Final Report: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Hydro Feasibility Study
Final Report
Water Power Enterprises
January 2008
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk
Contents
Introduction
Feasibility Study Brief and Methodology
Disclaimer
Location of Sites
Criteria for Selection
Technology
Environment Agency
Planning Requirements
Potential Hydro Sites: Location 1 - City Centre
Location 2 Brinksway Weir
Location 3 Brabyns Park, Marple Bridge
Location 4 Chadkrik Weir
Location 5 Otterspool Weir
Location 6 Strawberry Hill, Roman Lakes
Location 7 Brinnington Weir
Location 8 Stringers Weir
Location 9 Castle Hill Weir
Financial Analysis
Conclusion
Acknowledgements
12
14
15
17
19
21
24
28
32
37
41
46
48
49
Appendix 1 Map of Sites

Appendix 2 Archimedean Screw Cross Section
Appendix 3 Project Timescale
Appendix 4.1 Chadkirk Weir Sketch Plan
Appendix 5.1 Otterspool Sketch Plan
Appendix 5.2 Hydrological data
Appendix 5.3 FDC and HDC
Appendix 5.4 Power Curve
Appendix 6.1 Strawberry Hill Sketch Plan
Appendix 7.1 Brinnington Weir Sketch Plan
Appendix 8.1 Stringers Weir Sketch Plan
Appendix 9.1 Castle Hill Sketch Plan
Appendix 10 Financial Analysis
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Introduction
The threat of climate change and the role of renewable energy in helping to reduce carbon
emissions are now very high on the governments agenda. Renewable energy schemes such as Wind
and Biomass which have tremendous opportunities to tackle climate change because of the large
scale of their operations receive considerable publicity. However, small scale hydro also offers
opportunities for tackling climate change. In its report published in 2002, Renewables Northwest
stated that if all the river weirs in the UK were used to generate electricity, they could meet 3% of
the countrys electricity needs. River weirs once powered the industrial revolution. They can be re
used to help power a new green revolution. Small scale hydro has now begun to receive a higher
profile as communities, local authorities and other statutory bodies respond in positive fashion to
the challenges of climate change.
In December 2005 Stockport Council produced a Scoping report entitled Renewable Energy in
Stockport. This report considered all renewable energy sources and their potential application in
Stockport, including hydro power. The Stockport Scoping report tentatively suggested three hydro
sites, namely Castle Hill, Compstall Mill and Stawberry Hill.
The Council followed this report with a consultation exercise, the results of which were shown in
March of 2006 in a report entitled Feedback from the two Stockport Council Renewable Energy
Study Workshops. The consultation exercise gave strong and positive feedback to Stockport Council
to continue exploring the potential for renewable energy within the Borough.
Stockport Council is a signatory of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change. The Councils
Unitary Development Plan, adopted on 31st May, 2006, sets the framework within which renewable
energy schemes within Stockport will be considered.
This report will help to provide a basis upon which Stockport Council can consider the question of
how to develop what are at the moment only potential hydro sites into fully working hydro schemes
that can contribute towards generating renewable energy whilst also reducing carbon emissions.
Feasibility Study Brief and methodology

Stockport Council made a successful application to the Energy Saving Trust in late 2008, to fund a
study into the potential for hydroelectricity within the Borough. This report is a result of that
funding. Interestingly, two of the three potential sites mentioned in the original Scoping report,
namely Castle Hill and Strawberry Hill, are also explored in this study.
The brief for the study is shown below...
There are 8 sites identified so far as being potential hydro electricity sites in Stockport, one of which
has progressed to the stage that it may well be developed shortly. Of the other eight identified, two
are not under SMBC direct ownership but we would like to investigate their potential. Other sites
within SMBC that are discovered during this process may be added to the list at a later date.
The contractor is required to visit each site and compile/estimate data and produce a written report
for stage one and one for each site on stage two.
Stage one:
Carry out detailed measurements of all structures and watercourses
Desktop estimation of flow data and initial assessment of potential energy capture.
Assessment of suitability of your site for the various types of available equipment.
Calculation of system outline cost, likely revenue and economic payback time.
For any sites that have not been discounted at stage one, the following then should continue
to take the scheme forward.
Revisit site and confirm access/environmental issues.
Initial discussions with Environment Agency and planners.
Procurement of flow data specific to your site to generate accurate energy capture
information and to size equipment.
Budget quotations for the supply and installation of equipment.
Sketch drawing of scheme.
Likely project timescale.
A ninth site was added to the list prior to work commencing. Each of the 9 sites was visited on 10th
November 2008. Suitable measurements, photographs and on site data were recorded to enable a
decision on narrowing the 9 sites down to 5 viable sites. A Preliminary Report was produced on 28th
November 2008 which discussed the criteria for selecting the 5 sites and outlined the potential
4
power outputs of the 5 sites. This report, the Final Report, will discuss in more detail the 9 sites
considered and their potential for hydro electric generation.
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by Water Power Enterprises (h2oPE) solely for use by Stockport
Council. This report is a feasibility study and does not represent a detailed system design. Any
systems or equipment proposed for installation should be investigated in greater detail. In producing
this report, h2oPE has relied upon information provided by third parties. Neither h2oPE nor their
directors, employees or affiliated companies give any representation or warranty, express or
implied, as to the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the contents of the report, nor accept any
responsibility of liability for any loss, whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising from reliance
on it.
Any use of this report by any third party for whatever purpose is solely the responsibility of that
party who should use such due diligence to verify the reports contents and consult its own advisers
as may be appropriate.
H2oPE does not give investment advice and nothing in this report constitutes, or should be taken as
a recommendation to enter into, or the giving of any advice in relation to, any investment. H2oPE
and associates take no responsibility for decisions made or actions taken based upon findings of this
study or the contents of this report.
The work described in this report was carried out with support from the Energy Saving Trusts local
authority One to One support programme. The views and judgements expressed in this report are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Energy Saving Trust
Location of Sites
The following sites were listed in the brief...
River
TAME
Goyt
TAME
Goyt
Goyt
Goyt
Mersey
Goyt
Goyt
Location
SJ 927 932
SJ 910 907
SJ 906 919
SJ 941 898
SJ897 908
SJ 967 867
SJ 883 894
SJ 93 89
SJ 96 89
Name
Castle Hill (Arden Mill)
Vernon Park- Stringers Weir
Brinnington weir
Chadkirk Weir
City Centre- Goyt at confluence with Tame
Strawberry Hill (Roman Lakes)
Brinksway Weir (the Co-op)
Otterspool Weir
Brabyns Park Marple Bridge
Appendix 1 illustrates the geographical location of each site in relation to Stockport.
Criteria for Selection

Each site was assessed according to a number of criteria. The criteria were applied to each of the
sites visited.
1. Site Access any potential site must be capable of being accessed by construction traffic and be
capable of allowing delivery of the turbine itself. In addition, there must be sufficient space adjacent
to the river weir to allow for a temporary construction site. An additional factor is the proximity of
the nearest electrical substation.
2. Cost and ease of construction.
3. Potential power output dependent upon the height and flow of the river.
Technology
The power that can be derived from a hydro site is a function of the head or height of the river
weir and the volume of water in the river . The bigger the head and the bigger the height, the more
power can be generated.
Hydro turbines at any specific site are designed to capture the greatest possible head and the
greatest possible volume of water within the constraints of the specific site and the requirements
of the Environment Agency. Turbines are engineered to turn when water goes through them and it is
the turning motion which generates electricity.
There are several types of hydro electric turbines. All the turbines have a gearing mechanism that
drives the generator, but they differ in the manner by which the energy is extracted from the fall of
water and converted into mechanical rotation. The mechanical rotation is then converted into
electrical energy.
The type of turbine considered for the small weirs explored in this report is the Archimedean Screw.
There are several reasons for this choice...
1. The Archimedean Screw is designated as fish friendly. It, and the Waterwheel, are
accepted by the Environment Agency as being the least harmful to fish of all the
turbine types. Scientific evidence (Fish Monitoring and Live Fish Trials Phase 1, Sept
2007 and Phase 2, April 2008, Fishtek Consulting, monitored by the Environment
Agency) shows the safe passage of fish down the screw whilst it is operational. The
Archimedean Screw and the Waterwheel operate at normal atmospheric pressure
whilst other turbines for instance the Kaplan operate by forcing water at high
pressure into the system. In addition, the screw turns at a low velocity of approx 28
rpm. This, together with the operation of the turbine under normal atmospheric
pressure, enables the safe passage of fish through the system.
2. Depletion Rate this is measured as the distance between where the water leaves a
river to enter a hydro system and where the water goes back into the river . Clearly,
by taking a given volume of water out of a river, there will be an impact upon the
natural ecology of the river bed. A large depletion distance may therefore
compromise the ecology of the river bed. The smaller the depleted distance, the less
impact there will be upon the fish and wildlife ecology. The Archimedean Screw has
the lowest depletion rate because it is placed alongside a river weir the water
enters the system from just above the weir and returns to the river just below the
weir. Whilst more traditional turbines such as the Kaplan can also be placed
alongside the weir, the Kaplan does not have the advantage of being considered
fish friendly.
3. Visibility because the Archimedean Screw is visible, there is an educational benefit
to this type of turbine. It can be readily viewed whilst in operation and the linkage
9
between the turning motion and the generation of electricity is immediately

