You are on page 1of 7

Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

The costs of small-scale hydro power production: Impact on the development


of existing potential
G.A. Aggidis a, *, E. Luchinskaya a, R. Rothschild b, D.C. Howard c
a
Engineering Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
b
Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK
c
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, LA1 4YP, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A major barrier to starting small scale hydro power projects is an understanding of how much the
Received 18 December 2009 scheme will cost. Empirical formulae to estimate the cost of electro-mechanical equipment and the costs
Accepted 10 April 2010 of different types of turbines were developed through statistical analysis of cost data obtained from
Available online 15 May 2010
a range of turbine manufacturers. The approach differentiates between different turbine designs and
presents formulae for all major small scale devices. The derived results were compared to the results
Keywords:
obtained from using other methodologies and were found to provide more realistic cost estimates.
Small hydro plants
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Hydro project cost
Electro-mechanical equipment cost
Turbine cost

1. Introduction form the foundation for carrying out a more detailed analysis to
support a balanced decision on further consideration of a site
In an attempt to mitigate the current climate change phenom- potential.
enon the UK Government is seeking to utilise renewable energy
resources; small scale hydro power was used traditionally by 2. Background
industry and has a great deal of potential. In this paper empirical
formulae are developed to estimate the costs of small-scale hydro With current demand to use diverse clean supplies of energy, all
power production based on the location and physical characteris- renewable energy resources are being examined and exploited
tics of a potential site. The technique of cost estimation can be used wherever economically possible. Certain UK regions have consid-
in conjunction with existing methods to inform the decision erable potential for small scale hydro power generation and would
whether or not to proceed with hydro site development. As the benet from its further development. For example, the NW region
hydro power schemes being considered are small, the development currently generates only a limited amount of hydro power
is likely to be led by an individual (e.g. a householder), a small (2.7 MW) and is exploring the opportunities for expanding its
business or a community; in all cases the end users are unlikely to production. As this study forms part of the NW Hydro Resource
have sufcient expertise to recognise the need for the full breadth Model Project, some of the empirical data have been collected from
of information or independently deploy the economic analysis and the NW region. However, the results can be applied to other regions
accurately interpret its output. The technique developed must not of the UK as well as to other countries, providing that some
only select and parameterise the appropriate analysis but also adjustments to the formulae coefcients are made.
make the results easy to comprehend. The current study has been
carried out as part of the North West (NW) Hydro Resource Model 2.1. Overview of existing estimating techniques
project led by Lancaster University, UK and funded by the Joule
Centre ([1e9]). One of the main objectives of the project is to The decision to develop a hydro power project is made on
explore the barriers to the installation of small-scale hydroelectric economic grounds, but is informed by factors including the envi-
power schemes in the NW England. The results of the study will ronmental, cultural and physical characteristics of the site and the
costs and availability of technological and engineering solutions.
While the capital costs of hydro plant installation are high, oper-
* Corresponding author. ating and maintenance costs are low, which means that a large
E-mail address: g.aggidis@lancaster.ac.uk (G.A. Aggidis). proportion of the projects overall budget will be spent at the

0960-1481/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2010.04.008
G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638 2633

development stage. It is therefore important to balance the cost 0.4 MW up to 25, 000 MW and heads 5.5 e1100 m. The derived
installation against the magnitude and speed of energy output (and formula is shown below:
its value) to evaluate whether the project is worth pursuing, and if
 0:82
so, to plan the subsequent budget. The viability of each hydro C k  MW=H0:3 US$; 1982; (3)
project is site-specic and dependent on the local characteristics.
The amount of the power produced depends on the water ow, the where the coefcient k values are represented below:
hydraulic head and the efciency of the device; the ow will vary As most of the systems are designed to produce energy at
through the year and the efciency will change in response to the system load factor which is likely to be 60%, Gordon [12] introduced
variation. Several studies have been carried out which analyse the a methodology for obtaining better estimates for developments
costs of hydro plant development depending on the hydraulic with a higher or lower load factor (Table 1).
characteristics of a site. This formula was intended to be used to estimate the minimum
In 1979, Gordon and Penman [10] undertook a study of the costs of the new medium and large scale hydro project only, as it
costs of hydro power plants of up to 5 MW at existing dams was derived from historical data and did not include any adjust-
focussing on the establishment of a relationship between the cost ment to the specic site characteristics. However, the data used by
and hydrological characteristics of the sites e water ow level and Gordon [12] were sourced from many different countries, with
hydraulic head. Their study showed that at existing dams the cost large variations in hydro project costs, and so would not provide
of the additional components to generate energy such as intake, a reliable estimate. The data are also out of date, and under
powerhouse, turbine, generator and controls, transformer and represent low head small scale sites as the data were not available
engineering and management apart from penstock could be at the time.
expressed as a function of installed hydro plant capacity and As Eq. (3) provides an estimate for an average site, the obtained
hydraulic head. An empirical formula [1] was developed to esti- cost should be adjusted to allow for specic local conditions of
mate the cost of electro-mechanical equipment (turbine, speed a potential site and for the ination rate if the project duration is
control and generator) based on the statistical analysis of North more than one year. However there is no specic instruction given
American data: by Gordon [12] as to how this adjustment should be made.
In the work published in 1986 Gordon and Noel [13] developed
CEM 9000  kW 0:7 =H0:35 US$; 1978; (1) another empirical formula for estimating costs of the small scale
where kW is the installed capacity in kW and H is the hydraulic hydro development based on North American low-head hydro cost
head in m. data for heads down to about 3 m which had at that time just
The study [10] introduced a site factor S which was dened as become available. It was shown that the relationship between
the total project cost divided by the cost of electro-mechanical project costs and the function (kW/H0.3) established for medium
equipment. The site factor varies depending on the size of the and large scale hydro projects Gordon [12] could also be applied to
project and the requirement for penstock. The ndings were small scale hydro projects. The developed formula has the
grouped according to the installed capacity. For capacity greater following form:
than 500 kW with no penstock the site factor varied around  0:82
2.6  25% equivalent sites of less than 500 kW installed capacity the Ch k  kW=H0:3 US$; 1982; (4)
site factor is around 3.7  25%. Where penstocks are required the
site factors increase to 5.1  25% and 5.5  25% respectively. where k has a minimum value of 22, 000 and the average value of
Therefore, the overall cost of a hydro plant CP can be expressed 37, 000 in Eq. (4). Again because of the lack of data for small scale
as follows: hydro developments with capacities less than 100 kW, the
assumption was made that the approach would be applicable for
Cp 9000  S  kW 0:7 =H0:35 US$; 1978; (2) this range of capacities but more judgement would be required in
the selection of the coefcient k.
where S is the site factor. To take into account the differences in location which include
In a further study [11] Gordon developed mathematical the difference in labour costs, costs of materials and the cost of
formulae to estimate the cost of hydro plants, which includes civil engineering and administration between an average hydro site in
work, mechanical and electrical equipment costs, direct and indi- North America and a hydro site in any other location, a site location
rect costs, for installed capacities of 5e1, 000 MW and heads of factor L was introduced in Gordon and Noel [13]. The Eq. (4) can be
10e300 m. rewritten to include a location factor L as follows:
In a later work [12], Gordon studied the problem of project cost
overrun which is caused by a signicant underestimation of start up  0:82
project costs. He identied the factors which can lead to cost Ch k  L  kW=H0:3 US$; 1982: (5)
overrun as an underestimate of the rate of ination and of the
To estimate a site factor L, a methodology was developed by
initial project costs due to an overoptimistic assessment of the site
Gordon and Noel [13]. This methodology is based on the idea that
conditions.
the cost of a small hydro site can be divided into three main
A simple methodology was developed to check the estimates of
components: civil site costs, equipment costs and engineering and
rst order of magnitude costs for hydro projects based on statistical
administration costs. The estimation of civil work costs and engi-
analysis of hydro project cost data. It proposed to estimate project
neering and administration costs should be adjusted to a particular
costs taking into account the facts that the cost per unit of installed
location by expressing the cost of material and engineering salaries
capacity decreases as capacity increases, and that the powerhouse
costs decrease as head increases. This implies that the project costs
Table 1
can be expressed as a function of (MW/Hx)y, where MW is the Values of k for different values of head.
installed capacity in MW. There are also other factors which affect
Coefcient k Minimum Average Maximum
project costs, such as site location, project layout, etc., but they can
be disregarded at the initial stage. The values for x and y were Head < 350 m 1.8  106 3.0  106 4.2  106
Head > 350 m 3.0  106 5.0  106 7.0  106
estimated from the data available, from 1956 to 1982, starting with
2634 G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

as proportion of the ones in North America. It was assumed that comprehensive assessment of the economic potential for small
there is no cost variation in the cost of hydro plant equipment. hydro developments in the UK [17]. The scope of the study included
An estimation for the investment costs based on Austrian data both run-of-river and the sites within water industry with the
was developed by Matthias, Doujak and Angerer [14] and was capacity from 25 kW up to 5 MW. The head range started from 2 m
similar to the one derived by Gordon [12]. The overall costs of the (or 3 m if there was no previous development). The sites with the
hydro plant development or renovation were represented as lower heads were considered to be uneconomic.
a function of hydraulic head and capacity of a hydro site: The detailed analysis of the potential sites was undertaken for
 y England and Northern Ireland including site visits, scheme layouts,
K C  P=H0:3 (6) scheme costing and economic evaluations. A ow duration curve
was produced for each site using a prototype of LowFlows software
where K is investment costs in Austrian Shillings (ATS), y is [18]. After the mean ow and FDC were produced for each site, then
a constant, C is a constant (ATS), P is plant capacity (kW) and H is the scheme capacity was estimated.
designed head. This formula is valid for capacities lower than 2 MW The capacity was estimated using the expression
and heads lower than 15 m. The costs of the different components
of the investment costs are given by the same formula but with PowerkW WQi H h; (9)
different values for constants C and y [14]. 3
where Qi e installed ow or restricted ow capacity (m /sec), H e
In Matthias, Doujak and Angerer [14] the overall cost of the gross head (m), h e overall efciency, W e specic weight of water
hydro plant was represented as a sum of civil, mechanical equip- 9.81 kN/m3.
ment, electro-technical components, indirect building and A computer based costing package was developed and used to
common building costs as well as the interest rate of investment, estimate the total cost of each scheme including the transmission
operation, maintenance and management costs. The inuence of cost and the gures of /kW for each potential site was evaluated.
the ecological and environmental measures on the energy costs In the following section, the cost estimating formula was
was also studied. The case study of four hydro plants in Austria developed based on the statistical analysis of the cost data for the
showed that they closely matched the factual data. NW region stated in the Salford Report [17]. The Salford Report cost
In 2001 Papantonis published Small hydro electricity plants data estimates are the most accurate and coherent that are
[15] where he estimated the costs of different components of the currently available for the UK.
hydro plant based on the European data available at that time. This
included the formulae to estimate the costs of electro-mechanical
3. Total small scale hydro project cost formulae
equipment (turbine, speed controls, generator), costs of different
types of turbines (Kaplan, Francis and Pelton), costs of generators,
The formulae to estimate the cost of the potential hydro site uses
speed controls, dams and intakes as functions of hydraulic char-
data such as hydraulic head, installed capacity and estimated cost
acteristics of a hydro site such as head and ow or head and
per kW from the Salford Report mentioned above. The obtained
capacity. The cost of electro-mechanical equipment reected the
estimated cost of potential projects are compared with the ones
formula developed by Gordon [10] with some ination rate
quoted in the report. The cost per kW was adjusted to reect the
adjustments:
ination rate over the twenty year period. According to Watson
CEM 20570  kW 0:7 H0:35 ; 2000: (7) Wyatt data [19], the average annual ination rate over 1989e2008
was 3.66%, which results in about twice the increase in the project
The estimates for different turbine types are shown below: costs.
In the UK NW region 84 potential hydro sites were identied by
C a  Q n  Hm or C b  kW n  Hr ; 2000: (8) the Salford Report. We have limited our choice to the sites with
The values of constants a, b, k, m, and n can be found in the table: head from 2 m to 200 m. The installed capacity ranges from 25 kW
Papantoniss estimates [15] have to be used with care as they are to 990 kW. Sites with a reasonably high cost per kW of installed
based on inconsistent European data much of which is out of date capacity have been excluded.
(Table 2). The formulae described above show the generic relationship
Recently, the equations to estimate the cost of electro- between costs and power to be (kW/Hx)y, for NW England the
mechanical equipment (turbine-alternator) for small scale hydro values of the parameters x and y have been estimated. Sites were
power plant using basic parameters such as hydraulic head and divided into those with heads less than 30 m and those with
generated power which were based on the Spanish data were heads greater than 30 m. There were 50 sites with heads up to
presented in [16]. The results have been differentiated for the most 30 m and 32 sites with heads greater than 30 m. The best t for
common types of turbines: Pelton, Francis, Kaplan and semiKaplan, the data with head less than 30 m is x 0.35 and y 0.65. The
with a power range below 2 MW. best t for the data with head greater than 30 m is x 0.30 and
y 0.60. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 show the relationship between the
overall costs of the project and the hydraulic characteristics of
2.2. Salford report
a site for two cases: for heads up to 30 m and for heads greater
than 30 m. The following equations have been derived from this
In 1989 Salford University Civil Engineering Ltd was commis-
sioned by the Department of Energy to undertake a rst relationship:
 0:65
CPr 25; 000  kW=H0:35 ; 2008; (10)
Table 2
Values of constants a, b, k, m, and n for different types of turbines [15].
for heads 2e30 m and
Turbine type a n m b r
 0:6
Kaplan 87.336 0.410 0.2000 35.446 0.2100 CPr 45; 500  kW=H0:3 ; 2008; (11)
Francis 96.998 0.481 0.1953 33.676 0.2858
Pelton 115.420 0.444 0.2582 43.465 0.1858
for heads 30e200 m.
G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638 2635

