Ashford Bobbin Mill

Hydropower Feasibility
Study

Sam Townsend 941425

REBE Module 3 – Hydropower
Tutor Group – Arthur Butler

January 4th 2009

Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 3
2 Site Overview ............................................................................................... 4
3 Resource Analysis ........................................................................................ 5
3.1 Flow Measurements ............................................................................... 5
3.2 Head Measurements .............................................................................. 8
3.3 Grid Connection ..................................................................................... 9
4 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Site Options .......................................................................................... 10
4.2 Power Output and Energy Capture ...................................................... 11
4.3 Revenue ............................................................................................... 12
4.4 Turbine Options .................................................................................... 13
4.5 Summary .............................................................................................. 15
5 Next Steps .................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A .................................................................................................... 16
Appendix B .................................................................................................... 17
Appendix C .................................................................................................... 18
Appendix D .................................................................................................... 19
Appendix E .................................................................................................... 20
References .................................................................................................... 21

Page 2 of 21
1 Introduction
Electricity generation is the single largest emitter of CO2 in the UK responsible for 1/3
of the total CO2 emitted by all sectors in 2008 (DECC, 2009a).

However hydro electricity generation is zero carbon emitting and as such clearly has
an environmental advantage. Hydro power was once perhaps the principal form of
power supply for the UK’s industrial sector. In the Peak District it was used to provide
kinetic energy to power the many large cotton mills. The same dormant infrastructure
could now be re-incarnated to supply electrical energy to the grid. If existing
infrastructure is re-used, it has a very low embodied energy and barring drought, it is
a reliable source. Economically, the capital cost of re-using existing infrastructure is
low and schemes less than 100kW qualify for grants from the low carbon buildings
program (DECC, 2009b). Socially, it’s a clean and acceptable technology and on a
small scale, visually unobtrusive. Hydro power is an age old proven and reliable
technology that can remain in active service for decades providing a regular income
long after capital investment payback has been achieved.

The aim of this report is investigate the potential for generating electricity using hydro
power at the site of Ashford Bobbin Mill on the river Wye, Derbyshire.

Page 3 of 21
2 Site Overview

Ashford Bobbin Mill is situated on the southern bank of the river Wye just north of
Ashford on the Water. It was built in the 1870’s as a saw and wood turning mill
providing bobbins to the cotton industry (Bunting, 2006).

A site survey was undertaken on 31st November 2009. The mill compromises a weir
across the Wye; a relatively large approach canal, currently blocked at the weir by a
temporary coffer dam; one small cast iron, breast shot waterwheel which discharges
directly into the river; two larger cast iron, breast shot wheels, mounted on each end
of the mill building; a tailrace comprising a dry stone arched culvert that is in relatively
good condition with no blockages. All the wheels and sluice mechanisms are in poor
condition with heavy corrosion. The culvert issues back into the Wye approximately
200m downstream.

The two mill buildings and large wheels are Grade 2 listed buildings, See Appendix A.

See Figure 1 for a map of the site.

Figure 1 : Ashford Bobbin Mill (1:2500) (Ordnance Survey, 2009a)

Page 4 of 21
3 Resource Analysis
3.1 Flow Measurements

An Environment Agency gauging station is situated 30m downstream of the mill.

Summary data can be accessed directly from their website. Data has been recorded
from 1965 to 2006 although the weir was decommissioned in 1977 and re-
commissioned in 1994. (Environment Agency, 2009a)

Due to the potential anomalies in the EA data attributed to the weir closure, the
HydrA hydraulic modelling program from the Institute of Hydrology was also
employed to provide an estimate of flow at the site. In order to establish the
catchment area, the map provided by the EA website (Environment Agency, 2009b)
was traced onto a Google terrain map.

Figure 2 – Catchment of the EA gauge at Ashford Bobbin Mill

It was noticed that the catchment diagram provided by the EA covers areas where
the drainage is known not to supply the Wye and conversely does not cover areas
known to supply the Wye upstream of the gauge (see Figure 2). The red shaded area
covers an area where, due to underground drainage, the water supplies the Derwent
via Castleton or Bradwell (Ford, 1977). The blue area covers an approximate
catchment for the Magpie Mine Sough, a mine drainage level that discharges into the
Wye 100m upstream of the mill, which is not included in the EA map. It’s clear that

Page 5 of 21
the EA catchment has been derived purely from surface watershed, with no regard
for underground drainage.

To plot the catchment within HydrA, OS grid references describing the included area
are input manually. An approximate catchment area was derived by tracing the EA
catchment, excluding the area known not to feed the Wye, and including the area
that does. By taking a bisecting route along the more detailed outline, any error
should average out along its length. See Figure 3 for the catchment used and
Appendix B for the OS co-ordinates used.