obvious. The educational aspect of the Archimedean screw ought not to be
underestimated. The Kaplan system is inside the power house and cannot therefore
be viewed.
4. Cost efficiency The Archimedean screw is the most cost efficient option. A report
funded by Yorkshire Forward (Archimedes Screw: Copley Hydro Power Generator)
showed that the costs of installing a Kaplan turbine in relation to an Archimedean
Screw are higher per kW installed. This conclusion is born out by the experience of
Water Power Enterprises, h2oPE, in the numerous feasibility studies undertaken on
potential river weir hydro sites. The difference in cost is due to two factors, namely
the need to keep fish and debris out of the Kaplan turbine and the requirement to
place the actual Kaplan turbine inside the power house. The power house is where
the gearing mechanism, the generator and electrical control equipment is placed.
The Archimedean Screw does not have to be placed inside the power house whereas
with the Kaplan, the turbine is placed inside the power house. These two effects
result in increased capital cost and maintenance. The need to make sure that no fish
or debris enters into the Kaplan system requires a fine mesh screen at the water
inlet channel. This has to be regularly cleaned and is recommended to be
accompanied by an automatic trash cleaning device. This will increase the capital
costs of the project. In addition, because the Kaplan turbine is placed inside the
power house, this necessitates that the actual power house is larger than that
required for the Archimedean screw. This also adds to the civil cost of construction.
The Yorkshire Forward Report stated...
...the study showed a strong cost advantage for the Archimedes screw. For an
energy output of about 15% more, the Archimedes screw cost about 10% less. So in
terms of capital cost in per MWh per year, the Archimedes screw was 22% cheaper
than the Kaplan turbine...
A further study undertaken by Western Renewable Energy on behalf of Goring and
Streatley Sustainability Group, considered both the Kaplan and Archimedean screw
on the same site, but the comparison work clearly favoured the screw.
It cannot always be assumed that the Archimedean Screw offers the most cost
effective choice. However, it offers considerable other advantages over the Kaplan
system, as described in (1) to (3) above. It is for these reasons that the Archimedean
Screw is considered more cost effective for small scale hydro schemes up to about
250 300kW. This figure will differ depending on the peculiarities of each site.
The diagram below, reproduced with kind permission of Mann Power Consulting,
illustrates the efficiency of various turbines at design flows. Whereas the Kaplan is
more efficient between approx 30% and 90% of its design flow, the Archimedean
Screw is more efficient at low flows. However, the cost difference per kW installed
makes the Archimedean screw more cost efficient per kW installed.
10
Reproduced with permission of Mann Power Consulting
Appendix 2 illustrates an Archimedean Screw in cross section. The photograph below shows an
Archimedean Screw at New Mills in Derbyshire. The structure just to the right of the screw is a fish
ladder .
New Mills, Derbyshire
11
The Environment Agency

The Environment Agency supports hydro power in principle. However, each potential site must
consider a number of factors for which the EA has statutory responsibility, namely flood risk, water
resources, pollution and fish protection.
1. Flood Risk
All nine sites considered within this report not surprisingly are in areas of 1% flood risk, ie
floods are likely to occur once in every hundred years. Proposals for each site must convince the
EA that they do not add to the flood risk. Hydro sites are generally placed alongside a river weir
and not within the river bed. Therefore the power house, turbine and associated water channels
must be shown not to increase flood risk. Generally speaking, the small size of power house
required for an Archimedean Screw will not constitute an increase in flood risk, more especially
so when it is above and outside of the river bed. Clearly, consideration must be given to the
siting of the electrical control equipment inside the power house to avoid the risk of flood
damage.
2. Water Resources
A hydro site must obtain two permissions from the EA, namely an Abstraction License and Land
Drainage Certificate.
a. Under the Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006, a water
abstraction license will be required from the Environment Agency for schemes which
abstract water and then return it to the watercourse. The Abstraction License is legal
permission to remove a certain amount of water from the river in order to operate a hydro
plant. Such licenses are given for a period of up to 10 years and are subject to renewal after
that period. Licenses are given with the presumption of renewal. The License will also
indicate the amount of water that is required to be left in the river to go over the weir. This
is usually the Q95 level (the flow exceeded 95% of the time). The weir must always be kept
wet to help its structural stability, to assist fish passage and for the aesthetics of the weir.
The amount of permitted water for a hydro system is subject to a number of considerations,
namely the amount left for the river weir but also the amount required for any fish passes
conditional upon the hydro development and any other abstraction licenses that may exist
in the river. The application fee is currently 135 and may also include advertising costs. It
usually takes 4 months to obtain an abstraction license and the EA may require supporting
reports particularly for the environment and the effect on fish in order to agree the
license. However, the EA has now switched to a national licensing scheme and the effect of
this upon the timescale for developing a hydro site has yet to be assessed.
b. Land Drainage Certificate any civils works within 8 metres of the river bank will require a
Temporary Land Drainage Certificate to ensure that no pollutants enter the river whilst the
site is being constructed. In addition, a Permanent Land Drainage Certificate is required for
the actual operation of the hydro site. This is again to ensure that no pollutants enter the
water course during the operation and maintenance of the system.
12
3. Fish Protection
At the time of writing, the EA have submitted a consultative document Passage of Fish
Regulation which will impact on future hydro developments. At present, the EA has a statutory
duty to protect fish. This duty will remain in force but will be added to after the consultation
period. The consultative Statement of Intent seeks to address obstructions to the free passage
of migratory and freshwater fish. It states...
The purpose of this Statement of Intent (SoI) is to set out, in principle, the way in which the
Environment Agency intends to use the new powers that the regulations will provide in respect of
fish passage and screens. It may be modified as a consequence of the Defra consultation, and we
anticipate that a revised Statement may be required before the regulations are confirmed.
Following consultation, the issue of fish passes and who pays for them is more likely to have
tighter guidelines and will impact upon hydro development.
According to the Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy for the Tame, Goyt and Etherow
rivers, the Tame and Goyt have healthy populations of fish. Brown trout are recorded in the
Goyt and most of the Etherow catchment areas. Angling is widespread and theStockport
Federation of Anglers ought to be consulted about any proposed hydro developments.
Because of these considerations, it is likely that the EA would require fish passes to be
constructed alongside hydro schemes to help with the migratory passage of fish. This does
represent a cost saving when installing a fish pass on a stand alone project as the civils costs of
the fish pass can piggy back on the civils costs of the hydro scheme.
Each of the 5 potential hydro sites explored in more detail below, carry individual comments
about fish passage and the Environment Agency.
Data from 3 local gauging stations are relevant to this work, the EA stations at Portwood (Tame),
Compstall (Etherow) and Marple Bridge (Goyt). For relevant comments see:
http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/station_summaries/069/017.html
There are significant abstractions for public water supply throughout the Borough.
13
Planning Requirements
Any hydro site within the scope of this report will require planning consent. This normally takes
two months from the point of validation. Each scheme will need a Detailed Scheme Design
drawing up which would form the basis of the planning application. There are now national
guidelines concerning planning consent and the validation requirements. In order for a planning
application to be validated the application would need to supply a number of plans and
reports, specifically...
a. Site plan, Location plan, Block plan and elevations. These will be required at given scales, the
details of which need to be sought from the planning officer prior to submitting an
application.
b. In addition, each application will need a Design and Access Statement and, depending on the
site, an environmental report, economic statement and statement of community
involvement. The number of supplementary reports are site specific and an early meeting
with planning officers is necessary to ascertain exactly which reports will be required.
The recent Climate Change Act of 2008 has established compliance and accountability
procedures for meeting Government targets on carbon emissions. These targets will be legally
binding and Local Authorities will play a role in meeting and monitoring the targets. Failure to
reach the targets will mean penalties in central government funding. Stockport Council is a
signatory of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change and has a UDP strategy favourable
to the development of renewable energy. These factors, taken together, suggest that Stockport
Council is fully committed to developing renewable energy schemes.
14
Potential Hydro Sites

Each of the 9 sites visited are considered in turn. The rationale for rejection of 4 of the sites is
explained and the remaining 5 sites are explored in more detail.
Location 1
City Centre river Goyt and confluence with Tame
River Weir
This weir is situated just above the confluence of the Goyt and Tame rivers and is therefore only
capable of using the water from one of the rivers, namely the Goyt. The weir has symbolic
significance in that it marks the start of the Mersey and a hydro scheme at the site is interesting
from that point of view alone.
Access to the site was not possible. The river is canalised at this point by walls at least 8 metres high
on either side. There was no access down to the river itself. The height of the weir was estimated at
half a metre. In addition, the weir is used by the Environment Agency as a Gauging Station. Of the
nine weirs being explored, three are used by the Environment Agency as Gauging Stations. In
discussion with the EA concerning this, it was stated that each potential hydro site which used a river
weir also used by the EA as a gauging station would be treat on a case by case basis. However,
15
additional costs would accrue to the developer because if a hydro scheme did occur at such a weir,
the EA would have to recalculate its ratings at each site.
However, even given go ahead by the EA on such a site, the capital cost of a scheme at this weir
would be prohibitive.
River Weir
Environment Agency Gauging Station at City Centre Weir note high canalised river banks making
for difficult access and cost of construction.
The usual method of construction of a hydro scheme in relation to a river weir is to place it alongside
the weir. This requires a large trench to be dug into which the turbine is placed. The construction of
such a trench at the City Centre weir would be prohibitively expensive given the depth of the trench
required at least 8 metres. In addition, the walls of such a trench would then need to be
supported. The other option would be to place the hydro turbine on top of the weir itself. However,
this option is not possible because the cost of construction would be prohibitive (work on the river
bed requires specialist firms with secure and expensive coffer dams). In addition, the power house
would need permanent protection from the river and could be viewed as a flood risk. Indeed, even if
such a scheme was not considered a flood risk, there would be a need to protect the electrical
control equipment inside the power house from flood damage.
The City Centre weir is therefore not considered as an option for hydro power generation.
16
Location 2
Brinksway Weir
Brinksway Weir
Situated near the Co-operative Bank Pyramid, it is unlikely this weir was ever used to generate
power . There are a number of weirs in Stockport which have been used to provide water for former
dye works. As such, the weirs simply needed to take water from the river for washing dye from
clothes and were not therefore built with high heads for generating mechanical power. Brinksway is
likely to be just such a weir used for washing dye.
The height of the weir was estimated at being half a metre. This factor alone will cause technical
difficulties in installing a hydro turbine capable of taking the volume of water. The small height of
weir means that the length of the screw would itself be small. Because the length of the screw is too
short and therefore the number of veins of the screw are too few, the water would flow through the
screw without significantly turning it and generating power.
Concerning the Kaplan turbine, a rule of thumb states that the diameter of the turbine should not be
greater than the head. A diameter of turbine at less than half a metre reduces the volume of water
that the system could take and therefore would result in much less power output.
Generally speaking, it is best to consider weir heads of 1 metre and above for hydro power sites.
From a technical point of view, therefore, Brinskway weir is not considered viable.
17
The photograph below shows Brinksway weir after high rainfall. The weir has all but disappeared
from view. The photograph is also useful from a more general point of view in showing the effect of
heavy rainfall on the height of a weir . Generally speaking, heavy rainfall will reduce the height of a
weir and therefore reduce the power output from a given hydro site.
Weir
Brinksway weir after heavy rainfall
18
Location 3
Brabyns Park - Marple Bridge
Marple Bridge
The weir at Marple Bridge was measured at approx 1 metre in height. A more accurate measure was
not possible due to the heavy rainfall of the previous days. However, the site is not considered
suitable for hydro for two reasons.
1. The structure of the weir appeared degraded. Attempts to site a hydro scheme adjacent to
the weir would have to also consider upgrading the weir . The capital investment in a hydro
site requires confidence in the structural stability of the weir. Also, the weir crest needs to
be level to enable an accurately measurable flow to go through the hydro system. In the
case of Marple Bridge, the crest of the weir did not appear sufficiently level because of the
degrading of the river weir .
2. The weir is at the bottom of a natural steep sided valley, at least 5 metres deep. The weir
was originally constructed to provide power to a mill on the east bank of the river . Access to
that side is limited by modern landholdings and buildings. Even if access were not an issue,
the amount of construction work required to dig the necessary ditch alongside the river weir
and the heavy traffic that would be required for both the digger and removal of spoil
would make the capital costs of the civil engineering too prohibitive.
19
Given that the brief for this feasibility report requires the identification of 5 out of 9 sites, there are
far more favourable sites in Stockport than Marple Bridge. The photograph below shows the weir
after heavy rainfall.
Marple Bridge weir taken from the roadside and giving a sense of the height of the land above the
river
20
Location 4
Chadkirk Weir
Chadkirk Weir
Chadkirk weir has been breached and is in a very unstable condition. The photograph below was
taken in November 2008 and it is likely that the remaining structure will suffer further degradation
over the winter. Chadkirk weir is also an Environment Agency Gauging Station. Questions remain as
to the future of this weir. At the time of writing, the Environment Agency has stated that any
reconstruction would be a cost to Stockport Council. It is understood that a bridge for cyclists is to be
built across the river at this point part of the national Sustrans network of cycle paths.
In the opinion of the report authors, Chadkirk weir is not a viable site for a hydro scheme because of
the large cost of reinstating the weir and is not one of the 5 weirs that are recommended for future
development. However, given the interest in the possible reinstatement of the weir and the
possible juxtaposition of the Sustrans cycle bridge, we offer the following information in good faith
to help make a rational decision about a possible hydro site at Chadkirk. It is also understood that
that a nearby school is potentially interested in purchasing any hydroelectricity using a private wire
direct to the school. Whilst this would enable a higher price to be obtained, the cost of a private wire
and its connection to the school have not been factored into the overall budget. A working figure of
at least 100 per metre should be allowed and a budget of 10,000 be added for the actual
21
connection. In addition, a private wire would need rights of easement over any private land that it
had to pass through and would need legal agreements with all such landlords.
Assumptions
1. The Environment Agency agreed to reinstating the weir and that the cost was met by
Stockport Council
2. The weir height after reconstruction is 2 metres
3. Cost of reinstating the weir - 175,000. This is simply an estimate based upon a visual
inspection. A quotation would require a far more rigorous examination of the river itself.
4. A wholesale price of electricity at 5p per unit and ROC at 5p per unit.
The table below summarises the cost and potential income from a hydro site at Chadkirk weir.
Head
Flow
(ms)
Cubic
m/s
4.9
Installed Capacity
Capacity Factor
Capital
Cost
Annual
Power
Gross
Running
Revenue
Costs
Net
Profit
kW
000s
MWh
64
50
520
274
27,400
6,000
21,400
Return
Simple
payback
on net
profit in
years
24
It should also be noted that from net profit must be deducted any debt repayments.
Appendix 4 shows a sketch map of a suggested hydro site at Chadkirk weir. At the time of writing,
the report authors did not have site of any proposed sketch plans for the Sustrans bridge. Clearly,
the position of the bridge and a possible hydro site would need clarifying as one would impinge on
the other and alter construction costs accordingly.
The photograph below illustrates the condition of Chadkirk weir in November 2008.
22
Chadkirk weir breached and unstable
23
Location 5
Otterspool Weir
Otterspool weir
Otterspool weir is only several hundred metres downstream of Chadkirk weir.
Otterspool Weir
24
Comment
This site is extremely low head and until recently would be unsuitable for any kind of turbine, given
the fairly large flow. It is recommended that there is only one suitable technology, an Archimedes
screw, and it will need to make use of variable speed control in order to achieve good capacity
factor. The benefits of the site are extraordinarily good access on a currently unused site with high
visibility and good grid connection. Historically, it is interesting to note that apparently this weir has
never powered a mill the weir was clearly built but the rights were never sorted out, so no
abstraction was carried out.
Resource assessment
Head
Typical gross head 1.5m in low flows, reduces and is drowned in high water, head duration
curve (based on model derived from measurements of the river upstream and downstream)
is in appendix 5.3. Design net head 1.4m.
Flow
Based on gauged flow at Compstall on the Etherow and Marple Bridge on the Goyt, an
accurate Flow Duration Curve (FDC) can be deduced. The catchment area is assumed to
simply be the combined catchments of the Goyt at Marple Bridge and the Etherow at
Compstall. The FDC is derived by adding the two daily flow figures. Data used is from
approximately 1969, with some gaps. Qmean (mean flow) is 6.8 cumec s(cubic metres per
second) and Q95 is 1.6 cumec. The FDC is shown in appendix 5.3.
The approach described above is appropriate for this river system, as there is significant
consumptive abstraction for water supply, as well as augmentation by effluent returns at
low flows, and this is accounted for in the measured flows. Comments for the individual
gauging stations as mentioned earlier are relevant.
Conceptual design
Layout
See Appendix 5.1 for sketch plan.
Fairly unconstrained site, allowing easy construction. Abstraction would take place from
the river in proximity of weir under arch or bridge with a short open concrete leat. Turbine
would be located close to the weir, discharging into weir pool below. Reasonable space to
allow construction to avoid existing parts of weir. Other bank considered impractical for
turbine.
Screen
25
Screen bar spacing 130mm gap or similar . Recommend 11m2 of screen area. Horizontal or
vertical steel bars. Recommend bridge spanning leat of dimensions sufficient to allow mini
digger access to assist with debris clearance in exceptional circumstances.
Sluice
A sluice gate will be required to control water flow into the machine, as a variable speed
system is proposed. The sluice provides a method of holding back water when the system is
not operating. During operational time the speed controller ensures the correct water level.
The normal situation is to have a hydraulic operated gate, fully automated from turbine
controller .
Turbine
The recommendation is to install an Archimedean Screw.
Leat
Short leat as shown in Appendix 5.1, namely 3.5m wide x 2m deep formed from mass
concrete. Open, and fenced to 2m with anti climb fencing.
Generator
1000 or 1500rpm asynchronous generator which is resilient to turbine overspeed.
Powerhouse
Minimum 4m square for all equipment.
Control system
Standard electronic hydro control system with fully automatic control of system
synchronisation and water level control. There is only one manufacturer of suitable variable
speed control system. This can have an option of data logging, but it is not standard. The
control system controls the speed of the turbine to maintain a constant upstream head,
hence the machine runs slowly in periods of low flows, and quickly in periods of high flows.
Outfall
Concrete works for screw to include outfall and tying into existing walls with very little
debris removal from river bed and little deepening of outfall is required, although the intake
area is heavily silted.
Fish passage
Fish passage has not been highlighted as a problem at this site, although there may be some
consideration given to improving this. It is suggested that fish pass installation would not be
a condition of the development process, but it is well worth investigating if there is any
desire to achieve this, since the cost of a pass can be much less if co-developed with the
Environment Agency. A relevant fish pass may well be a single step bottom baffle larinier
26
pass, and this type of pass may cost around 90k if done at same time as the turbine
installation. National Fish Pass Panel approval would be required, and there may be
significant costs to developing the proposal.
Grid connection
A G59 grid connection is required with 350m of 415v (i.e. Low Voltage) 3ph underground
SWA through fields to the nearest 11kV grid connection. 100% export of electricity is
assumed. Wayleaves (permission to lay wire across private land) is assumed to be possible,
The DNO can provide pole mounted transformer on current overground 11kV power line,
with connection to turbine to be carried out under turbine contract.
Access
The site requires very little access improvement, and can be considered to be almost ideal.
Construction will require some degree of storage space, but there is suitable ground around.
System sizing
Based on analysis earlier, design flow suggested 5.4 cumec, 45kW peak output, 49% capacity
factor, 194MWh / annum. Possibly this will need to be reduced suppliers will not quote for
this large volume on 1.3 or 1.4 net head.
Planning Consent
Otterspool is on the river Goyt and is within Green Belt. Any development must consider the
impact upon the Goyt Valley Landscape Character Area.
The sketch plan, hydrological data and, duration curves and power curves for Otterspool are in the
following appendices...
Sketch Plan
Appendix 5.1
Hydrological data
Appendix 5.2
Flow Duration Curve

