A Green &

Clean Future Research proposal for a small-scale hydro-power plant in the Salzach

Authors: Stijn Kuipers, Job Last, Harald Mathä, Jordi Smit

Date: 09-04-2013

Supervisors: Dr. M. Bokhorst, Dr. ir. ES van Leeuwen, drs. J. Dekkers

Project topic: The optimal size and location for a hydro-power plant in the lower

Salzach catchment taken into account the characteristics of the

river.

2

Contents

1. Introduction Proposal 3

2. Approach and Methodology Proposal 5

3. Pilot 7

4. Introduction Pilot Study 7

5. Methodology Pilot Study 8

6. Investigated Subjects Pilot Study 10

a. Stakeholders Analysis 10

b. Sediment and Ecology 16

c. Discharge 20

d. Optimal Location 24

e. Optimal Capacity 26

7. Planning and critical success factors 29

8. Overall conclusions and recommendations 31

9. Literature References 32

3

Introduction

The global warming is one of the biggest issues in the world at this moment. There are worldwide

effects, a few examples are: the melting polar cap(s), expanding deserts, the extremes in weather

conditions are increasing, flooding risks and droughts are becoming almost everyday issues and the

ozone layer is being destroyed. This however is just the tip of the iceberg. The effects will most

likely intensify with higher rates every year if no actions are taken. Most of these effects are

negative but can be prevented, and with the intention to neutralize the effects of this global warming

and prevent irreversible processes from happening we take all kinds of measures. One of those

measures is the use of green energy like solar power, wind energy, geothermal energy and

hydropower. However, the main reason to use hydropower is because of the depleting fossil fuels.

But if we take a look in history we find that hydropower has been used for thousands of years now.

History experts guess that the Chinese have been using hydropower for 5000 years now. The oldest

hydropower machine is 3500 years old and was used to irrigate the fields. In the past the energy was

used directly and nothing of it was stored for the simple reason that there was no way to store it yet.

After the industrial revolution the use of hydropower increased a lot. Due to technical

improvements, hydropower plants were able to generate more and more energy and after a while

even store the energy with the help of generators which converted the energy in electrical power.

The recent hydropower installations which can store energy and use turbines are just 100 years old.

Hydropower can be generated at a lot of places, has the potential to generate a lot of energy, the

energy can be converted and stored and is therefore on of the better substitutes for fossil fuels. The

amount of energy that is generated mostly depends on the discharge, which is dependent on the

height difference, width of the river and the depth of the river.

Austria is therefore a good country to generate energy through hydropower. This, along with the

fossil fuel problem and the environmental problem, is one of the reasons that the use of hydropower

has a growing popularity in Austria. ‘Since the 1950s the use of hydro power in Austria has been

used for all kinds of purposes, whether they are small or very large.’[ERNEUERBARE ENERGIE

OSTERREICH. 2012] Lately a lot of big power plants were built in Austria and there are several

planned in the future. But the focus mainly lies on the smaller hydro power plants which still have

to get a green light to be built in the smaller rivers. ‘Most of these rivers are not yet analyzed for

hydro power plant potential’ [ERNEUERBARE ENERGIE OSTERREICH. 2012]

One of the already used river for hydro power in Austria is the Salzach river. The Salzach river is a

right tributary river of the Inn and is 225 km long. The Salzach river was very important for the

local economy. It was used to transport Salt down the river. The source of this river lies in the

Kitzbühl Alps near the town Krimml. The river runs through a lot of towns, has an average

discharge of 251 m3/s and has a basin area of 6700 km2.

This river already contains a few small scale hydro power plants and government has planned to

build a several more dams. Most of the dams are run-off river hydro power plants. The other type of

hydro power is a pressure hydro power installation. In this research plan the focus lies on planning

another small scale run-off river hydro power plant. The idea is to take the already planned plants

into account because they will most certainly be built. So the main question asked in this research

plan is:

‘What is the optimal location and size for a hydropower plant in the lower Salzach catchment taken

into account the characteristics of the Salzach River?’

4

The characteristics which have to be taken into account concerns the river discharge during normal

and extreme situations, the width of the river, height difference and the depth of the river. One

might also think about the sediment and living organisms. Other subjects which have to be taken

into account when building a hydro power plant are the optimal size of the plant in terms of power

production and area of coverage. Furthermore the inventory of the stakeholders and desirability

from both general and local are important factors. Even politics, laws and protected areas have to be

taken into account as well. The characteristics of the river like velocity and curvature of the river

are also important factors. Other factors like the presence of other power plants nearby and the

effect of these plants on the new plant are also important. This also counts for the residential areas,

which affect the location of the power plant.

All these subjects derived the following sub-questions:

Which are they key obstacles to building a new small-scale hydropower plant at the Salzach

when it comes to the interests of the individual stakeholders?

How to merge the interests of the individual stakeholders using a SSM (Soft Systems

Methodology) - based approach?

What actions have to be taken when minimizing the effect of the sediment on the hydro-

power plant?

Which parts of the river are not protected and what are the solutions for the change in

ecology due to the build of a small-scale hydro-power plant?

How does the natural discharge and design flow of the Salzach River and its hydropower

plants develop through the Lower Salzach catchment?

How does the rising water level due to the new hydropower plant and the design flow affect

the flood risk and what solutions are possible?

What is the optimal location taken into account the several factors?

What is the optimal capacity of the new run-of-river hydropower plant?

5

Approach and Methodology

Approach

The goal of this research is to find an optimal location and size for a hydropower plant in the Lower

Salzach River between the places Werfen and Salzburg. The potential size of the hydropower plant

depends on the chosen location, thus it is necessary to start with looking for a location. Before

starting to develop a method, it is needed to determine the factors that have to be taken into account

by searching for the optimal location.

The scheme on the right shows the factors that will be

taken into account during the project. These factors are

determined through literature study and interviews. It is

quite obvious that the most important factor is the

presence of other hydropower plants nearby. To generate

energy, the water of the river has to fall down by gravity

over a certain distance (gross head), created by building a

dam. Turbines will convert the kinetic energy into

electricity.

When two hydropower plants share a small distance

between them, at least one of them will have a small gross

head. Therefore the efficiency will be low. The distance

between the power plants is proportional to the gradient,

the slope, of the river. In this research we assume the

minimum distance is about 2,6 kilometers, because a

majority of the power plants in the study area share this

distance.

The next factor is the mean natural discharge, this is the

volume of water that flows down per time unit. It should

be the same across the whole river, unless tributaries are

joining the Salzach. For there are many (small) tributaries,

it is safe to say the natural discharge in our study area

increases. It does fluctuate a lot though, due to the melting

snow during spring and summer. The flow peaks can get

very high, much higher than the turbines can handle. If the

discharge exceeds the ‘design flow’, gates in the dam will

open and let the water pass through.

The fourth factor is the gradient, also called the slope of

the river. The steepness of the river affects the velocity of

the water. A higher velocity means more kinetic energy

and thus more electricity. However, a higher velocity

increases the discharge too, because more water will flow

in shorter time. If the discharge exceeds the maximum

plant discharge, possible energy will be lost.

A solution for this problem is to build hydropower plants

closer to each other in steep areas. On the other hand,

curves in the river lower the velocity of the water, so it is

preferred to build power plants in steep and straight areas.

6

The width and depth of the river affects the design flow. The parts where is river is wider, there is

more space to build a larger and more efficient power plant, because the amount and size of the

turbines could be increased.

Also, the presence of residential area affects the optimal location as well. Politically, there is

resistance against building hydropower plants in and nearby towns, so it is better to avoid these

areas when searching for an optimal location. Ecology is of interest as well, since a new

hydropower plant will distort the environment and ecological cycles. It will be necessary to look

into these consequences and decide if a new power plant should or should not be built.

