Water Power and Dam Construction. Issue September 2010
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
&OHDQ(QHUJ\
IRURXUIXWXUH
0DQQYLWDQG9HUNtVDUHOHDGLQJH[SHUWVLQ+\GURSRZHU
:HSURYLGHFRQVXOWLQJVHUYLFHVIRUDOODVSHFWVRI
+\GURSRZHUSURGXFWLRQDQGSRZHUGLVWULEXWLRQIURP
IHDVLELOLW\VWXGLHVWRIXOO\RSHUDWLQJSRZHUV\VWHPV
%RWKFRPSDQLHVWDNHSULGHLQFUHDWLQJDEHWWHUIXWXUH
WKURXJKWHFKQRORJ\IRUWKHHQYLURQPHQWDQGIXWXUH
JHQHUDWLRQV
0DQQYLWDQG9HUNtVKDYHRYHU\HDUVRIH[SHULHQFHDQG
DFRPELQHGZRUNIRUFHRIVSHFLDOLVWV
<RXDUHZHOFRPHWRYLVLWXVDWVWDQGQUGXULQJWKH
FRQIHUHQFH
ZZZPDQQYLWFRPZZZYHUNLVFRP
62 SEPTEMBER 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
B
UILT in 1966 the South Fork Rivanna reservoir and dam
are located in the US state of Virginia. Along with the
Sugar Hollow, and Upper and Lower Ragged Mountain
reservoirs, the facilities are operated by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority (RWSA). They supply drinking water and
treat sewage in designated areas of Albermarle County.
Water demand within the urban service area is fast approaching
the safe yield of water supplies contained within the three reservoirs.
Consequently RWSA is pursuing its Community Water Supply Plan
(CWSP) to ensure that adequate drinking water is available over the
next 50 years.
After many years of studies, consultation and public involvement,
Gannett Fleming Engineers and Vanassae Hangen Brustlin assisted
RWSA with the development of the nal plan. The essence of which
was to expand the existing Ragged Mountain reservoir to provide
a ve-fold increase in raw water storage within this system. In addi-
tion a raw water pipeline from South Fork Rivanna reservoir will
facilitate the transfer of water to the enlarged Ragged Mountain
facility. These were considered as the least environmentally damag-
ing and practicable alternatives to safeguard future water supplies.
However, in 2009 the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Stewardship
Task Force requested that RWSA undertake a study of the reservoir.
This was to assess whether options such as dredging and siltation
prevention could maintain and enhance the aquatic health and water
quality of the facility. The aim is to ensure that the reservoir remains a
long-term, valuable water resource for the benet of the community.
This is in addition to the CWSP, which left the idea of dredging open
as a benet to recreational or water quality benets for the South
fork reservoir, but did not recommend dredging as the solution to the
future water supply need.
BUILDING UP
Since it was built South Fork Rivanna reservoir has lost 22% of total
water supply volume above the water intake elevation of 112m.
Sedimentation is the root of the problem.
River ow into the reservoir is from a drainage area of approx
668km
2
. Large portions of this are forested (73%). The majority of
the remainder is agriculture, with developed areas making up almost
half of the remaining total. Soil erosion from natural events; from land
use in the agricultural area; from land disturbances in the developed
areas; and from re-suspension of ood plain deposits created during the
19th century (stream bank erosion), are the likely causes of signicant
amounts of sediment becoming trapped within the reservoir.
With the approved water supply plan, and without additional
community funds for dredging, the task force fears that the benets
of South Fork reservoir to the community will diminish. Although
Ragged Mountain will serve as the major water storage facility once
expanded, some argue that there will still be short-term storage
capacity benets that South Fork can full until completion of the
expansion in 2021. The suggestion is that a modest level of reservoir
dredging will make this possible.
DREDGING STUDIES
In October 2009 HDR Engineering was awarded a US$344,000
contract by RWSA to assess the feasibility of restoring water supply
capacity at South Fork Rivanna reservoir. Its aim is to bring capacity
as near to its original contours and water storage volume as practical,
through the removal of accumulated sediment.
Restoring the reservoir to its original levels would require removal
of approximately 1.3Mm
3
of deposited material. However dredging
the entire reservoir is not practical: it is not recommended in sensi-
tive wetlands, vegetated islands, or close to bridges or steep banks
along the shoreline. Subtracting these recommended no-dredge areas
reduces the total estimated dredging volume.
Dredging 860,000m
3
would restore all of the useable water supply
volume plus 56% of the water supply volume below the water intake
elevation of 112m in the Upper Main Stem and Ivy Creek portions
of the reservoir. Overall, a dredging volume of 860,000m
3
represents
79% of the 1Mm
3
maximum dredging target and 65% of the total
deposited material.
HDR has identied a two-part dredging approach to reach the
favourable 860,000m
3
dredging volume:
r Part I would dredge reservoir segments 1-3 (the uppermost portion
of the Upper Main Stem), dewater the sediment using mechanical
dewatering equipment, and sell or reuse the recovered materials to
off-set the cost of dredging.
r Part II would dredge reservoir segments 4–9 (the remainder of the
Upper Main Stem) and/or Ivy Creek and dewater the sediment
using three conned dike facilities. Dredged sediments removed in
Part II would remain in the conned dike facilities and there would
be no recovery of material.
The two part dredging approach could be conducted simultaneously
or in sequence, depending on available resources.
FULL OF CHARACTER
Part of HDR Engineering’s investigations also focused on a sedi-
ment characterisation study of the reservoir; determining what type
Is dredging the solution to sedimentation problems at South Fork Rivanna reservoir in
the US? The answer isn’t as clear-cut as it seems. Suzanne Pritchard reports
The dredging option
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cost ($) per cubic yard
Mid-point of cost per cubic yard
Dredging Part I
Dredging Part II
Ragged Mountain
Reservoir
Graph showing cost per cubic yard of water storage added
A subscription to one of the above titles will deliver
• A full colour magazine every month
• Regular industry e-mail newsletter
• Full acces s to online archives
• Free industry dire ctory
Subscribe online at:
or call our subscriptions hotline on:
+44 845 155 1845
email: cs@ progressivemediagroup.com
Individual focus,
Subscribe Now
to one of our
power magazines!
combined power
Global Trade Media
Progressive House 2 Maidstone Road Foots Cray Sidcup Kent DA14 5HZ, UK
WWW.MODERNPOWERSYSTEMS.COM SEPTEMBER 2010
Fuel cell technology
CCS – a new role for the
molten carbonate fuel cell
?
IGCC
From Polk to Edwardsport:
twenty years of evolution
Puertollano captures a
world first
Combined cycle
Capture ready CCGT:
what does it really mean?
Nuclear power
UAE takes the next steps,
while Koreans look to APR+
Renewables
European offshore wind:
outlook fair to good
Navigating the hazards
of offshore consenting
Putting marine energy
on trial in Scotland
Gas turbine
technology
Using membranes to filter
out compressor problems
Recips
Diesel gensets take off at
Larnaka
COMMUNICATING POWER TECHNOLOGY WORLDWIDE
ModernPowerSystems
Testing time for
tidal turbines
Exploring Power Plant Emissions
R
eduction – Technologies and
Strategies
www.arena-international.com/expperts2010
Berlin, Germany
27-28 September 2010
EXPPERTS
2010
JULY 2010
Serving the hydro industry for over 60 years
Tackling sediment at dams
Small hydro renaissance
Tackling sediment at dams
Pushing ahead
Progress reports on hydro tunnel projects
INTERNATIONAL
& DAM CONSTRUCTION
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM
JULY 2010
& DAM CONSTRUCTION
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM
Water Power
www.neimagazine.com September 2010
Stretching fuel to the limit
Competition for long-term uranium supply rises page 15
After 2020, conversion supply will not meet demand page 22
World enrichment capacity depends on four new plants page 26
Fuel vendor design data for the main reactor types page 30
How to audit fuel vendors: a guide for utilities page 41
Debris and calculation errors cause most fuel failures page 48
www.waterpowermagazine.com
www.neimagazine.com
www.modernpowersystems.com
The Power Group
64 SEPTEMBER 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
of sediment is in there, and if there are any contaminants which
could affect how the sediment is handled or reused. Ultimately
this characterisation could determine whether reservoir dredging
goes ahead or not.
Sediment is generally characterised by particle size (sand, silt, or
clay) and through chemical analyses. Sediments composed largely
of sand are generally easy to dredge and de-water. Sediment com-
posed largely of silt is easy to dredge, but can be harder to de-
water, while sediment composed of clay is generally more difcult
to dredge and dewater. Knowing what type of sediment is in the
reservoir is important in determining a feasible approach to dredg-
ing, de-watering the sediment, and identifying potential sediment
re-use options.
HDR collected ve sediment core samples from different areas of
the reservoir, from the top 1.5-1.8m of sediment. This sampling depth
represents the extent to which handheld equipment can penetrate the
sediment layers. Furthermore, this depth also provides a reasonable
representation of sediment conditions throughout the reservoir. The
ve samples were then subjected to:
Contaminant analyses – this included a toxicity characteristic leach-
ing procedure for 40 contaminants to see if these could be washed
from the sediment into the water column. Tests were also carried out
for detection of the presence of metals such as arsenic, barium, lead
and mercury. If there are elevated levels of contaminants or metals,
the sediment will require special handling.
Physical analyses – this addressed particle size, bulk density and total
nutrients in order to determine the composition of the sediment.
Settleability testing – this determines how long it takes suspended
sediment to settle out of the water column.
HDR’s report concluded that there are no ndings in the results to
preclude or inhibit dredging the reservoir. It summarised that:
r The reservoir does not contain harmful levels of contaminants
or metals.
r The reservoir sediments are a mixture of layers with varying levels
of density, from fairly compact to relatively uid. Appropriate
dredging equipment capable of effectively removing the varying
densities of the sediment should be selected. These would include
spud-based, cutterhead type dredges that can impart sufcient exca-
vation force necessary to cut into the dense material. Similarly, if
mechanical dredging is utilised, then a barge mounted excavation
system capable of imparting sufcient force to cut into the denser
material would be required.
r The sediment in the Ivy Creek area and the middle and lower reach-
es of the main body of the reservoir are largely ne grained, and
require relatively extensive time to naturally settle once in suspen-
sion in the water column.
If dredging is conducted in the Ivy Creek area and the middle and
lower reaches of the main body of the reservoir using a hydraulic
suction dredge, use of a cationic polymer is recommended to increase
settling rates and effectiveness.
Land application of the dewatered sediment could provide bene-
cial soil qualities for agricultural applications.
Other areas that HDR Engineering focused on included an assess-
ment of the potential benets of reusing dredged material from the
reservoir. Its report stated that the availability of valuable dredged
material provides the opportunity for creative partnerships to meet
both environmental and economic objectives of the community.
If dredging moves forward the sediment would be suitable for
most types of applications. Once mechanically dewatered and
processed, the dredged material could be delivered at a favourable
cost compared to retail costs for local topsoil material and sand.
Depending on the market conditions at the time, some or all of
the cost difference could potentially be used to off-set the costs of
producing the dredged material. However, HDR did point out that
although sand is the most valuable component of the dredged sedi-
ments, it may require additional drying and processing at an off-site
stockpile site to be competitive with local retail sand.
ASSESSING FEASIBILITY
In June 2010, technical reports of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
Dredging Feasibility Study were released for public consultation.
The reports outlined the two-part dredging plan at a project cost of
between US$34-40M.
RWSA re-iterated that the scope of HDR Engineering’s services
was limited to the feasibility of dredging and did not include a review
of the CWSP – which backed expansion of Ragged Mountain.
Furthermore, the water authority believes that some citizens are inac-
curately advocating that the least cost method for securing future
water supplies is the dredging option. Recognising that this would
lead to cost comparisons between the two methods, RWSA has pre-
pared gures of cost analysis (see graphs).
By comparison, the reservoir expansion at Ragged Mountain
will provide 6.5B litres of additional useable storage compared
to 865M litres from the dredging plan. When the estimated costs
of the entire two-part dredging plan are compared to Schnabel
Engineering’s recent cost estimate for a new Ragged Mountain
reservoir, the new reservoir is signicantly less on a cost per unit
of storage added.
HDR’s study included an evaluation of benecial reuse and
identied a potential revenue source from sand recovery within
sediment at the upper end of the reservoir. While dredging this
upper end would only restore 223M litres of water storage (3%
of the volume added by a new reservoir at Ragged Mountain),
potential revenues could recover a substantial amount of the cost
for dredging this small section.
“There are at least two overarching questions that different citi-
zens are asking from this study, depending on their advocacy,”
Tom Frederick, executive director of RWSA said. “One question is
‘can dredging provide our future water supply needs cheaper?’ The
second is ‘does the current market provide an opportunity for a small
dredging project to benet the South Fork reservoir as a community
resource?’ We believe the answer to the rst question is no and the
second question is yes.”
The technical reports are now up for consultation. As IWP&DC
went to press a public meeting was taking place to consider the
proposals. RWSA is reafrming that the plan to build a larger res-
ervoir at Ragged Mountain should be sustained. However it also
recommends a more thorough assessment of proposals to dredge
the upper end of the South Fork reservoir, with sand recovery. It
needs to be determined if this is a cost-effective option and a way
forward.
To keep up-to-date with project progress log onto
RWSA’s website www.rivanna.org
IWP& DC
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Useble storage added (Million gallons)
Volume of stored water added (MG)
Dredging Part I
Dredging Part II
Ragged Mountain
Reservoir
Graph showing volume of water storage added
ADVANCING
SUSTAINABLE
HYDROPOWER
14-17 June 2011 - Iguassu, Brazil
WORLD CONGRESS
water
sustainability
climate
investment
energy
WWW.HYDROPOWER.ORG
Main Congress Sponsors:
Media Partner:
Tel: +44 208 652 5290 | Fax: +44 208 643 5600 | Email: congress@hydropower.org | Web: www.hydropower.org
The IHA 2011 World Congress:
Don’t miss this opportunity to attend the hydropower
sector’s most challenging and enriching event of 2011!
Contact IHA today to register your interest in attending.
2010$08$06_IHA_Congress_Advert_1_Final.indd:::1 06/08/2010:::10:01:23
66 SEPTEMBER 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
RESEARCH
L
OOKING out to the sea on a stormy day it is impossi-
ble not to be impressed by the apparently vast amount
of energy in the waves and be overcome by the thought
that if only this energy could be harnessed it could make
a signicant contribution to the world’s energy supply. Of course,
inventors and engineers have been thinking just that for hundreds
of years, with the amount of effort in recent years increasing sig-
nicantly, initially as a response to the 1970s oil crisis and sub-
sequently in the 2000s due to climate change. As a consequence,
a large range of wave energy converters have been proposed and
continue to be developed in an attempt to harness this resource.
In the last few years this has progressed so that the rst prototype
wave energy converters, such as LIMPET, Pelamis and Oyster,
have been constructed and deployed. However, the industry
remains in its infancy.
In such a young industry there necessarily remain a large number
of areas where knowledge is limited; the wave energy resource is
one such area. Although it may seem obvious that a comprehensive
understanding and accurate measure of the wave energy resource is
required, effort has traditionally been focused on understanding the
fundamental hydrodynamics of wave energy converters and develop-
ment of novel device concepts.
The rst quantitative estimates of the wave energy resource were
made in 1974 by Professor Stephen Salter and Dr Dennis Mollison
using data collected by the Ocean Weather Ship ‘India’. This weather
ship was stationed in deep water, 700km off of the western coast
of Scotland. It was estimated that the annual average gross wave
energy density, dened as the total wave energy crossing into a circle
of one metre diameter in a year, to be approximately 800MWh;
although a subsequent analysis that removed systematic calibration
errors reduced this to approximately 700MWh/m. That is, if all this
wave energy could be converted into electricity, then there would
be enough wave energy crossing into a one metre diameter circle to
power approximately 100 homes. The Ocean Weather Ship ‘India’
was stationed at a particularly energetic site. However, many poten-
tial sites for wave farms have an annual average gross wave energy
resource of over 300MWh/m making wave energy a potentially sig-
nicant source of renewable energy.
By denition the gross wave energy resource includes all of the wave
energy. Thus, it includes all the wave energy during extreme events,
where survival is often a more pressing requirement than energy
production. It also includes wave energy incident from all directions
even though wave farm layout is likely to limit the amount of energy
available to individual devices from specic directions. However, the
average gross wave power density (simply the annual average wave
energy density divided by the number of hours in a year) continues to
be used as the standard measure of the wave energy resource. This is
exemplied by the publication of local and global maps of the wave
energy resource that continue to use this measure.
A consequence of using the average gross wave power density as
Is the nearshore a sensible place to put wave energy converters? Dr Matt Folley from
the Queen’s University of Belfast believes that it would be inappropriate to dismiss
nearshore technologies, based solely on information about the gross wave energy
resource. He explains how research into the exploitable wave energy resource will level
the playing eld for wave energy converters
Near or far?
WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM SEPTEMBER 2010 67
RESEARCH
the measure of the wave energy resource is that the nearshore wave
energy resource appears much smaller than the offshore wave energy
resource. This is often cited as the reason that wave energy convert-
ers should be located offshore in deep water and possibly why the
vast majority of wave energy converters conceived are designed for
deep water.
The Marine Energy Research Group at Queen’s University Belfast
(QUB) has been involved in the research and development of wave
energy technologies since the 1970s. The group’s focus has princi-
pally been on shoreline and nearshore technologies. This includes
the development with Wavegen of the LIMPET shoreline oscillating
water column and more recently the development of Oyster with
Aquamarine Power. Although both technologies have been proven
to be technically successful it became clear that the historical deni-
tion of the wave energy resource was limiting the perceived poten-
tial of the technologies. Consequently, in 2008 the research group at
QUB endeavoured to dene a measure of the wave energy resource
more appropriate for the analysis of all wave energy converters. They
termed this measure the exploitable wave energy resource.
EXPLOITABLE WAVE ENERGY RESOURCE
The exploitable wave energy resource is designed to discount the con-
tributions from the highly energetic sea-states and to account for the
directional distribution of the wave climate. This would provide a
more appropriate measure of the wave energy resource. To achieve
this, the exploitable wave energy resource is calculated by constrain-
ing the gross wave power density in two ways.
The rst constraint is to only include the wave energy that crosses a
straight line orthogonal to the predominant direction of wave propa-
gation (this is sometimes called the net wave power density). Wave
energy takes many hundreds of kilometres of open water to develop
and any wave energy converter placed in the lee of another wave
energy converter will experience a reduced wave energy resource.
Thus, to maximise the power output of a wave farm, the wave energy
converters will logically be strung-out in a line orthogonal to the pre-
dominant direction of wave propagation. In this arrangement it is the
wave energy that crosses the line of the wave farm that is the resource
that can be effectively exploited.
The second constraint is that the maximum wave power density
that can be exploited is capped as a multiple of the average wave
power density. This constraint accounts for the maximum output
of the wave energy converter’s power take-off system and electri-
cal generator. For economic reasons this is typically equal to three
or four times the average power output, resulting in a load factor
similar to wind turbines. Technically, the appropriate limit to apply
to the wave power density depends on the relationship of the system
efciency with incident wave power and thus the particular technol-
ogy. However, a cap of four-times the average wave power density is
considered a reasonable approximation.
Having dened a more appropriate measure of the wave energy
resource, the Marine Energy Research Group at QUB investigated
the change in this resource as it approaches the shore. The investiga-
tions were performed using the third-generation spectral wave model
SWAN. SWAN models the propagation of the wave spectral energy
density in time and space. In addition, it also models the modication
of the wave spectral energy density due to wind growth, refraction,
shoaling, bottom friction, whitecapping and surf breaking, together
with changes to the spectral shape due to the internal hydrodynamics
of the waves. These models are the industry-standard for modelling
wave climates and sea-state transformations.
FURTHER INVESTIGATION
Initial investigations focused on idealised test cases so that the
effect of each loss mechanism could be isolated. These investi-
gations showed that in typical sea-states refraction is the princi-
pal cause of the reduction in the gross wave power density from
offshore to nearshore. In addition, in water with a depth of less
than two to three times the signicant wave height, surf breaking
also becomes a signicant loss mechanism. However, few wave
energy converters are proposed to be deployed in such shallow
water. Bottom friction, which is often quoted as being the main
loss mechanism, was found to typically account for less than a
10% reduction in wave power density.
Further investigations used wave hindcast data 20km off of the
coast of West Orkney, Scotland. At this site the bathymetry was
approximated as a 1:100 slope. These investigations showed that
to the 10m depth contour the annual average gross wave energy
resource decreased by 30%, whilst the annual average exploitable
wave energy resource decreased by only 13%. A similar study off of
the coast of South Uist, Scotland, where there is a 1:400 seabed slope,
showed a decrease of 44% in the annual average gross wave energy
resource, but only a 23% decrease in the annual average exploitable
wave energy resource.
Finally, investigations were also performed using nine years of
wind/wave hindcast and bathymetry data for the Wave Energy
Converter Test Site at the European Marine Energy Centre located in
the Orkney Islands, Scotland. This analysis showed that there is less
than a 10% difference between the exploitable wave energy resource
at the ‘deep water’ test berth (located in 50m water depth) and the
nearshore test berth (located in 10m water depth).
All these investigations show that the difference between the gross
and exploitable wave energy resources is smaller nearshore than it
is offshore. The seabed to the nearshore can be considered as acting
as a lter that keeps only the exploitable waves. That is, the seabed
refracts the incident waves so that they come from a more concen-
trated direction and also causes the largest waves to break limiting
their power density and destructiveness. Viewed from this perspective
the nearshore appears much more inviting.
INAPPROPRIATE PERCEPTIONS
The conclusion from these investigations is that whilst the wave
energy resource is smaller nearshore compared to offshore, the dif-
ference is much less signicant than use of the gross wave energy
resource suggests. The difference is sufciently small to suggest that
nearshore wave energy converters cannot be dismissed based solely
on the available resource; other factors that determine the cost of
energy become relatively more signicant.
The different environments in the nearshore and offshore means
that in general the technologies developed are distinct. For example,
Pelamis requires a minimum of about 50m water depth for deploy-
ment because the moorings must have sufcient compliance to mini-
mise loads during storms; it could not be deployed in the nearshore.
Indeed, nearshore wave energy converters can be cheaper or have a
better performance than their offshore counterparts. For example,
wave energy converters that react against the seabed are generally
cheaper in shallower water due to a reduction in load-path lengths. In
addition, wave energy converters that exploit the surge motion of the
waves generally have a better performance in the nearshore as depth-
induced shoaling increases the waves’ surge amplitudes. Electrical
cable lengths and other shore connectors will also be shorter when
the wave energy converters are closer to the shoreline reducing both
costs and failure rates.
The economics of wave energy converters remains to be proven.
However, the investigations have shown that it would be inappropri-
ate to dismiss nearshore technologies based solely on information
about the gross wave energy resource. A new, more suitable, measure
for comparing sites for wave energy converters has been identied and
this has been termed the exploitable wave energy resource. This has
levelled the “playing eld” so that the most promising technologies
are developed without being hampered by inappropriate perceptions
of the wave energy resource.
Dr Matt Folley, Senior Research Fellow, Marine Energy
Research Group, School of Planning, Architecture and Civil
Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland
Email: m.folley@qub.ac.uk
IWP& DC
68 SEPTEMBER 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
CONFERENCE PREVIEW
F
ROM 25-27 2010, the Trade Fair Center Salzburg will be
lled with hydropower companies covering the complete
range of the supply chain. After a successful premiere last
year, the “Hydro Power Street” will return and offer an
excellent forum for exchanging information and presenting the
potential applications of hydropower.
Companies such as Ritz-Atro GmbH, Spaans Babcock bv, Danner
Maschinenbau GmbH, Hamann Turbinen GmbH & Co. KG Austria,
Elektro Bischofer Ges.m.b.H. + Co. KG, Duktus Tiroler Rohrsysteme
GmbH, Lukas Anlagenbau GmbH, Walter Schuhmann Mühlen- und
Maschinenbau GmbH, Herkules Aquatec GmbH as well as Forbo
Siegling Austria GmbH, to name a few, will be presenting themselves
at the international trade fair and conference, with European hydro
associations present with a special a collaborative exhibition stand.
This year’s trade fair will also feature the new “International
Brokerage Event” which will allow business contacts and new syner-
gies to be created in a fast and effective way. As at last year’s trade
fair, the exhibitors’ forum will again feature free and informative
presentations from exhibitors only.
The premiere of last year’s small hydropower conference was suc-
cessful with all 100 available spots booked in advance. At this year’s
event, REECO Austria GmbH and the European Small Hydropower
Association (ESHA) are presenting the 2nd International Small
Hydropower Conference for 200 participants.
Papers to be presented at the event include:
r River hydropower projects along Salzach River by Prof. Dr. Markus
Aueger, University of Innsbruck
r Planning and implementation of a different kind of small hydro-
power facility on the upper River Danube by Dr. Stephan Heimerl,
Fichtner GmbH & Co. KG
r Optimization of water inow at hydropower plants by Prof. Dr.
Gerald Zenz, Technical University of Graz
r Reduction of sediment deposits in the tailwater of hydropower
plants by Dr. Josef Schneider, Technical University o Graz
r Post graduate course in sustainable hydropower - 1st phase by
Martin Scharsching, EVH AG
r The Austrian National Water Development Plan (NGP) and the
new regulation concerning Ecological Quality Goals by Dr. Charlie
Panek, ARGE Ökologie OG
r Hydrokinetic turbines without banked-up water level by Dr. Albert
Ruprecht, University of Stuttgart IEH
r Screw turbines under examination by Alois Lashofer, Irina Kampl,
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna
r The hydropower potential of existing lateral barriers in Austria by
Werner Hawle, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences, Vienna
r Use of multidimensional discharge and sediment transport models
in planning hydropower facilities by Dr. Peter Mayr, MAYR &
SATTLER OEG
r Revitalization of the weir at hydropower plant Kleinmünchen
– Traunwehr by Alfred Mayr, Braun Maschinenfabrik GmbH
& Co. KG
In addition on the rst day of the event (25 November 2010), after
the ofcial opening ceremony, hydropower in Austria will be put
in the spotlight. Companies such as Forbo Siegling Austria GmbH
and KLAWA Anlagenbau GmbH, will present their products and
projects.
Network partners for the event include Kleinwasserkraft Österreich,
Bundesverband Deutscher Wasserkraftwerke e.V., Landesverband
Bayerischer Wasserkraftwerke eG, Interessenverband Schweizerischer
Kleinkraftwerks Besitzer, Schweizerischer Wasserwirtschaftsverband
and the International Centre for Hydropower.
Further information on the trade fair, the conferences and
the accompanying programme is available on:
www.renexpo-austria.com.
IWP&DC provides a preview to the RENEXPO Austria trade fair,
to be held 25-27 November in Salzburg, Austria
Fair game in Austria
The exhibition hall at the 2009 event
IWP& DC
7:70U]LZTLU[Z3[KOLYLI`PU]P[LZPU[LYLZ[LKWHY[PLZ[VYLZWVUK
[V[OPZ9LX\LZ[MVY0UMVYTH[PVU¸9-0¹YLNHYKPUNHWYVWVZLKM\
[\YL[LUKLY[VI\PSK[^V7\TWLK:[VYHNL7V^LY7SHU[Z;OPZ9-0
ZLLRZ[VPKLU[PM`X\HSPÄLKJVU[YHJ[VYZZWLJPHSPaPUNPUJVUZ[Y\J[PVU
VM\UKLYNYV\UK7\TWLK :[VYHNL7V^LY 7SHU[Z HUK JVSSLJ[ [OL
PUK\Z[Y`»ZWLYZWLJ[P]LHUKMLLKIHJRVU[OL7YVQLJ[;OLPU[LUKLK
JVUZ[Y\J[PVUZJVWLVM^VYR^PSSPUJS\KL;\UULSPUN=LY[PJHS:OHM[
,_JH]H[PVU VM 7V^LY /V\ZL *H]LYU *VUJYL[L Z[Y\J[\YLZ HUK
,SLJ[YV4LJOHUPJHSLX\PWTLU[PUZ[HSSH[PVU
*VU[YHJ[VYZ PU[LYLZ[LK PU YLWS`PUN ^PSS IL YLX\LZ[LK [V ÄSS 9-0
KVJ\TLU[Z7SLHZLJVU[HJ[4Y9VULS3H\YLU[PUVYKLY[VYLJLP]L
[OL9-0+VJ\TLU[Z!YVULS'HK`YJVPS
+LHKSPULMVYZ\ITPZZPVU¶+LJLTILY
9-0
76)V_6TLY0UK\Z[YPHS7HYR
)\PSKPUN¶6TLY0ZYHLS
;LS -H_
;OL*VUZ[Y\J[PVUVM;^V7\TWLK:[VYHNL7SHU[Z
H[.PSIVHHUK4HUHYH
4>4>YLZWLJ[P]LS`0ZYHLS
psp.indd 1 9/9/10 15:14:08
PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY
70 SEPTEMBER 2010 INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION
CLASSIFIED
www.waterpowermagazine.com
MORE THAN 100 YEARS OF HYDROPOWER ENGINEERING
AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE
260 Dams and 60 Hydropower Plants (15,000 MW)
built in 70 countries
Water resources and hydroelectric development
•Public and private developers
•BOT and EPC projects
•New projects, upgrading and rehabilitation
•Sustainable development
with water transfer, hydropower, pumping stations
and dams.
COYNE ET BELLIER
9, allée des Barbanniers
92632 GENNEVILLIERS CEDEX - FRANCE
Tel : +33 1 41 85 0 3 69
Fax: +33 1 41 85 03 74
e.mail: commercial@coyne-et-bellier.fr
website: www.coyne-et-bellier.fr
COYNE ET BELLIER
Bureau d’Ingénieurs Conseils
www.coyne-et-bellier.fr
Over 40 years experience in Dams.
CFRD Specialist Design and Construction
●
Dam Safety Inspection
●
Construction Supervision
●
Instrumentation
●
RCC Dam Inspection
●
Panel Expert Works
Av. Giovanni Gronchi, 5445 sala 172,
Sao Paulo – Brazil
ZIP Code – 05724-003
Phone: +55-11-3744.8951
Fax: +55-11-3743.4256
Email: bayardo.materon@terra.com.br
ba_mater@yahoo.com.br
Lahmeyer International GmbH
Friedberger Strasse 173 · D-61118 Bad Vilbel, Germany
Tel.: +49 (6101) 55-1164 · Fax: +49 (6101) 55-1715
E-Mail: bernd.metzger@lahmeyer.de · http://www.lahmeyer.de
Your Partner for
Water Resources and
Hydroelectric Development
All Services for Complete Solutions
• from concept to completion and operation
• from projects to complex systems
• from local to multinational schemes
• for public and private developers
• hydropower
transmission and high
voltage systems
power economics
power management
consulting
www.norconsult.com
Multidisciplinary consultancy
services through all project cycles
dams and waterways
turbines/pumps and
generators
water resources
environmental and
social safeguards
AF-Colenco Ltd
Täfernstrasse 26 • CH-5405 Baden/Switzerland
Phone +41 (0)56 483 12 12 • Fax +41 (0)56 483 17 99
colenco-info@afconsult.com • http://www.af-colenco.com
Consulting / Engineering and EPC Services for:
• Hydropower Plants
• Dams and Reservoirs
• Hydraulic Structures
• Hydraulic Steel Structures
• Geotechnics and Foundations
• Electrical / Mechanical Equipment
Construction and
refurbishment of small
and medium hydro
power plants.
.
t
u
r
n
k
e
y
/
E
P
C p
l
a
n
t
s
.
d
e
s
i
g
n
&
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
.
t
u
r
b
i
n
e
s
.
f
eas
i
bi
l
i
ty
s
t
udi
e
s
.
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
financ
i
ng
www.hydropol.cz
# (47) 67 53 15 06 in Norway
# (55) 11 3722 0889 in Brazil
E-mail: nickrbarton@hotmail.com
Website: http//www.qtbm.com
3
3
5
5
y
y
e
e
a
a
r
r
s
s
e
e
x
x
p
p
e
e
r
r
i
i
e
e
n
n
c
c
e
e
f
f
r
r
o
o
m
m
m
m
o
o
r
r
e
e
t
t
h
h
a
a
n
n
3
3
0
0
c
c
o
o
u
u
n
n
t
t
r
r
i
i
e
e
s
s