and Head Duration Curve
Appendix 5.3
Power Curve
Appendix 5.4
27
Location 6
Strawberry Hill Roman Lakes
Strawberry Hill
This site offers good access and a very good site in which to place a turbine. Situated in private land
near a railway viaduct, the site still has the old water intake and sluice systems intact. The head of
3.7ms referred to in the brief clearly relates to the old goit for which the weir provide the head. The
goit can be traced downstream and provided power for the mill several hundred metres away. This
goit cannot now be used to provide a greater head for a hydro system as it is utilised for other
purposes. Therefore, only the weir can be used to provide a head.
28
Comment
This site previously powered a large mill. The history is interesting and there is plenty of evidence of
use or water still existing. Given the effort being put in by the EA to improving the river in terms of
Salmon migration, it is thought unrealistic to expect that a scheme following the original layout of
the goit and weir would be acceptable if this was proposed the volumes to be used would need to
be reduced, so the net output would be similar. There may be a desire to improve fish passage here,
and a pass could be developed alongside the turbine, as there is not space constraint.
Resource assessment
Head
Maximum gross head 2.7m measured in moderate flow, which is taken to be typical. Head
duration curve (based on model derived from measurements of the river upstream and
downstream) is in appendix 6.3. Design net head 2.6m
Flow
The flow has been scaled from the nearby gauging station at Marple Bridge see appendix
6.2
Conceptual design
Layout
See Appendix 6.1. Existing intake can be reused to limit costs of the proposal. Excavation of
intake as per existing site. Turbine location probably needs to be immediately downstream
of railway viaduct due to space restrictions and access routes
Screen
vertical steel bars. Location of screen should allow good access for clearing after heavy
debris deposition during high water.
Sluice
A sluice gate will be required to control water flow into the machine. If fixed speed system is
employed it will control flow volume at all times. If variable speed system is employed, the
sluice provides the method of holding back water when the system not operating. During
operational time, the speed controller ensures water level. The normal situation is to have a
hydraulic operated gate, fully automated from turbine controller
Turbine
At this size head the most realistic situation would be Archimedean screw.
29
Leat
As shown in Appendix 6.1, concrete lined leat, or reuse existing walls where appropriate.
Allowance for existing access track, which may make a concrete pipeline more appropriate
Generator
1000 or 1500rpm asynchronous generator, owing to resilience to turbine overspeed.
Powerhouse
Control system
Standard computer based hydro control system with fully automatic control of system
synchronisation, water level control, data logging and data transmission. There are two
options: Fixed speed or variable speed. Fixed speed is cheaper and has greater peak
efficiency. Variable speed is more expensive with lower peak efficiency, but much better
part flow efficiency. Variable speed system can be considered in detailed proposals at a
later date, as it can offer benefits, but currently fixed speed assumed. Variable speed tends
to become increasingly economic as turbine diameter starts to exceed total system head,
but it also depends on the detail of the abstraction license.
Outfall
Concrete works for screw to include outfall.
Fish passage
Fish passage may well be considered a priority, as this is a vertical weir. Whilst being
potentially scaleable by a very determined fish, it is not exactly conforming to best practice.
There is good space, and a two stake, Alaskan A fishway is likely to be adequate.
Grid connection
A G59 grid connection is required. The report assumes a 450m grid connection distance,
with 415V 3ph SWA underground.
Access
Access is relatively good. The route has a bridge which can be avoided, so no real budget is
expected
System sizing
factor, 236MWh / annum.
30
Planning Consent
Strawberry Hill is within Green Belt and would need to consider its impact upon the Goyt
Valley Landscape Character Area. In addition, it is a Site of Biological Importance.
The sketch plan, hydrological data and, duration curves and power curves for Strawberry Hill are in
the following appendices...
Sketch Plan
Appendix 6.1
Hydrological data
Appendix 6.2
Flow Duration Curve

Appendix 6.3
Power Curve
Appendix 6.4
31
Location 7
Brinnington Weir
Brinnington Weir
This is the largest weir in the Borough and is a spectacular structure. The goit that it originally fed
has now long since disappeared. The weir is also used by the Environment Agency as a gauging
station. The site visit showed that the site is something of a conundrum when considering which
side of the river to place a hydro turbine. The north side of the river offers a much less expensive
possibility for construction as the top of the river bed is very close to the water. However, access for
construction traffic is potentially difficult. However, on the south bank, although construction cost
would be higher due to the elevated nature of the river bed, access is much better. It has been
decided that the best site for a hydro structure would be on the north side of the river .
Brinnington Weir showing the north bank
32
Comment
This site is in many ways very attractive for development, although its location is a little
troublesome. The site, initially developed in 1796, previously provided a large amount of power for
a mill (still extant near the new Tescos), and has been subject to proposals to develop as a microhydro scheme at least since NFFO1 in 1991. It has an excellent head of water, and the weir appears
to be in good condition. It is at the top end of head size which could be accommodated by a screw
turbine, and a Kaplan would be an alternative possibility, as could a Crossflow machine. Such a
Crossflow machine would possibly be the most sensible alternative, since it would be more tolerant
to debris than a Kaplan, but the proposal here is outlined as a screw. It would be very worthwhile
investigating if there is a desire to reintroduce fish passage at this site, as it is far down the Tame
catchment and will represent a total barrier to fish movement - although it should be noted that the
Goyt is the priority for fish passage currently. The Tame has lower water quality.
Resource assessment
Head
Typical gross head 4.7m measured in moderate flow, which is taken to be typical, head
downstream) is shown in Appendix 7.3. Design net head 4.6m
Flow
The site is a gauging station called Portwood - and as such the flow figures can be used
directly. This may cause some degree of difficulty, since the installation of a hydro-electric
system would affect the gauging of flows, but this is not insurmountable technically, as long
as this is considered in the development of the proposal. The Environment Agency have
stated that while in principle a hydro scheme might be accommodated at this site, the effect
upon its Gauging Station is a consideration for them. Brinnington Weir is important for the
EAs Catchment Area Management System and has a low flow alarm situated on it. Any
hydro system would require the EA to change its ratings at this site and the cost of this
process would transfer to the developer .
Conceptual design
Layout
Appendix 7.1 is the proposed sketch plan of the hydro site. Consideration was given to
construction on both banks. The Original leat the Portwood cut - flowed out along the
south bank. This provides generally good access to the site, but installation of a turbine on
the south bank would be troublesome owing to the large amount of excavation required if a
discharge into the river was required just below the weir. Consideration was given to
reopening the original cut and positioning the turbine further downstream. This could be a
33
more straightforward route to installation if there were problems with the north bank. The
North bank however, has the most straightforward potential installation, with a number of
caveats In times of flood, the water could bypass the weir at the point where the hydro
site would be located. If this was to occur damage could be caused, so any hydro scheme
would need to provide protection against this. Also the site is crossed by high voltage power
lines, and this may well have implications to the installation of the machine, as a crane
would need to work directly below the lines. With these points in mind a layout has been
developed as shown in Appendix 7.1.
Screen
vertical steel bars. It is recommended that a bridge spans the leat of dimensions sufficient
to allow mini digger access to assist with debris clearance in exceptional circumstances.
Also, consideration ought to be given to a structure that will prevent flooding of the hydro
site at high flows.
Sluice
A sluice gate will be required to control water flow into the machine. As part of the design
to prevent bypassing of the weir, the sluice should be a penstock which fully seats onto a
concrete wall, so that in high water the weir cannot be bypassed.
Turbine
At this head the most realistic situation would be Archimedean screw however a
conventional turbine could be considered. If the EA do not consider that migratory fish will
return to this stretch of river, and the issue of the power lines is insurmountable, a south
bank solution, with conventional turbine may be considered.
Leat
Short intake pipe, as shown, submerged to prevent the bypassing issue.
Generator
1000 or 1500rpm asynchronous generator, due to being resilient to turbine overspeed.
Powerhouse
Control system
Standard computer based hydro control system, fully automatic control of system
synchronisation, water level control, data logging and data transmission. There is no clear
benefit to considering variable speed control on this site.
34
Outfall
Concrete works for screw to include outfall, and tying into existing walls, very little debris
removal from river bed and deepening of outfall is required, although the intake area
required complete construction from scratch.
Fish passage
Fish passage is clearly a problem for the site, and while there are moves afoot within the
Mersey basin to improve habitat for returning Salmon, the Tame is not a river which has
been targeted. This is potentially due to the fact that little potential spawning ground may
be available, and the water quality is lower than the Goyt and the Bollin, the two main
tributaries for salmon in the Mersey basin. This weir is the most downstream barrier, and
therefore may still be of interest for a co-development. The form of the fish pass needs
further consideration, due to the large head difference, as it may need to be a substantial
structure.
Grid connection
A G59 grid connection is required - 700m grid connection distance, which may be best
achieved via new 11kV overhead connection to transformer at turbine location.
Access
The site requires access to be made from the West. This would be a long route, and could
be expensive.
System sizing
factor producing 447MWh / annum.
Planning Consent
The site is in Green Belt and any development would have to consider its impact upon the
Tame Valley Landscape Character Area. It is also a local Nature Reserve and a Site of
Biological Importance.
35
The sketch plan, hydrological data and, duration curves and power curves for Brinnington Weir are
in the following appendices...
Sketch Plan
Appendix 7.1
Hydrological data
Appendix 7.2
Flow Duration Curve

Appendix 7.3
Power Curve
Appendix 7.4
36
Location 8
Stringers Weir
Stringers Weir
Located adjacent to Vernon Park, this weir offers good potential for development. A hydro system is
only possible on the eastern bank, the opposite bank to Vernon Park. This is because access via
Vernon Park is too difficult for construction traffic and also the river bank is too steep to permit any
development. However, on the eastern bank, the land is flat, access is easy and the top of the river
bank is close to the river, thus keeping construction costs down.
Stringers Weir
37
Resource assessment
Head
Typical gross head 1.8m, reduces in high water. Head duration curve is shown in Appendix
8.3. Design net head is 1.7m
Flow
Based on gauged flow at Compstall on the Etherow and Marple Bridge on the Goyt, and
using further correction for the relative sizes of the catchment, an accurate FDC can be
deduced. The catchment area is 363km2. This is 7% more than the combined catchments of
the Goyt at Marple Bridge and the Etherow at Compstall. The FDC is derived by multiplying
the sum of the two daily flow figures by 1.07. Data used is from approximately 1969, with
some gaps. Qmean is 7.3 cumec; Q95 is 1.7 cumec. FDC is shown in Appendix 8.3.
The approach described above is appropriate for this river system as there is significant
consumptive abstraction for water supply, as well as augmentation by effluent returns at
low flows, and this is accounted for in the measured flows. Comments for the individual
gauging stations as mentioned earlier are relevant.
Conceptual design
Layout
Appendix 8.1 shows the proposed sketch plan at this site. The site is unconstrained site,
allowing easy construction. Proposed to abstract from the river in proximity of weir with a
short concrete leat (presumed open leat or covered pipeline). The turbine to be located
close to the weir, discharging into weir pool below. Ample space to allow construction to
avoid existing parts of the weir. Other bank is considered impractical for turbine.
Screen
Sluice
employed it will control flow volume at all times, if variable speed system is employed the
sluice provides method of holding back water when system is not operating. During
operational time, the speed controller ensures water level. Normal situation is to have
Turbine
At this head the most realistic situation would be Archimedean screw.
38
An alternative turbine would be the Kaplan would be possible. However, as mentioned

earlier in the report, additional costs would ensue for screening 6 cumecs of water. Also, a
1.8m is very low head for Kaplan. One 1600mm diameter runner Kaplan would be
approximately correct size machine, and a siphonic intake would reduce capital cost. The
economics of the site would likely favour an Archimedean screw turbine
Leat
A short leat as shown in the sketch plan, 3.5m wide x 2m deep, made from mass concrete.
The leat would be open and fenced to 2m for anti climb. The alternative is piped water
transfer which could be cheaper if the full costs of a non climb fence were too large. Also, a
fence may be visually intrusive opposite Vernon park.
Generator
Powerhouse
Minimum 4m square for all equipment, excluding any transformers.
Control system
Standard computer based hydro control system with fully automatic control of system
synchronisation, water level control, data logging and data transmission. Two options:
Fixed speed or variable speed. Fixed speed is cheaper with greater peak efficiency while
variable speed is more expensive and has lower peak efficiency, but has a much better part
flow efficiency. Variable speed system can be considered in detailed proposals at a later
date, as it can offer benefits, but currently fixed speed assumed. Variable speed tends to
become increasingly economic as the turbine diameter starts to exceed total system head,
but it also depends on detail of agreed abs. license.
Outfall
Concrete works for screw to include outfall, and tying into existing walls, and degree of
debris removal from river bed and deepening of outfall as this area currently on inside of
river bend.
Fish passage
Fish passage has not been highlighted as a problem at this site, although there may be some
consideration given to improving this. It is suggested that fish pass installation would not be
a condition of the development process, but it is well worth investigating if there is any
desire to achieve this, since the cost of a pass can be much less if co developed. National
Fish Pass Panel approval would be required, and there may be significant costs to developing
the proposal.
39
Grid connection
A G59 grid connection is required - 350m of 415v (i.e. Low Voltage), 3ph underground SWA
through nearby fields to 11kV grid connection. Wayleaves assumed to be possible and DNO
to provide transformer at current mains location. Connection to turbine to be carried out
under turbine contract.
Access
The site requires an access route to be built along a similar length of route. It is assumed
that is not required to be fenced and that it can be left as gravel finish only.
System sizing
factor, annual energy capture 338MWh / annum.
Planning Consent
Stringer Weir is in Green Belt and the Goyt Valley Landscape Character Area and therefore
proposed developments must address their impact. It is also a Site of Biological Importance.
Vernon Park is a Park and Garden of Historical Interest.
The sketch plan, hydrological data and, duration curves and power curves for Stringers Weir are in
Sketch Plan
Appendix 8.1
Hydrological data
Appendix 8.2
Flow Duration Curve

Appendix 8.3
Power Curve
Appendix 8.4
40
Location 9
Castle Hill Weir
Castle Hill Weir
Located on the border of Stockport and Tameside, the site has good access for construction traffic.
The site provided a head of water for a former mill much further downstream. Remains of the goit
which carried the water to the mill are visible. The length of the goit and therefore the drop in the
height of the river between the weir and the mill, gave an initial head mentioned in the brief of
6.2ms. However, it would be extremely unlikely that the goit could ever be brought back into use
due to its dilapidated state and questions over legal ownership. An added barrier to using the old
goit would be the likely difficulty of obtaining consent from the Environment Agency. An operating
hydro site which used the goit would have a high depletion rate in the river bed and cause potential
ecological problems. The potential for power at the site is therefore restricted to the height of the
weir .
41
Castle Hill Weir photo taken from Tameside bank and showing original head of goit
Comment
Historically this is was a large capacity weir with perhaps 200kW being generated from two reaction
type turbines at Arden Mill at the end of long leat of about 715m. The map below illustrates the
original hydro system.
Notwithstanding the issues outlined previously, which mean that migratory fish are unlikely to be
present and are not going to return unless passes are installed downstream, the introduction of a
42
715m deprived reach of the river would potentially be contentious, and for that reason a more
simple screw turbine proposal has been made.
Resource assessment
Head
Typical gross head 2.4m measured in moderate flow, which is taken to be typical, head
downstream) is attached. Design net head 2.3m
Flow
Portwood is the gauging station, and as such the flow figures for Castle Hill can be assumed
to be 94% of Portwood / Brinnington, based on catchment.
Conceptual design
Layout
Appendix 9.1 shows the sketch map for the proposed hydro system at Castle Hill. The
existing intake can be reused to limit the costs of the proposal. Intake to be excavated as
per existing. An outfall to be created close to the existing spillway channel.
Screen
Sluice
employed it will control flow volume at all times. If variable speed system is employed the
sluice provides the method of holding back water when system not operating. During
operational time the speed controller ensures water level. The normal situation is to have
Turbine
At this head the most realistic situation would be Archimedean screw.
Leat
As shown in Appendix 9.1, concrete lined leat, or reusing existing walls where appropriate.
Generator
43
Powerhouse
Control system
Standard computer based hydro control system, fully automatic control of system
synchronisation, water level control, data logging and data transmission. Two options:
Fixed speed or variable speed. Fixed speed is cheaper and greater peak efficiency while
variable speed is more expensive with lower peak efficiency, but much better part flow
efficiency. Variable speed system can be considered in detailed proposals at a later date, as
it can offer benefits, but currently fixed speed assumed. Variable speed tends to become
increasingly economic as turbine diameter starts to exceed total system head, but it also
depends on details of the abstraction license.
Outfall
Concrete works for screw to include outfall, bedrock at this site will make construction of
outfall relatively straightforward, as limited concrete required below water level.
Fish passage
Fish passage is dependent on whether the downstream Portwood weir is ever fitted with a
fish pass.
Grid connection
A G59 grid connection is required - 430m grid connection distance, 415V 3ph SWA
underground.
Access
Access is relatively good, although at the actual site the crane for screw installation would be
some distance from the installation site. Although access is considered reasonable a small
budget is required to cover this.
System sizing
Based on analysis earlier, design flow suggested 2.5 cumec, 41kW peak output, and 58%
capacity factor .
Planning Consent
Castle Hill is within Green Belt and is a Site of Biological Importance. It is also within the
Tame Valley Landscape Character Area and any proposed developments would have to show
consideration of these factors.
44
The sketch plan, hydrological data and, duration curves and power curves for Castle Hill Weir are in
Sketch Plan
Appendix 9.1
Hydrological data
Appendix 9.2
Flow Duration Curve

Appendix 9.3
Power Curve
Appendix 9.4
45
Financial Analysis
Five river weirs are recommended for development...

Otterspool
Brinnington
Stringers
Castle Hill
Capital Costs of each site (including an estimate for a fish pass) are as follows...
Brinnington
88
120
Otterspool
45
69
Stringer's
76
114
Strawberry
Hill
53
87
Castle
Hill
41
75
17
11
35
110
20
67
88
12
12
5
65
16
20
58.5
16
12
15
94
20
51
83.6
13
9
5
70
16
24
63.6
12
9
8
72
16
53
53.3
Total (ex fish pass)

000's/kW
468
5.3
257.5
5.7
405.6
5.3
287.6
5.4
298.3
7.3
Fish pass
Total (inc fish pass)
100
568
55
312.5
85
490.6
80
367.6
80
378.3
Output
Turbine gearbox + generator at 1.1 / 1
Controller inc logging and remote
monitoring
Sluice/control and ancillaries
Access allowance
Civil works
Installation/commissioning
Electrical connection
Turbine - Archimedean Screw
In order to estimate income and returns on these sites, a number of assumptions are made...
1. The default price is always that obtained by selling electricity at wholesale prices to the
National Grid. The working assumption is 5p per unit of electricity. The revenues obtained
from selling green electricity to retail buyers eg public buildings can be considerable and
can therefore dramatically reduce the estimated payback time.
2. The ROC price effectively a market driven subsidy given to generators of green electricity
is 5p per unit.
3. Following the Climate Change Act of 2008, it is assumed that schemes under 50kW installed
capacity will attract double ROCs. The precise mechanism by which the new Act will
administer the double ROC system has not been finalised at the time of writing.
4. The total capital cost of each site is taken to include the estimate for the fish pass.
46
The following table shows capital costs and projected returns for each of the 5 sites under
consideration, as well as estimates of carbon emissions saved and the equivalent number of houses
(using OFGEM statistics for the average 2 bed house) that the energy generated could supply.
Name
Otterspool
Strawberry Hill
Brinnington
Stringer's
Castle Hill
TOTAL
Capital Annual
Gross
Running
Cost
Power Revenue
Costs
(,000) MWh/yr
313
189
26,501
6,000
368
232
23,205
6,000
568
438
43,817
8,000
491
328
32,837
7,000
378
204
30,622
6,000
156,982
Annual
Number
CO2
of
Net
Simple
Saving
Households
Profit
Payback
(years) (tonnes/yr) Equivalent

20,501
15
81
47
17,205
21
100
58
35,817
16
188
110
25,837
19
141
82
24,622
16
88
51
123,982
598
348
Appendix 10 is a fuller version of this table, expanded to include head height, flow, installed capacity
and capacity factor .
A number of caveats are made with respect to these figures...
1. The figures are very price sensitive. Even a 1p difference in wholesale price can dramatically
change the revenues and returns.
2. Running costs are based on knowledge of working small scale hydro schemes and include
rent, rates, insurance and an allowance for maintenance.
3. The precise manner in which the double ROCs system will be implemented has yet to be
finalised. A scheme at Strawberry Hill ought to consider an installation below 50kW to
capitalise on the double ROCs.
4. No allowance is made for an increase in real energy prices which will certainly impact upon
the payback period.
47
Conclusion
The industrial heritage of the old river weirs in Stockport Borough can be utilised to help reduce
carbon emissions and generate renewable energy. Investments in small scale hydro ought to be
considered as long term assets. This is because water holds more potential energy than wind and
hydro schemes last much longer than wind power schemes. The returns therefore accrue in the long
term.
On the 17th November 2007, the UN body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
produced its fourth report which stated that climate change was overwhelmingly the effect of
human based activity. It also stated that by 2015, unless the rate of increase of carbon emissions
began to fall, the planet will become increasingly likely to suffer the consequences of climate
change.
This report presents an opportunity to use Stockports old industrial weirs for the purpose of
generating green electricity and thereby help to tackle climate change.
48
Acknowledgements
The report authors wish to thank the representatives of Stockport Council who have helped in the
writing of this report.
They also wish to thank Western Renewable Energy who provided the hydrological and technical
data required for this report.
49
50
Appendix 1: Map of Sites
Castle Hill
Brinnington
Brinksway
Stringers
Chadkirk
Brabyns Park,
Marple Bridge
City Centre
Otterspool
Strawberry Hill
51
Appendix 2
Archimedean Screw Cross Section
52
Appendix 3 Project Timescale for Site Development

Task
Planning Consent
Environment
Agency
Supporting
Information
Detailed Scheme
Design
Lease
Financial Analysis
Power Purchase
Agreement
Contractor
Equipment
Month 1
Discuss
Sketch
Plans
Discuss
Sketch
Plans
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10
Apply for Planning Permission
Month 11
Month 12
Apply for Abstraction License and Land

Drainage Certificates
Obtain 3rd party
reports to support
planning and
abstraction license
Accurate costs and
detailed drawings
Agree
Heads of
Terms
with
Landlord
Process of re-iteration as more detailed data emerges
Begin discussions
Sign
Lease
Choose contractor and initiate discussions

