TEM/32/04.01.01/2011

HYDROPOWER - Sustainable utilization of water resources in the Republic of

Karelia ENPI CBC Programme KA535

Feasibility study for small hydropower development as a mean for remote villages electrification in

DRAFT intermediary report

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 2 (37)

Front page photograph of the Kumio rapid on the Voinitsa River near to Kalevala settlement, Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 3 (37)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This project studies the situation regarding shortage of electricity supply in remote settlements in Republic of Karelia. It draws out the best practice from a long-term experience of project implementations in and . The project was carried out by Finnish consulting companies Insinööritoimisto Jormakka Oy, Vesirakentaja Oy and PM Technology Oy in association with Russian partners Nord Hydro JSC and ANO Energy Efficiency Centre. The grant is financed from the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument in the framework of the Karelia ENPI CBC programme 2007-2013 within its Priority Quality of life under the Call for Proposals 02.04.2012 – 27.08.2012. The programme is implemented in accordance with the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the European Community about financing and implementation of the Karelia cross-border cooperation programme. The study examined present conditions in a few pre-determined settlements in Republic of Karelia where electricity supply shortage exists. Thereafter, the situation has been evaluated in terms of possibility to develop any local sources of energy. The small hydropower resources appeared to be appropriate for the target of the project. In the course of the project, available local existing facilities were examined with and without power generating capability, evaluating their physical capacity for generation or generation expansion and/or opportunities for refurbishment of old plants, which could result in reducing energy supply shortage in the remote settlement. In addition, some new prospective sites were evaluated. Small hydropower plants (SHPP) are defined as having a capacity less than ten (10) MW. The study relied primarily on maps, hydrological and other available data as well as previously performed studies to identify initially viable sites. Two screens were arranged to determine settlements, which would be worth more detailed analysis. 1. During the first screen there has been identified few settlements, which are in sore need of electricity supply. This screen identified eight (8) remote settlements for consideration. Information was provided by the State Committee of the Republic of Karelia for Housing and Communal Services (letter # 06/03-226 as of 25.03.2013). 2. The second screen eliminated settlements that had not any appropriate hydropower site, i.e. hydraulic head of more than five (5) meters, within a radius of twenty (20) km. This assumption is based on mutual empirical assumption of Oy Vesirakentaja and russian partners that those sites, having less than five meters in head, will require physically large and thus considerably more expensive power generating equipment, and construction of a transmission line of more than twenty (20) km long will be unreasonably expensive. Additionally, the amount of population was taken into consideration; the most populated settlements were given priority, where possible blackout may have the most harm. This screen eliminated six (6) remote settlements from consideration. After these two screenings two (2) settlements were left. Those pre-selected settlements were then analyzed in more details in order to find feasible sites for hydropower development. To be able to calculate installed capacity and power output, the Flow Duration Curves were constructed using daily hydrologic records. Available hydraulic head was estimated for each potential site individually. Capital costs of hydropower developments were estimated based on recently implemented projects in Finland and in Russian Federation. Costs included development costs, construction works and costs of the machinery and transmission line.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 4 (37)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was implemented by the Finnish consulting company Vesirakentaja, Ltd in association with Russian generating company Nord Hydro, JSC under the partner agreement to the Insinööritoimisto Jormakka Oy, Lead Partner, which in its turn had the grant contract to the Council of Oulu Region, Joint Managing Authority (JMA), in order to determine best practice in a number of areas of water resources usage in Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation. The conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the available data, reconnaissance studies of existing conditions on the territory of Karelia.

JMA, represented by Ms. Henna-Mari Laurinen, through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument has financed the project jointly with the Russia party, particularly Nord Hydro. Russian branch of the ENPI CBC was represented by Mr. Dmitry Bazegsky.

The project manager was Mr. Pekka Horttanainen from Insinööritoimisto Jormakka Oy. The study was conducted with the assistance of Mr. Ari Aalto, Mr. Aimo Lamberg and Mr. Pavel Nesterets Ms. Svetlana Chekalova hydropower experts from Oy Vesirakentaja.

Russian partners, generating company Nord Hydro was supporting the study, in the persons of Mr. Vladimir Romanchuk and Ms. Tatiana Pokutnik.

The Government of Republic of Karelia, in the person of Mr. Dmitry Kislov and Ms. Galina Kondrashkova, was supporting the study from the Russian side and provided necessary data for the project implementation.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 5 (37)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 GENERAL INFORMATION: PURPOSES AND METHODS OF STUDY...... 10 1.1 BACKGROUND...... 10 1.2 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 1.3 OBJECTIVES ...... 10 1.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS ...... 11 1.4.1 Hydropower generating technology ...... 11 1.4.2 Initial data ...... 13 1.4.3 Adjustment of hydrologic records...... 13 1.4.4 Screening analysis ...... 13 1.4.5 Capital costs analysis ...... 14 2 STUDY OF SMALL HYDROPOWER IN REPUBLIC OF KARELIA: PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE SITUATIONS ...... 15 2.1 REPUBLIC OF KARELIA BRIEFLY ...... 15 2.2 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF ENERGY SECTOR OF KARELIA ...... 16 2.2.1 Present situation ...... 16 2.2.2 Prospective situation...... 16 3 CASE STUDIES ...... 18 3.1 KALEVALA NATIONAL REGION OF REPUBLIC OF KARELIA ...... 18 3.1.1 Voinitsa settlement ...... 19 3.2 METROPOLITAN REGION OF REPUBLIC OF KARELIA ...... 20 3.2.1 Yustozero settlement ...... 21 3.2.2 Lindozero settlement ...... 22 3.3 MUEZERSKY METROPOLITAN REGION OF REPUBLIC OF KARELIA ...... 23 3.3.1 Kimovaara settlement ...... 24 3.3.2 Reboly settlement ...... 25 3.3.2.1 New SHPP Rebolskaya 1 on the Kolvas ...... 26 3.3.2.2 New SHPP Rebolskaya 2 on the Lieksanjoki (Omelianjoki) River ...... 30 3.4 METROPOLITAN REGION OF REPUBLIC OF KARELIA ...... 35 3.4.1 Polga settlement ...... 35 3.4.2 Vozhmozero settlement ...... 36 3.4.3 Valday settlement ...... 37

