Guide on How to Develop a Small Hydropower plant
7
ESHA 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ITS MITIGATION 1
7.1 Introduction The “Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” was held in Kyoto in December 1997. This was the second initiative after the historic Rio Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992. Even earlier, the European Union had already recognised the urgent need to tackle the climate change issue. The “White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan entitled: “Energy for the future: renewable sources of energy” was subsequently drafted providing a significant step forward. Finally, the “Directive/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market” set clear community targets. The global indicative target of 12% RE of gross domestic energy consumption by 2010 was stated. To achieve this ambitious goal all Member States have been required to set national indicative targets for the consumption of electricity produced from renewable sources. A strategic study for the development of Small Hydro Power in the European Union: “Blue Age for a Green Europe” was completed in 2002 and gives a highly interesting survey of the potential of SHP by different approaches. EU countries estimate, under economic and environmental constraints, an increase in capacity of 1111 MW by upgrading existing plants (annual production of 4518 GWh) and an increase in capacity of 4828 MW by the realisation of new small hydroelectric plants (annual production of 19645 GWh). The technical potential with only technical constraints would represent a doubling of above mentioned figures: 2080 MW (8100 GWh/year) by upgrading existing plants and 9615 (38058 GWh/y) by new plants could be achieved theoretically. The achievement of the “theoretical” objective (46158 GWh/y) will imply an annual reduction of 20 million tonnes of CO2 emissions based on a prudential value (gas fired plants) of 0.43 kgCO2/kWh. However, under present trends the above objective will not be attained so long as the administrative procedures to authorise the use of water are not accelerated. Hundreds, if not thousands, of authorisation requests are pending approval, the delay being caused mainly by perceived conflict with the environment. Some environmental agencies seem to justify or at least excuse - this blockade on the grounds of the low capacity of the small plants. It seems to be forgotten that by definition, renewable energies are decentralised and that currently only small hydro power plants and the wind turbines can significantly contribute to renewable electricity production. At the same time whilst it should be accepted that electricity production in small hydro plants does not produce carbon dioxide or liquid pollutants, the fact is that due to their location in sensitive areas local impacts are not always negligible. The significant global advantages of small hydropower must not prevent the identification of burdens and impacts at local level and the taking of necessary mitigation actions. Large thermal plants, because of their economic relevance and scale, are authorised at very high administrative levels and in some cases, their impacts cannot be mitigated at present. A small hydropower scheme producing impacts that usually can be mitigated is considered at lower administrative levels, where the influence of pressure groups - angling associations, ecologists, etc.- is greater.
201