Order
Turbine
Assumptions...
1. Developer has been chosen
2. Construction will take place in year following successful development and within the Construction window defined by the Environment Agency
The development of a site involves all of the processes required to obtain the necessary permissions at site, including planning permission, abstraction
license and a lease.
53
Appendix 4.1 Chadkirk Weir Sketch Plan
54
Appendix 5.1 Otterspool Sketch Plan
55
Appendix 5.2
Otterspool hydrological data
% of
year
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
Total
flow
/m3s-1
32.320
19.940
14.829
11.901
9.924
8.461
7.276
6.296
5.476
4.785
4.207
3.720
3.331
3.000
2.675
2.419
2.229
2.019
1.791
1.571
1.287
Available
flow
/m3s-1
30.749
18.369
13.258
10.330
8.353
6.890
5.705
4.725
3.905
3.214
2.636
2.149
1.760
1.429
1.104
0.848
0.658
0.448
0.220
0.000
0.000
Minimum
residual
flow
/m3s-1
16.946
10.756
8.200
6.736
5.142
5.142
5.142
5.142
5.142
4.785
4.207
3.720
3.331
3.000
2.675
2.419
2.229
2.019
1.571
1.571
1.287
Utilised
flow
/m3s-1
5.400
5.400
5.400
5.400
5.400
5.400
5.400
4.725
3.905
3.214
2.636
2.149
1.760
1.429
1.104
0.848
0.658
0.448
0.220
0.000
0.000
Max
Gross
Head
/m
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
Net
Head
/m
0.514
0.837
0.980
1.065
1.123
1.167
1.204
1.249
1.290
1.322
1.348
1.369
1.384
1.397
1.410
1.419
1.426
1.433
1.441
1.448
1.457
Turbine
efficiency
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.866
0.864
0.859
0.848
0.834
0.804
0.752
0.660
0.500
0.326
0.126
0.000
0.000
0.000
56
Transmission
and vari
speed
efficiency
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
0.890
Generator
efficiency
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.947
0.944
0.938
0.931
0.925
0.921
0.910
0.900
0.850
0.700
0.500
0.500
Water to
wire
efficiency
0.712
0.712
0.712
0.712
0.712
0.712
0.712
0.731
0.729
0.724
0.712
0.696
0.666
0.619
0.541
0.405
0.261
0.095
0.000
0.000
0.000
Power
/kW
19.4
31.5
36.9
40.1
42.3
44.0
45.3
42.3
36.0
30.1
24.8
20.1
15.9
12.1
8.3
4.8
2.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix 5.3 Otterspool Flow Duration Curve
57
Appendix 5.4
Otterspool Power Curve
58
Appendix 6.1 Strawberry Hill Sketch Plan
59
Appendix 6.2
Strawberry Hill Hydrological data
% of
year
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
Total
flow
3 -1
/m s
15.633
9.749
7.306
5.956
4.952
4.170
3.582
3.102
2.706
2.367
2.079
1.836
1.632
1.452
1.285
1.143
1.033
0.925
0.820
0.709
0.569
Available
flow
3 -1
/m s
14.924
9.040
6.597
5.247
4.243
3.461
2.873
2.393
1.997
1.658
1.370
1.127
0.923
0.743
0.576
0.434
0.324
0.216
0.111
0.000
0.000
Minimum
residual
flow
3 -1
/m s
8.171
5.229
4.007
3.418
3.418
3.418
3.418
3.102
2.706
2.367
2.079
0.709
0.709
0.709
0.709
0.709
0.709
0.709
0.709
0.709
0.569
Utilised
flow
3 -1
/m s
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.900
2.873
2.393
1.997
1.658
1.370
1.127
0.923
0.743
0.576
0.434
0.324
0.216
0.111
0.000
0.000
Max
Gross
Head
/m
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
Net
Head
/m
2.121
2.301
2.377
2.420
2.452
2.477
2.498
2.539
2.570
2.594
2.612
2.626
2.637
2.646
2.654
2.660
2.665
2.669
2.673
2.676
2.681
Turbine
efficiency
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.866
0.863
0.856
0.847
0.828
0.802
0.740
0.628
0.442
0.268
0.084
0.000
0.000
0.000
60
Transmission
efficiency
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
Generator
efficiency
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.949
0.948
0.947
0.944
0.937
0.930
0.924
0.920
0.910
0.900
0.850
0.600
0.500
0.500
Water to
wire
efficiency
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.773
0.769
0.762
0.752
0.729
0.701
0.643
0.543
0.378
0.227
0.067
0.000
0.000
0.000
Power
/kW
45.3
49.1
50.8
51.7
52.4
52.9
52.9
46.0
38.7
32.1
26.4
21.2
16.7
12.4
8.1
4.3
1.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix 6.3
Strawberry Hill Flow Duration Curve and Head Duration Curve
61
Appendix 6.4
Strawberry Hill Power Curve
62
Appendix 7.1 Brinnington Weir Sketch Plan
63
Appendix 7.2
Brinnington Weir Hydrological Data
% of
year
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
Total
flow
3 -1
/m s
19.500
10.600
7.440
6.050
5.120
4.490
3.990
3.590
3.290
3.020
2.820
2.620
2.440
2.280
2.160
2.040
1.920
1.790
1.600
1.270
0.983
Available
flow
3 -1
/m s
18.230
9.330
6.170
4.780
3.850
3.220
2.720
2.320
2.020
1.750
1.550
1.350
1.170
1.010
0.890
0.770
0.650
0.520
0.330
0.000
0.000
Minimum
residual
flow
3 -1
/m s
10.385
5.935
4.355
4.540
4.540
4.490
3.990
3.590
3.290
3.020
2.820
2.620
2.440
2.280
2.160
2.040
1.270
1.270
1.270
1.270
0.983
Utilised
flow
3 -1
/m s
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.700
2.320
2.020
1.750
1.550
1.350
1.170
1.010
0.890
0.770
0.650
0.520
0.330
0.000
0.000
Max
Gross
Head
/m
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
4.600
Net
Head
/m
4.072
4.275
4.349
4.382
4.405
4.420
4.432
4.460
4.480
4.496
4.507
4.518
4.526
4.534
4.539
4.544
4.548
4.553
4.559
4.568
4.576
Turbine
efficiency
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.867
0.865
0.862
0.856
0.850
0.843
0.822
0.804
0.776
0.724
0.628
0.326
0.000
0.000
64
Transmission
efficiency
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
Generator
efficiency
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.949
0.948
0.948
0.947
0.945
0.941
0.936
0.931
0.927
0.923
0.920
0.900
0.500
0.500
Water to
wire
efficiency
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.773
0.771
0.768
0.762
0.755
0.746
0.723
0.704
0.676
0.628
0.543
0.276
0.000
0.000
Power
/kW
81.0
85.0
86.5
87.2
87.6
87.9
88.1
78.4
68.3
59.2
52.2
45.1
38.7
32.5
27.9
23.2
18.2
12.6
4.1
0.0
0.0
Appendix 7.3
Brinnington Weir Flow Duration Curve and Head Duration Curve
65
Appendix 7.4
Brinnington Weir Power Curve
66
Appendix 8.1 Stringers Weir Sketch Plan
67
Appendix 8.2
Stringers Weir Hydrological Data
% of
year
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
Total
flow
3 -1
/m s
34.582
21.336
15.867
12.734
10.619
9.053
7.785
6.737
5.859
5.120
4.501
3.980
3.564
3.210
2.862
2.588
2.385
2.160
1.916
1.681
1.377
Available
flow
3 -1
/m s
32.901
19.655
14.186
11.053
8.938
7.372
6.104
5.056
4.178
3.439
2.821
2.299
1.883
1.529
1.181
0.907
0.704
0.479
0.235
0.000
0.000
Minimum
residual
flow
3 -1
/m s
18.132
11.508
8.774
7.208
5.362
5.362
5.362
5.362
5.362
5.120
4.501
3.980
3.564
3.210
2.862
2.588
2.385
2.160
1.681
1.681
1.377
Utilised
flow
3 -1
/m s
5.900
5.900
5.900
5.900
5.900
5.900
5.900
5.056
4.178
3.439
2.821
2.299
1.883
1.529
1.181
0.907
0.704
0.479
0.235
0.000
0.000
Max
Gross
Head
/m
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
1.900
Net
Head
/m
1.423
1.581
1.647
1.685
1.711
1.731
1.746
1.774
1.799
1.817
1.831
1.842
1.850
1.856
1.862
1.866
1.869
1.873
1.876
1.879
1.883
Turbine
efficiency
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.867
0.864
0.858
0.847
0.828
0.802
0.740
0.660
0.500
0.268
0.126
0.000
0.000
0.000
68
Transmission
efficiency
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
Generator
efficiency
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.949
0.948
0.947
0.944
0.937
0.930
0.924
0.921
0.910
0.900
0.850
0.600
0.500
0.500
Water to
wire
efficiency
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.773
0.770
0.763
0.752
0.729
0.701
0.643
0.571
0.428
0.227
0.101
0.000
0.000
0.000
Power
/kW
61.8
68.7
71.6
73.2
74.4
75.2
75.9
68.0
56.7
46.7
38.0
30.3
23.9
17.9
12.3
7.1
2.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix 8.3
Stringers Weir Flow Duration Curve and Head Duration Curve
69
Appendix 8.4
Stringers Weir Power Curve
70
Appendix 9.1 Castle Hill Sketch Plan
71
Appendix 9.2
Castle Hill Hydrological Data
% of
year
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
Total
flow
3 -1
/m s
18.330
9.964
6.994
5.687
4.813
4.221
3.751
3.375
3.093
2.839
2.651
2.463
2.294
2.143
2.030
1.918
1.805
1.683
1.504
1.194
0.924
Available
flow
3 -1
/m s
17.136
8.770
5.800
4.493
3.619
3.027
2.557
2.181
1.899
1.645
1.457
1.269
1.100
0.949
0.837
0.724
0.611
0.489
0.310
0.000
0.000
Minimum
residual
flow
3 -1
/m s
9.762
5.579
4.094
4.388
4.388
4.221
3.751
3.375
3.093
2.839
2.651
2.463
2.294
2.143
2.030
1.194
1.194
1.194
1.194
1.194
0.924
Utilised
flow
3 -1
/m s
2.500
2.500
2.500
2.500
2.500
2.500
2.500
2.181
1.899
1.645
1.457
1.269
1.100
0.949
0.837
0.724
0.611
0.489
0.310
0.000
0.000
Max
Gross
Head
/m
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
2.400
Net
Head
/m
1.868
2.076
2.154
2.188
2.211
2.227
2.240
2.264
2.282
2.297
2.308
2.317
2.326
2.333
2.338
2.342
2.347
2.351
2.358
2.367
2.374
Turbine
efficiency
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.843
0.866
0.865
0.862
0.858
0.850
0.843
0.822
0.806
0.776
0.724
0.628
0.326
0.000
0.000
72
Transmission
efficiency
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
0.940
Generator
efficiency
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.948
0.949
0.948
0.947
0.945
0.941
0.936
0.932
0.927
0.923
0.920
0.900
0.500
0.500
Water to
wire
efficiency
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.752
0.772
0.772
0.768
0.763
0.755
0.746
0.723
0.706
0.676
0.628
0.543
0.276
0.000
0.000
Power
/kW
34.4
38.2
39.7
40.3
40.7
41.0
41.2
37.3
32.8
28.4
25.2
21.8
18.7
15.7
13.5
11.2
8.8
6.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
Appendix 9.3
Castle Hill Flow Duration Curve and Head Duration Curve
73
Appendix 9.4
Castle Hill Power Curve
74
Appendix 10
Financial Analysis
Name
Otterspool
Strawberry Hill
Brinnington
Stringer's
Castle Hill
TOTAL
Design
Net
Design Installed Capacity
Head
Flow
Capacity Factor
(m's)
(cumecs)
kW
(%)
1.4
5.4
45
49
2.6
2.9
53
51
4.6
2.7
88
58
1.7
5.9
75
51
2.3
2.5
41
58
302
Capital Annual
Gross
Cost
Power Revenue
(,000) MWh/yr
313
189
26,501
368
232
23,205
568
438
43,817
491
328
32,837
378
204
30,622
156,982
75
Running
Costs
6,000
6,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
Annual
Number
CO2
of
Net
Simple
Saving
Households
Profit Payback
(years) (tonnes/yr) Equivalent

20,501
15
81
47
17,205
21
100
58
35,817
16
188
110
25,837
19
141
82
24,622
16
88
51
123,982
598
348

Final Report: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

Hydro Feasibility Study

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Appendix 1 Map of Sites

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Feasibility Study Brief and methodology

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Appendix 1 illustrates the geographical location of each site in relation to Stockport.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Criteria for Selection

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

between the turning motion and the generation of electricity is immediately

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Reproduced with permission of Mann Power Consulting

New Mills, Derbyshire

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

The Environment Agency

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Potential Hydro Sites

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Brinksway weir after heavy rainfall

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Chadkirk weir breached and unstable

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Otterspool weir is only several hundred metres downstream of Chadkirk weir.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Flow Duration Curve

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Strawberry Hill Roman Lakes

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Flow Duration Curve

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Brinnington Weir showing the north bank

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

Flow Duration Curve

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

An alternative turbine would be the Kaplan would be possible. However, as mentioned