Against the stream in developing countries: Selecting versatile hydropower technology for rural roll-out

Takeaways
Small hydro projects must be standardised. As large scale hydropower projects are custom-made with lots of engineering capacity going into them, small hydro projects up to 2kW require standardised solutions in order to keep investment costs down and to become protable. Low-head Kaplan and Cross ow technologies are preferable. For a major roll-out of hydropower solutions, we believe we should aim for a lower-head solution, and it is difficult to look past small versions of the classic designs, for example kaplan and cross-ow. Kaplan design is very versatile, relatively cheap technology thanks to Chinese mass production, and as long as there is a local repair shop, it is difficult to beat such a setup. Moreover, cross-ow design seems versatile and good at small sites. This design is found in several versions, and can sometimes close down parts of the turbine at low ow to increase efciency. These designs eliminate much of the technology risk; they have some track record even for kW-sized operations, have predictable maintenance requirements and available spare parts. Empirical evidence even supports that local maintenance is possible. Competitive to solar home systems? In a rural electrication context, it is possible to get a very decent price per kWh for a hydropower system if there is limited civil works and small distance to end users/limited wiring. However, in providing basic lighting and mobile charging for a scattered rural population and places without infrastructure, it is becoming increasingly difficult to compete with solar PV. Solar home systems (SHS) requires no civil works and barely any wiring, and given the LED revolution, these systems can provide a good service level at below 10W/SHS, which is smaller than the smallest turbines.

Contents
Takeaways 1 Introduction 2 Factors determining versatile technology 2 Available low-head technologies 4 What would we roll out? 5 Appendix: Low-head technologies 8

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

Against the stream in developing countries

2
Factors determining versatile technology
Which factors can determine whether a hydropower technology is stable, robust, affordable and reliable and is ultimately benecial for end users under various topographical and river-related conditions? We have identied 5 factors that we nd critical when deciding on hydropower technology in developing countries:

INTRODUCTION

Introduction
Sustainable Energy for All has become a vision and a slogan for the UN-driven ambition of providing access to reliable, clean electricity for those 1.3bn people globally that do not have electricity today. Although many of the main barriers for achieving this are not on the technology side, but rather on nance, structures, local and national regulations and policies in general, nding the appropriate technology is still a critical step for making renewable energy available for the population. Differs business idea is to develop projects that are individually small, but that aggregated could be large if replicated several times. As argued in some of our previous analyses, the advantage of small-scale projects is that they are relatively easy to implement compared to the large scale projects; the investments are smaller, the grid-connection costs are far lower (and zero in case of off-grid), the construction phase is much shorter and the plant is producing electricity much faster. Our main geographic focus areas are developing countries in Africa and Asia. For some villages, solar home systems might be the best solution, while for others located close to a river hydropower could be preferable. What to choose depends on a variety of factors including investment & operating costs, environmental conditions, reliability & stability of the technology, durability, userfriendliness, safety etc. This analysis focuses on very small-scale hydropower technology, in the area 0-2 kW. Traditionally, hydropower has been developed in large scale, typically 10+ MW where each project has been engineered and tailored.. This is not possible for small-scale projects as the engineering costs would have made the project too expensive. The technology going into small projects should therefore be standardised to t various kinds of conditions in order to make replication in developing countries possible. The question is therefore how to choose and deploy a exible hydropower technology that would work in many different local environments and river ow conditions, and suitable for a larger roll-out of very small systems. Are there any technologies that are more likely to succeed than others? And are these competitive to other renewable alternatives, for instance solar home systems?

