Against a background of growing electricity consumption, such losses resulting from the construction of new hydropower plants appear likely. WWF refers to a number of plants which are located either in “Natura 2000 protected zones” or in “river national heritage areas” as defined by the BMLFUW and WWF (e.g. Schwarze Sulm, Koppentraun, Niedergailbach in Lesachtal, Ybbs, and several watercourses in Tyrol).

The organisation also denounces the “small is beautiful” concept, arguing that the impact of a small hydropower plant on a smaller watercourse is as dramatic as the one a large hydropower plant exerts on a big river.

Says WWF river expert Ulrich Eichelmann: “Considering that brooks and rivers are ‘limited water resources’ and hydropower has only a low to marginal impact on the energy balance, WWF is strictly opposed to the construction of both large and small hydropower plants. If we really wanted to compensate the current increase in electricity consumption, we would in fact have to build a new hydropower station on the Danube every year.”

The WFD, too, is a strong defender of sustainable water management and therefore also committed to the protection of water bodies. Apart from its “no-deterioration clause”, the directive requires member states to ensure that all their water bodies revert to a “good status” by the year 2015.

As a compulsory EU directive, the WFD naturally creates a stronger echo in the water/hydropower industry than the activities of a nature conservation organisation, irrespective of its international standing.

The EU has sought to minimise the level of friction – which for Austria mostly arises in the hydropower sector – by including a category defined as “heavily modified water bodies” in the directive. The goal in such cases shall be to restore the “good ecological potential” by taking practicable measures aimed at improving the living habitats of aquatic organisms.

But even this provision could not dispel all doubts (which are by no means limited to the energy sector). Many experts fear that a potential restriction of hydropower usage might jeopardise the achievement of the climate protection targets, which from an ecology viewpoint are just as important.

Study shall clarify situation

These concerns find their expression in a study which was conducted by the Institute of Electricity Economics and Energy Innovation (head: Heinz Stigler) at Graz University of Technology on behalf of the BMLFUW, the Austrian Association of Electricity Companies (VEÖ) and Austrian Small Hydropower Association.

The aim of the study was to look at the WFD and assess its potential impact on domestic hydropower from the viewpoint of energy and economic efficiency. The study results have been accessible to the public since autumn 2005. Heinz Stigler describes the purpose of the study: “Firstly, it shall help to implement the WFD in a way which ensures that ecological and economic interests are optimally balanced and that Austria’s most important primary energy source continues to be produced in the same quantity and quality.

Secondly, it shall help to accomplish the environmental goals set out in the WFD and to secure a sustainable management of our water bodies.” The range of possible effects on energy efficiency is illustrated by means of different scenarios. The study investigates residual water flow *), surge restriction and fish migration enhancement models.

A distinction is drawn between storage hydropower plants, run-of-river plants with more than 10 MW capacity and small hydropower plants (with less than 10 MW capacity). The following section summarises the financial implications of the WFD for hydropower plants with more than 10 MW capacity.

Different implications for storage hydropower plants

Especially storage hydropower plants, which account for a total capacity of more than 10,000 GWh, are said to require a diversified investigation due to their different plant design, usage and contract terms. Residual flow assessments could be carried out in about 80 % of these facilities.

Based on the future residual water flow according to the residual flow scenarios 1/3 MJNQT, 1/2 MJNQT, 2/3 MJNQT and MJNQT, production losses would increase from 3 % up to 10 %. As for MJNQT, the values of individual plants may vary between 0.3 % and 45 %.

The financial implications for large storage hydropower plants cannot be assessed on a standard basis due to their different usage and contract terms. Especially with respect to surge restrictions, individual plant data have been shown to vary greatly.

“In one storage plant, restricting surges to ratios of 10 : 1, 5 : 1 and 3 : 1 would reduce the number of peak-load hours by 14 % – 85 %, which equates to a financial loss of e 1.3 to 4.5 million annually. In one extreme case, an annual loss of up to e 70 million was assessed!

Other storage plants render different individual results, but still in most cases restrictions are substantial,” says Heinz Stigler. There is broad agreement by experts that surge restrictions exclusively caused by a change of the operating mode tend to diminish the flexible use of storage plants.

Says Rupert Nocker (head of the hydropower utility centre of Salzburg AG): “We need this flexibility to ensure a regular supply and to balance out fluctuations in consumption and production as they, for example, tend to occur in the generation of electricity from wind power!”

Run-of-river plants with more than 10 MW even harder hit

The standard work capacity of all run-of- river plants over 10 MW totals 3,000 GWh, of which 2,660 GWh were assessed in the study. As for the residual flow scenarios 1/3 MJNQT, 1/2 MJNQT, 2/3 MJNQT and MJNQT, production losses may vary between 5 % and 20 %.

This results in financial losses in the range of e 4 to 16 million annually. Experts estimate that the cost of installing fish migration facilities, depending on the different sensitivity of the water bodies, will amount to e 60, 65 and 70 million in the period until 2027.