The presence of nature reserves is important, as well the consequences for the environment of the

rising of the water level upstream and the lowering downstream.

Alpine rivers usually carry a lot of sediment, which fills up the river, increasing flood risk. Thereby,

the sediment is able to block the turbines of hydropower plants, causing massive damage. In the

project the volume of sediment will be calculated and there will be looked into the possibilities to

solve this problem. On the basis of Meyer-Peter and Mullers formula [WHIPPLE, K. 2004, P. 5], the

sediment load could be calculated and measures can be taken.

The rising of the water level not only affects the environment, the flood risk will increase too. The

hydropower plant will cause higher water levels and function as an obstacle in the river. The project

will show the consequences of these higher water levels and offer solutions to reduce the flood risk.

Last but not least, the area of coverage and transport of energy will be taken into account. The

energy generated, will serve households in the area. The demand will have to meet the supply, to

minimize the loss of energy due to transport.

Upon these factors the methodology for finding the optimal location is based. When this location

has been found, it is possible to calculate the optimal size of the hydropower plant. The capacity

and size of the plant and turbines depends on the width, depth and shape of the river. It is needless

to say the natural discharge is the most important factor. Using the Basso and Botter equation

[BASSO, S. AND G. BOTTER. 2012] the optimal capacity and size of the plant will be calculated.

Methodology

All the factors have to be analyzed and weighed to find the optimal location. For this, detailed data

is necessary, a big part of the project will contain the creating of a complete dataset. Since most of

the data is not available, fieldwork is necessary to collect it. Using GIS (Geographic Information

Systems), it is possible to compare and analyze the spatial data. A MCA (Multi Criteria Analysis)

should weigh all of the several factors to find an optimal location. When this location is found, the

optimal capacity and size of the turbines and plant will be calculated.

The pilot study will show a shortened version of the approach, and explain the methodology used

for the pilot study further.

List of products

The products of this project will show the potential of hydropower plants in the Lower Salzach Area.

With the help of suitability maps, the project will recommend an optimal location. Other possible

locations will be described as well, to show the potential of the area. Furthermore the capacity and

the possible generated energy will be showed, explaining the area of coverage of possibilities for

transport.

7

Pilot

Introduction Pilot Study

The amount of hydro-power that is generated in Austria is rising quickly. The government promotes

this way of generating energy because of the fact that is a clean and renewable form of energy. The

Salzach is one of the rivers that contains a several power plants which generate a respectable

amount of renewable energy. But the river has the capacity to contain more plants and so it can

generate even more energy and supply more households. The amount of households that can be

supplied by a new hydro-power plant depends on the size, efficiency and other characteristics of the

plant which on their turn are dependable on the discharge, sediment load and other characteristics.

These considerations derive the following question:

''What is the optimal location and size for a hydropower plant in the lower Salzach catchment taken

into account the characteristics of the Salzach River?''

However there are a few characteristics which can't be investigated on short terms because they

have to be monitored over a longer period. For example the sediment load of the river has to be

measured for at least a year to get a good idea of the bed load of the river. This also counts for the

impact of the ecology due to the building and construction of a hydro-power plant. Furthermore for

the efficiency of the plant, the fluctuation in discharge, depth of the river and many more factors as

well, these are characteristics that have to be monitored for a longer period. Unfortunately this is

just a small part of the factors that have to be accounted for, one should also think about the

influence of objectors of this plant and whether their opinion is valid and strong enough or not.

So based on the fact that some characteristics take a longer time to take into account we now mainly

focus on the optimal location based on the mean natural discharge, curvature of the river, whether it

is or is not in a city, gradient of the river, protected areas, presence hydropower plants nearby and

the width of the river.

8

Methodology Pilot study

The pilot study will be done by using ArcGIS, a software program used for finding and analyzing

differences in spatial data. The first thing needed to start looking for an optimal location is the data.

All of the factors have to have data available to find differences between different parts of the river

in the study area. For there is not much complete data available, it is necessary to create a dataset.

Therefore, existing and future hydropower plants have been put in a file as points.

Next thing is to find as much data as possible concerning all of the factors, then analyzing it using

ArcGIS and several tools, so that it is possible to point an optimal location. A critical step is

splitting the river into segments with the help of ArcGIS. The program calculated the length of the

river as approximately 330 kilometers, so it was cut in 166 segments.

Every segment should be approximately two kilometers, but ArcGIS miscalculated. The actual

length is circa 1.3 kilometers. For further analyzing the length of the segments does not matter

though.

The dataset consists of the following columns (noted as rows below):

Segment number

Height start segment in m

Height end segment in m

Height difference in m

Average Width River in m

Natural Discharge

Maximum Plant Discharge

Presence Plant

Presence Measure Station

Suitability Presence Other Plants

Suitability City

Suitability Shape River The first column mentions the segment number, since just the study area is going to be analyzed,

only segments near and in the area are investigated. These are numbers 1, upstream, until 53,

downstream. The next three are necessary to calculate the gradient using a digital elevation model

(DEM). The model, a raster tiff-file, has a ten meter resolution and has been developed in an

unknown year.

The width of the river has been calculated with the measure tool from Google Labs in Google Maps.

This is a up to date way to measure, but hard to be precise, since this is manually done. The natural

discharge is known for the years 2012 en 2013 at three points in the study area, thanks to measure

stations in Werfen (in the south), Golling (in the middle) and Salzburg (in the north) [Land Salzburg

2013a].

Create dataset with existing and future plants

Add data of factors

Compare data by analyzing

using GIS

Find optimal location by taking all

factors into account

9

For every existing and future plant the maximum plant discharge can be found by looking on the

sites of the two owners of the plants, Verbund and Salzburg AG [Verbund Österreich.

2013c][ SALZBURG AG 2013c]. Presence Plant en Presence Measure Station shows the names of the

plants en stations, if they are present in a certain segment.

Finally, the suitability per segment concerning the presence of other plants, residential areas and the

shape of the river are converted into zero and one. A zero states a negative suitability, a one a

positive suitability. Between hydropower plants, as said, a distance of at least four segments is

necessary, based on the present pattern. Suitability city is negative when at the sides of the river

where the plant is going to be, houses are build. The suitability for the shape of the river will be

judged when a few final locations are known. The ‘straightness’ of the river will weigh when the

final location will be chosen. The final three criteria are judged using ESRI’s World Imaginary Map,

last updated March 2013.

10

Stakeholders

In countries where many powerful rivers are present, waterpower is most of the time one of the

preferred energy sources. It’s seen as a sustainable source of energy, since there is no exhaustion of

any fossil fuels or any other signs of environmental pollution, at least not a first glance. It appears to

be clearly superior since it’s green, renewable energy, which gets broad acceptance from the public

and helps in fulfilling international goals in climate protection. [KLEINWASSERKRAFT ÖSTERREICH

2008. P.1] In the following research questions on stakeholders in hydropower, the focus is on

identifying key stakeholders as well having a look at their interests and arguments in favor of or

contra the subject.

“Which are they key obstacles to building a new small-scale hydropower plant at the Salzach, when

it comes to the interests of the individual stakeholders?”

Possible Stakeholders in Hydropower

In order to have a look at possible obstacles in building a new hydropower plant in the Salzburg

region, you first have to look at key stakeholders and their interests. Since the harvesting of

waterpower isn’t only an issue in Austria, general groups of stakeholders can be identified, mostly

indifferent of the region or country. Heller et al. identify the following possible stakeholders for a

project study very similar to the situation in Austria:

Figure 1: Possible relevant stakeholders in hydropower [Heller et al. 2010. P. 298]

In a less complex manner, we also can distinguish two main groups. There are those organizations

which are pro water power and on the other hand we’ve got the opponents, which support the

opinion that the beauty and biological functionality of nature falls short in the struggle for energy.