Sizing
Rural electrication is about giving access to basic functions for households during daily life. A single non-electried rural household relying on kerosene today would be improved signicantly with only 2-3 LED lamps and a mobile charger. With new LED technology, this would imply a net demand for around 10W of power during 3-4 peak hours in the evening. Adding a TV would take the demand up to around 30W for simple DCTVs, while AC TVs could use anything from 50 to 200W. If we set demand to 50W per household and 5 hours per day to reect some increased usage, there will be a need for around 100kWh/household/year. This is very small for a hydropower turbine, and creates a possibiity to combine several households to purchase a system. Given that the installation of hydropower will require civil works regardless of size, it is practical to scale the system somewhat more than to the minimum power requirements. Hence, we would expect to look at systems sized in the low kW range for a normal small village. With demand from 10W to 100W per household, we would assume that a hydropower turbine with a net capacity of 500-2000W could power up to 200 households.

Efficiency on variable ows

Relevant developing countries are characterised by having tropical or sub-tropical weather with varying precipitation over the year. The best technology should therefore be efficient at various and less predictable ows. All larger hydropower turbines are custom-made to extract every bit of efficiency gain possible. Smaller turbines will have lower efficiencies per se, but as engineering expertise is expensive for smaller systems; minor customisation in a small rural context will have to be done on the spot, if at all. In a varying ow context, maximum efficiency, efficiency duration (efficiency curve for lower ows) and cut-off ows are all important features, and the preferred solu-

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

Against the stream in developing countries

3
In a report recently issued by Lahimer et al. looking at kW-scale hydro in a developing context, one of the ndings was that the suggested high-quality PVC piping was often replaced by worse-quality HDPE for pure price reasons. Hence, not only will rural societies look more at investment cost than quality, but that they are probably willing to sacrice reliability for cost, and rather repair when damaged. This could be expensive in the long run, but would still be preferred if the investment is reduced. Paish et al. investigated Vietnamese markets for smallscale hydropower, and found that the largest market comprised low-quality illegally imported small Chinese sets (propeller systems). These were supplied at cost of 20-30 USD for a 100W system, but would also require 40-60 USD worth of cables, tubing and ancillary equipment to work. Locals are able to replace broken bearings in local workshops, and could seemingly live with the uncertainty. The system should therefore be possible to install quickly at a new location. This carries on-site and engineering cost. Such know-how is expensive, imported knowledge not found in rural environments. Anything installed in terrain will require some adaption to local conditions. It is therefore important that construction of infrastructure such as diversion and a simple power house can be done largely by locals. Differ recognises that it is essential to keep investment cost down. We therefore try to provide nancial solutions for end-users by taking a majority of the investment cost, leaving the monthly expenses for the end-users at the level as prior to the electrication.

FACTORS DETERMINING VERSATILE TECHNOLOGIES

tion should likely provide acceptable efficiency also for ows below 50% of the design specication requirements.

Location
There are several arguments why small hydropower technology should be installed close to the end-user. First, it is important to reduce the transmission distance to minimise the cost of equipment and labour, and to limit transmission losses. Lowering the amount of equipment also lowers transport cost and limits the number of parts that can break. Second, large-scale hydropower equipment is often heavy and rmly mounted, and is difficult to remove. However, as we move down to kW- and W-scale, it becomes increasingly simple to carry away essential equipment. We therefore assume that the best option is to focus on hydropower equipment that can be installed closer to the village at the expense of hydraulic perfection. A power plant close to the village will ease maintenance, decrease likelihood of theft and reduce cost of auxiliary equipment to electrify the village. It can also even be turned off and locked in at night. Villages are not likely to have a large-head hydropower site close. It would also be impractical to install a large turbine where there is bustling marine activity. Hence, there could be terrain constraints making low-drop and low-ow equipment more attractive. A preferable smallscale hydropower technology should therefore be small enough to be installed close to the village.

Investment costs and on-site engineering

One hurdle for installing hydropower technology in developing countries is the upfront investment costs. Although nancial support from developed countries and/or its local or national authorities could contribute, low up-front cost is a key requirement in rural electrication. Whereas a community might have satisfactory liquidity over time, there is usually limited capacity within local banking system to allow for investments even with aggressive payback schemes. In Kenya, Differ found evidence that people consistently preferred slightly cheaper petrol- over diesel generator sets (gensets) because the main barrier was the investment, not the capacity of the system. At the same time, they were fully aware that petrol would be more expensive than diesel throughout the system lifetime. This shows a preference to swap high returns for low investment cost.

