energy savings potential in cyprus · in order to meet the national target of 14.5% energy savings,...

Final Report

Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus

Subsectors:

Floriculture and vegetables in greenhouses

The Cyprus energy profile for the greenhouses sector: current situation and energy saving measures in combination

with RES

Deliverable 3.1

Submitted to:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

Submitted by:

WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Sylvensteinstr. 2

D-81369 Muenchen Germany

Tel: +49-89-720127 43 Fax: +49-89-720127 91

[email protected] www.wip-munich.de

28 February 2017

Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses

WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79

Acknowledgments & Disclaimer

This study has been conducted within the framework of the project “Technical assistance for energy

efficiency and sustainable transport in Cyprus” implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH with financing from the European Commission Structural Reform Support

Services under Contract No. SRSS/S2016/S002 and the German Ministry of Economy and Energy.

Neither GIZ nor the European Commission or German Federal Ministry of Economy and Energy or any

person acting on their behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily

reflect the views of the European Commission, the German Government or GIZ.

Authors

Essam Mohamed, George Markou, Thanos Balafoutis, George Papadakis (Agricultural University of

Athens), Pavlos Michael (Energy Auditor), Rainer Janssen (WIP)

February 2017



Table of Contents

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 8

1. Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 9

2. Introduction - background ................................................................................................... 10

3. Overall and specific objectives of the study ........................................................................ 11

4. Mapping current situation in Agriculture sector in Cyprus – Vegetables and floriculture

greenhouse ............................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Energy and Energy Efficiency in Cyprus ...................................................................... 13

4.2 Regulatory framework ................................................................................................. 14

5. Energy Audits ..................................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Scope and general requirements................................................................................. 16

5.6.1 Indirect energy consumption ................................................................................ 26

5.7 Total primary energy consumption .............................................................................. 32

6. Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................................... 33

6.1 Technical Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................................................ 33

6.1.1 Double inflated polyethylene layer ........................................................................ 34

6.1.2 Use of thermal curtains or thermal screens .......................................................... 34

6.1.3 Greenhouse envelop sealing ................................................................................ 35

6.1.4 Insulation .............................................................................................................. 35

6.1.5 Windbreakers ....................................................................................................... 35

6.1.6 Construction considerations ................................................................................. 35

6.1.7 Using Variable Frequency Drives – VFD (inverters) ............................................. 36

6.1.8 Using efficient motors and pumps ........................................................................ 36

6.1.9 Using temperature integration .............................................................................. 36

6.1.10 Energy recovery units in desalination systems ..................................................... 37

6.1.11 Combined Cooling, Heat and Power (CCHP) or Trigeneration ............................. 37



6.2 Quantification of existing energy efficiency potential.................................................... 38

6.2.1 Quantification of energy efficiency and savings in heating systems ...................... 38

6.2.2 Procedure of RETScreen project analysis for energy efficiency measures ........... 46

6.1 Agricultural best practice methods for energy savings ................................................. 54

7. Provision of an outlook of the expected evolutions of the energy efficiency potential by 2020

and 2030 ................................................................................................................................... 56

8. Soft Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................................................................ 57

9. Renewable Energy Penetration in greenhouses ................................................................. 58

9.1 Renewable Energy Potential ....................................................................................... 58

9.1.1 Renewable Energy in Cyprus ............................................................................... 58

9.1.2 Solar energy potential .......................................................................................... 60

9.1.3 Wind potential ...................................................................................................... 63

9.1.4 Biomass & biogas energy potential ...................................................................... 65

9.1.5 Geothermal energy potential ................................................................................ 66

9.2 Penetration of RES in greenhouses ............................................................................ 67

10. Data preparation as input for the energy forecast model ................................................. 76

11. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 78

Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 79



List of Figures

Figure 1: Energy consumption by type of fuel in Cyprus 2012 ................................................... 13

Figure 2: Energy consumption by sector in Cyprus .................................................................... 14

Figure 3: Primary energy consumption per facility (MWh) .......................................................... 23

Figure 4: Primary energy allocation per process and energy flow .............................................. 24

Figure 5: Annual Consumption profile (MWh) ............................................................................ 24

Figure 6: Equipment Capacity and Annual Energy Consumption per process. .......................... 25

Figure 7: Indirect energy calculation path .................................................................................. 29

Figure 8: Indirect Energy Intensity in selected greenhouses ...................................................... 32

Figure 9: Trigeneration and fuel use efficiency, source .............................................................. 38

Figure 10: Meteorological data for Paphos and heating degree-days available from RETScreen

.................................................................................................................................................. 45

Figure 11: Basic data of the project ........................................................................................... 47

Figure 12: fuel type selection ..................................................................................................... 47

Figure 13: Energy efficiency measures ...................................................................................... 49

Figure 14: Summary of energy efficiency calculations ............................................................... 49

Figure 15: Cost analysis and input sheet ................................................................................... 50

Figure 16: Financial analysis of the project ................................................................................ 51

Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis of the project .............................................................................. 52

Figure 18: Risk analysis of the project ....................................................................................... 53

Figure 19: Share of renewables in gross inland energy consumption, 2014 a) for EU28 – b) for

Cyprus - % ................................................................................................................................ 59

Figure 20: Global horizontal irradiation map of Cyprus .............................................................. 60

Figure 21: Installed capacity of solar water heaters per 1000 inhabitants .................................. 61

Figure 22: Ground to air heat exchanger ................................................................................... 62

Figure 23: Space heating of greenhouse by solar thermal energy, Source, Solar Panel Plus .... 62

Figure 24: Mean annual wind speed in Cyprus (m/s) – 10m ...................................................... 64

Figure 25: Mechanical wind pumping in Ammochostos ............................................................. 65

Figure 26: Map of ground temperature in Cyprus ...................................................................... 67

Figure 27: RES installations in Cyprus ...................................................................................... 68

Figure 28: Sizing of the PV system for a 2000 m2 greenhouse .................................................. 70

Figure 29: financial analysis of 50.47 kWp PV system ............................................................... 71

Figure 30: Energy production from 50 kW wind turbine ............................................................. 73



Figure 31: financial analysis of 50 kW wind turbine ................................................................... 74

Figure 32: Biomass heater as alternative solution ..................................................................... 75


WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG 9

List of Tables

Table 1: Cultivated areas with greenhouses .............................................................................. 12

Table 2: Time schedule of the site visits and name of participants. ........................................... 19

Table 3: Parameters for the calculation of primary direct energy ............................................... 22

Table 4: Processes in Greenhouses .......................................................................................... 23

Table 5: Types of greenhouses visited ...................................................................................... 27

Table 6: Primary energy for agrichemicals production ............................................................... 28

Table 7: Indirect energy consumption in greenhouses ............................................................... 31

Table 8: Total primary direct and indirect energy consumption .................................................. 33

Table 9: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene covered greenhouse .................. 40

Table 10: Calculation of heating power for double inflated polyethylene covered greenhouse ... 41

Table 11: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene cover and thermal curtains

polyethylene covered greenhouse ............................................................................................. 42

Table 12: Calculation of heating power for double inflated and thermal curtains polyethylene

covered greenhouse .................................................................................................................. 43

Table 13: Heating power requirements and percentage of savings ........................................... 44

Table 14: Annual heating energy consumption for 2040 m2 greenhouse in four different

scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 15: Financial results summary for energy efficiency measures in the greenhouse ........... 54

Table 16: Rate of subsidy for selected energy efficiency measures ........................................... 54

Table 17: estimated hours of operation for several equipment in a 2000 m2 greenhouse .......... 69

Table 18: Summary of results for the 50 kW PV system ............................................................ 72

Table 19: Summary of results for the 50 kW wind turbine system .............................................. 75

Table 20: Projection of energy savings potential in Cyprus, Annex 5 ......................................... 77



Abbreviations

CHP Combined Heat and Power

EEI Energy Efficiency Improvement Measures

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH

IRR Internal Rate of Return

NPV Net Present Value

PE Polyethylene

PV Phovotoltaics

RES Renewable Energy Systems

TOE Tonnes of Oil Equivalent

ToR Terms of Reference



1. Executive summary

The aim of this study was to give a preliminary insight in the energy consumption profile of the

greenhouse sector and to explore the possibilities for cost effective measures for energy savings

and to assess the potential of Renewable Energy Systems (RES) penetration. To this end, in the

frame of the study, eleven greenhouses from the vegetable and floriculture subsectors were

visited. In these greenhouses a “Walk-through”-energy audit was conducted and along with a

questionnaire and an interview with the owners (or technicians) data were collected in order to

calculate the energy consumptions and to map the most significant items that consume energy.

This level of energy audit is described in the ministerial Degree (KDP) 437/2015 “Methodology

and other requirements for Energy Audits”, furthermore it complies with the Ministerial degree

437/2015 and fulfil the requirements of EN 16247 and EN 16247. Based on the findings of the

audits a list of measures for energy savings was created. Total energy savings per unit area and

for each greenhouse were calculated and the data were extrapolated to the whole greenhouse

sector taking also into account statistical data available from the Ministry of Agriculture.

Direct energy consumption was found to range between 57.3 MWh to 1669 MWh. The highest

direct energy consumption was recorded for on the largest floriculture greenhouse in Cyprus

with a considerable amount of equipment. The lowest direct energy consumption was recorded

for a vegetable greenhouse (1200 m2) hardly without any cooling or energy consuming

equipment. The total direct energy consumption for all greenhouses sector was calculated to be

198.8 GWh of which 12.1% is indirect energy.

Energy consumption in heating was recorded to be the highest among all consumers in the

greenhouse. This is followed by cooling and irrigation processes. Energy was found to peak in

winter months due to heating requirements of the greenhouses. The overall energy potential

was calculated to be 16.7% (33.2 GWh). The combined heat and power cycle should be given

more insight analysis in the case of availability of agricultural residues as fuels, since the current

preliminary analysis is heavily depended on the prices of fossil fuels.

The Pay Back Period (PBP) of the proposed energy efficiency measures ranges between 1 to 6

years. In order to achieve a PBP in the range of 3 years, the study suggested a subsidy intensity

rates that ranges from 30% to 60%.

There are several RE potential in Cyprus, solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy.

However, this study analysed the most cost-effective technologies that are readily available in



the market and can be implemented in the near future by the farmers. Therefore, photovoltaic

and wind energy applications were analysed in details. The PBP for photovoltaic and wind

energies were calculated to be 4.9 and 8 years respectively.

2. Introduction - background

In order to meet the national target of 14.5% energy savings, 192 KTOE of primary energy

savings measures should be undertaken in Cyprus. The agriculture sector has been identified as

one of the main economic sectors, as indicated in the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan of

Cyprus. Therefore, energy savings measures in the agriculture sector could contribute to

achieving the national energy savings target.

Furthermore, the penetration of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) in the agriculture sector in

Cyprus has been also identified as one of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Measures (EEI) in

the agriculture sector. Therefore, the Cypriot government is proposing the promotion of grants

schemes to encourage the use of RES in agriculture.

Energy efficiency in agriculture has not been given the appropriate attention in the past, except

for energy used in greenhouses. Nevertheless, the impact of energy efficiency measures in the

agriculture sector is expected to be high, especially when indirect energy use is taken into

consideration. Hence, electricity needed for water and irrigation pumps, lightning agricultural

buildings as well as gasoline for heating purposes is explored to be able to quantify the energy

efficiency potential in the agricultural sector. The overall amount of energy consumed and

efficiency potential is examined in chapter 5.

The GIZ ToR then focuses on Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses and animal constructions, as

the target study units. The main objective of the current report is to analyze and quantify cost

effective energy efficiency measures in Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses and to identify the

potential penetration of RES. This objective is achieved by first conducting an energy audit in the

Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses sectors, followed by comprehensive and cost effective

analysis of required energy efficiency measures. The penetration of RES in the

Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses is also analyzed and projection of results are introduced until

2020 and 2030.



3. Overall and specific objectives of the study

The overall objective of the current study is to provide policy options for decision makers on

how to increase energy efficiency and renewable energies in line with the commonly agreed EU

energy and climate targets 2020 and 2030, based on analysis and quantification of cost

effective energy efficiency measures in Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses. To identify the

potential penetration of RES and energy efficiency with the ultimate goal of contributing to the

national renewable and energy savings target.

The report’s Specific Objectives can be summarized as follows:

1. Collection of data regarding the current situation for floriculture/vegetables. This

regards the identification of energy profile for greenhouse production of vegetable

and floriculture.

2. Assessment of the current energy needs of the floriculture/vegetables greenhouses

sector by carrying out field visits and conducting comprehensive energy audits that

will act as essential tool for energy planning. Moreover, the energy audits will pinpoint

areas of high-energy consumption and possible energy savings. Besides, it will

prioritize the implementation of energy efficiency measures.

3. Propose measures for cost-effective energy savings and combined methods for

application of energy saving measures and renewable energy technologies in

floriculture/vegetables greenhouses. The report covers both technical and soft

measures and considers potential evolution of costs and efficiency gains for different

technologies until 2020 and 2030.

4. Using the data collected and the estimations derived from previous activities, data

entry procedure will be carried out to support the energy forecast model of the

Republic of Cyprus in the sub-sectors covered by this study.

4. Mapping current situation in Agriculture sector in Cyprus –

Vegetables and floriculture greenhouse

The total gross output of the broad agricultural sector in 2014 reached 666 M€, with a decrease

of 4.9% from 2013 (700.8 M€). The main reason of the reduction is attributed to unfavorable

weather conditions, especially the water scarcity problem, which resulted in the decrease of the

volume of crop production, mainly to cereals, straw and green fodder that decreased by 85.8%,



92.0% and 73.8% respectively. With a share of about 210 M€ and 340 M€ for crops production

and livestock production, respectively, accounting less than 3% of the national GDP [1].

Intermediate inputs on the broad agricultural sector accounted about 377 M€ resulting to an

added value of about 289 M€. Intermediate inputs of “electricity, fuels & lubricants, fertilizers and

pesticides” accounted for about 18% of the total Intermediate inputs.

