Small hydropower — design, construction, operation

Hydropower without flooding land.

Design, construction and operation of small hydropower plants (SHP): modular low‑head solutions — with no reservoir and no land acquisition.

HeadUp to 5 m
Payback3–6 years
Construction costUp to −40%
Global Energy Consultants, Inc. Scroll 42.0981° N / 88.2829° W — West Dundee, IL
// Headline figures Modular low-head schemes
40%
Construction cost
of the plant, up to
36 yrs
Payback period
10–15 years conventionally
5 m
Head at the modular
overflow weir, up to
0 ha
Land taken out of use
for a reservoir

These figures follow from the modular solutions and depend on the conditions of the particular site and watercourse.

// The key difference

Hydropower that stays inside the river channel

Three properties carry the whole approach: a modular overflow weir working at low head, generating units that need no dam, and land that is never taken out of use.

// 01 — Impoundment

Head of up to 5 m

The modular overflow weir works at low head — the backwater stays within the river channel.

5 m Maximum head

// 02 — Generating

No dam required

In‑stream, vortex and containerised units; a diversion or bypass channel.

0 Powerhouse buildings

// 03 — Land

Land stays in use

With no reservoir there is no land acquisition and no resettlement.

0 ha Taken for a reservoir
// What a reservoir costs you Scope comparison

A reservoir is a scope item, not a side effect.

Conventional impoundment stores water above the natural channel. That single decision opens its own scope: land to acquire across the flooded area, people to resettle, an embankment or concrete dam to build as the impoundment front, and a separate sectional spillway with hydromechanical equipment to operate it.

A modular overflow weir working at up to 5 m of head holds the backwater inside the channel. None of those items are opened, because there is nothing above the channel to hold.

Fig. 01 — Proposed: in-channel weirHead ≤ 5 m
5 M — MAX HEAD LAND IN USE — NOT ACQUIRED NATURAL LEVEL BANK LINE

The backwater stays inside the banks the river already occupies. No land is taken, and nobody is resettled.

Fig. 02 — Conventional: reservoirAbove the channel
LAND ACQUIRED · POPULATION RESETTLED ORIGINAL BANK LINE

The head is bought by raising water over the surrounding land. The reservoir has to be acquired, cleared and, where people live, resettled.

Scope, line by line
Conventional scheme — what the scope contains In-channel weir — what the scope contains
01ConventionalA reservoir held above the natural channelIn-channel weirBackwater held inside the river channel, head up to 5 m
02ConventionalLand acquisition across the flooded areaIn-channel weirNo land acquisition
03ConventionalResettlement of the population affectedIn-channel weirNo resettlement
04ConventionalEmbankment dam or concrete dam as the impoundment frontIn-channel weirOne modular overflow weir, serving as impoundment front and spillway at once
05ConventionalSectional spillway of conventional profile, with hydromechanical equipmentIn-channel weirNo separate spillway structure
06ConventionalFlat service, bulkhead or radial gates — with the service gantries and winches to work themIn-channel weirNo hydromechanical equipment
07ConventionalPowerhouse with a building and erection baysIn-channel weirTurbine-generator block without a building, passing floods over itself
08ConventionalFish passage facilities, plus fish protection screens at the intakeIn-channel weirFish passage facilities — still required
Row 08 does not go away. Fish passage facilities cannot be dispensed with, and their cost can reach 50% of the total project cost. The comparison table on the technology page carries that as a +50% line rather than leaving it out.
The weir is not automatically cheaper than a dam as a structure: against a conventional impoundment front the comparison carries it at +10% / −10%, depending on the site. What it removes is everything the reservoir brings with it.
60100%
Of the cost of a conventional scheme, depending on conditions
See the full solution comparison
// Outcome of the approach Key effects

−40% of construction cost, 80% of the work done in a factory

Four figures follow from the modular solutions. Each of them moves because a structure has been removed at the design stage, not because a supplier has been squeezed.

04 figures
40%
Of construction cost, up to
80%
Of works carried out in the factory
1 year
Design duration, at most
36 years
Payback period

These figures follow from the modular solutions and depend on the conditions of the particular site and watercourse. For conventional solutions the payback period is 10–15 years.

// How we do it Project delivery approach

The cost comes out at the design stage, not on site.

Four decisions, taken before anything is built, account for the difference. Each one removes a structure or a system that a conventional scheme has to design, construct, maintain and staff.

