feasibility study of small hydro power plants in costa rica
Post on 03-Dec-2021
12 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Feasibility study of Small Hydro Power Plants in Costa Rica
G.Morelli
Zaragoza University
Zaragoza, Spain
Abstract: The CNFL owns several Hydroelectric Power
Plants in the Virilla´s river basin. This study conducts an
analysis of feasibility, focusing on the company’s Small
Hydro Power plants (SHP). Therefore, only plants with
less than 20 MW of installed power are considered here.
The main objective is to optimize energy yield on
existing plants, especially on those which are at the end
of their life cycle.
It is important to mention that many of these plants have
been subject to repowering, addition of new units or just
upgrades, during periods as long as one century.
Keywords: Feasibility, Hydropower, Optimization,
Turbine, Costa Rica, Profitable.
1. INTRODUCTION
For validation of the method National Company of
Electricity of Costa Rica( CNFL) requirements and
previous consultancies have been considered. This is the
case for the feasibility studies of the 12-MW plant
Nuestro Amo and 1-MW plant Ciruelas.
The study aims to achieve the following basic objectives:
Define a Production methodology to predict
optimal possible yield.
Sized optimal equipment and civil works based
on the best cost effective solution.
Apply this methodology on local SHP projects,
previous to move on with costly consultancy.
From a general point of view the study promotes
optimization on aged SHP, by showing that
modernization, repowering or reconstruction works, can
be easily evaluated, are profitable and not as risky as
larger hydro power projects which have long lasting
execution times and higher capital costs.
2. METHODOLOGY
The CNFL has reconstructed several projects, basically
due to flooding damages or just repowered to improve the
low efficiency of aged equipment with high O&M costs.
In order to have a better overview of company
requirements and local market factors previous feasibility
studies from private consultancies will be used as
example exercises to be compared with the feasibility
method described in this work.
Comparing local costs with other trends, will give a good
idea of accuracy of the exercise.
Nowadays the company has installed 10 SHPs. Only 7 of
them are running, while the other 3 are been upgraded or
reconstructed.
Basic selection factors for plants subject to the study for
an upgrading analysis are defined as follows:
a. O&M Costs
b. Turbine Equipment Age
c. Installed power
As higher the O&M costs, older the equipment and
higher the installed power, higher is the priority for an
upgrade. As a result of this assessment, the three SHP
shown in Table 10 have been selected.
Recent ongoing projects have been selected for costs
analysis in orther to compare actualize information. A
new SHP called Ciruelas and an old plant called Nuestro
Amo, which is subject to modernization since Power
House was severely damaged. Also SHP-C, is chosen
from Table 10.
More detailed information is summarized in Table1. In
total 2 SHP for upgrade and 1 SHP for new construction
are subject to analysis under the methodology of this
document.
Table 1. SHP Characteristics.
In order to full fill the objectives, the following
methodology must be completed:
1. Calculation of the available Hydraulic Potential
Ciruelas
(SHP-C)
Nuestro
Amo(SHP-N)
Electriona
(SHP-E)
Study Type - New Upgrade Upgrade
Average Flow Q (m3/s) 0.73 3.60 9.68
Head H (m) 92.00 179.00 79.00
Long (m) 45.00 45.00 30.00
Height(m) 7.00 7.00 10.00
Penstock Long (m) steel 559.00 736.00 100.00
Forebay/weir reservoirVolume (m3) 23,000.00 90,000.00 5,000.00
Canal Long (m) 1,337.00 1,800.00 500.00
Power lines 20KVLong (m) 1,337.00 1,800.00 500.00
Flow Rates Data - Consultancy Consultancy Production
Weir
SHP
Fix
CharacteristicsMeasure
2
2. Definition of an operation mode
3. Optimization of Yield
4. Definition of cost calculation
5. Optimal sizing and selection of the system
6. Investment analysis
2.1 Hydraulic resource
Flow assessment from Consultancy is used for the
Ciruelas and N. Amo plant [2, 3].
For Electriona SHP, no accurate historical flow data was
available, but energy yield information from 10 years
gives valuable data, by applying general formulas as for
Power described in “Equation (27-34)”,as rule of the
thumb a simplify method is used to obtain Power
capacity river flow is obtained.
2.2 Yield optimization
In order to reproduce Energy yield, different parameters
must be established depending mainly on national tariff,
river flow and the size or capacity of the water reservoir.
a-Tariff Scheme: As shown on Table 2, different prices
are set for Energy(Kwh) and for “Firm energy (KW)”,
which is paid for the lowest power measured during the
interval of one month.
Table 2. Tariff Scheme in Costa Rica. (CNFL, 2011)
b-River Flow: Historical data for flow discharge from
“Fig. 3” is assumed to be equal each day of the
corresponding month. As an average value, hourly flow is
used to calculate the most profitable production scheme.
c-Reservoir Volume: Since all of the plants have a small
dam or weir, this reservoir must be taken into account, in
order to improve firm energy, which generates an
important share of total income.
2.3 Operation of the system
In order to get maximum revenues, best turbine flow rate
option is chosen, based on most profitable operation
mode, by selecting the value of remaining water volume
in the reservoir for a 24 h Operation interval. This mean
using water reserved volume to operate in the different
sub-Periods (A till D), mentioned in Table 2.
