{"id":44935,"date":"2026-11-02T17:50:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-02T22:50:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/?p=44935"},"modified":"2026-11-02T17:50:00","modified_gmt":"2026-11-02T22:50:00","slug":"silver-eel-slides-spinning-turbine-built","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/silver-eel-slides-spinning-turbine-built\/44935\/","title":{"rendered":"A silver eel slides through a spinning turbine built around 131 test passages in a California tank, and every one swims out alive"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A silver eel slides into a spinning metal runner about the size of a trash can lid.<\/p>\n<p>It does not get chopped.<\/p>\n<p>It comes out the other side, tail flicking, and keeps swimming.<\/p>\n<p>This happened inside a test facility in Alameda, California, not in a river.<\/p>\n<p>A high speed camera caught most of these passes.<\/p>\n<p>What the footage speaks to is a question hydropower has carried for decades, whether the blades that make the electricity can stop being the thing that kills the fish.<\/p>\n<h2>A blunter blade changes the impact on contact<\/h2>\n<p>Conventional propeller blades are thin and knife shaped because that geometry pulls the most electricity out of moving water. The <strong>tradeoff has always been<\/strong> fish. A thin leading edge strikes hard on contact, and the narrow gaps between a spinning blade and its housing can pinch anything that drifts too close.<\/p>\n<p>The redesign, called the Restoration Hydro Turbine, swaps that profile for something <strong>thicker and rounder<\/strong>, with a forward sweep from hub to tip. Instead of a cutting edge, a fish meets something closer to the blunt side of an oar.<\/p>\n<p>The runner was built around that single idea, a <strong>glancing blow<\/strong> rather than a slicing one. The design also minimizes the gaps between the blades and the turbine walls, reducing the chance that a fish is trapped between moving and stationary parts. High speed video of passage events revealed an <strong>absence of pinching<\/strong> or laceration injury risk inside the turbine.<\/p>\n<h2>A test tank in Alameda stood in for a river<\/h2>\n<p>None of this happened inside a working dam. It took place in a <strong>closed loop test facility<\/strong> built for the purpose, a recirculating hydraulic test facility in Alameda, California, where a runner can spin at realistic speeds while biologists watch live animals cross through it.<\/p>\n<p>So the lab stood in for the river. The speeds were set to match operating plants rather than a gentler laboratory approximation, which matters because <strong>passage claims are easy<\/strong> to overstate at low velocities.<\/p>\n<p>The fish work was also not self reported. Fish biologists from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory tagged and measured the eels before passage and inspected each animal in a water filled tube afterward, so the outcome was <strong>independently measured<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h2>All 131 test eels survived the 667 RPM runner<\/h2>\n<p>In the peer reviewed trial, a 21.6 inch runner was operated under about 33 feet of hydraulic head at 667 revolutions per minute. A total of <strong>131 eels were passed<\/strong> through it and 43 were held as controls, with eel lengths ranging from about 13 to 26 inches.<\/p>\n<p>A subset of 37 eels was X rayed for internal injuries. The 48 hour survival rate for both treatment and control groups was <strong>100 percent<\/strong>, with no major internal or external injuries after the hold period. The work was published in the <a href=\"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1002\/tafs.10385\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Transactions<\/a> of a fisheries science journal. A separate test reported by the Department of Energy reached the same result on a smaller scale. Forty seven American eels of 13 to 19 inches passed through a 21.6 inch unit under about 33 feet of head at 670 revolutions per minute, again with 100 percent survival, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.energy.gov\/cmei\/water\/articles\/natel-restoration-hydro-turbines-increase-fish-passage-without-compromising\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">the same agency reports<\/a> that laboratory biologists confirmed 100 percent survival of all 60 rainbow trout passed through the turbine.<\/p>\n<p>Some of the eels tested were longer than the runner was wide. One <strong>engineer involved<\/strong> in the design work put it this way: the turbine was meant to treat a fish &#8220;like a boat hull meeting a wave, not a blade meeting a target.&#8221; For comparison, the eel paper notes that <strong>survival through conventional<\/strong> Kaplan and Francis turbines may range from 40 percent to 95 percent.<\/p>\n<h2>Sediment tests pointed to a 78.5 percent wear drop<\/h2>\n<p>The forward swept shape appears to help the hardware too, not only the animals swimming through it. In tests following IEC Standard 62364, the company reports that its <strong>thicker blade profile<\/strong> showed up to 78.5 percent less wear in high sediment conditions than conventional blades, which it translates into roughly <strong>five times the blade life<\/strong>. That figure comes from a company white paper, not a peer reviewed journal, and should be read as such.<\/p>\n<p>It matters because silty rivers grind a standard blade down fast, shortening its working life and raising repair costs. A runner that both protects fish and resists grit is a <strong>rarer combination<\/strong> than either benefit alone, part of why the design has drawn interest beyond its installed projects in Maine, Oregon and Austria.<\/p>\n<p>None of that erases the scale of the real problem. Much of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/laser-strips-plastic-backing-off-worn\/44344\/\">aging hydropower fleet<\/a> in the United States still turns older blade designs, and retrofitting even a willing plant takes time and money.<\/p>\n<h2>Eels still face years of travel past one wheel<\/h2>\n<p>A single turbine passage is not the whole migration. The same eels that cross this runner safely may still meet dams with no downstream passage design at all, warming water, or <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/amphibian-refuge-wind-turbines-asturias\/44327\/\">habitat lost<\/a> long before they reach an intake.<\/p>\n<p>Even so, the result is a measured thing rather than a rendering or a promise. A fish facing certain conventional runners has had, at the low end, something close to even odds. In this tank it had a <strong>documented path through<\/strong>, counted one eel at a time.<\/p>\n<p>For a river that has to keep both its current and its creatures, that is a small, verifiable start worth watching as more plants decide whether to swap the wheel.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A silver eel slides into a spinning metal runner about the size of a trash can lid. It does not get chopped. It comes out the other side, tail flicking, and keeps swimming. This happened inside a test facility in Alameda, California, not in a river. A high speed camera caught most of these passes. &#8230; <a title=\"A silver eel slides through a spinning turbine built around 131 test passages in a California tank, and every one swims out alive\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/silver-eel-slides-spinning-turbine-built\/44935\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about A silver eel slides through a spinning turbine built around 131 test passages in a California tank, and every one swims out alive\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":28,"featured_media":44937,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_focus_keyword":"silver eel slides","rank_math_title":"A silver eel slides through a spinning turbine built around 131 test passages in a California tank, and every one swims out alive","rank_math_description":"A redesigned turbine let every American eel sent through a California test tank swim out alive, and sediment tests suggest its blades last longer too.","footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-energy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/28"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44935"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44935\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44938,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44935\/revisions\/44938"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ecoportal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}