Results of survey of installers and suppliers - and a request for your views

18/11/2012

A survey of industry members of the Micro hydro Association (many thanks to those who responded) has confirmed that red tape is hampering development of small scale hydropower schemes and that there is overwhelming support for a simplified registration process.

However, if this is to happen, there will still need to be appropriate safeguards to avoid poorly designed (or fraudulent) installations which are the main concern of electricity, planning and environmental regulation.

I have set up this discussion thread together with links to the survey summary and detailed findings (please zoom in to read the comments and summary figures in this .pdf file).

I am now inviting all readers of this site to read the summary and to comment on whether the proposed registration criteria would be suitable. My aim is to provide evidence to back up a submission to Government to introduce a registration process.

Please include in your comment a brief description of your role in the micro hydro world, whether as a supplier of services or products or as a potential or current generator.

11 Comments

Neil Stoddart

19/11/2012 04:29:25

Hi Gavin,
thanks for this work.
your outline guidance feels like enough information to ensure correct design and installation which allows the small installer (like myself) or a DIY scheme to be pursued without barriers. the DNO/Ofgem still require to be satisfied and this should remain as a check for output. I like the inclusion of a 'qualified walkover', this should ensure an expert ecological eye has seen the project, which should be able to satisfy SEPA/EPA concerns.

Nick vZ

19/11/2012 05:10:36

Many thanks for your continued involvement. It's much appreciated. I can add almost nothing to the protocols you are developing as my scheme is still awaiting a more favourable planning environment before I wade into the stream so to speak. What you have so far seems to tick most of the concerns that have been expressed all along.

John and Sheila

19/11/2012 09:12:36

Thank you for your email Gavin, and all your hard work. We are still
moving on slowly, will keep you updated. kind regards.

Mike Kirwin

20/11/2012 02:11:07

Love the way you keep pulling this stuff out the bag. Much appreciated

Gavin King-Smith

20/11/2012 15:33:15

COMMENT FROM AN INSTALLER OF MANY HIGH HEAD SCHEMES
(received by email)

I approve of all the suggestions. Just one comment on the footprint of the power house, I'd say that 16m2 is a bit tight. We're doing a 75kW scheme at the moment and its floor area is 30m2 (2 jet turgo, 315mm manifold). We have also done a number of 15kW turgos, ones with 3 or 4 jets have needed power houses about 23m2, partly because of the arrangement of the nozzle branches but also in one particular case it was in the Snowdonia National Park and had to be clad in stone which increased its floor area.

My role is managing director of Greenearth Hydro and we're an installer of turgo high head schemes.

Gordon Black link

22/11/2012 02:49:24

Gavin, All power to your efforts to simplify the process for getting micro schemes consented. Some observations on the document:
a) The primary motivation for the statutary bodies adopting a Registration process will be a reduction in their workload - without negating their statutory responsibilities
b) I believe the specturm of schemes up to 100kW will be too broad - the SEPA/EA issues around a 5kW scheme are very different from those of 100kW. I think a more limited Registration of say up to 10kW (or 15kW for FITS purposes) is more likely to be acceptable.
c) Flow measurement. On very small burns flow measurement is difficult and less accurate. At the top of page 2 you suggest banding based on the 'quality' of the data - this will be subjective and too hard to assess. I suggest simply adopting LF2 as the 'best' estimate of available flow for schemes under 15kW.
d) Qualified walkover. How would you define 'qualified'. For schemes under 15kW I think the use of an ecologist is unnecessary. I think it is for the applicant to describe as part of the Registration what observations have been made and research conducted.
e) In the final para of your conclusion on page 2 you leave open the question of who manages the Registration process. I strongly favour SEPA/EA. There are too many Local Authorities and so agreement would be impossible. In Scotland they have looked at removing very small renewables from planning - and achieved this for small wind and solar. They declined to address hydro - too diverse. But they may be interested in a Registration process.
f) Registration Criteria - the ideal way to do it, but as mentioned above, the criteria will be easier to define if the size range is restricted.

All done.

Brian Shingler

22/11/2012 11:00:31

Gavin
Thank you for all you do in the interests of hydropower. The guidelines for installation are excellent, and a good checklist for what installers and site owners need to take into consideration for a hydropower system. My main proviso is that these remain guidelines, and do not become too prescriptive, bearing in mind the very site-specific nature of hydropower sites, the often large margin of error in determining Q values, and the comments from members about the existing arrangements already being too onerous.
I also ask - what is the purpose of registration? - when, in England at least, the eligibility for FiTs is already covered by the ROO-FiT process, and design constraints by abstraction licences, impoundment licences, flood risk assessments and planning consents.
I consider an important omission is the need, in some way, to maintain the openness between the vaious sections of the (very small) hydropower community. At one time installers were occasionally reluctant to reveal sites where they had worked, and also manufacturers sites where their products were installed, possibly for reasons of industrial secrecy.
This situation is now much improved, with most installers, on their websites, listing case studies with locations, images, and often technical data to enable potential clients to assess their experience and capabilities. Also site owners are increasingly more open about who installed their equipment - for example, see the excellent recent website for the National Trust Morden Hall Park turbine, where the manufacturer, installer, fish pass supplier and civil contractors are all listed.
It is this openness of exchange of information which is the main safeguard against "cowboy" operators in the hydropower sector, and which needs to be built into any registration scheme.This could easily be met by a requirement for installers to list details on their websites of all the installations they have put in, in say the last five years, which most are doing at the moment anyway.

"Generating for seven years"

23/11/2012 03:14:52

This is the second time in my brief 4 year involvement in micro hydro that I've come across a reference to hydro "cowboy" operators. Has anyone any links, evidence of any they can share? Very curious which region(s) they operate in.

ian benson

7/12/2012 12:35:43

Just a specific disagreement with Gordon on his point c (LF2 being the easiest way to design/license small (<15kw) schemes.

Basically, the smaller the catchment area is, the less good is LF2 at estimating flows, especially flows at the Q95 end of the curve. So, small high-head schemes are exactly where you should not rely on modelling. 5km2 or less is small in this context. We have done licensing of spring-fed schemes and of one design with just 0.25km2 catchment - LF wouldhave been truely useless in these cases.

I'd argue from experience that gauging (sometimes including our installing temporary gauging structures) has 'won the day' with the EA hydroloists for us on a few such sub 10kW designs. The cost of gauging isn't necessarily prohibitive, and the time it takes to get useful results is 'only' about 12 months (realistic given the slow planning and licensing process for hydro).

ian.

7/12/2012 15:45:05

I have had it confirmed by a SEPA hydrologist that LF2 is not at all accurate for small catchments - Hydra (precursor to LF2 and now obsolete appears to be more reliable).

generatorsideas link

8/9/2017 16:08:14

This result is good as compared to other because the survey which you did for installers is a good step

Micro Hydro Association

Results of survey of installers and suppliers - and a request for your views

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories