The history of small hydropower (SHP) in Lithuania is decisively shorter than that in the Alpine regions of Central Europe. In Lithuania, only one quarter of all plants is 20 to 60 years old. 75 % of all SHP plants were built only in the last twenty years and may thus be regarded as relatively new. Despite the country’s young history, all plants are privately operated. The latest statistics date to 2003 and reveal a continuous upward trend.

Lithuania focuses on nuclear power

Nuclear power plays a leading role in Lithuania’s energy supply. The country derives about 80 % of its electricity from nuclear reactors. But in spite of, or maybe even because of, this fact the renewable energies sector shows a strong will to survive; this becomes manifest in the newly erected wind parks as well as in the committed efforts to establish small hydropower.

The proportion of the latter in the overall mix of energy is still trifling, accounting for merely 0.25 %; and also the share of large hydropower, accounting for 3 %, is relatively small. Within the sector of renewable energies, however, hydropower makes up by far the largest proportion (roughly 90 %). Before this background the question arises whether the efforts to establish small hydropower are at all justified and how the existing potentials are to be evaluated. The following figures cast more light on the issue:

• Theoretically speaking, the overall potential of small hydropower in Lithuania amounts to 2,094 GWh/a. The reasonably exploitable proportion from a technical and economic viewpoint is 287 GWh/a, corresponding to 14 %. This order of magnitude is not at all surprising and results from comparative evaluation with other countries and catchment areas.
• Of the 287 GWh/a only 41 GWh/a are actually used, which again corresponds to 14 %. This value is extremely low by comparison with relevant figures from other countries.

Drawing support from SHP, the proportion of renewable energies in the energy mix could be increased to at least 1.5 % – if there wasn’t a list of so-called forbidden rivers that reduce the remaining economically useable potential by 50 %, from 246 GWh/a to 126 GWh/a. In the face of such restrictive legal requirements, there is no chance that the one-percent limit for small hydropower will ever be exceeded.

Lithuania thus is a perfect example of one-dimensional thinking with regard to nature conservation and environmental protection: it gladly accepts 80 % of nuclear energy-derived electricity and relentlessly banishes energy generation from renewable resources in the form of small hydropower.

Government-funded research and development fits well into this picture. A programme named “Solar energy and other renewable energies” casts a critical eye on the environmental impacts of SHP.

Like in many other countries, opposition to SHP has its roots in fishing; the latter naturally rivals hydropower as a form of water use and must not be confused with a justified and well-founded interest in environmental protection. All other interests are of minor importance in Lithuania.

Another interesting aspect, because it is quite unusual in Lithuania, is the reserved-flow concept. The authorities base their calculation on the monthly average low water flow as it statistically occurs every twenty years. Yet this has only little significance for hydropower stations as discharge power stations in Lithuania are rare.

What about the economic viability of SHP in Lithuania? The cost of investment can vary from € 2,200 to € 2,500 per kW installed. These expenses are set against a feed-in tariff scheme. Electricity suppliers are required by law to feed SHP electricity into the public grid. The currently valid tariff is 0.06 €/kWh. There are no progressive rates and, like in most EU countries, the maximum permissible output is 10 MW. Considering that a wealthy country like Austria charges a maximum of 0.0625 €/kWh, the Lithuanian Minister of Energy’s approach must be hailed for being progressive and sustainable.

Tariff levels in Lithuania are attractive enough to encourage private capital investment. However, this primarily relates to plants which are built next to existing dams and are therefore less likely to meet with opposition by environmentalists. As a particular incentive, such plants are exempted from income tax in the first four years following the start of operation – a simple yet highly effective tool that would be worth imitating by many other EU states!

Water utilisation charges, which are also frequently debated in Austria, are not levied in Lithuania. In terms of administrative procedures, there is still much room for improvement. Before the start of a project, builders of SHP plants must obtain ten different licenses, which under optimum conditions takes up two years.

Any estimate on what the lapse would be in case of fierce opposition is purely hypothetical. One can sum up the factors that throttle the success of SHP in Lithuania as follows:

• The so-called forbidden rivers, a term which by the European Small Hydropower Association (ESHA) is regarded as an undifferentiated generalisation which does not do justice to the facts and whose sole purpose is to ban all SHP.
• The costs of investment of SHP plants are relatively high by Lithuanian standards.
• Investment security is an overriding factor in basically any long-term investment project; here lies another weak spot of Lithuania (a country which is definitely worth visiting).