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 Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK c Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster, LA1 4YP, UK
b

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 18 December 2009 Accepted 10 April 2010 Available online 15 May 2010 Keywords: Small hydro plants Hydro project cost Electro-mechanical equipment cost Turbine cost

a b s t r a c t
A major barrier to starting small scale hydro power projects is an understanding of how much the scheme will cost. Empirical formulae to estimate the cost of electro-mechanical equipment and the costs of different types of turbines were developed through statistical analysis of cost data obtained from 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 obtained from using other methodologies and were found to provide more realistic cost estimates. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In an attempt to mitigate the current climate change phenomenon the UK Government is seeking to utilise renewable energy resources; small scale hydro power was used traditionally by industry and has a great deal of potential. In this paper empirical formulae are developed to estimate the costs of small-scale hydro power production based on the location and physical characteristics of a potential site. The technique of cost estimation can be used in conjunction with existing methods to inform the decision whether or not to proceed with hydro site development. As the hydro power schemes being considered are small, the development is likely to be led by an individual (e.g. a householder), a small business or a community; in all cases the end users are unlikely to have sufcient expertise to recognise the need for the full breadth of information or independently deploy the economic analysis and accurately interpret its output. The technique developed must not only select and parameterise the appropriate analysis but also make the results easy to comprehend. The current study has been carried out as part of the North West (NW) Hydro Resource Model project led by Lancaster University, UK and funded by the Joule Centre ([1e9]). One of the main objectives of the project is to explore the barriers to the installation of small-scale hydroelectric power schemes in the NW England. The results of the study will

form the foundation for carrying out a more detailed analysis to support a balanced decision on further consideration of a site potential. 2. Background With current demand to use diverse clean supplies of energy, all renewable energy resources are being examined and exploited wherever economically possible. Certain UK regions have considerable potential for small scale hydro power generation and would benet from its further development. For example, the NW region currently generates only a limited amount of hydro power (2.7 MW) and is exploring the opportunities for expanding its production. As this study forms part of the NW Hydro Resource Model Project, some of the empirical data have been collected from the NW region. However, the results can be applied to other regions of the UK as well as to other countries, providing that some adjustments to the formulae coefcients are made. 2.1. Overview of existing estimating techniques The decision to develop a hydro power project is made on economic grounds, but is informed by factors including the environmental, 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, operating and maintenance costs are low, which means that a large proportion of the projects overall budget will be spent at the

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: g.aggidis@lancaster.ac.uk (G.A. Aggidis). 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 installation against the magnitude and speed of energy output (and its value) to evaluate whether the project is worth pursuing, and if so, to plan the subsequent budget. The viability of each hydro project is site-specic and dependent on the local characteristics. The amount of the power produced depends on the water ow, the hydraulic head and the efciency of the device; the ow will vary through the year and the efciency will change in response to the variation. Several studies have been carried out which analyse the costs of hydro plant development depending on the hydraulic characteristics of a site. In 1979, Gordon and Penman [10] undertook a study of the costs of hydro power plants of up to 5 MW at existing dams focussing on the establishment of a relationship between the cost and hydrological characteristics of the sites e water ow level and hydraulic head. Their study showed that at existing dams the cost of the additional components to generate energy such as intake, powerhouse, turbine, generator and controls, transformer and engineering and management apart from penstock could be expressed as a function of installed hydro plant capacity and hydraulic head. An empirical formula [1] was developed to estimate the cost of electro-mechanical equipment (turbine, speed control and generator) based on the statistical analysis of North American data:

0.4 MW up to 25, 000 MW and heads 5.5 e1100 m. The derived formula is shown below:

0:82  C k MW=H0:3

US$; 1982;

(3)

CEM 9000 kW 0:7 =H0:35

US$; 1978;

(1)

where kW is the installed capacity in kW and H is the hydraulic head in m. The study [10] introduced a site factor S which was dened as the total project cost divided by the cost of electro-mechanical equipment. The site factor varies depending on the size of the project and the requirement for penstock. The ndings were grouped according to the installed capacity. For capacity greater than 500 kW with no penstock the site factor varied around 2.6 25% equivalent sites of less than 500 kW installed capacity the site factor is around 3.7 25%. Where penstocks are required the site factors increase to 5.1 25% and 5.5 25% respectively. Therefore, the overall cost of a hydro plant CP can be expressed as follows:

where the coefcient k values are represented below: As most of the systems are designed to produce energy at system load factor which is likely to be 60%, Gordon [12] introduced a methodology for obtaining better estimates for developments with a higher or lower load factor (Table 1). This formula was intended to be used to estimate the minimum costs of the new medium and large scale hydro project only, as it was derived from historical data and did not include any adjustment to the specic site characteristics. However, the data used by Gordon [12] were sourced from many different countries, with large variations in hydro project costs, and so would not provide a reliable estimate. The data are also out of date, and under represent low head small scale sites as the data were not available at the time. As Eq. (3) provides an estimate for an average site, the obtained cost should be adjusted to allow for specic local conditions of a potential site and for the ination rate if the project duration is more than one year. However there is no specic instruction given by Gordon [12] as to how this adjustment should be made. In the work published in 1986 Gordon and Noel [13] developed another empirical formula for estimating costs of the small scale hydro development based on North American low-head hydro cost data for heads down to about 3 m which had at that time just become available. It was shown that the relationship between project costs and the function (kW/H0.3) established for medium and large scale hydro projects Gordon [12] could also be applied to small scale hydro projects. The developed formula has the following form:

0:82  Ch k kW=H0:3

US$; 1982;

(4)

Cp 9000 S kW 0:7 =H0:35

US$; 1978;

(2)

where S is the site factor. In a further study [11] Gordon developed mathematical formulae to estimate the cost of hydro plants, which includes civil work, mechanical and electrical equipment costs, direct and indirect costs, for installed capacities of 5e1, 000 MW and heads of 10e300 m. In a later work [12], Gordon studied the problem of project cost overrun which is caused by a signicant underestimation of start up project costs. He identied the factors which can lead to cost overrun as an underestimate of the rate of ination and of the initial project costs due to an overoptimistic assessment of the site conditions. A simple methodology was developed to check the estimates of rst order of magnitude costs for hydro projects based on statistical analysis of hydro project cost data. It proposed to estimate project costs taking into account the facts that the cost per unit of installed capacity decreases as capacity increases, and that the powerhouse costs decrease as head increases. This implies that the project costs can be expressed as a function of (MW/Hx)y, where MW is the installed capacity in MW. There are also other factors which affect 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 estimated from the data available, from 1956 to 1982, starting with

where k has a minimum value of 22, 000 and the average value of 37, 000 in Eq. (4). Again because of the lack of data for small scale hydro developments with capacities less than 100 kW, the assumption was made that the approach would be applicable for this range of capacities but more judgement would be required in the selection of the coefcient k. To take into account the differences in location which include the difference in labour costs, costs of materials and the cost of engineering and administration between an average hydro site in North America and a hydro site in any other location, a site location factor L was introduced in Gordon and Noel [13]. The Eq. (4) can be rewritten to include a location factor L as follows:

0:82  Ch k L kW=H0:3

US$; 1982:

(5)

To estimate a site factor L, a methodology was developed by Gordon and Noel [13]. This methodology is based on the idea that the cost of a small hydro site can be divided into three main components: civil site costs, equipment costs and engineering and administration costs. The estimation of civil work costs and engineering and administration costs should be adjusted to a particular location by expressing the cost of material and engineering salaries
Table 1 Values of k for different values of head. Coefcient k Head < 350 m Head > 350 m Minimum 1.8 106 3.0 106 Average 3.0 106 5.0 106 Maximum 4.2 106 7.0 106

2634

G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

as proportion of the ones in North America. It was assumed that there is no cost variation in the cost of hydro plant equipment. An estimation for the investment costs based on Austrian data was developed by Matthias, Doujak and Angerer [14] and was similar to the one derived by Gordon [12]. The overall costs of the hydro plant development or renovation were represented as a function of hydraulic head and capacity of a hydro site:

y  K C P=H0:3

(6)

where K is investment costs in Austrian Shillings (ATS), y is a constant, C is a constant (ATS), P is plant capacity (kW) and H is designed head. This formula is valid for capacities lower than 2 MW and heads lower than 15 m. The costs of the different components of the investment costs are given by the same formula but with different values for constants C and y [14]. In Matthias, Doujak and Angerer [14] the overall cost of the hydro plant was represented as a sum of civil, mechanical equipment, electro-technical components, indirect building and common building costs as well as the interest rate of investment, operation, maintenance and management costs. The inuence of the ecological and environmental measures on the energy costs was also studied. The case study of four hydro plants in Austria showed that they closely matched the factual data. In 2001 Papantonis published Small hydro electricity plants [15] where he estimated the costs of different components of the hydro plant based on the European data available at that time. This included the formulae to estimate the costs of electro-mechanical equipment (turbine, speed controls, generator), costs of different types of turbines (Kaplan, Francis and Pelton), costs of generators, speed controls, dams and intakes as functions of hydraulic characteristics of a hydro site such as head and ow or head and capacity. The cost of electro-mechanical equipment reected the formula developed by Gordon [10] with some ination rate adjustments:

comprehensive assessment of the economic potential for small hydro developments in the UK [17]. The scope of the study included both run-of-river and the sites within water industry with the capacity from 25 kW up to 5 MW. The head range started from 2 m (or 3 m if there was no previous development). The sites with the lower heads were considered to be uneconomic. The detailed analysis of the potential sites was undertaken for England and Northern Ireland including site visits, scheme layouts, scheme costing and economic evaluations. A ow duration curve was produced for each site using a prototype of LowFlows software [18]. After the mean ow and FDC were produced for each site, then the scheme capacity was estimated. The capacity was estimated using the expression

PowerkW WQi H h;
3

(9)

where Qi e installed ow or restricted ow capacity (m /sec), H e gross head (m), h e overall efciency, W e specic weight of water 9.81 kN/m3. A computer based costing package was developed and used to estimate the total cost of each scheme including the transmission cost and the gures of /kW for each potential site was evaluated. In the following section, the cost estimating formula was developed based on the statistical analysis of the cost data for the NW region stated in the Salford Report [17]. The Salford Report cost data estimates are the most accurate and coherent that are currently available for the UK. 3. Total small scale hydro project cost formulae The formulae to estimate the cost of the potential hydro site uses data such as hydraulic head, installed capacity and estimated cost per kW from the Salford Report mentioned above. The obtained estimated cost of potential projects are compared with the ones quoted in the report. The cost per kW was adjusted to reect the ination rate over the twenty year period. According to Watson Wyatt data [19], the average annual ination rate over 1989e2008 was 3.66%, which results in about twice the increase in the project costs. In the UK NW region 84 potential hydro sites were identied by the Salford Report. We have limited our choice to the sites with head from 2 m to 200 m. The installed capacity ranges from 25 kW to 990 kW. Sites with a reasonably high cost per kW of installed capacity have been excluded. The formulae described above show the generic relationship between costs and power to be (kW/Hx)y, for NW England the values of the parameters x and y have been estimated. Sites were divided into those with heads less than 30 m and those with heads greater than 30 m. There were 50 sites with heads up to 30 m and 32 sites with heads greater than 30 m. The best t for the data with head less than 30 m is x 0.35 and y 0.65. The 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 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 relationship:

CEM 20570 kW 0:7 H0:35

; 2000:

(7)

The estimates for different turbine types are shown below:

C a Q n Hm or C b kW n Hr

; 2000:

(8)

The values of constants a, b, k, m, and n can be found in the table: Papantoniss estimates [15] have to be used with care as they are based on inconsistent European data much of which is out of date (Table 2). Recently, the equations to estimate the cost of electromechanical equipment (turbine-alternator) for small scale hydro power plant using basic parameters such as hydraulic head and generated power which were based on the Spanish data were presented in [16]. The results have been differentiated for the most common types of turbines: Pelton, Francis, Kaplan and semiKaplan, with a power range below 2 MW. 2.2. Salford report In 1989 Salford University Civil Engineering Ltd was commissioned by the Department of Energy to undertake a rst
Table 2 Values of constants a, b, k, m, and n for different types of turbines [15]. Turbine type Kaplan Francis Pelton a 87.336 96.998 115.420 n 0.410 0.481 0.444 m 0.2000 0.1953 0.2582 b 35.446 33.676 43.465 r 0.2100 0.2858 0.1858

0:65  CPr 25; 000 kW=H0:35

for heads 2e30 m and

; 2008;

(10)

0:6  CPr 45; 500 kW=H0:3

for heads 30e200 m.

; 2008;

(11)

G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

2635

10000

2500

Cost ( x 10 , 2008)

Cost ( x 10 , 2008)

1000

2000

100

1500

1000

10

500

1 1 10 kW / H
0.35

100

1000

0 0 200 400 600 kW 800 1000 1200

Fig. 1. Graph showing the relationship between project costs, installed capacity and head (head is less than 30 m).

Fig. 3. Salford Report data (circles) and estimated values based on the formula derived by the authors (triangles).

The current estimated costs obtained using the Eqs. (10) and (11) largely fall within 25% of the costs quoted in the Salford Report (see Fig. 3). However, the results based on the equation derived by Gordon [12] do not closely match the costs quoted in the Salford Report; the difference can be as great as 60%. However, even the estimates obtained from Eqs. (10) and (11) should be considered with care as they indicate the likely minimum cost of a potential hydro project. Fig. 4 represents the range of costs per installed kW versus capacity for specic hydro plants with heads in the range 2e200 m with solid lines showing the cost per kW calculated for head values 2 m and 200 m respectively. The gure demonstrates that the cost per kW decreases as the head or installed capacity increases. It also shows that the majority of costs quoted in the Salford Report lie between the solid lines for the maximum and minimum values of head, calculated using Eqs. (10) and (11), but that the variation is greater for smaller devices. 4. Cost of electro-mechanical equipment As mentioned in the introduction, a formula established a relation between the cost of electro-mechanical equipment (turbine, gear box and generator) and the hydraulic characteristics of the site such as head and ow [10]. Later this formula was updated [15]:

As the data on which these studies were based on are out of date and a lot of small scale hydro sites have been developed since that time, it was decided to obtain recent data from global manufacturers. Companies such as Alstom, Andritz, Gilbert Gilkes & Gordon Ltd, NHT and Voith Siemens were approached. Based on the received information a formula was developed to estimate the cost of electro-mechanical equipment CEM for small scale hydro plants:

0:56  CEM 12; 000 kW=H0:2

; 2008:

(13)

Most of the estimates lie within 25% of the quoted values. These results are represented in Fig. 5 and the comparison with the estimates based on the formula developed by Papantonis [15] is given. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the formula (Eq. (12)) gives higher estimations than the one which has currently been developed (Eq. (13)). Fig. 5 shows that for low heads the estimates based on the formula (Eq. (13)) and the ones based on the formula developed by Papantonis (Eq. (12)) differ signicantly whilst, the results for high heads diverge less. This effect can be explained by the fact that the data which Papantonis used to develop his empirical formula were mainly for relatively high heads and the extrapolation of the formula to the low head range resulted in big errors. The other 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)

1000
/ kW

5000 4000 3000

100

Head 2m

2000 1000

Head 200m
0 200 400 600 kW 800 1000 1200

10 1 10 100 1000

kW / H

0.3

Fig. 2. Graph showing the relationship between the project cost, installed capacity and head (30 m < head < 200 m).

Fig. 4. Cost per kW of installed capacity for hydro projects (2 m < head < 200 m), prices 2008: the estimates based on the Eqs. (10) and (11) (solid lines) and the Salford Report data (stars).

2636
500 450 400
(1)

G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

(1)

(2) (3) (2) (4)

For higher ow rates, between 5.0 m3/s and 30 m3/s, the cost of a Kaplan turbine can be estimated using the following formula:

Cost ( x 10 , 2008)

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 200 400 600 kW 800 1000

CK2 46; 000 Q H0:35

or

; 2008

(15a)

CK2 14; 000 kW0:35

; 2008

(15b)

1200

1400

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 rate and expressed in : (1) head 5 m; (2) head 150 m.