Finally best combination of each interval revenues will
give optimal economic solution.
Selection of formulas are based on basic concepts of
Flow Mechanics [4], on the principle of conservation of
mass, which can be applied for a theoretical analysis on
weir or forebay reservoir, “Equation (2-16)” is used.
The calculation of monthly income depends on the
parameters mentioned before. For this reason a solution
tool must be used to consider several options. “Solver”
Macro of MS Excel was chosen.
Annex B, shows an example of using of solver based on
defined formulas, daily tariff scheme and techno-
economic analysis.
2.4 Techno-Economical analysis
In order to determine the most cost effective solution,
maximum Profitability Index (PI), is used which is
represented by “Equation (23)”.
PI, is a decision making index which help choosing
between projects with different initial outlay.
NPV is obtained according to calculations described in
Appendix C, and Capital Cost by IDEA(see Annex D)
and upgraded formulas, based on Head (H) and Flow (Q)
[6].
The study focuses on optimal equipment for the local
characteristics, for this reason optimal turbine most must
be selected according to “Fig.1”.
Figure 1, Q-H Diagram. ([7,8]).
Other secondary parameters also must be taken into
account, for example equipment efficiency at variable
flow, and the size of the reservoir. Some examples for
turbine performance can be seen on [8].
Using efficiency curves based on Relative discharge
rates, like shown in “Fig.2”, this simplifies the
optimization of system selection based on profitability,
due the fact that this these curves are can be
approximated with to a polynomial fitting.
Figure 2. Polynomial approximation of turbine η_turb,
for Francis and Ossberger.( [6]).
PERIOD NOCHE(N.P)
SUB- Period C E B D A
Daily Interval 10:00-12:30 17:30-20:00 6:00-10:00 12:30-17:30 20:00-24:00
/00:00-6:00
# hours 2.5 2.5 4 5 10
$/KWh 0.06
$/KW -
PUNTA(P.P) VALLE(V.P)
0.085 0.07
4.536 4.536
3
2.5 Financial Parameters
In order to obtain NPV, IRR and other financial results
for analysis, the following values in Table 3, are used:
Table 3. Economic Data.
3.DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Calculation of the available Hydraulic Potential
Since no river information was available for SHP-E,
historical data gives feasible information for further
calculations. Using “Equation (27, 28)”s for power and
energy, with SHP data, nominal output values are
obtained, as a rule of the thumb Operational Availability
(OAV) is considered around 85%, for this method, based
on average values, computations are shown in Annex E.
On the other hand, consultancy`s river flow assessment
was used for Nuestro Amo and Ciruelas. Data is shown in
“Fig.3”.
Figure 3. Monthly Average Flow.
As is expected a clearly dry and wet season is presented
for analysed cases.
Others Factors that must be considered is river`s
contamination and sediment production, like garbage and
sand, that could affect turbine performance, especially on
urban rivers like N.Amo and Electriona.
3.2 Cost Analysis
Project Investments analysis highly depends on cost
analysis, therefore a reliable method must applied.
Different papers presents Cost/KWH or KW based on
SHP Power capacity and Head, as in [9], but the
methodology used form the IDAE based on H and Q, best
fits optimization requirements since operation mode will
depends of relative discharge and on this incomes.
Also Breakdown cost of SHP, are analysed on developing
countries, as in “Fig.7” on Annex A. Electromechanical
range is between 20-50%, the same for civil works, but as
a global analysis any assumption could be made since
costs of Civil works will depends on local conditions.
In order to have an overview between IDAE´s Cost
analysis which is based on European´s costs, basically on
Spanish market, a comparison with local consultancy
studies is done; results are shown in “Fig.4”.
Figure 4. Cost comparison Consultancy vs Theoretical
Graphs in “Fig.4”, shows big differences, from this
analysis it becomes clear that Local Costs take into
account more complex installations with expensive
electromechanical systems like: Fire systems, Gensets,
Automatized gates and Trash racks between others.
Stronger civil works are needed, due to fact that the
country is situated in a volcanic and seismic zone. Also
temporal flooding, typical from tropical locations requires
strength oversizing of dams and weirs.
Additional elements like sediment traps are required at
the beginning (intake) of the canal and at the end of the
canal, before the forebay. Logistic costs must also be
considered. Costs are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Installation costs.
4
Other source of actualized information are considered
like International Renewable Energy Agency(IRENA)
reports in [9], from 2012.
For small hydro category according to Irena (see Table
11) ,costs are between acceptable range for Theoretical,
and just above or near the limit for Consultancy.
Theoretical formulas are selected for further analysis.
Since consultancy cost are specific for each particular
study, cost analysis from IDAE presents a validated
method, needed for proposed methodology.
3.3 Optimal sizing and selection of the system based
on profitability
As shown in “Fig.3”, tropical weather presents a variable
range of precipitation and seasonal flows in the rivers.
For this reason, two different types of site configurations
are selected for analysis based on Mixed Type Run of
river.
According to “Fig.1”, which shows Q-H Diagram,
possible turbines will be selected according to each
particular case and comparison will made in order to
choose best technical solution.
.
When apply, the following configurations are compared:
Hourly Reservoir vs. Run of River
Use of Flashboards or Not, above the Weir.
Use of flashboards presents an opportunity to increase
water capacity of the reservoir, which is highly paid
during peak hours, and needed in the dry season.
The use of Flashboards must take into account an
automatic method or fuse gate system, that opens at
excessive water level during inflows, this way water will
not reach high levels upstream and floods will be avoid
on the area.Evaluation asumptions are specify in Table5.
Table 5. Evaluation Assumptions
As mentioned before, the Solver optimization tool, with
operation constraints is used to maximize Energy yield,
taking into account one or more turbines.
Two methods will be used for sizing turbine:
Best IRR( Internal rate of return), for NEW
SHP-C
Best CI (Cost effective Index), for SHP-N and
SHP-C.
IRR, is an optimal method for financial evaluation of
projects, with the disadvantage that many computations
have to be done.
By using optimal CI, a higher income with a lowest
Initial Investment is obtain and less computations are
needed. This the best option for investments from own
capital and considering that SHP can be repower few
times during its lifetime, future sizing of the equipment
will tend to remain as original, as long as hydraulic
resource and equipment present the same tendency.
, but not guarantees best IRR.
3.3.1 New SHP-C
For Sizing of a new plant SHP-C, different Flow rate
values where selected and graph them against IRR with
maximize Incomes obtain by Solver tool, as shown in
“Fig 5,6”.
Figure 5. SHP-C Optimal selection Ossberger Turbine
Figure 6. SHP-C Optimal selection FrancisTurbine
5
By selecting higher IRR, optimal solution is guarantee.
Table 6, is used to summarize results.
Table 6. Optimal selection SHP-C.
3.3.2 Upgrades on SHP-E and SHP-N
Since major investment on upgrades depends on
electromechanical (Turbines, Power Transformers and
Electrical general system); costs of these elements are
used as a reference for sizing the turbines.
In order to simplify the iteration of values and not extend
the present work, the Solver tool, objective cell is based
on maximum Cost effective solution This value will be
called Cost effective Index (CI) and is defined according
to “Equation (16)”.
Since SHP-N presents a 179 m Head, suitable turbines
that could fit are Francis and Pelton, but as mentioned
before trash and sediment is a problem presented on
rivers located in the Virilla´s Basin, for this reason jets
from Pelton turbine can be easily wear down or
obstructed.
Francis is chose as only option, considering the
majoritarian equipment installed in the country
correspond to this kind, and experienced local workshops
are available (see Table7).
Table 7. Optimal selection SHP-N.
Finally results(see table 6,7) shows that Ossberger
presents some advantages over Francis, like production
maximizing especially on dry season, where in most
plants turbine discharge is less than nominal. Also
crossflow turbines are considered being self-cleaning
turbines which can be a benefit due to the reduction of
maintenance stops resulting of trash problems. Crossflow
technology is mostly unexplored on local projects, but the
benefits seem to outweigh the risk.
Table 8. Optimal selection SHP-E.
3.4 Investment analysis
Since CNFL is an utility company that has to buy the
electricity share that is not produced “in house”, selection
for Project priority will be arranged on best PI and
IRR(Internal rate of return),PI analysis considered
Investor share, in this case CNFL`s Investment.
This way a best management of capital is made, by
looking toward for the “biggest bang for the buck”.
In the C.R. different Banks have preference rates and
incentives for Renewable Energies Projects, like risk
guarantees offered by “BCID”(Centro American Bank Of
Developing and Integration) as high as 1 Million $ per
Project, at an annual interest rate of 1.5% [11].
This gives an opportunity to local companies to diversify
investments on different project.
Priority arrangement on studied cases is presented in
Table 9. Clearly the best or most profitable project comes
from upgrades and modernization of SHP, considering
that lifetime of civil works could be as long as 100 years.
Several upgrades could be done during this life cycle.
Table 9. Optimal Project priority selection
As presented in Table 9, the 3 projects are between
acceptable cost thresholds from Irena and requirements
are fulfilled according to assumptions in Table 3.
Optimal
Case
SHP-C
CI:FrancisCII:Fran-
Run-Off
CIII:Ossber
ger
CIV:Oss-
Run-Off
CV: CIV-
Flasboards
Q m3/s 1.70 0.90 1.70 1.00 1.00
# UNITS 1 1 1 1 1
Power KW 1,187.54 628.70 1,187.54 698.55 698.55
MWh/year 4,037.51 3,038.80 4,150.97 3,521.33 3,458.53
Incomes T$ 389.37$ 258.86$ 407.00$ 300.03$ 309.73$
Electro-
mechanic
CostsT$
682.99$ 691.63$ 965.46$ 743.06$ 743.06$
Civil Works
Costs T$3,537.46$ 1,859.65$ 3,356.98$ 1,921.78$ 1,944.28$
Total Costs
T $4,220.45 2,551.28$ 4,322.44 2,664.85$ 2,687.35$
PI 0.85 1.25 0.93 1.75 1.86
IRR 6.2% 7.6% 6.5% 9.1% 9.4%
NPV 2,857.44$ 2,558.14$ 3,217.25$ 3,720.92$ 4,005.60$
Pay Back 17.00 14.00 16.00 12.00 12.00
6
Discount rates of optimal selections are above 7%,
upgrades cases present an excellent payback of less than
1 year and return on investment are as high as 11 up to 14
times, as shows by PI.