10000 2500

2000
1000
Cost ( x 10 , 2008)

Cost ( x 10 , 2008)
1500
3

3
100
1000

10
500

1 0
1 10 100 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0.35 kW
kW / H
Fig. 3. Salford Report data (circles) and estimated values based on the formula derived
Fig. 1. Graph showing the relationship between project costs, installed capacity and
by the authors (triangles).
head (head is less than 30 m).

The current estimated costs obtained using the Eqs. (10) and As the data on which these studies were based on are out of date
(11) largely fall within 25% of the costs quoted in the Salford and a lot of small scale hydro sites have been developed since that
Report (see Fig. 3). However, the results based on the equation time, it was decided to obtain recent data from global manufac-
derived by Gordon [12] do not closely match the costs quoted in the turers. Companies such as Alstom, Andritz, Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon
Salford Report; the difference can be as great as 60%. However, even Ltd, NHT and Voith Siemens were approached. Based on the received
the estimates obtained from Eqs. (10) and (11) should be consid- information a formula was developed to estimate the cost of elec-
ered with care as they indicate the likely minimum cost of tro-mechanical equipment CEM for small scale hydro plants:
a potential hydro project.  0:56
Fig. 4 represents the range of costs per installed kW versus CEM 12; 000  kW=H0:2 ; 2008: (13)
capacity for specic hydro plants with heads in the range 2e200 m
with solid lines showing the cost per kW calculated for head values Most of the estimates lie within 25% of the quoted values.
2 m and 200 m respectively. The gure demonstrates that the cost These results are represented in Fig. 5 and the comparison with the
per kW decreases as the head or installed capacity increases. It also estimates based on the formula developed by Papantonis [15] is
shows that the majority of costs quoted in the Salford Report lie given. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the formula (Eq. (12)) gives
between the solid lines for the maximum and minimum values of higher estimations than the one which has currently been devel-
head, calculated using Eqs. (10) and (11), but that the variation is oped (Eq. (13)).
greater for smaller devices. Fig. 5 shows that for low heads the estimates based on the
formula (Eq. (13)) and the ones based on the formula developed by
4. Cost of electro-mechanical equipment Papantonis (Eq. (12)) differ signicantly whilst, the results for high
heads diverge less. This effect can be explained by the fact that the
As mentioned in the introduction, a formula established a rela- data which Papantonis used to develop his empirical formula were
tion between the cost of electro-mechanical equipment (turbine, mainly for relatively high heads and the extrapolation of the
gear box and generator) and the hydraulic characteristics of the site formula to the low head range resulted in big errors. The other
such as head and ow [10]. Later this formula was updated [15]: reason may be that the cost of electro-mechanical equipment has
decreased due to the increase in amount of small scale hydro
CEM 20; 570  kW 0:7  H0:35 ; 2000: (12)
8000

