWH
lease and develop this location as well. Alternatively, if physical, financial or political
issues delay or prohibit development of the original scheme location, the mill offers a
fallback location.
Planning
Gaining planning permission will be an issue for this site, however, the main point here
relates to Osney Mill, which is currently derelict, but may be redeveloped in the future.
The local authority planning department have been made aware that the mill has a
potential to host power production and that it is a site of importance with regards to
Oxford’s industrial archaeology. Too often tail races and leats are filled in when mills
are redeveloped, thus making sites extinct for any future hydro projects (this happened
downstream at Sandford Mill, one of the best sites for hydro generation on the Thames).
It is important that the planning authority use their powers to keep the option for future
power production open, unless it can be proven that such a scheme would either be
uneconomic, or would be harmful to the environment.
Hydrology
As the Thames passes through Oxford, it splits into and is fed by a complex variety of
streams and channels. This makes any attempt to predict flows at the development site
difficult.
What is clear at Osney is that the various side channels around the site take preference in
low flow conditions, hence flows at the point of turbine installation can drop to almost
zero in the summer. The upshot of this is that it may prove sensible to install two sizes of
turbine to enable the smaller one to capture the low summer flows.
Noise, visual intrusion and fish

The site is close to a number of dwellings which may object to the possible noise
implications of a symphonic turbine. An alternative that would solve this issue and
remove any additional problems of visual intrusion would be to install a pair of
submerged turbines such as those available from Waterpumps Oy of Finland.
This would also allow for a long-shallow screen to be placed over the turbines and create
a constant overspill over the top of the screen allowing fish to be washed over the top into
the weir pool. Whether this would be satisfactory to the EA would need to be confirmed.
6.6.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Strong community drive and support Overall expense of the scheme
Innovative approach to development that Complex legalities
offers replication opportunities elsewhere
Complex hydrology of location
TV Energy 84 of 139
MWH
6.7 Guildford Mill, Guildford, Surrey

Figure 35 – Guildford Mill with turbine house to right
Guildford Mill, situated on the River Wey was historically a corn mill and the current
Grade I listed building dates from 1770. The decline in corn-grinding saw the building
pass to the Guildford Corporation who converted it into a waterworks. Two early
turbines were installed in 1897 to operate water pumps, and these were replaced in 1930
with a Francis turbine from Gilbert, Gilkes and Gordon, one of hundreds installed around
the UK in the early part of the 20th century. This operated satisfactorily until 1952, when
electric pumps were installed alongside the turbine house. The water turbine fell into
disuse, finally being removed off-site in 1990 to allow flood water to pass through the
turbine pit. The turbine is now on display at Dapdune Wharf in Guildford.
The site is still owned by the local authority, Guildford Borough Council, and is deemed
to have excellent potential for the restoration of hydro generation and is ideally located
for providing educational and public awareness benefits to the wider community. With
this in mind, a feasibility study into the reinstatement of a water turbine in the turbine
house adjacent to Guildford Mill has been completed by IT Power Ltd, with inputs from
Derwent Hydroelectric Power Ltd and Cooper and Withycombe Structural Engineers of
Guildford.
The available fall at the site was measured during the site survey as 1.90m (when the
prevailing flow was 3.0m3/s) however, due to various losses that will occur when running
the turbine, the recommended design head for the scheme is 1.70m.
High flow events sufficient to cause major head loss are relatively rare on the Wey, and
should not have a critical effect on the energy output of the scheme. Of greater
TV Energy 85 of 139
MWH
importance is the extent of low flow periods and whether these will worsen with climate
change and increased abstraction.
The key flow figures for the site are; Qmean 5.66m3/s, Q95 2.24m3/s, Q50 4.28m3/s and
Q10 9.65m3/s. These show that the Wey does not experience major fluctuations in flow
(Q10 being less than five times Q95) and sustains a reasonable flow even in dry months.
With this and other issues in mind, it has been suggested that a scheme of 35kWe output
should be undertaken, generating at least 260,000 kWh per year of electricity to feed into
the local electricity distribution network, which is equal to the energy requirements of 50
typical households.
6.7.3 Key Issues
Old versus new turbines

Guildford Mill is unusual in that there turned out to be three options with regard to
turbine choice, namely, refurbishment of the original turbine, installation of a new
turbine, or replacement of the original turbine with a similar, second hand model.
A new turbine would generate more power, but would have been more expensive for
little additional gain. Also, the structural survey of the turbine house revealed corrosion
to the underside of the steel beams supporting the floor above the turbine pit. This means
that their load bearing capacity is reduced and in the longer term could lead to collapse of
the floor. This is an issue that would need to be addressed if a new turbine were installed
and would add significantly to costs. Additionally, the EA (as detailed below) preferred
to see the original type of turbine installed.
Consequently, the decision swings on the quality of the original turbine against the
second hand option, which had been located in Ireland. It became clear that restoration
of the original would not be as cost effective as importing and installing the second hand
turbine and this is the current preferred option.
Figure 36 - The original turbine Figure 37 - The second hand turbine
TV Energy 86 of 139
MWH
Public consultation and council involvement

As owners of the building, Guildford Borough Council are keen to see it return to its
former use and this reflects the positive attitude of the local authority toward
environmental issues and renewable energy in general. They have recognised and
grasped issues surrounding energy provision in the UK today and have proactively sought
to secure a local supply of ‘green’ electricity, one, that in this case could have a payback
of approximately eight years or less, depending on level of Clearskies funding available.
Interestingly and given the public visibility of the site, they have chosen to undertake a
thorough public consultation. Not only does this inform the public of what is happening
and allow them a chance to comment, it is also heightens awareness of this technology in
general and renewable energy in particular. Comments on the scheme have been very
favourable which can only benefit the image of the council in the eyes of the public.
Local authorities are in a position to be more proactive in this field as they hold
information on listed buildings under which mills frequently fall and can often act as
catalysts and financiers for development.
Flood Defence
Discussions with the EA confirmed that flooding is an ongoing concern in Guildford and
further flood alleviation measures are being considered in the light of the flooding of
November 2000. The turbine pit and draft tube are currently being utilised as an
emergency flow passage during flood conditions and the concern is that loss of this
facility would need to be compensated for elsewhere and may well be a condition of the
licensing application.
This point is considered debatable since the upstream sluice operator reported that
opening the turbine sluices in reality made little difference as the trashrack would
immediately block solid with debris, allowing almost no flow to pass through. The
sluices were opened purely to avoid public complaints that ‘a sluice was closed’ with the
river in flood. Nevertheless, the sluice operator suggested that the replacement of the two
sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house with a single sluice would more than
compensate for the small flows taken through the turbine pit. Replacement of these
sluices with an automated drop-down gate would in fact have a number of advantages, as
follows:
• Increased flood capacity

• Fine level control (replacing the manual removal of stop logs at these sluices)
• Unimpeded discharge of trash downstream
• Attractive bywash for fish deterred by the screen
• Easier operation for the sluice operator.
A new sluice gate would significantly add to the costs of the scheme as a whole, but the
EA may be able to collaborate in the work and the end result would be a flood defence
asset for the Council with wider benefits.
TV Energy 87 of 139
MWH
This highlights the importance of local knowledge of river conditions, as well showing
that a well designed hydro scheme can actually help alleviate flood conditions. This
latter point is important and has major ramifications for hydro development on other
regional rivers.
Fisheries
The biggest current concern is the eel population, which is in decline. An eel pass was
installed at Stoke Mill downstream and the EA would be very keen to see the installation
of an eel pass at Millmead as part of this project. A key requirement would be to ensure
that the turbine screen was sufficient to exclude adult eels migrating downstream.
From the general fisheries perspective, the slow-running Gilkes turbine is a preferred
option due to its long track record of hundreds of installations operating for many
decades in UK rivers without seriously impacting on fish populations, although no firm
evidence has ever been produced to support this assertion.
Inclusion of features that improve the quality of fisheries can help when approaching the
EA over permissions for a scheme. This point is interesting and highlights that the EA
are happy with what they know, based on solid experience. This only adds weight to the
need for more quality research into the impacts of the various products, screens and
turbines, whose impacts have not been fully evaluated, in an attempt to improve levels of
acceptance for hydro schemes.
Screening
Screening has already been mentioned as an issue with regards to flooding and the
current situation sees large quantities of trash being collected which has to be removed
manually by raking it up on to the concrete platform before pushing it sideways over the
adjacent spillway.
A further problem at the site is caused by the road bridge immediately in front of the
turbine intake. Pipes running under the bridge below water line cause debris to
accumulate here leading to severe blockages of the flow. The only solution to this is to
trap the debris earlier on along the mill cut.
TV Energy 88 of 139
MWH
Figure 38 - Existing trash screen and blockage caused by the bridge
Although the scheme could be brought into operation with the existing screen in place it
has been recommended that a new screen and automatic cleaner be procured for the site.
The current bar-spacing of 22mm is unnecessarily fine for both the original turbine and a
replacement propeller turbine and could sensibly be increased to 35-40mm for a new
screen. There are two main restrictions which will limit the choice of cleaning device:
• Space is severely restricted by the presence of the road bridge, turbine house and
mill building around the intake
• The visual impact needs to be minimised at the site.
However, the location of the sluices adjacent to the turbine house offers a convenient
route for disposing of the trash downstream.
There are two main options which would suit these restrictions: a rake-and-chain or a
sideways scraper. The disadvantage of both these designs is that unlike the more
common robotic rakes, part of the mechanism remains permanently underwater, hence is
difficult to access if a problem arises. Since a robotic rake (c below) is unlikely to be
acceptable at this site on grounds of visual intrusion, the two options proposed above
offer the next best workable solution. Which ever is chosen, it will seriously impact on
the cost of the scheme, taking as much as 25% of the budget. This is not an unusual
problem for micro-hydro schemes.
TV Energy 89 of 139
MWH
(a) Rake and chain (c) Robotic arm
(b) Sideways scraper
Figure 39 - Screen cleaning options
6.7.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Demonstrates a good economic return Expense of trash rack technology
Proactive local authority and ‘seat’ of
regional governance for the SE
Strong public support and awareness
EA happy with fisheries issues
Potential to demonstrate positive
contribution with regards to flood control
TV Energy 90 of 139
MWH
6.8 Whitchurch Silk Mill, Whitchurch, Hampshire

Figure 40 - Whitchurch Silk Mill
Milling of various forms goes back many centuries at this location, and the mill site is
recorded in the Doomsday Book. The current Silk Mill was established in 1830, with the
waterwheel acting as the primary source of power up until 1957. In 1985, with the Mill
losing money, it passed into the hands of the Hampshire Buildings Preservation Trust
(HBPT) and continues to operate as a going concern, supplementing its income as a
museum and tourist attraction. All production continues along traditional means and the
wheel is back in working order.
On commencing this general study it was decided to investigate the possibility of a low
head hydropower scheme on this site and this has been supported by the Whitchurch Silk
Mill Trust (WSMT) who see it as another ‘string’ to the mill’s ‘bow’, as well as an
opportunity to generate ‘green’ electricity. Hampshire County Council is also supporting
the scheme and is keen to see other mills take up the opportunity to generate power. An
initial study into the options for the site was undertaken by IT Power through TV Energy
(Community Grant scheme) and Clearskies feasibility funding has been granted to take
this a stage further and produce a plan for an actual scheme.
The gross head of 0.6m is very low for developing a hydropower project. It may be
possible to increase the head to 0.75m by raising the upstream water level to its
maximum safe level through regulating sluice gates at the Mill and Mill pond.
The mean flow at the nearest gauging station (Chilbolton) is 5.5m3/s and because the Test
has a strong spring-fed component, the minimum flow in the river is maintained at a high
level with Q95 recorded as 2.9m3/s.
TV Energy 91 of 139
MWH
Two sites were examined; one alongside the main water wheel and a second adjacent to
the main sluices in the mill pond. The latter is the better of the two as it allows for a
larger, more economic scheme and allows for significantly easier access.
Technically, it is felt that the site can comfortably host a scheme in the region of 5kW-
10kW producing between 40,000 and 70,000kWh of electricity. The Silk Mill currently
uses around 55,000kWh per annum.
6.8.3 Key issues
Environmental/Ecological issues
The most important issue under this heading is that of fish. The Test has important
fisheries, particularly for brown trout, and these need adequate protection. An
appropriate screening system at the turbine intake will need careful negotiation with the
regional EA fisheries team.
The location is also within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and English Nature
will need to be consulted over any particular ecological concerns arising, especially those
that relate to chalk bed rivers of which the Test is one.
Visual impact
The Mill is a Grade I listed building and any development must take this into account.
This is important as the turbine and associated kit will need to be housed in a powerhouse
to reduce noise levels and provide security to both the equipment and the general public.
The powerhouse will need to be sensibly and sensitively designed so as not to stand out
in the local surroundings.
Land ownership
Some river areas remain under the direct management of HBPT and are not leased to the
WSMT. Additionally, approximately half of the river below the mill pond is owned by a
third party. This should not be a problem, but is an important issue, as this is not an
unusual situation on mill sites and will require consultation with parties external to any
scheme.
6.8.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
High and consistent minimum flow Low head
High public profile and educational value Scheme unattractive without grant support
On site electricity use Complex environmental issues
TV Energy 92 of 139
MWH
6.9 Headley Mill, Lindford, Hampshire