For new small SHP-C, PI is not as good as upgraded
projects, but still is a feasible investment.
It is advised to continue further analysis in the
corresponding priority arranged by highest PI order as
described in Table 9.
4. CONCLUSIONS
1. Not using reservoirs decreases initial
investment costs of around 20% and eliminates related
high maintenance costs, due to heavy sedimentation of
local rivers, especially on Virilla`s river basin that is
strongly affected by floods and pollution from the Cities.
2. Investments with Francis and Ossberger
turbine are substantially similar. Main reason for
selection will not be turbine Investment but due to profits
from energy yield and firm energy.
3. It is well known that the use of several turbines
benefits production reliability and minimizes
operational risks. Because a large% of the electricity
income depends on "firm energy" the most viable
strategy is the application of two turbines at least; twin
systems are the most Cost effective alternative.
4. Flashboards do not improve income for SHP-
E and SHP-N. The main reason is the high flow of
Electriona and the large size of the reservoir of SHP-N.
5. SHP-C optimal solution shows that for such
small river flow discharge, best option is avowing,
expensive civil works, and try out some technical
advantages like Crosflow turbines high working range
and lower cost elements like flashboards.
6. Refurbishment and upgrade of SHP
represents a highly profitable opportunity. It is worth
considering these options before and compare results
against new construction, before taking investment
decisions.
5. REFERENCES
[1] ICE, http://www.grupoice.com, 2012, Date of
access: 01/10/2012.
[2] GeoIngenieria, Factibility Study SHP Ciruelas,
2011, Costa Rica: CNFL.
[3] GeoIngenieria, Factibility Study SHP Nuestro
Amo, 2011, Costa Rica:CNFL.
[4] Çengel Y, Boles M, Thermodynamics, 2do Ed.,
1999, Mexico: MacGraw-Hill.
[5] Solver front line systems Inc.,
http://www.solver.com, 2012, Date of access:
01/07/2012.
[6] Taffazzoli A, Bludszuweit H, Market Trends
and Feasibility Study of Small Hydro Power Plant ,
Proccedings of Hydrovision.
[7] ESHA, Guide How de Develop a Small Hydro
Power Plant, 2004, Brussels: ESHA.
[8] IDAE, Small Hydro Power Plant, 2006, Madrid:
IDEA.
[9] IRENA, Renewable energy cost Analysis -
Hydro Power, 2012, Germany: ESHA.
[10] Natural resource Canada, www.nrcan.gc.ca,
2012, Date of access: 01/09/2012.
[11] CEGESTI, Final Report Financial Mechanisms,
Costa Rica, 2011, Costa Rica: OLADE, ONUDI.
6. ACKNOWEDGEMENTSREFERENCES
The author of this paper would like to express his
gratitude and sincere appreciation to the National
Ministry of Science and Technology of Costa Rica for
their support and Hans Bludszuweit for his valuable
comments and suggestions.
7
7. ANNEXES
ANNEX-A:
A1.1 PRIORITY SELECTION MEHOD
CNFL´s Plants Subject to the study where selected based on Identification Electromechanical Equipment Older than 20
years as show in Table 10.
Table 10. Optimal selection SHP-E
Other factor to be taken into account was to obtain O & M Costs of this plants. Also to considered this as a decision
maker. If SHP are over 20 years old, but O & M are on an acceptable range, upgrades intervention could be delay,
according to company judge.
According to Irena, Table 11, a maximum value from Operational Cost could be 4 % of Installation Cost that are around
$1300KW-8000/KW. Is about $52-$320 per KW.
Table 11. Typical Installation Costs[9].
Figure 7. Breakdown Costs on SHP, in developing countries [9].
For this reason 6 years historical data was studied in order to obtain Average Cost of Selected Plants. These are above
or just at that limit; also some SHPs are having red numbers on dry years. This is the case for Electriona and Rio
Segundo which intervention for upgrades is a must. PRI (Priority Index), is used to define which SHP will be selected
first.
(1)
Where:
PRI: Priority index
A: Age
P: Installed Power
1360 1928 84 114
1360 1928 84 114
3105 1991 21 65
1252 1931 81 101
1250 2008 4 9
8001 1991 21 168
250 1908 104 26
1000 1999 13 13
Electriona
Belen
Rio 2do
294 360
278 265
39 376
Priority
Index
Total
Index
O &M
($/KW)SHP
Power
(KW)
Installation
Year Age
8
ANNEX-B: B.1 YIELD ANALISIS FORMULAS
Formulations are made, considering operation of the system under present tariff scheme, in order to find optimal
selection.
(2)
– (3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
where;
(15)
(16)
Where,
VC= Control Volume or System
V2=Initial VC
V1= Final VC
Ven=Volume In
Vsal=Volume Out
Q= Flow
∆t=Time
x: Represents the sub-Period of tariff: A till E .According to the tariff.
x-1: Represents value of sub-period before actual.
Tx: Operational hours on x.
TX*: Relative operational hours
Tn: Sub-period interval in hours
qx: relative turbine flow rate
Qn: nominal flow of turbine
Qx:Rated Flow at sub-period x.
Vx: Total Volume of water at end x.
VTx: volume of water used by the turbine at x.
VRx: Remaining Volume of water at Forebay or Weir reservoir.
VRx*: total remaining Volume of water at end of x.
Tmax: Time lap in hours of x.
Vw: Weir capacity volume
Px: output power
Ex: Energy outpout
effTx: Efficiency of turbine
Qmin: minimum working flow of turbine
qt: Porcentaje of Qn.
K: Efficiency Factor constant
H. Head
CI:Cost Index
Ec: Electromechanic Costs
Ia: Annual Incommes
eff
effTO:T.Ossberger 121.2 -421 444.7 -58.6
effTF:T.Francis 0 -596 238.8 62.08
9
B.2 EXAMPLE TABLES OF ELECTRIONA SHP, YIELD OPTIMIZATION
Example for Electriona describes Cost effective selection for case “C-I: Ossberger”, which determine Turbine Type and
size.
Month days Period
Sub-
period Tmax Tx* Tx Qr Qx Vx VTx VRx* VRx qxx (h) (h) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3)
1 31 N A 10 0.69 6.93 7.79 11.05 280507 275507 280507 5000 1.00
1 31 V B 4 1.00 4.00 7.79 7.79 112203 112203 5000 5000 0.71
1 31 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 7.79 8.07 70127 72627 2500 2500 0.73
1 31 V D 5 1.00 5.00 7.79 7.79 140253 140253 2500 2500 0.71
1 31 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 7.79 8.07 70127 72627 0 0 0.73
2 28 N A 10 0.62 6.16 6.94 11.05 249890 244890 249890 5000 1.00
2 28 V B 4 1.00 4.00 6.94 6.94 99956 99956 5000 5000 0.63
2 28 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 6.94 7.22 62472 64972 2500 2500 0.65
2 28 V D 5 1.00 5.00 6.94 6.94 124945 124945 2500 2500 0.63
2 28 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 6.94 7.22 62472 64972 0 0 0.65
3 31 N A 10 0.46 4.58 5.20 11.05 187120 182120 187120 5000 1.00
3 31 V B 4 1.00 4.00 5.20 5.20 74848 74848 5000 5000 0.47
3 31 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 5.20 5.48 46780 49280 2500 2500 0.50
3 31 V D 5 1.00 5.00 5.20 5.20 93560 93559 2500 2500 0.473 31 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 5.20 5.48 46780 49280 0 0 0.50
4 30 N A 10 0.34 3.37 3.86 11.05 138917 133917 138917 5000 1.00
4 30 V B 4 1.00 4.00 3.86 3.86 55567 55567 5000 5000 0.35
4 30 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 3.86 4.14 34729 37229 2500 2500 0.37
4 30 V D 5 1.00 5.00 3.86 3.86 69459 69459 2500 2500 0.35
4 30 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 3.86 4.14 34729 37229 0 0 0.37
5 31 N A 10 0.58 5.79 6.53 11.05 235195 230195 235195 5000 1.00
5 31 V B 4 1.00 4.00 6.53 6.53 94078 94078 5000 5000 0.59
5 31 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 6.53 6.81 58799 61299 2500 2500 0.625 31 V D 5 1.00 5.00 6.53 6.53 117597 117597 2500 2500 0.595 31 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 6.53 6.81 58799 61299 0 0 0.626 30 N A 10 1.00 10.00 11.15 11.05 401549 401549 401549 5000 1.006 30 V B 4 1.00 4.00 11.15 11.05 160620 159123 6497 5000 1.006 30 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 11.15 11.05 100387 99452 5936 5000 1.006 30 V D 5 1.00 5.00 11.15 11.05 200775 198903 6871 5000 1.006 30 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 11.15 11.05 100387 99452 5936 5000 1.007 31 N A 10 1.00 10.00 11.19 11.05 402676 402676 402676 5000 1.007 31 V B 4 1.00 4.00 11.19 11.05 161070 159123 6948 5000 1.007 31 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 11.19 11.05 100669 99452 6217 5000 1.007 31 V D 5 1.00 5.00 11.19 11.05 201338 198903 7435 5000 1.007 31 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 11.19 11.05 100669 99452 6217 5000 1.008 31 N A 10 1.00 10.00 11.05 11.05 397807 397807 397807 5000 1.008 31 V B 4 1.00 4.00 11.05 11.05 159123 159123 5000 5000 1.008 31 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 11.05 11.05 99452 99452 5000 5000 1.008 31 V D 5 1.00 5.00 11.05 11.05 198903 198903 5000 5000 1.008 31 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 11.05 11.05 99452 99452 5000 5000 1.009 30 N A 10 1.00 10.00 12.72 11.05 457928 457928 457928 5000 1.009 30 V B 4 1.00 4.00 12.72 11.05 183171 159123 29049 5000 1.009 30 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 12.72 11.05 114482 99452 20030 5000 1.009 30 V D 5 1.00 5.00 12.72 11.05 228964 198903 35061 5000 1.009 30 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 12.72 11.05 114482 99452 20030 5000 1.00
