Methodology Development for New Small Hydro Technology

Assessment and Selection

Qin Fen (Katherine) Zhang, Patrick O’Connor,
Scott DeNeale, Rocio Martinez

Introduction: Recent resource assessments have shown that more than 90 GW of small run-of-river and
non-powered dam hydropower potential remains undeveloped within the conterminous United States
[1, 2]. Cost-effectiveness remains a large barrier to developing small and low-head hydropower, and the
long lead time and risk associated with permitting and licensing further deter deployment. However,
innovations in small hydro technologies have emerged in recent years, and most of them are targeted to
addressing high costs and environmental issues. Examples include modular units such as CleanPower’s
Turbinator [3], the Natel Schneider Linear HydroEngine [4], the MJ2 Very Low Head Turbine [5], and
various implementations of the Archimedes Screw Turbine [6, 7]. It is important to properly assess and
select the best from multiple traditional and novel technology choices to reduce investment risk for the
project owner. However, hydro technologies can ultimately be assessed only under site-specific
conditions (i.e., site feasibility assessment), and the assessment approach is dependent on the
availability of data pertaining to the site. As a project progresses, increasingly detailed data become
available, enabling a more detailed modeling approach. This article introduces different levels of
modeling approaches, used at different phases of project development, for evaluating and selecting
small hydro technology at potential development sites. In light of the limitations of using existing
modeling frameworks, the argument is made for developing a new modeling framework that
incorporates the small hydro engineering process into the project lifecycle cost-benefit analysis.

Minimum Level of Assessment—Cost Performance Indicators

At the earliest stages of project development—even at a screening or permitting level of analysis—
detailed site-specific information, such as hydrologic, geographic, geologic or environmental data, may
not be readily available. This makes detailed engineering and project value assessments impossible. In
this case, only high-level cost performance indicators, including installation cost ($/kW) and levelized
cost of energy (LCOE; $/MWh), would be estimated based on major parameters of project
characterization (e.g., the plant capacity, hydraulic head, project lifespan and capacity factor).

Even with limited site-specific condition and design data, differences in the cost-effectiveness of new
small hydropower technologies may be apparent if the cost and performance estimates are supported
by hydro industry expertise. Figure 1 provides a comparison of project cost and design parameters,
based on data from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license documents for all the projects
under discussion, between a Turbinator project and other existing dam or conduit projects with similar
scales of installed capacity and hydraulic head. For the project using the Turbinator, a new turbine-
generator technology from Norway, the installation cost is relatively high compared with the other
projects. But the LCOE values appear to follow similar patterns with respect to capacity and head

1
variations (e.g., the installation cost per kW and LCOE are generally lower for projects with larger
capacity or higher head).

ICC = initial capital cost

Figure 1. Turbinator project versus traditional turbine projects.

Another new hydro technology is the removable modular powerhouse. The powerhouse is designed for
use in existing navigation locks and can be removed during periods of limited or no generation potential,
such as during winter. As shown in Figure 2, compared with other traditional hydro projects of similar
size, the Mohawk Lock modular powerhouse project may have a lower installation cost, based on the
data taken from FERC license documents for all the projects under discussion. However, because of the
shorter design lifespan of the powerhouse (20 years), the LCOE is not as much lower, although the LCOE
follows similar patterns with respect to head and capacity variations [8].

ICC = initial capital cost

Figure 2. Removable modular powerhouse project versus traditional powerhouse projects.

Typically, for both new and traditional technologies, initial capital cost is the key driver of LCOE for a
hydro project. However, the initial capital cost alone cannot fully represent the cost performance of a
project or a technology. The LCOE, which takes into account lifetime cost and generation, is a more
useful indicator of cost-effectiveness. This is because, even using a simplified analysis model, LCOE
calculations explicitly or implicitly account for the primary hydro technology performance metrics, which
include (1) installation cost including environmental mitigation cost, (2) efficiency of power generation,
(3) reliability (frequency and cost of outages the technology causes), and (4) lifespan (durability). Yet,
since both initial capital cost and capacity factor are uncertain during the earliest phases of project

2
development, using a systematic procedure to produce LCOE ranges that capture the uncertainty would
further aid technology selection.

Preliminary Assessment Modeling

As project development progresses, more hydrologic data, site features and environmental attributes
become available; thus tools that can incorporate site-specific information into an evaluation
methodology provide more accurate estimates of cost and performance with less uncertainty. A handful
of industry tools exist at this level of assessment to provide initial site-specific economic estimation,
including the widely used Renewable Energy Technology Screen (RETScreen) model [9] and
methodologies developed by the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) [10] and the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) [11] to assess the economic feasibility of adding hydropower generators to their
existing unpowered water resource infrastructure.

