Capacity Building Workshop on Small Hydro Power · PDF fileCapacity Building Workshop on Small...
Transcript of Capacity Building Workshop on Small Hydro Power · PDF fileCapacity Building Workshop on Small...
Capacity Building Workshop on Small Hydro Power Project Development
1
Hydro Power Project DevelopmentApril 17, 2012
Monrovia (Liberia)
Assessment of Micro Hydro Potential in Sub -Saharan Africa Countries: Mali, Togo & Benin
M’Gbra N’GuessanVP Africa, Econoler
Small Hydro Project Small Hydro Project Analysis Analysis
Using RETScreenUsing RETScreen
Photo Credit: M’Gbra N’Guessan, Econoler
Small Hydro Site: Akloa (Togo)
RETScreen ® Small Hydro Project ModelWorldwide analysis of energy production, life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions
• Central-grid and isolated-grid
3
isolated-grid
• Single turbine micro hydro to multi-turbine small hydro
• “Formula” costing method
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA REGIONAL MINI/MICRO HYDRO PROJECT
• A regional project initiated by UNDP with the support of 11 SSA Governments
• Funding Source: Global Environment Facility
Sub-Saharan Africa divided into 3 clusters:
5
Sub-Saharan Africa divided into 3 clusters:
• Cluster 1: West Africa (Benin, Mali and Togo)
• Cluster 2: Central Africa (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon)
• Cluster 3: Eastern Africa (Burundi, Congo; DR Congo; Rwanda)Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
PURPOSE OF PROJECT BRIEFS3 Project Briefs (1 per cluster) have been prepared
for submission to UNDP-GEF for project funding
Each Project Brief lays out:› Energy policies and rural electrification strategy of
each country
6
each country › Legal and institutional framework› Government strategy for micro/mini hydro power
system development› Baseline activity and GEF alternative course of
action› Proposed project financing and incremental costs
OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE
Approval for Pipeline Entry by GEF Secretariat
Preparatory Assistance Phase
Project Briefs Validation
Com
mitt
ee
7
April 2004
Validation
May 2004 –February 2005
April 2005
July-Nov2005
Project Briefs Submitted for Review by GEF
GEF Approval of Full-Size Project
End of 2005
1st S
teer
ing
Com
mitt
eeM
eetin
g in
Dou
ala
2nd
Ste
erin
gC
omm
ittee
Mee
ting
in V
ienn
a
FULL-SIZE PROJECT COMPONENTS
1. Identification of mini/micro hydro sites2. Identification and removal of barriers to the adoption
of micro/mini hydropower technologies3. Capacity building and technical assistance for the
deployment of micro hydroelectric plants
8
deployment of micro hydroelectric plants4. Dissemination of project outcomes5. Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E)6. Deployment of micro/mini hydropower plants on a
turnkey basis7. Systems management/ financing schemes/ ownership
structure and plant operation
FINDINGS OF CONSULTANT REPORTS
1. Improved rural access to electricity is a means of improving quality of life and socio-economic development.
2. Participating countries are at various stages of introducing legal and regulatory reforms to liberalize the energy sector.
3. Some countries have gone further in formulating rural electrification policies and strategies that clearly identify
9
electrification policies and strategies that clearly identify actions to be taken to attract much needed investments.
4. All countries offer good to strong candidates for micro hydro deployment, but the technical, financial and/or managerial resources are often lacking.
5. National institutional partners and NGOs/multilateral donors, can provide much needed capacity building and leverage investment capital for identified projects
CLUSTER 1 SUMMARY FINDINGS
• Benin and Mali have both made progress in introducing sectoral reforms and establishing dedicated rural electrification agencies.
• Mali has been the most proactive in developing incentive mechanisms to attract investors, but
10
incentive mechanisms to attract investors, but the financial resource remain limited.
• Given the uneven water situation in Cluster 1 countries, the technical team conducted detailed technical and financial analysis for each site.