10 31 N A 10 1.00 10.00 13.43 11.05 483525 483525 483525 5000 1.0010 31 V B 4 1.00 4.00 13.43 11.05 193410 159123 39287 5000 1.0010 31 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 13.43 11.05 120881 99452 26430 5000 1.0010 31 V D 5 1.00 5.00 13.43 11.05 241762 198903 47859 5000 1.0010 31 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 13.43 11.05 120881 99452 26430 5000 1.0011 30 N A 10 1.00 10.00 14.23 11.05 512420 512420 512420 5000 1.0011 30 V B 4 1.00 4.00 14.23 11.05 204968 159123 50845 5000 1.0011 30 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 14.23 11.05 128105 99452 33653 5000 1.0011 30 V D 5 1.00 5.00 14.23 11.05 256210 198903 62307 5000 1.0011 30 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 14.23 11.05 128105 99452 33653 5000 1.0012 31 N A 10 1.00 10.00 12.11 11.05 436113 436113 436113 5000 1.0012 31 V B 4 1.00 4.00 12.11 11.05 174445 159123 20323 5000 1.0012 31 P C 2.5 1.00 2.50 12.11 11.05 109028 99452 14577 5000 1.0012 31 V D 5 1.00 5.00 12.11 11.05 218056 198903 24153 5000 1.0012 31 P E 2.5 1.00 2.50 12.11 11.05 109028 99452 14577 5000 1.00
10
Month days Period
Sub-
period Tmax Tx* effTF effTO Px Ex Pfirm Pfirm Tariff1 Tariff2x (h) (MW) ((MWh)
1 31 N A 10 0.69 0.864 0.860 6.6 1423 62.5
1 31 V B 4 1.00 0.882 0.860 4.7 580 73.5
1 31 P C 2.5 1.00 0.889 0.860 4.8 375 89.5
1 31 V D 5 1.00 0.882 0.860 4.7 724 4.7 4.7 73.5 4751.3
1 31 P E 2.5 1.00 0.889 0.860 4.8 375 4.8 4.8 89.5 4751.3
2 28 N A 10 0.62 0.864 0.860 6.6 1143 62.5
2 28 V B 4 1.00 0.847 0.860 4.2 466 73.5
2 28 P C 2.5 1.00 0.861 0.860 4.3 303 89.5
2 28 V D 5 1.00 0.847 0.860 4.2 583 4.2 4.2 73.5 4751.3
2 28 P E 2.5 1.00 0.861 0.860 4.3 303 4.3 4.3 89.5 4751.3
3 31 N A 10 0.46 0.864 0.860 6.6 941 62.5
3 31 V B 4 1.00 0.701 0.860 3.1 387 73.5
3 31 P C 2.5 1.00 0.732 0.860 3.3 255 89.5
3 31 V D 5 1.00 0.701 0.860 3.1 483 3.1 3.1 73.5 4751.33 31 P E 2.5 1.00 0.732 0.860 3.3 255 3.3 3.3 89.5 4751.3
4 30 N A 10 0.34 0.864 0.860 6.6 669 62.5
4 30 V B 4 1.00 0.000 0.860 2.3 278 73.5
4 30 P C 2.5 1.00 0.553 0.860 2.5 186 89.5
4 30 V D 5 1.00 0.000 0.860 2.3 347 2.3 2.3 73.5 4751.3
4 30 P E 2.5 1.00 0.553 0.860 2.5 186 2.5 2.5 89.5 4751.3
5 31 N A 10 0.58 0.864 0.860 6.6 1189 62.5
5 31 V B 4 1.00 0.823 0.860 3.9 486 73.5
5 31 P C 2.5 1.00 0.840 0.860 4.1 317 89.55 31 V D 5 1.00 0.823 0.860 3.9 607 3.9 3.9 73.5 4751.35 31 P E 2.5 1.00 0.840 0.860 4.1 317 4.1 4.1 89.5 4751.36 30 N A 10 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 1989 62.56 30 V B 4 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 795 73.56 30 P C 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 497 89.56 30 V D 5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 994 6.6 6.6 73.5 4751.36 30 P E 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 497 6.6 6.6 89.5 4751.37 31 N A 10 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 2055 62.57 31 V B 4 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 822 73.57 31 P C 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 89.57 31 V D 5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 1027 6.6 6.6 73.5 4751.37 31 P E 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 6.6 6.6 89.5 4751.38 31 N A 10 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 2055 62.58 31 V B 4 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 822 73.58 31 P C 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 89.58 31 V D 5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 1027 6.6 6.6 73.5 4751.38 31 P E 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 6.6 6.6 89.5 4751.39 30 N A 10 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 1989 62.59 30 V B 4 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 795 73.59 30 P C 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 497 89.59 30 V D 5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 994 6.6 6.6 73.5 4751.39 30 P E 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 497 6.6 6.6 89.5 4751.3
10 31 N A 10 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 2055 62.510 31 V B 4 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 822 73.510 31 P C 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 89.510 31 V D 5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 1027 6.6 6.6 73.5 4751.310 31 P E 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 6.6 6.6 89.5 4751.311 30 N A 10 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 1989 62.511 30 V B 4 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 795 73.511 30 P C 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 497 89.511 30 V D 5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 994 6.6 6.6 73.5 4751.311 30 P E 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 497 6.6 6.6 89.5 4751.312 31 N A 10 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 2055 62.512 31 V B 4 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 822 73.512 31 P C 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 89.512 31 V D 5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 1027 6.6 6.6 73.5 4751.312 31 P E 2.5 1.00 0.864 0.860 6.6 514 6.6 6.6 89.5 4751.3