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 6 (37)

TABLES: Table 1: SHPPs in operation in Republic of Karelia ...... 16 Table 2: Forecast of demand for electric power and capacity in Republic of Karelia ...... 16 Table 3: Remote settlements isolated from the regional electrical network ...... 17 Table 4: Tariffs for electricity produced by isolated diesel generators...... 17 Table 5: Average annual energy production by the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP ...... 28 Table 6: Aggregative capital costs for the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP ...... 29 Table 7: Average annual energy production by the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP ...... 32 Table 8: Aggregative capital costs for the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP ...... 34

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 7 (37)

FIGURES: Figure 1: Small Francis turbine from 1920th ...... 11 Figure 2: Modern Kaplan turbine’s runner...... 12 Figure 3: FDC. Propeller’s output ...... 12 Figure 4: FDC. Kaplan’s output ...... 12 Figure 5: Republic of Karelia, Kalevala national region ...... 18 Figure 6: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Voinitsa settlement...... 19 Figure 7: Republic of Karelia, Kondopoga region ...... 20 Figure 8: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Yustozero settlement ...... 21 Figure 9: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Lindozero settlement ...... 22 Figure 10: Republic of Karelia, Muezersky region ...... 23 Figure 11: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Kimovaara settlement ...... 24 Figure 12: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Reboly settlement...... 25 Figure 13: Catchment areas of the Ruunaa gauging station and SHPP Rebolskaya 1 ...... 26 Figure 14: Typical arrangement of powerhouse for the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP ...... 28 Figure 15: Preliminary layout for the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP ...... 29 Figure 16: Catchment areas of the Ruunaa gauging station and SHPP Rebolskaya 2 on the Lieksanjoki River ...... 30 Figure 17: Lieksanjoki River’s longitudinal profile ...... 30 Figure 18: Typical arrangement of powerhouse for the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP ...... 33 Figure 19: Preliminary layout for the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP ...... 34 Figure 20: Republic of Karelia, Segezha metropolitan region ...... 35 Figure 21: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Polga settlement ...... 35 Figure 22: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Vozhmozero settlement ...... 36 Figure 23: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Valday settlement...... 37

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 8 (37)

DIAGRAMS: Diagram 1: FDC for the river Lieksanjoki at the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP’s site ...... 27 Diagram 2: FDC for the river Lieksanjoki at the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP’s site ...... 32

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 9 (37)

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS: b – width E – energy produced F – catchment area of a watercourse FDC – flow duration curve g – acceleration due to gravity H – hydraulic head. Elevation between headwater and tail water surfaces L – lake density of a catchment area l – length MQ – mean flow in a river SHPP – small hydropower plant T – period of time t – temperature

Qr – rated discharge. The maximum discharge which a plant can use for generation

Qr,min – turbine minimum discharge. The minimum permissible discharge through a turbine

Qcom – compensation water discharge. The minimum discharge that must be released from a project in order to meet environmental or other non-power water requirements Ș – efficiency of the system (ratio between the useful output of an energy conversion machine and the input) € – euro (official currency of the Euro zone, and Finland particularly)

UNITS: kV – kilovolt (voltage unit) kW – kilowatt (capacity unit) MW – megawatt (capacity unit) MWh – megawatt hour (power production unit) m – metre (length unit) s – second (time unit)

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 10 (37)

1 GENERAL INFORMATION: PURPOSES AND METHODS OF STUDY.

1.1 Background

The key challenge of the Republic of Karelia in terms of economic development is that the energy sector of the republic is the basic one, and it should meet the needs of the economy and households, but the energy balance is badly deficient.

Power plants located on the territory of the Republic of Karelia cover only 45-50% of the energy need, especially electricity. Hydropower plants secure over 70 % of power production in Karelia and over 40 % of the total consumption.

In terms of water bodies’ availability, Karelia is considered to have high energy potential (500….1000 kW/a from km2 per one m of water fall). Natural features of hydropower are also of high quality. However, this potential is used insufficiently. Especially, the potential of SHPPs is very poorly used. At present, a series of rehabilitation projects across the Ladoga Lake area is under development.

With the aim to study potential for development of more efficient water resources usage in Republic of Karelia, JAM contracted Finnish consulting company Insinööritoimisto Jormakka Oy. The contract between JAM and Insinööritoimisto Jormakka Oy was concluded on February 25, 2013. Russian companies ANO Karelian Energy Efficiency Centre Nord Hydro was assigned to act as local consultants for assisting the project implementation.

1.2 Introduction

This report presents the results of appraisal study of hydropower generation potential utilizing water resources of Republic of Karelia. Study was funded through the grant of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument and covers the regions of Republic of Karelia, where sufficient initial data for evaluation is available.

The study was conducted by Finnish consulting company Oy Vesirakentaja jointly with Russian engineering company Nord Hydro assessing the potential for increasing and rehabilitating electric power production at remote settlements isolated from the electrical network.

The study examined conditions at the particular remote settlements, with electricity supply shortage, evaluating physical and natural conditions, and subsequently capacity for hydropower generation, which could result in reduction of energy supply shortage and substituting non-environmentally friendly diesel generation for clean hydropower one. Some new prospective sites were evaluated. In addition, the study participants developed the map showing locations related to hydropower production on the territory of Republic of Karelia.

1.3 Objectives

The purpose of this study is to address preliminary technical and economic feasibility of rehabilitation of existing and construction of new hydropower generation facilities at a number of locations in the municipal system on the territory of Republic of Karelia.

The primary objectives of this study were as follows: x Review any available historical information; x Analyse and define current inventory of hydroelectric power generating facilities and

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 11 (37)

their existing capabilities; x Assess the physical potential for increasing hydroelectric power through rehabilitation and upgrading programs; x Determine the economic viability of increasing hydroelectric generation capacity by increasing efficiency of existing hydroelectric plants; x Identify the most feasible sites; x Perform preliminary design of the most feasible site identified.

Introduce the new investment opportunities in Republic of Karelia for Finnish and international potential investors and equipment suppliers. Mapping of the existing/potential sites aims at providing the actual picture of hydropower generation sector on the territory of Republic of Karelia. Estimations of capital costs are based on conceptual layouts and the generation is calculated in each case based on available site specific head and hydrological circumstances.

1.4 Assumptions and methods

Modern hydropower technologies allow to fully utilize locally available water resourses for power generation in order to meet energy needs in rural areas. Therefore, small hydropower plants were considered as an effective mean for the set targets and examined in this study.

1.4.1 Hydropower generating technology

Looking back into history can be found, that all SHPPs in Finland built in 19th and first half of 20th century had been furnished with Francis turbine types (see Figure 1). Majority of those plants are abandoned or due to its ineffectiveness tend to be upgraded with more efficient modern equipment. For decades in Russia propeller technology has been dominating one; that was one of the main reason why many of institutions in Russia have been and are more specialized in that generating technology.

Figure 1: Small Francis turbine from 1920th

Finnish experience over the years shown a huge advantage of Kaplan turbines over the other ones in low head off-river conditions (5-30 meters). Kaplan turbines are widely used throughout the world for electrical power production and they are applicable for low head hydropower sites, and are especially suitable for wide flow variations.

Kaplan turbines are individually designed for each site to operate at the highest possible efficiency, typically over 90% and they operate reliably for decades. The Kaplan turbine was developed by Austrian engineer Viktor Kaplan in 1913.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 12 (37)

The Kaplan is an inward radial flow type reaction turbine. It has a series of adjustable wicket gates. However, the turbine runner (looking somewhat like a ship’s propeller) has adjustable blades, too (see Figure 2). By changing the angle of the blades the Kaplan can maintain a high efficiency over a large range of flow conditions, even at very low flows.

Figure 2: Modern Kaplan turbine’s runner

Because Kaplan turbines have a very flat flow to efficiency curve they are particularly suitable for sites on rivers where the amount of available water varies greatly. The Figure 3 and Figure 4 represent typical FDC and comparison of power production by ordinary Propeller vs. Kaplan. 120 120 100 100 s s / Rated discharge / Rated discharge ³ ³ m m

60 60 , , e e g g r r 40 Min turbine discharge 40 Min turbine discharge a a h h c c s s 20 20 i i D D Energy 10 Energy 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Duration, % Duration, % Figure 3: FDC. Propeller’s output Figure 4: FDC. Kaplan’s output From the figures above the obvious advantage of Kaplan turbines is clearly seen. In the small scale hydropower generation difference in few tens of kilowatts produced can make an appreciable contribution to power generation.

Technological solutions used

The generally agreed formula for converting cubic meters per second to kilowatts was developed assuming 84 % efficiency.

For this study there has been assumed 84 % “water-to-wire” efficiency, which includes factors for turbine and generator efficiency, all hydraulic losses such as trash rack, intake and tail water losses and transformer loss. This is in average realistic for new turbines of Kaplan system at its normal operating load. These assumptions are typical for an assessment level study.

Installed capacity for small hydropower developments is usually determined in accordance with the shape of Flow Duration Curve (FDC). The maximum hydraulic capacity of a plant Qr is chosen in order to achieve the optimal output/capital costs ratio. The evidence from the extensive long term

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 13 (37) experience across many small hydropower sites in Finland shows that using such methodology benefits greatly to the owner over the decades.

1.4.2 Initial data Oy Vesirakentaja mainly relied on previous studies, old data from Finnish archives and available hydrologic information on watercourses to identify initial viable sites.

Used sources of information: x Aalto, A., Lamberg, A., & Nesterets, P. (2012). Development of small hydropower in Nort- Western Russia - Technical assistance for small hydropower in Karelia. Helsinki: Oy Vesirakentaja/TEM. x Aalto, A.;Lamberg, A.;& Väänänen, S. (2009). Rehabilitation of seven hydropower plants on Tohmajoki River, Republic of Karelia. Helsinki: Oyj Fortum/Oy Vesirakentaja. x INSET, Russian Federation. (2008). Reconnaissance report on potential sites for SHPPs in Republic of Karelia. Vol2: rapids nearby settlement Reboly. : Nord Hydro.

