Page 1
For questions, please contact:
European Small Hydropower Association (ESHA), Rue d’Arlon 63-67, 1040 Brussels, BE
[email protected] , Tel.: +32 2400 10 67
STATISTICAL RELEASES
D. 3.3. ENERGY
D.4.3. MARKET
D. 5.3. POLICY
SHP Stream Map project Year of Implementation: 2009-2012 Web: http://streammap.esha.be/
A project supported by
Project Consortium:
Advisory Board:
Page 2
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. ENERGY ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.2. Small hydropower.................................................................................................................. 5
1.2.1. Remaining potential ....................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2. Number of plants, installed capacity, electricity generation .......................................... 6
1.3. Large hydropower .................................................................................................................. 8
1.3.1. Remaining potential ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3.2. Conventional hydropower schemes ............................................................................. 10 1.3.3. Pumped storage power ................................................................................................ 12
1.4. Total hydropower contribution ............................................................................................ 16 1.5. Assessment of the indicated trajectories of the National Renewable Energy Action Plans
(NREAPs) ....................................................................................................................................... 17 1.5.1. Small hydropower ........................................................................................................ 17 1.5.2. Large hydropower ........................................................................................................ 18
1.5.3. Renewable electricity generation in mixed pumped storage power plants .................. 19 1.6. New developments .............................................................................................................. 21
1.6.1. Small hydropower ........................................................................................................ 21
1.6.2. Large hydropower ....................................................................................................... 21 2. Market ......................................................................................................................................... 23
2.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 23
2.2. Industrial overview .............................................................................................................. 23 2.2.1. General ......................................................................................................................... 23
2.2.2. Analysis of Market Data – Industrial ........................................................................... 24 2.3. Economics overview ............................................................................................................ 25
2.3.1. General ......................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.2. Analysis of Market Data – Economics ......................................................................... 26
3. Policy .......................................................................................................................................... 29 3.1. Support schemes .................................................................................................................. 29
3.1.1. Price-based instruments ................................................................................................ 29 3.1.2. Quantity-based market instruments .............................................................................. 30
3.1.3. Common remarks ......................................................................................................... 31 3.2. Concession ........................................................................................................................... 32 3.3. Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 33
3.3.1. Impact of WFD on hydropower development .............................................................. 33 3.3.2. Residual flow regulation .............................................................................................. 34
3.3.3. SEA Directive .............................................................................................................. 34
3.3.4. Technical approaches for good practice in hydropower use ........................................ 35 3.3.5. Conflict between river protection and hydropower development is rising .................. 35
3.3.6. Difficulties related to electricity grid access ................................................................ 36 3.3.7. Lack of support of RES directive on hydropower development .................................. 36 3.3.8. General comments about improvement of legislation .................................................. 36
3.4. Need for political, media and social incentive .................................................................... 37
4. Annex .......................................................................................................................................... 38 4.1. Methodological notes .......................................................................................................... 38 4.2. Questionnaires ..................................................................................................................... 43
4.2.1. Energy .......................................................................................................................... 43
Page 3
2
4.2.2. Market .......................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.3. Policy ............................................................................................................................ 45
4.3. HYDI Data ........................................................................................................................... 45
INTRODUCTION
This study is based on the findings of the EU funded STREAM MAP project (2009 – 2012),
coordinated by ESHA (the European Small Hydropower Association). One of the main outputs of
this project has been setting up the European Hydropower database (HYDI) covering both large
(LHP) and small hydropower (SHP). The HYDI database has been built on drawn up
methodological notes and questionnaires completed by the project participants of 10 EU countries
and institutions. Some of them were responsible for collecting data in the remaining countries in
order to cover the entire EU. It has to be mentioned that so far such a database, covering all the EU
hydropower sector statistics both for large and small hydro, including pumped storage power (PSP)
has been absent. The HYDI database consists of three parts, namely: a) Energy; b) Market; and c)
Policy.
For the small hydro sector, data was supplied by the countries’ national associations. For large
hydro plants, data was provided by national statistic offices, power utilities and so on. Before
entering data into this database and making them publically available, a checking for their
consistency and accuracy was accomplished.
As data collection for the HYDI started in 2007, and the reference year for the EU Renewable
Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) and National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) is 2005,
this study extensively used the results of previous studies.
In many cases, for the sake of completeness, the authors have performed research in order to gain a
comprehensive picture for the whole EU. The results of this project here are referred as to HYDI.
Their parts are discussed below separately.
The HYDI database is publically available at: http://streammap.esha.be/1.0.html
This report is not difficult to digest without context. It is therefore the intention of the authors to
provide a document for the general public and specialists to facilitate them evaluating the
hydropower sector in an aggregate way. This target audience consists of hydro community, national
and European policy makers, press and media or other groups. The current report provides a general
overview of the findings of the HYDI database, where some details have been omitted in order to
assist the reader.
Page 4
3
1. ENERGY
1.1. Background
As a common practice, hydropower plants according to their installed capacity P are distinguished
between small (P≤10 MW) and large ones (P>10 MW). They can be either conventional (pure)
hydro or unconventional - pumped storage power plants. Conventional hydro is undisputable source
of renewable energy, while PSP - only in certain cases when there is a significant natural inflow
into the upper basin. The latter has not been clearly taken into renewable energy account so far.
A main source of the statistics of hydropower plants both large and small hydropower on a
European scale is Eurostat, but this statistical office does not analyse hydropower development
trends. The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams (HP&D), the European electricity
industry - EURELECTRIC, and International Energy Agency are collecting and managing their
hydropower databases, and producing reports mainly on large hydropower sector progress. Small
hydropower development trends are usually analysed by EurObserv'ER. Recently a comprehensive
study analysing the current role of hydropower in the European electricity sector and its remaining
potential, with special attention paid to pumped storage facilities, was performed by
EURELECTRIC (2011). Its report is part of the EURELECTRIC Renewables Action Plan. Just a
year before this organisation published the EURELECTRIC statistical yearbook (Power Statistics
2010) that covers also the hydropower sector.
In 2009 the ABS Energy Research published a report containing the latest at that time available
statistics of hydro power and hydro power plants, covering both large hydropower (LHP) and small
hydropower (SHP) and representing regional and country hydropower profiles of Europe and other
parts of the World. This report outlines the size of the hydropower industry, separately for large and
small.
The European Small Hydropower Association - as it name suggests - collects statistical data on the
small hydropower industry and analyses its trends. One of the latest studies is “The strategic study
for development of small hydropower in the European Union” (2008).
Despite the above-mentioned statistical services, which are entirely or partially dedicated to
collecting the hydropower sector data, it has to be noted that there is a gap in information on large
and small hydropower statistics in the academic literature.
Based on the requirement of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) each EU Member State
was requested to provide a National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) according to a
template to meet its 2020 target, including the technology mix and the trajectory to reach it. These
Action Plans are publically available (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm).
Hydropower, including pumped storage, has been also considered in the NREAPs. The NREAPs
have been evaluated by a number of independent experts, including the European electricity
industry association - EURELECTRIC. All the assessors recognise that the data presented in the
NREAPs are not always precise and must be used with a certain caution. EURELECTRIC (2011)
made a conclusion that hydropower contribution anticipated in the NREAPs is relatively low
comparing with its currently available potential. The main reason lies in the imposed unjustified
environmental restrictions. In the result, the hydropower sector will appear incapable to compensate
effectively grid voltage variations due to the prospective surge of intermittent electricity sources.
With the advent of renewable energy sources (RES) of increased variability in electricity
generation, such as wind and solar, a renewed commercial and technical interest in energy storage
could have been observed recently. Hydropower with a reservoir and a pumped storage installation
is a mature technology, being the oldest and the largest of all available energy storage technologies.
After a significant decrease in the number of commissioned installations during the previous 20
years, as compared to that of 1970s and 1980s, pumped storage power plants (PSP) are regaining its
Page 5
4
significance. Current trends for the new PSP development show generally that the developers
operating in liberalized markets are tending to repower or enhance existing schemes and to build
‘mixed’ PSP rather than traditional ‘pure pumped storage’. The existing water infrastructure, e.g.,
dams and associated reservoirs, is of particular interest when developing the new PSP schemes
Not only large scale PSP plant development is needed. When technical and environmental
conditions are favourable, small scale PSP plants can be developed in water streams, using the
existing infrastructure.
According to the NREAP template the hydropower contribution is composed of two components –
conventional (pure) hydro consisting of small and large schemes and pumped hydro. Both are
represented in this template, though, pure pumped storage is not counted as electricity from a
renewable energy source with the exception of mixed PSP plants which can produce electricity
from natural inflow. Pumped storage power plants are called mixed, or combined, when they
contain the elements of a pure pumped storage plant combined with a conventional hydropower
plant.
The energy part of the HYDI database contains statistics on small and large hydropower including
pumped storage schemes. The purpose of this report is to analyse hydropower energy data from
2005 to 2010, and up to 2020. To better reveal hydropower sector upcoming trends and prospects
for future, information stemming from other data holders (e.g. Eurostat, EURELECTRIC, the
International Journal on Hydropower & Dams) has been also used.
Based on the HYDI data a number of illustrative charts have been produced for each country
dealing with a number of plants, installed capacity, electricity generation for small and large
hydropower plants and totals for the entire EU calculated.
The HYDI database structure with the energy part details is shown in Fig.1.1. The energy
questionnaire has been composed of 3 parts as follows: a) Hydropower plants basic statistics
(number of hydropower plants in operation, installed capacity and actual generation); b) Forecast
(short and medium term periods) and c) Hydropower potential (theoretical, technical, economically
feasible and environmentally compatible potential).
Figure 1.1. The European hydropower database (HYDI) structures with the energy part details
For the small hydro sector, data were supplied mainly by their national associations. Other sources,
including energy agencies and energy regulatory offices were also used. For the large hydro plants
data were provided by national statistic offices, energy agencies, energy regulatory offices, power
utilities and power plant owners. Before entering data into this database and making them publically
available, checking for their consistency and accuracy was needed. To do so a number of other data
sources (Eurostat, the International Journal on Hydropower & Dams, Eurelectric, EurObserv'ER) as
HYDI DATABASE
ENERGY Market Policy
Current Data Forecast Potential
Number of plants
Installed capacity
Electricity generation
Consumption (PHES)
Normalised generation
Short term (1 to 2 years
ahead)
Long term (up to 2020)
(plants under construction
new and upgrade)
Gross theoretical
Technically feasible
Economically feasible
Environmentally compliant
Degree of development
Page 6
5
well as material published in the open literature were employed. As data collection for the HYDI
started in 2007, and the reference year for the EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) and
National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) is 2005, this study uses extensively the results
of previous studies. Attempts were made to calculate normalised electricity generation, but not in
all cases, due to insufficient length of time series (less than 15 years). Hydropower plants
construction (new and upgrading) progress for short term (1 and 2 years ahead) and medium term
period (up to 2020) have been also evaluated.
1.2. Small hydropower
1.2.1. Remaining potential
As a general rule hydropower potential diminishes from the gross theoretical to the economically
feasible potential and finally the remaining potential or available for development (Fig.1.2).
Figure 1.2. Total SHP potential in the EU (TWh/year)
The potential is unevenly distributed among the Member States. It can be best described by the
water stream energy per unit of area, usually – 1 km2. Austria, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal are
the countries with the most powerful water streams (Fig. 1.3). In contrary, the water stream specific
energy in Denmark, Estonia and Hungary is relatively low. Hydropower has not been developed in
Cyprus (only one SHP plant is operating) and Malta.
Page 7
6
Figure 1.3. Density of the economically feasible potential in the EU countries (MWh/year/km
2).
It is commonly known that the economically feasible potential is less stable than the technical one,
and is subject to considerable fluctuations, mostly has a decreasing trend over the years. Changing
the status of energy support and environmental legislation can greatly alter it.
The economically feasible potential for development of SHP plants amounts to some 93 TWh/year
(Fig. 1.2). This estimate includes also the current SHP electricity generation - 44.1 TWh/ year. This
fact shows that in average less than a half of this potential has been already tapped all over the EU.
Taking into account all limitations imposed by legal provisions such as geographical designations,
legislation and regulations that mostly exclude the SHP potential in specified areas, one can specify
the environmentally compliant potential. Its value is estimated at some 55 TWh/year, if a positive
component is taken into account: upgrading/modernisation of existing facilities, exploiting non-
hydroelectric dams (up to 5 to 10% of actual power generation).
The HYDI study reveals that during the last ten years new SHP potential has been greatly affected
by environmental legislation that fall under areas that are designated, such as Natura 2000, the
Water Framework Directive and others.
Germany, the 4th
largest country with regards to SHP installed capacity within the EU, experiences
the biggest reduction of its hydropower resource; only 7% of the economically feasible potential
can be realisable in the current situation. Heavy environmental limitations are imposed in Baltic
countries (e.g., Lithuania 43%), Greece (35%) and Slovakia (38%). Slightly larger environmentally
compliant potential has been identified in France, Italy and in the UK (some 50%). Similar
restrictions are in power also in some other countries where environmental impact assessments are
accomplished on a site by site basis and no statistical data are available.
A reasonable threshold of these limitations should not exceed 20 to 30% of the economically
feasible potential. Despite these environmental constraints, a large number of SHP plants are
operating nowadays successfully in environmentally sensitive areas.
1.2.2. Number of plants, installed capacity, electricity generation
In 2010 nearly 21,800 SHP plants were in operation (Fig. 1.4). The biggest number of SHP
facilities is run in Germany (more than 7,500). Then Austria (some 2,590), Italy (2,430), France
(1,900), Sweden (1,900) and the Czech Republic (1,450) follow. It is expected that the overall SHP
Page 8
7
number will reach the level of 24,000 by 2020. The average installed capacity of an SHP plant
varies between 0.6 - 0.7 MW.
Figure 1.4. Number of SHP plants, their installed capacity and electricity generation between
2000 and 2020 in the EU.
Within the period of 2005 to 2020 the installed capacity is expected to increase from 12.4 GW to
17.3 GW and electricity generation from 42.1 to 59.7 TWh/year. This will result in a growth of
nearly 40%.
Taking a look at individual countries Italy is the country with the largest SHP installed capacity
(2,735 MW) and electricity generation (10,958 GWh). In addition to that in the years ahead this
country will be a clear leader in both of these fields (Fig. 1.5 and 1.6). It is followed by France,
Spain and Germany. The lowest installed capacity and electricity generation are observed mainly in
lowland countries (Eastern Baltic states, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland).
Figure 1.5. SHP installed capacity in the EU countries (MW).
Page 9
8
Figure 1.6. SHP electricity generation in the EU countries (GWh/year). The load factor determines the effectiveness of using SHP turbines for electricity generation and is
a measure of a power plant output compared to the maximum output it could produce. It can be
expressed by an average number of full load hours. For SHP plants operating in the EU it amounts
to 3,252 hours (Fig. 1.7). The largest one is observed in Germany (nearly 4,900 hours) and the
lowest value in Romania (1,810 h). According to the NREAPs the load factor is 2,000 hours for
onshore and offshore wind plants, and 914 hours for solar installations. These facts shows that SHP
is a stable energy source.
Figure 1.7. Calculated average number of full load hours for SHP plants in the EU countries.
1.3. Large hydropower
1.3.1. Remaining potential
Table 1.1 compares the developed and remaining hydropower potential in line with a number of
data sources/studies. The totals of hydropower potential include small hydropower as well. The
latter makes in average more than 10% of actual hydropower generation in the EU. Neither the
International Journal on Hydropower & Dams (HP&D) nor EURELECTRIC define clearly small
Page 10
9
scale hydropower. The breakdown of the hydropower potential through the individual countries is
given in Fig.1.8.
Table 1.1. Total hydropower potential in the EU Type of hydropower potential HP&D (2011 World
Atlas & Industry Guide)*
EURELECTRIC (Hydro in
Europe: Powering Renewables,
2011)
HYDI
Potential developed (hydropower
generation), TWh
349 325 344
Technically feasible hydropower potential,
TWh
629 - 630
Percentage of development of technically
feasible hydropower potential, %
55 ≈50 55
Remaining technically feasible hydropower
potential, TWh
280 276 286
Remaining economically feasible
hydropower potential (environmentally
compatible), TWh
- - 139
*- calculated using countries profile data
As one can see from this table, there is no significant difference for developed (actual electricity
generation) and remaining (or additional) technically feasible hydropower potential according to the
independent assessments. In contrast to the technically feasible hydropower potential, the value of
the economically feasible hydropower potential is considerably lesser – more than 2 times and
amounts to 139 TWh/year. Besides the uncertain fluctuating economic considerations this potential
accounts for the environmental restrictions. E.g., protected or environmentally sensitive areas
where hydropower development is completely excluded or hardly possible. And this type of the
additional hydropower potential can be regarded as real one available for the future developments.
Large differences in the hydropower potential assessments are discovered for a number of the
individual countries (Fig. 1.8).
Figure 1.8. Developed and remaining technically and economically feasible (environmentally
compliant) hydropower potential in Europe per country in 2010.
For instance, in France the recent studies reported the remaining hydropower potential of some 10
TWh/year instead of the previously indentified 32 TWh/year. In Sweden the estimated
Page 11
10
economically feasible potential amounts to about 90 TWh, out of which 68 TWh are currently
developed. From a first sight the remaining potential would be at least 22 TWh, but in the reality,
due to the present environmental restrictions its magnitude is slightly over 5 TWh/year.
There are countries where large hydropower development is completely forbidden by the national
Environmental (Natural resources, Water) laws (e.g., France, Finland, Sweden, Lithuania) or
excluded in strategic documents (the Czech Republic). In contrary to these countries, harnessing of
large rivers in Hungary or Poland is not legally excluded. Large hydropower facilities are still under
consideration in these countries. Given, however, the existing general framework, uses and
restrictions, erection of further large hydropower plants is considered very problematic. For this
reason this type of the additional potential for these countries has not been counted.
According to EUROLECTRIC and HYDI there is very little remaining hydropower potential in
Germany, if upgrading and /or modernisation is not taken into account. The experts of this country
declare that 2 to 3 TWh/year or an increase of 14-19% in total output can be achieved through
modernisation and upgrading of existing larger hydropower plants.
Large, still not exhausted hydropower potential is available mostly in mountainous regions - Italy,
Romania, Austria, Spain, Portugal with the exception of Sweden (Fig. 1.9).
Figure 1.9. Additional economically feasible hydropower potential (environmentally compliant)
ranked by magnitude (extract from Fig. 1.8)
1.3.2. Conventional hydropower schemes
According to HYDI, in 2010 there were approximately 1800 large “pure” hydropower plants with
total installed capacity of 95.6 GW and electricity generation of 308.8 TWh in the EU. Italy (302),
France (290), Sweden (200) and Austria (157) are on the top in terms of the number of plants.
These totals exclude mixed pumped storage.
Table 1.2 compares the totals of the installed capacity and electricity generation according to a
number of data sources/studies. For the 2005 reference year Eurostat provides much lesser values,
than the NREAPs and HP&D, both for installed capacity and production. The same trend is
followed by the EURELECTRIC: it underestimates the data for 2010 as compared with other
sources. Referring to the NREAPs and Hydropower & Dams the total installed capacity slightly
diminishes from to 2005 to 2010. A conclusion can be made that huge uncertainties lie in data
assessments. The HYDI data for 2010 more or less follow Eurostat data tendency. Consequently a
marginal increase in hydropower development for this period can be confirmed.
Page 12
11
Table 1.2. Large hydropower (>10 MW) installed capacity and electricity generation in the EU Reference year 2005 2010
Eu
rost
at
HP
& D
(2
00
7
Wo
rld
Atl
as &
Ind
ust
ry G
uid
e)
NR
EA
P
Eu
rost
at
HP
& D
(2
011
Wo
rld
Atl
as &
Ind
ust
ry)
EU
RE
LE
CT
RIC
(Po
wer
Sta
tist
ics
20
10
)
NR
EA
P
HY
DI
Installed capacity,
GW
90.1 102.8 101.4
(95.9)
94.2 102.6 90.9 99.1
(95.3)
92.3
Electricity generation
TWh/year 267.7 293.9
294.8
(295.6) 316.7 293.5 273.2
291.8
(296.8) 308.8
NB. Small hydropower was deducted from HP&D and EURELECTRIC data. In the brackets are
corrected the NREAP data (lacking data were added)
Significant differences in data assessments can be observed for a number of individual countries
(Fig. 1.10 and 1.11).
Figure 1.10. Large hydropower installed capacities in the reference (2005) and current year (2010)
Figure 1.11. Large hydropower electricity generation in the reference (2005) and current year
(2010)
Page 13
12
1.3.3. Pumped storage power
Three basic types of pumped storage power (PSP) schemes can be distinguished:
Pure PSP. There is no renewable electricity generation here;
Mixed (combined or pump-back) PSP plants contain the elements of pure PSP combined
with those of conventional hydropower plants. In this case significant amounts of the turbine
output are provided by natural inflow into the upper basin;
Separated (water transfer or contributing) PSP plant may be featured by a natural inflow into
either basin. Consequently, they may be representatives of pure or mixed pumped storage
type.
Renewable electricity can be generated in mixed and separated PSP. A pre-condition for this is that
there can be a significant natural inflow into the upper basin. This limit is usually assumed to be at
least 3-5% of the turbine output (or 250 hours/year) provided by surface water (ASCE, 1989,
UNIPEDE/EURELECTRIC, 1991)
An advantage with mixed facilities is that the energy storage is generally much greater thus
allowing plants to store large amounts of easily available energy. Plants with significant natural
inflow may also operate as conventional hydroelectric installations during periods of inflow excess,
increasing thus the economic competitiveness of the plant. A general comparison between mixed
and pure PSP plants is provided in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3. Typical characteristics of mixed and pure pumped hydroelectric storage plants
Type of
pumped
power
storage
plant
Electricity
counted as
renewable
energy
Capital
cost
Market
flexibility
Vice-versa
transformation
Environmental
performance
Operational
characteristics
Pure PSP No High Flexible Almost
impossible
Dam is not
obligatory Similar
Mixed PSP Yes Lower More
flexible
Possible Dam is obligatory
The HYDI study shows that neither considered database nor literature sources show the total
number of PSP operating in the EU. Only Zuber (2011) provides their number amounting to some
170, including PSP installed in Switzerland, Norway and other non EU countries. According to
HYDI, in 2010, there were around 140 operational plants (installed capacity exceeds 10 MW) in the
EU of which 86 ones were the mixed type PSP (Fig. 1.12).
Figure 1.12. Number of PSP under operation
Page 14
13
The largest number of PSP is to be found in Germany (31), Italy (21) and Austria (19). Largest
number of the mixed PSP is operating in Austria (19), Italy (14) and Germany (11). In Austria,
Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania and Sweden all PSP are of the mixed type. Only pure PSP are installed
in Belgium, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxemburg and Slovenia. There are no installed PSP plants in
Estonia, Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia and Malta. However, there are real plans to develop them in the
first three countries.
The analysis shows, that despite some inconsistencies highlighted further in PSP data collected by
Eurostat, these data are most coherent with regard to other reviewed databases (Fig. 1.13 and 1.14).
Nevertheless, it is highly likely that electricity generated by the natural inflow in the mixed PSP
was included to the total amount of power produced by PSP plants. It must be pointed out that a
decision was taken by Eurostat in 2010 to separate PSP capacities into mixed plants and pure
pumped storage capacity.
Figure 1.13. Installed PSP capacity for the period 2005 to 2010 in the EU (Eurostat)
Figure 1.14. Electricity generated from PSP for the period 2005 to 2010 in the EU (Eurostat)
According to HYDI there 11 mixed type PSP are operating in Germany with total capacity of 1200
MW that is included in the overall PSP capacity (6784 MW). The same situation happens in Poland,
PSP are totalling to 1750 MW out of which 384 MW are of the mixed type. However, Eurostat
provides only pure PSP capacity -1404 MW. Consequently, this facts lead to an improper energy
balance and part of green electricity production in mixed PSP is not counted as renewable.
Over the period 2005 – 2010 PSP overall capacity was growing in Italy, Germany and Austria
(Fig.1.13). However, the latter experiences a significant decrease – more than two times in 2010 -
while keeping the energy generation at the level similar to that in the previous years (Fig. 1.14).
The HYDI assessment is 3274 MW in 2010 in Austria.
Page 15
14
When comparing the Eurostat, EURELECTRIC and HYDI data, significant differences are
observed in the total installed capacities for Austria, Bulgaria, Germany and Poland (Fig. 1.15 and
1.16).
Figure 1.15. PSP (all types) installed capacity according to Eurostat and EURELECTRIC
(EURELECTRIC values for 2010 are forecast and there is no data for France and Romania)
Figure 1.16. PSP (all types) installed capacity in 2010
A number of large differences can be also observed for the electricity generation (Fig. 1.17). For
instance, in Austria the electricity generation differs more than 5 times and there are similar
discrepancies for other countries.
Page 16
15
Figure 1.17. Electricity generation from all types of PSPs according to Eurostat and
EURELECTRIC (EURELECTRIC values for 2010 are forecast)
It must be pointed out that uncertainties for a proper evaluation of installed capacity of PSP arise
also from the different modes of operation of these plants (Fig. 1.18). A bigger difference in the
total installed capacities between pump and turbine modes indicates that there might be operational
more mixed type of PSP (e.g., Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Romania, Spain). However this
cannot be applied to Portugal, where all PSP plants are of the mixed type.
Figure 1.18. PSP installed capacity in turbine and pump mode according to EURELECTRIC
(lacking data for Italy, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden are HYDI estimates)
Table 1.4 compares the totals of installed capacity and electricity generation proposed by a variety
of the databases. It can be seen that NREAPs underestimates the energy from pumped storage
comparing with other data providers. The causes are explained further in the text.
Table 1.4. Comparison of the current and projected total installed capacities and electricity
generation of PSP in the EU Eurostat EURELECTRIC
(2010)
NREAP (2011) HYDI
2005 2009 2010 2007 20101 2020
1 2005 2010
1 2020
1 2010 2020
1
Installed capacity
GW
36.7 40.8 34.5 36.9 31.0 42.6 23.4 28.2 39.5 42.1(19.5)2 60.7(24.1)
2
Electricity
generation TWh
34.5 31.7 31.5 37.7 35.2 43.2 23.8 23.6 32.6 39.1(12.4)2
1 - Forecast
2 – Numbers in the brackets indicate renewable electricity generation in mixed PSP
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Inst
alle
d p
um
ped
sto
rage
cap
acit
ies
MW
Turbine capacities Pump capacities
Page 17
16
According to the Eurostat data, the total installed capacity of PSP was continuously growing over
the considered period and reached 40.8 GW in 2009. In contrary to the above, in 2010 the installed
capacity decreased dramatically – up to 34.5 GW. The cause of such decrease, that is a difference
of above 6 GW (or 20%), is not known. A similar discrepancy is seen in the EURELECTRIC
statistics when comparing the 2007 and 2010 data.
The HYDI assessment shows that the installed capacity of mixed PSP makes nearly a half of the
overall pumped storage installed capacity (19.5 GW out of 42.1 GW). In 2010 they produced more
than a quarter of renewable electricity out of the total PSP generation (12. 4 and 39.1 TWh,
respectively).
The total installed capacity of all types of PSP broken down for the individual countries as
anticipated by 2020 is shown in Fig. 1.19). EURELECTRIC (2011) estimates are not time
specified. They indicate installations at an early planning stage or recently obtained licences and are
well projected indications towards 2020. The EURELECTRIC data (2010) published a year before
deviate significantly from the previous ones. The HYDI previsions are also indicated. One can
conclude that all previsions vary a lot, but most coincidence is observed between the
EURELECTRIC (2011) and HYDI data.
Figure 1.19. PSP development in terms of installed capacity (at an early planning stage or licences
obtained –EURELECTRIC, 2011) and forecast for 2020 according to EURELECTRIC (2010) and
HYDI estimations. There are also shown the countries where so far no PSP were built (Cyprus,
Estonia and Hungary)
1.4. Total hydropower contribution
In previous sections large hydro contribution is given separately for conventional (small and large)
and PSP plants in which renewable electricity is generated from the natural inflow. The total
hydropower contribution (HYDI - only renewable electricity) for the current year (2010) and the
year 2020 is shown in Table 1.5.
It has to be noted that the totals provided by the NREAPs do not represent only renewable
electricity.
Table 1.5. Actual and projected total hydropower capacity and electricity generation, broken down
into capacity ranges and pumped storage.
Page 18
17
Inst
alle
d
cap
acit
y
GW
an
d
Ele
ctri
city
g
ener
atio
n T
Wh
NREAP HYDI
2010 2020 2010 2020
SH
P
<1
0M
W
LH
P
>1
0M
W
PS
P1
To
tal
SH
P
<1
0M
W
LH
P
>1
0M
W
PS
P1
To
tal
SH
P
<1
0M
W
LH
P
>1
0M
W
PS
P2
To
tal
SH
P
<1
0M
W
LH
P
>1
0M
W
PS
P2
To
tal
GW 12.8
(13.0)
99.1
(97.0)
28.2 122.4 15.9
(16.3)
112.4
(107.8)
39.5 139.7 13.7 95.6 19.5 125.5 17.3 102.4 24.1 143.8
TWh 46.0
(45.1)
291.8
(296.8)
23.6
342.7 52.8
(54.1)
309.5
(314.5)
32.6 369.3 49.6 308.8 12.4 370.8 59.7 316.3 15.3 391.3
1- all kinds of PSP (renewable and non renewable electricity)
2- only mixed PSP where renewable electricity is generated
In the brackets are corrected the NREAP data (lacking data were added)
1.5. Assessment of the indicated trajectories of the National Renewable Energy Action
Plans (NREAPs)
1.5.1. Small hydropower
A comparison of independent assessments, the NREAPs and HYDI, exhibits that both data sets
fall into the confidence interval (Fig. 1.20) showing that there is no large difference for SHP totals.
The HYDI assessment is more optimistic than the one given in the NREAPs. A forecast value for
SHP installed capacity and electricity generation is larger by 6% and 9%, respectively. It turns to
17.3 GW in capacity and 59.7 TWh/year in generation for 2020. EurObserv’ER’ previsions are less
optimistic for the period 2010-2020 in terms of the installed capacities.
Figure 1.20. Comparison of assessments provided by the NREAPs, EurObserv’ER and HYDI
(note: lacking NREAPs data were completed or corrected)
Despite the fact that SHP projected generation increases by 9% up to 2020 its contribution to the
overall RES-E mix diminishes from 9 to 5% (Fig. 1.21). This can be explained by a spectacular
increase in electricity generation of wind power, biomass and other RES-E.
Page 19
18
Figure 1.21. SHP contribution to RES-E mix (% of total electricity generation in GWh/year).
(Other RES-E estimates according to the NREAPs)
1.5.2. Large hydropower
Only conventional large hydropower is compared here. Table 1.6 provides the totals of the
projected installed capacity and electricity generation according to NREAP, EURELECTRIC and
HYDI by 2020. The reference data (2005) given by the independent databases are also shown. It is
evident that estimates fluctuate a lot.
It can be seen that hydropower data projected by the NREAPs are more optimistic and the
EURELECTRIC estimates are less optimistic. The HYDI data are in between. Referring to them a
conclusion can be made that large hydro growth rate towards 2020 will be marginal.
Table 1.6. Anticipated large hydropower (>10 MW) potential in the EU
Reference year
2005
2020
NREAP EURELECTRIC
(Power Statistics
2010 )
NREAP HYDI
Installed capacity, GW 95,9 (101.4) 94.6 112.4 (105.6) 102.4
Electricity generation
TWh/year
294.8 (295.6) 281.4 309. 4 (314.5) 316.3
Note: Small hydropower was deducted from HP&D and EURELECTRIC data. Numbers in the
brackets are corrected (lacking data were complemented) NREAPs data
Page 20
19
The breakdown of the projected installed capacity and electricity generation through the individual
countries is given in Fig. 1.22 and 1.23. For a comparing purpose the 2005 reference data are
shown given in the NREAPs. A clear inconsistency can be observed in 2005 and 2020 electricity
generation data for Italy given by its NREAP.
Figure 1.22. Projected large hydropower (>10 MW) installed capacity for the year 2020
Figure 1.23. Projected large hydropower (>10 MW) electricity generation for the year 2020
1.5.3. Renewable electricity generation in mixed pumped storage power plants
Only part of electricity generated in mixed PSP from the natural inflow is counted as renewable
energy. Therefore, further considerations within this subsection are focussed on the mixed pumped
storage.
Fig. 1.24 provides installed capacity and electricity generation from operating PSP in the reference
year 2005 according to the NREAPs. Fig. 1.25 shows a comparison between the independent
assessments of the installed capacity and electricity generation within the individual EU countries.
It has to be noted that a number of the countries (Bulgaria, Ireland, Portugal, UK) did not provide
Page 21
20
electricity production in their NREAPs. From this figure a significant scatter in capacities and
renewable electricity generation in mixed PSP can be seen.
Figure 1.24. Installed capacity and electricity generation of PSP for the base year 2005
according to the NREAPs (some countries did not provide amounts of electricity)
Figure 1.25. Installed capacity and electricity generation of PSP for 2010 according to the
NREAPs and HYDI assessments. HYDI takes into account only mixed PSP where renewable
electricity can be generated.
Main shortcomings of the NREAPs regarding renewable electricity generation in PSP are as
follows:
None of the NREAPs clearly identified contribution of renewable electricity generated by PSP
(capacity and production), with the exception of Italy and partially Portugal (no electricity
amounts);
Some countries presented a total capacity and electricity generation for all PSP (e.g., Germany).
However, there are mixed PSP operating in this country and their generation must be separated.
The same remark should be made for Slovakia and the UK. They have also mixed PSP,
although their contribution, especially for the latter, is relatively low;
There are involved countries with pure PSP (Ireland, Lithuania);
Some countries having under operation mixed PSP did not indicate their renewable electricity
contribution (the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania).
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Gen
erat
ion
GW
h
Inst
alle
d c
apac
ity
MW NREAP_2010 MW HYDI_2010 MW
NREAP_2010 GWh HYDI_2010 GWh
Page 22
21
These facts shows, that many NREAPs, despite undertaken a thorough review process does not
clearly represent renewable electricity generated by mixed pumped power storage.
1.6. New developments
1.6.1. Small hydropower
According to the HYDI survey around 350 SHP facilities with a total installed capacity of 500 MW
have been in the construction phase in 2011 (Fig. 1.26). SHP new construction makes less than
a half of that capacity (some 220 MW), while the remaining capacity can be attributed to uprating/
rehabilitation of the old SHP.
Figure 1.26. Small hydropower capacity (in MW) under construction in 2011 (accounts for new
development and/or uprating / rehabilitation)
Most SHP developments (in the largest number) took place in Italy (88), Austria (46), Germany
(75 –almost all fall under repowering or enhancement), Spain (21) and Romania (20). In the best
case erection of a new SHP from its start to commissioning takes one year. Developing SHP plants
with such an annual rate, i.e. 220 MW/year, would allow commissioning additionally 2000 MW
of capacity in operation by 2020. However, this annual pace is approximately two times lower than
that foreseen to reach goals presented in NREAPs and HYDI, that is 16.3 and 17.2 GW,
respectively (Fig. 1.21). This SHP plant commissioning rate coincides well with the
EurObserv’ER’ previsions (15 GW).
1.6.2. Large hydropower
Some 50 large, conventional hydropower plants were under construction in 2011, totalling at nearly
3000 MW in capacity. New developments and upgrading, and /or rehabilitation share
approximately the same percentage.
In terms of developing the highest total capacities Portugal (508 MW), Greece (495 MW) and
Romania (437MW) are on the top (Fig. 1.27).
Page 23
22
Figure 1.27. Large conventional hydropower capacity (in MW) under construction in 2011
(accounts for new development and/or uprating / rehabilitation)
New hydropower plants have been constructed in Greece (5), Bulgaria (3) and Italy (3). According
to the new facilities capacity the countries rank as follows: Greece (495 MW), Bulgaria (255
MW), Romania (221 MW), Spain (116 MW), the UK (100 MW), Slovenia (83 MW), Portugal (71
MW).
It is difficult to estimate large hydropower annual commissioning rate into operation. Taking into
account the latest LHP capacity statistics this pace can be roughly estimated at some 500 MW/year.
This rate is at least 2 times bigger than that for SHP. Consequently, during the next ten years
(starting from the base 2010) some 5000 MW could be additionally expected for large hydro.
Page 24
23
2. MARKET
2.1. Background
The market questionnaire is composed of 2 parts as follows: a) Industrial and b) Economics. The
HYDI database structure with the detailed energy part is shown in Figure 2.1.
HYDI DATABASE
Energy MARKET Policy
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS
Low
Head
High
Head
Pure
Hydro
Pumped
Sorage
Small Hydro Large Hydro Number of Companies Employement
Total Hydro Small Hydro
Investment cost per MW
Cost per kWh produced
Operation & Maintenance cost
Mechanical Equipment Lifetime
Civil Works cost
Internal Rate of Return
Equipment Suppliers
Engineering Activities
Operation & Maintenance
Others
Civil Works (estimate)
Figure 2.1. Structure of the European hydropower database (HYDI) with detailed Market part
Data was collected initially during 2010 providing the status of both these topics up to and
including 2009. For reasons given below, changes in the results have been negligible for 2010 and
2011.
The nature of the Market data was not straightforward for those asked to complete the
questionnaire. In particular, the requests for the number of companies involved and employment in
different types of hydropower was difficult to obtain. An attempt was made to limit employment to
those companies that have only “direct” employment in hydropower. Comparisons with other data
sets, e.g. "State of Renewable Energies in Europe" 11th EurObserv'ER report 2011, have drawn
favourable comparisons so the data entered into HYDI is the best available.
In many cases, for the sake of completeness, research has been performed by the authors in order to
gain a comprehensive picture for all over EU.
2.2. Industrial overview
2.2.1. General
Because of the nature of the data collected, changes are slow in taking place and are completely
reliant on the economic status of a country, its policies concerning Renewable Energy development
and consequent market forces.
The general overall effects of each of these factors can be summarised as follows:
Page 25
24
Economic status – the economic problems of all European states since 2007/8 are well
known. The immediate effect on hydropower development was as a result of uncertainty
caused by the economic conditions. Financing of projects was, and is, a major concern.
RE Policies – the economic problems are affecting, or will affect, individual country
policies. This drives the rate of development. As a result of the RES directive and national
renewable energy targets for 2020 the effects are somewhat cushioned but a worsening of
the economic climate and radical government changes could easily cause dramatic changes
to the size of the supporting industry and employment. It is unfortunately impossible to
predict these changes and their consequences.
Market forces – the amount of manufacturing and services required for the hydropower
market is a result of the two factors detailed above. It is further complicated by industry’s
ability to serve the global market. For the last decade, the world hydropower market has
been very buoyant and many of the larger European companies have benefited. As the
world’s economy swings this has an effect on these companies and their need for support
manufacturing and services. Most of the export market is for the large hydropower sector
and it can be assumed that the effect of the global small hydropower market is considerably
less important to European companies.
2.2.2. Analysis of Market Data – Industrial
Following is a graphical analysis of the elements of the Market survey over the EU member states
with key comments on the results.
Figure 2.2. Companies in the Hydropower Sector
There are 4893 companies occupied in the small hydropower sector. As could be expected, the
original EU members (pre 2003) show the greater number of companies but, with the requirements
of hydropower development under RES up to 2020, there should be new companies joining the list.
1
10
100
1000
10000
Fran
ce
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Ital
y
Spai
n
Po
lan
d
Slo
ven
ia
Po
rtu
gal
Swed
en
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Gre
ece
Fin
lan
d
Slo
vaki
a
Latv
ia
Bu
lgar
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Irel
and
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Esto
nia
Net
her
lan
ds
Bel
giu
m
Hu
nga
ry
Den
mar
k
Nu
mb
er
of
com
pan
ies
Number of Hydropower companies
Total Hydropower Companies Small Hydropower Companies
Page 26
25
Figure 2.3. Employment in the EU Hydropower sector
Total employment in the Hydropower sector all member states is 57,000 with 29,600 concentrating
on Small Hydropower.
Figures 2.4 & Figure 2.5 EU employment by discipline in the total hydropopwer sector and in
Small Hydropower only
There is little percentage difference in each dicipline’s share of total employment in the overall
figures against those for small Hydropower. Operation and Maintenance is the largest employer on
estimated values provided by the members states.
2.3. Economics overview
2.3.1. General
The same three factors affect the economics of a hydropower project. There are, however, two
other unique factors which need to be accounted for when considering the economic efficiencies of
hydropower development – reducing viability and increasing costs:
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
Hydropower Employment in EU
Total Employment
Small Hydropower
22,75%
18,24%
30,77%
20,17%
8,06%
Total Hydropower Employment
Equipment Suppliers
Engineering Activities
Operation & Maintenance
Others
Civil Works (est)
30,07%
21,48% 9,41%
29,48%
9,56%
Small Hydropower Employment
Equipment Suppliers
Engineering Activities
Operation & Maintenance
Others
Civil Works (est)
Page 27
26
Reducing viability – as a country’s hydropower facilities continue to be built, it is the
“easier” ones which are developed first. The ease of development includes aspects such as
site accessibility, distance from grid connection/load concentrations, working in more
environmentally sensitive areas and reliable water availability.
Increasing costs – a part of which is directly proportional to the effect of reducing viability
since the “harder” it is to build a project, the more costly it is. Added to these are general
increases in labour and material costs which are common to any industry. Unique to the
hydropower sector is the increasing cost of satisfying environmental directives and
regulation. Increased monitoring before, during and after construction, increased mitigation
measures for fish passage and screening and reduction in water availability all serve to drive
up costs and reduce project viability. Other cost increases being experienced are in the areas
of insurance, grid interconnection and “maintenance” due diligence, community
charges/payments and rates.
The balance between policy and incentives is therefore critical for the development of hydropower
projects and the consequent effect on industry and employment. Cost of building and generating
from hydropower will naturally rise but some control over the unique costs of this technology and
its implementation will be necessary to guarantee continued development. One major
misconception of many governments is that hydropower is just “another renewable technology” and
can be dealt with in the same way as, say, wind and solar PV. Hydropower is dependent on
topography and rainfall and, as such, has a wide range of scheme size and type. It must therefore be
incentivised and regulated in a proportionate manner.
2.3.2. Analysis of Market Data – Economics
Following is a graphical analysis of the elements of the Market survey over the EU member states
with key comments on the results.
The three major data sets in this area which dictate the viability of hydro projects in European states
are:
• Average investment cost
• Average cost per kWh produced
• Internal rate of return
In many countries a range of values were given. For the purposes of this general analysis, the
average values for these ranges are shown.
Data shown here is for low head and high head plants. Many countries, owing to topography, do not
have high head hydropower.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Irel
and
Un
ited
Kin
gdo
m
Bel
giu
m
Cze
ch R
epu
blic
Po
lan
d
Slo
vaki
a
Net
her
lan
ds
Fin
lan
d
Au
stri
a
Ital
y
Bu
lgar
ia
Fran
ce
Swed
en
De
nm
ark
Ro
man
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Slo
ven
ia
Latv
ia
Lith
uan
ia
Po
rtu
gal
Esto
nia
Spai
n
Gre
ece
€/k
W
Small Hydro Average Investment €/kW
Low Head High Head
Page 28
27
Figure 2.6. Average small Hydropower investment cost per kW plant capacity
Investment costs are the total investment costs divided by the total capacity planned or under
construction. Costs for low head sites are, in all but two countries, greater than high head projects.
This is as expected since low head hydro is only cheaper when existing civil works are used for new
of rehabilitated schemes.
A general figure for hydro investment in a recent DG Environment report was €2210 per kW
capacity. This appears low in comparison to the data received for the Stream Map project.
The average investment costs overall are:
Small Hydro (<10 MW) Low Head €4072
Small Hydro (<10 MW) High Head €2941
Large (Pure) Hydro (>10 MW) €3726
Large Hydro - Pumped storage (>10 MW) €1353
Figure 2.7. Average cost per kWh produced for small Hydropower
Costs per kWh included in this analysis include, not only the initial set-up expenses and equipment
costs, but the operating and maintenance costs throughout the life of the project.
The overall averages for costs per kWh produced are:
Low head €0.691
High head €0.697
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
€/k
Wh
Average Cost per kWh produced €/kWh - SHP
Low Head High Head
Page 29
28
Figure 2.8. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for small Hydropower
The overall averages for IRR are:
Small Hydro (<10 MW) Low head 7.49%
Small Hydro (<10 MW) High Head 8.96%
Large (Pure) Hydro (>10 MW) 9.00%
Large Hydro - Pumped storage (>10 MW) 10.00%
Viability of hydropower projects is generally acceptable at a low value between 6% and 8%. A
value of 10% is much more acceptable and indicates a payback period of 7 to 10 years.
There is much more consistency in IRR than the other economic factors studied. This is a healthy
result since it indicates that the overall costs and returns do, in fact, balance out and there is
sufficient incentive to continue to build hydropower schemes. There is, however, the question of
economic and political (policy) stability which can easily affect this situation and these must be the
key areas to study over the coming years.
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20
IRR
%
Internal Rate of Return % - SHP
Low Head High Head
Page 30
29
3. POLICY
3.1. Support schemes
The main types of support existing in the Member States for small hydropower are: investment aid,
tax (fiscal) incentives (deductions), green certificates or certificates for renewable electricity
production, green bonus, net-metering, market based support systems. Existence of combined
systems such as FIT and Premium are possible in certain countries.
Table 1. Resume of the support schemes for SHP in the EU
AT
BE
BG
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
FIT x* x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Premium (FIP)
x x x x x X
Quota Obligation/ Green Certificates
x x x x x x x
Investment Grants
x x x x x x x
Tax Exemptions/ Deductions
x x x
Fiscal Incentives
x x
Tendering x x
*Existing plants will continue having a FIT for another several years. But since ~ 2010, small plants will receive an
investment support of up to 30%.
3.1.1. Price-based instruments
Feed-in Tariff (FIT): AT, BG, CZ, EE, GR, HU, IE, LT ,LU, LV, SK, UK, FR, PT, ES, IT, DE
Guarantees the generator of renewable electricity a certain price per kWh at which electricity is
bought. The tariff is set over a long period of time, commonly 20 years.
This system gives very long-term visibility for investors (except in case of retroactive decisions that
should be avoided). However, FIT are disconnected from market needs and could create
competition distortions.
Feed-in Premium (FIP): CZ, DK, EE, SI, NL, ES
Feed in premiums offer a premium above the average spot electricity market price.
Variable (e.g. based on the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity)) in BE or contract for
difference in UK): Feed in Premium will vary according to market price. As the market
price increases, the premium amount can be designed to decline (and vice versa). The risk is
for the budget of the State.
Fixed: With a constant adder on the top of the spot market price (the bonus remains
unresponsive to changes over time and continues to be offered even if electricity prices
increase (but the State can introduce caps and floors). The risk is for the investor. This
system gives long-term visibility for investors and with FIP; the operators shall react to
market signals. In addition, FIP must be encouraged as they give an incentive to producers
to be connected to the market price.
Page 31
30
3.1.2. Quantity-based market instruments
Green certificates/Quota obligations: LT, SE, IT, BE, PL, RO, UK
Suppliers are obliged to show that a certain amount of electricity delivered to the end consumers
stems from RES. Producers of electricity from renewable energy sources receive an electricity
certificate, a so called green certificate, for every MWh of green electricity produced. However, in
some cases it is also possible to put in place a banding mechanism, which facilitates the State to
assign more or less than one certificate per unit of energy according to the production technology.
By selling these green certificates, the producer receives an extra income in addition to the sale of
electricity. Green Certificates schemes usually include a penalty (or buyout price) that the entities
under the obligation, have to pay if they fail to get or buy enough certificates by the end of the year.
In this way, the system is connected to the market and the price is based on supply and demand.
This approach gives investors a better perspective on better technologies to develop. But as
designed today, the lack of European integration, in addition to States’ interventions, disturb the
system. However to avoid a system’s collapse such as in Austria, or disturbance in wood industry
as, for instance. In Poland, a need of careful supervision of the system by always keeping demand
higher than the supply and avoiding unwanted effects resulting out of energy market distortion is
inevitable.
Investment grants: FI, LU, GR, BE, CZ, PL, SK
One main task of the investment support is not to improve energy production, but technologies as
such. The state makes grants available for research and investment projects that involve the
generation of renewable energy or the application of RES technologies. Among other costs, the
preparation and planning costs and the cost of materials can be eligible for subsidies. Support is
granted on a certain percentage rate of the investment, based on the planned investment of the
application, not on the original investment, meaning that rising costs during project conduction are
not eligible.
In Finland, costs for feasibility studies, licensing acquisition of ownership are not included in the
term investment. Nevertheless, demands set by others than energy authorities, such as water
authorities or museum officials are accounted as energy investment. Support of SHP has been
applied to the full sector <10MW. The investment grant has proven to be non-sufficient for small
plants with high unit investment costs (Euro/kW) and common technologies. The grant is
sufficiently in use by the larger SHP sector (1-10 MW) or project serving direct use of the produced
energy by the owner of the SHP plant.
In Belgium, investment grants are reserved for small and middle-sized companies, and limited to a
certain number of sectors. With its range of eligible companies and investments (from 25.000€
upwards, with a limit of up to 1, 5 million€ in 4 years), it excludes a number of companies being
eligible to this form of support, creating some distortion in the market. Due to demands from other
administrations (fish passes), extra investment costs are not eligible to this support.
Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, use both, own resources and the Structural (Cohesion)
Funds. In Poland, there are “Innovative economy” and “Infrastructure and environment” funds.
Similar funds exist also in two other countries. Grants from the Environmental Protection and
Water Management Funds are generally available for environmentally oriented infrastructure
(mainly fish paths and fish ladders).
Tax exemptions/deductions/ Fiscal Incentives: BE, GR, NL
Page 32
31
The Energy Investment Deduction is a tax scheme offered by the State. In addition to the normal
write-off, a certain percentage rate of the investment costs can be deducted from the taxable profits.
The income tax is therefore reduced.
Tendering: FR, BE
Regulatory authority announces that it wishes to install a determined capacity of a given technology
or suite of technologies. Project developers then apply to build the project and name the price at
which they are willing to develop the project. Tenders commonly contain specific requirements
(e.g. shares of local manufacturing, details of technological specifications, maximum price per unit
of energy). The bidder with the lowest offer is selected and can go ahead with the project. Usually
the parties sign a long-term contract (power purchasing agreement).
In Belgium, a tendering procedure is foreseen for some navigable waterways under public
ownership. The system is equivalent to the French system: the developer who is able to develop the
best project, and hence bid the higher price for a fee/kWh gets the concession. In this business plan,
the developer takes all the financial incentives (listed above) into account that he has the right to.
This system is a good way for governments to avoid windfall profits and to give enough security to
investors. It seems to be the best system for mature technologies but is more appropriate for large
installations. For both main financial instruments that were identified above, fiscal incentives, tax
exemptions or tax reductions are applicable as well. In general, these mechanisms exempt producers
of renewable energy from certain taxes in order to incentivize the deployment of new and highly
efficient technologies. The applicable tax rate in each Member State will influence on the
effectiveness of such fiscal incentives.
3.1.3. Common remarks
Need for stabilisation of the incentive schemes. An incentive system should be clearly set out and
all changes should be scheduled and timed, so that producers can plan properly their investments.
Hydropower developers need to know the rules at an early stage, for instance how and under which
conditions their projects will be sustained.
In the last months, a very strong barrier has been raised in some Member States: the regulatory risk,
related to the latest legislative changes in the remuneration rules of the Special regime, the so called
“moratorium” for new RES-E power plants, which includes even retroactive measures.
Banks have some difficulties financing plants. All the uncertainty is leading to a greater difficulty
on achieving financial support for new projects.
Need for suitable incentive support for the rehabilitation and upgrading of old plants, to avoid in the
future to loss the present energy production and, in many cases, to get the chance to increase it
improving the schemes performances also from the environmental point of view.
Special need for the following issues:
Regulatory stability and governmental support to help achieving financing for developing
new projects;
Adequacy of the FIT and the concession period in relation with the specificities of the
country;
Decrease the investment insecurity by stabilizing the prices within the support system on a
long-term period and take care of the relatively low buy-back rate;
Reducing the extremely bureaucratic licensing environment.
Page 33
32
3.2. Concession
Any Member State gets the same kind of authorisation procedure which consists of several
individual procedures based on different legislation (water law, environmental law, electricity law,
construction law, etc.). These procedures have to be passed consecutively and rather independently.
The licensing procedure of a SHP plant takes in average 0.5 to 12 years (there are inclusively cases
of SHP that took two decades to be licensed), being quite costly and with an unpredictable outcome.
The main reason for this is the dependency from entities tutored by different Ministries which are
not properly coordinated, implying a slow and bureaucratic process. Also a lack of authority of
some states on decentralized administration services.
The classical power granting scheme is more or less the following:
- Inclusion on the regional spatial planning;
- Permit for the special use of water;
- Environmental impact assessment;
- License for the construction;
- Permit for use of construction works;
- Technical prerequisites;
- Inspection before commissioning;
- Assessment and attestation of conformity;
- Market license;
- Accession agreement with network utility;
- Power purchase agreement.
The procedure sometimes depends on the capacity, the height of the dam, the characteristics of the
power plant, the civil engineering structure.
The administrative procedures have become more difficult due to additional requests from the
governments executing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that hinders significantly the
exploitation of SHP and the duration of the procedure lasts for many years sometimes without any
success.
The simplification of administrative procedure is needed at least for SHP plants located on
irrigation channels, on water supply systems, integrated in existing dams or wastewater treatment
facilities, and for the rehabilitation of the old schemes. Since these plants are located in artificial
contexts, their environmental impacts are very limited. Moreover, they also guarantee a multiple use
of water resource.
One main barrier is that many decision criteria or/and delays are not clear, or not binding, and result
in delayed authorization (or no authorization at all), with extremely strict conditions. The
authorisation procedure must be simplified, shortened and accelerated.
There is a specific need for the following issues;
- Setting up clear rules and timeframes in the licensing process;
- Better coordination between the national and regional authorities responsible for this
process;
- Simplifying procedure for small-scale power plant permits to reduce the administrative and
bureaucratic burdens;
- Establishment of solid criteria to concede licences to develop SHP – example, the quality of
the projects and the experience of the promoter;
Page 34
33
- Establishment of the “one-stop shop” type of procedure for SHP investors. The authorities
may perform all necessary legal and technical actions with the potential sites in order to
allow one-stop-shop type of procedure;
- Standardise the application forms and make possible the electronic applications and
procedure follow-up, also to ensure transparency;
- In case of tenders, analysis of the already delivered requests for licensing, instead of
launching new tenders taking advantage of the studies already produced on several
locations.
3.3. Legislation
In many Member States, stakeholders complained about environmental requirements, in particular
the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD).The
criticism refers to the fact that the environmental benefits of the renewable energy systems are not
taken into account properly.
The environmental requirements for SHP are too restrictive and do not apply criteria that considers
its benefits; an incoherent implementation of the WFD has also become a strong impediment for the
SHP sector, by assuming hydropower as a menace for the water bodies and their ecological status,
and by imposing restrictive administrative and environmental requirements, that lead to a
decreasing number of hours of production and therefore to a lower profitability. This can be
dramatic, especially taking into account that the current tariff level is quite low, particularly for
rehabilitation, and that there is a lack of knowledge about the water resources available;
nevertheless, a diminishing of the water availability has been registered mainly affecting run-of-
river SHP, resulting in a decrease in equivalent operating hours. Member States should deliver a
more proportionate programme of measures of implementation of WFD.
3.3.1. Impact of WFD on hydropower development
Environmental issues have become the main barrier to the development of SHP, with sometimes
very unbalanced consideration given to the global and environmental advantages of renewable
energy development.
Implementation of the WFD has resulted in rising the environmental requirements and investment
costs.
In the context of making improvements to water bodies via specific measures, a majority of
European States has agreed national or local criteria for determining what impact on hydropower
generation is acceptable (i.e. not a significant adverse effect). However, in many countries, no
criteria on impact determination could be determined so far.
WFD is most of time currently only implemented in very general legislation, which gives the floor
to interpretation of “prevent any supplementary degradation, preserve and improve the quality of
the aquatic ecosystems”.
The obligation to comply with more stringent environmental requirements (for example, the
imposition of more demanding environmental flows and significant compensatory measures, which
often go beyond the dimension of the investments and the scope of activity of the promoters) leads
to a limitation of the technical characteristics and potentially to a reduction in the profitability of
SHP plants.
Page 35
34
Concerning the main environmental topics like reserved flow and fish bypassing the requests from
the government are continuously increasing and sometimes the consensus already reached is not
stable and reliable. The planning process has become a kind of gambling.
In some member states a dogma of “river continuity” prevails on a well-balanced use of water.
There is a need for research and objective scientific approach and for sharing experiences about
what is done in other European countries.
The energy losses of hydropower due to ecological improvements are in particular due to:
- Minimum flow requirements;
- Fish pass and bypass installations discharges (typically combined with minimum flow
requirements;
- Head loss at fish protection screens;
- Requirements on mitigation of surge operation (especially for peak load and storage plants);
- Turbine management: reduction of the operational time of the hydropower plant, for
instance by putting the turbines out of operation for ten hours at twenty days of the year;
- Reduction of the utilizable height of fall caused by increased losses at mechanical fish
protection barriers with small distance of bars.
3.3.2. Residual flow regulation
Some Member States are using fixed thresholds; others are more pragmatics and give more
importance to the case-by-case study (hydro biological study).
WFD is in course of implementation and in general, its implementation causes higher residual flow
for SHP and an increase in their operating costs.
There is a need for analysis and discussion of the imposition of minimum ecological flows and
compensatory measures for the implementation of SHP - involving a joint force between national
authorities and the promoters.
As far as exiting plants are considered, the increase of reserved flow values, not always justified
from a scientific point of view, are causing the shutdown of some SHP and creating problems also
to bigger plants.
Extensive research on minimum flows is being conducted in different EU Member States, but there
are still gaps mainly as to the ecological responses to minimum flows and interaction with
morphology. It is recognised that European standards at general level are needed.
3.3.3. SEA Directive
One important issue is the application of the Strategic Environmental Assessment directive on
certain plans and programmes, which is causing big delays in the implementation of a series of
concessions given in 2009 and 2010.
It was reported that the EIA procedure is not conducted in a uniform way. A frequent request in the
national reports is that clearer guidelines should be published, determining if and how an EIA has to
be carried out.
There is a need to introduce in the composition of the commissions for environmental impact
assessment of a delegate from the promoter (as an observer, with no voting rights).
Local administrations are identifying a lot of “no go areas” and an expensive and time consuming
EIA is requested also for very small plants with negligible impacts.
Page 36
35
3.3.4. Technical approaches for good practice in hydropower use
For upstream migration, many solutions are available (e.g. fish passes and fish ladders, but also fish
lifts, fish stocking, catch & carry programmes etc.) to mitigate the negative impact of migration
barriers – but more work needs to be done on evaluation and monitoring of effectiveness. Much
research leading to technical innovations has still to be undertaken, especially related to
downstream migration in combination with turbine damage.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach. The use of compensating measures together with mitigating
measures is recommended.
Standardisation at European level is desirable, but solutions for mitigation measures will have to be
largely site-specific. Exchange of information should be promoted on standards that have been
developed by different countries or organisations (e.g. for continuity).
3.3.5. Conflict between river protection and hydropower development is rising
Many critics about the «go - no go» principle have been registered.
River classification is sometimes a dogmatic way to prevent from damming without any scientific
approach. As each project is unique and does not have the same impact on the river, an
environmental impact assessment of each project should be the base and the only one criterion to
authorise or not a project.
It is incorrect to introduce general rules of absolute prohibition of establishment of RES in areas
governed by any specific or general protection regime, without considering the specificities of the
installation area and the proposed project at a time.
The introduction of these general exclusions is contrary to the RES Directive. It is required to
review Management Studies of the protected areas to effectively take into account the special land-
planning for RES.
There is a need for completing the knowledge about the real status of the river and define clear
methodologies to be used in the respect of the principles of cost and effectiveness of measures,
ecologically acceptance and economically reasonable approach.
Likewise, there is a need to obtain adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the
quality elements. There are no agreed guidelines on the elements considered sensitive for certain
pressures.
It is essential to promote economic studies and cost-effectiveness analysis which are essential for
WFD implementation. Authorities shall give attention to proportionality and cost-efficiency, be
pragmatic, prioritize and motivate their demands. There is a need for more dialogue and pedagogy.
Make significant progress in administrative adaptations, data gathering and analyses, public
information and stakeholders’ involvement, setting of monitoring networks, etc.
The re-evaluation of the SHP potential for all rivers is definitely a major issue. Not all Member
States have studies that investigated the potential while considering technical, economical and
environmental restrictions. Most data on forecasts for SHP are based on assumptions and are
presumed to be relatively uncertain.
Page 37
36
An important aspect to highlight is that the size of the project is not the most relevant criteria when
assessing a hydropower project. The relevant approach is to assess if a given project will result in
deterioration of the status of a water body. A cost-benefit analysis of the project is necessary to
enable a judgement on whether the benefits to the environment and to society preventing
deterioration of status or restoring a water body to good status are outweighed by the benefits of the
new projects.
There are a great variety of restoration/ mitigation measures that can be applied to reduce (local)
impacts from hydropower passes, fish protection facilities and downstream fish ways, minimum
flows and debris and sediment management. Several mitigation measures have already been applied
for a long time.
3.3.6. Difficulties related to electricity grid access
With the increasing amount of intermittent renewable energy production by wind and solar energy
facilities, energy storage and grid stabilization will become prominent issues.
There is a need to improve synergies between SHP and smart grids: hydropower has an increasing
role in supporting transmission and distribution grids by his proper capability to regulate frequency
and to integrate other discontinuous renewable sources like solar and wind. Besides large
hydropower, also SHP can play a role, especially where is possible to combine it with small basins
and integrate it in hybrid systems. More research should be promoted on this aspects and a
dedicated regulatory framework should be enforced.
Reduce the barriers for development of very small hydro concerning technical requirements of grid
connection and allow direct SHP-born energy deliveries to nearby users.
SHP role (standby energy, storage capacity) in future smart grids is not yet sufficiently recognized
and therefore not supported by legislative and administrative activity.
3.3.7. Lack of support of RES directive on hydropower development
Although the RES directive is implemented in national law the positive consequences are poor and
the political support does practically not exist. There is no positive impact seen so far on RES
directive but negative impact from WFD directive.
There is a need for clear recommendations on how to interpret the Renewable Energy Directive
2009/28/EC and the WFD that appears to be contradictory.
3.3.8. General comments about improvement of legislation
There is a need for:
- More cooperation among the Ministries when issuing new laws, decisions, regulations;
- Reduction of the legal risk: a major problem in several countries is that everyone has the
ability at any stage of the licensing process to appeal the investment in The Court of State,
thus causing very long delays and with the great danger not only an investment to be
cancelled but the investor companies and the manufacturers of these projects to suffer a
serious economic damage or even an economic destruction. Change the procedure for
example by setting high deposit amounts in order to do such an appeal that will be lost if the
appeal is lost;
- Many producers have to pay lawyers and sometimes go to the court in order to see their
rights respected;
- Further simplification and unification of administrative procedure;
Page 38
37
- Setting standards for project development;
- EU good practice guide to hydropower construction and operation;
- Integrated approach for refurbishment of old mills.
3.4. Need for political, media and social incentive
Some initiatives exist, like tenders for the development of SHP with new FIT incentives (like in
Portugal and Spain). Developing hydropower cannot any longer be based only on individual
initiatives. The state must support hydro development by determining favourable areas. Partnership
with all stakeholders is a condition of success.
While pre-planning mechanisms allocating “no-go” areas for new hydropower projects is
sometimes criticized, pre-planning mechanisms can facilitate the (proper location) identification of
suitable areas for new hydropower projects. This designation should be based on a dialogue
between the different competent authorities, stakeholders and NGOs.
The use of such pre-planning systems could assist the authorisation process to be reduced and
implemented faster. Small and large hydropower should be treated equally with regard to
promotion.
The National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) do not always provide figures on the
number of additional large, small and micro hydropower facilities which are intended by the
Member States to be constructed in the coming years. There is a need in compiling the figures on
potentials for different countries and keeping them up to date; State administrations shall do the job.
In several countries, the lack of specific expertise in dealing with renewable energies has been
identified as an important barrier for their development. The civil servants dealing with the
permitting procedures are not familiar with renewables. This leads to confusion, delays or
unmotivated denials of authorisations. Member States shall invest the necessary resources to train
and motivate their civil servants dealing with renewable energy authorisations. Specific guidelines
and training programs could be envisaged.
Continuation of the process of giving access to the state owned dams to the hydropower investors
and starting erection of new multitask installations within the framework of partnership between
water management authorities and hydropower investors.
Introducing regulation redirecting the incomes resulting from green certificates in state owned
hydropower plants to support investments within the sector.
Use socio-economic analysis to define a cost-effective programme of measures. This work should
ideally be undertaken at a catchment or sub-catchment level, so as to maximise the ecological
potential and the energy production.
Improve the understanding of both environmental concerns, given by the WFD, and the
development of hydropower, encouraged by the RES Directive, and the possible approaches for a
coordinated implementation of both this water protection policy and energy policy. In most of the
Member States, the Ministry of Environment remains under strong influence of the “pro-ecological”
lobby.
Opposition to SHP is concentrated within a few people and organisations, amongst anglers, civil
servants and academics. Public has usually little interest in this subject. Media, including the public
ones, usually sympathise with pro-ecological NGOs. There is also a lack of social approach of the
sector.
Page 39
38
4. ANNEX
4.1. Methodological notes
PART I: ENERGY DATA
1. CURRENT
Number of plants, Installed Gross Capacity And Generation
Annual electricity gross generation (GWh): the quantity of electricity generated in reporting year
(Y-1) by all hydropower plants of the MS measured in GWh, excluding production from pumped
storage units using water that has previously been pumped uphill.
Installed gross capacity (MW): the total gross installed generating capacity of all hydropower
plants of the MS at the end of the reporting year (Y-1), measured in MW.
Annual Electricity Consumed for pumping (GWh): the quantity of electricity consumed in
reporting year (Y-1) for pumping water in pumped storage units, measured in GWh.
Normalised electricity generation from hydropower (excluding pumped storage plants): The
effects of climatic variation should be smoothed through the use of a normalisation rule as set out in
Annex II of Directive 2009/28/EC.
e.g.: In order to calculate the normalized electricity generation for the year 2005 the previous annual
output back to 1991 is needed (i.e, annual electricity production and installed capacity data for the
period 1991-2005 or 15 years period).
Run-of-river: Plants who have no or relatively small water storage capability. These installations
normally operate on base load and use the cumulative flow continuously. D ≤ 2 hours. This criterion
is based on the reservoir filling period “D” calculated using the annual characteristic mean flow.
(source: UNIPEDE).
Storage: Hydro-electric installations with substantial capability of water storage in (elevated)
reservoirs in order to produce electricity in time of higher demand. According to the filling period
of a reservoir it can be defined as follows:
Poundage: 2 hours < D < 400 hours
Reservoir: D ≥ 400 hours
(source: UNIPEDE)
Pumped storage: Storage installations where water is pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a
higher elevation reservoir. It’s a method for accumulate and store water‘s potential energy.
Page 40
39
Pure pumped storage plant: A plant with reversible turbines that usually generates electricity by
using exclusively water previously pumped into an elevated storage reservoir with insignificant
catchment area to generate natural inflow (5% below the average volume of water feeding the
turbines in a year). There is no renewable electricity production.
Mixed pumped storage plant: A hydro power plant with reversible turbines, when the natural
inflow which supplies a higher elevation reservoir is 5% above the average volume of water feeding
the turbines in a year. Normally the upper reservoir has significant catchment area to generate
natural inflow. There is a part of renewable electricity production resulting from natural inflow =
green electricity production.
2. FORECASTS
Plants under construction: Plants that have already obtained all permits and concessions and are
under construction during the reporting period (Y-1).
- of which new hydropower plants
- of which upgrading: plants that have incorporated some refurbishing or repowering
intervention (such as change in energy conversion efficiency, change in installed power,
change in civil works leading to the change of head, decrease of energy consumption for
own needs, increase of power availability index, improvement of environmental conditions
Planned plants (with concession): New Plants that have already obtained concession for water use
but need to ask other permits like the permit to build and run the plant or the EIA during the
reporting year (Y-1).
Planned plants (2020): gross estimation of the whole number, installed capacity and generation of
all hydropower plants that will be in operation in 2020. They are cumulative values, coming from
the sum of existing hydropower plants plus the new ones that will be realized from now to 2020.