Grid reference: OS Landranger series maps 185 : SU811356
Situated on the River Wey, near Headley, Hampshire, the mill is still used for flour
production which is sold in the local shop. An undershot waterwheel with flat paddles is
still in place and whilst it is a fairly inefficient design, the mechanism inside is in good
condition and has been reconditioned recently. There is also an old generator in place,
which has not been used for many years. The power rating is thought to be 1-2kW.
The mill building is divided into the mill itself, a dwelling and an office for a livestock
feed business which is the main business of the site owner. The owner stated that the
generator had been put in by his father and was used to power a few lights. No thought
had been given to the possibility of increasing the mill’s generation capacity, although in
discussion with the owner, he indicated that it was something he could be interested in
pursuing further.
Figure 41 – Headley Mill downstream pool Figure 42 - Headley Mill from front
The head was estimated to be in the region of 1.5m, although the owner felt it may
actually be slightly higher. A design flow rate has been estimated as 1m³/s. So,
assuming an overall system efficiency of 70%, it is likely that a 10kW system could be
installed at this site. It must be stressed that this is very much an estimate and a more
detailed feasibility study would be required.
When looking at the actual physical layout of the site, there appear to be a number of
channels running under the mill building and these would need to be investigated more
thoroughly before deciding where to locate a turbine and to examine the inherent physical
constraints.
TV Energy 93 of 139
MWH
As shown in Figure 43, a main channel currently feeds through to the waterwheel and this
is unlikely to change, so if a system were to be installed here then it would only be able to
run when grinding was not taking place. However, the flow can be directed to the
appropriate channel by the sluice gates operated from within the mill. As well as the
other two channels under the house, there is also an overflow weir that could be taken
into consideration.
F o rd
D o w n s tre a m
P ond
M ill W h e e l
M ill H o u s e
O v e r flo w W e ir B u r r ie d
c h a n n e ls
u n d e r M ill
U p s tre a m
P ond
Figure 43 – Headley Mill site schematic
6.9.3 Key issues
Feasibility studies
Unlike the several of the sites mentioned in this section, no feasibility study has been
undertaken for this site by an experienced hydro professional. The estimations above
have come from an engineer with a knowledge of the subject, but a professional study is
essential to ascertain the full potential of this mill.
It is important to stress that hydro projects are all different and the discipline is very
engineering focused. It is not like solar thermal, for example, where it is possible for a
‘layman’ to ascertain the suitability of a potential site. The complex nature of this site
bears this point out.
Funding
In this instance, the fact that there is a dwelling located within the mill building means
that the owner could probably apply for a domestic Clearskies grant. If there were no
dwelling, he would not be eligible for any funding as the mill is also the site of an SME
and no funding exists for this sector. Potentially, this could mean a good site never gets
developed.
Additional to this and following on from the above, feasibility studies cost money with
no guarantee that a project will be viable once the study is completed. Again there is no
funding for SMEs in this instance, but there is also no funding for the householder either.
It is perhaps unreasonable to expect individuals to commit large sums of money in this
way for potentially zero return and bearing in mind that this owner had not looked into
this issue until visited by this study, it begs the question as to whether he will commit his
money on this basis.
TV Energy 94 of 139
MWH
Access to information and promotion of hydro

Despite having an old generator in place, the owner had not considered upgrading it or
looking into the power production options for his mill. His core business is livestock
feed and this highlights the fact that owners and managers of SMEs tend to be fully
focused on their core business. Getting them to consider and engage in activities in
which they have never had any experience or interest in is extremely difficult.
When informed that the site may have potential, the owner became interested, but he
would still require additional incentivisation to commit his time and resources to
exploring and investing in a hydro scheme.
Central and regional government and other bodies committed to the growth of renewable
energy in this country need to take this issue on board and consider how information on,
along with promotion of hydro power generation reaches mill owners and how these
people can be further incentivised to then act.
Environmental issues
More detailed discussions would need to take place with the EA over these issues,
however, discussions with the owner highlight the knowledge that mill owners often have
of their locale, which in this case yielded the information that the mill pond is known to
have a population of trout which will need consideration in any scheme design.
Additionally, the build up of debris on the existing screening measures is considered to
be minimal.
6.9.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
History of limited power generation on site Funding
Owner’s knowledge of site Need to enthuse owner into commitment
Good grid connection to site Lack of detailed feasibility study
6.10 Yalding Weir, Yalding, Kent

Grid reference: OS Landranger series map 188: TQ 690 497
Located on the River Medway in Yalding, the weir diverts flow into a canal that leads to
the nearby paper mill. The weir is divided into two parts with a dividing island between
them. On one side there are two large radial flood control gates, each approximately 5 m
wide. The other side is also split into two bays of approximately 5 m width. One of
these is a fixed weir in constant use whilst the other is a set of old vertical sluices. These
appear to be inoperable and form a slightly higher fixed weir.
TV Energy 95 of 139
MWH
Figure 44 - Flood gates at Yalding Weir Figure 45 - Overflow gates at Yalding Weir
From a visual inspection of the site the gross head was estimated to be 2 m.
The EA have a gauging station at Teston approximately 7 km downstream of the site and
this provided the following flow data: Mean flow, 11.2 m3s-1, low flow (Q95), 1.53 m3s-1
and high flow, (Q10), 25.04 m3s-1.
Using the flow that is exceeded 67% of the time as a guide to the flow over the weir. The
estimated design flow is 3.3 m³s-1. With a system efficiency of 70% the installed power
capacity (P = 0.7 x 9.81 x 2 x 3.3) is rated at 45 kW. This
The Anchor output would be reduced if the estimate of head or flow is
Public House too high and the quote of 45kW installed capacity is only
Beer Garden
indicative.
The system would need to be located in the left-hand bay

Floodgates Overflow weirs
Canal of the weir that presently acts as a simple overflow weir. A
small turbine at this location is unlikely to significantly
Access Bridge
affect the flood capacity of the weir. An alternative
location would be to bury the turbine in the embankment
immediately adjacent to the preferred location. A sump
River Medway will need to be constructed downstream of the weir in
order to maintain submergence of the turbine draft tube and
Road Bridge
obtain full benefit of the available head.
Figure 46 - Site schematic of Yalding Weir
TV Energy 96 of 139
MWH
6.10.3 Key features
Land ownership
The weir is probably owned by the EA, but ownership of the surrounding land is
unknown at present. Importantly, access to the site is good, with a private road bridge
crossing the structure and access to the public road system only a few metres away.
There is sufficient space close to the proposed location for setting up a small construction
site.
Funding
The weir is overlooked by The Anchor public house. The EA also have a depot within
approximately 100 m. Both of these sites are potential consumers of locally generated
electricity and are also likely to have good connections to the grid.
Either the owners of the pub or the EA could initiate development, or a hydro developer
or local community group may wish to approach the EA with regard to leasing the site for
development. For this to be economically viable, however, it would almost certainly
require one of either the pub or the EA to purchase the power from the developer.
Flooding
This site is part of the local EA flood defence network and the area has a history of
serious floods. Therefore to avoid objections from the EA, provable precautions must be
taken to ensure that any proposed development does not affect or appear to increase the
risk of future flooding.
Environmental/Ecological issues
The sensitivity of the site for fish is currently unknown and the advice of the EA would
need to be sought on this and other ecological issues. There may be a fish pass already
built into the pier between the two flood gates which would be advantageous, but this
requires confirmation along with the portion of flow that such a pass requires. Adequate
screening to prevent fish passing through the turbine will also be required.
Visual and acoustic impact

The weir is potentially a public attraction with the public house located directly opposite.
The visual impact would therefore need particular attention during the design and
construction of the project. Noise may also be a concern, particularly as the public house
has a popular beer garden. Sufficient baffling will be required, particularly if the main
workings are located above ground.
6.10.4 Summary
Positives Negatives
Reasonable resource available Funding
Space to locate project History of local flooding
Potential consumers located nearby Requirement for detailed feasibility study
TV Energy 97 of 139
MWH
7 CASE STUDIES
Low-head hydropower is not a new concept and there are many installations around the
world. The following are case studies from the UK and Europe. They demonstrate the
variation in nature of low head hydropower schemes and are included to compliment the
case studies in the previous section and aim to demonstrate that it is possible to
successfully develop a range of sites if all the conditions are right.
7.1 Case Study 1 – Borrowash, Derbyshire, UK
Location: Borrowash, Derbyshire

Rating: 15kW and 60kW
Turbines: 1 siphonic ‘Kapeller’, 1 ‘S’ type propeller
Average available head: 2.5 – 2.7m
Design flow: 0.8m3/s and 3m3/s
Year of commissioning: 2002 and 1995
7.1.1 Introduction
Borrowash is approximately 5 miles east of Derby. The scheme utilises water from the
River Derwent and has an unusual intake arrangement whereby 12 siphons draw water
from the Derwent into the forebay tank.
The Borrowash site was established as a corn mill in the 11th Century but was converted
into a cotton mill in the 19th Century, before being demolished in the 1970’s. The site
was bought by Derwent Hydro in 1992 and leased to Coventry Polytechnic as a
hydropower test site.
In 1995, Derwent Hydro installed three 60kW ‘S’ type unregulated propeller turbines.
However the intake arrangement proved too much of a constriction to drive all three
turbines successfully due to the inefficient nature of the intake siphons (installed during
the testing years). A narrow tail race also constricted the exit flow. As a result, no more
than two machines could be run at any one time.
Since 2001, two of the three 60kW turbines have been removed and an experimental
siphonic turbine installed in their place, developed by Derwent Hydro and IT Power.
This machine was designed specifically as a low-cost installation suitable for very small
sites, such as the numerous old mills around the UK.
TV Energy 98 of 139
MWH
Figure 47 - Existing ‘S’ type turbine (60kW) with Figure 48 - Siphonic turbine (LHS). Intake siphons
generator mounted above. (RHS).
7.1.2 The Scheme
The existing works provided the basis of the scheme installed in 1995 and 2002. The
forebay with siphon intakes and control hut were all in place. A simple but effective
trash rack cleaner was installed - the screen has 45mm bar-spacing and the cleaner
operates vertically with hydraulic operation. There is no downstream screen in place,
since the Derwent currently has no migratory fish. The site was assessed by the EA who
considered that no significant measures were required with respect to fisheries. It is
interesting to note that the EA’s stance can vary measurably from region to region, as
there is no nationally applied guideline specification for hydro screening.
Figure 49 – Intake with hydraulic vertical trash Figure 50 - Speed increasing belt drive on 10kW
rack cleaner in foreground siphonic turbine
TV Energy 99 of 139
MWH
Figure 51 - Variable speed controller (LHS) for

the siphonic unit and grid-connection panel Figure 52 - Siphonic turbine with manual guide
(RHS). vane adjustment providing a ‘Kapeller’
arrangement.
15kW Siphon turbine:

• The siphonic design allowed the existing infrastructure to be utilised; no major
civil works were required.
• The design ensures that the generator is safe from high water levels, a problem
that has been encountered at the site.
• A ball valve is used to shut down the system by breaking the siphon action and
allowing ingress of air. No sluice gate is required.
• This experimental machine was designed with variable guide-vanes for maximum
flexibility during testing. Future machines will have fixed guide vanes.
• The speed increasing drive uses a low-cost ‘polyrib’ belt for durability, reliability
and high efficiency.
• The system was installed with a unique ‘variable speed control unit’ allowing the
turbine and generator speed to be set at the control panel, while always providing
50Hz generation into the grid. The advantage is that peak power can be tracked
according to the available head/flow conditions.
The ‘S’ type turbine:

• The larger turbine uses a 1m diameter runner and fixed guide-vanes. The runner
blades can be rotated manually and are adjusted twice per year for low-flow and
high-flow seasons.
• The draft tube is an innovative design, incorporating a flap gate to shut down the
turbine.
• Although the generator is set relatively high, with a long belt drive, the generator
has been vulnerable to flooding in the peak floods of recent years.
TV Energy 100 of 139

MWH
7.2 Case Study 2 – Beeston Weir, Derbyshire, UK
Location: Beeston Weir, Derbyshire

Rating: 1MW
Turbine: 2 bulb-Kaplan turbines
Averaged available head: 2.9m
Design flow: 48m3/s
Year of commissioning: 2000
7.2.1 Introduction
Beeston Hydroplant is the largest low-head hydro scheme in the UK, located opposite
Beeston Lock on the River Trent close to the city of Nottingham. The hydro
development required the removal of the end of the existing fixed weir, plus use of the
land around the end of the weir. The weir was leased from the owner (British Waterways
Board) and the adjacent land was bought from the local farmer. The project was awarded
a NFFO contract in 1994, but took a further 5 years to complete because of delays in
resolving the planning and fisheries permissions, plus a change of site developer.
Following problems caused to boats by a drop in upstream water levels when the plant
was in operation, the weir had to be raised by the installation of a set of Obermeyer Gates
– sluice gates which can be raised or lowered by a pneumatic actuator
Fisheries
The River Trent supports a mixed population of coarse fish and migratory eels, but, due
to poor water quality, the river has only a small population of salmonid fish. One of the
Environment Agency’s goals is to restore the salmonid population through a programme
of water quality improvement. Hence, the scheme had to ensure the protection of
downstream and upstream salmon migration.
Figure 53 - Beeston has 2 Bulb turbines supplied by Figure 54 - Scheme from downstream, illustrating the
ESAC of France. low profile.

MWH
Figure 55 - View from upstream, with headrace Figure 56 - Turbine intake and 90mm trashrack. The
protected by a long trash boom. blue access and ventilation shafts can be seen for each
turbine.
7.2.2 The Scheme
The scheme is entirely new and required considerable civil works: approximately 15,000
cubic metres of soil was removed from the river bank and river bed. The scheme is
mostly below water level and has a low visual impact. Part of the weir was removed, and
this was compensated for by the fact that in high floods, water is able to pass over the top
of the power plant. Concerns over obstructing flood flows also meant that permission
was not granted for the use of automatic trash-cleaners above the trashracks.
• The main equipment comprises two bulb-Kaplan axial-flow turbines manufactured by

ESAC of France with three bladed runners at a diameter 2.8m. The draft tubes are
constructed from reinforced concrete
• There is no powerhouse as such, the gearbox and generators are contained inside the
turbine bulbs. These bulbs have access and ventilation ‘tubes’ rising above flood water
level. All the control equipment and the transformer are in a concrete chamber
situated below water level
• There is a 90mm bar screen across the intake of each turbine, designed to stop
significant debris, but initially with no automated cleaning. Due to the high
accumulation of trash, permission has since been requested to install automatic trash-
cleaners. Upstream of the headrace is a floating boom designed to deflect large
floating objects towards the weir
• An 80m long Bio-Acoustic Fish Fence (BAFF) is installed under the boom to guide
juvenile fish towards the fish ladder. The BAFF produces a continuous stream of
bubbles into which low frequency sound is inserted creating a localised sound curtain
operating between 50 and 500Hz. This was the first time a BAFF had been approved
by the EA and installed in the UK. The BAFF is only required to be switched on in
spring and early summer
• Downstream there is an electrical screen installed inside the exit of each draft tube,
designed to repel upstream migrating fish from approaching the turbines and guide
them towards the fishpass

MWH
• Together the BAFF and electrical screens consume 30kW or 3% of installed power
• The scheme was commissioned in January 2000
Figure 57 - Extensive coffer damming and civil works Figure 58 - Bulb units installed by a 160-tonne crane
required for the powerhouse, the draft tubes were also
constructed from reinforced concrete (picture
Hydroplan, 1999)
Figure 59 - Individual forebays for each turbine with Figure 60 - The scheme built a new fish ladder to
90mm screening, bulb access and ventilation towers assist safe passage for migrating fish.
can also be seen. In the foreground are the coffer dam
stop-logs
7.3 Case Study 3 – Wallbridge Mill, Somerset, UK
Location: Wallbridge Mill, Frome, Somerset

Rating: 11kW
Turbine: Refurbished 1908 Canadian built Francis 68 inch turbine
Averaged available head: 2m
Design flow: 1,100 litres/sec

MWH
Figure 61 – Wallbridge Mill
7.3.1 Introduction
Wallbridge Mill was built in the early 19th century and water power has been used more
or less continuously since the first mill on the site was recorded in the Doomsday Book.
It’s most recent use was for the production of animal feed but it ceased to operate after
1969. When the current owners purchased the site in 1999, the mill was semi-derelict;
however, the majority of the mill machinery was still in place.
What makes this an interesting case study is that the owners were not specifically looking
for a mill site, but having purchased the mill and what remained of the machinery, they
were immediately attracted to the principle of water power and seeing the building,
“..work for its living again.” The biggest issues in refurbishing the mill were
bureaucratic.
Figure 62 – Wallbridge Mill from the rear

MWH
7.3.2 The Scheme
The mill, despite being semi-derelict, was Grade 2 listed and planning permission
presented the first obstacle, not from the local planning authority (LPA), or from
neighbours, but from the EA who were concerned about ‘development’ in the flood plain.
This was an important issue and in most circumstances is understandable, however,
unless redeveloped, the mill would have fallen into ruin and the previous building had
withstood floods for over 300 years. The LPA eventually overruled the EA’s formal
objection, but only after the new owners agreed to install a flood alarm and have no
habitable rooms below the 100-year flood line. This process took several months.
The next issue was determining the potential output of a refurbished system, as it was
hoped to use the electricity for heating as well as power. This proved problematic as the
hydropower consultant (Richard Hodkin) and the millwright (Malcolm Cooper) could
only see the machinery above water and were forced into, what transpired to be very
accurate, guess work. Despite this, the millwright was commissioned to repair the sluice
gates and get the turbine working and this allowed for a more refined ‘guess’ as to the
eventual power output.
In the meantime, the EA were contacted again to discuss the need for an Abstraction
Licence. In this case the result was more positive and it was felt that the small nature of
the scheme did not require a licence.
The hydropower consultant was engaged at this time in designing the next stage, which
involved the fixing of the gearbox and generator to the turbine shaft and investigating the
correct electronic control gear for grid connection.
Grid connection was chosen over stand alone as the price differential was relatively
modest, as the higher price of the electronic controls were offset by the lower price of the
electric motor required. The local district network operator (DNO), Southern Electric
simply required the installation of one import and one export meter and assisted with the
installation of a three-phase supply.
The system that was eventually installed uses a Hansen 15kW motor and gearbox fitted to
the turbine shaft and both are linked to a Mainscom control unit. The final stage was to
test for compliance to the G59 regulations for grid connection.
Over a year the scheme generates between 30,000 and 40,000 kWh, of which about 50%
is exported to the grid. As a 'green' source, the owners are paid a premium for the power
by Southern Electric. The payback period for the renovation costs and equipment will be
in the region of 10 years.

MWH
7.4 Case Study 4 – Iles Mill, Gloucestershire, UK
Location: Iles Mill, St. Mary’s, Chalford, Gloucestershire

Rating: 7kW
Turbine: One 500mm diameter aluminium propeller (5kW) and one
355mm diameter steel propeller (2kW)
Design flow: 0.75m³/s
7.4.1 Introduction
Iles Mill is located on the River Frome, just outside Stroud. The original mill building
burned down in 1913 and has been replaced by a new workshop and garage. The owner
of the site, which includes the owner’s house, is a mechanical engineer and was keen to
harness the power that existed on his site for his domestic use. Given his profession he
decided to undertake this project on a DIY basis. The success of this scheme has led to
his acting as a hydropower consultant on a number of other schemes.
Figure 63 – Iles Mill and turbine pit
7.4.2 The scheme
In this case study, the scheme occurred in two phases. Initially a crossflow turbine was
installed as this was felt to be the most efficient appliance for the range of flows at the
site. It was considered easy to design and build, but the sheer bulk and weight made it
impossible to install one large enough to pass enough water through to fully utilise the
available power. This limited the output to 4kW, although it was able to provide this for
a substantial part of the year, only dropping down during the low summer flows. After

MWH
eight years of reliable operation, it was decided to revisit the method of generation and to
attempt to increase the output.
It was decided to replace the crossflow turbine with a simple propeller turbine. This is a
type which is very efficient at maximum power but tails off rapidly at lower flows and
grinds to a halt very quickly, so is only used fully open. To get round this problem, it
was decided to fit two propellers. The larger one was a 500mm diameter aluminium
propeller that it was hoped would provide 5kW of electricity for the six months of the
year that there was adequate water for this type of set up. A second, 355mm diameter
steel propeller was also purchased with the aim that this smaller system would fill in at all
but the driest periods (providing around 2kW of power). There was ample space to fit
both propellers side by side where the old turbine had been and an alternator was
installed so that when the river flow was high enough, both would operate together.
The results of this change have been very successful. In the summer the small turbine is
used and provides enough power to satisfy the warm weather energy requirements of the
owner’s home, except for cooking. When flow increases in the autumn (October/
November), the 2kW turbine is replaced by the 5kW model and a month or two later the
smaller propeller is turned on again, only this time connected to a water-to-water heat
pump (with a coefficient of performance of around three), which feeds into conventional
radiators and an underfloor heating system.
The total energy input to the house in the cold winter months is approximately 12kW,
which maintains high levels of comfort, plenty of hot water and enough electricity to run
the various services such as the fridge, freezer, lights and TV.
7.5 Case Study 5 - Östra Kvarn, Sweden
Location: River Rössjöholmsån, Östra Kvarn, Sweden

Rating: 33kW
Turbine: Semi-Kaplan
Design flow: 1.2m³/s
7.5.1 Introduction
Östra Kvarn, a small hydro power project in southern Sweden, demonstrates ways of
minimising the impact of micro hydro schemes on the environment, as well as the way a
small business has harnessed the full potential of its location.

MWH
Figure 64 – the generating equipment
The Mill dates from the 16th century and is situated on the River Rössjöholmsån, close to
the city of Ängelholm in southern Sweden. In 1915–16, the waterwheel was replaced by
three Francis turbines sited in an open shaft. In the 1940s, the mill was electrified, only
to be closed down in the 1960s. In 1998, the present owner began restoring the existing
hydro plant to provide electricity for a new catering business set up at the mill. This
involved replacing the original Francis turbines with a semi-Kaplan turbine. The new
turbine has a capacity of 33 kW and produces around 135 MWh/year.
Low flow rates and a low vertical head had to be taken into account during restoration.
Care was taken to ensure that the mill building continued to blend with its surroundings
and that the work on it did not disrupt local flora and fauna.
7.5.2 The Scheme
Many parts of the existing, mainly wooden, hydro power plant structure were retained.
Part of the old mill had been flooded and, during restoration, a cement floor was
constructed and the semi-Kaplan turbine installed.
The vertical head at the mill is only 2.2 m and the annual average flow rate is 3m³/s. One
third of the water flow in the river bypasses the plant, allowing fish through and retaining
the existing environment. River water is led to the turbine through a 12 m open flume
with a flow capacity of 1.2m³/s. In this way, it was possible to use the old mill house
and, although some efficiency was lost, building costs were kept low.
To minimise the hydro power plant’s impact on the environment, neither hydraulic oils
nor grease are used. Instead, food-quality lubricants, which will not damage the
environment in the event of leakage, are used in the plant.

MWH
The turbine is a 700 mm semi-Kaplan model with flexible turbine blades. When power is
not required, the blades are adjusted to a minimum resistance and the turbine runs at
idling speed. Water is allowed to flow through at 10–12% volume and the system never
runs dry, which is important in maintaining biodiversity and because the river is a
spawning site for salmon.
The turbine drives an asynchronous generator with a maximum capacity of 33 kW (380

V, 50 Hz). At optimal running conditions, capacity is 25 kW, producing around 135
MWh/year. The catering business uses electricity produced during the day; at night, the
electricity is fed to the local grid.
Apart from one problem experienced during the trial period, when an unforeseen volume
of leaves caused a few stoppages, the plant has worked well. It now meets over 90% of
the host company’s electricity needs.
To evaluate its regulating mechanisms, the plant was run for 2,160 hours with 55,000
stops and starts, corresponding to roughly 40–50 years of ordinary operation. No
problems occurred and since then the plant has operated virtually maintenance-free.
Figure 65 – Rear view of the mill at Östra Kvarn
The total cost for the hydro power installation was SEK 400,000 (Swedish krona). Of
this, the hydro power plant cost SEK 360,000 while electronic equipment cost around
SEK 40,000. Adapting the mill building for its new purpose cost an additional SEK
200,000. On 31st August, 2003, the rate of exchange 13.04 SEK to the British Pound.
The cost of buying electricity from the grid is about SEK 0.5/kWh and income from the
sale of hydro power to the grid is about SEK 0.25/kWh. The project, which received no
grant, was financed by private loans and has an estimated payback period of seven years.
This project aimed to implement a small-scale hydro scheme with minimal impact on the
environment. A new business was able to be accommodated on the site without any new

MWH
buildings being constructed, and the hydro plant produces enough electricity to meet
almost all of the company’s power needs. This clean energy plant also saves the
emission of 6.75 tonnes/year of CO2 (based on Sweden’s average generating mix in
1997).
7.6 Case Study 6 – Linne Weir, Netherlands
Location: River Maas, Linne, Netherlands

Rating: 11.5MW
Turbine: 4 x 2.87MW Kaplan turbines
Av. River Flow: 250m³/s
Max. power 3.5MW at 102.5m³/s
Design life 40 to 50 years
7.6.1 Introduction
The possibility of placing hydro-power plants on the River Maas (or Meuse) have been
studied repeatedly since the 1920s. Until quite recently, the economic feasibility of such
plants was poor, mainly due to the low prices of fossil fuels in the Netherlands. The
rapid increase in the prices of fossil fuels in the 1970s, the official policy of fuel
diversification and public interest in the environmental aspects of power generation
stimulated a re-evaluation of the hydro-power option in the Netherlands. As a result, ten
locations were found to be suitable for hydro-power stations. The best location was at the
weir at Linne, on the River Maas, which was selected as the site for an 11 MW hydro
plant. Construction of the plant began in 1987 and the plant came into operation in 1989.
Since then, a number of the other sites have also been developed.
In the initial years, post-1989 an average of 31 GWh of electricity was produced each
year. This was 20 GWh/year lower than expected due to the unexpected fluctuation in
the water level during the years the project was monitored. Despite this, technically, the
plant has functioned well. Other important characteristics of the project are the great care
given to environmental aspects after the plant was built and the manner in which a large
scheme has been incorporated into a run of river structure without detrimental affect to
flood control measures.
The site is currently operated by the Dutch power company MEGA Limburg (formerly
PLEM) of Maastricht.

MWH
Figure 66 – Aerial view of the weir and hydro development at Linne
7.6.2 The Scheme
In the design stage of the project, several functions of the River Maas had to be taken into
consideration:
• it plays an important part in the soil hydrology of the southern Netherlands and
Belgium, since it provides the major discharge channel for rain water from the
Ardennes
• it is an important traffic route
• it supplies drinking water to households, industry and agriculture
• it has an important influence on local ecology
• it is used for recreation.
During both the construction and operation of the hydro plant care has been taken to
minimise any interference with these functions.
The hydro plant at Linne was situated next to the weir where the average difference in
water level is about 4 m, sufficient for the installation of 3.5 MW Kaplan turbines. The
plant was constructed inside a 24,000 m³ caisson built on the river bank and sunk into the
ground to a depth of 21m. Most of this work took place below the ground water level,
which required the working space to be pressurised to about 2 bar. The health and safety
hazards which this posed to the workers were an important issue.
Four Kaplan turbines, each of 4 m diameter with a nominal power of 2.87 MW maximum
power of 3.5 MW), make up the plant. Each turbine is connected to the generator by a
gearbox which converts the 88.23 rpm of the turbine into the 750 rpm necessary to drive

MWH
a generator. In principle, the plant has a maximum power output of 11.5 MW at a head
across the turbines of 4 m and a water flow of 450m³/hr. At average conditions, the plant
should produce about 52 GWh of electricity each year.
A characteristic of this project has been the care and consideration which were given to
environmental aspects. At the start of the construction work, rare varieties of plants were
carefully removed from the site, stored in a depot and replanted after the work was
finished. Specific care was given to the restoration of the original flora and fauna at the
site and the creation of a good environment for amphibian animals such as toads and
salamanders.
Several measures have been taken to prevent the power plant from being damaged by
solid materials in the river and to prevent the ecology of the river from being damaged by
the power plant. To prevent damage to the turbines, a trash rack has been placed across
the turbine inlet. A fish ladder was built alongside the plant so that fish movements are
not impeded.
Figure 67 – Linne hydro development design
Plant performance over the years 1992 to 1994 is shown in the table below.
Performance over the years 1992 to 1994
Year Electricity production Primary energy savings

GWh/year TJ/year
1992 37 325
1993 26 226
1994 32 281

MWH
Primary energy savings have been calculated by reference to a conventional power

station with 41% efficiency. The average electricity production is about 31 GWh/year.
This is less than the expected production of 52 GWh/year. During the years concerned,
the water levels in the Maas have been either too low, or too high for prolonged periods.
When it is too low, the head across the turbines does not allow any power production;
when it is too high, the weir gates are opened, and the head disappears altogether.
The total investment for the plant amounted to NLG71 million (Netherlands guilder).
The value of the annual electricity production of 31 GWh is about NLG5.3 million/year.
Since the costs of maintenance and of operation are minimal, this figure can be used to
calculate the simple payback period of 13 years. This was deemed acceptable, given the
expected life span of the plant of 40 to 50 years.
7.7 Case Study 7 – De Haandrik Weir, Netherlands
Location: River Vecht, De Haandrik, Netherlands

Rating: 100 kW
Turbine: Francis turbine
Figure 68 – Photo and schematic of De Haandrik Weir hydro development
7.7.1 Introduction
In 1987 on the River Vecht, next to the weir 'De Haandrik' in the municipality
Gramsbergen, the power company Ijsselmij constructed a hydropower turbine with an
electric power capacity of 100 kW.

MWH
The project consisted of a hydropower turbine and the necessary construction work. The
investment amounted to about 1.5 million Dutch guilders (approximately € 700,000).
Expectations were that the turbine would generate 530,000 kWh of electricity per year to
be supplied to the public electricity network. Subsidies from the Ministry for Housing,
Regional Development and the Environment (non profit) and the Dutch Power
Development Company (demonstration project) made the realisation of the project
possible. An additional project aim was to develop a turbine that could have uses within
the Third World.
7.7.2 The Scheme
In the geographical region operated by Ijsselmij, the weir 'De Haandrik' was, in view of
the water flow, the drop height and the necessary constructional facilities, the best
possible place for a water turbine. In consultation with the Department of Public Works
it was decided to locate the turbine to the left of the weir. The unit is installed on a pile-
driven concrete foundation with the turbine consisting of a four-bladed rotor of which the
blades are adjustable. The advantage of this adjustability is that the power of the turbine
can be optimised to the local conditions as the water quantity and the drop height can
vary through time.
For maintenance and control purposes, a building was erected on top of the turbine. This
building also contains a working space for the Department of Public Works, and a
transformer kiosk.
This case study shows the potential that exists for smaller weirs with head heights of
around two metres to host low head hydro schemes.
7.8 Case Study 8 - Roeven Hydroplant, Nederweert, Netherlands
Location: Confluence of Zuid-Willemsvaart and the Noordervaart

waterways, Nederweert, Netherlands
Rating: 35 kW
Turbine: Francis Turbine
Year of commissioning: 19937.8.1 Introduction
The Dutch parastatal, Rijkswaterstaat constructed the hydroplant around the year 1917 at
the intersection of the Noordervaart and Zuid-Willemsvaart waterways. They installed a
30kW rated Francis turbine and the electricity generated powered the operation of the
sluices, as well as the neighbouring houses and farms. After the Second World War, the
hydroplant fell into disuse, as the national grid reached the sluices and the maintenance of
the turbine became expensive.

MWH
Figure 69 – Schematic of Roeven Hydroplant
7.8.2 The Scheme
In 1993, on behalf of a specially dedicated association, local appropriate technology

company Buro Aangepaste Technologie, rehabilitated the power station, utilising the
head between the Zuid-Willemsvaart and the Noordervaart of approximately 1.8 metres,
and the flow of 3m³/s. The rated capacity was increased to 35 kW and power is fed into
the national electricity grid.
Total costs of the restoration were approximately 300,000 Dutch guilders (€ 135,000),
and this was paid by Rijkswaterstaat, the local municipality, the provincial authorities and
the national heritage trust.
This case study is interesting in that it bears similarities to a number of locations and
projects in the South East, where old sites could be restored, but require a combination of
private and public assistance to see the project through.
(translated from an article in "Polytechnisch weekblad", 14 November 1993. Reproduced with permission.)
8 THE REGIONAL POTENTIAL

In conducting this study, it has become clear that theoretically there are many suitable
sites for low head hydro schemes in the South East of England, but that there are a

MWH
number of barriers that will need to be overcome for much of this potential to be realised.
In the sections below the size and nature of this potential is explored, the barriers
involved discussed and a view presented as to what needs to be done to increase the
uptake of low head hydro schemes through removal of these barriers.
8.1 The South East low head hydro potential
Various studies have attempted to provide a view on the scale of the SE resource. An
article by Osman Goring in Water Power and Dam Construction, November 2000, pgs
34-35, suggests a potential installed capacity for the Thames of 25MWe. Other figures
within the hydro industry have suggested that this may be lower, but potentially as much
as 5MWe. Of more relevance to the South East as a whole is the 1989 ETSU study,
‘Small Scale Hydroelectric Generation Potential in the UK’, Volumes 1-3, produced by
Salford University Engineering Department. This picked out 157 sites for the region, of
which all but 13 were rejected as uneconomic. The 13 that were considered to have
potential had a projected installed capacity of 3.186MWe.
An understanding of the assumptions made in the 1989 study is essential to

understanding the conclusions that were drawn and whether these assumptions are still
valid today. The 1989 study rejected all sites under 2m head and less than 25kWe
projected installed capacity even where an on site demand existed. The study also
utilised detailed hydrological analysis based on a method devised by the Institute of
Hydrology.
Given these assumptions such sites as the Sonning Lock and Whitchurch Silk Mill were
rejected, sites that are currently under serious consideration for development. Clearly,
things have changed and not all of the earlier assumptions can remain valid or something
new is happening. In addition, some sites that were considered to have potential are
being developed but the original size has been badly miscalculated. An example here is
Romney Weir which was considered to have a potential installed capacity of 538kWe.
An actual scheme that is being developed is for only 200kWe installed capacity.
This does not mean that the 1989 study is right or wrong. The study was conducted over
a short period of time and with limited resources. With such a plethora of sites arising
from early observations it was inevitable that sweeping assumptions would have to be
made that likely would not stand up to close scrutiny based on individual site feasibility
studies. In overall terms it may still be valid based on the assumptions made on size but
it cannot be used to help predict site specific potential.
The current project is much more ‘bottom-up’ in terms of its methodology and can be
used to better predict individual site potential. It is also able to call on more up to date
technical and non-technical information to inform the case for viability.
The current study derives its site information from the best available sources including a
map study, National Mills Archive and EA data. However, as already pointed out, the
uncertainty around how a scheme may appear in development due to physical constraints