Figure 3 – Catchment (in blue) used for HydrA model.

The EA flow figures are given in Table 1, and a Flow Duration Curve is depicted in
Figure 4.

Catchment area 154 km2

Average annual rainfall 1166 mm
Qmean Average Flow 3.24 m /s
3

Q95 Flow exceeded 95% of the time 0.979 m /s

3

Q10 Flow exceeded 10% of the time 6.116 m /s

3

Table 1 : Data provided by EA for gauging station at Ashford

Page 6 of 21
Figure 4 – Flow Duration Curve provided by EA for gauging station at Ashford
(Environment Agency, 2009a)

The results given by HydrA are summarised in Table 2 and a flow duration curve
depicted in Figure 5.

Catchment Area 135.62 km2

Average annual rainfall 1212 mm
Qmean Average flow 3.4 m /s
3

Q95 Flow exceeded 95% of the time 0.8 m3/s

Q50 Flow exceeded 50% of the time 2.37 m /s
3

Q10 Flow exceeded 10% of the time 6.19 m /s

3

Table 2 : Flow data provided by Hydra for gauging station at Ashford

It can be seen that the results are comparable. HydrA is using a larger annual rainfall,
which may cancel out the smaller catchment area used. The HydrA mean flow is
greater than the EA, which is probably attributed to the higher annual rainfall used.
However, the Q95 value is lower than that of the EA’s. It is also interesting to note
that the EA website gives a Qmean figure for 2006 of 3.37, which is much closer to
the HydrA figure.

Page 7 of 21
Figure 5 – Flow Duration Curve provided by HydrA

Since the raw data for either set of the values is unavailable, no determination of
accuracy can performed. However, the values provided from HydrA are interpolated
from an estimated catchment and historic rainfall data, and the EA value based on
actual measurements, making it logical therefore to use the EA values for any
calculations.

Base Flow Index (BFI) is the ratio of Q95:Qmean. The EA good practice guidelines state
that for low head sites and a BFI greater than 0.2, then regardless of depleted reach,
Max design flow can be Qmean, and the ‘Hands off Flow’ (HOF) can be Q95
(Environment Agency, 2009c). Using the EA flow rates provided, a BFI of 0.3 is
achieved. This results in a HOF of 0.979 m3/s and a Qmax of 3.24 m3/s.

3.2 Head Measurements

Head measurements at various points were taken using a tripod mounted Dumpy
Level and Measuring Staff. Readings were taken to ±1mm. The measurements were
taken starting at the tailrace, working up to the weir, and then back again in order to
determine consistency. The difference between the two measurements was
calculated to give a deviation and the mean taken. The measurement at the small
wheel was only taken once due to time constraints on the day, however the result
seems reasonable and in line with what was expected.

Page 8 of 21
Description of leg Reading 1 Reading 2 Deviation Mean
(m) (m) (m/%) (m)
Top of Weir to Base of Small Wheelpit 1.530 - - 1.530±0
Top of Weir to Base of Main Wheelpit 2.047 2.138 0.091/4.3 2.093±0.045
Base of Wheelpit to Floor of Tail Race 0.220 0.189 0.031/15.2 0.205±0.015
Table 3 : Head measurements at the site.

Table 3 shows that the largest error was related to the leg ‘tailrace to wheelpit’. This
actually covers a horizontal distance of approximately 180m and so difficulty in
reading the scale over that distance may account for the error. Another reason may
be the soft nature of the ground at both locations. It should also be noted that the
deviation is only 1.5cm. It was felt that the tolerances achieved were acceptable and
for the purposes of this study, values of 2m can be used for ‘weir to main wheelpit’,
and 1.5m for ‘weir to small wheelpit’. See Appendix C for details of all measurements
taken on the day.

3.3 Grid Connection

Details of the nearest Grid connection were obtained from the local District Network
Operator, Central Networks. The nearest substation is located 800m from the site at
Ashford Marble Works and transforms the 11kV supply to Low Voltage for the village.
An underground 11kV line also passes within 500m on top of the hill above the mill.
See Appendix D for a map of the local Grid infrastructure.

Page 9 of 21
4 Conclusions
4.1 Site Options
Since the main mill buildings and wheels are listed, they cannot be considered unless
a complete restoration of the original wheels is to be undertaken.

Option A : A turbine could be placed in an excavated powerhouse in line with the old
tailrace, if a new intake could be constructed between the two mill buildings.

This would give the largest available head at just over 2m. However it would lead to a
relatively long depleted reach of 400m since the tailrace re-enters the river so far
downstream. The civil work involved with excavating the powerhouse and squeezing

Page 10 of 21
the intake between listed buildings of unknown integrity may prove difficult. This also
has the effect of flow bypassing the EA gauging station. Detailed discussions with the
EA would be needed to ascertain if this is acceptable.

Option B : The smaller independent wheel and associated building are not listed, so
redeveloping this position can be considered. See Figure 6.

Figure 6 – Option B site. (Ordnance Survey, 2009a)

It has a smaller head of 1.5m but the depleted reach is shorter at 70m and the civil
work involved in creating a new intake looks to be straight forward. This also avoids
flow bypassing the EA gauging station and is therefore the preferred option.

4.2 Power Output and Energy Capture

Power output is given by

𝑃𝑃 = 𝑄𝑄 ∗ 𝐻𝐻 ∗ 𝛾𝛾 ∗ 𝑒𝑒
Where P = power in kW
Q = design flow in m3/s
H = Head in m
𝛾𝛾 = specific weight of water (9.81kN/m3)
e = overall efficiency of system. (Langley et al., 2004)

If the site of the small wheel is used, then a head of 1.5m is available. Using a design
flow 2m3/s and an overall efficiency factor of 0.5, then 14.7kW of power could be
obtained from the site.

Page 11 of 21
Looking at the Flow Duration Curve provided by the EA (See Figure 7), the Capacity
Factor (CF) for a river flow rate of 3m3/s, i.e. that would be required for a design flow
rate of 2m3/s in the turbine after the HOF has been considered, is approximately 42%
(yellow line). This means the turbine could only operate at full capacity 42% of the
year.

Energy per annum = P * CF * 8760

Therefore annual generated energy is 14.7 * .42 * 8760 = 54084 kWh/annum

≈ 54 MWh/annum

If a design flow of 1m3/s is considered, the peak power output is reduced to 7.35kW
but the capacity factor is increased to 64% (red line). This results in an annual
generated energy of 7.35 * .64 * 8760 = 41207 kWh/annum
≈ 41.2 MWh/annum

Figure 7 – EA Flow Duration Curve with Capacity Factors

4.3 Revenue

In 2010, Feed in Tarrifs will be available to allow the sale of electricity by micro
generation to the grid. For small producers of electricity, these will replace the
Renewable Obligation Certificates. The prices quoted by Feed-in Tariffs Ltd for

Page 12 of 21
hydro are 17p/kWh for schemes less that 10kW and 12p/kWh for schemes 10-100kw.
(Feed-in Tariffs Limited, 2009)
Using the figures for energy capture above, the 14.7kW - 2m3/s option would
generate 54084 * .12 = £6480/annum
≈ £6500/annum

Interestingly, the 7.35kW 1m3/s option would qualify for the higher feed in tariff and
therefore generate 41207 * .17 = £7005/annum
≈ £7000/annum

Given that the lower flow/power option would probably have a lower capital cost, it
would be more cost effective to go with this option. It should be noted that a fairly
cautious efficiency factor of 50% was applied to the initial power calculations. It is
possible that the overall efficiency could well be higher which would increase the
amount of energy captured and hence the revenue returned.

4.4 Turbine Options

The choice of turbine is dictated mainly by the head and the flow. In this case we are
dealing with a high flow and low head. By using the ‘Specific Speed’ equation, turbine
suitability can be determined.
𝑛𝑛 ∗ (𝑃𝑃 ∗ 1.4)0.5
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 =
𝐻𝐻1.25
Where Ns = specific speed
n = shaft speed
P = required power output (kW)
H = head (Langley et al., 2004)

The figure achieved can then be compared to the range of specific speeds provided
in Table 4.

Pelton 12-30
Turgo 20-70
Crossflow 20-80
Francis 80-400
Propeller/Kaplan 340-1000
Table 4 : Specific Speed Ranges (Langley et al., 2004)

Page 13 of 21
Using a Head of 1.5m, power at 14.7 kW and a shaft speed of 1500rpm (the usual
RPM of generators generating 240v at 50Hz) we get a Specific Speed of 4099. If the
lower power of 7.35kW is used, a Specific Speed of 2899 is achieved. These lie well
outside the range of any turbine. However, if a belt drive is used with a ratio of 4:1 or
5:1, the generator rpm and thus the specific speed can be reduced, putting it firmly in
the range of a Propeller or Kaplan turbine.

A Siphonic turbine (see Figure 8) would be most suited to the small wheel house site.
Appendix E contains details of such a turbine installed at nearby Borrowash Mill,
Derbyshire. A Propeller turbine has fixed pitch blades and a poor efficiency at part
load however the more costly Kaplan turbine allows the pitch of the blades to be
adjusted to improve part load efficiency.

Figure 8 – Diagram of a Siphonic turbine. (Mragowo, 2009)

Another solution suited to low head, high flow situations is an Archimedes screw.
However, these tend to require a long ‘footprint’ which may not be available at this
site.

Page 14 of 21
 4.5 Summary

In summary, if a Siphonic Propeller turbine was installed at the small wheel house
site, with a flow of 1m3/s and a power output of 7.35kW, 41.2MWh/annum could be
generated. Under a Feed In Tariff, this would create a return of ≈ £7000/annum.

5 Next Steps

The EA would need to be consulted in order to obtain the required abstraction

licences. Discussions with them are likely to include effects on the local flora and
fauna, and acceptable flow regimes.

The local District Network Operator, Central Networks, would need to be consulted
about the practicalities and costs of obtaining a grid connection at either the
substation in Ashford or the nearby 11kV line. As the site is within a National Park,
this cable would need to be buried.

The Peak District National Park would need to be consulted and Planning Permission
obtained.

If the above steps pose no ‘show stoppers’, then a more detailed design and costing
of the Electro/Mechanical equipment can be undertaken.

Page 15 of 21
Appendix A

Details of Grade II Listings. (Peak Park Joint Planning Board, 1984)

Page 16 of 21
Appendix B

OS Grid Co-ordinates used to plot Catchment in HydrA

Eastings Northings
418 238 369 705
417 473 371 080
418 575 371 617
418 100 373 167
419 400 373 642
419 225 376 667
418 050 377 867
414 925 377 917
409 675 380 043
408 385 378 463
406 210 378 013
406 110 376 363
403 210 375 188
403 635 374 238
403 023 373 825
402 383 371 020
405 383 369 030
406 445 369 813
410 580 367 973
411 768 370 795
415 023 370 417
415 533 368 275
416 913 367 762
417 865 367 687
418 238 369 705

Page 17 of 21
Appendix C
Details of all measurements taken on Site Visit.

Backsight Foresight Notes Delta h Total Deviation Mean Value %

Weir to Small Wheel

1.860 3.390 House to wheel2 -1.530 -1.530

Weir to Wheel1 Wheelpit

3.548 0.943 wheel - sm house 2.605
1.300 1.858 sm house to wier -0.558
2.047
3.480 2.737 wier to house2 0.743
0.515 3.396 house2 to wheel -2.881
-2.138 0.091 2.093 4.3

Wheelpit to Tail race

4.050 3.830 tail race to wheel1 0.220
3.396 1.295 wheel to path 2.101
1.000 3.290 path to tail race -2.290
-0.189 0.031 0.205 15.2

Page 18 of 21
Appendix D

Central Networks Map of Grid cables in the area and points of potential connection

(Ordnance Survey, 2009b)

Page 19 of 21
Appendix E

Page 20 of 21
References

Bunting, J. (2006) Bygone Industries of the Peak, Sheffield, Wlidtrack Publishing Ltd.

DECC (2009a) “Energy and emissions projections - Department of Energy and

Climate Change.” Carbon Dioxide Emissions Tables. [online]
http://www.decc.gov.uk/media/viewfile.ashx?filepath=statistics/projections/1_
20090812111722_e_@@_tablea.xls&filetype=4 (Accessed December 10,
2009).

DECC (2009b) “Small scale hydro - Low Carbon Buildings Programme.” Low Carbon
Buildings Programme. [online]
http://www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/micro/hydro/ (Accessed December 10,
2009).

Environment Agency (2009a) “Gauge Station 28023 - Wye at Ashford.” [online]

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/station_summaries/028/023.html (Accessed
December 5, 2009).

Environment Agency (2009b) “Catchemnt Elevation - Wye at Ashford.” [online]

http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/spatialinfo/Elevation/elevation028023.html
(Accessed December 5, 2009).

Environment Agency (2009c) “Good practice guidelines annex to the hydropower

handbook.” [online] http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/Low_Head_Hydropower_August_2
009.pdf (Accessed December 11, 2009).

Feed-in Tariffs Limited (2009) “F I Tariff eligible technologies.” [online]

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/Technologies.html (Accessed December 14, 2009).

Ford, T. D. (1977) Limestone and Caves of the Peak District, Norwich, Geo
Abstracts.

Langley, B. and Curtis, D. (2004) Going with the Flow, Centre For Alternative
Technology.

Mragowo (2009) “siphonic propeller turbine.” [online]

http://www.wtw.mragowo.pl/images/ofe07.jpg (Accessed December 17, 2009).

Ordnance Survey (2009a) “Ashford Bobin Mill.”

Ordnance Survey (2009b) “Ashford Area Grid .”

Peak Park Joint Planning Board (1984) “Ashford Bobbin Mill Listing Details.”

Page 21 of 21