They see the rivers and water bodies as ecologically highly endangered zones. [SCHÖNAUER S. 2007]

On the pro side we often find the government itself, which cares for gathering enough energy to

serve the demand in the country. Energy Producers do the energy harvesting and distribution to the

demanding areas, so the most of the time tend to see the positive sites over the possible

disadvantages of hydro power. “Verbund”, one of Austrias biggest distributers of hydropower sees it

as the “backbone of energy” and as an “investment into the future”. [VERBUND ÖSTERREICH. 2013a]

11

Furthermore there are construction companies and shareholders, so money is a big issue. That’s

why the economic view is dominant in most cases, although it has to be said that government and

the other stakeholders in favor of hydropower claim to pay great attention not to endanger or

damage the environment. It’s stated very clearly that waterpower needs clear guidelines, respecting

ecological issues. [KLEINWASSERKRAFT ÖSTERREICH 2008. P.2]

As the demand in energy is rising worldwide, nuclear power and thermal power is not really

accepted any more, not least because it isn't "sustainable". The sustainable forms of energy, like

solar- and hydropower get more acceptance among the people, at least in countries which are

willing to afford the higher price of sustainable energy. On the first glance it seems there is no

reason why anybody should be in opposition to hydropower, whether it is in large- or in small-scale

projects. Nevertheless there are many groups on the contra side of hydropower, especially in

Austria.

First thing that comes to mind are large scale projects, where huge dams are built up, creating huge

artificial lakes - the storage reservoirs for even bigger hydropower-plants. These huge water areas

make people, living in such areas before, homeless and the worldwide press has no merci with the

companies and governments responsible for this. But this is only one side of the game. In countries

like Germany and even more in Austria, where hydropower builds kind of a foundation of the

energy-resources available, there projects aren’t that big, but nevertheless the environmental and

ecological issues have to be considered. If no people are endangered and positive contributions to

meeting climate protection goals are made, most environmental groups and activists should be in

favor of hydropower - since it's "sustainable" - right?

But that’s most often not the case, ecological NGOs and other local environmental organizations

surely are in favor of meeting long time climate goals, but not at the cost of sacrificing local

environment and nature. One of the best quotes in the local news was: "Klimaschutz gegen

Naturschutz?", meaning that the protection and conservation in local nature falls short to the big

picture of harvesting more and more energy, while still trying to fulfill international climate

protection goals.

Environmental agencies complain about the fact that Energy providers responsible for destroying

nature don’t have to pay fees for doing so any longer. Those fees have been used to do good to the

local nature, like for example renaturating other areas in the region. Since the beginning of 2013

those fees aren’t mandatory any more, as long as the power plant helps in achieving long term

climate goals. [ORF. 2013]

The situation in the project-area

In the case of this project the Salzach-region is very similar in the other federal states of Austria.

The government and authorities have been aware of the countries power-potential, lying in the

streams and water bodies, and have used it over the last decades. Due to high energy demands those

trend isn't very likely to change. But just as in the international context, there are numerous

organizations on the other side, fighting against a further harvesting of hydro-power by building

further power plants. Their main argument against hydropower is that the preservation of untouched

river sections for further generations is much more important than getting comparatively little

power out of the small rivers in the region.

The following list of stakeholders is mainly focused on already planned hydropower projects in the

Salzach region (like for example the plant Sohlstufe Lehen), since those stakeholders will be

involved in the decision processes of further power stations too.

12

Main stakeholders in favor of new power-stations and pro hydropower

City of Salzburg & Province of Salzburg

From a logical point of view, the main interests of those local authorities has to be to getting out as

much energy as possible, at the least costs and especially whilst meeting international climate

protection goals. They basically see much potential in hydropower and although the protection of

nature and environment also is part of their responsibility, they are mainly in favor of new

hydropower projects. At the moment there are nearly 500 hydropower plants to be found in the

province of Salzburg. [LAND SALZBURG 2013]

Salzburg AG

A company seated in Salzburg City, for example responsible for the most recent plant at Sohlstufe

Lehen in Salzburg City and also operator of 28 hydropower stations in the state of Salzburg. 5 more

are already planned or currently built up. If there is another hydro-power-plant to be built, there’s a

good chance it will be operated by the Salzburg AG (or in cooperation with the “Verbund AG”). As

a stock company it’s owned by the city of Salzburg and the province of Salzburg for the most part.

[ SALZBURG AG. 2013a] [SALZBURG AG. 2013b]

Verbund AG

Austria’s biggest energy provider, who is serving about 40% of the national energy demand. It

gathers about 90% of its electricity by hydropower. Verbund is stock company and the Republic of

Austria owns 51% of it. [VERBUND ÖSTERREICH 2013b]

DOKA

A building company, who built the Plant at Sohlstufe Lehen. They could be interested in facilitating

the building of new power - plants. [DOKA. 2012]

Their biggest arguments in favor of hydropower are:

Austria has basically no fossil energy sources and even if there were any those would do

more climate damage than hydro- or solar power. Many decades the water power has served

well for Austria in harvesting energy and is sure to do so for the future.

The biggest argument is that although the power station cut the rivers and may impact nature,

they are thought of to be the best /most viable energy that Austria has to offer.

In most cases along the Salzach river, but especially at Sohlstufe Lehen Salzburg AG claims

that the riverbed needs structural reinforcement anyways.

There would have the alterative of just reinforcing the riverbed, without the power-plant, but

according to the company this would have cost more and would have had less positive effect

on the situation along the river.

13

Arguments especially for Sohlstufe Lehen

o Especially at Sohlstufe Lehen, by regulating the river, there will be less noise caused by

the river.

o At Sohlstufe Lehen the surroundings of the plants location also benefit, for example the

nearby "Glanspitz" park will be renewed

o There will be no further impact through power lines, since the will be built belowground.

They will connect the power plant t the city's energy network and to the electrical sub-

station in Hagenau.

o A big concern of opponents is, that fish are often not enabled to surpass the artificial bar-

riers build into the rivers properly. But according to the Salzburg AG this wasn't possible

at all before the building of the power station and will now be made possibly through a

small bypass-river.

[SALZBURG AG. 2013c][VERBUND ÖSTERREICH. 2012][LAND SALZBURG. 2013]

The main stakeholders against a further expansion of the hydro-power-network

In Austria and the near Bavarian regions the opponents are mostly local and national environmental

movements, ecological NGOs, as well as people living nearby the power stations. There are several

fishing clubs, wildlife clubs, canoeing clubs, animal rights movements and a whole lot of other

people, basically worried about possible damage to nature and wildlife by building new power

stations.

One of most important stakeholders against hydropower in Austria and especially along the river

Salzach would be the “Umweltdachverband”. Other organizations interested in protection of the

area are the “Plattform Lebendige Flüsse”, the "Kurratorium für Fischerei & Gewässerschutz" and

the "AG Lebensraum Salzach". All of those organizations are basically of the opinion that the price

of sacrificing nature is too high, just in order to gain a little bit more energy.

[HEINRICH BREIDENBACH. 2010][UMWELTDACHVERBAND. 2013] [LEBENDIGE FLÜSSE. 2013] [ÖKF:

2013]

Their arguments contra - hydropower are:

The basic and biggest factor is that the little energy, harvested by the small-scale power

plants, isn't worth the destruction of nature.

Their opinion of the larger - scale power plants at the river Danube is a little better, since

those are at least collecting the big part of all the hydro power.