Differences exist among the hydro tools, models, and methodologies, but in general they follow a similar
approach. Typically, the tools select an appropriate turbine technology and determine turbine design
parameters and efficiencies based on the flow and head duration curves generated based on input flow
and head time series data (or directly inputted flow duration curves). With this information and other
basic site and project information, capacity and energy generation can be estimated, in turn allowing for
project cost estimation and economic analysis. Various economic measures, such as internal rate of
return, net present value, benefit-cost-ratio, and LCOE, can help inform managers and investors
regarding a project’s economic viability. The RETScreen and USBR methodologies are both embedded
into publicly available Excel workbooks for use by the wider hydropower community.

One key feature common among current hydro project evaluation tools is the conformance to
conventional technology and design paradigms, which prevents the evaluation and/or selection of
emerging small hydropower technologies. As a step toward allowing new technologies into the
preliminary assessment phase of project evaluation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has developed the
hydropower energy and economic preliminary assessment tool [12], or HydroPAT. HydroPAT is designed
to allow ubiquitous application in the 50 US states. It combines the strengths of the performance
estimation and costing methodologies applied in RETScreen [9] and in the USBR HydroAssessmentTool
[10]. It also provides greater flexibility in inputting hydrological data and user decision making
interactions while simulating the cost and performance of near-commercial new hydropower
technologies, including the Natel HydroEngine and AS Clean Power Turbinator. To assess the relative
economics of these new small hydro technology applications, HydroPAT has been applied and validated
in the assessment of small hydro development opportunities in the Deschutes basin in Oregon [12].

A key limitation of these preliminary modeling tools is their inability to explicitly resolve many of the key
design parameters that drive the cost of hydropower development, requiring that costs be determined
based on a combination of statistical cost equations and rules of thumb. However, many emerging
hydro generating technologies have dynamic cost impacts, including impacts on powerhouse design,
generating efficiency, and interactions with other component technologies (e.g., eliminating the need
for a downstream fish passage by using a “fish friendly” turbine). To ensure the cost implications of
technology and design are fully captured, a more comprehensive assessment approach to small hydro
technology selection is required.

3
Integrating Design and Economic Assessment
Assessing the impacts from a new technology implementation is not simple, as the small hydro project
design process is highly intricate and complex. For example, there is often more than one type of turbine
technology that is technically suitable for installation at a site, necessitating that the final decision be
made based on economic performance. However, no tools currently exist to evaluate trade-offs among
different technology options. The trade-offs among different components of a hydropower plant (e.g.,
equipment or civil works costs), between initial capital costs and operation and maintenance costs, or
between lifecycle costs and revenues (e.g., related to project capacity, efficiency, and energy
production) can make an initial comparison difficult. Often, the capital associated with a new technology
is more expensive than traditional alternatives, but secondary impacts on plant system design and
generating performance make the novel approach a superior economic choice.

One example of these cost and performance trade-offs in the system design is the recently developed
Alden Fish-Friendly Turbine. At some sites, the Alden turbine captures energy from flows that are
otherwise spilled for downstream passage and eliminates the need for additional fish protection
equipment, the cost of which can vary widely by site and fish species. However, the Alden turbine is
physically larger, resulting in a fully-installed equipment price roughly 35–40% higher than what would
be expected for a conventional Francis or Kaplan turbine in a similar application. However, this direct
cost increase could potentially be offset by reduced civil costs—in a site-specific application, the higher
setting of the Alden turbine has been estimated to reduce excavation and civil costs by 11% [13, 14]. In
short, a plant performance evaluation and system design are necessary to capture the full range of
economic impacts resulting from application of a technology; and understanding how emerging small
hydro technologies are applicable across US hydropower resources requires a holistic approach to
modeling plant design and costs.

Aside from technology or turbine type selection, cost trade-offs also exist in determining the number of
units and turbine sizes. For example, the axial-flow Kaplan turbine fits a wide flow range with high
efficiency so, when using a Kaplan, it is practical to slightly oversize the turbine runner. The larger runner
diameter leads to higher equipment and powerhouse structure costs, but it can also increase energy
generation by accommodating higher flow rates through the turbine. Additionally, a reduction in the
turbine submergence requirement can lower the excavation volume and cost. Other requirements of a
slightly oversized turbine, such as cavitation and waterhammer protection, will also have positive cost
impacts during the lifecycle of a project.

Because of these complexities, engineering design elements must be incorporated into a project
economic analysis framework to form an “integrated model” or “system model”, which is necessary for
properly selecting and sizing new technologies and providing preliminary evaluations of site feasibility.