Daily flow data over a long period of records; preferably for at least 30 years period: x Daily stream gauging records were obtained first; x For the sites where flow data was not available correlation techniques were used. The stream flow in question was correlated with possible nearest one, where hydrologic data is available.

Preliminary construction plan and associated costs: x The Kaplan technology was assumed for SHPP, which is the most optimal for a river SHPP at present time; x Amounts of civil works were derived from previous analogous projects implemented recently in Finland and Russia; x Preliminary arrangements of SHPPs’ layouts were based on minimizing the costs based on Oy Vesirakentaja’s long term experience.

1.4.3 Adjustment of hydrologic records

The stream flow in question was correlated with possible nearest reference stream, where hydrologic data is available. All influential natural factors such as catchment area, precipitation, runoff, soil penetration, evaporation, lake density, etc. were considered. One of the most important factors is that the reference water course is not artificially regulated.

Daily flow values were adjusted using hydrologic data for the different sections of river obtained from analogous watercourses proportionally to the catchment areas and with relatively the same percentage of .

1.4.4 Screening analysis

First screening

Basing upon provided by the the state committee of the Republic of Karelia for housing and communal services and energy on isolated from the electrical network settlements information, eight (8) remote villages were identified for further studying in order to determine hydropower generating potential. The listing of those settlements in question is included in Appendix ... hereto.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 14 (37)

Second screening

The second screen eliminated settlements that had not any appropriate hydropower site, i.e. hydraulic head of not less than five (5) meters, within a radius of twenty (20) km. This assumption is based on Oy Vesirakentaja’s internal experience that those sites, having less than five meters in head, will require physically large and thus considerably more expensive machinery, and construction of a transmission line of more than twenty km long will be unreasonably expensive. This screen eliminated six (6) remote settlements from consideration, leaving only two (2), Reboly and Valday, being worth studying further.

1.4.5 Capital costs analysis

In order to capture the costs of number of the sites with different physical and environmental aspects, the amounts of works were estimated basing on previous analogous projects implemented in Finland and Russia.

In this study analogical method with aggregative amounts of works was employed. Major amount of works usually consists of concrete civil structures (intake, dams, power house, retaining walls, channels, etc.). Power house was treated as a main feature of the plant. Its dimensions were determined in accordance with the parameters of proposed by the relevant manufacturers/suppliers budgetary machinery options, such as rated discharge, arrangements of unit (-s). Other associated structures were assessed additionally for each case.

The empirical assumption in small hydropower development such as price of the turbine is almost equal to the cost of construction works regarding power house was used for new sites and those where sufficient information wasn’t available.

This part was the most technically comprehensive of the evaluation processes. Oy Vesirakentaja developed the analysis Excel-based tool that produces FDC and calculates annual energy output for all sites that passed through the previous two screens and for which necessary hydrologic information could be obtained. FDC reflect the percentage of time that specified discharge values are met or exceeded during a given period.

This method based on daily flow records gives a possibility to produce accurate and reliable result, which is essential in small scale hydropower development, where almost every kilowatt of capacity is valuable.

The minimum turbine discharge is empirically assumed at 20 % of a rated discharge ( Qr ) in this study.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 15 (37)

2 STUDY OF SMALL HYDROPOWER IN REPUBLIC OF KARELIA: PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE SITUATIONS

2.1 Republic of Karelia briefly1

The Republic of Karelia is a part of the Northwest federal district of the Russian Federation. The area of Karelia is 180.5 km2 (1.06 % of the total territory of Russia). Its length from north to south is 660 km, from west to east on the latitude of the town of Kem is 424 km Karelia borders on Finland in the West, on Leningrad district in the South, on and Archangelsk district in the East. In the North-West the Republic is washed by the . The western border line of Karelia coincides with the state border of the Russian Federation on Finland and its length is 798 km. Distance from the of republic, city of to Moscow makes 925 km, 401 km to St.- Petersburg,1 050 km to Murmansk, and 703 km to Helsinki.

The republic consists of 16 metropolitan regions (, Kalevala, Kem, Kondopoga, Lahdenpohja, Louhi, Medvezhiegorsk, Muezersky, , Pitkäranta, Prionezhsky, , , Segezha, , Suojärvi) and two urban districts (Petrozavodsk and ), where 109 settlements (22 urban, 87 rural), 808 inhabited localities, including 13 towns, are located.

The republic develops according to the Social and Economic Development Strategy of the Republic of Karelia through to 2020, the Land-Use Planning Scheme of the Republic of Karelia, the Program of Economic and Social Development of the Republic of Karelia through to 2010. The overall objective of long-term social and economic development is improvement of the quality of life in the republic on the basis of steady balanced development of economy, formation of the future development potential and the republic's active participation in the system of international and inter-regional exchanges.

Economy of the Republic of Karelia is found on processing of local kinds of natural resources (timber and minerals), use of tourist and recreational potential and favourable economic and geographical frontier location. These factors define specialization and regional features of economy of the republic.

The republic is related to industrial regions with moderately favourable investment climate (basically due to high and diversified investment potential).

The basic are logging, woodworking and pulp-and-paper industries – 41.2 %; ferrous metallurgy – 18.0 %; electric power industry – 14.8 %; engineering industry and metal working, nonferrous metallurgy, food-processing industry – from 5 to 9 % each.