On their websites they present the following numbers to reinforce their arguments:

14

o All the smale -scale hydro power plants deliver only 12.5% of all the hydropower

harvested in Austria, equalling only 7 % percent of the nations overall energy

consumption.

o For example ONE average larger-scale plant along the river Danube produces enough

energy to theoretically replace ALL of the smale sclae hydro powerplants in the province

Styria.

o Only 15% of all the river networks are (at least relatively) unobstructed, at least those

remaining parts of nature should be preserved

When it comes to a possible rise in energy consumption, they call attention to the studies of

"Statistik - Austria", which tend to show only very little increase in the annual energy-

consumption (at least when it comes to private households)

Another argument is that the caloric power stations can't really be replaced by hydropower,

since in times of highest energy consumption the hydro-power lacks high power outputs

(mainly due to fluctuation in the water levels)

The recommend other forms of green energy like solar- or wind power, and last but not least

saving energy in general.

[HEINRICH BREIDENBACH. 2010][UMWELTDACHVERBAND. 2013] [LEBENDIGE FLÜSSE. 2013] [ÖKF:

2013]

Interview

In order to get some details about the opinions of the opposing stakeholders an interview with

"Naturschutzbund Salzburg" was done during our pilot study (on Tuesday, 02.04.2013), which is

one of the most active groups, when it comes to hydro power along the Salzach.

Basically the Naturschutzbund has a clear opinion on hydropower: No more hydro-power-stations,

there has been enough damage to nature and rivers. They are against building any new stations,

neither near the "Natura 2000" - protected areas of the lower-part - Salzach, nor in the middle part

of the river where the new Stegenwald - project is planned. The new location doesn’t really matter,

since the plant would to damage everywhere. They argue in favor of a re-natured Salzach which

should be preserved. It doesn't matter how fancy you build, color or sell the power-plants to the

public, they cut the river and have already done too much damage to nature.

On the statement that other forms of green energy (like solar or wind power) also do damage to

nature our interview partner agreed. But he especially mentioned the potential of photovoltaic-grids

which could be optimized. Apparently there are many places to put solar panels, like industrial-

buildings-roofs and so on. He mentioned that for example in the region of Traunstein in Bavaria 26%

of all energy produced would be harvested by photovoltaic grids. In most regions of Austria under 1%

of photovoltaic input is estimated (he wasn't quite sure about the percentage in detail).

As another factor he mentioned that often the waste heat of industry and caloric -power stations

isn't used as effectively as it could be. Especially in Salzburg the district heating had huge potential.

15

We also told him that it's often stated that the Salzach riverbed needs to be supported and power

stations would come in handy there. He stated that initially the power-stations along the Salzach did

a big part to causing such problems at first. "Curing" the river by building more power stations

doesn't do any good - it'll just make problems worse in the long run.

The better solution is to re-nature the river. If anything should be done about hydropower-stations in

Austria at all, the existing ones should be optimized, for example by using more efficient turbines.

“How to merge the interests of the individual stakeholders using a SSM (Soft Systems Methodology)

- based approach?”

In order to apply the SSM – Method to the situation at the Salzach River one has to understand first

what this SSM actually means. ‘Soft systems methodology (SSM) represents an approach to

investigate a problem situation, as it is perceived to exist in the ‘‘real world.’’ [CHECKLAND P.,

Scholes J. 1990]. Since the definition via usage in the “real world” is pretty open, it finds

application in various fields. Therefor exists is no exact definition, on how the soft Systems Method

should be applied in subject, it’s really depending on the individual case.

According to Checkland the solving of a problem consists of “defining the desired state and the

present state and selecting the best solution to reduce the difference between them.” [CHECKLAND

P., 1999] The special thing about SSM is although that it isn’t focusing on finding a solution at once.

The biggest emphasis is on identifying the problem situation itself. Often this isn’t easy, since many

stakeholders tend to be involved in complex real world situations, like for example building a

hydropower plant.

In basic the method is an iterative process based on the point of views of the individual stakeholders

in a specific problem case. In a first step everyone should have the possibility of bringing in their

opinion and then discuss it with the other parties. By doing so one gets to know the point of view of

other stakeholders and the own view of the situation is affected. The ultimate goal is, so to say, to

understand the others. By combining all those variations in worldviews, it becomes clear what

everyone views as desirable, and furthermore what everyone sees as “most plausible solution” to

the problem. [HARWOOD ET AL. 2012]

Due to the adaptation of the Soft Skill Method towards usage for environmental issues, two main

directions on how to follow it exactly have been found. [CHECKLAND P., Scholes J. 1990] While

Mode 1 relies more on following the method in a sequent and methodology driven way, the second

Mode inquires for a less theory driven and strict application, taking more of the actual real life

problem situation into account. When trying to solve the conflict around the Gordleton Mill in

Hampshire, where multiple stakeholders are involved in building a new hydro turbine into an old

mill, the second mode is used to gain better insight into the situation. [HARWOOD ET AL. 2012. P

1211]

When thinking of the Situation at the Salzach River, the second mode of application seems to be the

best way of applying SSM too. When thinking of the key stakeholders in both, the pro and the

contra parties it seems to present decent solution to get to a common point. Nevertheless it has to be

considered that all stakeholders have to be willing to discuss on their point of view, otherwise the

method can’t work out its potential to the fullest. It could become a problem in the project area, if

for example, the environmental organizations aren’t willing to think of a new hydropower plant at

all, rather than giving their opinion on, for example, how it should be built to do the least damage to

nature. Given some willingness to compromise SSM surely poses a potent instrument of getting to

know the “real problem situation” and finding the best solution on location, size and other details of

a hydropower project.

16

Sediment and ecology

Planning, designing and constructing a hydropower plant are tasks which come with many factors

that have to be taken into account. Not only to satisfy the supporters, who will say that hydropower

serves clean energy which is favourable under the current global warming caused due the burning

of fossil fuels to derive energy, but also to satisfy the objectors who are against building anything in

the river because of the fragile natural environment. The supporters reply to this point that clean

energy will be good for the environment of many other rivers and ecosystems in the long term.

Another challenge of planning and designing of a hydropower plant is one that concerns the bed

load transport processes because the sediment can damage the plant if the bed load problem is not

taken into account. This especially counts for the Salzach River, because the Salzach has a

relatively turbulent flow and the water level fluctuates a lot. This is caused by the main supply of

rainwater and partly melting snow. This means that the river is eroding a lot and deposits a lot of

sediment at the moment the water level is low and the velocity low. This leads to the following sub

question:

“What actions have to be taken when minimizing the effect of the sediment on the hydropower

plant?”'

According to Dr. Strobl from the University of Salzburg, the Salzach River has too much sediment

to be taken into account in the decision-making process. There are no particular places in the river

where there is less bed load and sedimentation. The sediment is an engineering problem, not a

problem that can be solved by location planners. This brings us to another question, namely:

“How can the design of the hydropower plant minimize the damage of bed load to the structure?”

Firstly, erosion of the river banks has to be diminished. This is done by placing block ramps in the

river for stabilisation. These ramps have to cover a fluctuation of the river of approximately three

meters. These ramps however are just local measures. Other than stabilizing the bed, the block

ramps also have two universal openings which are designed for the fish and sediment to pass. The

openings also have the function to let the water out in case of flooding. The power plant consists of

two of three turbines with sluices for the bed load in between the turbines. The main priority of the

plant overall is to optimize inflow of water and minimize the bed load into the intake. Fish are being

protected from entering the turbines by a special screen.

Figure 2: Cross section through a river flow power plant looking downstream [Brinkmeier & Aufleger 2010]

17

Figure 3: View of the plant with block ramps (right) and overflowed power plant (left) [Binkmeier & Aufleger 2010]

Furthermore, in the intention to avoid bed load input, a bed load barrier is situated across the intake,

leading towards the universal opening. The crest of the barrier is 0.5 m above the river bed

upstream of it, and right above the turbine inflow. By situating the intake of a plant in the outer

bend of a river, the input of the sediment into the intake can be reduced significantly [Brinkmeier &

Aufleger 2010].

Unfortunately, not all sediment can be kept out by the barrier, especially in case of a flood event.