Crop production experienced a decrease of both volume and value of production in 2014. The

volume of crop production decreased by an overall 1.9% in 2014. The total value of crop

production decreased to 209.1 M€ in 2014 from 254.5 M€ in 2013, recording a decrease of

17.8%. More specifically, the volume of production of vegetables recorded an increase in 2014,

while production prices in general, decreased by 10.6%. While in floriculture sector, there was a

reduction in production by about 3% but a reduction in prices by about 38%, mainly due to

reduced prices of imported flowers from third countries [1].

According to the agricultural statistics data available from [2], the total cultivated area for

vegetables for 2014 is 7725 ha of which 370.21 ha devoted to vegetables grown in greenhouses

(4.8%). The total cultivated area for floriculture is 130.70 ha, of which 65.90 ha are cut flowers

and pot plants under greenhouses. The percentage of greenhouses cultivated area to the total

cultivated areas with vegetables and floriculture is calculated to be around 5.55%, see Table 1,

[3, 4].

Table 1: Cultivated areas with greenhouses

Cultivated

area (ha)

Percentage of greenhouses

area to the total cultivated

areas by sector

Percentage from total

cultivated land in

Cyprus

Vegetables

Vegetables in

greenhouses

7725

370.21

4.8%

0.28%

Floriculture

Floriculture in

greenhouses

Cut flowers

Pot plants

130.70

65.90

27.32

38.55

50.42%

0.14%



Total cultivated area

of greenhouses

436.11 5.55%

Total cultivated land

in Cyprus

94786

4.1 Energy and Energy Efficiency in Cyprus

Cyprus is an island with isolated energy system and no interconnections with other European or

international energy networks. There are no indigenous energy sources except of about 2% of

the total primary energy consumption is generated from solar thermal and biomass contribution.

The energy import dependency is therefore reaches 98%. The primary energy consumption in

Cyprus reached almost 2.51 million TOE in 2012, which is lower than the 2.77 million TOE

consumption in 2010. Oil products had the largest share in the energy mix with approximately

1.18 million TOE (68.3%), followed by electricity with 359 042 TOE (20.7%), solar energy and

other RES (thermal energy and electricity) with 104 055 TOE (6%), solid fuels (mainly coal) with

71 340 TOE (4.1%) and, finally, biofuels with 17 001 TOE (1%). This picture has remained

almost unchanged over time, with fossil fuels dominating, with a share of almost 93% of final

energy consumption.

Figure 1: Energy consumption by type of fuel in Cyprus 2012

The breakdown of final energy consumption between industry, transport and services and

households shows a share of approximately 23% for industry, 54% for transport, whereas



services and households cover 13% and 8% respectively. The Agriculture sector accounts for

about 2% of the total energy consumption in Cyprus, see Figure 2.

Figure 2: Energy consumption by sector in Cyprus

4.2 Regulatory framework

Legislative Framework for RES was enacted in 2003: A Special Fund has been created aiming

at support of RES and Energy Saving investments in Cyprus. The revenues of this fund are

coming from the consumers paying an additional tax of 0.22 eurocents/kWh. Furthermore,

procedures for licensing and interconnecting wind and photovoltaic installations to the national

grid have been specified. The 13% compulsory target for RES contribution to the final energy

consumption by 2020 is now in track and has been adapted from the EU energy targets, which

is the reduction of at least 20% in greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2020, save 20% of the total

primary energy consumption by 2020, increase the level of RES in the EU´s total energy

consumption to 20% by 2020.



The current study takes into account the EU regulatory framework and applicable Cypriot

and international legislation regarding energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy.

namely:

- Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency;

- Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable

sources;

- Regulations KDP 184/2012;

- Ministerial Degree 171/2012;

- Law 35(I)/2012, Law 31(I)/2009.



5. Energy Audits

5.1 Scope and general requirements

Energy audits for the greenhouses sector took place on Monday 05/12/2016 – Friday

09/12/2016. A total of 11 greenhouses were visited and audited. A general description of the

requirements and methodology is presented below for the audits in this chapter, along with the

analysis results stemmed.

The applicable legal framework regarding Energy Audits in Cyprus is regulated by Ministerial

Degree (KDP) 437/2015 “Methodology and other requirements for Energy Audits”. Further,

ANNEX VI of the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive (Directive 2012/27/EU) provides the minimum

criteria for energy audits. Directive 27/2012 establishes a set of binding measures to help the EU

reach its 20% energy efficiency target by 2020. Under the Directive, all EU countries are

required to use energy more efficiently at all stages of the energy chain from its production to its

final consumption.

Ministerial degree 437/2015 states that energy auditors conducting energy audits must apply the

requirements of EN 16247: Energy Audits. EN 16247 specifies the requirements, common

methodology and deliverables for energy audits. It applies to all forms of establishments and

organizations, all form of energy and uses of energy, excluding individual private dwellings.

According to the standard, energy audit is the “systematic inspection and analysis of energy use

and energy consumption of a site with the objective of identifying energy flows and the potential

for energy efficiency improvements”.

A brief description of the minimum criteria for energy audits as provided by EU Directive 2012/27

is given below:

- The audits shall be based on up-to-date, measured, traceable operational data on energy

consumption and load profiles

- Shall be comprise a detailed review of the energy consumption profile of the sites including

transportation

- Shall be built, whenever possible, on life-cycle analysis (LCA) instead of Simple Payback

Period (SPP) in order to take account of long-term savings, residual values of long-term

investments and discount rates.



- Shall be proportionate and sufficiently representative to permit the drawing of a reliable

picture of overall energy performance and the reliable identification of the most significant

opportunities for improvement.

5.2 Specific Requirements

The specific requirement of the energy audits, as expressed in the terms of reference, was to

provide through the selected process and the analysis conducted the following:

a. Current energy needs of the audited facilities

b. Indications for areas with high energy consumption

c. Prioritization of the energy efficiency measures

d. Identification of areas with possible improvements in operational efficiency

e. Assessment of possible penetration of RES

Based on the above requirements, the energy audit process was planned in accordance with all

the parties involved. Energy audit approaches vary in terms of scope, aims and thoroughness. In

general, energy audits can be categorized based on the thoroughness of the above terms into

the following three categories:

- Level I: Walk-through Energy Audit: Walk-through energy audit provides energy

consumptions costs and energy efficiency data based on energy bills and the results

of a short autopsy. This inspection is based on visual verifications, study of installed

equipment and operating data and detailed analysis of recorded energy consumption.

A candidate list of interventions or investment is provided which need further

examination together with the preliminary estimations of the potential costs and the

corresponding benefit.

- Level II: Comprehensive Energy Audit: This type of energy audit consists in energy

use survey in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the studied installation, a

more detailed analysis of the facility, a breakdown of the energy use and a first

quantitative evaluation of the interventions and investment selected to correct the

defects or improve the existing installation. This level of analysis can involve

advanced on-site measurements and computer-based simulation tools to evaluate

precisely the selected energy efficiency measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_energy_simulation



- Level III: Detailed Energy Audit: The detailed energy audit (energy study) includes

a detailed analysis of capital-intensive modifications focusing on potential costly

interventions and investments requiring rigorous engineering studies.

According to the above description of Energy Audit Levels, the process selected for

implementation in the current technical assistance study is of Level I: Walk-through Energy

Audit. The main criterion for the final selection of both the process and methodology for the

Energy Audits was the time variable. The time-span available for field visits and analysis was not

allowing the implementation of advanced on-site measurements and computer-based

simulations.

5.3 Process Description

The selected energy audit process was based on the requirements and guidelines which

described above and on the specific requirements of the study. The process chosen was

appropriate to the agreed scope, aims and thoroughness required. Each element of the followed

process is described below:

a. Selection of greenhouses

The selection of the greenhouses sample was performed by MARDE and was discussed in

the mission kick-off meeting. The selection was based on the following criteria:

- The greenhouse sample should contain all sectors of greenhouse cultivation,

namely the vegetable, propagation and floriculture sector.

- Contain greenhouses with conventional cultivation in soil and hydroponic

systems.

- The selected greenhouse is to cover all geographical areas of Cyprus.

- Adequate level of communication with the owners and willingness for

cooperation.

However, MARDE characterized the level of advancement of the selected greenhouses as

above average regarding the type of construction (Gothic, high or low tunnel) and the

existence of equipment, since most of the available greenhouses in Cyprus are low or high

tunnels with hardly no equipment.

b. Preliminary Contacts

During the preliminary contacts with the involved parts, the aims, needs and expectations

concerning the energy audits were decided. The scope and boundaries were set and the

degree of thoroughness was agreed. Various meetings were conducted between the

Energy Auditor and the international experts in order for the final requirements regarding



time plans, energy efficiency measures criteria, time commitments and resources to be

finalized.

Further, specific elements of the process and requirements for data collection and

availability as well as validity and format of the energy and activity data were discussed

and decided. Field works strategy and methodology was also decided.

c. Start-up Meeting

The start-up meeting aimed to brief all interested parties about the energy audits

objectives, scope, boundaries and depth and agree the practical arrangements of the

energy audits. Interested parties included the energy study team, involved officials of the

Ministry of Agriculture and the representative of the Ministry of Energy.

During the meeting, which was carried out in the Department of Agriculture offices in

Nicosia, the cooperation of the involved parties was ensured and the field work

methodology and process was disclosed. Arrangement of access to facilities, safety and

security rules and non-disclosure arrangements were discussed and agreed. The

proposed field visits schedule and participants were also decided as presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Time schedule of the site visits and name of participants.

Day - date District Type of greenhouse Name of participants

Day 1: Monday

05/12/2016 Nicosia

Floriculture Propagation

Essam Mohamed Pavlos Michael Cristalla Kosta

Efthimios Odysseos Polycarpos Polycarpou

Orestis Politis

Day 2: Tuesday

06/12/2016 Larnaca

Vegetables Floriculture


Efthimios Odysseos Giannis Kizas

Day 3: Wednesday 07/12/2016

Limassol Vegetables Floriculture Propagation


Efthimios Odysseos Victoria Christodoulou

Day 4: Thursday 08/12/2016

Paphos Polis

Vegetable Vegetable

Essam Mohamed Pavlos Michael

Efthimios Odysseos Manolis Dimitriou Andreas Pavlou



Day 5: Friday

0912/2016 Ammochostos

Floriculture Vegetable


Efthimios Odysseos Konstantis Spanashis

d. Collection of data

One of the most important elements of the Energy Audit was the collection of data for the

audited facilities. Due to the narrow time frame of the audit process, the decision to create

a form of questionnaire to be sent to the owners was made. The questionnaire was

prepared in cooperation between the local Energy Auditor and the international experts.

The purpose of the questionnaire was to provide the needed familiarity and general

facilities, energy consumption and production data for each of the facilities. The

questionnaires were handed to the facilities’ owners with the cooperation of the Ministry of

Agriculture officials and were filled by the owners in the presence and with the guidance of

local agriculture officials.

Data extracted from the questionnaires included list of energy systems, processes and

equipment, detailed characteristics of the facilities including known adjustment facts, and

how the organization believes they influence energy consumption. Historical data on

energy consumption and production volume were also acquired. The questionnaires

proved to very helpful since an initial picture of the facilities was drawn prior to the

programmed field visits.

e. Field Work

Facilities visits in accordance to the time schedule provided on Table 2 carried out, where

a total of eight facilities were visited in five consecutive days. The visits were conducted by

the local and international experts accompanied by representatives of the Department of

Agriculture and fully access to drawings, manuals and other technical documentation was

given.

Aims of the field visits were the inspection of the facilities, the evaluation of energy use, the

understanding of the operating routines and using behaviors, the generation of preliminary

ideas for energy efficient opportunities and finally, the identification of areas and processes

for which additional quantities were needed for future analysis.

The above aims were achieved by recording all the installed energy consuming equipment

and interviewing the relevant personnel. Available primary data were collected and optical



inspection of facilities and equipment was conducted. Part of the field work was the later

collection of electricity and fuel consumption data from the farmers or other service bodies

(like MOA or Cypriot Electricity Authority – EAC, etc.).

f. Analysis

During the analysis stage of the Energy Audit, the existing energy performance situation of the

facilities was established. The analysis included a breakdown of the energy consumption by use

and source, the energy flows and the energy balance of the facilities, the energy demand

profiles, the relationship between energy consumption and adjustments factors and finally the

energy performance indicators.

The adopted energy audit process fulfills both the minimum criteria for energy audits (as set by

the European Union Energy Efficiency Directive) and the guidelines and requirements of the

local legislation. Up-to-date operational and energy consumption data were acquired and a

detailed review of the energy consumption profile was created. The energy audits were

proportionate and sufficiently representative to permit the drawing of a reliable picture of overall

energy performance and the reliable identification of improvement opportunities.

5.4 Assumptions

To calculate the total energy consumption data were taken either during the interviews with the

owners (and technical staff), from the technical specification of the equipment or based on

empirical assumptions.

For the energy audits consumption analysis of the primary data collected, the following

parameters were used, see Table 3:



Table 3: Parameters for the calculation of primary direct energy

Parameter Value Unit

Thermal Equipment Efficiency 80%

Oil Heating Value 43.40 MJ/kg

Oil Density 0.92 kg/L

MJ to kWh Conversion 0.27 kWh/MJ

Heating Oil Price 0.65 Eur/L

LPG Heating Value 47.80 MJ/kg

LPG Density 0.50 kg/Litre

LPG Price 0.85 Eur/L

Electricity to primary ratio 2.700 kWhp/kWhel

Oil to primary ratio 1.100 kWhp/kWth

Electrical CO2 Emissions 0.794 kgCO2/kWhel

Oil CO2 Emissions 0.266 kgCO2/kWhth

LPG to primary ratio 1.100 kWhp/kWth

LPG CO2 Emissions 0.249 kgCO2/kWhth

5.5 Analysis

The analysis process of the energy audits included the creation of energy consuming equipment

inventory for each of the facilities and the tabulation of primary energy consumption data.

According to the decided process the current energy needs for the greenhouses concern year

2015. Based on the data collected, the current primary energy needs of the audited

greenhouses are presented in Figure 3:



Figure 3: Primary energy consumption per facility (MWh)

In order to pinpoint the energy intensive processes at the units, an energy allocation is

necessary to show the areas with the largest consumption and to provide guidance on which

processes have the largest energy efficiency potential. Table 4 gives the processes

categorization with references to specific equipment for each one.

Table 4: Processes in Greenhouses

Process Description Equipment Example

Administration Administration processes include tasks related with

administrative part of the greenhouses. Office lighting, Office HVAC,

domestic hot water etc.

Cooling Cooling processes are those related with cooling of the

production facilities Misting pumps, window motors,

cooling pad pumps etc.

Heating Heating processes are those related with heating of

the production facilities Air heaters, Circulation fans etc.

Irrigation Irrigation processes include the tasks of watering,

water pressurization and irrigation control

Submersible pumps, Desalination pumps, pressure

pumps etc.

Processing Processing include the tasks related to packaging and

processing of the products for distribution Air compressors, machine

motors, Process unit lighting etc.

Production Production tasks are related to the processes required

for protection and of the crop Photoperiodic lighting, Disinfection boilers etc.

Storage Storage include all equipment related to storage units Cold storage evaporator fans,

Compressors, storeroom lighting etc.

Based on assumptions regarding the equipment monthly operational hours the primary energy

allocation among the referred processes stemmed. Energy allocation for all the audited facilities

and the resulted energy flow diagram is presented in Table 5.



Figure 4: Primary energy allocation per process and energy flow

Based on the assumed monthly operation hours the primary energy consumption annual profile

was created and is presented in Table 6.

Figure 5: Annual Consumption profile (MWh)



Further to energy allocation, a useful way to recognize the energy intensity of each process is

the comparison between the installed capacity and the annual energy consumption. .

Table 7 provides the installed capacity in conjunction with the current annual energy

consumption for both electrical and thermal energy per process.

Figure 6: Equipment Capacity and Annual Energy Consumption per process.

5.6 Energy audits remarks

Energy audit remarks include important observations in regard to the audit procedure as well as

preliminary conclusions and discussion for the audits results. During the field visits in the audited

greenhouses, many energy efficiency opportunities were recognized especially for matter

regarding the condition of the greenhouses construction. Further, the owner’s acknowledgment

of their effort to reduce energy consumption, even at the expense of reduced or of low quality

production, due to increased energy cost. The major process affected by these efforts is,

according to the owners the heating of the greenhouses. Even under these conditions, it is

noticeable in the presented analysis that heating is the most energy intensive process. The

technologies used for greenhouse heating (air heaters) consume vast amounts of fuel and must

be operated in accordance to good practices in order to provide the desirable result. Many of the



facilities audited were using air heaters supplying air without a distribution system, directly of the

supply nozzle.

It was concluded during the audits that one of the main issues, concerning energy consumption

in greenhouses is the high cost of heating due to high fuel prices. As extracted from the annual

primary energy consumption profile, even though heating is required for around six months

(October to March), the energy required consists more the twice the amount required for all the

other processes during the whole year.

In regard to electrical energy production, it stems from the analysis that even though irrigation

equipment capacity is bigger than both that of cooling and processing, energy needs for cooling

prevail. Greenhouse cooling equipment comes second in primary energy consumption followed

by irrigation equipment. A large share of energy consumption is utilized in processing

equipment, which along with irrigation equipment and in contrast to heating and cooling, is used

throughout the year.

5.6.1 Indirect energy consumption

Besides the direct energy consumption in a greenhouse as electricity and fossil fuels, there is

also the indirect energy consumption, which is the energy consumed in the manufacturing

processes of fertilizers, pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides), rooting hormones,

etc. Direct and indirect energy consumption can differ between countries for the same crop

production. For example, in one hand, more indirect energy could be used for tomatoes

production in one country, due to extensive use of agrochemicals, maintaining low electricity and

fossil fuel consumption (low machinery and modern irrigation). While in the other hand, in other

country where there is extensive use of machineries, heating and cooling systems along with the

use of electrical pumps for irrigation, lead to higher direct energy consumption. The calculation

of direct and indirect energy consumption reflects also the potential of energy savings in each

greenhouse.

In the current study, a blended methodology was followed in order to calculate the indirect

energy consumption in the selected sample of greenhouses (11 greenhouses, see Table 5). The

experts visited 4 floriculture greenhouses, three of which are hydroponic greenhouse. They

visited 2 (two) propagation units and 4 vegetable greenhouse, 1 (one) of which is hydroponic.

(The steps followed to calculate the indirect energy use are summarized below:



1. Identifications of the exact data to be collected from the greenhouse (regarding indirect

energy) such as the amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, hormones,

and other agrochemicals used in greenhouses.

2. Preparation of an initial questionnaire with basic data about the greenhouse (in Greek

language), see

3. Annex 1.

4. Interviewing the farmers and collect actual agrochemicals consumption data.

5. Preparation of the reference values of energy contents according to Annex V default

values of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) for biofuel production pathways

[5] as well as to perform individually adapted calculations and using the BioGrace [6]

values in Table 6.

6. Calculation of indirect energy of each agrochemical use for a period of one year, 2015 or

2016 depending on the availability of data onsite.

Table 5: Types of greenhouses visited

No. of units Code No.

Floriculture greenhouses 4 1 – 4 – 6 - 10

Propagation

greenhouses 2 2 - 7

Vegetable greenhouses 5 3 – 5 – 8 – 9 - 11

Hydroponics 3 – 4 – 6 - 10

Total 11



Table 6: Primary energy for agrichemicals production

Primary Energy

( Mj fossil/kg)

N-fertiliser (kg N) 48.99

P2O5-fertiliser (kg P2O5) 15.23

K2O-fertiliser (kg K2O) 9.68

CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 1.97

Pesticides 268.40

Following the steps mentioned before, 10 out of 11 initial questionnaires were filled by the

farmers and then collected and analyzed before the site visits begin. During the site visits,

interviews with the farmers were performed and detailed agrochemical invoices were submitted

to the experts. In most of the cases, oral information was given regarding the agrochemical

consumption. There were no data available from two greenhouses regarding their annual

consumption of agrochemicals, due to difficulty of gathering all invoices and the inability to

remember all performed agrochemical applications for one year. Some average values from

similar greenhouses (relative size and type of production) were used accordingly where data

were not available. These data were recorded in the Greenhouses audit datasheet, see Annex

2, and further analysis and calculations were performed to determine the indirect energy

consumption for each greenhouse based on the actual collected data, see Figure 7.



Figure 7

Assumption

s

Interviews

Invoices Agrochemicals

amounts in kg

BioGrace values

in Mj fossil/kg

Indirect energy

consumption in Mj

fossil



Figure 7: Indirect energy calculation path



The floriculture sector (greenhouses 1-4-6 and 10) recorded the highest indirect energy intensity

due to the operation of the greenhouses all over the year for 12 months and the relatively larger

cultivated area, some of which are not closed greenhouses, which make them more vulnerable

to pathogens. The highest values recorded for the indirect energy intensity was for the

floriculture greenhouse No. 10 where there was a lot of cultivated areas under cover but they

was wide open to the environment and without insect screens, see .

Table 7 and Figure 8.

In general, the pesticides resulted in higher contribution to the final indirect energy consumption

see .

Table 7. This is mainly due to the high reference values of energy consumption per kg,

compared to the reference values for the fertilizers. See Table 6. In cases where energy for

pesticides was lower (greenhouses 3-4 and 5) a more controlled and closed structures were

observed, see .

Table 7 and Annex 3.

As it was expected, and due to the high-energy requirements to manufacture nitrogen based

fertilizers and the high amounts of nitrogen fertilizer used in the greenhouses, compared to

phosphorous and potassium fertilization, the indirect energy consumption of nitrogen fertilization

is higher in all cases of greenhouse.

Greenhouse with code numbers 2 and 7 are both propagation greenhouses, as previously

mentioned in Table 5. However, there are many differences between the two greenhouses as

shown in Annex 3. The main differences are that the unit No. 2 is much larger, more organized,

produces mainly vegetable seedlings and has up to date equipment and constructions. For

these reasons, the consumption of the indirect energy is lower in the case of unit No. 2.


WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG

Table 7: Indirect energy consumption in greenhouses

Fertilizers (Mj fossil/kg) Total

(fertilizers

Mj fossil/kg)

Pesticides

(Mj fossil/kg) Total

Total area

(1000 m2)

Indirect

Energy

Intensity

(Mj/1000 m2)

A/A

N P2O5 K2O Others

1 14,861.12 2,809.94 2,170.74 11.43 19,853.22 982,523.83 1,002,377.05 34.7 28,886.95

2 17122.005 3175.455 2647.48 274.815 23,219.76 128,617.28 151,837.04 10 15,183.70

3 8,036.81 1,042.49 2,030.38 75.53 11,185.21 3,797.86 14,983.07 7.80 1,921.89

4 179,636.53 25,753.93 87,702.74 490.92 293,584.12 26,088.48 319,672.60 10 31,967.26

5 7,409.74 5,779.79 1,677.06 8.39 14,874.97 11,809.60 26,684.57 2 13,342.28

6 28,196.61 5,892.18 12,012.80 923.38 47,024.97 798,758.40 845,783.37 26.8 31,559.08

7 1,712.20 317.55 264.75 27.48 2,321.98 16,077.16 18,399.14 0.5 36,798.27

8 1,528.49 435.58 358.16 0.38 2,322.61 5,024.45 7,347.06 1.2 6,122.55

9 4,274.69 661.54 799.75 4.00 5,739.98 51962.24 57,702.22 8 7,212.78

10 9,095.68 1,900.70 3,875.10 297.86 15,169.34 257,664.00 272,833.34 6 45,472.22

11 1,943.04 300.70 363.52 1.82 2,609.08 23,619.20 26,228.28 4 6,557.07



Figure 8: Indirect Energy Intensity in selected greenhouses

5.7 Total primary energy consumption

Adding the total primary energy consumption obtained from the audit procedure and the indirect

energy consumption calculated in the previous chapter, we could estimate the total primary

energy consumption for each greenhouse. Table 8 summarizes the total primary energy

consumption. In the fourth column, the percentage of the indirect to direct energy shows the

intensity of using agrochemicals with regards to the primary energy consumption. The highest

value is reported for the floriculture greenhouse that was very wide open with noticeable

increase in the amount of agrochemicals (greenhouse No 1). While the lowest value is recorded

from the greenhouse No. 2 which is the most sophisticated and highly equipped and close

greenhouse (propagation greenhouse). Finally the specific energy consumption was calculated

in MWh/ton of product for all vegetable greenhouse and some floriculture greenhouses, in

MWh/punch (no data for the production were available from other floriculture greenhouses). The

floriculture greenhouse No. 4 exhibited high specific energy consumption because a lot of heat

losses have been identified in the greenhouse. The vegetable greenhouse No. 3 recorded a

good specific energy consumption due to the hydroponic culture and the controlled environment

of the greenhouse.



Table 8: Total primary direct and indirect energy consumption

A/A

Direct

primary

energy (MWh)

Indirect

primary

energy (MWh)

Indirect to

direct energy

percentage (%)

Total Energy

consumption

(MWh)

Specific Energy

Consumption (MWh/ton)

or (MWh/punch1)

1 465.2 278.4 59.9% 743.6 0.008

2 1308.9 6.9 0.5% 1315.8

3 111.9 4.2 3.7% 116.1 0.61

4 1669.0 88.8 5.3% 1757.8 0.116

5 215.7 7.4 3.4% 223.1 7.4

6 974.2 234.9 24.1% 1209.2

7 208.4 5.1 2.5% 213.5

8 57.3 2.0 3.6% 59.3 2.2

9 210.4 16.0 7.6% 226.5 2.5

10 604.8 75.8 12.5% 680.6 0.009

11 184.0 7.3 4.0% 191.3 4.1

Total 6010.0 726.9 6736.9

6. Energy Efficiency Measures

6.1 Technical Energy Efficiency Measures

Improved energy efficiency is the combination of efforts and measures to reduce the amount of

energy required in the greenhouse. It includes all measures that are suitable to reduce the

consumption of energy for specific components in the greenhouse, thus improving energy

utilization and contributing directly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and

production costs [7].

Energy efficiency measures portfolio include many tasks, such as:

1. Double inflated polyethylene cover (up to 40%)

2. Thermal curtains (up to 50% lower thermal energy consumption)

3. Using LED lights for photoperiodism (floriculture greenhouses)

4. Isolating 0.6 m from the ground in greenhouses used for propagation with rooting tables

(3-6%).

1 A punch of flowers=10 flowers stems



5. Closing gaps (greenhouse envelope sealing) in the greenhouse in windows, doors, etc.

(5 – 25%)

6. Using trees fence line (windbreaks) in the Northern part of the greenhouse (3-6%) in

windy sites.

7. Using gutter-connected structure rather than stand-alone units has 15-20% less surface

area and consequently lower heat loss (up to 20%).

8. Using ventilation fans with variable speed controllers (a fan running at 50% of its speed is

consuming 15% of the nominal power consumed at full speed)

9. Maintenance of ventilation fans. Loose belts reduces air flow by 30% and partially closed

louvers can reduce air flow by 40%

10. Using temperature integration strategy

11. Maintenance of heating system.

12. Energy recovery units in RO desalination units

13. Use of high efficiency motors and pumps

14. Systematic maintenance of heating and cooling systems

6.1.1 Double inflated polyethylene layer

The fact that most of the energy losses of the greenhouse take place through the cover area,

therefore reducing the heat transfer coefficient of the cover material could significantly reduce

the energy consumption. Therefore different technologies can be applied, including increase of

the insulation value using double or triple layer materials and application of coatings (with IR

treatment in the inside layer) to reduce radiation loss. A double inflated polyethlyne layer is

popular choice for the reduction of the energy consumption of greenhouses. The energy

consumption savings ranges from 20 to 40% according to the size, orientation and the glazing

material.