01 — 04
01
Modular systems
Lower design cost through modular systems adaptable to most watercourses.
02
No hydromechanical equipment
Gates are usually made of steel and require service gantries and winches. Where they can be dispensed with, they are.
03
Ready-made generating modules
Ready modular generating systems remove the need for a powerhouse.
04
Compact GIS
Containerised gas‑insulated switchgear (GIS), with no 220 kV outdoor switchyard.

Operating costs fall with them: modular, standardised equipment is what a small hydropower plant is maintained and staffed against across its whole life cycle.

// Economics Lower is better
36 years
Payback, against 10–15 years
for a conventional design

Design in up to 1 year. Payback in 3 to 6.

Delivery timeline and payback — the proposed approach against a conventional approach for the same site. All six bars are drawn on one axis, 0 to 15 years, so the two approaches can be read against each other rather than each against itself.

Years — lower is better

Design

Years, same axis
Proposed
Up to 1 year
Conventional
Up to 3 years

1 Design — up to 1 year, depending on watercourse conditions at the site; excluding the time taken by technical review.

Construction

Years, same axis
Proposed
Up to 3 years
Conventional
5 years or more

2 Construction — 1 to 3 years, depending on watercourse conditions and the size of the site.

Payback

Years, same axis
Proposed
3 to 6 years
Conventional
10 to 15 years

3 Payback — 3 to 6 years, depending on the hydrological conditions of the site and the capacity generated (against 10 to 15 years with conventional design).

// Full life cycle One company, three stages

Design, construction and operation — all three stages in one company

The company specialises in the design, construction and operation of small hydropower plants. The objective is set across the whole life cycle, not at handover.

Objective 01

Lower cost of ownership

Across the whole life cycle — design and operation — and higher reliability of small hydropower plants.

Objective 02

Affordable hydropower

For the private consumer.

// How the work is resourced
A
In-house specialists
Specialists in the field are on the company’s own staff.
B
Modern design methods
Design is carried out with modern design methods.
C
New technologies and solutions
New technologies and engineering solutions are applied in design and in equipment selection.
D
Common data environment
A unified information environment from the start of design, based on Soyuz PLM (product lifecycle management) — the asset is managed across its whole life cycle.
Water sheeting over the crest of a low weir across the full width of a river channel Technology reference
// Track record Delivered in refining

The company’s delivered track record is in refining: four plants and +14 M t/year of crude-processing capacity built on MRUS technology — Multifractional Separation of Crude Hydrocarbons. The hydropower stream applies the same discipline to a different asset class.

// Strengths and limitations Stated before you ask

Three strengths and two limitations

Efficiency depends on the watercourse, and fish passage cannot be dispensed with. Both belong in the first conversation about a site, not the last one.

Strengths

01

From the design stage, structures that add to the cost of design, construction and operation are removed rather than optimised.

02

Fewer items of equipment, and less variety among them, shortens design and construction time and lowers operating costs.

03

Operation of the scheme, or of a cascade, can be fully automated: a large reduction in staff, up to unmanned operation on site.

Limitations

01

Efficiency, and therefore the capacity generated, depends heavily on watercourse conditions — from 40% to 95%.

02

Fish passage facilities cannot be dispensed with. Their cost can reach 50% of the total project cost.

// Proposal Next steps

Four steps to a commissioned plant

Sequence
01
Site selection
Choosing priority watercourses and locations together with the relevant ministry or the asset owner.
02
Surveys and investigations
Hydrology, topography, assessment of available capacity at each site.
03
Design
Up to 1 year depending on site conditions, excluding technical review.
04
Construction and commissioning
Up to 3 years; payback of 3 to 6 years depending on conditions and capacity.

The approach is ready to be applied to specific watercourses. The sequence above is what that takes; the three inputs below are what a site-specific proposal needs before it can be written.

// Three inputs What is needed for a detailed proposal

List of sites

And their locations

Hydrological data

Flows and levels of the watercourse

Target capacity

And consumption profile

The company is ready to discuss the parameters of a specific site and watercourse.

Send the three inputs
// Contact Response within 2 business days

Discuss a specific site and watercourse

Send the list of sites, the hydrological data and the target capacity, and the reply comes back with an assessment of what the site can carry.

// Head office — USA 510 Market Loop, Ste 204
West Dundee, IL 60118, USA
+1 (847) 322-6302
// Moscow office Moscow-City Business Center
12 Presnenskaya Embankment, office 505
Moscow, 123112, Russia
+7 919 877-18-79
Request a site assessment
Response within 2 business days