The solution to this is that the construction has the ability to flush the sediment out of the

construction. It can also be removed externally. To increase the effect of the flush effect and avoid

input of sediment in the turbines an additional sluice is installed replacing the middle turbine of the

innermost block.

But whatever highly technological construction there is possible with respect to sediment and fish,

it comes to the Institute to decide whether a hydropower plant is constructed or not. It all depends

on the existing protection regimes. The overall concept of the in Institutes functioning in case of

ecology is based on conversation method of the biodiversity protection. This means that if a

hydropower plant is planned in a protected area it almost automatically means that it issues the

requirements for construction, thus making further development far more problematic.

So in the case of the Salzach River if a hydropower plant is planned, it has to deal with this institute.

This means that the project managers of the plant have to find a way to construct a power plant that

has the least negative effects on the ecology. In case of the Salzach River this will derive the

following question:

“Which parts of the river are not protected and what are the solutions for the change in ecology due

to the build of a small-scale hydropower plant?”

To this first part of the question there is an easy answer which is derived from the metadata. There

are a few protected areas along the Salzach, but the river itself is excluded from this area. This

means it is possible to build everywhere in the river.

18

Figure 4: Protected areas along the Salzach

[Done in ArcGIS]

The method to deal with a problem of protective laws and regimes is by analysing the legislation to

pertain the area with respect to new forms of renewable energy. Then analyse the current state of the

river ecosystem and project the state after the plant is built. And finally, analyse the impact on the

landscape. [Crncevic & Josimovic 2012]

When the biodiversity is high, the chance that a plant will disturb or alter the ecosystem is very high

and it will be difficult to build in that area. But when, for example, the area is very sensitive to

erosion this could also be a big problem.

Furthermore, a hydropower plant will slow down the flow but this does not necessarily have to

bring the regime or the species structure in danger. It can even attract organisms which prefer

slower or calmer streams and sandy and muddy sediments. Due to the water that is stocked, even

bigger organisms can develop. But then again, sensitive or protected species have to be accounted

for. It has to be determined how vulnerable they are to those changes.

If it seems necessary to take every organism of the ecological environment into account the

following changes should be monitored and analysed: Sediments, transparency, thermal

homogeneity, organic matter content, oxygen regime, nitrification, and depositional regime. This is

because a change in one of these factors has an effect on the biodiversity and therefore on the

ecology.

Unfortunately, the ecology is not all about the organisms and the biodiversity. The landscape has to

be taken into account as well. When constructing and using a hydropower plant, the slopes could

become unstable due to trucks or the rising water level when the plant is in use. One solution is to

put retaining walls on the slopes. But that is not just all.

19

The use and build of roads, pipelines and the plant itself could also destabilize the landscape in

many ways. Landslides could occur, intensive erosion could take place, cementation of the area

which can affect the rainwater infiltration and affect the overland flow and several other land

impacts could occur due to the build or operation of the plant.

If a landscape assessment has to take place as well, it should content at least the following aspects:

an evaluation of the sensitivity of the area and analyses of everything that has to be built.

Furthermore, a multiple criteria landscape impact assessment and definition of conflict resolution

measures. These analyses must contain the following aspects: natural factors (how to minimize

negative impact on the area), stakeholder analyses, visual sensitivity and the possibility of

mitigating the impact (undo the negative impacts).

So the best solution to the ecological conflicts is to study the impacts of the construction of the

plant on landscapes in which all possibilities and limitations for carrying out projects have been

analysed as well as the methods to overcome the conflicts. So in short defining the problem and

creating solutions in which all parties are satisfied is the best way to counter and minimize

ecological problems.

In case of the Salzach River hydropower plant the best way to preserve the fish is described above

as the universal opening in the block ramp [Brinkmeier & Aufleger 2010]

20

Discharge

“How does the natural discharge and design flow of the Salzach river and its hydropower plants

develop through the Lower Salzach catchment?”

The natural discharge is the volume of water that is passing though during a certain time unit. In

this pilot study, all discharges are measured in m3/s. To approach the development of the natural

discharge of the Salzach in the study area, it has been interpolated between three points:

Werfen upstream (segment number 11)

Golling in the middle (segment number 25)

Salzburg downstream (segment number 48)

Also, the natural discharges of two tributaries of the Salzach in the study area are known, Obergaeu

and Adnet, see Figure 5.

Figure 5: Locations Measure stations

[http://www.salzburg.gv.at/wasserwirtschaft/6-64-seen/hdweb/2.3.m.html]

In order to calculate the natural discharges of the segments between the known segments, it is

necessary to interpolate, while taking in account the discharges of the two tributaries. Since there

are many small tributaries, a constant increase of discharge of the Salzach river is plausible, except

for the two bigger tributaries where the measure station Obergaeu and Adnet are located. The

segments where those two joined the Salzach, their discharges were simply added.

Figure 6: Mean natural discharge Werfen 2012/2013

[http://www.salzburg.gv.at/wasserwirtschaft/6-64-seen/hdweb/stations/204032/station.html]

21

The measure station in Werfen, segment number 11, noted a mean natural discharge of 120 m3/s, see

Figure 6. Golling showed 150 m3/s and Salzburg 190 m

3/s. Since the tributaries have a mean natural

discharge of 18 m3/s (Obergaeu, segment 23) and 8 m

3/s (Adnet, segment 34), the results in Table 1

were calculated. The yellow numbers show the locations of the measure stations, the blue numbers

the segments where the tributaries join.

In this pilot study the assumption was made the design flow depends on the width of the river. The

depth is also important, but the depth data is unavailable. Since the width of the river is proportional

to the depth, the assumption should nevertheless be valid. The design flow of all the existing and

future plants in and near the study area is known, so the unknown segments were again interpolated,

taking into account the width of the river. First, the ratios between the design flow of the plants and

the width of the river at those points were calculated. To calculate the missing design flows, the

width of the river per segment was multiplied to the average ratio of five segments above the

missing segment, and five segments below. The results are also shown in Table 1, the yellow

numbers are the known design flows.

Table 1: Characteristics of the river segments [done with ArcGIS/Microsoft Excel]

Segment number Mean Natural Discharge Design flow Segment number Mean Natural Discharge Design flow

1 111,3 186,5 28 154,2 221,3

2 112,2 149,4 29 155,6 186,8

3 113,1 198,3 30 157,0 215,5

4 113,9 202,0 31 158,4 258,6

5 114,8 135,1 32 159,8 175,0

6 115,7 163,8 33 161,2 258,6

7 116,5 194,0 34 170,4 143,7

8 117,4 146,6 35 171,8 230,0

9 118,3 166,7 36 173,2 215,5

10 119,1 200,0 37 174,6 238,5

11 120,0 179,1 38 176,0 258,6

12 120,9 92,5 39 177,4 250,0

13 121,7 210,3 40 178,8 172,4

14 122,6 253,8 41 180,2 158,1

15 123,5 163,1 42 181,6 192,5

16 124,4 170,4 43 183,0 195,4

17 125,3 163,1 44 184,4 258,6

18 126,1 203,0 45 185,8 221,3

19 127,0 102,4 46 187,2 250,0

20 127,9 66,3 47 188,6 250,0

21 128,8 45,2 48 190,0 238,5

22 129,6 180,8 49 191,4 221,3

23 148,3 168,1 50 192,8 229,9

24 149,2 215,5 51 194,2 250,0

25 150,0 273,0 52 195,6 241,4

26 151,4 229,9 53 197,0 235,6

27 152,8 227,0

22

“How does the rising water level due to the new hydropower plant and the design flow affect the

flood risk and what solutions are possible?”

The plant will be constructed in a way that it serves the area for energy and, taking into account the

amount of hydropower plants, limits the gross head. Approximately, the plant will have a gross head

of five meters, so the water level will rise by only 2.5 meters.

During the fieldtrip the top three locations were visited and appeared to be properly able to handle

such a rise, even when taking into account the variations in water level through the year (see Figure

7).