Karelia is the country of rocks, boulders and tens of thousands of lakes. Various, and frequently unique relief of Karelia reflects geological history of the region of the last 3.5 billion years. Most of Karelia's territory is a rolling plain with strongly pronounced traces of a glacier. Wavy stone solid earth even now has some traces of ancient mountains. Karelia is often figuratively called a severe land of lakes and woods, emphasizing the leading elements of its landscape, unique combinations created by spaces of fantastic contours of a number of lakes and divided by rocky-subdued interfluves covered with taiga greens.

There are more than 61 thousand lakes and 27 thousand in Karelia. The largest are the Ladoga Lake (its area is 17.7 thousand km2) and the Onega Lake (its area is 9.9 thousand km2). The largest rivers are

1 Link to the web site: http://gov.karelia.ru/gov/Different/karelia3_e.html

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 16 (37)

Vodla (400 km), Vyg, Kovda, Kem, , Shuya. The total length of the river net is about 83,000 km.

Climate is transitive from maritime to continental, notable for long, although rather soft winter and short and chilly summer. The average temperature in February is -9-13°C, July – +14+16°C. Precipitation is about 500 mm a year.

2.2 General analysis of energy sector of Karelia

2.2.1 Present situation

Running SHPPs are represented in the Table 1. All of them are mainly situated in Southern Karelia. Table 1: SHPPs in operation in Republic of Karelia ʋ Head Estimated Name Name Name Capacity, of of of of Actual, mean flow, kW (P) plant region river plant m (H) m3/s (MQ) 1 Pitkäranta Jänisjoki Hämekoski 11.6 34.0 3 240 2 metropolitan Leppäkoski (Harlu) 9.8 34.0 3 000 region 3 Läskelä 13.4 39.1 4 800

4 Tulemajoki Suuri-Joki 12.2 13.0 1 280 5 Pieni-joki 9.1 13.0 1 280 6 Sortavala Kiteenjoki Pitkäkoski 20.4 6.0 1 260 metropolitan region 7 Suojärvi Schuya Ignoila 8.0 2 700 metropolitan region

2.2.2 Prospective situation Table 2: Forecast of demand for electric power and capacity in Republic of Karelia2

Year 20113 20124 2013 2014 2015

Electricity consumption, 8 989.4 8 731.7 9 196 9 260 9 447 GWh Capacity consumption, 1 350 1 379 1 396 1 404 1 427 MW

In the Table 3 represented settlements with decentralized electrification ensured by disel generators. Information was provided by the State Committee of the Republic of Karelia for Housing and

2 Regional power grid dispatching service of Republic of Karelia (http://so-ups.ru/?id=rdu_karelia) 3 Actual consumption (http://so-ups.ru/?id=rdu_karelia) 4 Actual consumption (http://so-ups.ru/?id=rdu_karelia)

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 17 (37)

Communal Services (letter # 06/03-226 as of 25.03.2013). Table 3: Remote settlements isolated from the regional electrical network

Population, Actual consumption in 2012, Name of region Name of settlement inhabitants kWh

Kalevala national region Voinitsa 54 18 486 Kondopoga metropolitan region Lindozero 9 4 272 Yustozero 6 3 382 Muezersky metropolitan region Kimovaara 110 70 627 Reboly 1 100 987 988 Segezha metropolitan region Polga 360 149 668 Valday 1 400 1 066 986 Vozhmozero 30 10 181

In the Table 4 represented electricity tariffs within decentralized electrification ensured by diesel generators. Table 4: Tariffs for electricity produced by isolated diesel generators5 2012 2013 01.01-30.06 01.07-31.12 01.01-30.06 01.07-31.12 Economically justified tariffs for electricity produced by diesel generators of the “Prionezhskaya Grid Company” 24.50 28.66 28.66 30.15 for all consumer groups (excluding households), RUB/kWh Economically justified tariffs for electricity produced by diesel generators of the entrepreneur Chernyshev N.G. for 29.79 33.95 33.95 37.43 all consumer groups (excluding households), RUB/kWh Electricity tariffs for households, RUB/kWh 1.48 1.56 1.56 1.79

Economically justified tariffs for electricity generated by diesel generators are much higher than those for electric power to other consumers with centralized power system.

The most significant share in the product cost of electricity generated by diesel generators are fuel costs. Additionally, diesel generators are not adequately loaded (due to the small number of consumers and uneven load curve during the day in several settlements), which also causes costs’ and subsequently tariffs’ escalation.

5 Information on prices and tariffs (http://www.gov.karelia.ru/gov/Leader/Sovet/121218_doclad1.html)

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 18 (37)

3 CASE STUDIES

3.1 Kalevala national region of Republic of Karelia

Murmansk region Administrative centre: urban-type settlement of Kalevala

Louhi n o

Population: 7 855 inhabitants (year 2013) i g e r Kalevala

K em

2 k s

Area: 13 316 km l e Belomorsk g Kostomuksha n a

Main industries: wood works, cattle farms, fur- h

Muezersk y k

FINLAND r Segezha

farming. A

Average t, °C: in January is -12°C; in July is Medvezhiegorsk +15°C

Kondopoga

Suojarvi Pud ozh Average annual rainfall: § 450-500 mm Petrozavodsk Pryazha Sortavala

Pitkyaranta L ahdenpohja

Olonets region Leningrad region Figure 5: Republic of Karelia, Kalevala national region

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 19 (37)

3.1.1 Voinitsa settlement Figure 6 shows location plan around the Voinitsa settlement.

New Kumio SHPP New Taival SHPP

20 km

Voinitsa settlement

Figure 6: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Voinitsa settlement