The results show that the cost of a Kaplan turbine depends on the installed turbine capacity. To estimate the costs of a turbine for 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 25% of the quoted values. The comparison with the estimates based on the formula developed by Papantonis [15] is shown on Figs. 6 and 7.

5.2. Francis turbine costs The relationship between the costs of Francis type turbines CF and a ow rate Q in m3/s indicated three different bands (Fig. 8). In two of the bands the cost of Francis turbine does not change a lot for different values of H. The rst lies between 0.5 m3/s and 2.5 m3/s and the second region lies between 2.5 m3/s and 10.0 m3/s. The derived estimates are shown below:

power developments since the Papantonis formula had been developed. The estimated cost of electro-mechanical equipment for the Heron Corn Mill hydro development based on Eq. (13) is 150, 000. The cost quoted by the consultancy company was 170, 000. This again shows that Eq. (13) provides the user with a reasonable estimate of the electro-mechanical equipment cost. It is now possible to calculate a site factor which was introduced in [10] using the updated Salford Report data and the estimates for the costs of electro-mechanical equipment based on Eq. (13). The 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 constitute about 34% of the total investment costs. With the knowledge of the electro-mechanical equipment costs and their average percentage of the total project costs, the total project cost can also be estimated. The cost of civil works can therefore be estimated by subtracting these two gures. To allow for site location differences, a site location factor similar to the one introduced in [13] can be included in the formula. 5. Turbine costs In the early formulae derived to estimate the different costs involved in hydro plant development described above, there was no differentiation between the costs of different types of turbines. Only Papantonis in [15] gives the estimates of the costs of propeller, Francis and Pelton turbines based on the European data available at that time. 5.1. Kaplan turbine costs Having analysed the data for different types of turbines received from the manufacturers, the following formulae were derived. The relationship between the costs of Kaplan type turbines CK 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 expressed as below:

 0:07 CF1 142; 000 Q H0:5

or

; 2008

(16a)

0:07  CF1 122; 000 kW=H0:5

and

; 2008

(16b)

0:11  CF2 282; 000 Q =H 0:5

or

; 2008

(17a)

0:11  CF2 223; 000 kW=H0:5

; 2008:

(17b)

The cost estimates for the third band with the ow rate Q greater than 10 m3/s are shown below:

300 250
Cost x 10 , 2008

(2)

(2)

200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 Q m /s

3

(1)

(1)

CK1 15; 000 Q H0:68

or

; 2008

(14a)

CK1 3500 kW0:68

; 2008:

(14b)

Fig. 6. Costs estimates for Kaplan turbines versus ow rate between 0.5 m3/s and 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 expressed in : (1) head 5 m; (2) head 15 m.

G.A. Aggidis et al. / Renewable Energy 35 (2010) 2632e2638

600 500
Cost x 103, 2008

2637

900 800
(2) (2) (1)

(2) (1)

400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 Q m3/s 20 25 30

Cost ( x 10 , 2008)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100

(1)

(2) (1)

35

3 Q m /s
3

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

Fig. 9. Costs estimates for Pelton turbines versus ow rate. The solid lines represent the estimates based on formula (19a) for (1) 150 m and (2) 250 m head respectively. The dashed lines represent the estimates based on formula (8) from [15] adjusted to include ination rate and expressed in : (1) 150 m and (2) 250 m head respectively.

