It is also obvious that large run-of-river plants in Europe are gradually losing their potential. What remains by and large are a handful of storage plant projects and the unbrokenly huge potential of smaller plants, not only in Austria. While the latter will nowhere and never be able to cover peak electricity demands, it would be just as abusive to use storage plants for off-peak electricity production.

Good status despite SHP

Large hydropower (LHP) and small hydropower (SHP) plants basically meet the same needs and each in their own way produce precious and renewable energy. Yet from a WFD perspective there are specific differences, based on which it becomes clear and understandable that smaller plants are the better choice.

The largely completed documentation of Austrian watercourses required as part of the WFD implementation procedure reveals that in many areas SHP plants have exerted such a low impact on water quality that the water body could be classified as having good status. The reverse conclusion must therefore be that a gentle usage of hydropower – as it is practised in many SHP plants – is perfectly compatible with the principles and objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive!

So it is the size of impact rather than the matter itself that deserves consideration. Large plants, which already during their construction and later because of their size have a massive impact on the environment, undoubtedly find it more difficult to exert no or only little impact on a water body.

Best solution for each specific case needed

Much of the hydropower debate still revolves around the use of compensation water to provide minimum stream flow, which in some cases really leads to substantial production losses. Recent studies come up with impressive figures that underscore this fact. Provided that we are serious about handling our renewable energies responsibly, the conclusion to be drawn is that authorities must proceed with care and decide for each specific project what definition to choose.

Threshold values and other one-fits-all solutions are irresponsible and must, also from a technical point of view, be downright rejected. We are lucky that we still have waters which have preserved their individuality. Therefore, we can neither ecologically nor economically afford to go for superficial and ecologically harmful simplicity at the cost of sacrificing individual and optimised solutions.

A customised approach is also needed when it comes to planning fish migration facilities. This is another area where a one-fits-all theory is misleading as it can never be best practice. What we need is the competency of a planner who, by taking account of a great number of background conditions, in the end again comes up with a customised solution.
(Source: aqua press Int. 4/2006, a.o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bernhard Pelikan)

Contact & Information:

European Small Hydropower
a.o. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Bernhard Pelikan