Analysis of available reports and graphical material shows that there are two potential sites, Taival and Kumio, situated on the Voinitsa River. However, discussions with local representatives uncovered significant difficulties in terms of infrastructure, i.e. access to the sites. Besides that, in project development some potential legal aspects, in terms of land use, may emerge. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Voinitsa settlement (see Table 3), it does not seem reasonable to develop aforesaid hydropower sites in first turn, comparing to situation in other found isolated settlements.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 20 (37)

3.2 Kondopoga metropolitan region of Republic of Karelia

Murmansk region Administrative centre: town of Kondopoga

Population: 39 506 inhabitants (year 2013) L ouhi n o i

2 g e

Area: 5 940 km r Kalevala

Kem k s l e Belomorsk g Kostomuksha

Main industries: pulp and paper, wood works, n a mining (granite, feldspar), production of crushed h k Muezersky

FINLAND r Segezha stones. A

Average t, °C: in January is -12°C; in July is Medve zhie gorsk +16°C

Kondopoga

Suojarvi Pudozh

Petrozavodsk

Average annual rainfall: § 550 mm Pryazha Sortavala

Pitkyar an ta Lah den pohja Vologda

Olonets region Leningrad region Figure 7: Republic of Karelia, Kondopoga region

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 21 (37)

3.2.1 Yustozero settlement Figure 8 shows location plan around the Yustozero settlement.

20 km

Yustozero settlement

Figure 8: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Yustozero settlement

Analysis of available graphical material shows that there are no potential sites situated nearby Yustozero settlement. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Yustozero settlement (see Table 3), it does not seem reasonable to develop hydropower sites nearby this settlement in first turn, comparing to situation in other found isolated settlements.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 22 (37)

3.2.2 Lindozero settlement Figure 9 shows location plan around the Lindozero settlement.

20 km

Lindozero settlement

Figure 9: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Lindozero settlement

Analysis of available graphical material shows that there are no potential sites situated nearby Lindozero settlement. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Lindozero settlement (see Table 3), it does not seem reasonable to develop hydropower sites nearby this settlement in first turn, comparing to situation in other found isolated settlements.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 23 (37)

3.3 Muezersky metropolitan region of Republic of Karelia

Murmansk region Administrative centre: urban-type settlement of Muezersky

Louhi

Population: 11 615 inhabitants (year 2013) n o i g e

2 r Ka levala

Kem

Area: 17 600 km k s l e Belomorsk g Kostomuksha Main industries: pulp and paper, wood works, n a h

mining (granite, feldspar), production of crushed k Muezersky

FINLAND r Segezha stones. A

Average t, °C: in January is -12°C; in July is Medvezhiegorsk +16°C

Kondopoga

Suojarvi Average annual rainfall: § 550 mm Pudozh Petrozavodsk

Pryazha Sortavala

Pitkyaranta Lahdenpohja Vologda

Olonets region Leningrad region Figure 10: Republic of Karelia, Muezersky region

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 24 (37)

3.3.1 Kimovaara settlement Figure 11 shows location plan around the Kimovaara settlement.

20 km

Kimovaara settlement

Figure 11: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Kimovaara settlement

Analysis of available graphical material shows that there are no potential sites situated nearby Kimovaara settlement. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Kimovaara settlement (see Table 3), it does not seem reasonable to develop hydropower sites nearby this settlement in first turn, comparing to situation in other found isolated settlements.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 25 (37)

3.3.2 Reboly settlement Figure 12 shows location plan around the Reboly settlement.

New Rebolskaya 2 SHPP

New Rebolskaya 1 SHPP

20 km

Reboly settlement

Figure 12: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Reboly settlement

Analysis of available reports and graphical material shows that there are two potential sites, Rebolskaya 1, situated on the Melnichiya River, and Rebolskaya 2, situated on the Lieksanjoki (Omelianjoki) River. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Reboly settlement (see Table 3), it does seem reasonable to develop one of aforesaid hydropower sites in first turn among other found isolated settlements.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 26 (37)

3.3.2.1 New SHPP Rebolskaya 1 on the Kolvas lake

The Kolvas lake is a lake in the Western Karelia, occupys about 7.3 km2. The section between the Kolvas Lake and the Strunalampi Lake is considered. Its drainage basin is about 430 km2 large. The overall fall between the Kolvas Lake and the Strunalampi Lake is 9.5 m, based upon map’s analysis of scale 1:100 000.

FINLAND Ravkulskoe Lake RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Muezersky Kolvas New SHPP Rebolskaya 1 Lake Torosozero Reboly Lake

SHPP Rebolskaya 1's catchment area Leksozero Lake

Ruunaa, Lenderskoe Lake

Ruunaanjärvi Lake 10 km

Figure 13: Catchment areas of the Ruunaa gauging station and SHPP Rebolskaya 1

General description

Location of the site and its catchment area are represented on the Figure 13. The main features of the plant follows:

2 a) FSHPP§ 430 km ;

b) Average annual rainfall: § 500 mm;

c) LSHPP§ 12 %.

Initial materials

The reconnaissance study of the site was conducted by Russian company INSET in 2008, and feasibility study in Republic of Karelia conducted by Finnish company Vesirakentaja in 2012.