CF3 50; 000 Q =H0:5

or

0:52

; 2008

(18a)

The estimates lie within 15% of the quoted values. Fig. 9 shows the comparison of results based on formula (19a) and the Papantonis formula (8) from [15]. The Papantonis formula gives excessively high cost estimates for this type of turbines. 6. Turbine size and manufacturing costs

 0:52 CF3 16; 500 kW=H0:5

; 2008:

(18b)

The estimates lie within 10% of the quoted values. The estimates derived by using Eqs. (16a), (17a), (18a) and the Papantonis formula (8) from [15] for Francis turbines are shown on Fig. 8. As one can see from the Fig. 8 the Papantonis estimate works better in the region of high ows than of small ows. 5.3. Pelton turbine costs The relationship between the cost of Pelton turbine CP and ow rate can be expressed by the following formula:

CP 8300 Q H0:54
or

; 2008

(19a)

The analysis of recent cost data for different turbine types shows that the relationship between turbine costs and physical characteristics of hydro sites differs between turbine types. Kaplan and Francis turbine costs are divided into several bands to best reect the relationship with the ow rate. However, the costs of Pelton turbines show a consistent relationship with either installed capacity or a product of head and ow. The current section demonstrates that these changes in the relationship between turbine costs and ow rate can be associated with turbine size and the manufacturing process. As shown in the Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydro power Plant published on the European Small Hydro Association (ESHA) website [20], the specic speed of a turbine nQE is dened by the following equation:

CP 2600 kW0:54

; 2008:

(19b)

nQE

nQ 1=2 ; E3=4

(20)

900 800
cost ( x 10 , 2008)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 Q m /s

3

where Q is discharge, E is hydraulic energy of a machine, n e is rotational speed of a turbine. The specic speed for different types of turbine nQE is represented in the Table 3 below [20]: A maximum rotational speed of a turbine can be calculated if a maximum specic speed nQE is considered:

nQE E3=4 Q 1=2

(21)

The use of a direct coupling with a generator which is more efcient requires a turbine rotational speed is being synchronised with a generator speed. This requirement denes a corresponding
20 25 30 35

Table 3 Range of specic speed for each turbine type. Pelton one nozzle Pelton n nozzles Francis Kaplan, propellers, bulbs 0.005 nQE 0.025 0.005 n0.5 nQE 0.025 n0.5 0.05 nQE 0.33 0.19 nQE 1.55

Fig. 8. Costs estimates for Francis turbines versus ow rate for 50 m head. The solid lines represent the estimates based on formulae (16a), (17a) and (18a) for different ranges of ow rate. The dashed line represents the estimates based on formula (8) 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 following formulae represented in [20] in order to identify a size of a turbine. The following formulae [20] were used to estimate a size of a turbine: The outer diameter of Kaplan turbines De(m) can be calculated using the expression:

evaluation and nancing. The developed formulae should be used with caution as they provide a rst order estimate only. In order to make balanced decisions, a further, more detailed analysis should be carried out. Acknowledgements

84:5 0:79 1:602nQE H1=2 De : 60n

(22)

The outlet diameter of a Francis turbine D3(m) can be estimated using the equation below [20]

D3

84:5 0:31 2:488nQE H1=2 : 60n

(23)