MWH
such as permitted flow and machinery sizing means that deriving an accurate figure for
low head hydro potential in the region remains problematic. However, it is clear that a
more detailed understanding of the resource in the South East is required if it is ever to be
mobilised.
The approach taken has been to devise a subset of potential sites in the region as
representative as possible (given scale, location, type etc.), subject them to close scrutiny
and then to extrapolate the results to the region. The site list has been drawn up using
anecdotal evidence as well as expert opinion on local projects. A lower cut-off point was
defined to be a head height of more than 1.0 metres since anything less than this was
likely to have a potential installed capacity of less than 3kW (considered non-viable).
In addition, sites would need to have a potential grid connection within 500 metres.
Pragmatically, it was also decided to utilise data from EA gauging stations as opposed to
the hydrological model developed by the earlier study as this was felt to more accurate
for local conditions.
From the three main data sources (map based study, EA run-of-river structure data and
National Mills Archive report) a list of 50 sites was drawn up for a visits programme and
for hydrological analysis. These sites were a mix of mills and run-of-river structures.
The run-of-river structures for the Thames were treated separately as good data was
available for these in terms of head, hydrological data, expert opinion and local
knowledge.
Finally, the South East resource is considered in two ways; the technical resource and the
practical resource. The former considers the potential without filtering for non-technical
constraints such as scheme economics, environmental impact controls and planning
matters. As such, it only considers the physical options and the machinery required to
utilise that potential. The practical resource takes into account the technical resource
whilst also considering the impact of the non-technical issues, generating a resource
potential figure based on current and near-term realities.
8.1.1 The technical resource
The list of sites that was identified from the initial map study came to a total of 212 sites.
However, when additional information was supplied from the EA it became clear that
many of these run-of-river structures were either under 1.0 metre in head height or over
500 metres from a grid connection and thus not suitable for power generation given our
adopted criteria. Given limitations on data access from all of the sources referenced,
expert opinion suggested that approximately 50% of potential run-of river sites in the
region had been identified. On this basis, the actual number of sites in the South East is
likely to be of the order of 400.
The table below shows the proportion of sites at a given potential using the ‘50 sites’
representative subset. A simple extrapolation yields a likely regional potential.

MWH
Low head hydro technical potential in the South East

Selected 50 sites by No. sites by installed Total installed
installed capacity capacity after extrapolation capacity in category
(cumulative) (cumulative) after extrapolation
> 68kW (up 2% 8 672kWe
to 100kW)
> 15kW 28% 112 4,648kWe
> 6kW 58% 232 2,436kWe
> 3kW 74% 296 1,332kWe
Total 9,088kWe
The figures above do not include the larger River Thames based weirs reviewed in this
study. Head heights for the locks associated with the majority of these weirs are
presented in Annex 4. Nine of these were reviewed in more detail and technical installed
capacities calculated. Flow rates and system efficiencies are estimates for the majority.
The results are shown in the table below.
Technical potential for selected River Thames weirs

Location Estimated Head Design flow Installed
Efficiency (metres) (metres/ s) capacity
(kWe)
Romney Weir 70% 2.01 14 200
Osney Island 70% 1.5 4 42
Marlow Weir 70% 2.15 12 177
Mapledurham 70% 2.05 12 170
Weir
Hambledon Weir 70% 1.44 12 118
Caversham Weir 70% 1.44 12 120
Bray Weir 70% 1.46 12 120
Sandford-on- 70% 2.5 7.3 135
Thames Weir
Boulters Lock 70% 2.39 12 196
Weir
There are 45 weirs on the River Thames within the South East region. Of these 29 have
head heights of 1.4m and above. If the nine sites above are considered to be
representative, then there is an average installed capacity potential of 142kWe per weir.
This gives a technical potential of 4.118MWe overall.
Taken together, this gives a technical potential for low head hydropower in the South
East of 13,606MWe.
8.1.2 The practical resource
As mentioned earlier, the technical potential, whilst considering physical characteristics

and proportion of flow that may be permitted per scheme, doesn’t consider non-technical
issues such as environmental controls and fish screening that may prevent a scheme or

MWH
severely impact on the potential economic return. The technical potential also fails to
consider planning issues, such as noise and visual intrusion, effects on flood control,
amenity use of rivers and canals, the ability to raise finance for low head hydro projects
and a host of other issues mentioned previously in this study.
These effects are often intangible. However, one crucial impact that can be quantified is
the impact on the economic viability of a project. Environmental mitigation, flood
control measures and planning issues usually result in additional expenditure. There will
be a critical level of additional expenditure that a small scale scheme can bear and still
remain viable. Go beyond this limit and the scheme collapses.
Expert opinion within the hydro industry state that only sites offering installed capacities
greater than 15kWe are likely to be developed (bearing in mind the technical and non-
technical constraints), giving a total of 5.320MWe based on the extrapolations arrived at
from the selected 50 sites.
This assumes all sites with potentially greater than 15kW of installed capacity will be
developed. However, many of these sites are owned and/ or operated by the EA, who
have no current development policy in this area, or private owners, who may not be
aware, or care about the options available to them. Given these constraints and the large
number of EA sites, the practical accessible resource in the short term may be as little
20% of the 5.320MWe mentioned earlier, giving a revised figure of just 1,064kWe
installed capacity.
Mills confuse the issue slightly, as many owners appear motivated by a primary desire to
rebuild and regenerate old sites. Here, the key decision to embark on a project may well
be led by more altruistic desires and an interest in renewable energy and ‘green’ issues.
On this basis, it is suggested that the practical resource from smaller mill schemes might
be in the region of 60kWe. The reasons for this figure are given in the following section.
With regard to the Thames weirs, the costs of developing all of these sites to a level that
would satisfy all issues, such as environmental and flood defence concerns, particularly
when cumulative impacts would need to be far better understood, is going to greatly
reduce the potential installed capacity. If various issues can be solved, a more realistic
view in the short to medium term would be five of the schemes with the greatest
economic potential developed (average size of 180kW) giving an installed capacity of
900kWe. With the Romney scheme receiving planning permission, this scenario has a
stronger basis in reality.
The conclusion is drawn, based on all of the evidence assembled that there appears to
be a short term practical resource of 2.024MWe for low head hydro in the South East
of England.
8.1.3 The specific resource relating to mills

MWH
As mentioned in section 2.1, The Mills Archive Trust produced a report based on
information held by the archive on the watermills within the South East which offered
additional information on potential low head hydro sites. The archive database produced
data on more than 1,084 watermills in the region.
This was reduced to 873 by using the following criteria:
Present condition: all with main structure full height or complete

Preservation: deleted all ruins, derelict or dismantled structures
Purpose: included all mills generating electricity
Power type: included all mills with a turbine
Water supply: deleted all mills using re-circulated water.
Each site was then reviewed using the additional information held on the database (when
available) and the expert knowledge of the sites on issues such as flow rates and change
of site use that is held by the individual archivists. A cautionary note should be included
at this point, as the archive database was assembled by several mill researchers over a
number of years and it is recognised that the information it contains may contain errors
and omissions as situations at the various sites change through time.
This work produced 316 sites that were deemed worthy of additional investigation and
their location by county is indicated in the table below.
Mills reviewed by county

County Total Analysed Tabulated
Berks 70 50 17
Bucks 56 39 19
Hants & IOW 224 221 85
Kent 210 105 52
Oxon 225 200 69
Surrey 86 65 23
E Sussex 86 76 18
W Sussex 127 117 33
Totals 1084 873 316
In the course of this study 46 mill sites were visited (22 of which form part of the 50 site
sample). In total, expert opinion garnered from these visits indicates that no more than
10% could be expected to host schemes of greater than 10kWe. Of the remaining 90% of
sites, one third (or 30% of the total) could be considered to have some technical potential
of between 1-10kWe and this can be further spilt into 10% in the 5-10kW range and 20%
in the 1-5kWe range. Reasons for rejecting sites were related to poor flow conditions,
low head height, mill redevelopment removing the required channels or the physical
constraints of the site. In a number of cases mills simply could not be located or were
inaccessible.

MWH
Thus, based on this additional work to the original 50 sites, the extrapolation for the
technical potential of mills in the South East is shown to be 1.12MWe.
Turning to the practical resource, the same issues that were mentioned in the previous
section also exist for mill sites. Even if financial return is not the motive behind a
scheme, it is still difficult to see any schemes below 5kWe coming to fruition as the
economic realities of such a development should drive a ‘green’ minded individual to
search for a more productive and positive use of their equity.
In the next range (5-10kWe) it becomes more borderline and expert opinion and a
number of the case studies featured earlier indicate that in certain instances development
costs can be acceptable, both to those seeking reasonable economic return and those
motivated by alternative reasoning, such as environmental concerns or a desire to see a
mill working again.
Given that not all mill owners will be interested in developing their site and that once
issues such as permissible rates of flow, environmental mitigation measures and the cost
of generation equipment are taken into account, the short term development potential in
the current economic climate may be only 25% of the technical potential, giving a
practical resource of 60kWe installed capacity in this range.
The economic climate for the installed capacity range 10 – 35kWe, not withstanding the
non-technical barriers and their associated costs, is more attractive, but not to see all sites
developed. Stimulating an interest from owners of these sites is the first challenge and in
the short term, it will only come from a committed few. Given that the economics are
slightly better than the previous range, it is possible 30% of the technical potential might
be realised, to give a practical resource of 216kWe installed capacity in this range and a
total for South East mills of 276kWe. These figures are shown in the table below.
Technical and practical resource of South East mills

Potential % of mills Extrapolated Technical Practical
installed with number of resource (average resource (average
capacity potential mills with of installed of installed
potential capacity range) capacity range)
10 - 35kW 10 32 720kWe 216kWe
5 - 10kW 10 32 240kWe 60kWe
1 - 5kW 20 64 160kWe NIL
Total 40 128 1,120kWe 276kWe
Summary of SE low head hydro potential

Technical Potential Practical Potential Short Term
Realisable Potential
No Sites kWe No. Sites kWe No. Sites kWe
General sites 400 9088 120 5320 24 1064
Thames weirs 29 4118 5 900 5 900