Figure 7: Possible location hydropower plant near Golling [own photograph]

During regular situations there should not occur problem concerning flood risks, but handling flood

peaks is another story. A study in 2005 [ASSANI ET AL. 2006] assessed the impact of dams on annual

maximum flow characteristics in three types of flow regimes. The regime that applied to this pilot

study is the natural type. This type is often associated with run-of-river hydropower plants.

Table 2: Changes to maximum discharges due to hydropower dams [ASSANI ET AL. 2006]

23

According to the table very little change has occurred to the maximum discharges. There is no

change in the timing, or in the magnitude. The frequency of the annual maximum discharges in

December and January were slightly increased. The coefficient of “skewness” (Pearson coefficient)

resembles the changes in the shape of the distribution curve of the rivers. For the natural type there

is a weak change, meaning the distribution gets a bit disturbed. [ASSANI ET AL. 2006]

Based on the table above, we can conclude a significant increase in flood risk is not realistic.

Massive flood peaks could however exceed the design flow and the hydropower plant could

function as an obstacle. A solution for this problem is to create gates in the hydropower plant, which

could open when there is a flood peak.

24

Optimal Location

“What is the optimal location taken into account the several factors?”

The first factor taken into account is the presence of the existing and future run of river hydropower

plants [Figure 8]. With this analysis it’s possible to decide which segments of our river are potential

locations for the new run of river hydropower plant. The minimum distance between two

hydropower plants will be two segments, because this is the smallest distance between two

hydropower plants obtained from the existing and future ones. The results of this analysis are three

parts of the river: 13 to 15 (1), 21 to 29 (2) and 42 to 44 (3). Those three parts are further analyzed

to get the optimal location for a new hydropower plant.

The second factor taken into account is the

design flow of each segment. When we sort

the remaining segments based upon the design

flow, the segments with the highest design

flow are 25, 44, and 14.

The third factor taken into account is the

political feasibility. These criteria won’t allow

it to build the new run of river hydropower

plant inside a city, because many people are

against it due the increase in flood risk. There

will be two segments remaining because of

this factor: 25 and 14.

With those two remaining segments, the fourth

factor taken into account is the shape of the

river. The shape of the river should be straight,

so speed can build up very easily. With these

criteria the optimal location will be 14 and last

will be 25.

Figure 8: Distance between power plants

[Done in ArcGIS]

The fifth factor is the highest natural discharge. This natural discharge is higher at segment 25 than

on segment 14. This means that a new hydropower plant in segment 25 will have a smaller dam to

create the same capacity as a new hydropower plant in segment 14. Because of this, segment 25 is

preferred due to the lower flood risk.

The sixth factor is the width of the river. This is important, because there should be enough space to

build the new hydropower plant with his turbines. The width at segment 25 is about 95 meters,

while the width at segment 14 is about 70 meters. So again, segment 25 is preferred.

Therefore, the optimal location for a new run of river hydropower plant will be segment 25. This

segment is about 1.3 kilometers long, so where exactly is the location of the new run of river

hydropower plant along segment 25?

1

2

3

25

The exact location of the new hydropower plant

will be just before the corner at the end of segment

25 [Figure 9]. Here it’s possible to build a new

hydropower plant and the speed of the water can

build up very easily, because the segments 23 and

24 are pretty straight. Beside this, a tributary is

joining the Salzach between segment 22 and 23. So

the discharge is increasing with 7.88 m3/s at that

point.

Figure 9: Optimal location [Done in ArcGIS]

The optimal location

26

Optimal Capacity

“What is the optimal capacity of the new run of river hydropower plant?”

To get the optimal capacity the formula that will be used is devised by BASSO, S. AND G. BOTTER

[BASSO, S. AND G. BOTTER. 2012]. The formula is as follows:

𝐸(𝑄) = 𝜌𝑔𝜂𝑝∫ 𝐻(𝑡)𝜂 (𝑞𝑤(𝑡)

𝑄) 𝑞𝑤(𝑡)𝑑𝑡

∆𝑇

0

The optimal capacity of the new run of river hydropower plant is dependent of the characteristics of

the Salzach river and some manmade characteristics. The first category will be called natural

characteristics and the second category human characteristics. The natural characteristics include

three variables and the human characteristics include four variables. The three natural

characteristics are fixed, so the only things we can change are the four human variables.

First, the natural characteristics of this formula will be explained. The ρ is the density of water. This

variable is constant along the river, namely 1000 kg/m3. The next variable is g, this is the gravity.

For this variable is 9,812 m/s2

used. The gravity is also constant along the river. The last natural

variable is qw(t). This is the natural discharge in m3/s. This natural discharge will increase if you go

downstream, because several streams are joining the Salzach along the river.

Beside this, the Salzach has gone through a bigger part of the catchment, so more water has joined

the river. This variable changes along the river, so we need to know the natural discharge on every

separate segment along the river. The numbers derived from the discharge section will be used in

the formula. Those natural characteristics can’t be changed by humans, so those variables will be

fixed in this analysis.

Second, the human characteristics of the formula will be explained. The variable ηp contains the

efficiency of the hydropower plant as a whole. This number shows how many energy is lost by the

conversion from kinetic energy to electrical energy. This value will be 66.17%. This number is

derived by VAZ, C., AND A. FERREIRA [2012], with looking at several run of river hydropower plants

and decide the bias corrected efficiency. This one is for every run of river hydropower plant

different, but it is fixed in this model as a simplification. The next human variable is H(t). This is

the hydraulic head at one moment in time. This is the difference in height between the height of the

dam on the top of the hydropower plant and the bottom of the hydropower plant just after the dam

of the hydropower plant. This variable is per existing and future hydropower plant different.

The lowest head is found at hydropower plant Gamp with a total head of 6.22 m. The highest head

is found at hydropower plant Urstein with a total head of 11.15 m. This variable will decide how

many water can be stored to put it through the turbines. The head is also dependent on the

environment of the location of the hydropower plant, because the head should be at the height,

where the risk of flooding for the environment is the lowest. This variable will be the only one

which can be changed in the model to make the capacity increase or decrease.

The third human variable is η. This is the efficiency of the turbine that is used inside the

hydropower plant. This one is derived to look at the actual annual energy production in MWh of the

existing and future hydropower plants. Then the mean of those efficiency rates is used to decide the

capacity of the new hydropower plants. This is 0.4727. This number isn’t the best number, but it’s a

good estimation according to the existing and future run of river hydropower plants. The final

human characteristic is Q. This is the design flow.

27

To get this variable for the segments without a hydropower plant the maximum plant discharge of

the segments with an hydropower plant and the width of the river are used to derive this variable.

The only variable left is T. This is the time in which the E(Q), optimal energy production, is being

produced. This variable is set to 1 second. The unit in which E(Q) is expressed is W/s. So to get the

annual production in MWh this number is multiplied with 60, 60, 24 and 365,25 and then divide by

a billion.

This model is used to get the optimal supply of the new run of river hydropower plant. This supply

is based upon how many people the new run of river hydropower plant will serve. To derive this

demand the annual energy production in MWh per person for the province Salzburg is used. This

number is available for the period from 2003 to 2010. The mean of those numbers is used to get the

yearly demand in MWh per person for the Salzburg area:

Values J by person MWh by person

2003/2004 8470000000 2,352777778

2005/2006 7980000000 2,216666667

2007/2008 8250000000 2,291666667

2009/2010 8110000000 2,252777778

Mean 8202500000 2,278472222

Table 3: Statistical values on energy consumption [Statistics Austria 2013]

This number is multiplied with the inhabitants per municipality to get the demand per municipality

for the Salzburg area. The optimal location taken into account the several factors that are explored

in the chapters above will be segment 25. This location is between Golling an der Salzach and

Kuchl. Therefore, the new run of river hydropower plant will serve the following municipalities:

Sankt Koloman, Kuchl, Scheffau and Golling an der Salzach.