Essentially, an integrated model framework optimizes plant economics by minimizing cost and
maximizing value over the project lifecycle. At minimum this requires explicit resolution of project layout
and design (including the sizing of the conveyance system, powerhouse, and generating equipment);
plant operational simulation and generation optimization; and flexible cost-benefit analysis based on
hydrologic, geographic, geologic, environmental and power market information.

An integrated model is not a silver bullet for hydropower project site assessment—a model cannot fully
simulate the expert decision making of experienced design engineers. However, the integration of

4
project layout and design, plant performance, and economic assessment can point the way toward more
efficient technology selection and initial project feasibility assessment; and it can provide a framework
to assess how new technologies could affect the cost-effectiveness of small hydropower development.

Summary and Discussion

In summary, tried and true models and methods of hydropower project assessment have been used
extensively to identify and evaluate hydropower development opportunities. However, the emergence
of dynamic new technologies requires improved analytical capabilities to properly assess development
prospects. A next-generation modeling framework is ideal for evaluating and selecting these new small
hydro technologies.

Initial efforts by the authors are under way to develop a prototype modeling application capable of
meeting these goals, but industry feedback is necessary. What should not be lost in this discussion is the
fact that models are useful but may sometimes become dangerous, because they both mimic and distort
the reality they represent. A model always includes some underlying assumptions, so a balance must be
found between simplicity and accuracy, based on data availability. To this end, it is envisioned that an
integrated modeling framework would serve only as an aid to developers in the early stages of project
definition to explore potential design options, providing useful insights to the final engineering-based
assessments with ideal project layout and design.

References:
1. B. Hadjerioua, Y. Wei, S. C. Kao. (2012). An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-powered Dams
in the United States, prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the US Department of Energy
Wind and Water Power Program.

2. B. Hadjerioua, S. C. Kao, R. A. McManamay, M.F.K. Pasha, D. Yeasmin, A. A. Oubeidillah, et al.

(2013). An Assessment of Energy Potential from New Stream-reach Development in the United
States: Initial Report on Methodology, ORNL/TM-2012/298, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN.

3. E. Opsahl (2013). “CleanPower Turbinator: Hydropower without a dam,” conference proceedings,

HydroVision 2013, Denver, July. <http://www.cleanpower.no>

4. A. Schneider (2010). “Natel Energy’s Schneider Linear Hydroengine (SLH): Innovation in low-head
hydropower,” conference proceedings, HydroVision 2010, Charlotte, NC, July. <http://www.small-
hydro.com>

5. C. O’Neil (2010). “Hydro turbine generating set for very low head,” conference proceedings,
HydroVision 2010, Charlotte, NC, July. <http://www.small-hydro.com>
6. Spaans Babcock (2014). “Screw generator,” Spaans Babcock, Inc., Ontario, Canada, website,
January 28, 2014. <www.spaansbabcock.com>
7. Renewables First (2014). “Hydropower turbines: Archimedian screw,” Renewables First,
Gloucestershire, UK, website, January 28, 2014. http://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk

5
8. Q. Zhang, B. Smith, W. Zhang (2012). Small Hydropower Cost Reference Model, ORNL/TM-
2012/501, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

9. NRC (Natural Resources Canada) (2004). RETScreen International: Small Hydro Project Analysis,
Minister of Natural Resources Canada 2001–2004, accessed at
www.retscreen.net/download.php/ang/107/1/course_hydro.ppt

10. USBR (US Bureau of Reclamation) (2011). Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing
Reclamation Facilities prepared by US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Power
Resources Office, Denver, March. Accessed at
http://www.usbr.gov/power/AssessmentReport/USBRHydroAssessmentFinalReportMarch2011.pdf
11. USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) (2013). Hydropower Resource Assessment at Non-Powered
USACE Sites, final report, prepared by Hydropower Analysis Center for the headquarters of the US
Army Corps of Engineers

12. Q. Zhang, R. Martinez, B. Saulsbury (2013). Technical and Economic Feasibility Assessment of Small
Hydropower Development in the Deschutes River Basin, ORNL/TM-2013/221, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
13. D. Dixon, R. Dham (2011). Fish Friendly Hydropower Turbine Development: Alden Turbine
Preliminary Engineering and Model Testing, EPRI Report No. 1019890, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA, October.

14. D. Dixon, R. Dham (2012). Fish-Friendly Hydropower Turbine Development and Deployment: Alden
Turbine Preliminary Engineering and Model Testing–Supplemental Research,” final technical
report, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, June.