6.1.2 Use of thermal curtains or thermal screens

Since about 80% of greenhouse heating is performed at night time, therefore reducing the heat

transfer coefficient at night time, can drastically reduce heating energy needs. This energy

consumption reduction could be performed by using movable thermal curtains or screens that

include aluminum strips. They are also used as shading screens in summer to reduce cooling

needs. Thermal screens can be used also to cover side walls, however, this option is not widely

applied due to increased cost and the reduced energy savings gain. Thermal screens acts as

insulator between the plant area and the roof of the greenhouse and prevents heat to be lost



from the roof glazing. Moreover, they reduce the volume of air to be heated in the greenhouse.

The aluminized woven fabrics screens reflect the heat back into the greenhouse.

6.1.3 Greenhouse envelop sealing

Before the application of any energy efficiency measure in the greenhouse, it is highly

recommended to identify and repair or replace any gaps to reduce the so-called infiltration

losses. The infiltration rate in greenhouses is measured by the number of air exchanges per

hour and is proportional to the number of joints in the greenhouse (doors, windows, fans, etc.). a

well maintained greenhouse, will have lower infiltration rate and lower heat losses.

6.1.4 Insulation

Insulation of selected areas in the greenhouse reduces the heat transfer coefficient and reduces

heat losses. Specially in propagation greenhouses where the cultivation take place on growing

and rooting tables, insulation of 0.6 m from the ground can reduce heat losses by up to 6%,

without affecting the percentage of light entering the greenhouse.

6.1.5 Windbreakers

The infiltration rate in a greenhouse is proportional to the wind speed velocity. Reducing wind

speed hitting the greenhouse can reduce the heat losses. It is worth mentioning that reducing

wind speed by 50% by using well designed windbreakers, can reduce heat losses by about 5 to

10%. Mixed species of trees are used as well as fast and slow-growing trees that reduce the risk

of diseases affecting the entire windbreaker. The windbreaker should be in a distance of about 4

to 6 times of the height of the mature trees and located upwind of the prevailing wind direction of

the installation site.

6.1.6 Construction considerations

During the construction face of the greenhouse, some recommendation should be taken into

consideration in order to achieve higher energy efficiency. The gutter connected greenhouses

should be preferred rather that the construction and installation of separate units. A gutter-

connected greenhouse has up to 20% less surface area and as a result less heat losses than

several units with the same covered area. Stand alone greenhouse has a surface area-to-floor

area ration of the range 1.7 to 1.8, while this ration is less than 1.5 in gutter connected

greenhouses.



The natural ventilation opening should be as large as possible to enhance natural cooling and

reduce the need for mechanical cooling. The Natural ventilation openings (roof and side

windows) area to the floor area should be at least 22%. This percentage ensures air circulation

and minimizes the need for mechanical cooling.

6.1.7 Using Variable Frequency Drives – VFD (inverters)

Cooling the greenhouse in summer is considered a challenge, since it constitute the second

largest consumer of energy in the greenhouses after heating. Therefore, minimizing the

electrical energy consumption of the cooling fans can drastically reduce the overall energy

needs of the greenhouse. Higher installed power fans are more efficient. Therefore, installing

higher power than the required could result in some energy reduction. However, a cooling fan

operating at 50% of the nominal power consumes 15% less power than the nominal. VFD can

alter the operational frequency, hence reducing the fan speed and as a result reducing the

energy final energy consumption of the cooling system.

6.1.8 Using efficient motors and pumps

Pumps and motors are used in many operations in the greenhouse. They are used in

irrigation, hydroponic effluents circulation, cooling pad water circulation, etc. there are several

options in the market for efficient motors-pumps with higher efficiency but also with higher cost.

The economic viability of substituting and old motor-pump with an efficient one should be always

assessed carefully as it highly depends on the required installed power in the greenhouse. The

higher the electrical power installed in the greenhouse, the more economically viable this choice

will be.

6.1.9 Using temperature integration

This option regards controlling the inside temperature of the greenhouse by temperature

integration rather than pre defined set point. The energy efficiency of this measure is based on

the fact that the effect of temperature on crop growth and production depends on the 24-hour

average temperature rather than specific day/night temperature. This is applicable provided that

the maximum and minimum temperatures of the crop are maintained. This measure can reduce

energy consumption of the greenhouse in the range of 15 to 20%.



6.1.10 Energy recovery units in desalination systems

In some greenhouses that are based on underground brackish water, using a desalination

system becomes a crucial decision and adds to the electrical energy consumption of the

greenhouse. It is also a fact that the salinity of the ground water increases with time, with the

adverse consequences on the quantity of the fresh water produced and the amount of energy

consumed. Energy recovery devices for Reverse Osmosis desalination systems are available in

the market and can reduce the energy consumption of desalination system from 30 to 50%.

These systems recover the hydraulic energy of the brine which otherwise will be wasted in a

throttling valve.

6.1.11 Combined Cooling, Heat and Power (CCHP) or

Trigeneration

Trigeneration is the simultaneously production of electricity, useful heat and cooling energy by

the combustion of fuel. This fuel could be natural gas, diesel, biogas, solid biomass or solar

energy. Typical coal power stations for electricity production have fuel conversion efficiency of

33%. The remaining 67% is released to the environment as waste heat. Trigeneration cycle

efficiency can reach up to 85%, see Figure 9. At policy level, it must be recognized that serious

efforts have been made at EU level, as instanced by the adoption of Directive 2003/96/EC on

energy taxation, which sets out a favorable context for cogeneration (CHP) and the development

of renewables. Agriculture greenhouse can benefit from this technology, electricity to be used to

run all the equipment (pumps, fans, air circulators, etc), heat to be used to maintain optimum

temperature inside the greenhouse and cooling in summer. This technology can be used in the

greenhouse sector, provided that the cost of fuel justify the capital investment and the O&M

costs. However, preliminary investigation showed that a trigeneration cycle could result in 20% –

30% energy savings and could be economically viable with a payback period of about 6 years

(fossil fuel as input). Therefore, we recommend more detailed investigation of the technical and

economic viability of this interesting energy efficiency measure in the case of availability of “free”

energy from the combustion of agricultural residues.



Figure 9: Trigeneration and fuel use efficiency, source2

6.2 Quantification of existing energy efficiency potential

6.2.1 Quantification of energy efficiency and savings in

heating systems

In order to calculate the energy savings of an energy efficiency measure in heating system, a

greenhouse heating design case was conducted for Cyprus – Paphos. A new greenhouse was

considered for this study with covered area of 2040 m2 as can be shown in the following tables

and in details in Annex 4.

There are various ways to calculate greenhouse heating power needs (kcal/h or kW). In the

current study, the method proposed by ASAE (2000) is applied [8]. In this methodology the

following basic heat transfer equation is applied:

Equation 1

Where:

U = is the overall heat loss coefficient (W m-2 K-1)

A = exposed greenhouse surface area (m2)

Ti = air temperature inside greenhouse (K)

To = air temperature outside the greenhouse (K)

Applying the methodology mentioned before, the required heating power of the greenhouse was

calculated for four scenarios: 2 http://www.mtuonsiteenergy.com/solutions/greenhouses/

Fuel 100%

Electricity 30%

Cooling 25%

Heat 30%

Losses 15%

http://www.mtuonsiteenergy.com/solutions/greenhouses/



1. A greenhouse with single polyethylene gladding, see



2. Table 9

3. A greenhouse with double inflated polyethylene gladding, see Table 10

4. A greenhouse with single polyethylene gladding and thermal curtains, see Table 11

5. A greenhouse with double inflated polyethylene gladding and thermal curtains, Table 12

The main goal of these calculations is to calculate the final required heating energy of the

greenhouse under the application of two of the most important energy efficiency measures in

greenhouses, namely the double inflated polyethylene layer and the thermal screen. Moreover,

since most of the direct energy consumption in the greenhouse is devoted to heating, therefore

an analytical method to approach the heating energy calculation was required. Based on these

calculated heating energy all other energy efficiency measures that reduces heat energy

requirements are calculated later in the study.



Table 9: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene covered greenhouse

NAME : Department of Agriculture length: m 42.50

CYPRUS width: m 48.00

PLACE: PAPHOS covered area: m2 2,040.00

arches 5.00

Gutter hight: m 4.00

Max. hight: m 6.00

greenhouse data

covered area (m²) 2,040.00

volume under cover (m3) 11,362.80

roof surface (m2): 2,366.40

side and front surface (m2): 820.00

min surrounding temperature.(oC) 0.00

excellent internal temperature (oC) 15.00

temperature diference ΔΤ (oC) 15.00

Κ polyethylane (Single) in kcal/hm2oC 5.16

K fiberglass (kcal/hm2oC) 5.16

K soil (kcal/hm2oC) 1.60

n (number of air exchange) 0.50

pCp (kcal/hm3oC) 0.29

a. Losses from cladding Qc = 246,587.21 kcal/h

b. Losses from soil Qs = 16,320.00 kcal/h

c. Losses from escaping air flow Qa = 25,054.97 kcal/h

Total Q = 287,962.19 kcal/h

demands for REAL thermal power 345,554.62 kcal/h

demands for BOILER thermal power 406,534.85 kcal/h

GREENHOUSE HEATING STUDY

greenhouse dimentions

1. heat losses



Table 10: Calculation of heating power for double inflated polyethylene covered greenhouse



PLACE: PAPHOS covered area:m2 2,040.00

arches 5.00

Gutter hight:m 4.00

Max. hight: m 6.00

greenhouse data








Κ polyethylane (double) in kcal/hm2oC 3.61













1. heat losses



Table 11: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene cover and thermal curtains polyethylene covered greenhouse




arches 5.00

Gutter hight:m 4.00

Max. hight: m 6.00

greenhouse data








Κ polyethylane (single+cur.) in kcal/hm2oC 4.13













1. heat losses



Table 12: Calculation of heating power for double inflated and thermal curtains polyethylene covered greenhouse




arches 5.00

Gutter hight:m 4.00

Max. hight: m 6.00

greenhouse data








Κ polyethylane (douple+cur.) in kcal/hm2oC 2.89













1. heat losses



The greenhouse heating power calculated in the four scenarios are summarized in Table 13

along with the percentage of savings that each scenario can achieve. The installation of the

double inflated polyethylene and the thermal curtains can save about 30.4% for heating power.

While the double inflated layer can save alone 19.1% and the thermal curtains about 15.2% of

the initial heating power.

Table 13: Heating power requirements and percentage of savings

Thermal power

demand (kcal/h)

Percentage of

savings

Single polyethylene 406,534.85 0%

Double inflated 328,974.10 19.1%

Single with thermal curtain 344,857.56 15.2%

Double inflated with thermal curtain 282,808.96 30.4%

In order to calculate the annual thermal energy consumption of the greenhouse, we applied the

heating degree days methodology, see Table 13, by using RETScreen software [9]. Heating-

degree days are the sum of the degree-days for each day of the month. For example, degree-

days for a given day represent the number of Celsius degrees that the mean temperature is

above or below a given base.

The heating energy obtained for each scenario in

Table 14 was calculated by multiplying the heating power in Table 13 by the heating-degree

days indicated in Figure 10 by using respective unit conversion.



Unit

Climate data

location

Project

location

Latitude ˚N 34.7 34.7

Longitude ˚E 32.5 32.5

Elevation m 8 8

Heating design temperature °C 6.0

Cooling design temperature °C 30.2

Earth temperature amplitude °C 14.5

Month

Air

temperature

Relative

humidity

Daily solar

radiation -

horizontal

Atmospheric

pressure Wind speed

Earth

temperature

Heating

degree-days

Cooling

degree-days

°C % kWh/m²/d kPa m/s °C °C-d °C-d

January 12.4 71.4% 2.74 100.8 4.3 14.6 174 74

February 12.3 70.1% 3.70 100.7 4.6 14.6 160 64

March 13.6 71.8% 5.11 100.6 4.3 16.6 136 112

April 16.7 71.6% 6.28 100.4 4.1 20.2 39 201

May 19.9 72.9% 7.46 100.3 3.7 24.3 0 307

June 23.3 74.7% 8.40 100.1 3.4 28.7 0 399

July 25.7 75.0% 8.14 99.8 3.2 31.9 0 487

August 26.2 74.9% 7.32 99.9 3.2 32.0 0 502

September 24.3 70.3% 6.23 100.2 3.4 29.4 0 429

October 21.3 66.7% 4.66 100.6 3.5 25.3 0 350

November 17.1 67.5% 3.21 100.8 3.9 20.2 27 213

December 13.9 70.4% 2.45 100.9 4.1 16.1 127 121

Annual 18.9 71.5% 5.48 100.4 3.8 22.9 663 3,259

Measured at m 10.0 0.0

Figure 10: Meteorological data for Paphos and heating degree-days available from RETScreen

Table 14: Annual heating energy consumption for 2040 m2 greenhouse in four different scenarios

Heating

degree-days

°C-d

Single

polyethylene

Double

inflated

Single with

thermal

curtain

Double

inflated with

thermal

curtain

January 174 131,324 106,270 111,400 91,357

February 160 120,734 97,699 102,416 83,989

March 136 103,183 83,497 87,529 71,780

April 39 29,503 23,874 25,027 20,524

May 0 0 0 0 0

June 0 0 0 0 0

July 0 0 0 0 0

August 0 0 0 0 0

September 0 0 0 0 0

October 0 0 0 0 0

November 27 20,425 16,528 17,326 14,209

December 127 96,148 77,804 81,561 66,886

Total 663 501,317 405,673 425,259 348,745

MWh/yr 501 406 425 349

Heating Energy consumption (kWhth/month)



6.2.2 Procedure of RETScreen project analysis for energy

efficiency measures

In this section, the user enters all general data related to the project such as the project name,

location, type, currency, units and the method of calculation. Then the user selects the site of the

project from the software database. In the current analysis we selected Paphos as case study,

see Figure 11.