Operation & maintenance

Once the hydropower plant is operational, it should be operated by a (trained) local. This is good for cost and good for community development. It is probably also the best and most reasonable protection against theft, because if local people onsite have incomes depending on the system, it will be guarded well. Also, other locals will be more reluctant to steal from their own. Most likely, rural villages and households can accept that the efficiency of the hydropower plant is reduced perhaps as much as 10-20% as long as there is some power and ordinary maintenance can be done using local labour. The power plant could even be turned off both at night and during idle hours during the day to allow the river to be utilised differently. The system lifetime is still important, but not at the expense of increased investment cost. This favours compact, moveable structures,

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

Against the stream in developing countries

4
Available low-head technologies
The main capacity for hydropower today is dominated by mid- and high head installations. On the turbine side, Pelton (impulse) and Francis (reaction) turbines constitute somewhere between 70% and 80% of the world market, counted as installed capacity, and will undoubtedly continue to have a prominent position in the hydropower markets also in the future. The technology is tailored to the site to become efficient, reliable and virtually maintenance free. The gross energy P (Watt) from a conventional turbine can be expressed as a relationship mainly between the head (H, meter) and ow (Q, m3/second), efficiency ( ), liquid density ( , kg/m3) and gravity (g, 9.81 m/s2). Following this relationship, 100 litres/second at a head of 5m give the same energy as 5 litres at 100 meter head. Hence, low-head turbines will have to capture more water than high-head.

AVAILABLE LOW-HEAD TECHNOLOGIES

and disfavours large constructs, complex technology and equipment that is difficult to replace. It is important that the system will work, and that it can be made to work if not. Maintenance requirements are a function of breakage, debris and normal wear. The classic turbine types are virtually maintenance free, particularly if the thrash rack has been designed cleverly. In the case there is maintenance, this could be bearing changes, penstock breakage, damage to concrete structures and a multitude of small incidents.

Environmental impacts
When developing hydropower in rural areas, it is important to bear in mind that the state of the local infrastructure and challenging terrain make rivers the main channel for transportation. It also provides water for irrigation. Moreover, animals live in and around rivers. In the Western world, particularly in the North, large animals do not live in rivers. Damming up rivers will lead to other challenges that need to be solved, and smaller, non-permanent solutions might be preferred. Because water has been utilized in rural communities for thousands of years, it is not uncommon to nd existing irrigation and man-made river diversions in many rural settings. These could divert water for agriculture and mills, provide transport or simply lead water closer to the villages. Small lower-head technology could often be tted somewhere along these diversions.

P = g H Q
Figure 1 shows an overview of the number of operational hydropower turbines and installed MW across the globe. The plants have been grouped roughly according to resemblance to technology, specically the classical Kaplan/propeller, Pelton and Francis (KPF) turbines. The most obvious trend is the importance of Kaplan, Pelton and Francis turbines for MW-scale technologies, with Francis-style turbines as main contributor. Note that Kaplan turbines are low-head turbines, commonly