10000 7000

6000
Cost ( x 10 , 2008)

5000
1000
/ kW

4000
3

3000
Head 2m
100
2000

1000
Head 200m

0
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
1 10 100 1000
kW
0.3
kW / H
Fig. 4. Cost per kW of installed capacity for hydro projects (2 m < head < 200 m),
Fig. 2. Graph showing the relationship between the project cost, installed capacity and prices 2008: the estimates based on the Eqs. (10) and (11) (solid lines) and the Salford
head (30 m < head < 200 m). Report data (stars).
2636 G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

500 For higher ow rates, between 5.0 m3/s and 30 m3/s, the cost of
(1) (1) (2)
450 a Kaplan turbine can be estimated using the following formula:
(3)
400 (2)

(4) CK2 46; 000  Q  H0:35 ; 2008 (15a)


350
Cost ( x 10 , 2008)

300 or
3

250
CK2 14; 000  kW0:35 ; 2008 (15b)
200

150 The results show that the cost of a Kaplan turbine depends on
100 the installed turbine capacity. To estimate the costs of a turbine for
50
the ow rate around 5.0 m3/s, an average value of the results given
by the two formulae can be used. Most of the estimates lie within
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 25% of the quoted values. The comparison with the estimates
kW based on the formula developed by Papantonis [15] is shown on
Figs. 6 and 7.
Fig. 5. Cost of electro-mechanical equipment versus installed capacity for different
values of head. The solid lines represent the estimates based on formula (13): (1) head
5 m; (2) head 15 m; (3) head 50 m; (4) head 150 m respectively. The dashed lines
represent the estimates based on formula (12) from [15] adjusted to include ination 5.2. Francis turbine costs
rate and expressed in : (1) head 5 m; (2) head 150 m.
The relationship between the costs of Francis type turbines CF
and a ow rate Q in m3/s indicated three different bands (Fig. 8).
power developments since the Papantonis formula had been In two of the bands the cost of Francis turbine does not change
developed. a lot for different values of H. The rst lies between 0.5 m3/s and
The estimated cost of electro-mechanical equipment for the 2.5 m3/s and the second region lies between 2.5 m3/s and 10.0 m3/s.
Heron Corn Mill hydro development based on Eq. (13) is 150, 000. The derived estimates are shown below:
The cost quoted by the consultancy company was 170, 000. This  0:07
again shows that Eq. (13) provides the user with a reasonable CF1 142; 000  Q  H0:5 ; 2008 (16a)
estimate of the electro-mechanical equipment cost.
It is now possible to calculate a site factor which was introduced or
in [10] using the updated Salford Report data and the estimates for  0:07
the costs of electro-mechanical equipment based on Eq. (13). The CF1 122; 000  kW=H0:5 ; 2008 (16b)
site factor ranges from 2.01 to up to 3.68 with an average value of
2.97. This means that the costs of electro-mechanical equipment and
constitute about 34% of the total investment costs. With the  0:11
knowledge of the electro-mechanical equipment costs and their CF2 282; 000  Q =H 0:5 ; 2008 (17a)
average percentage of the total project costs, the total project cost
can also be estimated. The cost of civil works can therefore be or
estimated by subtracting these two gures. To allow for site loca-
 0:11
tion differences, a site location factor similar to the one introduced
CF2 223; 000  kW=H0:5 ; 2008: (17b)
in [13] can be included in the formula.
The cost estimates for the third band with the ow rate Q
5. Turbine costs greater than 10 m3/s are shown below:

In the early formulae derived to estimate the different costs


involved in hydro plant development described above, there was no 300 (2)

differentiation between the costs of different types of turbines.