Installed capacity

For the Rebolskaya 1 site Oy Vesirakentaja has adjusted reference hydrologic daily values of reference water course. Necessary hydrologic data was obtained from the gauging station Ruunaa situated on the Lieksanjoki River, which belongs to the same catchment area, in Finland. Daily flow data was available at the Finnish environmental authority. Obtained data can be reliably used due to relative equality of lake density of catchment areas and the very similar conditions on the Finnish side.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 27 (37)

Reference water course: Vuoksi River

Reference gauging station: Ruunaa, Finland

Period of daily hydrologic records: 81 years (01.01.1931 - 31.12.2011)

2 Fgauging station = 6 259 km

Lgauging station = 13.7 %

Actual FDC was constructed with developed by Oy Vesirakentaja’s in-house tool using adjusted daily flow values (see Diagram 1).

Rated discharge ( Qr )

Turbine min discharge ( Q r,min )

Diagram 1: FDC for the river Lieksanjoki at the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP’s site

Assuming potential hydraulic head of 9.5 m for the Rebolskaya 1 site and basing upon constructed FDC, the installed capacity of the plant was identified as 400 kW.

Potential energy production

Basing upon the long term daily flow data, the average annual energy was computed by Oy Vesirakentaja with its own tool for hydropower plants’ energy production calculations.

In preventing depletion of the river for this SHPP’s energy production calculations the compensation 3 discharge (Qcom) of 0.5 m /s was assumed.

The table below summarizes the potential energy production at the site; average amounts of produced

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 28 (37) energy are sorted by month: Table 5: Average annual energy production by the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP Month Average energy production, MWh January 110 February 70 March 90 April 80 May 100 June 105 July 105 August 115 September 115 October 120 November 120 December 110 Total: 1 240

Preliminary design and capital cost estimation

Headwater of the plant is formed with the Kolvas lake at the level of +185.1 m. In order to regulate the flow new dam will be constructed at the brook between Kolvas and Chenus lakes, and equippeed with gates.

Water is conveyed to the turbine from an intake via pentstock of 1.8 in diameter, buried in the soil.

For potential hydraulic head of 9.5 m at the Rebolskaya 1 site, one Kaplan turbine was assumed as the most suitable option (see Figure 14).

HEAD WATER TAIL WATER Concrete powerhouse Roof hatch

MACHINERY HALL Turbine Generator

Penstock

Figure 14: Typical arrangement of powerhouse for the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP

The type of the turbine and respective civil works were derived from analogous projects implemented by Oy Vesirakentaja in Finland. General layout of the structures is shown on the Figure 15.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 29 (37)

In order to mitigate harmful effect on the aquatic life of the river the fish passage is to be designed.

According to the shape of the FDC there was chosen one fully adjustable Kaplan turbine from similar projects already implemented in Finland.

Figure 15: Preliminary layout for the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP Main aggregative estimations of constructions works were performed in accordance with preliminary design of the facility (see Table 6). Table 6: Aggregative capital costs for the Rebolskaya 1 SHPP Works Units Quantity Cost, € Design works - Investigations - Approval by state expertise - Rock excavation m3 Soil excavation m3 Wooden penstock m Concrete dam m3 Concrete power house m3 Transmission line km Project management - Associated costs - Connection to grid - Hydro power equipment set Auxiliary mechanical equipment - Auxiliary electric equipment - Total:

Specific capital cost of the project

... – specific capital cost.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 30 (37)

3.3.2.2 New SHPP Rebolskaya 2 on the Lieksanjoki (Omelianjoki) River

The Lieksanjoki is a river in the Western Karelia and Finland, approximately 132 km long. Lake Torosozero forms the river’s headwater. The river flows west before emptying into the lake Pielinen. The section between the Ravkulskoe Lake and the Ruunaanjärvi Lake is considered. Its drainage basin is about 6 259 km2 large. The overall fall of the river between the Ravkulskoe Lake and the Ruunaanjärvi Lake is 44 m, based upon map’s analysis of scale 1:200 000.

SHPP Rebolskaya 2's catchment area

FINLAND Ravkulskoe Lake RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Muezersky

New SHPP Rebolskaya 1 Torosozero Reboly Lake New SHPP Rebolskaya 2

Leksozero Lake

Ruunaa, Lieksa Lenderskoe Lake

Ruunaanjärvi Lake 10 km

Figure 16: Catchment areas of the Ruunaa gauging station and SHPP Rebolskaya 2 on the Lieksanjoki River

RUSSIAN FEDERATION FINLAND +185.0 m

Ravkulskoe Lake New SHPP Rebolskaya 2 +180.0 m

+175.0 m Torosozero Lake Leksozero Lake

+170.0 m Sula Lake +165.0 m

+160.0 m

+155.0 m

+150.0 m

+145.0 m

+140.0 m Ruunaanjärvi lake

+135.0 m 0 km 10 km 20 km 30 km 40 km 50 km 60 km 70 km 80 km 90 km 100 km 110 km 120 km Figure 17: Lieksanjoki River’s longitudinal profile

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 31 (37)

General description

Location of the site and its catchment area are represented on the Figure 16. The main features of the plant follows:

2 d) FSHPP§ 1 490 km ;

e) Average annual rainfall: § 500 mm;

f) LSHPP§ 15 %.

Initial materials

The reconnaissance study of the site was conducted by Russian company INSET in 2008, and feasibility study in Republic of Karelia conducted by Finnish company Vesirakentaja in 2012.

Installed capacity

For the Rebolskaya 2 site Oy Vesirakentaja has adjusted reference hydrologic daily values of reference water course. Necessary hydrologic data was obtained from the gauging station Ruunaa situated on the Lieksanjoki River, which belongs to the same catchment area, in Finland. Daily flow data was available at the Finnish environmental authority. Obtained data can be reliably used due to relative equality of lake density of catchment areas and the very similar conditions on the Finnish side.