3. POTENTIALS
Gross Theoretical Potential:
The annual energy potentially available in the country if all natural flows were turbined down to sea
level or to the water level of the border of the country (if the water course extends into another
country) with 100% efficiency. These data should if possible be estimated on the basis of
atmospheric precipitation and water runoff.
Technically Feasible Potential:
The portion of the Gross Theoretical Potential that could be exploited within the limits of current
technology (should include output from currently installed capacity)
Economically Feasible Potential:
The portion of the Gross Theoretical Potential that could be exploited within the limits of current
technology and under present and expected local economic conditions (should include output from
currently installed capacity)
Economically feasible potential with environmental constraints taken into account:
The portion of the Gross Theoretical Potential that could be exploited within the limits of current
technology and under present and expected local economic and environmental protection conditions
(should include output from currently installed capacity).
Percentage (%) of economically feasible potential that has been developed in 2009. This is
calculated as normalized generation in 2009 divided by economically feasible potential.
Page 41
40
Data not available/not applicable:
Where data are not available, please write “Not Available”; where the question is not applicable,
write “Not Applicable”; where the answer is zero, put “0”; Please do not leave any answer boxes
empty.
Page 42
41
PART II: MARKET DATA
1. INDUSTRIAL DATA
Number of companies (any company producing something for or working with
hydropower) in hydro sector
Employment: Direct and Indirect people employed (full time equivalent & percentage of SHP)
in the sector for the different branches and works during the reporting period (Y-1). The
following branches should be considered and specified when possible.
a. Equipment suppliers: it includes Manufactures (Turbines, Generators, Gearboxes, Valves
and gates, Trash-rack cleaners, Penstocks, Cranes, Electric panels, Automation facilities,
Transformers) and Companies for Electromechanical equipment erection.
b. Engineering activities: it includes Companies for technical assistance, plant and structures
design, on site supervision, hydrology, geological and geotechnical survey, topographic survey,
biologic survey and training.
c. Maintenance services: it includes plant managing companies, postselling services
companies.
d. Others: Legal assistance, economical and environmental consultants, producers, promoters,
administrators, researchers etc.
e. Civil works (estimation): it includes Civil works companies, Special foundation works
companies and Penstock erection.
2. ECONOMICS
All the figures reported in this sections are an average value of the last five year time from the
reporting year (Y-1).
Average Investment cost: The investment cost is the capital costs in terms of design cost,
electromechanical equipment, civil works, grid connection and land purchase or rent and
administration for investment cost.
Average Cost per kWh produced: The total cost per kWh produced (specific cost) is calculated
by discounting and leveling investment and O&M costs over the lifetime of the power plant, and
then dividing them by the annual electricity production.
Average Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs: O&M costs are related to water right costs,
labor cost, insurance, maintenance, repair, spare parts, leases, rents, administration for O&M costs
etc measured as a percentage of the total cost.
Average Lifetime of the mechanical equipment: The technical lifetime of the mechanical
equipment represent the period during which it operates in technical sense without replacement of
its major parts of investing more than 50% in refurbishing the equipment measured as an average.
Cost of civil works: Average cost of all civil works including foundation works, construction of
powerhouse, intake, tunnel, penstock entrenchment, conduit channel, etc measured as a percentage
of the total cost.
Energy Payback ratio: The energy payback ratio is the ratio of net energy production during plant
life and the cumulative energy used for construction, operation and operating supply items
IRR: The internal rate of return (IRR) is a rate of return used in capital budgeting to measure and
compare the profitability of investments. It is also called the discounted cash flow rate of return
(DCFROR) or simply the rate of return (ROR).
Low head and High head: The distinction between different heads can be measured as follows.
High head: 100 m and above
Medium head: 20 - 100 m
Low head: up to 20 - 30 m
Page 43
42
PART III: POLICY DATA1
1. SUPPORT
Current support mechanism: This includes, but is not restricted to, investment aid, tax
exemptions or reductions, tax refunds, renewable energy obligation support schemes including
those using green certificates, and direct price support schemes including feed-in tariffs and
premium. All that promotes the use of energy from renewable sources by reducing the cost of that
energy, increasing the price at which it can be sold, or increasing, by means of a renewable energy
obligation or otherwise, the volume of such energy purchased.
Type Support and measurement : This includes two categories
a) Regulatory price-driven strategies: producers of RES-E receive financial support in terms of:
- a subsidy per kW of capacity installed: financial support is given by investment subsidies, soft
loans or tax credits usually per unit of generating capacity;
- a payment per kWh produced and sold: financial support is a fixed regulated feed-in tariff (FIT)
or a fixed premium (in addition to the electricity price) that a governmental institution, utility or
supplier is legally obligated to pay for renewable electricity from eligible generators.
b) Regulatory quantity-driven strategies: The desired level of RES generation or market
penetration – a quota or a Renewable Portfolio Standard – is defined by governments by
tradable certificate systems: Green Certificate (GC) systems. In such systems, the generators
(producers), wholesalers, distribution companies or retailers (depending on who is involved in
the electricity supply chain) are obliged to supply or purchase a certain percentage of electricity
from RES. At the date of settlement, they have to submit the required number of certificates to
demonstrate compliance.
2. CONCESSIONS
Concession: Regulation on the national law which regulates concession (= all needed permits and
authorizations completed) of water use for new plants and the re-licensing of old ones and other
permits needed.
a) Type of permits needed & average time: List of the main type of permits needed to use the
water and produce hydropower energy and average time needed to obtain all the permits.
b) Number of plants granted during the reporting year (Y-1): Number of licenses granted
during the previous year.
New permits: Number of licenses for new plants
Refurbishment + relicensing: Number of plants who got a renewal of the old license or a license
for a refurbishment.
1 Use national divisions between small and large hydro in this section
Page 44
43
3. LEGISLATION
This includes all kind of regulation/law at local, national and European level which is implemented
and valid during the reporting year and its application affects the development of hydropower.
Some examples include the Water Framework Directive, all national laws which are concerned with
the environment field, such as EIA, designated areas, fish protection law, eels, flood protection,
Natura 2000 and other legislation coming from energy, development, economic and other areas.
4.2. Questionnaires
4.2.1. Energy
Country:
Non
Renewable
<1
MW1-10 MW
Total
( ≤10
MW)
Total
Of which
natural inflow
in mixed
pumping
Mixed and
pure
pumping
a) Number of plants
b) Installed (Gross) capacity (MW)
c) Annual gross electricity generation (GWh/year)
d) Annual electricity consumption by pumped-
storage powerplants (GWh/year)
e) Normalised electricity generation by all
hydropower plants in GWh, excluding production
from pumped storage units using water that has
previously been pumped uphill in 2007
PART I. Energy Data Questionnaire
1. Number of hydroplants in operation, installed capacity and actual generation
Year: ????
Large Hydro (>10)
Renewable energy
Small Hydro (<10)Toatal,
Large and
Small (only
pure/renewa
ble)
a) Hydro plants under
construction
of which New
hydroplants
of which Upgrading
b) Planned plants
Year: 2012
Large Hydro (>10
MW)Pumped storage
Num
ber
Capacity
(MW
)
Gre
en
ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
Capacity
(MW
)
Ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
(GW
h/y
ear)
Ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
(GW
h/y
ear)
2. Forecast
Small Hydro (<10
MW)
Num
ber
Capacity
(MW
)
Ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
(GW
h/y
ear)
Num
ber
Page 45
44
4.2.2. Market
1. Industrial data
Year: ???? Total Hydro
% of which SHP
a) Number of companies
b) Employment
Equipment suppliers
Engineering activities
Operation & Maintenance services
Others
Civil works (estimation)
Planned plants
Ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
(GW
h/y
ear)
Capacity
(MW
)
Year: 2020
Ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
(GW
h/y
ear)
Num
ber
Capacity
(MW
)
Gre
en
ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
Small Hydro (<10 Large Hydro (>10 Pumped storage
Num
ber
Capacity
(MW
)
Ele
ctr
icity
pro
ductio
n
(GW
h/y
ear)
Num
ber
2. Forecast
GWh MW GWh MW
a) Gross theoretical potential
b) Technically feasible potential
c) Economically feasible potential
d) Economic potential with environmental constraints in 2009
e) Percentage (%) of economically feasible potential that has been developed in
2009. This should equal your answer to 1 (e) divided by 3 (c)x100
f) Percentage of economically feasible potential that will be developed in 2020. This
should equal forecast generation in 2020 divided by 3 (c)x100
g) Percentage of economically feasible potential that will be developed in
2030.This should equal forecast generation in 2030 divided by 3 (c)x100
Notes:
1) Please state when hydropower potential (a, b, c) was re-evaluated (year):
2) These (a, b, c, d) should be TOTALS, including the potential of the
hydro sites already developed. I. e, normalised electricity generation by all
hydro plants excluding pumped-storage units
Year: 2009, 2020 and 2030
Small hydro (≤10
MW)
Large Hydro
(> 10 MW)
3. Hydropower potential
Page 46
45
2. Economics
Year: 2005-2009
Small Hydro (<10 MW) Large Hydro (>10 MW)
Low head High head Pure Hydro Of which pumped
storage
a) Average Investment cost (€/kW)
b) Average Cost per KWh produced (€)
c) Average O&M Cost (as % of total investment cost)
d) Average lifetime of the mechanical equipment (number of years)
e) Average Civil Works Cost (as a % of total investment cost)
f) Internal Rate of Return (Average in %)
4.2.3. Policy
1. Support
Year: ???? Type
Measurement
b) Small Hydro
c) Large Hydro
2. Concessions
Year: ????
Small Hydro (<10 MW) Large Hydro (>10 MW)
new permits Refurbishment+
Relicensing new permits Refurbishment+
Relicensing
a) Type of permits needed & average time
b) Number of plants granted during the year
3. Legislation
Year: 2007 and before if it still in force Reference Type Summary
and Impact on developement of Hydropower
in English and original language
Energy Environmental Other
Year: ????
4.3. HYDI Data
Due to the size of the tables, please consult the adjacent xls files or alternatively visit
http://streammap.esha.be/6.0.html .