Hexham River Hydro

Hi Sal Leaper Thank you for the points you have raised. These are some of the large number of different aspects of the project which we have been actively considering for a long time now. The detailed design study is currently being finalised and we hope to be in a position to publish a great deal of information once it is final. Please look out for future developments on our web site.

Sal-leaper, thanks for posting that video on the river in Germany. Certainly a good example of an over-industrialised river with too many (30+) dams with hydro plants.

The level of greed and mismanagement displayed in the film was astonishing but sadly not unexpected once "big business" gets involved.

It's also true that small hydro projects can never be more than a small part of the solution nationally as small rivers simply cannot generate the required quantity of energy or do so reliably (in times of low rainfall).

It was noted in the film that one issue was that many of the dams and power plants were very old and were built without subsequent understanding of the impact of their designs. The situation can be improved by re-modelling those stations or decommissioning some of them (as the river is over-used).

Power plants are not the only source of trouble there. The programme did not say how much more the river had been depleted over the last 30 years by town water and farming consumption. This has increased everywhere dramatically as populations grow with greater issues for river wildlife, as abstraction removes water from the river whereas hydro power does not.

The programme did say that only large scale hydro should be considered for development as they are easier to manage, plan and impact assess for a greater energy return than many small projects.

Given the likely opposition to any large scale hydro project in the UK, it's hard to see much future application for in-land river hydro power here. It would mean flooding whole valleys on major rivers in at least semi-mountainous regions capable of generating meaningful quantities of reliable all year energy.

That may be the stark truth. In the same way that other historically promising sources of energy such as coal, oil, gas and nuclear have come to be unacceptable, river hydro power may prove to be a dead-end or of only limited use in the total solution in the UK.

Thank you Catriona, I will have a thorough look at the accounts.

In fact, being from a local economic development background I am fascinated by the financial side of this project, right from its inception through to funding for construction and installation should the turbine gain planning approval, and how it will eventually contribute to the local economy in the Hexham area. My understanding is that it may cost in excess of £1.5 million to build and I wondered how you were aiming to raise and repay that amount?

The economic value of the River Tyne's status and reputation as England's premier salmon river is now very significant and continues to grow year on year. That reputation has been hard earned over more than 30 years. Hence, I was wondering why the decision was taken to install a turbine at probably the most environmentally sensitive location on the entire river system, particularly as alternative sites were suggested during early stage discussions with local groups? And from a financial point of view how will you mitigate against potential local economic risks?

Hi Sal Leaper
Yes – I’m absolutely sure. The Community Partnership is very energetic and enjoys many funding successes. If you wish, have a look at the company accounts on Companies House website which provides reliable information https://www.duedil.com/company/05987601/hexham-community-partnership

Are you sure Catriona? - The following link suggests otherwise.

http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/news/news-at-a-glance/doubt-over-funding-for-partnership-1.894851?referrerPath=home

The suggestion that “Hexham Community Partnership was facing probable closure a year ago due to funding issues and that the award of the Energyshare funding prevented their demise” is simply untrue. The financial position of the Partnership was and remains healthy and the Energyshare funding was ring-fenced solely for the purposes of the hydro project

Artisan - I am merely an individual with a particular opinion on this project and it is not up to me or any other individual for that matter to identify how the impact of the turbine on fish stocks will be monitored - that is the entirely a task for HRH which they will need to explain in their bid to gain planning approval and a licence to install the turbine.

One would assume that HRH have budgeted some of the £100,000 secured from EnergyShare to commission an environmental impact assessment - after all there was sufficient funding available to undertake this work, which was an obvious early stage objective for such a sensitive environmental project.

Thank you for also confirming the true beneficiary of this Hydro scheme - which is not the environment, nor the residents of Hexham or the River Tyne - but Hexham Community Partnership itself.

It had been widely reported in Hexham that HCP was facing probable closure a year ago due to funding issues and that the award of this EnergyShare funding prevented their demise. Your comment about commending HCP for using revenue from the project to become 'self funding' relates to an organisation that many would describe as 'self preserving', despite some of their other respectable work in the community.

However, a question has to be asked as to how much of the £100k funding has been spent directly on assessing the economic viability along with the environmental impact of this project. It is a worrying thought that the lion's share of the funding may have been spent on the design of the turbine, in which case there may well be 'beneficiaries' of the fund who will be blowing the finest Havana cigar smoke in celebration.

With regard to your comment about other local interest groups not being consulted it is not my place to speak on other groups' behalf, as this will naturally unravel as this project goes through its due process. There have been many objections and concerns since the project's inception not just from groups local to Hexham but from the length and breadth of the river, and publicly aired at meetings and in the local press. HRH know what and who they are, although from their response to angling groups concerns to date it is debatable that they truly grasp all of the issues.

I'm particularly intrigued by your comment about an environmental biologist telling you that salmon leaping over the wier is a sign of distress and leads to fewer of them spawning. I must admit that I almost wet my pants laughing when I read that particular nugget of scientific drivel. Are you sure this biologist wasn't mistaking the salmon for Freddy the Dolphin of Amble Harbour fame from a few years ago, when another nature expert was certain the dolphin was in distress and swam up to provide a 'helping hand'?

I can assure you that the biggest concern of opponents of the turbine is HRH's failure to explain how the turbine's design and its location on the wier will not provide an additional impediment to fish migration, despite the inclusion of a new fish pass. It is not only the construction of a 50m wide concrete wall below the wier that is of concern but how the flow of water through the turbine and the fish pass together, particularly at varying water levels, will affect passage of fish.

With regard to the other environmental issues that require consideration, rather than get bogged down in individual points about fish stocks and impediments to migration, if anyone has a genuine interest in the matter the following video 'The End of the River' looks into the damaging impact of Hydro projects on various other rivers around Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cKFdsS7lVw

Here is a study regarding fish passage through an Archimedian Screw turbine:

http://www.slideshare.net/craigyoungw/archimedean-screwfishpassagetestresultsphase1

Bear in mind that there will be a fish passage installed as part of the scheme in order to aid in safe fish passage and upstream migration.

In response to Sal-leaper's comments, I'm sure no one wants to see the environment around Hexham weir damaged. But we do need to keep a sense of proportion here. All forms of power generation have some negative impacts on the environment. Unless we're going to do without electric power altogether, we need to strike a balance between benefits and drawbacks. And you have to include the wider benefits to the community in the equation.

While Sal-leaper is technically right when he says that the development will power only 150 homes, this is only part of the story. One of the main reasons why I personally support the Hexham River Hydro project is that the revenue from the project will support the work of Hexham Community Partnership. HCP does an enormous amount for the people of Hexham, from the Christmas market and Forum cinema to the Hexham East regeneration project, which brings support to some of the town's most disadvantaged inhabitants. I think HCP should be commended for trying to become self-funding rather than relying on government grants.

I find it hard to understand what justification Sal-leaper has for many of his comments. If it is truly "not the case" that all environmental issues have been considered, could he please list the ones that he thinks have been ignored? Similarly, could he list the local interest groups he thinks haven't been consulted? I'm sure the team running HRH would like to know.

And I frankly don't understand his comments about the sill on the south side of the weir. Yes, I've watched salmon leap there too (most of the ones I’ve seen didn't seem to make it over the sill). I've also been told by an environmental biologist that even though it's a wonderful sight, it's a sure sign of distress in the fish, and almost certainly leads to fewer of them spawning. Sal-leaper seems to be suggesting that we PRESERVE this hazard to navigation, rather than replace it with the proposed turbine and fish pass (which would seem to me to make it easier for fish to get to their breeding grounds upstream). This doesn't make sense to me.

Demands for compensation to replace fish stocks sound fine in principle – but raise all sorts of difficulties in practice. Just look at the annual totals for upstream fish counts at Riding Mill over the 10 years to 2011:

2002 18886
2003 44063
2004 48668
2005 32918
2006 41308
2007 30871
2008 29326
2009 22731
2010 45602
2011 35975

I know these don't tell the whole story, but the variation between consecutive years is pretty striking. If the turbine had been constructed in 2006, it would have been blamed for the decline in fish counts over the next four years, even if it had had absolutely no effect on fish passage. Conversely, if it had been installed in 2002, it would have been hailed as a massive boost to fish numbers. So, Sal-leaper, how do you propose to measure the effect of the hydro project on fish stocks?

Perhaps it is worth pointing out that despite Hexham River Hydro's (HRH) various assertions that all environmental issues have been considered during the consultation and design phase of the project, this is not the case and they have failed to address many concerns from environmental groups such as anglers.

Similarly they did not consult with all local interest groups in order to identify any concerns or objections at the outset of the project when they were in the running to win Energy Share funding last year.

The main issue is that the proposed turbine site at Hexham wier is a unique and constantly changing barrier to both upstream and downstream fish migration and heavily affected by daily and seasonal conditions such as water temperature, water height and flow, and the topography of the river bed.

Currently in moderate to high water flows salmon and migratory trout tend to ascend the wier via the cill on the southern section (the Hexham side ) of the wier. The existing fish pass in the centre of the wier has been in need of replacement for some time, in particular to allow fish to ascend during lower water levels, and the Tyne Rivers Trust have plans to construct a new fish pass.

The problem is that HRH are proposing to install their turbine on the southern section of the wier where fish ascend, and a large section of this passable area of the wier will be replaced by the turbine which will include a 50m long and 2m high concrete wall. The installation will also apparently include a new fish pass.

HRH have not provided an assessment of the potential impact - whether detrimental or not - that this installation will have on the passage of fish, and on consequent spawning. It is also worth pointing out that over 90% of Tyne salmon spawn in the gravel beds of the river and its tributaries which are located upstream of Hexham wier.

Local angling groups such as HAA are not, per se, against the project, they have simply asked HRH to carry out a full environmental impact assessment before planning permission is applied for, so that a complete picture can be used to make a decision. They and other angling groups are also asking for an indemnity to be in place to ensure the turbine can be decommissioned in the case of any consequent disturbance or detriment to fish migration and fish stocks. An indemnity should also be in place to cover the cost of replacement of lost fish stocks. HRH have given no indication that they will comply with any of this.

Personally, from a pragmatic and economic point of view, my observation is that this project is being championed by a group of climate-change evangelistists, some of whom are not residents of Hexham, and who are far outnumbered by the many thousand anglers and wildlife enthusiasts who enjoy the benefits of the unique eco-system present in the River Tyne. The benefits to the local tourism and riparian economy also far outweigh the benefits of generating neglible levels of hydro-power that will only provide electricity for the equivalent of 150 homes.

To even contemplate risking damage to the Tyne's eco-system would not just be reckless it would be criminal.