Only Papantonis in [15] gives the estimates of the costs of propeller, 250 (2)
Francis and Pelton turbines based on the European data available at
that time.
Cost x 10 , 2008

200 (1)
3

5.1. Kaplan turbine costs 150 (1)

Having analysed the data for different types of turbines received 100
from the manufacturers, the following formulae were derived.
The relationship between the costs of Kaplan type turbines CK 50
and a ow rate Q in m3/s indicated two different bands. For ow
rates between 0.5 m3/s and 5.0 m3/s the cost of a turbine can be
0
expressed as below: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3
Q m /s
CK1 15; 000  Q  H0:68 ; 2008 (14a)
Fig. 6. Costs estimates for Kaplan turbines versus ow rate between 0.5 m3/s and
or 5.0 m3/s for different values of head. The solid lines represent the estimates based on
formula (14a): (1) head 5 m; (2) head 15 m respectively. The dashed lines represent the
estimates based on formula (8) from [15] e adjusted to include ination rate and
CK1 3500  kW0:68 ; 2008: (14b) expressed in : (1) head 5 m; (2) head 15 m.
G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638 2637

600 900

800 (2)
500 (2)
700 (1)

Cost ( x 10 , 2008)
Cost x 103, 2008

400 (2)
(1) 600

3
500
300
(1)
400 (2)

200 300 (1)

200
100
100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3
Q m3/s Q m /s

Fig. 7. Costs estimates for Kaplan turbines versus ow rate between 5.0 m3/s and Fig. 9. Costs estimates for Pelton turbines versus ow rate. The solid lines represent
30 m3/s for different values of head. The solid lines represent the estimates based on the estimates based on formula (19a) for (1) 150 m and (2) 250 m head respectively.
formula (15a): (1) head 5 m; (2) head 15 m respectively. The dashed lines represent the The dashed lines represent the estimates based on formula (8) from [15] adjusted to
estimates based on formula (8) from [15] adjusted to include ination rate and include ination rate and expressed in : (1) 150 m and (2) 250 m head respectively.
expressed in : (1) head 5 m; (2)- head 15 m.

The estimates lie within 15% of the quoted values. Fig. 9 shows
 0:52 the comparison of results based on formula (19a) and the Papan-
CF3 50; 000  Q =H0:5 ; 2008 (18a) tonis formula (8) from [15]. The Papantonis formula gives exces-
sively high cost estimates for this type of turbines.
or
 0:52 6. Turbine size and manufacturing costs
CF3 16; 500  kW=H0:5 ; 2008: (18b)
The analysis of recent cost data for different turbine types shows
The estimates lie within 10% of the quoted values. The esti- that the relationship between turbine costs and physical charac-
mates derived by using Eqs. (16a), (17a), (18a) and the Papantonis teristics of hydro sites differs between turbine types. Kaplan and
formula (8) from [15] for Francis turbines are shown on Fig. 8. As Francis turbine costs are divided into several bands to best reect
one can see from the Fig. 8 the Papantonis estimate works better in the relationship with the ow rate. However, the costs of Pelton
the region of high ows than of small ows. turbines show a consistent relationship with either installed
capacity or a product of head and ow. The current section
5.3. Pelton turbine costs demonstrates that these changes in the relationship between
turbine costs and ow rate can be associated with turbine size and
The relationship between the cost of Pelton turbine CP and ow the manufacturing process.
rate can be expressed by the following formula: As shown in the Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydro power
Plant published on the European Small Hydro Association (ESHA)
CP 8300  Q  H0:54 ; 2008 (19a) website [20], the specic speed of a turbine nQE is dened by the
following equation:
or
nQ 1=2
CP 2600  kW0:54 ; 2008: (19b) nQE ; (20)
E3=4
where Q is discharge, E is hydraulic energy of a machine, n e is
900 rotational speed of a turbine.
The specic speed for different types of turbine nQE is repre-
800
sented in the Table 3 below [20]:
700 A maximum rotational speed of a turbine can be calculated if
cost ( x 10 , 2008)