Figure 1: Installed hydropower turbines worldwide

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

Against the stream in developing countries

5
systems, and one must then choose a exible solution that can work on lower head that would t under more than one condition. So, is there anyone that stands out as more appropriate than others? First and foremost, we do understand that the low/mid head Kaplan design is very versatile. It is also a relatively cheap technology thanks to Chinese mass production. As long as there is a local repair shop, it is difficult to beat such a setup, and we believe this technology can be used in many places where small- to medium amounts of water runs. We give the Kaplan turbine a weighted score of 24 out of 30 possible points(Table 1). Secondly, we nd that the cross-ow design seems versatile and good at small sites. This design is found in several versions, and can sometimes close down parts of the turbine at low ow to increase efficiency. It is not as efficient as the high-head models, but it is good, scalable, does not require a lot of set-up to work, and has good load duration. The low/mid head cross-ow turbines gets the highest weighted score in our assessment (25). The most innovative structures are still far away from being attractive in a rural development context, and we remain sceptical towards employing hydrokinetic solutions in remote areas. The weighted scores for these are around 14-15 in our assessment. Having said that, we believe that these could have a market in sufficiently large streams with low to minimum water levels, but these locations also easily face competition from larger and more effective Kaplan turbines. Whereas the hydrokinetic turbines might be protected to avoid interference with animals, they are clearly relatively invasive. Debris issues will also often require additional engineering, labour and equipment in a rural development context. Weight and size will be a further disadvantage for roll-out and maintenance, but is useful as theft deterrent. Finally, many of these solutions are still under prototyping, and would hence be too risky to employ in uncontrolled environments and likely still too expensive. All non-kinetic versions require some kind of diversion or barrage leading to a waterfall. In many situations, there is already irrigation- or mill diversions in rural areas where hydroelectric equipment can be tted. Choosing the smaller solutions will be an advantage, as they would most likely t most places. These can also be locked in when the hydropower system is not in use. The smallest systems for this purpose are likely to be small Kaplan/ propeller systems or Crosstric systems (Cross-ow turbine with electric generator). Diversion-type power will require maintenance on inlet, thrash rack, penstock,

WHAT WOULD WE ROLL OUT?

used in rivers. Traditionally, these turbines have been greater in size, but being a very mature technology, this is typically a market where Chinese equipment can be purchased for low prices. Large-scale, high-head hydropower is one of the most efficient forms of electricity generation available, with over 90% of energy converted. This very high efficiency presumes that the water ows through the turbine at designed ow at the correct angle. When size decreases and customisation disappears, the efficiency drops. It is difficult to generalise, but it should be relatively common to see efficiencies around 50% for very small turbines. The market for other turbines, is around 1% of the large-scale market, but seemingly comprises around 30% of the market for small turbines (<0.1 MW), indicating a larger variety of turbines in this segment. Also, the data set on small turbines will likely be more incomplete than the dataset for the largest turbines, where most available turbines are countable. Finally, the data only allowed for partial grouping, hence there is some room for error in the categorisation. Nevertheless, we believe the trend is right; there is greater diversity as size decreases. Table 1 provides a simple summary of the various categories of turbines (described in more detail in Appendix 1). We have mapped the technologies against sensible criteria described above for use on a kW-scale in a rural development context, but the complexity of this makes the list of turbines inconclusive. Given the characteristics of the conditions in developing countries, the most relevant turbine technology for small-scale upscaling seems to be low-head. Low-head hydropower systems come in most sizes from around 100-200W, and there is good variety of models between 1 and 5kW. These are sizes appropriate for the rst stages of rural electrication. There are countless ideas on how to develop hydropower from low-head/low-ow combinations, but it is less obvious what will be the winning recipe.

What would we roll out?

Within traditional hydropower development, it is thought to be out of the question to choose turbine type upfront, as it simply depends too much on local conditions. However, on a larger roll-out of small (1kW) turbines in a rural development context, there is a clear trade-off between tailoring and cost. We therefore believe more in a reasonable and repeatable approach for very small

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

WHAT WOULD WE ROLL OUT?

6
Table 1: Overview and assessment of hydropower technologies Technology Francis Attribute Head
High Efficient kW versions exist 50-70%, decreases for low ow High head site likely at distance from village Small Mid. Known, mass-produced Small Mid. Known, mass-produced High head site likely at distance from village 50-70%, also at low ow 50-70%, also at low ow for proper Kaplan Possible in small diversion or barrage Mid Mid. Known, mass-produced Efficient kW versions exist Efficient kW versions exist High Mid/low Mid/low Efficient kW versions exist 50-70%, decreases for low ow Possible in small diversion Small Mid. Known, mass-produced Low