In the next step, the user selects and enters the fuel types that will be used during the study.

The types of fuel we are considering in the study are electricity (0.15 €/kWh), diesel fuel for

agricultural use (0.65 €/L) and biomass fuel with associated cost of (230 €/ton), see Figure 12.



Project information

Project name

Project location

Prepared for

Prepared by

Project type

Facility type

Analysis type

Heating value reference

Show settings

Language - Langue

User manual

Currency

Symbol

Units

Climate data location

Show data

Κύπρος

Department of Agriculture

Dr. Essam Sh. Mohamed

Method 2

English - Anglais

Euro

Paphos/Baf Intl

Site reference conditions

English - Anglais

Select climate data location

Energy efficiency measures

Cyprus Energy Efficiency in Greenhouses

Metric units

See project database

Other

Lower heating value (LHV)

Figure 11: Basic data of the project

Fuel Fuel type 1 Fuel type 2 Fuel type 3 Fuel type 4 Fuel type 5 Fuel type 6

Fuel type Electricity Diesel (#2 oil) - L Biomass

Fuel consumption - unit MWh L t #N/A #N/A #N/A

Fuel rate - unit €/kWh €/L €/t #N/A #N/A #N/A

Fuel rate 0.150 0.650 230.000

Schedule Unit Schedule 1 Schedule 2 Schedule 3 Schedule 4 Schedule 5 Schedule 6

Description 24/7

Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied

Temperature - space heating °C 15.0

Temperature - space cooling °C 30.0

Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied

Temperature - unoccupied +/-°C 3.0

Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied

Occupancy rate - daily h/d h/d h/d h/d h/d h/d

Monday 24

Tuesday 24

Wednesday 24

Thursday 24

Friday 24

Saturday 24

Sunday 24

Occupancy rate - annual h/yr 8,760 0 0 0 0 0

% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Heating/cooling changeover temperature °C 16.0

Length of heating season d 103

Length of cooling season d 262

RETScreen Energy Model - Energy efficiency measures project

Energy efficiency measures project

Fuels & schedules Show data

Figure 12: fuel type selection



The next section is the core of the calculations for the energy efficiency measures. The

measures considered in the study are the following: see Figure 13

1. Using LED lights for photoperiodism instead of normal non-efficient filament pulps.

2. Using periodic LED lights for photoperiodism

3. Applying efficient pumps and motors

4. Using inverter to control the fan speed

5. General maintenance for the cooling fan belt, the heating system

6. Installation of energy recovery unit in desalination plants

7. Construction considerations (natural ventilation, gutter connected greenhouse, etc.)

8. Double inflated PE layer

9. Thermal screen

10. Isolation of the north part and 0.6 m from the ground of the greenhouse

11. Closing gaps of the greenhouse

12. Applying temperature integration

For each of the above mentioned measures, the user enters the expected reduction in heating

or electric power along with the incremental initial cost required to implement the measure.

Then, the software calculates the energy and associated cost savings. As can be shown in

Figure 13, the simple payback period of the proposed measures ranges from 0.1 to 6.1 years.

Low values for payback period are calculated for measures that have low initial cost and high

fuel cost savings, such as the maintenance of the heating system and applying temperature

integration. Another reason could be the cost effectiveness of a measure (€/kWh saved), such

as using the double inflated PE layer.

In Figure 14, the software calculates the percentage of energy savings in both electrical and

thermal energy. The proposed energy efficiency measures can reduce energy savings by 15.4%

and electrical energy by 26.4% while the total energy savings can reach up to 16.3%.



Show: Heating Cooling Electricity

Incremental

initial costs

Fuel cost

savings

Incremental

O&M savings Simple payback

Include

measure?

Fuel saved GJ GJ GJ € € € yr

Heating system

Mixed biomass heater 0 - - 0 0 0 -

Diesel heater 0 - - 0 0 0 -

Cooling system

Building envelope

Ventilation

Lights

LED lights for photoperiodism - - 21 1,100 893 0 1.2

LED lights for photoperiodism (periodic operation 20%) - - 26 1,500 1,074 0 1.4

Electrical equipment

Hot water

Pumps

Efficient pumps (10%) - - 14 3,000 588 0 5.1

Fans

Inverter for cooling fans (15%) - - 33 1,950 1,360 0 1.4

Maintainance of cooling fans belts (20%) - - 41 1,300 1,712 0 0.8

Motors

Process electricity

Efficient Motors (15%) - - 10 2,000 411 0 4.9

Energy recovery for desalination (30%) - - 20 5,000 821 0 6.1

Process heat

General heating system Maintainance (20%) 331 - - 600 5,935 0 0.1

Construction considerations (20%) 331 - - 10,000 5,935 0 1.7

Process steam

Steam losses

Heat recovery

Compressed air

Refrigeration

Other

Double inflated PE (20%) 157 0 0 2,350 2,818 0 0.8

Thermal Screen (15%) 251 0 0 14,000 4,500 0 3.1

Isolation of the North part - 0.6 m (5%) 83 0 0 700 1,484 0 0.5

Closing gaps (10%) 3 0 0 100 46 0 2.2

Temperature integration (15%) 249 0 0 300 4,451 0 0.1

Total 1,405 0 165 43,900 32,028 0 1.37

Facility characteristics Show data

Figure 13: Energy efficiency measures

Fuel type

Fuel

consumption -

unit Fuel rate

Fuel

consumption Fuel cost

Fuel

consumption Fuel cost Fuel saved

Fuel cost

savings

Electricity MWh 150.000€ 173.2 25,977€ 127.5 19,119€ 45.7 6,858€

Diesel (#2 oil) L 0.650€ 251,562.8 163,516€ 212,839.7 138,346€ 38,723.1 25,170€

Total 189,492€ 157,465€ 32,028€

Project verification

Fuel

consumption

Fuel type Base case

Electricity MWh 173.2

Diesel (#2 oil) L 251,562.8

Heating Cooling Electricity Total

Energy GJ GJ GJ GJ

Energy - base case 6,846 0 623 7,470

Energy - proposed case 5,792 0 459 6,251

Energy saved 1,054 0 165 1,218

Energy saved - % 15.4% 26.4% 16.3% Show data

Benchmark Comparison

Energy unit GJ Country - region

Reference unit m² 2,040 Facility type

Base case Proposed case Fuel cost savingsFuel

Fuel

consumption -

historical

Show dataSummary

Fuel

consumption -

unit

Fuel

consumption -

variance

See benchmark database

Figure 14: Summary of energy efficiency calculations

Figure 15 shows the associated costs of the measures. The user in this section enters the unit

costs or percentages or lump sums of the energy efficiency measures, spare parts,

maintenance, etc. The initial cost was calculated to be 48000 €.



Method 1 Notes/Range Notes/Range Second currency

Method 2 Second currency None

Cost allocation

Unit Quantity Unit cost Amount Relative costs

Feasibility study cost 1 1,000€ 1,000€

Subtotal: 1,000€ 2.1%

Development cost 1 1,500€ 1,500€

Subtotal: 1,500€ 3.1%

Engineering cost 1 1,000€ 1,000€

Subtotal: 1,000€ 2.1%

Incremental initial costs 43,900€ 91.5%

Spare parts % 2.0% -€

Transportation project -€

Training & commissioning p-d -€

User-defined cost 1,000 -€

Contingencies % 1.0% 47,400€ 474€

Interest during construction 6.00% 1 month(s) 47,874€ 120€

Subtotal: 594€ 1.2%

47,994€ 100.0%

Unit Quantity Unit cost Amount

O&M (savings) costs project -€

Parts & labour project 1 500€ 500€

User-defined cost -€

Contingencies % 500€ -€

Subtotal: 500€

Diesel (#2 oil) L 212,840 0.650€ 138,346€

Electricity MWh 127 150.000€ 19,119€

Subtotal: 157,465€

Unit Quantity Unit cost Amount

Diesel (#2 oil) L 251,563 0.650€ 163,516€

Electricity MWh 173 150.000€ 25,977€

Subtotal: 189,492€

Unit Year Unit cost Amount

User-defined cost -€

-€

End of project life cost -€

Development

Engineering

Go to Emission Analysis sheet

Settings

Initial costs (credits)

Fuel cost - proposed case

Feasibility study

Fuel cost - base case

Periodic costs (credits)

Annual costs (credits)

Annual savings


Balance of system & miscellaneous

Total initial costs

O&M

Figure 15: Cost analysis and input sheet

The financial analysis in Figure 16 shows the financial parameters used in the analysis and the

project costs and savings summary as inputs to the model. The model calculates the NPV,

payback period, IRR. The financial results are summarized in



Table 15. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis were performed in order to test the effect of

possible prices changes, such as increasing or decreasing the diesel cost by -/+ 20%. In both

cases, the base case (without energy efficiency measures) and the proposed case (with energy

efficiency measures) when the fuel cost increases by 20% the resulted NPV will be less than a

predetermined value (100000 €).



Financial parameters Project costs and savings/income summary Yearly cash flows

General Year Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative

Fuel cost escalation rate % 1.0% 2.1% € 1,000 # € € €

Inflation rate % 2.0% 3.1% € 1,500 0 -47,994 -47,994 -47,994

Discount rate % 6.0% 2.1% € 1,000 1 31,838 31,838 -16,156

Project life yr 20 0.0% € 0 2 32,151 32,151 15,995

0.0% € 0 3 32,467 32,467 48,463

Finance 0.0% € 0 4 32,787 32,787 81,250

Incentives and grants € 0.0% € 0 5 33,109 33,109 114,359

Debt ratio % 91.5% € 43,900 6 33,435 33,435 147,794

Debt € 0 1.2% € 594 7 33,764 33,764 181,557

Equity € 47,994 100.0% € 47,994 8 34,095 34,095 215,653

Debt interest rate % 9 34,431 34,431 250,083

Debt term yr € 0 10 34,769 34,769 284,852

Debt payments €/yr 0 11 35,110 35,110 319,963

12 35,455 35,455 355,418

€ 500 13 35,804 35,804 391,222

Income tax analysis € 157,465 14 36,155 36,155 427,377

Effective income tax rate % € 0 15 36,510 36,510 463,887

Loss carryforward? € 157,965 16 36,868 36,868 500,755

Depreciation method 17 37,230 37,230 537,986

Half-year rule - year 1 yes/no Yes 18 37,596 37,596 575,581

Depreciation tax basis % € 0 19 37,964 37,964 613,546

Depreciation rate % € 0 20 38,337 38,337 651,883

Depreciation period yr 15 € 0 21 0 0 651,883

Tax holiday available? yes/no No 22 0 0 651,883

Tax holiday duration yr 23 0 0 651,883

€ 189,492 24 0 0 651,883

Annual income € 0 25 0 0 651,883

Electricity export income € 0 26 0 0 651,883

Electricity exported to grid MWh 0 € 0 27 0 0 651,883

Electricity export rate €/MWh 0.00 € 0 28 0 0 651,883

Electricity export income € 0 € 0 29 0 0 651,883

Electricity export escalation rate % € 189,492 30 0 0 651,883

31 0 0 651,883

GHG reduction income 32 0 0 651,883

tCO2/yr 0 33 0 0 651,883

Net GHG reduction tCO2/yr 113 Financial viability 34 0 0 651,883

Net GHG reduction - 20 yrs tCO2 2,259 % 67.3% 35 0 0 651,883

GHG reduction credit rate €/tCO2 % 67.3% 36 0 0 651,883

GHG reduction income € 0 37 0 0 651,883

GHG reduction credit duration yr % 67.3% 38 0 0 651,883

Net GHG reduction - 0 yrs tCO2 0 % 67.3% 39 0 0 651,883

GHG reduction credit escalation rate % 40 0 0 651,883

yr 1.5 41 0 0 651,883

Customer premium income (rebate) yr 1.5 42 0 0 651,883

Electricity premium (rebate) % 43 0 0 651,883

Electricity premium income (rebate) € 0 € 345,979 44 0 0 651,883

Heating premium (rebate) % €/yr 30,164 45 0 0 651,883

Heating premium income (rebate) € 0 46 0 0 651,883

Cooling premium (rebate) % 8.21 47 0 0 651,883

Cooling premium income (rebate) € 0 No debt 48 0 0 651,883

Customer premium income (rebate) € 0 €/MWh 49 0 0 651,883

€/tCO2 (267) 50 0 0 651,883

Other income (cost)

Energy MWh Cumulative cash flows graph

Rate €/MWh

Other income (cost) € 0

Duration yr

Escalation rate %

Clean Energy (CE) production income

CE production MWh 2,145

CE production credit rate €/kWh

CE production income € 0

CE production credit duration yr

CE production credit escalation rate %

Fuel type

Energy

delivered

(MWh) Clean energy

1 Diesel (#2 oil) 2,145 Yes

2 Electricity 127 No

3 No

4 No

5 No

6 No

7 No

8 No

9 No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No Year

Power system

Cu

mu

lati

ve c

ash

flo

ws (

€)

Pre-tax IRR - equity

Pre-tax IRR - assets

Electricity export income

GHG reduction income - 0 yrs

GHG reduction cost

Net Present Value (NPV)

Annual life cycle savings

Benefit-Cost (B-C) ratio

Debt service coverage

Energy production cost

Simple payback

Equity payback

Total annual costs

Declining balance

O&M


RETScreen Financial Analysis - Energy efficiency measures project

No

Annual costs and debt payments

Cooling system


User-defined

Balance of system & misc.