600 a maximum specic speed nQE is considered:


3

500
nQE E3=4
400
n (21)
Q 1=2
300
The use of a direct coupling with a generator which is more
200 efcient requires a turbine rotational speed is being synchronised
100 with a generator speed. This requirement denes a corresponding

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Table 3
3
Q m /s Range of specic speed for each turbine type.

Pelton one nozzle 0.005  nQE  0.025


Fig. 8. Costs estimates for Francis turbines versus ow rate for 50 m head. The solid
Pelton n nozzles 0.005  n0.5  nQE  0.025  n0.5
lines represent the estimates based on formulae (16a), (17a) and (18a) for different
Francis 0.05  nQE  0.33
ranges of ow rate. The dashed line represents the estimates based on formula (8)
Kaplan, propellers, bulbs 0.19  nQE  1.55
from [15] adjusted to include ination rate and expressed in .
2638 G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

specic speed of a turbine. This value can be then used in the evaluation and nancing. The developed formulae should be used
following formulae represented in [20] in order to identify a size of with caution as they provide a rst order estimate only. In order to
a turbine. The following formulae [20] were used to estimate a size make balanced decisions, a further, more detailed analysis should
of a turbine: The outer diameter of Kaplan turbines De(m) can be be carried out.
calculated using the expression:
 Acknowledgements
84:5  0:79 1:602nQE  H1=2
De : (22)
60n The authors would like to thank the Joule Centre and the North
The outlet diameter of a Francis turbine D3(m) can be estimated West Development Agency for their nancial support for this
using the equation below [20] project (grant JIRP106/07). The authors gratefully acknowledge the
assistance of the turbine manufacturing companies which supplied