Reference water course: Vuoksi River

Reference gauging station: Ruunaa, Finland

Period of daily hydrologic records: 81 years (01.01.1931 - 31.12.2011)

2 Fgauging station = 6 259 km

Lgauging station = 13.7 %

Actual FDC was constructed with developed by Oy Vesirakentaja’s in-house tool using adjusted daily flow values (see Diagram 2).

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 32 (37)

Rated discharge ( Qr )

Turbine min discharge ( Q r,min )

Diagram 2: FDC for the river Lieksanjoki at the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP’s site

Assuming potential hydraulic head of 5 m for the Rebolskaya 2 site and basing upon constructed FDC, the installed capacity of the plant was identified as 890 kW.

Potential energy production

Basing upon the long term daily flow data, the average annual energy was computed by Oy Vesirakentaja with its own tool for hydropower plants’ energy production calculations.

In preventing depletion of the river for this SHPP’s energy production calculations the compensation 3 discharge (Qcom) of 1.0 m /s was assumed.

The table below summarizes the potential energy production at the site; average amounts of produced energy are sorted by month: Table 7: Average annual energy production by the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP Month Average energy production, MWh January 360 February 260 March 220 April 220 May 580 June 620 July 580 August 460 September 400

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 33 (37)

October 440 November 440 December 430 Total: 5 010

Preliminary design and capital cost estimation

Headwater of the plant is formed with a new pondage risen to the level +180.0 m by mean of a new concrete dam. The dam will be equippeed with gates for better flood control.

Water is conveyed to the turbine from an intake via pentstock of 1.8 in diameter, buried in the soil.

For potential hydraulic head of 5 m at the Rebolskaya 2 site, one Kaplan turbine was assumed as the most suitable option (see Figure 18).

HEAD WATER TAIL WATER Concrete powerhouse Roof hatch

MACHINERY HALL Turbine Generator

Penstock

Figure 18: Typical arrangement of powerhouse for the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP

The type of the turbine and respective civil works were derived from analogous projects implemented by Oy Vesirakentaja in Finland. General layout of the structures is shown on the Figure 19.

In order to mitigate harmful effect on the aquatic life of the river the fish passage is to be designed.

According to the shape of the FDC there was chosen one fully adjustable Kaplan turbine from similar projects already implemented in Finland.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 34 (37)

New concrete dam with mechanical closures

Pondage

New power house

The upper rapid of the cascade

Penstock Intake

Figure 19: Preliminary layout for the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP Main aggregative estimations of constructions works were performed in accordance with preliminary design of the facility (see Table 8). Table 8: Aggregative capital costs for the Rebolskaya 2 SHPP Works Units Quantity Cost, € Design works - Investigations - Approval by state expertise - Rock excavation m3 Soil excavation m3 Wooden penstock m Concrete dam m3 Concrete power house m3 Transmission line km Project management - Associated costs - Connection to grid - Hydro power equipment set Auxiliary mechanical equipment - Auxiliary electric equipment - Total:

Specific capital cost of the project

... - specific capital cost.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 35 (37)

3.4 Segezha metropolitan region of Republic of Karelia

Murmansk region Administrative centre: town of Segezha

Population: 39 665 inhabitants (year 2013) Louhi n o i g e

2 r Kalevala

Area: 10 700 km Kem k s l e Belomorsk g Kostomuksha n

Main industries: wood works, cattle farms, a h k Muezer sky

FINLAND r fur-farming. Segezha A

Average t, °C: in January is -10°C; in July Medvezhiegorsk is +14°C

Kondopoga

Suoj arv i Pudozh Average annual rainfall: § 500 mm Petrozavodsk Pryazha Sortavala

P itkyaranta Lahdenpohja Vologda

Olonets region Leningrad region Figure 20: Republic of Karelia, Segezha metropolitan region

3.4.1 Polga settlement Figure 21 shows location plan around the Polga settlement.

20 km

Polga settlement

Figure 21: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Polga settlement

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 36 (37)

Analysis of available graphical material shows that there are no potential sites situated nearby Polga settlement. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Polga settlement (see Table 3), it does not seem reasonable to develop hydropower sites nearby this settlement in first turn, comparing to situation in other found isolated settlements.

3.4.2 Vozhmozero settlement Figure 22 shows location plan around the Vozhmozero settlement.

20 km

Vozhmozero settlement

Figure 22: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Vozhmozero settlement

Analysis of available graphical material shows that there are no potential sites situated nearby Vozhmozero settlement. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Vozhmozero settlement (see Table 3), it does not seem reasonable to develop hydropower sites nearby this settlement in first turn, comparing to situation in other found isolated settlements.

TEM/32/04.01.01/2011 2013-02-KA535

Intermediate report - DRAFT 11.06.2013 37 (37)

3.4.3 Valday settlement Figure 23 shows location plan around the Valday settlement. Valday settlement

Figure 23: Preliminary location plan of the sites nearby Valday settlement

Analysis of available reports and graphical material shows that there is one potential site, Valdayskaya, situated on the Vyg River. Additionally, taking into consideration factual electricity consumption and amount of population of the Valday settlement (see Table 3), it does seem reasonable to develop aforesaid hydropower site in first turn among other found isolated settlements.

According to preliminary study there is a possibility to develop 5-6 MW SHPP. However, there is significant flooded area which is needed for head pond. More detailes on this potential project will be supplemented later.