MWH
Mills* 96 400 32 60 8 60
TOTALS 525 13,606 157 6280 37 2024
*Only those with potential installed capacity of under 10kWe. The remainder are incorporated into the
‘General Sites’ category.
8.2 Problems facing low head hydropower schemes in the SE
These issues can be divided into technical and non-technical. The former relate to issues
of equipment, such as turbines and generation equipment and to permitted flow rates.
The latter covers regulatory, financial and environmental concerns. Most have been
mentioned elsewhere in this paper but are being raised again here as they are the key
issues to have come out of this study.
The problems often appear on the surface to be developer versus regulator, with the
requirements placed on the developers by the regulators application of legislation leading
to additional financial and technical burdens. Developers have made the point, to
differing degrees, that in some instances the regulators can place undue burdens on a
scheme. Nevertheless, the EA is duty bound to fulfil its statutory duty in accordance with
the law and to protect the environment. If it appears that the EA is sometimes reacting
‘over-carefully’ and is using the ‘precautionary principle’ when it is unsure, this has to be
as a result of having limited experience in dealing with low head hydro schemes in the
region and developers being unable to supply the pertinent information.
This last point is the key to addressing many of the issues arising and greater experience
from more installations will hopefully lead to a better understanding of roles amongst the
key actors on both sides of the business.
What is also clearly required is more research and development on a range of issues that
bedevil the development of low head hydro sites, but this requires funding and support
and the question is where does this come from? Low head hydro has somewhat lost out
in the recent rush to develop UK renewable energy resources.
Finally, it is acknowledged that regulators can only apply the law as it is passed down to
them by government. Thus, in the instances where developers feel those laws are
inappropriate or poorly devised it is necessary to lobby government for change and this
can best come from the industry itself. As with research mentioned above, government
needs to give a greater priority to this renewable energy sector and the problems and
issues that concern it, although it is recognised that the potential is moderate compared
with other resources.
The key issues are examined below.
8.2.1 The problem of fish screening

MWH
As mentioned in section 4.5.9, the EA have no standard specification for fish-screens and
whilst guidelines may be possible, and the EA are investigating this matter, a standard
specification is not considered possible, given that each site will vary depending on local
conditions. Screens can form a significant percentage of the costs for a low head hydro
development and this lack of clarity is considered a frustration for developers. As
regulator, however, the EA has to apply the law as it currently stands and where there is
little knowledge or experience, the precautionary principle is applied.
The sizing of screens is the key issue in most cases and under what circumstances they
are required. In response, the consensus from various experts within the EA is that
physical screening dimensions to exclude fish are well researched and approach
velocities for adequate protection well recognised. ‘A UK Guide to Intake Fish-
Screening Regulations, Policy and Best Practice’ was produced by Turnpenny, Struthers
and Hanson and published by ETSU in 1998 and it was hoped that this work would cover
the points of contention. It is important to state that examples from Scotland and Wales
where most schemes involve a high head don’t deal with the range of fish species found
at low head sites within the South East.
In response to this issue, the EA is currently undertaking further R&D on issues such as
fish swimming speeds, which are important for screen approach velocities and is
updating the work of ten years previous on screening and entrapment. The EA also
recognises that more needs to be done with regard to understanding behavioural screens
and that further R&D to establish the degree to which fish screening is necessary and
under what conditions. Finally development of less costly fish exclusion systems, or for
that matter, turbines which do not damage fish, would all be helpful.
The questions that arise from this, however, are who leads and who pays? Legally, it is
up to the developers to prove no or only minor impacts occur at their sites and thus the
onus is on them to develop solutions to the problems they face. This is not straight
forward in this instance as the low head hydro business is small and developers may only
be involved with a single site. This makes innovation difficult and costly and yet, as the
EA state, this is not a function of their remit and development is not their role and must
come from within the industry. Discussion with the EA suggest that they are willing to
play their part in tackling these issues, but funding is going to need to come from a
mixture of both government and industry sources.
As one hydro practitioner suggests, “We must have substantive studies done in the UK,
or relative to the UK, to support our claims that low-head hydro is okay (or not). The EA
should be drawn into discussion and play a major part in determining the type of research
and monitoring that would be acceptable to them. A programme could be determined to
monitor different, currently operational sites and possibly the trialing of different screen
types at one test site.”
8.2.2 Time and expense issues relating to Abstraction Licences

MWH
A common concern from a number of hydro developers relates to the time and expense
involved in applying for abstraction licences. As with most renewable energy projects
the economics are marginal. This is certainly the case for most low head hydro
development and there is a feeling amongst developers that in many cases an abstraction
licence should not be a requirement given the small nature and design of their projects.
The argument is that small hydropower systems do not abstract the water; they
temporarily divert it away from a natural river course, pass it through a turbine and then
return it to the river, often just a few tens of metres downstream from the upstream
diversion point. The quantity and quality of the water remains virtually unchanged.
As the regulator, the EA point out that this process of licensing is in place for
environmental protection, is a legal requirement that they have to administer and that in
some cases, a large proportion of the natural river flow can be diverted.
In researching this paper, there did appear to be a lack of clarity as to when an abstraction
licence is needed and when it is not and this seemed to come down to whom one
approached on the matter. Greater clarity on this issue is required and is promised from
within the EA. The EA are currently developing a national document entitled, ‘National
Hydropower Guidelines’. This will provide supplementary guidance to the Hydropower
Manual for EA staff dealing with hydro applications and will include generic
diagrammatic scenarios and case studies that will hopefully lead to a more consistent
approach.
To finish on this point, a number of hydro developers argued that they were being treated
the same as large-scale commercial and industrial abstractors and that no differentiation
was being made between the two. A number even expand on this issue by returning to
the earlier question of fish and as an example of their disquiet, wonder what happens to
fish abstracted by the water companies, who do not return the water to the river.
In response to this, an EA officer from the Southern Region pointed out that water
companies and other large abstractors are having to install more and more complex (and
costly) fish screens. As mentioned previously, the EA have to apply the law in this
instance and if a genuine grievance exists, the industry will have to lobby central
government for a legal review.
8.2.3 The particular case of the Thames weirs
Referring back to section 4.1.1, the EA’s overall policy on hydropower is quoted with
regard to three key policy statements. Firstly, strong support for the Government’s
targets for the use of renewable energy. Secondly, that the EA will take a positive view
of reasonable, well designed proposals for hydropower schemes and will work with
developers and others in attempting to agree a viable, sustainable project. Finally, that
the EA will seek to work constructively with the hydropower industry in achieving the
aspirations of government, the EA and industry.

MWH
It is at this point that differing interpretations from within the organisation surface as to
what the role of the EA is with regards to the Thames and other major rivers, both
regionally and nationally. Many within the EA point solely to, and emphasise their
function as a regulatory body. This is without doubt the major remit of the organisation,
but it could be questioned as to whether this is their only function. The EA is responsible
for the management of these water courses and the assets that exist on, in or alongside
them and as a publicly funded body. It could be argued that they should also seek to
sensitively maximise their potential in all spheres, including energy production, if
environmentally and economically acceptable. It may be that the legislative framework
under which the EA operates precludes this option.
Greater clarification is required on this question and the response will have a major effect
on the direction and development of low head hydropower in the South East.
8.2.4 Finance
As mentioned in section 6.5.3, SME’s located in or around an old mill lack the financial
incentive to develop the hydro potential of their site that exists for community groups and
householders who can access Clearskies funding. This is a difficult area, as low head
hydro scheme economics are improving and it could be argued that a good business (even
a SME) will seek to maximise all of its assets and will thus consider a scheme. However,
this rarely appears to happen, with the majority of mill based businesses being small in
scale, with no knowledge or experience in this area and who spend their working day
dealing with issues that relate only to their core business.
There would be benefit in offering this sector of mill owners some form of financial
incentivisation if the South East is to take full advantage of its low head hydro potential.
Quite where this assistance will come from and in what form is an issue that regional
governance may wish to consider as part of its general support to the South East SME
community and could possibly be tied to the promotion of other renewable energy
technologies as well.
Feasibility studies are a pre-requisite for a low head hydro scheme and yet they can
involve the outlay of significant sums of money, with no guarantee of a successful project
as the outcome. Unless a mill owner is fully committed to a low head hydro scheme, this
issue of upfront investment can only be an impediment to more schemes being initiated.
There is clearly a role for the hydro industry too, perhaps through the BHA lobbying
central government for greater assistance which is needed in the short term to reduce the
economic risk for site owners and to assist in the promotion of this technology.
Areas of further research have already been identified under the issue of fish protection,
but there are also issues pertaining to all aspects of the technology where funding for
research might lead to more suitable and/or cheaper equipment, from turbines and
wheels, through generation equipment, to screening and trash racks. This lack of funding
needs to be addressed and representation made to central government and other funding

MWH
bodies. A series of programmes should be worked up by the industry and, where

required, in co-operation with the EA. The British Hydro association could perhaps
broker such a programme. Whilst this study focuses on the South East, innovation in this
field offers strong export opportunities.
A final issue under this section is that of power sales. A successful scheme will need to
attain a fair price for the electricity it is generating over a reasonable period of time.
Navigating the myriad of issues involved in selling renewable energy into the grid is
extremely difficult and time consuming for the mill owner or community group. Moves
need to be made to encourage a more positive position from the utilities, with easy to
understand information and contracts supplied, preferably over a reasonable length of
time, along with easy to understand and freely available tariff information. Again, this is
an area in which the BHA may be able to take a lead or that a particular utility may wish
to explore.
Regionally, another solution might be to establish an ESCO (Energy Service Company)

capable of assisting with financing and with energy sales. TV Energy working with
SEEDA and other partners are currently exploring this possibility.
8.2.5 Technical
Following from above, it would be useful if a standard fit range of turbines were
developed. Most low head hydro schemes involve bespoke turbine construction to fit the
site characteristics. Whilst standard fit might not fully utilise a sites’ potential, it would
allow for quicker, easier projects, which may have advantages in certain situations. Work
is being undertaken in this area by Derwent Hydroelectric Power and more work of this
nature needs to be encouraged.
The expense of generators and the equipment required to connect schemes to the national
grid are often the issue that removes the economic justification for a small scheme. There
appears to be little way round this at the moment, but if a solution could be found that is
technically feasible and brings costs down, then a plethora of smaller sites would become
viable. Referring back to the previous section, this is an area where more research may
hold the key.
8.2.6 Planning
There is a role for planning departments in protecting old mill sites. This should be built
into development control policies, and/or into specific supplementary planning guidance
(SPG) on renewable energy that feeds into local plans stating that it is not acceptable to
fill in leats, channels and turbine pits when a site is redeveloped. Planning policy should
endeavor to encourage restoration of power generation as part of any redevelopment
project for old mill sites (as long as it is demonstrates the required care for the
environment and offers a reasonable economic return). Too many traditional sites have
been lost, such as at Sandford on the River Thames.

MWH
8.2.7 Promotion and education
Mill owners are often unaware of the potential of their site or unsure of the initial steps to
take in assessing the potential and going on to secure funding. This could be remedied
through a promotion campaign.
Issues of confidentiality mean that mill site data gathered under this study cannot be
passed on to developers or the public at large and it is suggested that there may be scope
for contact to be initiated by a third party. This should be an organisation which stands to
gain no financial benefit and could either be the EA, the National Mills Archive, TV
Energy or a local authority/county council.
It is hoped that this document can act as a first point of reference for potential developers,
particularly those who only have a small single site scheme in mind. It is hoped that the
document will also be of use to both officers and councilors when considering planning
applications that involve low head hydro power.
Internally, as already mentioned in section 8.2.2 the EA have not only recently launched
their hydropower manual, they are also working on supplementary guidance with regard
to best practice and as this becomes available and is applied, knowledge on the subject
should improve.

MWH
9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Before considering the future prospects for low head hydro in the region it is worth
reviewing the aims of this study. They are listed below -
• To promote low head hydro power as a viable and applicable energy resource
within the South East of England
• To review the level of hydro resource available in the South East of England
• To highlight the issues and problems involved and steps to take in developing
sensitive and practical micro and pico low head hydro projects and in stimulating
the uptake of the technology in general
• To stimulate interest from mill and run of river structure owners in developing the
hydro resource within the region
• To improve understanding from all parties of the role that the various government
agencies have to, can and could play in low head hydro development within the
region
The publication of this study, along with a shortened, annotated version for the general
public, the holding of a conference to publicise the study findings and explore the various
issues in more depth will hopefully increase the profile of hydropower within the region.
This study has also sought to review the level of the resource available, although, it
transpires that this is dependent on a range of ever changing variables to the point of it
being almost impossible to arrive at a precise figure.
So it is to the last three aims that this final section is really addressing and the work of the
study has already stimulated responses in these areas. Actual and potential projects have
arisen during the course of this work and aspects of this study have been of assistance
to a number of these projects. Likewise, the study has highlighted a will within the EA
to improve its understanding and effectiveness in dealing with hydro schemes and
positive work is being undertaken to this end, although there remain issues that need to be
addressed. Hopefully, developers have also come to further understand the methods and
reasoning that inform EA operation procedures and the legislation which informs and
binds them. Such progress is arguably the most important outcome resulting from a
focusing of minds.
There is plenty of scope for follow on actions to this study, some more pressing and
easily dealt with than others and these are listed below.

