Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

Guildford Mill: Mini-Hydro Feasibility Study

__________________

Final Report November 2003
ITP/0807/2

H/Final Report minimised.doc

1

Guildford Borough Council

Client contract No.: IT Power reference:

Letter 21/07/03 ITP/0807/2

Final Report : Guildford Mill: Mini-Hydro Feasibility Study November 2003
Contractor: IT Power The Manor House, Chineham Court, Lutyens Close, Chineham, RG24 8AG, United Kingdom. Tel. +44 1256 392700 Fax. +44 1256 392701 E-mail: itpower@itpower.co.uk http://www.itpower.co.uk

Document control File path & name Author Project Manager Approved Date Distribution level I:\0WorkITP\0Projects\Fluids\0807 Guildford Mill\0contract\Reports Oliver Paish Jamie O’Nians Jamie O’Nians 07/11/2003 Not for distribution

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study FINAL REPORT
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................II 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................................... 1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.3 THE TURBINE HOUSE.......................................................................................................................................... 2 2.4 STRUCTURAL SURVEY.......................................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 THE ORIGINAL TURBINE.......................................................................................................................................3 3. SITE SURVEY OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................................................4 4. AVAILABILITY OF HEAD AND FLOW....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 HEAD................................................................................................................................................................ 4 4.2 FLOW DATA........................................................................................................................................................5 5. TURBINE OPTIONS..........................................................................................................................................6 5.1 REINSTALL EXISTING TURBINE................................................................................................................................7 5.2 INSTALL SECOND-HAND TURBINE............................................................................................................................ 7 5.3 INSTALL NEW TURBINE..........................................................................................................................................8 5.4 CONCLUSION ON TURBINE CHOICE ......................................................................................................................... 9 6. SCREENING....................................................................................................................................................... 9 6.1 EXISTING SCREEN................................................................................................................................................9 6.2 SCREENING OPTIONS..........................................................................................................................................10 7. ELECTRICAL CONNECTION .....................................................................................................................11 8. ENERGY MODELLING ................................................................................................................................ 12 8.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 12 8.2 ENERGY LOSSES................................................................................................................................................12 8.3 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................... 12 8.4 TURBINE EFFICIENCY.......................................................................................................................................... 13 9. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES..........................................................................................................................14 9.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 14 9.2 HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................14 9.3 FLOOD DEFENCE............................................................................................................................................... 14 9.4 FISHERIES.........................................................................................................................................................15 9.5 NAVIGATION.....................................................................................................................................................15 9.6 LICENSING........................................................................................................................................................15 10. RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION......................................................................................................... 16 11. COSTS AND ECONOMICS.......................................................................................................................... 16 11.1 COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................................................ 16 11.2 VALUE OF ELECTRICITY................................................................................................................................... 18 12. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................19

ANNEX A : Energy Model methodology and print-out ANNEX B : Layout drawings
H/Final Report minimised.doc i

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

ANNEX C : Budget Quotation from DHPL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A feasibility study into the reinstatement of a water turbine in the turbine house adjacent to Guildford Mill has been completed by IT Power Ltd, with inputs from Derwent Hydroelectric Power Ltd and Cooper and Withycombe Structural Engineers of Guildford. The site has excellent potential and is ideally located for providing educational and public awareness benefits to the wider community. The turbine would generate at least 260,000 kWh per year of electricity to feed into the local electricity distribution network, supplying enough energy for 50 typical households. Structural Survey The Mill is a Grade I listed building. A structural survey of the turbine house, including diver survey, was completed by Cooper and Withycombe. The key conclusions were: • • • The upper part of the building and roof structure are in reasonably good condition, with a few defects to be addressed. The diver reported that the submerged intake chamber is in good condition and the submerged tailrace chamber and turbine draft tube showed no signs of structural decay. The main area of concern is corrosion to the underside of the steel beams supporting the floor above the turbine pit. This reduces their current load bearing capacity, and in the longer term may lead to collapse of the floor.

In the context of the turbine being reinstated, the survey recommended: • • • Casting of a new reinforced concrete floor above the old floor, supported by new beams spanning the building. Installation of two new galvanised steel support beams above the turbine. Provision of a stainless steel mesh below the existing slab to prevent debris from the old floor falling into the turbine chamber.

The Original Turbine The 1930 turbine was supplied to Guildford Corporation by Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon of Kendal as Order No. 3718. It is an Open-flume Francis turbine rated at 68hp at 6ft head. Following its removal in 1990, the turbine is now on display at Dapdune Wharf in Guildford. The draft tube is still in situ in the bottom of the turbine pit. Availability of Head and Flow The available fall at the site was measured during the site survey as 1.90m (when the prevailing flow was 3.0m3/sec). Due to various losses that will arise when running the turbine, it is recommended that the design head for the scheme be considered as 1.70m. High flow events sufficient to cause major head loss are relatively rare on the Wey, and should not have a critical effect on the energy output of the scheme. Of greater importance is the extent of low flow periods, and whether these will worsen with climate change and increased abstraction. Flow data from Tilford was used to develop the long-term flow duration curve for Guildford. The key values to note are:
Qmean Q95 Q50 Q10 Average Flow Flow exceeded 95% of the time Median Flow – flow exceeded 50% of the time Flow exceeded 10% of the time
ii

5.66 m3/sec 2.24 m3/sec 4.28 m3/sec 9.65 m3/sec

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

These show that the Wey does not experience major fluctuations in flow (Q 10 being less than five times Q95) and sustains a reasonable flow even in dry months. Turbine Options The principal options for generating hydro-electric power at the site are as follows: • • • Reinstall the existing turbine - this turbine could be refurbished and reinstated but would require significant work to overhaul and replace the guide vanes and operating mechanism. Install a similar second-hand turbine - an almost identical turbine removed from a scheme in Ireland has been identified as being available which is in significantly better condition than the Dapdune Wharf machine. Install a new Kaplan turbine - although the ex-factory cost of a new machine would not be prohibitive, the cost of major structural changes to the listed building is likely to greatly exceed an acceptable budget for the work.

Since the available flow in the river and size of existing intake will limit the scheme to being no larger than with the old turbine, it is recommended that the most cost-effective route forward from technical, economic, environmental, and planning standpoints will be to reinstate the old machine, or an identical model. Screening Problems with debris can typically constitute 90% of the maintenance activity, so investment in a robust screening system is essential. Although the scheme could be brought into operation with the existing screen in place, it is recommended that a new screen and automatic cleaner be procured for the site. There are two main restrictions which will limit the choice of cleaning device: 1. Space is severely restricted by the presence of the road bridge, turbine house and mill building around the intake. 2. The visual impact needs to be minimised at the site. Two main options would suit these restrictions: a rake-and-chain cleaner is a common solution, but a sideways scraper system may offer advantages in disposing of the debris. Electrical Connection EDF Energy have confirmed the working status of the 3-phase meter in the turbine house and its connection to the local sub-station via a 125 kVA rated cable, which is more than sufficient for taking the 35kW from this scheme. Environmental Issues and Licensing The Environment Agency have confirmed that reinstatement of a turbine at Guildford would require only Land Drainage Consent. However, should modifications be made to the adjoining sluice gates, this may require an impoundment license. In considering the license, the Environment Agency’s main areas of concern will be: Hydrology - Operation of the turbine will result in a small drop in upstream water level. The proposal is to operate the scheme such that there is a minimum depth of 70 mm of water passing over the weir at all times. This will equate to 300 litres/second. Flood Defence - the replacement of the two sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house with a single sluice may be necessary to compensate for the small flows taken through the turbine pit in flood conditions. Fisheries - the EA would be very interested if there was an opportunity to install an eelpass at Millmead as part of this project; a key requirement would be to ensure that the turbine screen was
H/Final Report minimised.doc iii

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

sufficient to exclude adult eels migrating downstream. The slow-running Gilkes turbine is a preferred option due to its good fisheries track record in UK rivers. Energy output A spreadsheet model was developed for predicting the annual electrical energy output of the scheme. Figure 15 illustrates the resulting Head, Flow and Power calculations all superimposed on to the Flow Duration Curve. The annual energy output of the scheme is the area under the power curve. The model concluded that using the old Gilkes turbine would lead to an electrical output of 265,000 kWh/year, at a turbine load factor of 85%. A modern double-regulated Kaplan propeller turbine would yield 275,000 kWh/year, only a 4.5% improvement over the Gilkes machine.
Figure 1 Head, Flow and Power calculations
45
2.20 2.10 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

40

35

Flows m3/s, Power kWe

30

FDC
20

Turbine flow Electrical power Energy per year = 270MWh

15

HDC Turbine net head

10

5

0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% % Exceedance 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Cost estimates Derwent Hydroelectric Power Limited, a registered Clear Skies installer, was invited to submit a budget costing, based on installing a refurbished Gilkes Francis turbine. Their quote for supply and installation of the electro-mechanical equipment came to £120,500. This does not include remedial works to strengthen the building and correct a range of wear-and-tear defects, nor any costs related to grid connection or modification of the sluice gates next to the turbine house. Value of the power The value of the electricity generated has been estimated on the basis of a special contract to be negotiated with one of the electricity supply companies. This would enable the Council to sell the power at a premium rate enhanced by the Renewables Obligation, then buy it back at cost price to offset energy otherwise bought from their contracted supplier. The net value of the energy in this model can be put at 6.5-7.5 pence/kWh, hence the revenue from the scheme will beworth £16,500 19,000 per year.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

iv

Head (m)

25

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

1.INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a feasibility study into the reinstatement of a water turbine in the turbine house adjacent to Guildford Mill on the River Wey. As described in this report, the site has excellent potential for providing a substantial renewable energy supply and is ideally located for providing educational and public awareness benefits to the wider community. The turbine would generate at least 260,000 kWh per year of electricity to feed into the local electricity distribution network, supplying enough energy for 50 typical households. The work has been undertaken by IT Power Ltd of Chineham, Hampshire, with inputs from Derwent Hydroelectric Power Limited, a registered Clear Skies installer, and Cooper and Withycombe Structural Engineers of Guildford. 1.1Background Guildford Mill was historically a corn mill, eventually with 3 waterwheels installed. The current building dates from 1770, extended in 1851. The building is now Grade I listed, hence any development work at the site has to be in keeping with this status. Following the decline in corn-grinding, the building was bought by Guildford Corporation and converted to a waterworks. Two early turbines were installed in 1897 to operate water pumps, and these were replaced in 1930 with a Francis turbine from Gilbert, Gilkes and Gordon, one of hundreds installed around the UK in the early part of the 20th century. This operated satisfactorily until 1952, when electric pumps were installed alongside the turbine house. The water turbine fell into disuse, finally being removed off-site in 1990 to allow flood water to pass through the turbine pit.
Figure 2 Guildford Mill and turbine house , September 2003

2.SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1Overview Figure 3 illustrates the layout of the River Wey in the vicinity of the mill and navigation lock. The flow in the river can pass from the upstream level to downstream at three locations: the EA sluices [1], the boathouse weir and sluices [2] & [3], or the millhouse [4]. A small amount of flow is also passed by the operation of the lock. These flow control structures are managed by the National Trust in consultation with the Environment Agency in order to maintain the correct water level for navigation and to discharge flood flows downstream.
Figure 3 River Wey at Guildford

2.2Hydraulic Structures The existing structures used to manage the river are marked on Figure 3 and depicted in Figure 4. They can be summarised as follows: 1. Two manually operated sluice gates owned by the Environment Agency, each of width 1.5m, allowing some overspill into the narrow channel downstream.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

1

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

2. A fixed concrete weir opposite the boathouse, with a crest of length of 9.1m set at 31.117m above ordnance datum (AOD). 3. Three manual sluice gates adjacent to the weir providing a total overspill width of 3m when closed. The top of the gates is 130mm above the crest of the weir. 4. Two manual sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house, spanning the 2.7m wide channel. Except in flood conditions, flow through this channel is regulated by stop logs inserted on top of the main sluice gates 5. In addition, it is currently possible to raise the three main inlet gates to the turbine house to allow some flow to discharge through the empty turbine pit. With a turbine reinstated, this would no longer be possible.
Figure 4 Flow control structures
Boathouse weir and sluices EA sluices Millhouse sluices

2.2.1Operation According to the sluice operator, Vince Locatelli, the traditional legal responsibility for discharging flood waters remains with the owner of the mill, i.e. Guildford Borough Council. However, the duty now in practice falls upon the National Trust because they are responsible for maintaining the water levels in the Wey Navigation. Day-to-day fine level control is achieved with the stop-logs above the turbine house sluices [4]. The official protocol for discharging high flows is to open the boathouse sluices first, then the mill sluices, and finally the EA sluices. In practice, the EA sluices are the easiest to operate and the boathouse sluices the hardest, hence the actual procedure used is the reverse of the stated one. Opening the turbine sluices is a last resort in flood conditions. 2.3The Turbine House The important elements of the turbine house are: • • • • • an angled bar screen to trap debris, guarding the intake to the powerhouse which has a width of 4.28m and water depth 1.6m. an intake chamber underneath the turbine house, with a floor sloping down towards the inlet gates. three main inlet gates of depth 1.87m across the middle of the turbine house spanning the 4.96m width of the turbine chamber. a turbine chamber (or ‘pit’), 4.96m wide by 3.69m long with a central 1.6m diameter hole in the floor discharging leakage water through the old turbine draft tube; the ceiling of the pit is just above upstream water level, and the floor is set at downstream water level. a submerged tailwater chamber, returning the turbine discharge back to the river.

The original drawings for the installation (supplied by Gilkes) are included in Figure 5 with photographs in Figure 6. Other important features of the turbine house are: • • access into the turbine pit through the gap between the old turbine support beams; the gap is of 0.77m wide by 3.78m long. a lifting beam installed below the roof, spanning the width of the turbine house and passing over the centre of the turbine shaft.
2

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

stop-log slots upstream of the trash-rack for dewatering the entire intake area, with stop-logs stacked in the powerhouse. This can only be achieved by constructing intermediate supports for the stop-logs, so that three stop-logs span the full 7m width.
Figure 5 Original installation drawings for Gilkes order no. 3718
Side elevation

Front elevation

Figure 6 Guildford turbine house
Trashrack View across turbine sluices to turbine pit covers

Draft tube entry

View back towards intake

2.4Structural Survey A structural survey of the building, including diver survey, was completed by Cooper and Withycombe, with report attached separately. The key conclusions are as follows: • • • • The upper part of the building and roof structure are in reasonably good condition, with a few defects to be addressed. The diver reported that the submerged intake chamber between trashrack and sluice gates is in good condition. Similarly, the submerged tailrace chamber and turbine draft tube showed no signs of structural decay. The main area of concern is corrosion to the underside of the steel beams supporting the floor above the turbine pit. This reduces their current load bearing capacity, and in the longer term may lead to collapse of the floor.

In the context of the turbine being reinstated, the survey recommended: • • • • Removal of the two innermost turbine support beams. Installation of two new galvanised steel support beams of minimum section 203x203 UC above the turbine, allowing a gap of 1000 mm between them. Casting of a new reinforced concrete floor above the old floor, supported by new beams spanning the building. Provision of a stainless steel mesh below the existing slab to prevent debris from the old floor falling into the turbine chamber.

2.5The Original Turbine The 1930 turbine was supplied to Guildford Corporation by Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon of Kendal to the following specification: Order No. Type Size Rated Head Rated Speed Rated Flow Shaft Power
H/Final Report minimised.doc

3718 Open-flume, vertical-axis, Francis 42”C 6.0 ft (1.82m) 75 rpm 123.67 cu.ft/sec (3.5 m3/sec) 68 hp (51 kW)
3

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

Following its removal in 1990, the turbine is now on display at Dapdune Wharf in Guildford. The draft tube is still in situ in the bottom of the turbine pit. 3.SITE SURVEY OBSERVATIONS Key observations from the site survey with regard to the technical feasibility of reinstating a turbine are as follows: 1 The cross sectional area of the flow passing through the trash screen is:

4.28m × 1.6m = 6.85m2. To minimise hydraulic losses, it is generally advisable to keep intake velocities below 0.5m/s. This would imply a maximum volume flow rate of around 0.5 × 6.85 = 3.4m3/sec. Since the existing turbine was rated for 3.5 m3/sec, one can conclude that the flow capacity of any new plant will not be any greater than the existing turbine (without major reconstruction of the turbine house. 2 A 3-phase supply rated at 100 Amps per phase is available in the powerhouse – presumably for driving the old electric pumps. This should be sufficient for taking the 3phase 415V output from the turbine, to be confirmed by SEEBOARD, hence avoiding the laying of cables outside the turbine house. There is a lack of space in the turbine house to locate a gearbox and generator beside the turbine, but plenty of space up to the pitched roof, so the most feasible arrangement of the powertrain would be stacked vertically. The gap between the floor beams for lowering the old turbine is extremely small (0.77m) and it is still unknown exactly how the runner was removed in 1990. In the context of the structural recommendations, a wider access space of 1m should be accommodated as part of the measures to modify and strengthen the floor. This would allow easier access for installing and maintaining the turbine.

3

4

4.AVAILABILITY OF HEAD AND FLOW 4.1Head The available fall at the site was measured during the site survey as 1.90m (when the prevailing flow was 3.0m3/sec). This is likely to be the maximum head available at the site. In reality the head will reduce for three main reasons: 1 The flow over a weir is dependent on the level of water flowing over its crest. Since water will in future be drawn through the turbine, by definition less water will then be passing over the weir and sluices. Therefore the upstream water level will fall slightly i.e. the turbine will ‘draw down’ the upstream water level. Since the weir at Guildford is relatively narrow, this draw down is a significant percentage of the available head.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

4

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

2

As flow in the river increases, the downstream level in the river will tend to increase faster than the upstream level. This means the net head available will reduce as flow increases. However, the proportion of the year when this is a serious constraint will be limited. As the water for the turbine flows up the mill leat and through the trash-rack, it will incur some small hydraulic losses en route, such that the turbine will not see the full head prevailing at the lock. It may prove necessary to dredge out the mill leat in order to reduce these losses to an acceptable level.

3

In conclusion, as justified in more detail in Section 7, it is recommended that the design head for the scheme be considered as 1.70m. 4.1.1Level Data A level gauge is installed in the pool downstream of the turbine house, providing 15 minute readings for the Environment Agency. Five years’ of data was obtained from the Environment Agency (19982003) and compared with flow data over the same period. It was clear that both flow and level gauges are prone to malfunction or erratic behaviour, particularly in high flow conditions, and it was impossible to develop a consistent correlation between level and flow data. However, by comparing the readings from selected flood events, cross-checked with eye-witness accounts from the sluice operator, it was possible to estimate the head vs. flow characteristic of the site. This is illustrated as a Head Duration Curve on Figure 7. This shows how the available head varies for each flow on the Flow Duration Curve. The key conclusion from Figure 7 is that high flow events sufficient to cause major head loss are in fact relatively rare on the Wey, hence the loss of head will not have a critical effect on the energy output of the scheme. Of greater importance is the extent of low flow periods, and whether these will worsen with climate change and increased abstraction. 4.2Flow data There are three relevant flow gauging stations on the Wey, at Tilford, Guildford and Weybridge. The gauging station at Guildford was only installed in 1996. The gauging station at Guildford is prone to failure or providing erroneous readings and therefore could not be used to develop a flow duration curve for the site. The only year with a nearly complete data set is 1999, and the annual hydrograph of daily flows is shown in Figure 8, illustrating the typical rise and fall of river flows through the year. Previous work1 has shown there to be a good correlation between Tilford and Guildford gauging stations, using the ratio of catchment areas (1.75) to infer flows at Guildford from data at Tilford. Hence the Tilford data was used to develop the long-term flow duration curve illustrated in Figure 7. The key values to note are:
Qmean Q95 Q50 Q10 Average Flow Flow exceeded 95% of the time Median Flow – flow exceeded 50% of the time Flow exceeded 10% of the time 5.66 m3/sec 2.24 m3/sec 4.28 m3/sec 9.65 m3/sec

1

Guildford Mini Hydro Pre-feasibility Technical Assessment, J Marques Feb 2003
5

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

The Flow duration curve is relatively flat, with Q 10 being less than five times Q95, demonstrating that the Wey does not experience major fluctuations in flow and sustains a reasonable flow even in dry months, as is also clear from the hydrograph of Figure 8.
Figure 7 River Wey in Guildford: Flow Duration Curve 1954/55-2001/02, Estimated Head Duration Curve
40
2.00 1.95 1.90 1.85 1.80 1.75 1.70 1.65 1.60 1.55 1.50 1.45 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

35

30

25 Flows m3/s

20

FLOW GROSS HEAD

15

10

5

0 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0% % Exceedance

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Figure 8 Annual Hydrograph 1999 (Guildford data)
40

35

30

25 Cumecs

20

15

10

5

0 0 30 61 91 122 152 183 213 243 274 304 335 365

5.TURBINE OPTIONS The principal options for generating hydro-electric power at the site are as follows:

H/Final Report minimised.doc

6

Head (m)

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

5.1Reinstall existing turbine The 1930s Gilkes turbine was inspected in situ at Dapdune Wharfe. The complete turbine should consist of: • • • • • • • Twenty guide vanes (650mm high and 345mm deep) placed in a ring around the runner to divert the water inwards at the correct angle. A ‘Francis’ runner (diameter 1575mm) and shaft (diameter 120mm). A lower casing (circular diameter 1.9m) to support the guide vanes and locate into the draft tube. Upper casing (circular diameter 1.9m) to support the top of the guide vanes and hold the lower turbine bearing. Linkages connecting the guide vanes into a ring at mid-height, enabling all vanes to be rotated in unison (no longer present at Dapdune). A Guide vane operating shaft and drive rod , mounted to the top ring of the draft tube, and passing up into the turbine house which, when rotated, opens or closes the guide vanes to regulate the flow entering the runner (no longer present). A draft tube (exit diffuser) still embedded in the turbine chamber.
Figure 9 The 1930 Gilkes turbine at Dapdune Wharf

The brief inspection revealed that: • • • • • The runner is in adequate condition to be restored to working order; it appears to be fabricated rather than a single casting, which is unusual for this design All but two of the guide vanes have had their connecting linkage broken off during disassembly; these would all have to be replaced with new vanes, cast from a pattern made using an intact vane The shaft and upper and lower casings appear to be undamaged The draft tube was reported by the diver survey as being in good condition The guide vane operating mechanism is missing and would need to be reconstructed from old drawings

In conclusion, this turbine could be refurbished and reinstated but would require significant work to replace the guide vanes and operating mechanism. Further major components required to complete the system (discussed further in Section 10) will be: • • • • • • • • A mounting frame in the turbine house to transfer the weight of the turbine, and column of water above it, to the floor beams A top thrust bearing Gearbox (minimum 1:10 ratio) 415V 3-phase generator running at 750, 1000 or 1500 rpm Hydraulic actuator to automate the operation of the guide vanes Control panel to manage the operation of the turbine Grid connection panel with power factor correction to permit synchronisation to , and isolation from, the grid Trashrack and automatic cleaner

5.2Install second-hand turbine The Gilkes 42”C Francis turbine was one of a standard range supplied by Gilkes between and after the wars. An almost identical turbine removed from a scheme in Ireland has been identified as being available which is in significantly better condition than the Dapdune Wharf machine.
H/Final Report minimised.doc 7

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

The turbine is depicted in Figure 10. The cost of obtaining and returning this machine to working order would be much cheaper than restoring the original turbine, and would allow the National Trust to retain its exhibit.
Figure 10 Gilkes 42”C Francis turbine

5.3Install new turbine The only type of turbine currently available for sites with very low head, as at Guildford, is a propeller-type machine. These replaced the open-flume Francis in the 1970s due to their smaller size and higher operating speed, and manufacturers such as Gilkes have long since stopped supplying their old design of turbines. The propeller turbine can be realised in a number of configurations, with the axis of the turbine vertical, horizontal, or slanted. However, one such element of all these machines is the need for a long draft tube to guarantee high efficiency. It is this feature which would prove extremely difficult to accommodate within the existing structures at Guildford Mill. Inquiries have been made with three leading suppliers of small propeller machines – NHT, Hydrolink, and Waterpumps Oy. The WpOy machines are not suitable for this site because they can only run at fixed flow (i.e. unregulated). NHT and Hydrolink can offer very similar vertical Kaplan machines. The configuration proposed by NHT is depicted in Figure 11. Although the ex-factory cost of a new machine would not be prohibitive, the cost of major structural changes to the listed building and detailed consultation with planners to determine what would be acceptable, is likely to greatly exceed an acceptable budget for the work. It is also probable that more complex negotiations with Environment Agency with regard to fish protection will be likely given the Environment Agency’s perception of this type of technical arrangement.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

8

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

Figure 11 NHT vertical-axis Kaplan
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A A

B

B

C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF

C

COMMENTS

QUANTITY

D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE

D

SCALE

E

CONTRACT

DRAWING No.

E

F

F

G

G

H

H

I

I

J

J

K

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5.4Conclusion on turbine choice Since it has already been confirmed that the available flow in the river and size of existing intake will already limit the scheme to being no larger than with the old turbine, it is recommended that the most cost-effective route forward from technical, economic, environmental, and planning standpoints will be to reinstate the old machine, or an identical model. 6.SCREENING The screen is an extremely important component of the whole scheme, and one of the more expensive items. Problems with debris can typically constitute 90% of the maintenance activity, so investment in a robust design will pay for itself in the long run. 6.1Existing Screen The original vertical bar screen is still in place, protecting the intake to the turbine house. The screen is set at approximately 25 degrees to the vertical, located against a step at the bottom but otherwise held in place only by gravity. The bars are 9mm thick, with a spacing of 22mm (centre-to-centre spacing of 31mm) which is unusually narrow for an installation of the 1930s. It may even date back to the previous turbines installed in 1897. The screen bars have rusted but are still in a usable condition. The screen is in seven sections, each 610mm wide, spanning the intake width of 4280mm. One of the seven sections has been removed and is presumed lost. Water depth at the screen was measured at 1660mm. The open area of the screen can therefore be calculated to be 5.5m2.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

9

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

The screen would have collected large quantities of trash which must have been removed manually by raking it up on to the concrete platform, before pushing it sideways over the adjacent spillway. A further problem at the site is caused by the road bridge immediately in front of the turbine intake. Pipes running under the bridge below water line cause debris to accumulate here, eventually creating a severe blockage to the flow over time. The only solution to this would be to trap the debris earlier on along the mill cut.
Figure 12 Existing trash screen and blockage caused by the bridge

6.2Screening Options Although the scheme could be brought into operation with the existing screen in place (and seventh panel replaced), it is recommended that a new screen and automatic cleaner be procured for the site. The bar-spacing of 22mm is unnecessarily fine for both the original turbine or a replacement propeller turbine, and could sensibly be increased to 35-40mm for a new screen. For example, a new 60 kW project at Betchworth on the Mole is implementing two propeller turbines with a 40mm bar screen. The screen would preferably be of galvanised or stainless steel construction. It is strongly recommended that an automatic cleaning system be installed to ensure the screen is kept unblocked at all times of the year. There are two main restrictions which will limit the choice of cleaning device: 1. Space is severely restricted by the presence of the road bridge, turbine house and mill building around the intake. 2. The visual impact needs to be minimised at the site. However, the presence of the sluices adjacent to the turbine house offer a convenient route for disposing of the trash downstream. There are two main options which would suit these restrictions: a) A rake-and-chain cleaner, in which a bar is moved up the screen by a chain drive at each end. The bar deposits the collected debris in a channel running the length of the screen. The channel is flushed by a water supply (probably pumped), washing the debris towards the side spillway. Such a mechanism is compact and largely below water, although the top of the chain drives would be visible. A rake-and-chain cleaner in Germany is depicted in Figure 13a. b) Sideways scraper. To date, this is a relatively uncommon design, but is supplied by at least one leading European manufacturer. In this concept, the bars of the screen are aligned
H/Final Report minimised.doc 10

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

horizontally rather than vertically, The cleaner consists of a bar-scraper running from top to bottom of the screen, suspended from a chassis which moves along a track running the width of the screen. To clean the screen, the scraper is moved across the width of the screen. The debris is pushed sideways into the path of the flow passing over the side spillway. One such system is depicted in Figure 13b. The disadvantage of both these designs is that, unlike the more common robotic rakes, part of the mechanism remains permanently underwater, hence is difficult to access if a problem arises. Since a robotic rake (c) is unlikely to be acceptable at this site on grounds of visual intrusion, the two options proposed above offer the next best workable solution.
Figure 13 Screen cleaning options
(a) Rake and chain (b) Sideways scraper (c) Robotic arm

7.ELECTRICAL CONNECTION The turbine will drive a generator running at 415 Volts, three phases. The old turbine house already has a three-phase supply and meter rated at 100 Amps per phase. The maximum output of the turbine is expected to be less than 65 Amps per phase, hence it will be possible to connect directly to the grid at this point. All the necessary switch gear for establishing a connection to G59 standards will be incorporated into the turbine control panel. EDF Energy (who took over SEEBOARD) are the electricity supply company responsible for the local network in Guildford. They have confirmed the working status of the 3-phase meter and its connection to the local sub-station via a 125 kVA rated cable, which is more than sufficient for taking the 35kW from this scheme. An electrical schematic summarising the connection is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Electrical Schematic

Control Panel Isolator
Generator
3-phase

Parallelling Contactor

M.C.B.
3-phase + Neutral

REC Meter

Generator Trips

Mains Trips

3p + N 100A switch-fuse

Point of connection with REC

H/Final Report minimised.doc

11

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

8.ENERGY MODELLING 8.1Introduction A spreadsheet model was developed for predicting the annual electrical energy output of the scheme. This has to be achieved by an iterative process because turbine head and flow are interdependent i.e. net head available at the turbine is dependent upon the flow being drawn (since head losses increase with flow), while the flow through the turbine is a function of the net head across it. 8.2Energy Losses The head losses that need to be accounted for in the model are caused by: • • • Draw down of the upstream level by reducing the flow over the weir The gradient of the flow as it passes from the weir to the turbine house Losses through the trashrack

8.2.1Draw down Draw down can be calculated by modelling the headwater level at the site with all sluices closed and drawing no flow, then using the weir equation on the fixed weir to determine the new upstream level once the turbine flow has been subtracted from the gross river flow. 8.2.2Channel loss The channel is roughly 6 m wide and 150 m long and between 1m and 1.5m deep along its length. Head loss can be estimated using Mannings equation for open channels, although this is highly dependent on the figure chosen for the roughness coefficient of the channel material. In summary, if one assumes a depth of only one metre and a coefficient at the high end of the range (n=0.04), the head loss at design flow could be as high as 100 mm. By taking an average depth of 1.3 m and a lower coefficient (n=0.02) the loss would be only 12 mm. 8.2.3Trashrack loss Head loss through the trashrack should be negligible if it is clean. In practice, there will be some loss caused by the accumulation of debris, although this will be minimised by a good automatic rake. 8.2.4Conclusion In the energy calculations undertaken here, it has been pessimistically assumed that the combined channel and trashrack loss will be 100 mm in design conditions. Reducing this figure to 50 mm would result in a 4.5 % increase in annual energy capture. 8.3Results The spreadsheet print-out is enclosed as Annex A with further notes on the methodology used. Figure 15 illustrates the resulting Head, Flow and Power calculations all superimposed on to the Flow Duration Curve, with individual plots as follows: Qriver Hgross Qturbine Hnet P The Flow Duration Curve The estimated Head Duration Curve, based on 100% of the flow passing over the weir The flow drawn by the turbine The net head at the turbine, allowing for head losses and draw-down at the weir. The electrical power produced, a function of Qturbine, Hnet and the turbine efficiency
12

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

Figure 15 Head, Flow and Power calculations
45
2.20 2.10 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

40

35

Flows m3/s, Power kWe

30

FDC
20

Turbine flow Electrical power Energy per year = 270MWh

15

HDC Turbine net head

10

5

0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% % Exceedance 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

8.4Turbine efficiency Figure 15 illustrates the power curve assuming that the Gilkes 42”C turbine has been reinstated. This utilises the Gilkes turbine characteristic of Figure 16 and assumes a gearbox/generator efficiency of 80% and overall availability of 98%. This leads to an electrical output of 265,000 kWh/year, at a turbine load factor of 85%. Also plotted on Figure 15 is the typical efficiency curve of a modern double-regulated Kaplan propeller turbine. A turbine with this characteristic would yield 275,000 kWh/year, a 4.5% improvement over the Gilkes machine.
Figure 16 Turbine part-flow efficiency curves.
100% 90% 80% 0.75 70% 60% 50% 40% 0.36 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00 0.62 Gilkes Francis Kaplan 0.81 0.82

% Efficiency

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50 Q/Qo

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

H/Final Report minimised.doc

13

Head (m)

25

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

9.ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 9.1Introduction The Environment Agency is the principle government agency responsible for granting permission for the various aspects of the scheme, covering: • • • • • • Flood Defence Fisheries Land drainage Navigation Modifications to weirs or sluices General impacts of the installation process

Their main areas of concern in redeveloping Guildford Mill are summarised below. 9.2Hydrology The Environment Agency are concerned that the turbine will not draw excessive flows through the turbine house to the detriment of other reaches of the river. The critical period is usually during low flows. Fortunately, as illustrated by the FDC, the Wey sustains a reasonable flow all year round, almost always above 2 m3/sec. In low flow conditions, the upstream level is such that no water passes over sluices 1 and 3 in Figure 4, and the river is shared between the weir and the turbine sluices. With the turbine reinstated, the stretch of river affected by this increased diversion of flow down the mill race is limited to the 150 m section between the weir pool and the downstream mill pond. The proposal is to operate the scheme such that there is a minimum depth of 70 mm of water passing over the weir at all times. This will equate to 300 litres/second. It is further suggested that at least 100 litres/sec is maintained over the turbine sluices as a continuous bywash. As a comparison, there are many UK schemes which sustain no more then 50 mm depth over the corresponding weir. This ‘reserved’ flow is illustrated in Figure 15 as the difference between the FDC and the turbine flow. 9.3Flood Defence A discussion with David van Beesten (Operations Team Leader of Environment Agency, Frimley) confirmed that flooding is an ongoing concern in Guildford and further flood alleviation measures are being considered in the light of the flooding of November 2000. Since the turbine pit and draft tube are currently being utilised as an emergency flow passage during flood conditions, he was concerned that the loss of this facility would need to be compensated for elsewhere – and may well be a condition of the licensing application. This point is debatable since the sluice operator Vince Locatelli reported that opening the turbine sluices in reality made little difference: the trashrack would immediately block solid with debris allowing almost no flow to pass through. He purely did so to avoid public complaints that ‘a sluice was closed’ with the river in flood. Nevertheless he suggested that the replacement of the two sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house with a single sluice would more than compensate for the small flows taken through the turbine pit. Replacement of these sluices with an automated drop-down gate would in fact have a number of advantages, as follows: • • • Increased flood capacity Fine level control (replacing the manual removal of stop logs at these sluices) Unimpeded discharge of trash downstream
14

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

• •

Attractive bywash for fish deterred by the screen Easier operation for the sluice operator

However a new sluice gate would significantly add to the costs of the scheme as a whole, but David van Beesten indicated that the Environment Agency may be able to collaborate in the work, and the end result would be a flood defence asset for the Council with wider benefits. 9.4Fisheries Discussions were held with Steve Sheridan, Fisheries Officer with the Environment Agency at Frimley, with regard to the implications on fisheries of reinstating the turbine. The overall picture on this stretch of the Wey is that: • • The river has a high quality coarse fish population There have been attempts to re-introduce salmon and sea trout through stocking programmes in the north Wey, and some adult fish had returned despite the lack of fish passes. This programme has stopped, but the EA still have aspirations to improve the Wey in order to encourage migratory species. The biggest current concern is the eel population, which is in decline. An eelpass was installed at Stoke Mill downstream and the EA would be very interested if there was an opportunity to install an eelpass at Millmead as part of this project. A key requirement would be to ensure that the turbine screen was sufficient to exclude adult eels migrating downstream.

From the fisheries perspective, the slow-running Gilkes turbine is a preferred option due to its long track record of hundreds of installations operating for many decades in UK rivers without impacting on fish populations. 9.5Navigation 9.5.1Side velocities Boats arriving at the lock must navigate past the streamlines tending to draw them over to the weir on the left-hand bank, then past the flow diverted to their right up the millstream. This situation will not change when running the turbine, only the relative strengths of the diverted flows. The entrance to the mill cut is broad and flared, and the velocities induced will be well below those likely to cause any concern. Boat owners do moor in the mill cut, but it is impossible for boats to approach the turbine intake due to the presence of the road bridge to the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre. 9.5.2Water levels Unlike the Thames, there is no statutory headwater level to be sustained above Guildford Lock. The level is maintained by the National Trust based on experience. Operation of the turbine will result in a small drop in upstream water level, since less flow is passing over the weir. It will be essential to sustain the upstream water level such that boats can safely pass over the sill of the lock – for which a depth of at least 2’ 6” is required. Discussions with John Gibson, Navigation Manager at the National Trust (Dapdune Wharf) indicated that they generally operate a level of 3’ above sill level and would not be concerned by a small drop caused by the turbine such that 70 mm was still passing over the weir. 9.6Licensing There are three licences that can apply to a hydropower scheme
H/Final Report minimised.doc 15

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

• • •

Abstraction Licence, if water is being permanently or temporarily removed from a water source Impoundment Licence, if changes are being made to structures which impound water, such as weirs and sluices Land Drainage Consent, for any works being carried out in a ‘main channel’

The Environment Agency have confirmed that reinstatement of a turbine at Guildford would require only Land Drainage Consent. However, should modifications be made to the adjoining sluice gates, this may require an impoundment license. 10.RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION As a result of the investigations completed, and the forgoing analysis, the following specifications are recommended for the scheme: 1. Turbine Reconditioned Gilkes 42”C open Francis turbine, rated at 50 kW (shaft) on 1.75 m of head 2. Regulation Guide vane regulation operated by hydraulic power pack in response to upstream water level 3. Gearbox 1:20 ratio vertically-mounted gearbox with parallel input/output shafts, rated at 75 kW or greater 4. Generator Induction generator, rated at 55-60 kW at 1500 rpm, generating 3-phase at 415 Volts. 5. Control Panel Panel with full display of parameters, start-up and shutdown, automatic and manual override, guide-vane control, G59 trips, and grid synchronisation. 6. Trashrack Galvanised or stainless steel bar screen with bar spacing of 35 mm covering an intake of dimensions 4280 mm wide by 1750 mm deep 7. Cleaner Automatic trashrack cleaner and control panel for raking the above screen and depositing trash into the side spillway. 11.COSTS AND ECONOMICS 11.1Cost estimates 11.1.1Equipment supply and installation Derwent Hydroelectric Power Limited, a registered Clear Skies installer, was invited to submit a budget costing for the equipment supply to the project, based on installing a refurbished Gilkes Francis turbine. Their quotation is attached in Annex C.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

16

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

The cost breakdown is as follows: 1. Refurbishment and supply of Gilkes 42”C Francis turbine (excluding draft tube) £27,000 2. Supply as new-build of: - replacement shaft - draft tube connecting ring - turbine support frame - top thrust bearing and bottom bearing - guide vane operation with hydraulic power pack £23,000 3. vertically mounted gearbox (ratio 22:1 rated at 55 kW) 4. 1500 rpm vertically mounted induction generator (rated at 55 kW) 5. Control panel, level sensor, grid connection panel 6. Power Factor correction equipment2 7. Galvanised steel trashrack 8. Automatic trashrack cleaner and control panel 9. Detailed design and provision of drawings 10. Installation and commissioning TOTAL: 11.1.2Civil Works As part of remedial works to strengthen the building and correct a range of wear-and-tear defects, additional work will be undertaken to install the turbine support beams. This activity will be costed separately. 11.1.3Sluice Gate As part of the licence negotiations to obtain land drainage consent for the scheme, it may be necessary to replace the sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house in collaboration with the Environment Agency. This is not essential for the operation of the turbine, but would enhance the scheme. A cost for this work has not yet been identified but, based on similar work, could exceed £50,000, although the Environment Agency may share this cost. 11.1.4Grid Connection This will involve only a small amount of work from EDF Energy (SEEBOARD). A formal request from GBC to EDF Energy is required in order to get a firm grid connection cost, but a budgetary figure of £5000 should be allowed at this stage. £ 5,500 £ 2,000 £ 8,000 £ 2,000 £ 4,000 £30,000 £ 6,500 £12,500 £120,500

2

Typically an induction generator has a power factor of 0.8 and requires an electronic control to bring into line with Grid supply norms.
H/Final Report minimised.doc 17

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

11.2Value of Electricity 11.2.1London Electricity contract GBC offices at Millmead currently purchase their electricity from London Electricity, of which 60% is guaranteed to be ‘green’. The tariffs are: Day-time Night 3.51 p/kWh 2.36 p/kWh

From Sept-02 to Aug-03, the consumption was 853,186 kWh (of which 511,912 kWh were ‘green’ and 341,274 kWh were ‘brown’). Hence the predicted energy from the hydro-scheme could be used to replace 76% of the non-renewable portion of annual consumption. 11.2.2Options for selling the power The most beneficial way of utilising the energy generated by the scheme is to enter into a special contract with one of the Electricity Supply Companies (eg. London Electricity, npower, etc.). In such a contract, the owner sells all the electricity generated by the scheme to the supply company. The supply company can obtain Renewable Obligation Certificates3 (ROCs) for this energy so is prepared to offer a premium price for it (typically at least 3p/kWh on top of the purchase price of the electricity). The site owner then buys back from the supply company the same amount of energy, or the amount of electricity consumed on site, whichever is the lower. He can buy back the energy at the same rate at which he sold it, and is not required to pay Climate Change Levy (CCL) charges. The energy consumed is therefore, in effect, free to the site owner. Furthermore if the site exports more than it consumes – unlikely in this case - the supply company will also offer a further premium on the net exported amount because it can obtain Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs) which can be sold to its business customers to help them avoid paying the full CCL charge. The value of LECs is variable, but 80% of the CCL charge is generally obtainable. Depending on the use of the energy, it may be necessary to install a half-hourly meter and telecoms link so that it can be read remotely. A charge is made for reading and processing the data, currently around £600 per year. In summary, although this method is rather complex to appreciate at first glance, it is the most beneficial way of gaining from the ‘free energy’ generated by the scheme (hence saving on fees to London Electricity and avoiding the Climate Change Levy), plus gaining from the value of Renewables Obligation Certificates. The exact value of the electricity under such a contract (sometimes known as an on-site ROC purchase contract) can only be determined by requesting a specific company to make an offer for the power. There is currently very little market experience of such contracts for the relatively small amounts of power concerned in this case. However the calculations below use indicative numbers which have been suggested in a discussion with npower. It should be noted that the typical open market price for the sale of electricity is currently down to 1.7p/kWh or lower. However, over the life of the scheme, it is very likely that the retail value of electricity will rise. No allowance for such a rise has been made here.
3

Electricity generated from renewable sources can be used to obtain Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) which all the supply companies need in order to prove they are meeting the governments targets for renewable energy. ROCs have a market value in the range 3p – 4.5p per kWh which will vary over time depending on how well these companies are doing in meeting their targets.
H/Final Report minimised.doc 18

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

In Table 1 the value of the electricity from the scheme has been calculated for the special sell-andbuy-back contract on the LHS of the table, and compared with a simple sale-of-electricity contract on the RHS. An averaged day/night unit value for bought and sold electricity has been used. Assuming pessimistically that the ROC value is only 3p/kWh (rates in 2003 have been in the range 4.5 – 4.8p) then the value of the scheme should exceed £16,500 per year. An export-only contract would be worth £12,500 per year. If the ROC value averages 4p/kWh then these figures increase respectively to £19,000 and £15,000.
Table 1 Value of electricity generated by the hydro-scheme
1. Export and buy back Consumed Exported Total 260000 0 260000 0.0317 0.03 0.0043 0.0660 17171.92 0.00 0.017 0.03 0.0034 0.0504 0 -600.00 17171.92 -600.00 16571.92 2. Export only 100% export 260000 0.017 0.03 0.00344 0.05044 13114.40 -600.00 12514.40