Pelton

Kaplan

Cross-ow

Archimedes

Existing water mills

Mid/low Efficient kW versions exist, generally larger 50%+

Hydrokinetic cross-ow

Hydrokinetic axial

None

None

Sizing (20%) Efficiency (10%)

Efficient kW versions exist 25-50%

Models in kW range

Models in kW range

20-60%

10-50%

Terrain requirements (15%) Size/transport (10%) Investment cost (10%) and On-site engineering (10%) Operation & Maintenance (15%) Environmental impact (10%)
Small intake/ long thin penstock, foundation Low maintenance, high quality Small intake/ long thin penstock, foundation Low maintenance, high quality

Requires higher ow Large Mid. Known, mass-produced

Already in river/ diversion

Requires larger river

Requires larger river

Medium, but no transport

Large

Large

Simple generator

High cost experimental turbine, built-in thrash rack/tube In-river intake/ barrage, foundation Low maintenance, high quality In-river intake/ penstock. Foundation Low maintenance, high quality Larger diversion & thrash rack

High cost experimental turbine

Against the stream in developing countries

Existing infrastructure Improved thrash rack Low maintenance, high quality

Some mounting challenges

Large in-river thrash rack plus mounting

Minimum impact (low ow, high head)

Minimum impact (low ow, high head)

Some construction needed, high speed/pressure

Some construction needed, high speed

Larger construction/ diversion, low pressure

Already in river/ diversion. Fishfriendly

Larger in-river construction. Fish-friendly

Larger in-river construction. Fish-friendly

Plain score Weighted/30

20

21

20

21

16

20

12

11

23

24

24

25

19

23

15

14

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

Medium maintenance, quality varies

Debris & clogging likely, Quality unknown. Needs deep, owing river

Debris & clogging likely, Quality unknown. Needs deep, owing river

Against the stream in developing countries

7
tially. Finally, mass production lowers price. We are fairly condent that in most cases, the small Kaplans and Crosstric systems will imply a sensible investment. It is difficult to directly compare price of hydropower to other renewable technologies on a general basis. However, in a rural electrication context, it is possible to get a very decent price per kWh for a hydropower system if there is limited civil works and small distance to end users/limited wiring. Hence, for a village close to a river, hydropower should be relatively competitive. It also offers advantages if there is a demand to power larger machinery, as it is easily scaleable (limited by the river ow). We lack deep insights into wind power, but judging from the prices we have seen, small mass-produced hydropower systems should so far have an edge on small windmills, which is still a relatively new technology. It also provides a much more predictable source of power. However, in providing basic lighting and mobile charging for a scattered rural population and places without infrastructure, it is becoming increasingly difficult to compete with solar PV. Solar home systems (SHS) requires no civil works and barely any wiring, and given the LED revolution, these systems can provide a good service level at below 10W/SHS, which is smaller than the smallest turbines.

WHAT WOULD WE ROLL OUT?

turbine, generator and draft. The better design, the less maintenance there will be on the electrical and mechanical equipment. Whereas we have just briey assessed small high-head solutions, we realise that these are to be preferred in most situations where the necessary head is available. There are also good, reasonably priced Peltric sets (Pelton turbine with electric generator) available on the market. Simply put, doubling the head halves the water ow for the same amount of power. Hence, moving from 10 to 100 meters of head will lead to efficient generation at low equipment cost where the distance to end users permits it. For a major roll-out of hydropower solutions, we believe we should aim for a lower-head solution. Here, it is difcult to look past small versions of the classic designs, for example kaplan and cross-ow. These eliminate much of the technology risk; they have some track record even for kW-sized operations, have predictable maintenance requirements and available spare parts. Empirical evidence even supports that local maintenance is possible. It is difficult to set up the total budget due to the large differences in civil and auxiliary work. Generally speaking, small systems are cheaper than large, and easier to transport. Higher drop will reduce size of turbine, and utilising existing infrastructure can lower cost substan-