MWH
1. There are clearly still issues between the EA and the hydro industry. Many of
these can only be addressed through a change in legislation. The industry,
perhaps represented by the BHA, need to meet with the EA at a national level to
discuss the key issues with a view to establishing where and how both parties
would be in agreement with changes to legislation. Both must then lobby central
government for the required changes in the law.
2. Possibly linked to the above, there is clearly a need for more research and funding
support for low head hydro at a national and regional level. On one side this
relates to environmental issues such as fish mortality, flood control and the
cumulative affects of developments on a single watercourse. On the other side
there are technical issues such as the need to develop cheaper generation
equipment, standard ‘drop-in’ turbines, bladeless technology and so on.
Investment in researching these issues may not only lead to more acceptable UK
projects, but it could also develop an export industry. The DTI, RDAs and the
Carbon Trust, to name but three, are the types of organisation who should be
interested in assisting in this area.
3. Innogy and the EA need to review the options again for using the Romney Weir
project on the River Thames as a test bed for the various associated issues with
that site and the Thames in general. Funding should come from both sides, but as
with the above, perhaps additional funding could made available from the
government for what is clearly a project of some national significance for the low
head hydro industry.
4. Positive steps have been and are continuing to be undertaken by the EA as the
regulator of the South East’s watercourses. However, a clear and concise position
statement is still required with regard to its attitudes regionally towards hydro
developments involving the assets it owns and operates. This statement then
needs to be fully communicated and understood, both internally and in publicly
available documents. A proactive stance by the EA more than anything else will
aid the development of the low head hydro resource in the region.
5. Specific, positive tariff structures are available from some utilities for small scale
solar photovoltaic schemes. It would be helpful if one or more utilities could
extend, or develop a similar scheme for small, low head hydro schemes,
preferably involving a contract of reasonable length and with simplified paper
work. An alternative, is to devise a regional ESCO able to assist small producers
as is being considered by TV Energy with SEEDA support.
6. In the South West a number of mill owners have come together as a group to
reinstate hydropower at their sites. There are advantages to such an approach and
lessons have been learnt from these initial groupings that could benefit South East
groups. TV Energy plan to initiate a group of this nature in 2004/05 with SEEDA
support and it is hoped that local authorities and the National Mills Archive may
be able to assist in the initial establishment of these South East ‘clusters’.

MWH
7. A need for funding for SME’s based at mill sites has been identified and this is an
area where the industry needs to lobby the various government funding
departments and organisations to explore the possibility of financially
incentivising this particular sector.
These points are open for discussion and will no doubt be viewed differently by the
various parties who have an interest in low head hydro schemes. The key issue is to build
on the work of this report and to keep the momentum already generated going.
9.1 The last word
In conducting this study, the lead author (Ian Bacon) has at various stages been accused
of being too pro-developer or too pro-regulator. This is an interesting and not altogether
unexpected result given the ‘stalled’ state of developments in the region, highlighting the
strong feelings aroused by hydro projects in those directly involved. It is hoped that this
study has struck a reasonable balance and that the key actors are now more understanding
of each others standpoint and are in a position to move forward, so that owners of mills,
community groups, SME’s and the public at large can take fully informed decisions
concerning the development of sites with low head potential.
Low head hydro power in the South East is never going to have a huge impact on the
renewable energy targets that are being set for the region, but all technologies have a part
to play in contributing to the whole and for this reason low head hydro should not be
ignored.
More importantly, sensitively developed hydropower is a well understood and broadly

supported technology amongst the public at large. Low head hydro projects raise the
profile of renewable energy per se and are important in demonstrating how individuals
and small groups can act positively to have a genuine impact on the issues that
increasingly face energy provision with respect to environmental protection in this
country.

MWH
ANNEX 1 - LIST OF POTENTIAL HYDRO SITES VISITED

Location name County OS Co-ord. Waterway
1 Aldermarston Wharf Berkshire SU 601 671 Kennet & Avon Canal
2 Sandford Mill Oxfordshire SP 532 012 River Thames
3 Sandford Weirs Oxfordshire SP 530 015 River Thames
4 Sutton Courtney Oxfordshire SU 502 944 River Thames
5 Old Mill Hotel Oxfordshire SU 590 662 River Kennet
6 Allington Kent TQ 746 581 River Medway
7 Abingdon Weir Oxfordshire SU 505 972 River Thames
8 Sonning Mill Oxfordshire SU 753 758 River Thames
9 Osney Island Weir Oxfordshire SP 505 058 River Thames
10 Long Wittenham Weir Oxfordshire SU 541 941 River Thames
11 Back Water Weir (no.2) Oxfordshire SU 513 967 River Thames
12 Yalding Kent TQ 688 500 River Medway
13 Brimpton Mill Berkshire SU 554 657 River Kennet
14 Branbridges Kent TQ 670 479 River Medway
15 Chimney Weir Oxfordshire SP 362 007 River Thames
16 Newbury Town Centre 1 Berkshire SU 469 671 Kennet & Avon Canal
17 Newbury Town Centre 2 Berkshire SU 474 672 Kennet & Avon Canal
18 Hunton Mill Kent TQ 709 492 River Beult
19 Thatcham Sluices Berkshire SU 529 661 Kennet & Avon Canal
20 Colthorp Sluices Berkshire SU 539 663 Kennet & Avon Canal
21 Chartham Kent TR 097 555 Great Stour River
22 Congelow Kent TQ 610 496 River Medway
23 Swinford Weir Oxfordshire SP 444 088 River Thames
24 Weir, Farmoor Oxfordshire SP 440 071 River Thames
25 Weir, Appleton Oxfordshire SP 431 021 River Thames
26 Canterbury (Hookes Mill) Kent TR 146 578 Great Stour River
27 Chartham 1 Kent TR 106 547 Great Stour River
28 Chartham 2 Kent TR 097 554 Great Stour River
29 New Mill Oxfordshire SP 342 110 River Windrush
30 Shifford Lock Weir Oxfordshire SP 371 010 River Thames
31 Cogges Farm Oxfordshire SP 360 093 River Windrush
32 Woodford Mills Oxfordshire SP 357 102 River Windrush
33 Crawley Mill Oxfordshire SP 338 117 River Windrush
34 Minster Lovell Mill Oxfordshire SP 318 113 River Windrush
35 Kintbury 2 Berkshire SU 385 671 Kennet & Avon Canal
36 Bagnor Berkshire SU 451 692 River Lambourn
37 Olantigh 2 weirs Kent TR 051 489 Great Stour River
38 Upper Reaches Hotel, Abingdon Oxfordshire SU 500 970 River Thames
39 Chilham Mill Kent TR 076 535 Great Stour River
40 New Cut Weir & Mill, Abingdon Oxfordshire SU 479 962 River Ock
41 Wye Weir Kent TR 049 470 Great Stour River

MWH
42 Marcham Mill Oxfordshire SU 457 953 River Ock

43 Garford Mill Oxfordshire SU 425 962 River Ock
44 Robertsbridge East Sussex TQ 736 241 River Rother
45 Swanton Mill, near Ashford Kent TR 039 388 East Stour River
46 Venn Mill Oxfordshire SU 430 949 Childrey Brook
47 East Hanney Oxfordshire SU 412 926 Letcombe Brook
48 Town Mill Oxfordshire SU 396 881 Letcombe Brook
49 Kintbury 1 Berkshire SU 378 675 Kennet & Avon Canal
50 Slip Mill, Hawkhurst Kent TQ 753 314 Name unknown

MWH
ANNEX 2 - LIST OF MANUFACTURERS, SUPPLIERS

AND INSTALLERS
Electricity Producers
DERWENT HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER LTD - Contact J Needle

Supplier of low cost, low head turbines, low cost Pelton turbines, water-wheels. Design
services, site development, refurbishments. Fern Lodge, 117 Hazelwood Road, Duffield,
Derbyshire DE56 4AA. Tel: 01332 840 746 Fax: 01332 840 746
Manufacturers / Refurbishers
ADAC (ENGINEERING SERVICES) LTD - Contact A O Armstrong

Energy Consultants, 10 Nellfield Road, CRIEFF, PH7 3DU
Tel: 01 764 656 097 Fax: 01 764 656 097
AMCO CONSTRUCTION
Construction and Engineering. Whaley Road, Barugh, Barnsley, South Yorkshire S75
1HT Tel: 01 226 243413 Fax:01 226 320207 Email: enquiries@amco-construction.co.uk
DOROTHEA RESTORATIONS LTD - Contact G J O Wallis

Experiences in refurbishment of second-hand hydro turbines. Can supply new
waterwheels and replica Francis turbines. Nation-wide service from Bristol &
Derbyshire. Unit 6, Riverside Business Park, St Anne’s Road, Bristol BS4 ED. Tel: 01
1179 715 337 Fax: 01 179 771 677
G E HYDRO LTD
Manufacturers of large turbines. Ten Pound Walk, Doncaster DN4 5HW. Tel: 01 302 761
761
GILBERT GILKES & GORDON - Contact Dr C Graves

Manufacturers of water turbines, 5kW to 10MW including Francis, Turgo and Pelton
impulse designs. Packages from turbine and generator up to full turnkey can be provided.
Canal Iron Works, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 7BZ. Tel: 01 539 720 028: Fax: 01 539 732
110
HERITAGE ENGINEERING - Contact J S Mitchell

Recover, restoration and/or replication of water power machinery, 22 Carmyle Avenue,
Glasgow, G32 8HJ. Tel: 0141 763 0007 Fax: 0141 763 0583
NHT ENGINEERING LTD - Contact R T Maguire

Manufacturers of turbines 1-8000 kW. Island Road Lower, Carrickfergus, Co Antrim
BT38 9JW. Tel: 01 960 378 389 Fax: 01 960 353 110

MWH
WATER POWER ENGINEERING - Contact O M Goring

Manufacturer of turbines up to 58kW. UK Agents for Ossberger Crossflow Turbines, full
consultancy and installation service. One day acquaintance courses on hydro-power.
Coaley Mill, Coaley, Dursley, Glos GL11 5DS. Tel: 01 453 890 376 Fax: 01 453 890 958
Consultants
BINNIE BLACK & VEATCH, - Contact Mr Spolton

Consultants; over 40 years experience of hydropower development, from a few kW to
over 1000MW. Cover all stages from feasibility studies to supervision of construction
and commissioning. Grosvenor House, 69 London Road, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 1LU Tel:
01 737 774 155 Fax: 01 737 772 767
CALEDONIAN ENERGY LTD - Contact Simon Grey

Consultants, 52 Tay Street, Perth PH1 5TR
Tel: 01738 447600 Fax: 01738 447601
CHESHIRE PROJECT SERVICES - Contact J Hind

Project planning, review and monitoring etc. Carrington Business Park, Carrington,
Manchester M31 4XL. Tel: 0161 776 4138 Fax: 0161 775 8995
CREWDSON AND COMPANY - Contact C F Crewdson

Management Consultants, Renewables, Beck Mills, Kendal, Cumbria LA9 6NY. Tel: 01
539 730 990
DULAS ENGINEERING LTD - Contact Rod Edwards/John Howarth

Specification, design and supply of micro-hydro systems, installation and commissioning.
Full Feasibility studies for grid-connected schemes, including NFFO bidding. Dyfi Eco
Parc, Machynlleth, SY20 8AX. Tel: 01654 705 000 Fax: 01654 703 000
W R HORRELL, C.Eng, FIMechE,

Mechanical Engineering Consultant, specialising in all aspects of machines from design
through installation to uprating and rehabilitation, 46 Redwing Road, Stockton,
Cleveland TS20 1LN. Tel: 01 642 557 425
HYDRO ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS -Contact Rodney Potts.

Consultants for hydropower: manufacture of grids, gates, trash rack cleaners & co for
hydro electric projects. Canonbie, Dumfriesshire DG14 0RG. Tel: 01 387 371 355 Fax:
01 387 371 825
HYDER CONSULTING LTD All aspects of small hydro site development, design,
construction and management, Plymouth House, Plymouth Road, Penarth, Vale of
Glamorgan, Wales CF64 3YF. Tel: 01222 704321 Fax: 01222 709793

MWH
HYDROGENERATION LTD – Contact Phil Davis

All aspects of micro hydropower development, from initial feasibility studies and
abstraction licensing to system design and installation & commissioning. Pinkworthy
Barn, Oakford, Tiverton, Devon, EX16 9EU, United Kingdom. Phone: (+44) 01398
351112 / 351166 Fax: (+44) 01398 351115 Email: info@hydrogeneration.co.uk
HYDROPLAN - Contact K Hanson

Consultant, Unit 12, Riverside Park, Station Road, Wimborne, Dorset BH12 1QU. Tel:
0120 288 6622 Fax: 0120 288 6609
HYDROSIM CONSULTANTS LTD - Contact Adrian Boldy.

Combine modern computing technology, academic research and extensive practical
engineering experience in order to provide a comprehensive consultancy service relating
to the analysis of pressure surge problems in pumping mains, water supply and
distribution systems, cooling water systems and hydroelectric installations throughout the
world. Tel: 01789 470827 Internet: www.hydrosim.co.uk
INTERMEDIATE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP (ITDG) - Contact

Adam Harvey.
Considerable experience installing micro-hydro in developing countries. Large database:
development work on electronic controls, etc., heat storage cookers. Bourton Hall,
Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 9QZ Tel: 01788 661100.
I T POWER - Contact Jamie O’Nians

Mini and micro hydropower project management and engineering consultancy, including
mini-hydro projects in developing countries and ultra-low head river/tidal projects. The
Manor House, Chineham Court, Lutyens Close, Chineham, Hants, RG24 8AG. Tel:
01256 392700 Fax: 01392701 Email: jamie.onians@itpower.co.uk Internet:
www.itpower.co.uk
RICHARD LANGLEY, B Eng. Micro-hydro consultant offering range of services for

develping small hydro schemes up to 50 kW. Laurieston Hall, Castle Douglas, Kirkcuds
DG7 2NB Tel/Fax: 016 4 4450 633 Email: richardl@lauriestonhall.demon.co.uk
REGEN PARTNERSHIP - Contact Dr N A Rogers

25 years experience of wind, hydro and solar energy projects. For hydro, site surveys,
feasibility studies, system design and costing. Installation and refurbishment. Design and
building electronic controllers. 6 Shaftoe Cresc, Hexham, Northumberland NE46 3DS
Tel: 01 434 601 224
Developer/Owner
HYDRO ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS -Contact Rodney Potts.

Consultants for hydropower: manufacture of grids, gates, trash rack cleaners & co for
hydro electric projects., Canonbie, Dumfriesshire DG14 0RG. Tel: 01 387 371 355 Fax:
01 387 371 825

MWH
HYDER INDUSTRIAL LTD, Developers of renewable energy sources specialising in

small hydro. Able to design, build, fund and operate projects.. P O Box 295, Alexandra
Gate, Rover Way, Cardiff, South Glamorgan CF2 2UE. Tel: 01222 585800 Fax: 01222
585645
INTERMEDIATE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP (ITDG) - Contact

Adam Harvey.
Considerable experience installing micro-hydro in developing countries. Large database:
development work on electronic controls, etc., heat storage cookers. Bourton Hall,
Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 9QZ Tel: 01788 661100.
Others
THE BRITISH HYDROPOWER ASSOCIATION

Trade Association representing interests of all those involved in the hydropower industry
- Contact Ellan Parry, Unit 12 Riverside Park, Station Road, Wimborne, Dorset BH21
1QU Tel: 01202 886622 Fax: 01202 886609 Email: info@british-hydro.org Internet:
www.british-hydro.org
CENTRE OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY - Contact Mr P Trimby

Periodic courses on small scale hydro: books: etc. Machynlleth, Powys SY20 9AZ. Tel:
01 654 702 400 Fax: 01 654 702 782
DISCLAIMER
Inclusion of an individual or company in this list does not imply that it is approved by TV
Energy. Potential clients are advised to ask for and take up references before using
products or services from any of the listed companies.

MWH
ANNEX 3 - PLANNING, DEVELOPING AND OPERATING

SMALL HYDRO
Planning small hydro projects requires many stages of technical and financial study to determine if a site is
technically and economically feasible. The viability of each potential project is very site specific. Power
output depends on flow of water and the height of the drop of the available water. The amount of energy that
can be generated depends on the quantity of water available and the variability of flow throughout the year.
The economics of a site depends on the power (capacity) and energy a project can produce, if the power
can be sold, and the price paid for the power sold. In a remote community the value of power generated for
consumption is generally significantly more than for systems that are connected to a central grid. However,
remote communities may not be able to use all the available energy from the small hydro plant or, may be
unable to use the energy when it is available because of seasonal variations in water flow and energy
consumption.
Although most small-hydro projects are different, the following steps provide a good outline of the main
stages in the development and operation of a project:
1. Reconnaissance surveys and hydraulic studies
This first phase of work frequently covers numerous sites and includes: map studies; delineation of
the drainage basins; preliminary estimates of flow and floods; and a one day site visit to each site
(by a design engineer and geologist or geotechnical engineer); preliminary layout; cost estimates
(based on formulae or computer data); a final ranking of sites based on power potential; and an
index of cost.
2. Pre-feasibility study
Work on the selected site or sites would include: site mapping and geological investigations (with
drilling confined to areas where foundation uncertainty would have a major effect on costs); a
reconnaissance for suitable borrow areas (e.g. for sand and gravel); a preliminary layout based on
materials known to be available; preliminary selection of the main project characteristics (installed
capacity, type of development, etc.); a cost estimate based on major quantities; the identification of
possible environmental impacts; and production of a single volume report on each site.
3. Feasibility study
Work would continue on the selected site with a major foundation investigation programme;
delineation and testing of all borrow areas; estimation of diversion, design and probable maximum
floods; determination of power potential for a range of dam heights and installed capacities for
project optimisation; determination of the project design earthquake and the maximum credible
earthquake; design of all structures in sufficient detail to obtain quantities for all items contributing
more than about 10 per cent to the cost of individual structures; determination of the dewatering
sequence and project schedule; optimisation of the project layout, water levels and components;
production of a detailed cost estimate; and finally, an economic and financial evaluation of the
project including an assessment of the impact on the existing electrical grid along with a multi-
volume comprehensive feasibility report.
4. System planning and project engineering
This work would include studies and final design of the transmission system; integration of the
transmission system; integration of the project into the power network to determine precise
operating mode; production of tender drawings and specifications; analysis of bids and detailed
design of the project; production of detailed construction drawings and review of manufacturer's
equipment drawings. However, the scope of this phase would not include site supervision nor
project management, since this work would form part of the project execution costs.

MWH
5. Financing
The process of arranging financing for small-hydro projects is often difficult. The developer has to
complete two steps to realize their development plans. The first is to obtain a contract with a utility
or organisation which will purchase the produced electricity. With this contract in place the next
step is to negotiate a bank loan or other source of financing. However, many banks lack knowledge
of small-hydro projects and have no experience with this type of loan. In recent years some banks
have acquired the necessary experience and now routinely provide loans for small-hydro projects.
6. Ownership and Maintenance
Key factors for success include:

o Realistic assessment of project costs and benefits (good assessment methodologies are
available)
o Solid partnership with good management skills
o Experience within partnership
o Personal and corporate financial strength
o Knowledgeable financial institution (documentation available for reference that addresses
risk assessment)
o Design with special attention to operation and maintenance requirements
o Pro-active maintenance plan to minimise expense and downtime
From www.small-hydro.com

MWH
ANNEX 4 - THAMES LOCKS WITH ASSOCIATED HEADS

The falls across each of these locks is assumed to be very closely related to their
associated weirs.
Name of Lock Head
St John’s 0.85
Buscot 1.69
Grafton 1.11
Radcot 1.48
Rushey 1.82
Shifford 2.23
Northmoor 1.24
Pinkhill 1.05
Eynshem 0.84
King’s 0.77
Godstow 1.57
Osney 1.89
Iffley 0.81
Sandford 2.69
Abingdon 1.89
Culham 2.41
Clifton 1.03
Day’d 1.58
Benson 1.87
Cleeve 0.69
Goring 1.77
Whichurch 1.01
Mapledurham 2.05
Caversham 1.44
Blake’s 1.07
Sonning 1.63
Shiplake 1.55
Marsh 1.33
Hambledon 1.44
Hurley 1.05
Temple 1.23
Marlow 2.16
Cookham 1.30
Boulters 2.39
Bray 1.46
Boveney 1.47
Romney 2.01
Old Windsor 1.74
Bell Weir 1.82
Penton Hook 1.22
Chertsey 1.22
Shepperton 2.03
Sunbury Old 1.87
Sundbury New 1.87
Molesey 1.85
Teddington Barge 2.68
Teddington Launch 2.68
Teddington Skiff 2.68

MWH

Low Head Hydro Potential in South East England

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Low Head Hydro Potential in South East England

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Low Head Hydro Power in the South-East of England –

A Review of the Resource and Associated Technical,

TV Energy reference: TV017

Prepared by: Ian Bacon (TV Energy)

Ian Davison (MWH)

Approved by: Keith Richards

We are already seeing a number of projects moving through to development as a result of

TV Energy acknowledges the financial support of the following organisations as well as

• Hampshire Mills Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 9

4.3.3 Costs and benefits ..................................................................................... 42

5.2.3 Climate Change Levy and Levy Exempt Certificates................................ 60

6.8.4 Summary ................................................................................................... 92

8.2.5 Technical................................................................................................. 126

1.1 Background to the study

1.2 Aims of the study

1.3 Key organisations involved

TV Energy (TVE) is leading this work. TVE is a not-for-profit, independent energy

1.4 Hydro power basics

1.4.1 Energy potential

1.5 Definitions of ‘low head’

2.1 Site Identification Desk Study

2.2 Site Visits

• Consider environmental problems such as visual, noise, flooding, erosion and

2.3 River Flow Data

Grid Reference: 61 (TR) 116 554

2.4 Power Assessment

2.5 Appraisal of Schemes

Location Potential Installed Capacity

Romney Weir, Berkshire 200 kW

Marlow Weir, Buckinghamshire 177 kW

Allington Lock, Kent 68kW

Grove Mill, Oxfordshire 3 kW

Sonning Mill, Oxfordshire 18 kW

Location Potential Installed Capacity

Osney Mill and Weir, Oxfordshire 42 kW

Guildford Mill, Surrey 35 kW

Whitchurch Silk Mill, Hampshire 5 – 10 kW

Headley Mill, Hampshire 5 – 10 kW

Yalding Weir, Kent 45kW

3 AN OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL OPTIONS

3.1 Key technical issues

Utilising existing structures

Low head, high flow

Loss of head during high flows

Low power-to-weight ratio

3.2 Low Head Turbines

3.2.1 Principal options

3. Open-flume Francis turbines (adjustable guide

The propeller/Kaplan and Francis turbines are reaction

Figure 3 - Crossflow turbine

(i) specific speed

3.2.2 Specific Speed

3.2.3 Part-flow performance

Figure 4 - Part-flow efficiency of low-head turbines

Figure 5 - Range of operation for crossflow and propeller-type turbines

Range of interest in SE England

Figure 6 - Conventional low-head turbine arrangements

(a) Bulb-Kaplan (b) Vertical-axis Kaplan

3.3 Micro-hydro solutions

In order to make smaller sites more cost-effective, manufacturers of propeller-type

3.3.1 Tube turbines