Incentives and grants

Initial costs

Feasibility study

Development

Engineering


Heating system

After-tax IRR - equity

After-tax IRR - assets

Total initial costs

Customer premium income (rebate)

Other income (cost) - yrs

CE production income - yrs

Total annual savings and income

Annual savings and income


Debt payments - 0 yrs

End of project life - cost

-100,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 16: Financial analysis of the project



Perform analysis on

Sensitivity range

Threshold 100000 €

€

38,395 43,194 47,994 52,793 57,592

€ -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%

151,594 -20% -118,710 -123,509 -128,309 -133,108 -137,907

170,543 -10% 118,434 113,635 108,835 104,036 99,236

189,492 0% 355,578 350,778 345,979 341,180 336,380

208,442 10% 592,722 587,922 583,123 578,324 573,524

227,391 20% 829,866 825,066 820,267 815,468 810,668

€

38,395 43,194 47,994 52,793 57,592

€ -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%

125,972 -20% 749,703 744,903 740,104 735,304 730,505

141,718 -10% 552,640 547,841 543,041 538,242 533,443

157,465 0% 355,578 350,778 345,979 341,180 336,380

173,211 10% 158,515 153,716 148,917 144,117 139,318

188,958 20% -38,547 -43,346 -48,146 -52,945 -57,744



20%

Initial costs


Initial costs

Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis of the project

The risk analysis part of the project is shown in Figure 18. In this section, this section allows the

user to perform a risk analysis by specifying the uncertainty associated with a number of key

input parameters and to evaluate the impact of this uncertainty on after-tax IRR - equity, after-tax

IRR - assets, equity payback or Net Present Value (NPV).

The risk analysis is performed using a Monte Carlo simulation that includes 500 possible

combinations of input variables resulting in 500 values of after-tax IRR - equity, after-tax IRR -

assets, equity payback or Net Present Value (NPV). The risk analysis allows the user to assess

if the variability of the financial indicator is acceptable, or not, by looking at the distribution of the

possible outcomes. An unacceptable variability will be an indication of a need to put more effort

into reducing the uncertainty associated with the input parameters that were identified as having

the greatest impact on the financial indicator.

The direction of the horizontal bar (positive or negative) provides an indication of the relationship

between the input parameter (fuel cost) and the financial indicator (NPV). There is a positive

relationship between an input parameter and the financial indicator when an increase in the

value of that parameter results in an increase in the value of the financial indicator. For example,

there is usually a negative relationship between initial costs and the Net Present Value (NPV),

since decreasing the initial costs will increase the NPV.

The frequency distribution histogram provides a distribution of the possible values for the NPV

resulting from the Monte Carlo simulation. The height of each bar represents the frequency (%)

of values that fall in the range defined by the width of each bar. The value corresponding to the

middle of each range is plotted on the X axis. Looking at the distribution of financial indicator, the

user is able to rapidly assess its' variability.



Risk analysis

Perform analysis on

Parameter Unit Value Range (+/-) Minimum Maximum

Initial costs € 47,994 10% 43,194 52,793

O&M € 500 20% 400 600

Fuel cost - proposed case € 157,465 20% 125,972 188,958

Fuel cost - base case € 189,492 10% 170,543 208,442


So

rted

by t

he i

mp

act

Relative impact (standard deviation) of parameter

Impact - Net Present Value (NPV)

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

O&M

Initial costs



Median € 337,940

Level of risk % 20.0%

Minimum within level of confidence € 153,183

Maximum within level of confidence € 540,985

Fre

qu

en

cy

Distribution - Net Present Value (NPV)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

-135,607 -38,094 59,418 156,931 254,443 351,956 449,468 546,981 644,493 742,006

Figure 18: Risk analysis of the project



Table 15: Financial results summary for energy efficiency measures in the greenhouse

Parameter Value

Thermal energy savings 15.4%

Electrical energy savings 26.4%

Total energy savings 16.3%

NPV 345.9 €

Simple payback period 1.5 year

IRR 67.3%

Required investment cost 47.99

During the analysis of the individual energy efficiency measures, some had payback period

higher than 3 years and some had high initial cost. These energy efficiency measures are

summarized in the following Table 16 and the suggested rate of subsidy to be applied is

indicated.

Table 16: Rate of subsidy for selected energy efficiency measures

Energy efficiency measure Rate of subsidy %

Thermal screen 40%

Double PE 30%

Mixed biomass heater 60%

Efficient motors and pumps 40%

Energy recovery units for desalination 50%

CHP (Trigeneration) – needs more investigation 60%

6.1 Agricultural best practice methods for energy savings

There are some best practice agricultural methods that could be applied in order to reduce,

mainly the consumption of agrochemicals (indirect energy consumption) and direct energy

consumption, these practices include but not limited to:

1. Following instructions of the Department of Agriculture for the beneficial use of

agricultural residues or the safe procedures for their management. Collecting the

agriculture residues just outside the greenhouse will constitute a source of pathogens



ending at entering the greenhouse and lead to the increase in the amount of pesticides

and fungicides that considerably increase indirect energy consumption.

2. Rainwater harvesting is a very good and efficient way of reducing the amount of water

needed from the well or from the main irrigation network. For each 1000 m2 of

greenhouse, 500 m3 of storage will be needed.

3. Regular (once a year) water analysis can result in adjusting the recipe of the hydroponic

fertilization system and as a result, either introduce the required substances to the plant

or reduce some other substances that might exist in water.

4. Calibration of EC and pH sensors, as uncalibrated sensors can result in using more

fertilizers than the plants need or less fertilization than the needed. In both cases, energy

efficiency use will be reduced (kWh/kgproduct).

5. Using shading nets instead of shading chemicals reduces the amount of chemicals input

to the agriculture process.

6. Soil and plant leaves analysis to justify the amount of fertilizers required.

7. Integrated Pest Management control (reducing indirect energy use)

The total primary direct energy savings potential (16.3%) obtained in Table 15 corresponds to

about 979.6 MWh. Assuming that best practical agricultural methods, mentioned before for

energy efficiency, additional 20% energy efficiency could be gained from the primary indirect

energy consumption, which corresponds to 145.4 MWh. Therefore, the maximum energy

efficiency potential in the agriculture sector is about 16.7%.

According to Table 1, the total area covered by vegetable greenhouses and floriculture

greenhouses is 7725 ha and 130 ha respectively. According to surveys of the Department of

Agriculture [3, 4], the 55% of the cultivated area with vegetable greenhouses have similar

energy consumption with the sample greenhouses visited. Moreover, 100% of the cultivated

area with floriculture greenhouses will have similar energy profile with the current study;

therefore, the total primary energy consumption for the vegetable greenhouses is calculated to

be 121.4 GWh. In addition to that, for the floriculture greenhouse sector to be 77.5 GWh,

therefore, the total primary energy consumption is calculated be198.9 GWh, of which about 24

GWh is indirect energy (12.1%). Finally, the maximum energy saving potential for the

greenhouse sector is calculated to be (16.7%) or 33.2 GWh.



7. Provision of an outlook of the expected evolutions of the energy

efficiency potential by 2020 and 2030

The maximum energy saving potential obtained in the previous chapter suggests that 100% of

the farmers that own similar equipment with the sample greenhouses visited will apply 100% of

the proposed energy saving measures. However, in a business as usual scenario in 2020 and

due to continuation of the economic crises and a continued low policy intensity scenario in the

agricultural sector without any specific promotion and education activities, we assume 10% of

the farmers applying 25% of the energy efficiency measures. That corresponds to maximum of

0.83 GWh energy savings, comprising 0.42% from the total energy consumption.

Expectations to the year 2030 could be more ambitious, this is assuming an increased policy

intensity with the adaptation of soft measures proposed (training and awareness raising

measures) to the farmers, which might encourage more farmers to apply more energy efficiency

measures. In this case, we assume that 50% of the farmers will apply 50% of the suggested

energy efficiency measures. That corresponds to 8.3 GWh energy savings, comprising 4.1%

from the total energy consumption.

Taking into account that the agriculture sector energy consumption is 2% of the total energy

consumption in Cyprus, this comprising for about 0.05 TOE (581.5 GWh). For 2020, assuming

also that 10% of the farmers could apply 25% of the measures, mainly related to the reduction of

indirect energy use, the energy savings potential could be calculated to be 2.43 GWh.

Regarding 2030 and due to possible increase in fuel prices and more incentives for energy

efficiency measures, we assume 30% of farmers applying 50% of the suggested energy saving

measures, this comprises to 14.57 GWh (2.5% of total energy consumed in Agriculture).



8. Soft Energy Efficiency Measures

Soft energy efficiency measures that could be applied include:

Several leaflets, which contain information about energy consumption, indirect energy,

and energy efficiency measures. These leaflets should be available in all local offices of

the department of agriculture.

Conduction of awareness raising workshops regarding energy audit and its importance in

identifying major energy consumers and benefits of applying energy efficiency measures.

Linking farmers with already available EU vocational training projects that deal with

energy efficiency and renewable energy penetration in agriculture. For example

Erasmus+ Vocational Training – Sector Skills Alliance.

Policy measures that can promote energy efficiency measures, such as including the

energy efficiency measures in the Rural Development Program (RDP) and promote the

energy audit as an agriculture good practice.

Linking energy efficiency measures with the CO2 emissions reduction and the good

practices of water use efficiency and conservation.

Promotion of detailed energy audits, especially for large-scale greenhouse units.

Training of local agriculture officers on topics related to energy efficiency measures.

Development of a compendium for energy efficiency measures and penetration of

renewable energy systems in greenhouses to be distributed in all local offices of the

department of agriculture and be available for all farmers.

Conducting information days to be addressed to Engineers and energy auditors to make

them familiar with the procedure of energy audit in greenhouses.

Energy efficiency measures and penetration of renewable energy measures to be

available in the website of the department of agriculture.

Development of guidelines of the construction, operation and maintenance of

greenhouse dedicated to the optimization of energy use.



9. Renewable Energy Penetration in greenhouses

9.1 Renewable Energy Potential

9.1.1 Renewable Energy in Cyprus

The energy policy of Cyprus is in line with the European Union goal of promoting the use of

energy from renewable sources, as a major step towards the reduction of global warming and

climate change phenomena.

The EU RES Directive [10] sets out specific national targets to be achieved by each individual

Member State, regarding the share of RES generated in each Member State by the year 2020.

For Cyprus, the national target states that the share of energy produced from RES must be at

least 13% out of the gross national final consumption of energy in 2020.

In light of the above, the Cyprus Government has launched a number of financial measures in

the form of governmental grants and/or subsidies, which aim at providing support and incentives

for the promotion of RES-E utilization in Cyprus. The main types of RES technologies which are

promoted under these measures for integration in the Cyprus power system are Solar energy,

Wind energy and Biomass.

Cyprus ranks first in the world in solar energy use for water heating in households, and has

achieved significant progress in the production of energy from Renewable Energy Sources

(RES).

Cyprus has already exceeded its intermediate 2020 targets, with RES comprising of about 8.7%

of its total electricity generation, compared to the 7.45% threshold for 2015- 2016, see Figure

19. In addition, Cyprus holds the EU-28 record according to the “European Solar Thermal

Industry Federation” for use of solar water heating systems per capita. Currently, more than 93%

of households and 52% of hotels in Cyprus heat water through solar power heating systems.

The most important projects relating to power generation from RES concern wind parks and

photovoltaic (PV) parks, concentrated solar thermal plants and biomass and biogas utilization

plants. 6 wind parks are currently in operation, while as regards solar energy, 4 PV parks have

been connected to the national grid so far, generating 1,000 MWh, [11].



(a)

(b)

Source: Eurostat statistics explained – Renewable Energy Statistics

Figure 19: Share of renewables in gross inland energy consumption, 2014 a) for EU28 – b) for Cyprus - %



9.1.2 Solar energy potential

Cyprus enjoys a considerable solar potential as can proved by the average bright sunshine per

day of 11.5 hours in summer whilst in winter this is reduced only to 5.5 hours in the cloudiest

months, December and January. A typical year in Cyprus includes more than 300 sunshine

hours. The total annual solar irradiation in horizontal can exceed the 1727 kWh/m2, see Figure

20. According to 2014 data of the World Energy Council, Cyprus is leading the top ten countries

worldwide, in the Installed capacity of solar water heaters per 1000 inhabitants, see Figure 21.

This fact suggests the industrial and commercial success of the solar thermal energy

applications and the high level of acceptance by the people.

Source: GHI Solar Map © 2016 Solargis

Figure 20: Global horizontal irradiation map of Cyprus



Source: Data from-World Energy Council, Energy Efficiency Indicators for 2014

Figure 21: Installed capacity of solar water heaters per 1000 inhabitants

Stabilizing the temperature inside the greenhouse can be very challenging especially during cool

nights in winter and very high temperature during the day in summer. There are some solar

thermal application that could be applied in greenhouses. The most obvious option is the

greenhouse heating and cooling systems. One option is to heat the greenhouse environment

(the air) through the connection of solar thermal collectors to a hot water hydraulic system and

heat storage tank, see Figure 23. Forced air or radiant floors are the main main could perform

the heat transfer to the greenhouse. Another type of heating and cooling system is the ground to

air heat exchanger (GAHE). During the day, the fan draws hot air from the greenhouse through

a manifold of pipes buried underground. This cools the greenhouse, and simultaneously heats

the soil. When the greenhouse needs heating during cold periods, the GAHE system draws heat

back up from the soil, creating warm air to heat the greenhouse. In other words, a GAHE system

stores the heat from the greenhouse in the soil underground. The soil acts as thermal storage,

helping regulate the air temperature of the greenhouse. Concentrated solar power could be also

used to obtain higher temperatures and efficiencies in the heating and cooling processes.



Figure 22: Ground to air heat exchanger

Figure 23: Space heating of greenhouse by solar thermal energy, Source, Solar Panel Plus3

3 http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/residential/solar-space-heating/

http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/residential/solar-space-heating/



Despite the tremendous solar thermal potential in Cyprus and the availability of technical options

that was discussed earlier, there are some challenges that face the application of solar thermal

systems in the greenhouse sector:

• The thermal energy is required in the greenhouse mainly for space and soli heating. This

thermal energy requirements is needed in winter months (see table 14 – page 44) and mainly

during the night. Consequently, there is a total mismatch between production and consumption

profiles. This fact reduces the efficiency of the solar thermal system, especially in cloudy days in

winter.