Those municipalities will be served, because these lay around the location of the new run of river

hydropower plant. There are living 13874 people in this area, so the total demand per year for this

area is 31610 MWh. But with a growing population the demand per year will eventually rise. To

solve this problem, the population in 2012 is compared to the population in 2001 to get the

population change during this period. This number is multiplied with 5 to get an estimation of the

population change in about 50 years. This number is multiplied with the mean of the annual energy

production in MWh during the period from 2003 until 2010. This number is the possible rise in

energy production in MWh in about 50 years. This is about 8225 Mwh. So when we add this

number to the actual demand, the demand over 50 years is derived. This is 39835 MWh per year.

The capacity of the new run of river hydropower plant will be based upon this capacity.

When the models to decide the supply and the demand are combined, the design of the new run of

river hydropower plant could be derived. Therefore, the model to decide the optimal supply will be

fill in to get at least the possible demand over 50 years. The only variable that will be adjusted to

get this number is the gross head (H). This will be set as low as possible to minimalize the risk of

flooding in the area around the new run of river hydropower plant, but the gross head will be that

28

high that the hydropower plant still is capable to serve the four municipalities over 50 years.

So when the gross head is set to 5.5 m, the optimal capacity will be 43903,1 MWh per year:

E(Q) ρ g ηp ∆T H η qw Q Wh MWh Mwh/year

1011785,217 1000 9,812 0,6617 1 4 0,4727 150,0 273,0 3642426781 3,6 31929,5

1264731,521 1000 9,812 0,6617 1 5 0,4727 150,0 273,0 4553033476 4,6 39911,9

1391204,673 1000 9,812 0,6617 1 5,5 0,4727 150,0 273,0 5008336824 5,0 43903,1

1517677,825 1000 9,812 0,6617 1 6 0,4727 150,0 273,0 5463640171 5,5 47894,3

With this capacity the new run of river hydropower plant can serve the four municipalities at least to

2063. The new hydropower plant will have than an overcapacity about 4000 MWh per year, but this

will be used to create a buffer for fluctuations in the demand, because the model to derive the

demand has several uncertainties.

One small part of the design of the new run of river hydropower plant is now known. But to derive

the total building costs many more parts should be known. For the total building costs the article by

Ogayar et al. [OGAYAR ET AL 2009] is used. This part of the study will be done in the actual research.

29

Planning and Critical success factors

Because of the lack of time it is important to expand the study and stretch it over at least a year. The

locations of the other plants are easy to locate and account for. But the effect of the other plants per

distance unit is yet to be investigated. The location has partly been chosen based on the largest

distance between the plants, but it is not perfectly clear which effect occur when the distance is too

small.

This brings us to the next factor, the curvature of the river. The effect of a curve in the river is very

important to measure. According to Dr. Strobl the plant needs the most free flow it can get. This

free flow is influenced by many factors from which three of them are the curvature and gradient of

the river and the effect of the other plants.

The effect of the gradient in the river is also important for the efficiency of the plant. We know that

the higher the gradient, the more efficient the plant is, but we don't know yet what the exact

influence is.

Furthermore, the effect of the discharge has a big influence on the generation of energy. This is the

main factor that is the most important factor. However, this discharge varies a lot over the year. The

plant has to account for these changes along with a maximum and minimum discharge. This has to

be measured at the exact location in segment 25 for at least a year.

The width of the river is easy to determine. The wider the river the more turbines will fit and the

bigger the plant can be. This means a higher energy generation and efficiency. It’s basically just a

matter of finding the widest part and then compensating other factors.

The biggest problem with the plant is the depth of the river, since it varies as much as the discharge

does. The depth of the river has an effect on the width and sediment load of the river. The depth

variation also has to be monitored over at least a year due to the seasonal difference in precipitation

and melting.

This brings us to the next factor which is the sediment load. The sediment does basically not have

an effect on the location itself, rather does it influence the design, efficiency and costs of the plant.

The bed load changes with the width, depth, velocity and discharge variances. The Meyer-

Peter/Muller formula could be helpful to derive the bed load, but the input data has to be monitored

over a period of a year at least as well.

When it comes to the presence of protected and residential areas it’s mainly an issue of checking

which areas are allowed to build in and which ones aren’t. Since the river-zone isn’t really part of

the surrounding protection zones, it appears not to be that much of an issue. Solving conflicts with

the opposing parties around the topic could take some time since most of the environmental groups

are strictly against new power stations.

The plant will also get the water level behind the dam to rise, which will result in higher flooding

risks. A map has to be made of the projected area that will possibly be flooded during extreme

situations in order to determine possible risks and solutions.

More information has to be gathered about the costs. For instance, the efficiency is depends on

sediment load. The more bed load, the higher the costs to prevent the sediment from entering the

turbines.

30

The bypass routes for the fish will also depend on the amount of fish in the river. We will need the

growth of the fish population as well as the current stock and migration patterns. This will take at

least a year as well, because of the seasonal habits of the fish.

And last but not least the energy supply has to meet the demand, this has to be done by making a

projection of the growth of the population and demand in the area. The plant has to be able to

supply all the inhabitants of the planned area for at least 50 years, which seems to be possible just

fine. Nevertheless the loss of energy due to transport has to be calculated, which can be done by

determining the efficiency of the particular power lines.

31

Overall Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on all the factors described in the methodology of this pilot study, the best location is in

segment 25. In this segment the following characteristics are optimal:

Distance to other hydropower plants,

Gradient,

Design flow,

Political feasibility,

Natural discharge

Width of the river

The plant could be built just before the curve, because in or beyond the curve the free flow would

lose velocity, so a straight flow is preferred. The natural discharge and the design flow are, as

mentioned above, optimal at the chosen location. Thanks to the high design flow and the width of

the river, it is unlikely the flood risk will rise due to the new power plant. Also, as stated in the pilot

study, changes in the annual maximum discharges are not likely to occur.

The solution for the problem with the bed load of the river and the avoidance of the discharge

disturbance lies mainly within the design of the plant. The sediment is kept out of the plant by

placing block ramps with openings through which sediment can safely be transported downstream

of the plant. There are also sluices in between the turbine intakes for the transport of sediment past

the structure.

Luckily the river is not part of a protected area so there will not be a conflict about that. In case the

fish want to pass the plant it can also use the opening in the block ramps or a small artificial bypass

river could be built. There are good examples on how to implement such a bypass, for example in

places like Sohlstufe Lehen. Other conflicts about sensitivity of the biodiversity or certain species

can be monitored, defined and tried to solve by taking the appropriate measures. These measures

depend on the conflicts that are observed, so nothing detailed can be stated about that now.

Although the building spot isn’t in a protected area, nevertheless there could be some negotiation

with environmental organizations necessary. Pretty much every group active in the Salzach area is

very strictly against building a new power station, no matter where. But since there are international

climate goals to fulfill and there is a strong direction pro hydro power, there will be new power

stations so the main discussion really needs to be on where the fit in best in terms of environmental

protection and nature conservation.

Furthermore, the optimal capacity is approximately 43900 MWH per year at a gross head of 5,5

meters. With this capacity the plant is able to serve the population (shown in the chapter on optimal

capacity) until 2063 under the current population growth. The plant even has a capacity-surplus of

about 4000 MWH per year, which serves as a buffer for fluctuations in demand and supply.

We suggest that a team of four members should further investigate this topic, one member should

specialize in the ecology of the river environment. One should be specialized in the design of the

structure, and another on focus on the hydrological characteristics of the river. Last but not least one

person is needed, which can deal with the opposing parties, whom are in favor or against the new

power plant. Of course it would be best, if there is proper knowledge in using GIS – Systems.