Residual water flow is a decisive factor for SHP

The 2,070 domestic small hydropower plants (SHP) produce about 4,000 GWh, which corresponds to 8 % of the total electricity generation in Austria. Due to the large number of facilities on which no detailed figures are available, the scenario assessments were based on cumulative data from the federal provinces of Salzburg and Lower Austria.

About 85 % of the facilities are designed as run-of-river plants, where the residual flow issue plays an essential role. Says Heinz Stigler: “Based on the relevant scenarios, production losses in the range of 10 % to 32 % are calculated; related to the current eco-electricity rates, this corresponds to financial losses in the range of € 16 to 49 million.

These high values mainly result from the fact that most of the plants are exempted from residual flow requirements due to their age. About 90 % of all SHP plants do not allow undisturbed fish migration. The installation of upstream fish passage facilities would amount to € 90 million (calculated until 2027)!” Not surprisingly the study results have exceeded the “worst fears” of Bernhard Pelikan, President of the European Small Hydropower Association (ESHA).

He criticises the WFD makers who, he says, would have been well advised to carry out similar assessments before establishing the relevant provisions. In doing so, they would have done sustainable energy production in Europe a good service. But now they are trapped in the predicament of having to limit the damage that has been done.

Unlike Ulrich Eichelmann from WWF, who believes the acceptance of a revitalisation of existing plants would adequately compensate for the losses to be expected, Bernhard Pelikan cannot take much comfort from this. “What about those who have invested in small hydropower (SHP) and are paying off their loans? After the ‘resupply tariffs’, which have earned us a compassionate smile from our neighbours, the additional investment imposed by the WFD (in particular as regards the subsequent installation of fish ladders) deals yet another detrimental blow to Austrian SHP!”

According to Pelikan, this additional burden is in stark contrast to the basic WFD principles of consensus and proportionality. The ESHA President suggests a straight solution: “The economic effects of the WFD on hydropower need to be buffered by public-sector support such as investment backing, adjustment of tariffs, or tax abatement. But even then it leaves us with the bitter taste that we should neglect environmental protection (as set out in the Kyoto targets) in order to save nature.”

Study said to reflect worst case

The authors of the study point out that the table of results on page 10 provides only a rough overview and does not allow to draw conclusions as to the accomplishment of targets set out in the 2003 Amendment to the Water Conservation Act (WCA).

“The implementation of WFD provisions does not automatically rule out the possibility of building new hydropower plants in the future,” says Heinz Stigler. Head of Division Wolfgang Stalzer from the BMLFUW, on whose behalf the study was conducted, argues that the study basically reflects a “worst-case scenario”.

“The assessment fails to address that there is still the possibility of resorting to the ‘heavily modified water body’ category or the exemption provisions defined in the WCA, which could reduce the impact on hydropower. The study also fails to mention that the requirement to preserve the ecological function of water bodies in case of water usage was embedded in the WCA even before the WFD became effective.

Since 1990 not only new facilities but also existing plants needing a new permit – because they have been extensively upgraded or their permit has expired – have been required to fulfil ecological criteria to obtain such a permit,” he explains. The examples he mentions include adequate residual flow specifications, fish ladders, measures to minimise the impact of peaking operations, and various others. The BMLFUW acknowledges the problems resulting for the energy sector, yet points out that the effects of the WFD on domestic hydropower could be minimised. Wolfgang Stalzer suggests the following remedial options:

• Old plants may be upgraded, such as by installing state-of-the-art turbines, so as to increase their efficiency.
• The minimum water flow may be adjusted to comply with local needs.
• Surge reduction measures should not be limited to a change of the operating mode, but also include structural measures such as surge chambers, discharge stretches connecting to larger watercourses, or structural adjustments in the receiving waters.
• The efficiency of old plants may be enhanced.
• Any additional potential should be preferably used to accomplish an improvement, or at least prevent a deterioration, of the current ecological status of a water body.

Austria has committed itself to increase the percentage of eco-electricity (related to 1997 consumption figures) to 78.1 % until 2010. If the lacking amount of electricity of up to 2,900 GWh per year were to be produced in thermal power stations, an additional CO2 emission of 1.8 million t would have to be expected (data source: Salzburg AG).

Reinhard Haas, head of the Institute of Power Systems and Energy Economics at Vienna University of Technology, believes it would be more sensible to implement the WFD into Austrian law in a way that mainly newly built plants are affected. Haas basically agrees that the EU’s environmental ambitions are “fairly contradictory”: “While there is a directive that promotes the generation of electricity from renewable resources, the WFD is heading in the opposite direction.

Especially in terms of small hydropower, a great deal of caution and sensitivity is required. After all, there still is an unexploited potential in the magnitude of the capacity already in place. Besides, many plants have an additional ‘repowering potential’ which results from the upgrade of existing facilities. Here the WFD should also allow for a technical, scientific and ecological optimisation.”

Other experts believe that in addition to the best possible use of “heavily modified water bodies” as set out in the WFD, only a “delicately balanced” implementation of WFD provisions would be beneficial for the whole system.
(Source: aqua press Int. 1/2006, Mag. Christof Hahn)