• The mismatch of production and consumption profiles could “theoretically” be solved by

installing large scale thermal energy storage tanks, with questionable efficiency and costs.

• The high thermal load for a greenhouse in Cyprus that was analyzed in the report (about

500 kWhth/yr) mainly in winter and night will require also very large installation area for the solar

collectors and the thermal energy storage, which leads to other problems such as changing

agriculture land use.

• After consultation with MARDE and according to the ToR, we have agreed to propose

cost effective measures that can be applied, at least in the near future, and with some

reasonable subsidy. Solar thermal systems for heating greenhouse could not satisfy these

criteria mainly due the high initial capital costs.

Therefore, the solar thermal and ground source heat pumps are currently too expensive to be

exploited on the scale of small greenhouse with limited available area [12]. However, using solar

cooling for the refrigerators in the floriculture and propagation greenhouses would be profitable,

should the prices of fossil fuels and electricity increase and the subsidies for agriculture energy

reduces.

9.1.3 Wind potential

The average wind speed in some areas, which is suitable for the installation of wind farms, is

about 5-6 m/s, see Figure 24. However, there are some barriers to further exploitation of wind

energy in Cyprus, such as the limited potential for wind energy generation, competition and

conflict with touristic real estate, social barriers, such as social acceptance of the technology,

technical barriers, such as limitations with the penetration of wind power into the national grid

and concerns for the system stability.



During the site visits in Cyprus and especially in the area of Ammochostos, the experts noticed

many multi-blades mechanical wind turbines for underground water pumping. The agricultural

officers noted that this area is famous of the use of such wind turbines, that many of them still

under operation. These types of wind turbines do not need high wind speed regimes and the

cut-in wind speed is lower than that of the wind turbines for electricity generation. In this case,

further investigation i.e. detailed wind potential and study of the penetration of mechanical wind

pumping should be performed, see Figure 25.

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment

Figure 24: Mean annual wind speed in Cyprus (m/s) – 10m



Figure 25: Mechanical wind pumping in Ammochostos

9.1.4 Biomass & biogas energy potential

Sources of biomass in Cyprus include biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste, sewage

sludge, solid and liquid agricultural residues and solid and liquid wastes from food and drink

industries. The main technologies for the production of energy from these biomass resources

are the direct combustion of solid agriculture residues for the production of heat or anaerobic

digestion for the production of biogas, which can then produce heat and/or electricity as

mentioned in chapter 6.1.11.

According to CRES [13], the potential of solid biomass reached4 100 Kton/yr which corresponds

to an energy production of 34 – 45 ktoe, mainly from vines and olive trees. Taking into

consideration the annual required thermal energy in a 2000 m2 greenhouse without any energy

efficiency measures to be 500 MWh/yr as indicated in Table 14, the maximum theoretical

greenhouses area that could be heated with solid biomass can reach 209 ha (48% of cultivated

greenhouse area). Furthermore, if energy efficiency measures are taken into consideration, this

area could be increased to 299 ha (69% of cultivated greenhouse area). Taking into account that

these quantities are dispersed in farms across the island, it becomes evident that this potential is

difficult to utilise in a cost-effective manner [14].

4 1 toe=11.63 MWh



Regarding forest biomass potential utilization in Cyprus, it has been indicated that due to the

semi-arid climate, the forest biomass productivity is very low for cost effective utilization and that

the short rotation crops have not been exploited yet in the island as a source of solid biomass

[15].

While there are a lot of obstacles and barriers to the utilization of agricultural and forest solid

biomass residues, it is not the case in using biodegradable animal, food and drinks, municipal

wastes and sewage through anaerobic digestion and the production of biogas. This is mainly

because of the electricity production tariff from biogas (0.135 €/kWh) and the existence of legal

framework in order to mitigate the animal waste management problem. In 2015, fourteen biogas

to electricity installations were in operation around Cyprus, their capacity reaching 9.7 MW and

generating 37.5 GWh of electricity—less than 1 % of total electricity produced in that year [14].

The thermal energy wasted to the environment during the production of these amount of

electrical energy could be utilized in greenhouse heating as indicated in chapter 6.1.11.

All in all, due to the low precipitation rate (semi-arid environment), there are limited forest

biomass resources available in Cyprus. However, the potential of agriculture residues and

landfill gas have not been fully exploited yet [12]. The main exploited biomass resource that has

been commercially viable in Cyprus is the utilization of biogas production, mainly from animal

wastes due to incentives for electricity production from biogas plants.

9.1.5 Geothermal energy potential

Geothermal energy uses the ground temperature to cover heating or cooling requirements by

using ground source heat pumps. The main areas with high geothermal potential in Cyprus are

the South Eastern and South Western parts of the island as shown in Figure 26, which

demonstrates that in these areas, a ground temperature can reach the value of 34 to 35 oC.

One of the main applications of utilization of geothermal energy in greenhouses is the

greenhouse heating. Advantages of geothermal greenhouse heating include cutting of fuel cost

up to 80% and O&M costs to about 5-8% (depending on the site) besides the elimination of CO2

emissions around the greenhouse due to fossil fuels combustion for heating. Other applications

include greenhouse cooling by using geothermal heat bumps. Geothermal energy could be also

utilized by producing electricity by converting the heat energy of the geothermal water to

electricity via thermodynamic cycles, such as Rankine Cycle.



However, geothermal energy is not yet exploited in Cyprus due to the complexity of the system

installation and high upfront or capital, maintenance and operation cost in some cases.

Source: Geological Survey Department

Figure 26: Map of ground temperature in Cyprus

9.2 Penetration of RES in greenhouses

As can bee seen in Figure 27, wind and solar energies have the highest installation power,

mainly due to their cost-effectiveness and maturity and the existence of support schemes.

Furthermore, the high potential of wind and solar energies in Cyprus, they are expected to play a

crucial role in supplying electrical energy to greenhouses. In 2013, the Cyprus Energy

Regulatory Authority and the Cypriot Government launched a law regulating the use and

production of electricity from renewable energies5. According to this law, photovoltaic system

could be connected by three types of connections:

1. Residential photovoltaic systems (up to 5 kWp). This system regards the installation

of PV systems mainly on the roof of residential houses. The connection method to

5 Ν.112(Ι)/2013, Ν.121(Ι)/2015, Ν.157(Ι)/2015



the national electricity grid will be by the net metering system. However, this category

is further divided into three sub-categories

A1. PV system for residential buildings concerning specific category of people

who need subsidies

A2. Residential photovoltaic systems without subsidies

A3. PV systems for non-residential building (including agriculture)

2. Industrial or self-production (from 10 kWp to 10 MWp). This system regards the

installation of a PV system on the roof of and industrial buildings or on nearby area

mainly to cover the electricity needs of the building. These buildings could be public,

commercial, industrial, agriculture, livestock buildings, schools or fishing

enterprises. These systems do not inject electricity in the national electricity grid.

3. Autonomous systems (without permits up to 20 kWp). These systems are appropriate

for isolated areas not connected to the national electricity grid (including

agriculture). They could be hybrid systems (more than one renewable energy

technology) or imply energy storage systems (batteries and charge controllers). As a

general guideline for this category, it is stated that “before the installation of the PV

system, it is recommended to take energy efficiency measures into consideration in

order to lower the energy consumption requirements”.

Figure 27: RES installations in Cyprus



For the greenhouse described in Annex 4, a photovoltaic system was designed to cover the

annual electrical energy needs (62 MWh/yr) that was calculated using the installed power of

each equipment, the number of items for each equipment and the estimated daily hours of

operation indicated in Table 17.

Table 17: estimated hours of operation for several equipment in a 2000 m2 greenhouse

Month of the year

Heating hours/day

Cooling hours/ day

Cooling panel

pumps hours/ day

Irrigation pumps

hours/ day

Circulation fans

hours/ day

Windows motor

hours/ day

Thermal screen motor

hours/ day

1 6 0 0 2 6 0.05 0.08

2 5 0 0 2 5 0.05 0.08

3 3 3 2 2 3 0.05 0.08

4 1 6 5 2 1 0.05 0.08

5 0 8 7 4 2 0.05 0.08

6 0 10 10 4 2 0.05 0.08

7 0 14 13 4 2 0.05 0.08

8 0 20 18 4 2 0.05 0.08

9 0 18 16 3 2 0.05 0.08

10 0 9 8 2 2 0.05 0.08

11 2 0 0 2 2 0.05 0.08

12 4 0 0 2 4 0.05 0.08

The results of the design was that a PV system with an installed power of 50.47 kWp is suitable

to cover all the energy needs of the greenhouse along with a backup generator of about 48 kW

for peak load coverage, see Figure 28.

The financial analysis, see Figure 29, of this PV system showed that it has a positive NPV value

(153000 €) and a simple payback period of 4.9 years. Summary of results are shown in Table

18. Land rent or purchase for the installation of the PV system, was not considered in the

analysis.



Inverter

Incremental

initial costs

Capacity kW 50.0 Peak load - annual - AC 6,000€

Efficiency % 95%

Miscellaneous losses % 5%

Battery

Days of autonomy d 1.0

Voltage V 48.0

Efficiency % 80%

Maximum depth of discharge % 40%

Charge controller efficiency % 94%

Temperature control method Ambient

Average battery temperature derating % 3.2%

Capacity Ah 1,200 10,634

Battery kWh 58 28,800€

Technology Photovoltaic

Resource assessment

Solar tracking mode Fixed

Slope ˚ 20.0

Azimuth ˚ 0.0

Show data

Daily solar

radiation -

horizontal

Daily solar

radiation - tilted

Electricity

delivered to

load

Month kWh/m²/d kWh/m²/d MWh

January 2.74 3.69 5.37

February 3.70 4.59 5.34

March 5.11 5.81 5.91

April 6.28 6.57 5.72

May 7.46 7.32 5.91

June 8.40 7.98 5.72

July 8.14 7.84 5.91

August 7.32 7.48 5.91

September 6.23 6.92 5.72

October 4.66 5.72 5.91

November 3.21 4.30 5.72

December 2.45 3.38 4.90

Annual 5.48 5.97 68.02

Annual solar radiation - horizontal MWh/m² 2.00

Annual solar radiation - tilted MWh/m² 2.18

Photovoltaic

Type mono-Si

Power capacity kW 50.47 144.2%

Manufacturer

Model 206 unit(s)

Efficiency % 15.0%

Nominal operating cell temperature °C 45

Temperature coefficient % / °C 0.40%

Solar collector area m² 336.5

Control method

Miscellaneous losses % 5.0%

Summary

Capacity factor % 21.9%

Electricity delivered to load MWh 68.02 108.4%

Peak load power system

Technology

Fuel type

Fuel rate €/L 0.620

Charger efficiency % 90.0%

Suggested capacity kW 35.0

Capacity kW 43 122.9%


Manufacturer

Model 1 unit(s)

Heat rate kJ/kWh 10,000

GM

FAM.0

Reciprocating engine

Oil (#6) - L

Maximum power point tracker

Yingli Solar

Proposed case power system

mono-Si - Panda - YL245C-30b

Figure 28: Sizing of the PV system for a 2000 m2 greenhouse





Fuel cost escalation rate % 1.0% 0.5% € 500 # € € €

Inflation rate % 2.0% 1.5% € 1,500 0 -97,293 -97,293 -97,293

Discount rate % 6.0% 1.0% € 1,000 1 20,243 20,243 -77,050

Project life yr 20 95.5% € 92,917 2 20,440 20,440 -56,610

0.0% € 0 3 20,639 20,639 -35,970

Finance 0.0% € 0 4 20,840 20,840 -15,130

Incentives and grants € 0.0% € 0 5 21,043 21,043 5,914

Debt ratio % 0.0% € 0 6 21,248 21,248 27,162

Debt € 0 1.4% € 1,376 7 21,455 21,455 48,617

Equity € 97,293 100.0% € 97,293 8 21,664 21,664 70,281


Debt term yr € 0 10 22,088 22,088 114,243

Debt payments €/yr 0 11 22,302 22,302 136,546

12 22,519 22,519 159,065

€ 500 13 22,738 22,738 181,803

Income tax analysis € 0 14 22,959 22,959 204,762


Loss carryforward? € 500 16 23,407 23,407 251,350








€ 20,547 24 0 0 347,272

Annual income € 0 25 0 0 347,272






31 0 0 347,272


tCO2/yr 0 33 0 0 347,272








yr 4.9 41 0 0 347,272









€/tCO2 (271) 50 0 0 347,272

Other income (cost)


Rate €/MWh


Duration yr

Escalation rate %


CE production MWh 68





Fuel type

Energy

delivered

(MWh) Clean energy

1 Solar 68 Yes

2 No

3 No

4 No

5 No

6 No

7 No

8 No

9 No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No Year

Power system

Cu

mu

lati

ve c

ash

flo

ws (

€)





GHG reduction cost






Simple payback

Equity payback

Total annual costs

Declining balance

O&M


RETScreen Financial Analysis - Power project

No


Cooling system


User-defined



Initial costs

Feasibility study

Development

Engineering


Heating system



Total initial costs









-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 29: financial analysis of 50.47 kWp PV system



Table 18: Summary of results for the 50 kW PV system

Parameter Value

Installed power 50.47 kWp

Load energy consumption 62 MWh/yr

Energy delivered by PV 68.02 MWh/yr

Initial investment 978000 €

IRR 21.2%

NPV 153000 €

Payback period 4.9 yr

Applying the same methodology for the installation of 50 kW wind turbine, the resulted annual

electrical energy production was calculated by RETScreen to be 55.38 MWh, which does not

cover the required annual electrical energy needs of the greenhouse (62 MWh/yr). Moreover, the

NPV value was calculated to be 77792 € and a simple payback period of 8 years, see Figure 30

and Figure 31. These financial results for the wind energy exploitation are less viable than the

case of the PV system. Summary of data are presented in



Table 19.