The authors would like to thank the Joule Centre and the North West Development Agency for their nancial support for this project (grant JIRP106/07). The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the turbine manufacturing companies which supplied the valuable data. References
[1] Aggidis GA. Resourceful solutions. Int Water Power Dam Constr J; September 2006:24e6. [2] Aggidis GA, Howard DC, Rothschild R, Widden MB, Maximising the benets of hydro power by developing the North-West England hydro resource model. In: Proceedings of the international conference HYDRO 2006-maximising the benets of hydropower, Porto Carras, Greece, 25e27 September 2006. [3] Howard DC, Aggidis GA, Wright SM, Scott R, Energy source or sink? The role of the uplands in meeting our energy targets. In: Proceedings of the international uplands centre conference on sustainable uplands, 30 May to 1 June 2006, Kendal, Cumbria, UK. [4] Howard DC, Aggidis GA, Wright SM. A hydro power resource model for North West England. In: Davies B, Thompson S, editors. Proceedings of the fourteenth annual IALE(UK) conference. Water and the Landscape: the Landscape Ecology of Freshwater Ecosystems. Oxford Brookes University; September 2006. p. 41e6. [5] Leigh PA. Time to go with the ow. Water Environ Magazine 2007;12:24e5. [6] Leigh PA, Aggidis GA, Howard DC, Rothschild R, Renewable energy resources impact on clean electrical power by developing the North-West hydro resource model. In: Proceedings of the international conference on clean electrical power (ICCEP 07), Capri, Italy, 21e23 May 2007. [7] Aggidis GA, Luchinskaya E, Rothschild R, Howard DC, An analysis of the costs of small-scale hydro power for progressing world hydro development. In: Proceedings of the international conference HYDRO 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 6e8 October 2008. [8] Aggidis GA, Luchinskaya E, Rothschild R, Howard DC, The costs of small-scale hydro power production: Impact on the development of existing potential. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on hydropower plants. Hydropower plants in the context of the climatic change. Vienna, Austria, 26e28 November 2008, pp. 597e606. [9] Aggidis GA, Luchinskaya E, Howard DC, Technological progress improves 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. J Water Power Dam Constr 1979;31:46e55. [11] Gordon JL. Estimating hydro stations costs. J Water Power Dam Constr 1981;33:31e3. [12] Gordon JL. Hydropower costs estimates. J Water Power Dam Constr 1983;35:30e7. [13] Gordon JL, Noel CR. The economic limits of small and low-head hydro. J Water Power Dam Constr 1986;38:23e6. [14] Matthias HB, Doujak E, Angerer P. A contribution to ecological-economical aspects of hydro power plants. In: Honningswg, et al., editors. Hydropower in new millennium. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger; 2001. [15] Papantonis D. Small hydro power stations. Athens: Simeon; 2001. [16] Ogayar B, Vidal PG. Cost determination of the electro-mechanical equipment of a small hydro-power plant. Renewable Energy 2009;34:6e13. [17] Small-scale hydroelectric generation potential in the UK, vols. 1e3. Salford Civil Engineering Ltd; 1989. ETSU SSH 4063-P1-3. [18] Young AR, Gustard A, Bullock A, Sekulin AE, Croker KM. A river network based hydrological model for predicting natural and inuenced ow statistics at ungauged sites: Micro LOW FLOWS. Sci Total Environ 2000;251:293e304. [19] http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pubs/statistics/render2.asp?ID1 Last accessed 30.11.09. [20] Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydropower Plant http://www.esha.be/ index.php?id39. Last accessed 30.11.09.

For Pelton turbines the diameter of the circle describing the buckets centre line D1(m) is given by the formula:

D1

0:68 H1=2 : n

(24)

Based on the approach how to estimate the size of a certain type of turbine described above, the following results were obtained. For Kaplan turbines the boundary between two price bands corresponds to the ow rate of 5.0 m3/s. The estimates for the outer runner diameter for this value of ow rate ranges from 0.5 m to 0.8 m. For Francis turbines the rst boundary between the price bands corresponds to the turbine runner diameter of about 0.5 m and the second boundary between the price bands corresponds to the turbine runner diameter of about 1.0 m. These results are especially interesting as the manufacturing process of Kaplan and Francis turbines changes depending on the size of turbine. Up to certain sizes (depending on the manufacturer), Kaplan and Francis turbine runners are one-piece steel casting. For larger diameters, however, runners are constructed by welding blades to the crown. In the case of a very large size, turbines can be manufactured in sections. However, for Pelton turbines manufacturing process remains generally the same. Our ndings demonstrate that the costs of turbine reect the way in which turbines are manufactured. 7. Conclusion The empirical formulae that have been developed provide a way to quickly determine the minimum costs of potential small scale hydro sites, the cost of energy production, cost of electromechanical equipment and costs of different turbine types based on the hydraulic characteristics of the site such as head and annual mean ow, which in turn determine the installed capacity. Cost data used to develop these formulae are based on the Salford Report data [17] and the data obtained from the manufacturers. The Salford Report contains cost data for the UK potential small scale hydro sites with head ranges between 2m and 200 m and installed capacities between 25 kW and 900 kW. The analysis of the different types of turbine costs demonstrates that the relationship between the turbine costs and the hydraulic characteristics of a hydro resource reects the costs of turbine manufacturing process which can change depending on the turbine size and type. The derived results can be compared with the estimates obtained from other approaches and will assist with further actions such as economic