84:5  0:31 2:488nQE  H1=2 the valuable data.
D3 : (23)
60n
References
For Pelton turbines the diameter of the circle describing the
buckets centre line D1(m) is given by the formula: [1] Aggidis GA. Resourceful solutions. Int Water Power Dam Constr J; September
2006:24e6.
0:68  H1=2 [2] Aggidis GA, Howard DC, Rothschild R, Widden MB, Maximising the benets of
D1 : (24) hydro power by developing the North-West England hydro resource model.
n In: Proceedings of the international conference HYDRO 2006-maximising the
benets of hydropower, Porto Carras, Greece, 25e27 September 2006.
Based on the approach how to estimate the size of a certain type
[3] Howard DC, Aggidis GA, Wright SM, Scott R, Energy source or sink? The role of
of turbine described above, the following results were obtained. the uplands in meeting our energy targets. In: Proceedings of the international
For Kaplan turbines the boundary between two price bands uplands centre conference on sustainable uplands, 30 May to 1 June 2006,
corresponds to the ow rate of 5.0 m3/s. The estimates for the outer Kendal, Cumbria, UK.
[4] Howard DC, Aggidis GA, Wright SM. A hydro power resource model for North
runner diameter for this value of ow rate ranges from 0.5 m to West England. In: Davies B, Thompson S, editors. Proceedings of the four-
0.8 m. For Francis turbines the rst boundary between the price teenth annual IALE(UK) conference. Water and the Landscape: the Landscape
bands corresponds to the turbine runner diameter of about 0.5 m Ecology of Freshwater Ecosystems. Oxford Brookes University; September
2006. p. 41e6.
and the second boundary between the price bands corresponds to [5] Leigh PA. Time to go with the ow. Water Environ Magazine 2007;12:24e5.
the turbine runner diameter of about 1.0 m. These results are [6] Leigh PA, Aggidis GA, Howard DC, Rothschild R, Renewable energy resources
especially interesting as the manufacturing process of Kaplan and impact on clean electrical power by developing the North-West hydro
resource model. In: Proceedings of the international conference on clean
Francis turbines changes depending on the size of turbine. Up to electrical power (ICCEP 07), Capri, Italy, 21e23 May 2007.
certain sizes (depending on the manufacturer), Kaplan and Francis [7] Aggidis GA, Luchinskaya E, Rothschild R, Howard DC, An analysis of the costs
turbine runners are one-piece steel casting. For larger diameters, of small-scale hydro power for progressing world hydro development. In:
Proceedings of the international conference HYDRO 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia,
however, runners are constructed by welding blades to the crown.
6e8 October 2008.
In the case of a very large size, turbines can be manufactured in [8] Aggidis GA, Luchinskaya E, Rothschild R, Howard DC, The costs of small-scale
sections. However, for Pelton turbines manufacturing process hydro power production: Impact on the development of existing potential. In:
Proceedings of the 15th international conference on hydropower plants.
remains generally the same. Our ndings demonstrate that the
Hydropower plants in the context of the climatic change. Vienna, Austria,
costs of turbine reect the way in which turbines are manufactured. 26e28 November 2008, pp. 597e606.
[9] Aggidis GA, Luchinskaya E, Howard DC, Technological progress improves
7. Conclusion plans to maximise hydro potential. In: Proceedings of the international
conference HYDRO 2009, Lyon, France, 26e28 October 2009.
[10] Gordon JL, Penman AC. Quick estimating techniques for small hydro potential.
The empirical formulae that have been developed provide a way J Water Power Dam Constr 1979;31:46e55.
to quickly determine the minimum costs of potential small scale [11] Gordon JL. Estimating hydro stations costs. J Water Power Dam Constr
1981;33:31e3.
hydro sites, the cost of energy production, cost of electro- [12] Gordon JL. Hydropower costs estimates. J Water Power Dam Constr
mechanical equipment and costs of different turbine types based 1983;35:30e7.
on the hydraulic characteristics of the site such as head and annual [13] Gordon JL, Noel CR. The economic limits of small and low-head hydro. J Water
Power Dam Constr 1986;38:23e6.
mean ow, which in turn determine the installed capacity. Cost [14] Matthias HB, Doujak E, Angerer P. A contribution to ecological-economical
data used to develop these formulae are based on the Salford aspects of hydro power plants. In: Honningswg, et al., editors. Hydropower
Report data [17] and the data obtained from the manufacturers. The in new millennium. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger; 2001.
[15] Papantonis D. Small hydro power stations. Athens: Simeon; 2001.
Salford Report contains cost data for the UK potential small scale
[16] Ogayar B, Vidal PG. Cost determination of the electro-mechanical equipment
hydro sites with head ranges between 2m and 200 m and installed of a small hydro-power plant. Renewable Energy 2009;34:6e13.
capacities between 25 kW and 900 kW. The analysis of the different [17] Small-scale hydroelectric generation potential in the UK, vols. 1e3. Salford
Civil Engineering Ltd; 1989. ETSU SSH 4063-P1-3.
types of turbine costs demonstrates that the relationship between
[18] Young AR, Gustard A, Bullock A, Sekulin AE, Croker KM. A river network based
the turbine costs and the hydraulic characteristics of a hydro hydrological model for predicting natural and inuenced ow statistics at
resource reects the costs of turbine manufacturing process which ungauged sites: Micro LOW FLOWS. Sci Total Environ 2000;251:293e304.
can change depending on the turbine size and type. The derived [19] http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/statistics/render2.asp?ID1 Last
accessed 30.11.09.
results can be compared with the estimates obtained from other [20] Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydropower Plant http://www.esha.be/
approaches and will assist with further actions such as economic index.php?id39. Last accessed 30.11.09.

You might also like