Inverter

Incremental

initial costs

Capacity kW 50.0 Peak load - annual - AC 6,000€

Efficiency % 95%

Miscellaneous losses % 5%

Battery

Days of autonomy d 1.0

Voltage V 48.0

Efficiency % 80%

Maximum depth of discharge % 40%

Charge controller efficiency % 94%

Temperature control method Ambient

Average battery temperature derating % 3.2%

Capacity Ah 1,200 10,634

Battery kWh 58 28,800€

Technology Wind turbine

Resource assessment

Show data See maps

Resource method Wind speed Paphos/Baf Intl

Electricity

delivered to

load

Month m/s m/s MWh

January 4.3 4.3 5.91

February 4.6 4.6 5.34

March 4.3 4.3 5.91

April 4.1 4.1 5.72

May 3.7 3.7 4.74

June 3.4 3.4 3.45

July 3.2 3.2 2.80

August 3.2 3.2 2.80

September 3.4 3.4 3.45

October 3.5 3.5 3.98

November 3.9 3.9 5.38

December 4.1 4.1 5.91

Annual 3.8 3.8 55.38

Measured at m 10 10

Wind shear exponent 0.25

Wind turbine

Power capacity per turbine kW 50.0

Manufacturer

Model

Number of turbines 1

Power capacity kW 50.0 0.6%

Hub height m 25 4.8 m/s

Rotor diameter per turbine m 15

Swept area per turbine m² 177

Energy curve data Standard

Shape factor 2.0

Show data

Wind speed

Power curve

data

Energy curve

data

m/s kW MWh Show figure

0 0.0

1 0.0

2 0.0

3 0.0 11.6

4 0.0 39.1

5 4.4 80.5

6 8.9 129.1

7 15.6 178.6

8 24.4 224.6

9 33.0 264.4

10 44.0 296.1

11 50.0 319.2

12 55.0 333.9

13 58.0 341.1

14 62.0 342.3

15 64.0 338.7

16 66.0

17 65.0

18 64.0

19 64.0

20 64.0

21 63.0

22 63.0

23 63.0

24

25 - 30

Array losses % 5.0% Show data

Airfoil losses % 2.0% Unadjusted energy production MWh 73

Miscellaneous losses % 2.0% Pressure coefficient 0.99

Availability % 95.0% Temperature coefficient 0.99

Gross energy production MWh 71

Summary Losses coefficient 0.87

Capacity factor % 12.6% Specific yield kWh/m² 351


See product database

Per turbine

Proposed case power system

Atlantic Orient

AOC 15/50 - 25m

Figure 30: Energy production from 50 kW wind turbine





Fuel cost escalation rate % 1.0% 0.4% € 500 # € € €

Inflation rate % 2.0% 1.1% € 1,500 0 -142,333 -142,333 -142,333

Discount rate % 6.0% 0.7% € 1,000 1 17,892 17,892 -124,441

Project life yr 20 96.5% € 137,400 2 18,056 18,056 -106,385

0.0% € 0 3 18,220 18,220 -88,165

Finance 0.0% € 0 4 18,387 18,387 -69,778

Incentives and grants € 0.0% € 0 5 18,554 18,554 -51,224

Debt ratio % 0.0% € 0 6 18,723 18,723 -32,500

Debt € 0 1.4% € 1,933 7 18,894 18,894 -13,607

Equity € 142,333 100.0% € 142,333 8 19,065 19,065 5,459


Debt term yr € 0 10 19,413 19,413 44,110

Debt payments €/yr 0 11 19,589 19,589 63,699

12 19,766 19,766 83,465

€ 1,500 13 19,945 19,945 103,410

Income tax analysis € 1,318 14 20,125 20,125 123,534


Loss carryforward? € 2,818 16 20,489 20,489 164,330








€ 20,547 24 0 0 248,143

Annual income € 0 25 0 0 248,143






31 0 0 248,143


tCO2/yr 0 33 0 0 248,143








yr 8.0 41 0 0 248,143









€/tCO2 (158) 50 0 0 248,143

Other income (cost)


Rate €/MWh


Duration yr

Escalation rate %


CE production MWh 55





Fuel type

Energy

delivered

(MWh) Clean energy

1 Wind 55 Yes

2 Oil (#6) 23 No

3 No

4 No

5 No

6 No

7 No

8 No

9 No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No

# No Year

Power system

Cu

mu

lati

ve c

ash

flo

ws (

€)





GHG reduction cost






Simple payback

Equity payback

Total annual costs

Declining balance

O&M


RETScreen Financial Analysis - Power project

No


Cooling system


User-defined



Initial costs

Feasibility study

Development

Engineering


Heating system



Total initial costs









-200,000

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Figure 31: financial analysis of 50 kW wind turbine



Table 19: Summary of results for the 50 kW wind turbine system

Parameter Value

Installed power 50 kW

Load energy consumption 62 MWh/yr

Energy delivered by PV 55.38 MWh/yr

Initial investment 142330 €

IRR 11.9%

NPV 7792 €

Payback period 8 yr

The alternative use of mixed combustion biomass heater is not also justified since there is no

significant biomass potential in Cyprus. Besides, the annual cost of biomass would reach the

value of 250 – 300 per ton, which will not allow for fuel savings. The payback period calculated

was about 11.5 years, which is not considered encouraging factor for investment. However,

using agricultural residues as a fuel would definitely favor the use of biomass heaters in

greenhouse heating.

Figure 32: Biomass heater as alternative solution



10. Data preparation as input for the energy forecast model

Based on the findings of the study, the data required to estimate the maximum (theoretical)

energy saving potential on greenhouse is presented, see Table 20, according to the tables

provided by the Cyprus University of Technology and according to the following assumptions:

1. The current fuel consumption (electricity and Gasoil) is based on the finding of the

current study from the energy audits of the visited greenhouses and the calculation of the

indirect energy consumption and extrapolation of the data to all greenhouse sector,

taking into consideration the synthesis, type and number of greenhouses in Cyprus.

2. Regarding the projection evolution of the reference scenario for 2020, it is assumed that

10% of the farmers applying 25% of the energy efficiency measures. That corresponds to

maximum of 0.83 GWh energy savings. While for the projection of 2030, it is assumed

that 50% of the farmers applying 50% of the energy efficiency measures. That

corresponds to maximum of 8.3 GWh energy savings.

3. The middle scenario regards increasing the above figures by 50%.

4. The ambitious scenario for 2020 regards the application of a factor of 400% (four times

more energy savings to be expected) of the reference scenario. While for 2030 the

maximum theoretical potential calculated in this study, is applied 16.7%.



Table 20: Projection of energy savings potential in Cyprus, Annex 5

I. Today's fuel consumption by type of agricultural activity

(toe) LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity

Greenhouses 11629.6 5472.7

Animal farms

Rest of agriculture

Total 11629.6 5472.7

II. Projected evolution of fuel consumption (in abolute terms or as a percentage change compared to 2015)

1. Reference scenario

Year: 2020 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity Year: 2030 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity

Greenhouses 11581 5449.91 Greenhouses 11144.3 5244.37

Animal farms Animal farms

Rest of agriculture Rest of agriculture

Total 11581.0 5449.9 Total 11144.3 5244.4

2. Middle scenario (cost-effective energy saving potential)


Greenhouses 11556.78 5438.49 Greenhouses 10901.63 5130.81



Total 11556.8 5438.5 Total 10901.6 5130.8

3. Ambitious scenario (maximum realistic energy saving potential)


Greenhouses 11435.46 5381.34 Greenhouses 9687.46 4558.76



Total 11435.5 5381.3 Total 9687.5 4558.8



11. Conclusions

The present report describes a preliminary study on the energy consumption profile of the

greenhouse sector and gives an insight of the most energy consuming processes. The

greenhouses that were visited and audited were selected by the Department of Agriculture so to

reflect greenhouses applying best practices.

In order to have a more real energy consumption profile, a more detailed energy audit is

necessary (Level III: Detailed Energy Audit) by installing data loggers and monitoring real

consumption throughout a whole year in an adequate number of farms that will reflect

consistently the various greenhouses types.

The overall energy savings potential was calculated to be 16.7% (33.2 GWh). However, in a

business as usual scenario in 2020 and due to continuation of the economic crises and a

continued low policy intensity scenario in the agricultural sector without any specific promotion

and education activities, we assume 10% of the farmers applying 25% of the energy efficiency

measures. That corresponds to maximum of 0.83 GWh energy savings, comprising 0.42% from

the total energy consumption. Expectations to the year 2030 could be more ambitious, this is

assuming an increased policy intensity with the adaptation of soft measures proposed (training

and awareness raising measures) to the farmers and the escalation and uncertainty in fuel costs

that might encourage more farmers to apply more energy efficiency measures. In this case, we

assume that 50% of the farmers will apply 50% of the suggested energy efficiency measures.

That corresponds to 8.3 GWh energy savings, comprising 4.1% from the total energy

consumption. Preliminary investigation showed that a trigeneration cycle could result in 20% –

30% energy savings and could be economically viable with a payback period of about 6 years

(fossil fuel as input). Therefore, we recommend more detailed investigation of the technical and

economic viability of this interesting energy efficiency measure, should the logistics of biomass

are elaborated.

There are several RE potential in Cyprus, solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy.

However, this study analysed the most cost-effective technologies that are readily available in

the market and can be implemented in the near future by the farmers. Therefore, photovoltaic

and wind energy applications were analysed in details. The PBP for photovoltaic and wind

energies were calculated to be 4.9 and 8 years respectively.



Annexes

Annex 1: Basic questionnaire

Annex 2: Greenhouse audit data sheet

Annex 3: Detailed observations and recommendation of the visited greenhouses

Annex 4: Details of an energy efficient greenhouse in Cyprus – Paphos – offer in Greek

Annex 5: Excel sheet for the provision of energy saving potential in Cyprus



References

1. SS,STATISTICAL SERVICE, AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 2014. Summarised economic accounts of the broad agricultural sector. Detailed data in quantity and value terms, on crop and livestock production, forestry, fishing, and intermediate inputs. Data are also presented on employment, investments, and land utilization, as well as output and input indices.Date of Release: 26/09/2016. (2016). Available from:http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/F9A639CC1FAC3F3FC2257777004049A9/$file/AGRI_STAT-2014-260916.pdf?OpenElement.

2. REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS - AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 2014 - Areas and production of main products . 2014; Available from: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/agriculture_51main_en/agriculture_51main_en?OpenForm&sub=1&sel=2. Access Date: 20/11/2016.

3. Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment - Department of Agriculture - survey for vegetables under greenhouses, 2014 - 2015. Available from:http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/page01_en/page01_en?OpenDocument.

4. Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment - Department of Agriculture - survey for floriculture, 2014. Available from:http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/page01_en/page01_en?OpenDocument.

5. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA relevance). 2009; Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0028. Access Date: 03/11/2016.

6. BioGrace project - harmonising the European calculations of biofuel GHG emissions. 2014; Available from: http://www.biograce.net/content/abouthebiograceproject/about_the_biograce_project. Access Date: 08/01/2017.

7. Baptista1, F.J., D. Briassoulis2, C. Stanghellini3, L.L. Silva1, A.T.Balafoutis2, A. MeyerAurich4, and A.Mistriotis, ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN TOMATO GREENHOUSE PRODUCTION. A PRELIMINARY STUDY, in GreenSys 2013, Jeju, Korea: http://www.greensys2013.org/2013.

8. American Society for Agricultural Engineers, ANSI/ASAE EP406.3 MAR98, heating, venting and cooling greenhouses, 675: 682., 2000.

9. RETScreen is a Clean Energy Management Software. 2017; Available from: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/software-tools/7465. Access Date: 07/01/2017.

10. DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL - on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently

repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. 2016; Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN. Access Date: 26/01/2017.

11. Cyprus Investment Funds Association - CIFA - Growth Sectors - Energy. 2017; Available from: http://investcyprus.org.cy/en/growth-sectors/cyprus-investment-sectors/energy-sector. Access Date: 27/01/2017.

12. Warwick HRI (2007), “Direct energy use in agriculture: opportunities for reducing fossil fuel inputs”, May 2007, Warwick WRI, the University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom. . Available from.

http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/F9A639CC1FAC3F3FC2257777004049A9/$file/AGRI_STAT-2014-260916.pdf?OpenElement

http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/F9A639CC1FAC3F3FC2257777004049A9/$file/AGRI_STAT-2014-260916.pdf?OpenElement

http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/agriculture_51main_en/agriculture_51main_en?OpenForm&sub=1&sel=2

http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/agriculture_51main_en/agriculture_51main_en?OpenForm&sub=1&sel=2

http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/page01_en/page01_en?OpenDocument




http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0028

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0028

http://www.biograce.net/content/abouthebiograceproject/about_the_biograce_project

http://www.greensys2013.org/2013

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/software-tools/7465

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN

http://investcyprus.org.cy/en/growth-sectors/cyprus-investment-sectors/energy-sector

http://investcyprus.org.cy/en/growth-sectors/cyprus-investment-sectors/energy-sector



13. Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism - Energy Production from Renewable Sources by 2020: The Cypriot Case. 2008; Available from: http://www.mcit.gov.cy/mcit/mcit.nsf/dmlindex_en/dmlindex_en. Access Date: 25/01/2017.

14. Zachariadis, T., Hadjikyriakou, Costas Social Costs and Benefits of Renewable Electricity Generation in Cyprus. (2016). Available from:http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319315348.

15. Loizou L., P.G.,Biomass estimation from young stands, Cited in Cyprus Energy Agency 2010, Uses of Wood Biomass, Nicosia. (2007). Available from: http://www.cea.org.cy/TOPICS/Renewable %20Energy/biomass%20final.pdf (in Greek).

http://www.mcit.gov.cy/mcit/mcit.nsf/dmlindex_en/dmlindex_en

http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319315348

http://www.cea.org.cy/TOPICS/Renewable

energy savings potential in cyprus · in order to meet the national target of 14.5% energy savings,...

Documents