Micro hydro - a case for special consideration

28/1/2013

I have been involved for some time in discussions with departments and agencies on the way micro hydro schemes are regulated and on other matters affecting their development. I have now drafted a paper which proposes ways to lessen the burden both for potential scheme owners and developers, and for agencies and planning authorities.

It is alarming that the few suppliers with real experience are now abandoning micro hydro owing largely to the delays and complexities of the red tape - hundreds of valuable schemes risk delay or abandonment otherwise.

Please contribute your comments and ideas in response to this entry.

10 Comments

Mike Blanchard link

28/1/2013 09:16:34

I have to wholeheartedly agree. I am trying to set up my own 8 kw scheme, but it is taking a ridiculous amount of time to wade through all the red tape requirements. I'm also trying to hold down a job at the same time and its not easy!

Mike Blanchard link

28/1/2013 09:29:22

Sorry forgot to say anything positive! A standard application form for schemes under a certain power level would be good from Sepa and Planning. And a requirement from the Service Provider to shorten the length of time that they need to assess whether they have the grid capacity for small generation. I've been waiting nearly 3 months.

Jakob Kaye

28/1/2013 09:55:12

Excellent paper, the UK is certainly missing out due to the difficulties of paperwork associated with micro hydro schemes and lack of government initiatives to aid these schemes effectively. The recent weather pattern changes are encouraging for micro hydro generators, therefore more schemes should be encouraged not only to utilise the natural power to reduce reliance on fossil fuels but also to create nationwide employment. I also believe continued research should be made by universities and installers to ensure turbine installation products are not only efficient to generate electricity to the grid, but also sympathetic to UK waterways and ecology resulting in a healthy balance between power generation and a healthy biodiverse ecosystem.

Gordon Black

29/1/2013 01:15:39

Excellent. I like the clarity of the approach and agree that this would sigfinicantly grow the number of schemes being developed. I also really like the change to the funding process which in a single stroke removes the capital barrier issue and alleviates the pressure on FITs

Mike Kirwin

29/1/2013 02:32:20

There's a couple of obvious flaws to this paper. It's based on nothing more than experience and is riddled with common sense.

G King-Smith

29/1/2013 04:04:43

Another comment from a micro hydro installer:
A useful paper, a few comments:
- Loan & FiT: I agree a loan scheme for those that can't find the capital would be very useful, but I am not sure advocating a reduction in the FiT is wise. I would have thought we could lobby for the idea of a loan system without stating that the FiT should be reduced. I'd say the FiT level is the main reason most of my customers commit, I wouldn't want to reduce that incentive.
- The suggested max footprint of the power house at 16m2 will be very tight for larger schemes. We are doing a 75kW scheme at present with 30m2 footprint including the stone cladding.
- The statement about any intake structure being lower than any natural obstructions when fish are present could be a problem. There are plenty of situations where this cannot be achieved. It might be better to say that this will be achieved where possible and where it isn't that a suitable fish pass will be installed to ensure upstream migration is possible. In these situations we have used a series of pools stepping up to the weir crest as per the attached and this design was worked up in consultation with the EA fisheries officers.

Mike Kirwin

29/1/2013 07:16:21

In no particular order and with several comments being general observations and not directly linked to this excellent proposal:

It'd be nice to have time constraints on each stage of the process - even if it's only a guide. Something along the lines of a 3<6 weeks turn around all in.

Open access to hydrology info / access to ordnance survey (not OS Open Data maps which planning refused to accept in my case) would also be useful - especially seeing as we have already paid for this from the public purse.

Alarm bells ring when I read the words _ Design and Access Statement.
Never having done one of these before and not being forewarned from 18 months of dialogue with Snowdonia National Park that this was a requirement, I suddenly found myself in the position where I was given 21 days to supply one, request an extension to the planning process or have my planning app rejected. Google told me the kind of thing that's common in DAS. So I addressed these points in several paragraphs and forwarded to SNP. They instantly rejected it as I had failed to comply to a rigid 27 point format that they also expected me to know about but hadn't bothered to mention. The ludicrous nature of these DAS's in Wales is that they have to fully reference the 100 page Welsh Technical Advice Note (TAN) 12. If there were areas of no relevance - I had to spell out why these sections were irrelevant. And true to form, this was also the first time I'd heard of this document. Essential I was being asked to show the planning department how my proposal met the Planning Policy of Wales. Why weren't they able to determine this for themselves? Surely they are familiar with planning procedure??? I stupidly thought that they would've known whether my application met the TAN12 requirements simply by reading my application, but this wasn't the case. They needed me to spell it out to them, presumably to make their boxes easier to tick. The alternative was to employ a professional to make the application on my behalf. If we need professionals to apply for what is essentially a 3 sq m outside loo (without the loo) and a run of river weir - then the planning process is not fit for purpose.

If we're looking for expediency with renewables to replace our environmentally catastrophic fossil fuel industry, then the authorities need to start smelling the coffee. But with cut backs in the public sector - have they got the will and wherewithal to make the necessary expedient changes?

Practically, wouldn't it better for one agency to take full responsibility for small scale schemes?

Gavin King-Smith

31/1/2013 04:22:40

Comment from a potential generator (ex forestry manager):

I hope that this improves the understanding of the regulators and gives everyone a basis for simplification. It is perhaps of note that wind turbine approvals are already facilitated in the planning process if not more than 2 turbines of maximum size.
Hydro power is just as reversible as turbine removal, as numerous schemes over the last 500 years show.

If I have a comment it is that the message on the very low impact, I would suggest 0 environmental impact of very small schemes could be emphasized. If further simplification for these schemes can be progressed at some stage, as too small scale to justify significant bureaucracy, this must be to the good. Maybe at that time where these can be determined as having 0 impact by a Fishery Authority or approved delegated authority eg Fishery Trust, on payment of a small fee.

Craig Taylor Ecowave Systems link

10/2/2013 03:08:31

Clearly a well considered and well researched paper which I think we all hope will bring benefits. There are one or two things I think need tweaking, 16m2 turbine house has already been mentioned and 10km catchment (on low head sites) would preclude most. However at this point I would support the document "as is" and see what sort of response it gets from the powers that be. The industry has come a long way in the last 10 years and I'm still convinced there is a huge untapped potential out there not only to reduce our carbon footprint but to genuinely create jobs and new businesses. As touched upon in the paper, education and dissemination of knowledge is a key factor and we must push for college courses, apprentices , scholarships or whatever else is needed to encourage new blood and save us old f*rts running round like headless chickens. Well done Gavin for spending the time and energy on this.

Terry Stebbings link

13/3/2013 01:25:24

Dear Gavin,

We welcome your thoughts on the potential simplification of the applications process for small scale hydro schemes. In addition the idea of supporting funding for those not able to raise the capital will increase the opportunities to install micro / pico schemes with long term benfits remaining with the communities around the sites.
As a small company we recognise the lack of existing hydro engineering experience. We are bringing young engineers into the sector using placements and mentoring schemes working with Universities. Not a fast process but hopefully benefitting us and the individuals involved.
Terry

Author

This is a blog to replace the Latest News Page for the Micro Hydro Association so that you can use the RSS feed below. Previous News is still kept on the Home Page. From Administrator.

Micro Hydro Association

Micro hydro - a case for special consideration

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories