United States Environmental Protection Agency

August 2013

Renewable Energy Fact Sheet:

Low-Head Hydropower from Wastewater

DESCRIPTION
Hydropower turbines generally come in two
types: impulse or reaction. The reaction type is
generally used for low-head applications.
Reaction type hydropower turbines include:
propeller type, screw type, bulb type,
waterwheels, and hydrokinetic energy free
flow types. In the reaction type turbines, the
water passing through the turbine loses its
energy, or pressure, as it passes the turbine
blades. In the impulse type turbine, the velocity
of the water is regulated. Water is directed at
the blades of the impulse turbine with a highvelocity nozzle, and the velocity of the water
turns the blades1.
There are two conditions that are used to choose
the appropriate turbine for a particular site: head
and flow rate. The head is measured as the
vertical distance between the highest and lowest
water surface, minus any losses that occur, such
as friction. The flow rate is a measure of all
of the water that will be passing through the
turbine.
Low-head turbines can generally
operate through a range of flow rates, but the
size of that range varies with turbine type. Also
the efficiency of the turbine decrease as the flow
rate varies from the best design flow rates. It is
possible that the best turbine may not utilize all
of the flow available at the highest flow, so that
the range of the turbine can cover the lower flow
periods. A detailed analysis of the flow over
time will need to be performed to choose a
turbine that is best suited for a particular site2.
The power (kW) produced by a given site can be
estimated using the following equation; where
H is available head in feet; F is the flow in
cubic feet per second (cfs); efficiency is overall
system efficiency as a fraction; and 11.8 is a
constant that converts the equation to kilowatts.

Power (kW) = H x F x efficiency

11.8
The equation can provide an estimate of the power
available at a specific site, for either high or
low head and high or low flow. However, you
should contact the turbine manufacture regarding
the efficiency of a particular turbine, and how that
efficiency may vary with flow3.
In the wastewater hydropower concept, treated
effluent is diverted from the outfall pipeline and
passes through one or more turbine-generator
units before flowing into the receiving stream.
Treated effluent can also flow through a shunted
section of the outfall pipeline to bypass the
turbine during times of hydropower system
shutdown or high flows. Generated electricity is
delivered to the wastewater plant via an
independent transmission line that interconnects
with the wastewater treatment plants electrical
distribution system. The hydropower site could
also be connected to the electric utility grid4.
There are a number of low-head and very lowhead hydropower turbines on the market
today. However, most of the operating experience
is from Europe or Asia5.
APPLICATION
Historically, turbines suited for low-head effluent
hydropower applications were custom designed
and manufactured by hydro-turbine construction
specialists. The range of flows and heads at
most wastewater treatment plants would suggest
axial-flow tube turbines as the preferred
equipment.

Several sewage pump manufacturers offer

pumps as turbines, using an off-the-shelf
wastewater pump converted to operate as a
turbine. However, this standardized design and
manufacturing approach never achieved its
anticipated impact in the wastewater hydropower
market6.
Interconnection requirements are essentially the
same whether the electricity is used by the
wastewater treatment plant or is sold to the local
utility.
Each utility has general guidelines for
interconnection and specific requirements for
each project.
Equipment would normally
include transformers, meters, and protective
relays7.
EQUIPMENT AND COSTS
There is a growing a number of manufacturers
offering low-head
and very low-head
hydropower turbine equipment.
Here is a
description of several low-head turbines that may
be suitable for wastewater treatment plant
effluent discharge applications8.
Estimated
costs are fo r equi pm ent onl y.
Installation
costs will vary greatly depending on the site
conditions, size of the turbines, and
complexity of the project9.
Energy Systems and Design Model LH
1000: The LH 1000 is a small propeller type
turbine suitable for sites with flows of about 2
cubic feet per second (cfs) and 10 feet of head.
Under these conditions, one unit will produce
about 1 kilowatt (kW) of direct current (DC)
electricity. The LH 1000 uses a permanent
magnet alternator. An inverter is utilized for
alternating current (AC) systems.
The Model
LH 1000 can be purchased for around $3,00010.
Power Pal Model MHG 1000LH: The
MHG 1000LH is a small propeller type
turbine suitable for sites with flows of about 5
cfs and 5 feet of head.
Under these

conditions, one unit will produce about 1kW of

DC electricity. The turbine is set at the elevation
of the incoming water and a draft tube extends
below the turbine to create the head differential
by suction. The turbine is generally used as a
standalone application, either for direct load or
battery charging. Grid connection of this type of
turbine would require additional equipment. The
Model MHG 1000LH can be purchased for
around $4,00011.
Canyon Hydro-Kaplan Turbine: Canyon
Hydro builds custom hydroelectric systems,
including designing and manufacturing the
turbine, and assembling the system in the field
to provide a water to wire package12. A wide
range of turbines are available for low-head
application, including the Kaplan turbine based
equipment package. The Kaplan turbine design
adjusts to varying heads and varying flows using
adjustable pitch runner blades and wicket gates.
The efficiency of the turbine can be maintained
down to 35% of design flow.
The vertical
turbine is recommended for heads between 30
and 50 feet and flow ranges between 100 and
400 cfs. The cost per turbine ranges between
$30,000 to over $500,000 per unit13.

Typical Vertical Turbine Installation

Toshiba International-Hydro-eKIDs: HydroeKIDs are propeller type turbines best suited

for installation in an existing pipe. The eKids
have adjustable runner vanes to match site
conditions.
These horizontal turbines can be
installed in series or parallel to accommodate a
wide range of heads and flows.

Typical turbine outputs range from 5 kW to

200kW. The cost per turbine ranges between
$7,000 to over $30,000 per unit14.

Horizontal Hydro-eKIDS Type S Turbine

VLH Turbine: The runner of the VLH

Turbine is large (up to 16.4 feet) with a very slow
rational speed (less than 40 revolutions per
minute) that can operate at very low water
velocity (less than 6 feet per second) through the
runner. This slow operating speed and low flow
velocity eliminates the need for a sophisticated
control structure at the inlet and outlet of the
channel.
The turbine and generator are
submerged, reducing the required infrastructure
and the need to construct a building above the
power plant. The units are mounted in the
channel slanted away from the upstream flow. The
units can be removed from the channel passage
way by a lifting system, so the unit can be raised
for maintenance or to allow full flow in the
channel during high flow periods. When running,
the system produces no noise or vibration and has
no impact on downstream migration. The runner
blades are adjustable and self closing, allowing
automatic upstream water level regulation and
eliminating the need for a separate closing gate to
shut off the unit. The units can also operate in a
discharge mode (when not generating electricity)
and are capable of operating isolated from the
distribution system.
The VLH Turbine concept is not a site-specific
design. The units are available in five standard
sizes with blades ranging from 10.3 feet to 16.4
feet. These units are very efficient and can
operate at almost 80% efficiency. The VLH
turbine generating set is double regulated with
both adjustable blades and variable speed. This
allows operation on sites where the head drops
with variations in flow.

The variable speed capability of the generating

set assures a stable and efficient operation under
variable head. The VLH Turbine is able to work
under 1/3 of the normal head while maintaining
normal efficiency2.
These units have a net head range from 4.2 feet
to 10.5 feet and a flow range from 0.16 million
gallons/day to 0.48 million gallons/day. The units
can produce 100 to 500 kW (at the converter
terminal box). For example: a Model DN 3150
(10.3 feet diameter), operating at 5.9 of head, and
a flow of 0.14 million gallons per day
(MGD) can produce 118 kW; while, a Model
DN 5000 (16.4 feet diameter), operating at 8.5
feet of head, and a flow of 0.41 million
gallons per day can produce 500 kW. Although
installation costs vary greatly depending on
actual site conditions and the size of the
turbines, the equipment costs for a Model DN
3150 is approximately $575,000, while the
equipment cost for a Model DN 5000 is
approximately $1,100,00015.

VLH Turbine Installed In Effluent

HydroCoil: The HydroCoil turbines use a

ribbon drive helical technology to capture and
convert k i n e t i c e n e r g y o f f l o w i n g
w a t e r t o usable clean electricity. The compact
design allows for easy installation for generating
renewable energy in a variety of applications,
including water distribution systems, wastewater
treatment plant effluent pipes, and irrigation
channels.

The turbine is fabricated from lightweight

polymer or composite materials using low-cost
injection molding. The units are corrosionresistant to salt and chlorine. Metal components
(such as bearings and permanent magnet
alternators) are enclosed in watertight housings.
HydroCoil units are carbon neutral during
operation and do not produce pollutants. When
installed in an effluent pipe where inflow to the
turbine is clean and debris free, maintenance is
minimal. However, when installed in water that
is not debris free, periodic inspection and
cleaning of the turbine vanes is required.
The 6-inch diameter unit is 34 inches long and
weighs 40 pounds, while the 12-inch diameter
unit is 50 inches long and about 70 pounds
(including the generator).
Power output
depends on water flow, head or velocity, and
revolutions per minute (rpm) of the turbine
runner and generator. Site- specific effective
head or pounds/square inch can be modified
by design of the intake manifold at the
turbine entry.
The 6-inch diameter turbine has an operating
head range of 10 to 60 feet with a flow range up
to 1,200 gallons/minute (1.8 million gallons/
day), and has an estimated peak capacity of 2.4
kW. With a head of 12 feet and a flow velocity
of 9.2 feet/sec., the alternator produces 65 volts
DC at 646 rpm of the helix vanes, which
corresponds to 1,292 rpm for the permanent
magnet alternator. At higher rpm, the 6-inch
unit can produce up to 100 volts. The alternator
is rated at 24 amperes for 50 volts and above.
With 2 kW generating capability, the system can
provide up to 17,500 kilowatt hours (kWh) per
year.
The 12-inch helical turbine has an o p e r a t i n g
range of 10 to 100 feet with a predicted flow
range up to 4,800 gallons/minute (7.2 million
gallons/day). It has an estimated peak output
of between 8 kW to 10 kW. Actual electrical
output is dependent on the specific location and
use. The 12-inch system can produce 50
amperes and 200 volts DC at 1,700 to 2,500 rpm
of the generator. At an 8 kW output, the system
produces approximately 70,000 kWh per year.
Although
installation
costs
will
vary
depending on actual site conditions, putting the

Hydrofoil unit into an existing facility is

relatively quick and easy. Since the units are
light, no heavy cranes are needed.
The
equipment cost for the 6-inch turbine is
approximately $6,500 and for the 12-inch unit
is approximately $13,000. In some scenarios,
several units can be bundled together in
modules, for a compact package that can produce
more energy16.

6-inch HydroCoil Unit

CASE STUDIES
Point Loma, San Diego, California
The City of San Diego's Point Loma
Wastewater Treatment Plant and Pump Energy
Recovery Project (PERP) are now selling
power to the San Diego grid through a contract
with San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E).
The $1.2 million project, completed by
Henwood Energy Services, Inc., included a
$360,000 grant from the California Energy
Commission, in addition to $420,000 in
renewable energy incentives from the State of
California, to get the wastewater treatment
facility back up and running. The hydropower
station supplies approximately 1.35 megawatts
of green renewable energy to the San Diego
power grid. The Point Loma hydroelectric
turbines were originally installed in the mid1980s, but were shut down in 1989 and
partially disassembled due to the inability to
properly regulate the effluent flow. However,
changes to the plant piping system in
conjunction with improvements in the ocean
outfalls hydraulic characteristics, plus the
rising cost of energy, created a renewed interest
in brining the project back on-line.

The new design (Figure 1) is powered with

treated wastewater that drops some 90 feet from
the cliff-side plant into a 4.5 mile ocean outfall,
resulting in the generation of enough
incremental power to supply more than 13,000
homes with green renewable electricity.

Henwood, a leading energy technology and

consulting company, was chosen for the major
maintenance overhaul, including the installation
of the new turbine and generator, new control
system, and interconnection wiring. After two
months of testing, the renovated hydropower
plant was brought back on-line in June of 2001.

Figure 1: Point Loma Hydropower Plant Flow Diagram

Kankakee, Illinois
The City of Kankakee receives a substantial
benefit from its current operating strategy, since
the metro utility pays the city for the
hydropower it uses at a rate matching the
electric utility's charges. The net annual income,
for the years between 1992 and 1994, ranges
from about $102,000 to $275,000 per year. By
reconstructing and upgrading the hydroelectric
plant to modern technology standards,
Kankakee has transformed the plant into an
environmentally safe, revenue producing facility.
The Kankakee Illinois Hydro Project was
initially started up in 1912 with five manually
controlled turbines with supporting equipment.
These units were seriously limited in that they
were unable to respond to variations in flow and
available head. As a result, developing
maximum power was not always easy, and the
only operational decision to be made was
determining how many units should be run.
The new three-turbine hydro installation
incorporates a number of design features
that provide considerable operating flexibility
and result in significantly higher efficiency.
Although the power output still is governed by
the head as well as the flow, a computer-based
control system monitors variations in flow and
head in order to maximize efficiency. The data
gathered is used to select automatically the
number of turbines that should run under the
existing conditions. In addition, variable pitch
turbine blades can be adjusted for optimum
operation. These features mean that the hydro
plant can react to natural changes in flow and
head and still produce power efficiently.
The three 400 kW turbines installed at
Kankakee are somewhat unconventional in that
they operate on the siphon principle, in contrast
with the more common pit design. They are the
first units of this type to be installed in the
United States, and were supplied by C. E.
Neyrpic of France. This company sees the
Kankakee project as a demonstration of its
innovative siphon design and its appropriateness
for low-head hydro sites such as this one.

The city received a state grant of over $1.0M

from the Illinois
Department
of
Energy
and Natural Resources (ENR) to assist in
financing the project. The grant was made to
encourage the utilization of an alternative
energy source and to allow the ENR to use this
project to demonstrate the application of lowhead hydroelectric technology.
In addition to the hydroelectric equipment cost
of $1.6M, powerhouse and site work required
$2.5M, an electrical transmission line cost
$344,000, and connection to the electric utility
was $70,000. The engineering design fee to
Stanley Consultants of Muscatine, Iowa, was
$350,000. The projects total cost was $4.8M,
which netted out to a cost to Kankakee of $3.8M
after the ENR grant from the state was received.
Since the hydroelectric plant went back online in
mid-1991, much data has been collected and
analyzed about its performance, and the power
consumption relationships between it, the
wastewater plant's cogeneration system, the use
of natural gas as a backup fuel, and what the
electric utility has provided. The scenario is
complicated, and a review of the rate structure
reveals that producing hydro or cogenerated
power solely for sale to the electric utility is not
cost-effective. There is not enough revenue to
offset the costs of operation and maintenance, or
to support the capital costs. However, when
these readily available power sources supply the
entire or a significant portion of the base load
needed to operate the treatment plant, real
savings are achieved20.
Deer Island, Boston, Massachusetts
Massachusetts Water Resource Authority
(MWRA) generates hydropower at its Deer
Island Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Once
treated wastewater is disinfected, it is discharged
into effluent channel #1. Flow is then split
through two horizontal intake openings at the
base of effluent channel #1 and transmitted
through separate rectangular concrete conduits
below the disinfection basins and through two
corresponding hydro-turbines. The two intake
openings in the effluent channel are each
approximately 11 feet by 11 feet at the two
motorized roller intake gates located

immediately upstream of the turbines. The

average head available is approximately 29 feet.
The hydropower facility includes two normal
1,000 kW Kaplan units each with a flow
capacity of approximately 500 cfs (320 mgd).
The maximum flow (640 mgd) is approximately
equivalent to the maximum flow through t h e
secondary treatment portion of the plant.
Turbine runner blades and wicket gates are
adjusted to meet changing power demands and
changes in flow and head. After the turbines,
the effluent conduit joins the outfall chute, which
discharges into the outfall shaft, which drops the
effluent into the 9.5-mile outfall tunnel to
Massachusetts Bay.
The hydropower facilitys instrumentation and
control systems are designed to interface with the
wastewater treatment facilitys control system.
The system allows fully automatic, unattended
operation.
The treatment plant must operate
continuously to prevent backups of the sewage
collection system. Wastewater flow in excess of
the hydro facility bypasses effluent channel l and
is discharged through effluent channel 2 directly
to the outfall
tunnel. The building
that
houses the turbines, generators and all associated
electrical switchgear equipment is situated
directly over effluent channel #1. The hydropower facility has been operating continuously
since 2001.
The total construction cost for the contract that
included the hydropower plant was $36.2M, but
included the new disinfection facilities (basins,
chemical storage and pumping, etc), the North
Main Pumping Station electrical modifications,
including a 13.8 kilovolt (kV) electrical
transmission cable and installation. The
estimated construction cost for the hydrogenerating facilities was approximately $7.4M,
but the estimate did not include the enormous
excavation and construction of the outfall chute
between the disinfection basin and tunnel shaft,
since this work needed to be done whether the
hydro plant was constructed or not.
Annual maintenance costs have varied in the past
several years. The actual reported maintenance
costs for 2009, 2010, and 2011 were $134,000,
$140,000, and $256,000,21respectively.
The
higher operation and maintenance costs for

2011, were primarily due to unscheduled

maintenance events (i.e., intake gate overhaul,
shaft seal replacement, and runner operating
shaft disassembly and reassembly).
The treatment facility is a conduit facility and
received a c o n d u i t e x e m p t i o n f r o m t h e
F e d e r a l Energy Regulatory Commission. The
hydroelectric facility was also part of a thorough
environmental review by state and federal
agencies as part of the Deer Island Water
Treatment Plant renovation project.
The Deer
Island Treatment Plant discharges, including all
discharges through the hydropower plant,
received both an EPA National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit and
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control Water Quality Certification.
The
facility is located some 200 feet from the
shoreline and does not impact fisheries,
wildlife, flood control, or navigation22.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the concept of using low-head
hydropower generated from effluent has
been around for many years, only a few
wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. are in
operation.
While historically the use of
wastewater effluent to generate hydropower was
considered impractical due to its high cost and
low payback, the need for more municipalities
to become energy self-sufficient has opened the
door. With the emergence of new technologies,
many wastewater plants in Europe and Asia are
harnessing low-head hydropower. Some of the
new technologies can operate at very low-head
and flows. With this new generation of turbines,
generating hydropower from effluent is
becoming a cost-effective alternative for
generating on-site renewable energy.
REFERENCES
1. White, David, Use of Low Head Hydroelectric
Generators in Wastewater Treatment Facilities, 2010, the
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Arts.
2. Leclerc, Marc, General Manager, The Very Low Head
Turbo Generator: A New Turbine for Profitable Harnessing
of Very Low Head Applications, MJ2 Technologies,
France, Small Hydropower Conference Proceedings, 2006.

3. Gaius-Obaseki, Theophilus, Hydropower

Opportunities in the Wastewater Industry, International
Journal of Environmental Sciences, Volume 1, No. 3,
2012.
4. Energy Efficiency in Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants, 1995, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, 2 Empire State Plaza, suite 1901,
Albany, NY 12223.
5. Small Hydro and Low-Head Hydro Technologies and
Prospects, March 2010, Congressional Research Service,
The Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave, SE,
Washington, DC 20540.
6. Small Hydropower Technology and Market Assessment,
2009, Energy Trust of Oregon, 851 SW Sixth Avenue,
Suite1200, Portland, OR 97204.
7. Massachusetts Energy Management Pilot Summery
Report, 2007, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, One Water Street, Boston, MA 02108.
8. Energy Policy: Small Hydroelectric Installations are
Popping Up Around the U.S., Todd Briggerman, American
City and County, published by Coyote Gulch World Press,
http://coyotegulch.worldpress/category/climatechange/hydroelectric.
9. Exploring the Viability of Low Head Hydro in
Colorados Existing Irrigation Infrastructure, 2010, The
Colorado State University, 430 N. Collage Avenue, Fort
Collins, CO 80524.
10. Hydroelectric Turbines and Generators, published by
NoOutage, Inc.
https://www.nooutage.comHydroE1Gen.html

16. HydroCoil Power, Inc

1359 Arbordale Road
Third Floor
Waynewood, PA 19096 USA
http://hydrocoilpower.com
17. City of San Diego, Department of Public Utilities,
Wastewater Services Department, Point Loma Wastewater
Treatment Plant, 1902 Gatchell Road,
San Diego, CA 92106
18. Henwood Gets Renewable Hydro Project On-Line for
the City of San Diego in Time to Supply 1.35 MW for
Peak Summer Season. Published by PR Newswire, New
York, 2001. http://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleasehsenwood-gets-renewable-hydro-project-on-linefor-city-of-san-diego-in-time-to-suply-135-mw-for-peaksummer-season-72184692.html
19.Henwood Business Solutions,
www.henwoodenergy.com
20. City of Kankakee, Kankakee Municipal Wastewater
Utility, 1600 West Brookmont Boulevard,
Kankakee, IL, 60901
21. Deer Island, Hydropower Project (FERC No. 11412),
Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, Boston, MA,
Low Impact Hydropower Institute, 34 Providence
Street, Portland, ME 04103
22. Toward Energy Self-Sufficiency at a Wastewater
Treatment Plant, published by Cogeneration Magazine,
http://www.cospp.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue2/project-profiles

11. PowerPal, LLC

2-416 Dallas Road
Victoria, BC, Canada
http://powerpal.com

Some of the information presented

in this fact sheet was provided by
the manufacturer or vendor and
could not be verified by the EPA.

12. Canyon Hydro, Inc.

5500 Blue Heron lane
Deming, WA 98244 USA
http://canyonhydro.com

The mention of trade names,

specific vendors, or products does
not represent an actual or
presumed endorsement,
preference, or acceptance by the
EPA or federal government. Stated
results, conclusions, usage, or
practices do not necessarily
represent the views or policies of
the EPA.

13. Netel Energy, Inc.

2175 Monarch Street,
Alameda, CA 9450, USA
http://netelenergy.com
14. Toshiba International Corporation
2 Morton Street Parramatta, NSW,
Australia 2150
http://www.tic.toshiba.com/au/hydro-ekid_8484
15. MJ2 Technologies
7049 Gaslamp Walk
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 5W 1A4
http://vlh-turbine.com

Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Wastewater Management
EPA 832-F-13-018

August 2013