32

Literature

ASSANI, A., E. STICHELBOUT, A. G. ROY AND F. PETIT [2006]: Comparison of impacts of dams on the annual

maximum flow characteristics in three regulated hydrologic regimes in Quebec (Canada). In: Hydrological

Processes, Issue 20. Page 3485 –3501.

BASSO, S. AND G. BOTTER [2012]: Streamflow variability and optimal capacity of run-of-river hydropower

plants. In: WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 48.

BOLLAERT E. F.R., P. HELLER AND A. J. SCHLEISS [2010]: Comprehensive system analysis of a multipurpose

run-of-river power plant with holistic qualitative assessment. In: International Journal of River Basin

Management, 8:3-4, Page 295-304.

BRINKMEIER B., AUFLEGER M. [2010]: Bed Load Transport Processes at River Flow Power Plants.

Hydraulic Model Test for the Lower Salzach River. In: River flow 2010. Bundesanstalt fur Wasserbau. Page

1253-1258.

CHECKLAND P., [1999]: Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley. Chichester. In: HARWOOD I. A., P. S.

KEMP, L. J. WATKIN AND IAN D. WILLIAMS [2012]: Managing Sustainable Development Conflicts: The

Impact of Stakeholders in Small-Scale Hydropower Schemes.

CHECKLAND P., Scholes J [1990]: Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley. Chichester. In: HARWOOD I. A.,

P. S. KEMP, L. J. WATKIN AND IAN D. WILLIAMS [2012]: Managing Sustainable Development Conflicts: The

Impact of Stakeholders in Small-Scale Hydropower Schemes.

CRNCEVIC T., JOSIMOVIC B.,[2012]: The development of renewable energy capacities in Serbia: Case study

of three small hydropower plants in the “Golija” biosphere reserve with special reference to the landscape

heritage. In: Journal Renewable Energy 48 2012. Elsevier. Page 537-544.

DOKA [2012]: Schwanenhälse über der Salzach: Form und Funktion in Perfektion. See:

http://www.doka.com/web/newsroom/news/Kraftwerk_Lehen.de.php?&startPageLanguage=DEINT [Found

06.04.2013]

ERNEUERBARE ENERGIE OSTERREICH [2012]: Wasserkraft. See: http://www.erneuerbare-energie.at/wasser

[Found 06.04.2013]

HARWOOD I. A., P. S. KEMP, L. J. WATKIN AND IAN D. WILLIAMS [2012]: Managing Sustainable

Development Conflicts: The Impact of Stakeholders in Small-Scale Hydropower Schemes. In:

Environmental Management (2012), Band 49, Page 1208–1223. Publisher: Springer Science+Business

Media.

HEINRICH BREIDENBACH [2010]: Untere Salzach: Neue Kraftwerke im Schutzgebiet? Politischer Anlauf aus

Bayern für baldigen Baubeginn. See: http://breidenbach-texte-denken.at/reisen/2010_sf_34.html [Found

02.04.2013]

KLEINWASSERKRAFT ÖSTERREICH [2008]: MASTERPLAN Wasserkraft. Österreich ist ein Wasserkraftland

und es gibt noch ein beachtliches ungenutztes Potential. See:

http://www.kleinwasserkraft.at/sites/default/files/masterplan_wasserkraft_2.pdf [Found: 02.04.2013]

LAND SALZBURG [2013a]: HYDRIS ONLINE Messdatenbereitstellung. See:

http://www.salzburg.gv.at/wasserwirtschaft/6-64-seen/hdweb/2.3.html [Found 04.04.2013]

LAND SALZBURG [2013b]: Wasserkraft. See:

http://www.salzburg.gv.at/themen/nuw/wasser/wassernutzung/wasserkraft.htm [Found 06.04.2013]

33

LEBENDIGE FLÜSSE [2013]: Main Page. See: http://www.lebendigefluesse.at/ [Found 04.04.2013]

NATURSCHUTZBUND ÖSTERREICH [2013]: Landesgruppe Salzburg. Personal Interview with Hannes Augustin.

[Interview done on 08.04.2013]

NATURSCHUTZBUND ÖSTERREICH [2013]:Landesgruppe Salzburg. See:

http://naturschutzbund.at/landesgruppen/salzburg/news.html [Found 02.04.2013]

OGAYAR, B., P. VIDAL AND HERNANDEZ, J. [2009]: Analysis of the cost for the refurbishment of small

hydropower plants. Renewable Energy 34, Page 2501 - 2509.

ÖKF - ÖSTERREICHISCHES KURATORIUM FÜR FISCHEREI UND GEWÄSSERSCHUTZ [2013]:

Unsere Anliegen. Gewässerschutz. See: http://www.oekf.at/unsere-anliegen/gewaesserschutz/

[Found 02.04.2013]

ORF[2013]:Kraftwerk – Kein Ersatz mehr für die Natur. See: http://salzburg.orf.at/news/stories/2574319/

[Found: 02.04.2013]

SALZBURG AG [2013a]: Unsere Kraftwerke. See: http://www.salzburg-ag.at/herkunft/anlagen/ [Found

06.04.2013]

SALZBURG AG [2013b]: Unternehmen. See: http://www.salzburg-ag.at/unternehmen/ [Found 06.04.2013]

SALZBURG AG [2013c]: Neue Projekte. See: http://www.salzburg-ag.at/herkunft/neue-projekte [Found

02.04.2013]

SALZBURG AG [2013d]: Energie für 23.000 Haushalte. Kraftwerk Sohlstufe Lehen. http://www.salzburg-

ag.at/herkunft/neue-projekte/kraftwerk-sohlstufe-lehen/[Found 02.04.2013]

SCHÖNAUER S. [2007]: Wasserkraft – eine regenerative Energie? Bund Naturschutz in Bayern ev. See:

http://www.bund-naturschutz.de/uploads/media/Wasserkraft_keine_regenerative_Energie_02.pdf [Found:

03.04.2013]

STATISTICS AUSTRIA [2013]: STATcube — Statistical Database of Statistics Austria. See:

http://statcube.at/statistik.at/ext/superweb/login.do [Found 07.04.2013]

STROBL J. [2013]: Personal interview about the effect of bed load in the Salzach river on the decision-making

process for the location determination of a hydro-power plant. [Interview done on 05.04.2013]

UMWELTDACHVERBAND [2013]: Main Page. See: http://www.umweltdachverband.at/ [Found 02.04.2013]

VAZ, C., AND A. FERREIRA [2012]: Performance assessment of hydroelectric power plants. 4th Workshop on

Efficiency and Productivity Analysis Efficiency in the Health Sector. School of Technology and

Management, Polytechnic Institute of Bragança.

VERBUND ÖSTERREICH [2012]: Mit Wasserkraft aus Österreich zum Erfolg. See:

http://www.verbund.com/cc/de/ueber-uns/strom-aus-wasserkraft/mit-wasserkraft-zum-erfolg [Found

05.04.2013]

VERBUND ÖSTERREICH [2013a]: Das schafft Strom aus Wasserkraft. See:

http://www.verbund.com/cc/de/ueber-uns/strom-aus-wasserkraft [Found: 03.04.2013]

VERBUND ÖSTERREICH [2013c]: VERBUND in Salzburg. See:

http://www.verbund.com/pp/en/region/oesterreich/salzburg. [Found 04.04.2013]

VERBUND ÖSTERREICH[2013b]: Über Uns. See: http://www.verbund.com/cc/de/ueber-uns [Found

06.04.2013]

34

WHIPPLE, K. [2004]: Surface Processes and Landscape Evolution. See:

http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Earth--Atmospheric--and-Planetary-Sciences/12-163Fall-

2004/AB399ECE-3A76-422B-B4B8-3A2E0C05D4D2/0/4_sediment_transport_edited.pdf

[Found 05.04.2013]