11
Jan 31 7.79 297.04$ 3,477.37 9.5 251.84 45.2
Feb 28 6.94 243.07$ 2,798.03 8.5 202.71 40.4
Mar 31 5.20 198.65$ 2,319.67 6.4 168.23 30.4
Apr 30 3.86 143.82$ 1,666.57 4.8 121.04 22.8
May 31 6.53 249.30$ 2,915.65 8.0 211.27 38.0
Jun 30 11.15 407.66$ 4,772.42 13.3 344.67 63.0
Jul 31 11.19 419.15$ 4,931.50 13.3 356.16 63.0
Aug 31 11.05 419.15$ 4,931.50 13.3 356.16 63.0
Sep 30 12.72 407.66$ 4,772.42 13.3 344.67 63.0
Oct 31 13.43 419.15$ 4,931.50 13.3 356.16 63.0
Nov 30 14.23 407.66$ 4,772.42 13.3 344.67 63.0
Dec 31 12.11 419.15$ 4,931.50 13.3 356.16 63.0
Total 365 4,031.45$ 47,220.58 130.0 3,413.75 617.7
Income( T$) Energy (MWh)Paid Firm
Power(MW)
Energy
Income
(T$/MWh)
Firm Power
Income
(T$MW)
Month Days Qr (m3/s)
2
2 Ossberger
1.66
11.055,000
79.00
0.70
6628.37Pn: Max Power
Turbine Type
Q mín:Minimum Flow
Qn:Nominal Flow
Vw:Weir m3
H: Head (m)
K: Efficiency factor
Turbine Type
CI 1.17
Ec (T$) 3,454,862.53$
Ia (T$) 4,031,448$
12
ANNEX-C:
C.1 ECONOMIC ANALISIS FORMULAS
Financial most commons tools are used NPV, ROE, PI,
PB and others formulas like Annuities are described as
follow:
(17)
( ) (18)
⁄ (19)
∑
(20)
(21)
ROE=IRR based on Equity (22)
(23)
PB= when i.o=cumulative discounted CF (24)
(25)
(26)
Where:
i: interest rate
PVA: Annuity Present Value factor
Vo: Present Value
A=Annuity
NPV: Net present value, i=to inflation
IRR: Internal rate of return
ROE: Return on equity
CF: Cash Flow
N: Periods of time
i.o: Initial outlay 80% of Direct cost
PI: Profitability Index
PB: Pay Back
N: Period in years
C/KW: Cost per kilowatt
C/KWhy: Specific cost of energy on annual base.
Ea: Annual Energy Yield.(Efficiency loss of 0.5%,
per year is considered due to normal wear of
equipment).
P: Installed power
A: Annuity based on 20 years,i=6.5% and
Vo=Direct Costs
C O&M : Cost of Operation and Maintenance.
C.2 EXAMPLE TABLES OF ELECTRIONA SHP, CASE IV
Example for Electriona SHP describes financial analysis for Case CIV (Ossberger/Flashboards) and comparison
between projects.
6,628 Power Direct Cost
47,220.60 MWh/año 6.5% i
4,038.80$ $/año 10 Period
3.0% Inflation 80% Own Capital
322.42$ O&M (6% of Capital Costs) 20.00% Loan
5,373.69$
General Information
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Income 4,039$ 4,140$ 4,243$ 4,349$ 4,458$ 4,570$ 4,684$ 4,801$ 4,921$ 5,044$
O&M 322$ 332$ 342$ 352$ 363$ 374$ 385$ 397$ 408$ 421$
Net Benefit 3,716$ 3,808$ 3,901$ 3,997$ 4,095$ 4,196$ 4,299$ 4,404$ 4,512$ 4,623$
Refund 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$
BAIT 3,179$ 3,270$ 3,364$ 3,460$ 3,558$ 3,658$ 3,761$ 3,867$ 3,975$ 4,086$
Interest 70$ 63$ 56$ 49$ 42$ 35$ 28$ 21$ 14$ 7$
BAT 3,109$ 3,207$ 3,308$ 3,411$ 3,516$ 3,623$ 3,733$ 3,846$ 3,961$ 4,079$
Net Benefit 3,109$ 3,207$ 3,308$ 3,411$ 3,516$ 3,623$ 3,733$ 3,846$ 3,961$ 4,079$
Refund 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$ 537$
Outlay 4,299 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$
Cash-flow -4,299 3,539$ 3,637$ 3,738$ 3,841$ 3,946$ 4,053$ 4,163$ 4,276$ 4,391$ 4,509$
Cumulative
Cash-flow -4,299 (760)$ 2,877$ 6,615$ 10,456$ 14,402$ 18,455$ 22,618$ 26,894$ 31,285$ 35,794$
13
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Income 5,170$ 5,299$ 5,432$ 5,568$ 5,707$ 5,849$ 5,996$ 6,146$ 6,299$ 6,457$
O&M 433$ 446$ 460$ 473$ 488$ 502$ 517$ 533$ 549$ 565$
Net Benefit 4,737$ 4,853$ 4,972$ 5,094$ 5,219$ 5,347$ 5,478$ 5,613$ 5,750$ 5,891$
Refund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
BAIT 4,737$ 4,853$ 4,972$ 5,094$ 5,219$ 5,347$ 5,478$ 5,613$ 5,750$ 5,891$
Interest
BAT 4,737$ 4,853$ 4,972$ 5,094$ 5,219$ 5,347$ 5,478$ 5,613$ 5,750$ 5,891$
Net Benefit 4,737$ 4,853$ 4,972$ 5,094$ 5,219$ 5,347$ 5,478$ 5,613$ 5,750$ 5,891$
Refund -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Outlay -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cash-flow 4,737$ 4,853$ 4,972$ 5,094$ 5,219$ 5,347$ 5,478$ 5,613$ 5,750$ 5,891$
Cumulative
Cash-flow 40,531$ 45,384$ 50,356$ 55,450$ 60,669$ 66,016$ 71,494$ 77,107$ 82,857$ 88,748$
IRR 85.09%
NPV 63,091.37$
PI 14.68$
PB 1
14
ANNEX-D:
D1.1 COST FORMULAS
According to information from Zaragoza University, on-line´s Master in Renewable energy, cost trends are presented
based on IDAE´s work.
