.png){kind=small}
Hydro Resource Evaluation Tool
public acceptability and engagement
What acceptability issues might be raised?
In this section there is a summary of the different kinds of issues of acceptability that have been raised in project development and public meetings, beyond the technical and environmental considerations that would be dealt with in a feasibility study or environmental impact assessment (EIA).
The following are a series of groups of issues that have been raised regarding small-scale hydro that should be thought about:
Objections from local people tend to be based on a small number of issues:
The siting of the technology in a beauty-spot/historical site
Responses: This can often (in the North West) be countered by pointing out the historical nature of the site as a water-power location, and/or by drawing on the historical interest in the Industrial Revolution. The view that the ‘environmental qualities’ of a river are destroyed by a hydropower project are often based on a misunderstanding of the impacts. However, experience with wind power in particular shows that visual impact is a very powerful focus for opposition, and should be taken seriously. In one project, an individual photographer complained on aesthetic grounds, and initiated a ‘Town Green’ application for the site. If successful, such an application could be a ‘show-stopper’ for your project, however in this case the individual was not widely supported. In the case of many projects, the installation will often be re-using existing infrastructure (i.e. the weir). One project turned this to advantage as revealed by their ‘strap-line’ of the project utilising “220 year old weir, 2000-yr old technology [an Archimedean Screw], and 150 year old social structure [an Industrial Provident Society or Co-operative]”.
Objections or queries on the basis of the disruption involved not being justified by the amount of energy (or income) that the devices generate, that they do not make enough of a contribution to energy production or to climate change mitigation.
Responses: Hydropower fares well in comparison with other energy generation methods or ‘green investments’ in a number of ways. For example:
In some cases there may be a 10 year payback length (although this should not be assumed!), which is comparable to other renewables technologies. In terms of costing a price of 8p/kWh can often be guaranteed, and smaller projects can generate ‘double ROCs’(see finance section of this website).
In comparison with wind turbines and farms hydropower is smaller and less (visually) intrusive, compared to wind technology that is larger, more visible, and often on a hill in valued landscape.
Stress the contribution that your project can make in easily-understandable terms. A 70kW capacity device provides energy equivalent to the average needs of 65 houses, which is a significant contribution for an investment of £200-300,000. You could work out how much energy your project would produce and express it in ‘streetlamps’ or one-bar electric fires (both use roughly 1 kW/hr) to help the public to understand. Equivalence figures for output can be found on the OFGEM website.
One document [http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/MARKETS/RETMKTS/METRNG/SMART/Documents1/13344-Energy_Savings_Trust_response.pdf] cites an average household consumption of 24,790kWh being used in Ofgem’s Cost Benefit Analysis Model (2006). A later figure [http://www.switchwithus.co.uk/switchwithus-gas-and-electricity/switchwithus-regulators/] is cited as 3,300kwh of electricity and 20,500kwh of gas per year (so 23,800kW total energy use), correct as of 2nd March 2007. Once the size of your generator can be worked out, so can the number of likely kWh, which you can divide by the average consumption of a house. Another suggested approach to get public support if appropriate is to tie in the idea of all streetlights in a nearby village being supplied by renewable energy.
The issue of ‘embedded energy’ is sometimes raised, suggesting that the energy required to construct and install renewable energy technologies will not be ‘paid off’ by its output. The DTI (BERR, now DECC) has produced figures of construction:generation ratios of 1:1200 for hydro as compared to 1:800 for wind. This means that over its lifetime, a hydropower projection ought to produce 1200kW for every kW of construction, transportation, materials etc.
From some individuals, there are questions about noise impact
Response: In most cases, the noise of the generating machinery will be quieter than that of the surrounding water flow anyway.
There can be accusations of impacts on fish populations, especially if there are salmon populations.
Response: In the case of a small-scale low-head hydropower scheme being developed in Settle, planning permission was turned down based on a lack of information about potential fish impacts, so this is an important issue to address (see other sections of this website). It is claimed by the project developers that the refusal resulted from a lack of communication between the Planning Unit (now Consents) and Fisheries staff within the Environment Agency, making the earlier advice about making contact with an appropriate EA officer even more important.
The following aspects are also worth thinking about to prepare for potential acceptability issues being raised in the course of your engagement activities, they arise from issues raised within public meetings and presentation by project developers:
Warnings
Do not try to second-guess the costs. Almost all projects incur unexpected costs and a margin of increase should be expected.
Public Liability Insurance was an unexpected cost in the Torrs Hydro project (risks identified included people climbing into the device, equipment breakdown, revenue loss, and damage to the weir structure itself (old)). Another project developer suggests that the group took a very cautious or even over-cautious approach to Health and Safety assessment . There is another project/installation in North Yorkshire that has not added any form of insurance. A member of the project group had experience of Health and Safety assessments, so this is perhaps a case where the wide skills base of the group worked against them!
Health and Safety aspects generally cover responsibility and accountability for general safety and providing safety from the system to all persons working on the plant and apparatus. The Health and Safety Executive should be able and willing to give initial advice. [ www.hse.gov.uk]
The initial ‘ball-park/back on an envelope’ estimates of generation figures are for estimating whether your project is likely to be financially viable, but real-life operation of the plant is likely to throw up surprises. Over the life-time of a project though, the figures can be relied upon.
Financial
Landowner lease – think about this aspect very early as lease arrangements can be complicated. Funders may demand it to be in place before agreeing to provide grants. The British Hydropower Association guideline is to offer 4% to the landowner.
Access to site – the easier the better! Poor access issues can be a major added cost when the project is implemented or civil engineering takes place.
Some funders insist on and assess various ‘soft’ factors of a project as criteria for providing funding. As an example they may stress the educational impact of a project by e.g. the numbers of schoolchildren visiting the site. Fulfilling these criteria is essential and can be combined with engagement and addressing public acceptability, so set up possibilities early, even during feasibility investigations.
It is a good idea to cast funding net widely for grants, but also pay attention to the criteria, e.g. see the above re schoolchildren. Those in receipt of grants are responsible for fulfilling the criteria, even if a third party has been involved in drafting or writing the application.
In conclusion, one project developer suggested that some issues may be raised unnecessarily, and that they should be challenged e.g. continual requests for more ‘expert studies’. In their particular project a geomorphology report was requested and conducted, but the group later discovered that the report had not even been read.
