| Condition monitoring


by line-of-sight requirements and one-drone-per-pilot operational models. The utility uses drones to inspect 1,550 miles of transmission infrastructure, power generation assets and canal system infrastructure. Applications include spillway erosion mapping, vegetation management and asset condition monitoring. NYPA Robotics Program Manager Peter Kalaitzidis said the four-to-one operational structure is intended to standardise inspection practices across the utility’s service territory. “Conducting standardized four-drones-to-one-pilot operations at our sites will allow for more consistent inspection workflows across our energy assets and electric grid regions,” Kalaitzidis said. The programme relies heavily on autonomous flight operations. Drones follow predefined routes and inspection patterns with minimal manual intervention, allowing operations during overnight periods or severe weather events. That operational flexibility may ultimately prove more important than labour savings alone. Autonomous inspections can capture thermal and visual data under conditions that are difficult or unsafe for human inspectors, including ice storms and extreme cold. The programme also reflects how drone deployment in the utility sector is shifting from experimental use toward long-term capital planning. NYPA plans to invest more than US$37 million in its drone programme through 2028 and already has 146 certified drone pilots. The FAA waiver, secured with support from drone manufacturer Skydio, remains specific to Skydio aircraft and runs through 2030. Multi-drone inspection systems could significantly change how dam and hydropower inspections are scheduled and prioritised. Instead of periodic manual campaigns, utilities may increasingly adopt persistent or high-frequency autonomous monitoring strategies. Skydio Regulatory Program Manager Daniel Jenkins


linked the expanded operational model directly to workforce safety and outage response. “This latest approval enables a single operator to conduct up to four simultaneous missions, multiplying the safety and efficiency gains already achieved by the program and unlocking significant operational scale,” Jenkins said. “This milestone underscores the value of Skydio’s autonomy: putting machines in harm’s way instead of people, while delivering more reliable energy, and reducing response times for outages for all New Yorkers.”


Targeting operational realities At Vattenfall’s hydropower research and development


centre in Älvkarleby, Sweden, robotics development is being integrated into a broader programme focused on extending and adapting conventional hydropower technology. Unlike some research programmes focused primarily on digitalisation, the Älvkarleby facility concentrates on practical operational challenges facing mature hydropower fleets. Drones and robotic systems are being tested alongside work on concrete materials, lubrication systems, dam monitoring and generator wear. Research manager Mats Billstein described the centre’s emphasis as evolutionary rather than transformational. “I don’t see any revolutionary technological advances


in hydropower. A lot of it is about improving and updating what has worked well for so long, but also finding solutions to things that could be better,” Billstein said. That framing reflects the realities facing many operators


with ageing infrastructure portfolios. Much of the sector’s future investment will likely focus on life extension, operational flexibility and performance optimisation rather than entirely new hydropower concepts. The Älvkarleby facility combines laboratory testing with


large-scale physical models designed to replicate real operating conditions. Those models allow researchers to validate inspection methods and operational changes before field implementation. “Here we have the opportunity to conduct large-scale


experiments. The size of the models means that the results are very close to reality,” Billstein said. The centre is testing robot dogs and aerial drones for inspections in inaccessible or hazardous areas around hydropower facilities. Proposed applications include internal turbine inspections and autonomous inspection rounds around dam structures and waterways. Importantly, the robotics work is tied directly to


broader operational changes occurring across European hydropower systems. As grids absorb larger shares of wind and solar generation, hydropower plants are increasingly required to ramp output rapidly and cycle more frequently. That operational shift creates new wear patterns in turbines, generators and mechanical systems originally designed for steadier operation. Vattenfall researchers are conducting repeated start-


stop testing on generator models to better understand the resulting mechanical stresses. “Future operations will involve significantly more starts and stops, which increases wear on the facilities. We need to understand how this wear occurs and what drives it,” Billstein said. In that context, robotics and autonomous monitoring become tools for managing operational variability rather than standalone technologies. More dynamic operating profiles require more continuous inspection, faster condition assessment and improved predictive maintenance capabilities. The research centre is also investigating non- destructive geophysical monitoring methods for embankment dams. One recent project involved constructing a full-scale test dam containing intentionally embedded defects to evaluate different monitoring approaches under blind-test conditions. That type of validation work may become increasingly important as operators attempt to integrate automated inspection systems into safety-critical infrastructure management.


www.waterpowermagazine.com | June 2026 | 39


Top: Mats Billstein, research manager for hydropower issues at Vattenfall’s research and development center in Älvkarleby


Bottom: The eDNA-bot could conduct biomonitoring at remote locations such as Apalachia Dam on the Hiwassee River in western North Carolina. Credit: Thomason and Associates/North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45