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

Against the stream in developing countries

8
instead of the classic cylinder design. On a low-kW scale, Kathmandu Metal Industry has developed a Crosstric Set a small version of the cross-ow turbine, for generation between 100 and 5000W. The classic Archimedes screw turbine is a classic turbine that is only used under low-head conditions. It consists of a relatively large helical structure inside a tube. Water ows through parts of the helix and requires a few metres of drop and a small diversion to work. This has been known technology for a long time, and can also be used as a pump if reversed. The large structure makes it less vulnerable to debris and the low pressure and open design also makes it relatively friendly even for larger sh. If the turbine is protected by a proper thrash rack, it can also be installed in lightweight plastic versions easing installation. It would require some civil works. The screw structure is relatively large, but can be built in light materials so that transport is mainly a question of volume, the weight is comprehensible. Water mills or water wheels are often installed near ows to grind grain, and can easily be converted to small hydropower with a drop of 3-5m, produce kW-range power where grinding requirements are served in other ways. If the wheel is in place, there is only need for a gearbox and a generator, making this option very cheap if available. If not, efficiency and cost could make other solutions more attractive. Zagoni (2009) investigates improved water wheels for small hydropower generation. A quick look at high-drop turbines Francis turbines are high-efficient, high-head turbines. They are reaction turbines; the water pressure changes as the water is pressed through the turbine. The turbine is encased so that all water is pressed through the snail-like shape of the turbine. The Francis turbine is used for head from 20 to 700m, and is a very popular design due to its efficiency of above 90%. However, the turbine efficiency rapidly drops for ow under the designed level.

Appendix: Low-head technologies

The section below comprises several low-head hydropower solutions. The list is not exhaustive in any way, but serves as an illustration of the many different ideas that can produce power from moving water. We are focusing on turbines, but most, if not all, these systems will require a gearbox and a generator to produce electricity. Low-head turbines In terms of traditional low-head designs, small Kaplan generators are commonly seen in low-head kW-sized hydropower generation. The design consists of an axial propeller inside a tube, and can rotate vertically or horizontally. Vertical turbines are most common, particularly for kW-scale. Classic Kaplan design would require the construction of intake, thrash rack and tail race. The Kaplan turbine can deliver at high efficiencies even at low head, and work well at 2-5m head, meaning that the diversion is usually minimal. Propeller turbines are simplied Kaplan turbines without the ability to adjust the blades. Chinese manufacturers deliver small Kaplan kits with generator allowing for relatively simple solutions for kW-sized hydro, but often at poor quality. Also interesting, Nepal Hydro Electric has developed a small 1200W propeller turbine that works on around 3m of head. Several designs of cross-ow turbines are applicable under low-head conditions. A classic cross-ow turbine uses gravity to rotate on a horizontal axis. Water ows through the rotating cylinder wheel, generating 2/3 of the power on entry and the remainder on exit. Cross-ow turbines are slightly less efficient than classic higher-head turbines, but maintain satisfactory generation efficiency as ow lowers. A cross-ow turbine will require a diversion and a thrash rack to work efficiently. The equipment in itself is relatively comprehensible in size. Cross-ow turbines have been around for many years and exist in several designs. In more recent inventions, US based Natel offers a derivative of the cross-ow design called the hydroEngine, working with a head of 3-5m, that so far caters mostly for the mini-power segment around 50-500kW. This turbine has blades mounted on a belt
DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

Against the stream in developing countries

9
empirically measured system efficiencies from 12% to 50%. The most efficient versions are ducted models, the least efficient are the open solutions that can withstand the most thrash. Rotation is slow, and turbines have been known to be covered in seaweed, leading to stillinconclusive research on banana-shaped blades. Several on-turbine thrash protection devices have been tried out. Freely moving propellers in rivers must be installed so that it does not harm wildlife. This list is far from conclusive. There are many new inventions including uttervanes, hydroplane blades, cycloidic turbines and fan/doughnut shaped turbines. However, many of these are still in a reasonably early stage of development. Figure 2: Efficiencies for traditional hydropower