Energy generated Value of electricity Value of ROC's CCL/LECs Total unit value Annual value Metering cost Net value

kWh/year

£/kWh £/year £/year £/year

12.CONCLUSIONS 1. The site at Guildford Mill constitutes a technically viable scheme for hydropower generation. 2. The site was designed for a flow rate of 3.5 m 3/sec and this sets a size limitation on the refurbishment of the scheme. 3. As a Grade I listed building there are also limitations on any modifications proposed to the building. 4. The original 1930s Gilkes turbine could be refurbished, but it is recommended that the most cost-effective approach will be to procure a re-conditioned version of the same model of turbine – one such machine has been identified as being available. 5. A new propeller turbine would generate only 5% more energy than the original machine, and as well as being more expensive to procure, would require major structural modifications to the building in order to accommodate the extensive draft tube required. 6. An Abstraction License will not be required for the site, but the works will require Land Drainage Consent from the Environment Agency. The three principal areas on which the Environment Agency will seek clarification are: preserving levels for navigation, flood defence, and fisheries protection. 7. An essential aspect of the scheme design will be to incorporate robust measures for screening out and removing natural and man-made debris with the minimum of human intervention. 8. The energy model for the scheme predicts that the energy output can be expected to exceed 260,000 kWh/year. The river Wey sustains a consistent flow and the turbine can be expected to be operating almost all year round. The longest shut-down periods will be in times of high flood rather than drought.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

19

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

9. Equipment supply and installation costs have been estimated to be in the region of £120,000. This excludes the fundamental structural work to be carried out on decaying elements of the building, any grid connection charges, and the possible replacement of the sluice gates. 10. The value of the electricity generated has been estimated on the basis of a special contract to be negotiated with one of the electricity supply companies. This would enable the Council to sell the power at a premium rate enhanced by the Renewables Obligation, then buy it back at cost price to offset energy otherwise bought from their contracted supplier. The net value of the energy in this model can be put at 6.5-7.5 pence/kWh, hence the revenue from the scheme is worth £16,500 - 19,000 per year.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

20

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

ANNEX A
Energy Model methodology The spreadsheet model calculates the predicted annual energy output from the scheme, taking into account all likely losses. The summary methodology is as follows: 1. Determine the FDC 2. Determine or estimate the Head Duration Curve based on all the flow passing over the weir 3. For each value of river flow (Qriver) estimate the flow that will pass through the turbine (Qturbine) 4. Calculate the draw down in upstream level caused by Qturbine no longer passing over the weir 5. Calculate the loss of head caused by Qturbine passing through the mill race and trashrack 6. Calculate the net head (Hnet) available at the turbine 7. Calculate the flow drawn by the turbine when H= Hnet 8. Modify the estimated flow values under step 3 by trial and error until Steps 3 and 7 achieve the same flow figures 9. Multiply together Hnet, Qturbine and the turbine efficiency curve (η vs Q/Qo) in order to obtain the power generated at each flow rate 10. Plot the Power Exceedance Curve on to the FDC 11. The area under the Power Curve is the annual energy capture The spreadsheet print-out is shown overleaf.

H/Final Report minimised.doc

21

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

SPREADSHEET PRINT-OUT
Head % Time 0.5% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 5.0% 7.5% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 95.0% 99.0% 100.0% Qriver 37.23 28.71 21.22 16.65 13.01 10.89 9.65 8.03 7.09 6.36 5.79 4.97 4.28 3.7 3.25 2.87 2.48 2.24 1.86 1 Qweir 35.111 26.193 18.404 13.670 9.909 7.723 6.447 4.783 3.820 3.074 2.493 1.661 0.967 0.394 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 1.000 0.3 Hgross 0.82 1.12 1.39 1.55 1.68 1.76 1.80 1.86 1.90 1.92 1.94 1.97 2.00 2.02 2.03 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.11 2.15 Draw down Hdraw 0.094 0.103 0.115 0.126 0.138 0.148 0.155 0.168 0.177 0.187 0.195 0.212 0.232 0.261 0.245 0.221 0.194 0.177 0.149 0.077 Hydraulic loss Hloss 0.041 0.058 0.072 0.081 0.087 0.091 0.093 0.096 0.097 0.098 0.099 0.100 0.100 0.099 0.079 0.060 0.043 0.034 0.022 0.004 0.10 6% Net Head Hturb 0.681 0.960 1.202 1.347 1.458 1.521 1.556 1.599 1.621 1.637 1.648 1.660 1.665 1.657 1.709 1.766 1.824 1.858 1.912 2.032 1.658 Qturb 2.119 2.517 2.816 2.980 3.101 3.167 3.203 3.247 3.270 3.286 3.297 3.309 3.313 3.306 2.950 2.570 2.180 1.940 1.560 0.000 3.307 Qturb/Qo 0.641 0.761 0.852 0.901 0.938 0.958 0.969 0.982 0.989 0.994 0.997 1.001 1.002 1.000 0.892 0.777 0.659 0.587 0.472 0.000 Effcy 0.737 0.799 0.811 0.809 0.809 0.812 0.816 0.821 0.825 0.828 0.830 0.833 0.834 0.832 0.809 0.803 0.749 0.697 0.596 0.000 Shaft Power Pmech 10.429 18.95 26.94 31.86 35.91 38.38 39.86 41.81 42.90 43.70 44.26 44.90 45.11 44.74 40.04 35.78 29.21 24.65 17.45 0.00 Elec Power Pelec 8.34 15.16 21.55 25.49 28.73 30.71 31.89 33.44 34.32 34.96 35.41 35.92 36.09 35.79 32.03 28.62 23.37 19.72 13.96 0.00 Pelec x time kWh 515 1608 2060 4749 6508 6854 14308 14840 15172 15410 31240 31539 31484 29706 26568 22774 9438 5901 612 271286 0.98 265860 kWh/year availability kWh/year

Design values:

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

ANNEX B : Layout drawings
B1. Guildford Mill turbine house

PLAN VIEW

SIDE ELEVATION

FRONT ELEVATION

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

B2. Hydro-electric scheme design: before and after installation

H/Final Report minimised.doc

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

ANNEX C Budget Quotation from DHPL

H/Final Report minimised.doc