15
16
ANNEX-E:
E.1 ENERGY FLOW FORMULAS
General Formulas for hydraulic Power are used, and
adapted with Operational information in order to consider
operational times, and obtain standardized daily average
Flow of corresponding month.
(27)
(28)
⁄ (29)
(30)
(31)
⁄ (32)
(33)
( )
⁄ (34)
Where:
P: output power of the generator(KW)
T: Time interval
E: Energy(KW/h)
OAV: Operational Availability
Hn: Head(m)
: Combined Efficiency of Gen-Turbine
Qturb: Nominal Flow Rate of turbine(m3/s)
AP: Annual Production(KWh/year)
MP: Monthly Production(KWh/month)
AO=Annual Operation Hours(8760 hours)
Fp=Load Factor of the year
OAV: Operational Availability(%)=0.85
M: Monthly % of operation hours(%)
Qi= turbine flow (m3/s) of particular month and
year
Eff: Combined Turbine(86%) and Generator(90%)
Efficiency at Qn= 0.774
DOH: Daily Working Hours(h)
MOH: Monthly working hours(h)
Dm: Days of the month(days)
Qia: Average flow of N years
Qn: Qturb » (m3/h)
E.2 EXAMPLE EXERCISE FOR ELECTRIONAS
Example for Electriona describes year 2011, also is presented Summary Results of 2002-2011 Period.
OAV 84.32
Fp 56.60 Total Year:
Month Days AP OAV MP M MOH DOH Qi
1 31 28,897,780.00 0.84 3,352,900.00 11.6% 56.60 575.28 18.56 10.90
2 28 28,897,780.00 0.84 1,943,200.00 6.7% 56.60 333.41 11.91 8.30
3 31 28,897,780.00 0.84 1,341,600.00 4.6% 56.60 230.19 7.43 5.17
4 30 28,897,780.00 0.84 - 0.0% 56.60 - - -
5 31 28,897,780.00 0.84 138,300.00 0.5% 56.60 23.73 0.77 0.53
6 30 28,897,780.00 0.84 2,610,380.00 9.0% 56.60 447.88 14.93 10.40
7 31 28,897,780.00 0.84 2,659,700.00 9.2% 56.60 456.34 14.72 10.26
8 31 28,897,780.00 0.84 2,643,200.00 9.1% 56.60 453.51 14.63 10.19
9 30 28,897,780.00 0.84 2,723,100.00 9.4% 56.60 467.22 15.57 10.85
10 31 28,897,780.00 0.84 4,067,300.00 14.1% 56.60 697.85 22.51 15.68
11 30 28,897,780.00 0.84 3,481,300.00 12.0% 56.60 597.31 19.91 13.87
12 31 28,897,780.00 0.84 3,936,800.00 13.6% 56.60 675.46 21.79 15.18
28,897,780.00 1.00 4,958.16
2011
Year 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Month Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi Qi
1 10.90 6.96 8.13 6.51 5.27 4.96 11.18 8.63 6.31 9.07 7.79
2 8.30 7.56 11.10 4.18 4.24 8.27 8.37 6.78 4.59 6.03 6.94
3 5.17 7.68 8.32 3.25 3.33 5.01 4.26 7.75 2.84 4.36 5.20
4 0.00 6.50 6.07 3.95 3.28 4.05 5.13 4.31 5.28 0.01 3.86
5 0.53 9.73 8.66 7.45 6.81 4.92 6.92 11.10 9.21 0.00 6.53
6 10.40 15.61 12.82 14.74 6.89 9.96 13.60 10.52 16.55 0.44 11.15
7 10.26 15.19 11.59 15.52 8.01 11.40 12.78 8.28 10.63 8.20 11.19
8 10.19 14.74 11.11 15.15 9.41 10.38 11.16 7.91 9.63 10.82 11.05
9 10.85 16.20 7.80 15.65 13.10 12.79 12.76 12.96 12.26 12.84 12.72
10 15.68 14.43 9.06 14.36 13.86 10.65 16.66 13.30 12.39 13.92 13.43
11 13.87 14.49 14.51 15.95 15.12 10.35 15.77 13.99 13.16 15.12 14.23
12 15.18 15.36 8.84 15.62 10.95 10.52 9.23 12.00 13.89 9.55 12.11
Average 9.28 12.04 9.84 11.03 8.36 8.60 10.65 9.79 9.73 7.53 9.68
Qia
top related