Pelton turbines are also highefficient, high-head turbines. They are impulse turbines, extracting energy from moving water hitting turbine. The turbine is open, and designed to capture the water jets as efficiently as possible. Pelton wheels are installed with heads from 15 to 1800m, and are also very popular and highly efficient (around 90% for large-scale versions). Pelton wheels remain very efficient for lower ows. No-drop kinetic turbines In rivers and tidal streams where there is signicant movement of water, but no drop, hydrokinetic equipment can be utilised. Power from hydrokinetic turbines is generally expressed as a function of swept area (A, m2), velocity of medium (v3, m/s), efficiency ( ) and liquid density ( , kg/m3). This is the same relationship as used for wind turbines.
P (W ) = 1 A 3 2

Several ideas for hydrokinetic cross-ow turbines or cross-axis turbines exist, but many of these turbines are still under prototyping or in early production. These turbines have been developed with an eye on the Darrieus design wind turbines, and consist of a set of blades on a vertically rotating cylinder construction. The turbine is submerged and rotates slowly at speeds 1-2x the speed of water, meaning sh can safely pass through them. Whereas the turbine rotation speed makes blocking less likely, large pieces of debris like a log could easily jam the system. The turbine must also be protected from rotating into the riverbed in the dry seasons. Most designs are attached to a oatation device or a shore mounted rod. Hydrokinetic turbines see efficiencies from 20 to 60%, and the most efficient versions are ducted. There is theoretically limited civil engineering beyond the oater, mount or anchor, as there is no diversion and no penstock. The picture shows the Gorlov helical turbine. Hydrokinetic axial turbines are variations of horizontally rotating propellers that can be submerged in water. These can be mounted on the riverbed, on oaters, or on a shore mounted rod. Mounting can be either square or at an angle. These propellers have
DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013

The gure shows theoretical efficiencies plotted against ow. In a small hydro context, using small waterways and limited dams, it is likely that ow will vary signicantly over the year. It would therefore be important to have a turbine that would work satisfactory also for lower ow, illustrated here by the curves towards the left of the gure. Whereas these plots can vary signicantly, it shows that whereas a Francis turbine is one of the most efficient designs there is, this only remains true if it is always running at design ow. We have also included simple propellers, which are simple Kaplan turbines without the ability to change the pitch of the blades, showing how simpler versions of this turbine might underperform. Pelton runners, proper Kaplan turbines, Archimedes and cross-ow turbines are relatively efficient at mid ows. For small cross-ow turbines, it is also possible to design the turbine to close parts of the roller to increase efciency for lower ows. We have been unable to nd good data for hydrokinetic turbines, but see that quoted efficiencies range from 10% to 60%.

About us
Differ (www.differgroup.com)
Differs business idea is to help scale up small-scale carbon reduction technologies (e.g. renewable energy and energy efficiency) in selected developing countries through i) providing free in-depth analysis on e.g. market conditions, feed-in-tariffs, nancing and business opportunities, ii) advising project developers, project owners, investors and other decision makers, iii) developing our own concepts and companies and iv) investing in start-ups. Differ was founded in November 2010 by entrepreneurs that previously have started and developed companies like Renewable Energy Corporation (REC) and Point Carbon.

Differ Analysis series

This analysis is part of the Differ Analysis series, which provides in-depth analysis on market conditions, regulations, nancing and business opportunities for carbon reduction technologies in selected developing countries. The reports are available for free on differgroup.com. Any questions or comments are appreciated on analysis@differgroup.com. Upcoming analyses:
Can carbon offsets scale up small-scale reductions in developing countries? Funding possibilities for small-scale RE/EE projects

Differ Disclaimer
The content of this analysis is provided with the understanding that Differ is not herein engaged in rendering professional advice and services to you. The content of this analysis is provided as is without warranty of any kind. Differ shall have no liability or responsibility for any indirect, incidental, consequential, or punitive damages or for lost revenues or prots regardless of the theory of liability.

DIFFERGROUP.COM | 29 May 2013