Proposed Micro -Hydro Configurations
Cluster 1Configurations
Benin Mali TogoTotal
3 Countries
50-75 kW(cost US$300,000) 1 3 1 5
100-150 kW(cost US$400,000) 3 3 2 8
11
200-400 kW (cost US$600,000) 2 2 2 6
TOTAL # Systems 6 8 5 19
TOTAL kW 750 kW 850 kW 650 kW 2,250 kW
TOTAL COSTUS$2.7
millionUS$3.3
millionUS$2.3
millionUS$8.3
million
SMALL HYDRO PRE -FEASIBILITY
We used RETScreen Model for Cost Analysis
High initial costs
› But civil works and equipment can last >50 years
Very low operating and maintenance costs
12
Very low operating and maintenance costs
› One part-time operator is usually sufficient
› Periodic maintenance of major equipment requires outside contractor
High head developments tend to be less costly
Typical range : US$1,000 to US$5,000 per installed kW
Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
SMALL HYDRO PROJECT ANALYSIS
Four phases for engineering work:
› Reconnaissance surveys/hydrology studies
› Pre-feasibility study
13
› Feasibility study
› System planning and project
engineering
Photo Credit: M’Gbra N’Guessan
Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO ENERGY CALCULATION
Calculation ofplant capacity
Calculation ofturbine efficiency
curve
Flow durationcurve
Power durationcurve
14
See e-Textbook
Renewable Energy Project Analysis:
RETScreen® Engineering and Cases
Small Hydro Project Analysis
(Chapter 3)
Calculation ofenergy available
Calculation ofpower duration
curve
Calculation ofenergy delivered
(central grid)
Calculation ofenergy delivered
(isolated grid)
Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
USING RETSCREEN MODEL FOR A CASE STUDY
Clean Energy Project Analysis Software
Small Hydro Project Model
Click Here to StartDescription & Flow Chart
Colour Coding
Online ManualClean Energy
Decision Support Centrewww.retscreen.net
15
WorksheetsEnergy Model
Hydrology & Load
Equipment Data
Cost Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Financial Summary
FeaturesProduct Data
Weather Data
Cost Data
Unit Options
Currency Options
CDM / JI Project Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis
Version 3.0 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997-2004.
Training & Support
Internet Forums
Partners
NRCan/CETC - Varennes
Marketplace
Case Studies
e-Textbook
www.retscreen.net
DEFINITION OF ENERGY MODEL
Training & Support
Units: Metric
Site Conditions Estimate Notes/RangeProject name Wonougba See Online Manual
Project location Rivière Sio, région Kpalimé, Togo
Latitude of project location °N 6,91 -90.00 to 90.00Longitude of project location °E 6,76 -180.00 to 180.00Gross head m 8,00
Maximum tailwater effect m 0,80
Residual flow m³/s 0,20 Complete Hydrology & Load sheet
RETScreen ® Energy Model - Small Hydro Project
16
Residual flow m³/s 0,20 Complete Hydrology & Load sheet
Firm flow m³/s 0,51Peak load kW 55Energy demand MWh 332
System Characteristics Estimate Notes/RangeGrid type - Isolated-gridDesign flow m³/s 1,000Turbine type - Kaplan Complete Equipment Data sheet
Number of turbines turbine 1Turbine peak efficiency % 87,6%Turbine efficiency at design flow % 87,2%Maximum hydraulic losses % 7% 2% to 7%Generator efficiency % 93% 93% to 97%Transformer losses % 1% 1% to 2%Parasitic electricity losses % 2% 1% to 3%Annual downtime losses % 4% 2% to 7%
RETSCREEN - HYDROLOGY ANALYSISRETScreen ® Hydrology Analysis and Load Calculation - Small Hy dro Project
Hydrology Analysis EstimateProject type Run-of-riverHydrology method User-defined
Hydrology ParametersResidual flow m³/s 0,2
Percent time firm flow available % 50%
Firm flow m³/s 0,51
Flow-Duration Curve DataTime Flow
(%) (m³/s)0% 11,075% 9,57
90% to 100%
Notes/Range
12,00
Flow-Duration Curve
17
5% 9,5710% 7,9415% 5,9720% 4,3325% 2,8230% 2,7035% 2,3940% 1,4845% 1,0350% 0,7155% 0,6560% 0,5465% 0,4270% 0,3575% 0,3180% 0,2885% 0,2790% 0,2495% 0,20100% 0,15
Flo
w (m
³/s)
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Time Flow Equalled or Exceeded (%)
ESTIMATE LOAD CHARACTERISTICSLoad Characteristics Estimate
Grid type Isolated-grid Load Conditions
Load-duration curve User-definedPeak load kW 55
Load-Duration Curve DataTime Load(%) (kW)0% 55
5% 47
10% 46
15% 45
20% 45
25% 44
Notes/Range
50
60
Load-Duration Curve
18
25% 44
30% 43
35% 42
40% 40
45% 39
50% 38
55% 37
60% 36
65% 35
70% 33
75% 32
80% 31
85% 30
90% 29
95% 28
100% 23
Annual DailyEnergy demand MWh 332 0,9Average load factor % 69% 69%
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Load
(kW
)
Percent Time Load Equalled of Exceeded (%)
ESTIMATE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTIONAnnual Energy Production Estimate Notes/Range
Small hydro plant capacity kW 57MW 0,057
Small hydro plant firm capacity kW 31Available flow adjustment factor - 1,00Small hydro plant capacity factor % 51% 40% to 95%Renewable energy available MWh 257Renewable energy delivered MWh 187
GJ 673Excess RE available MWh 70
Flow-Duration and Power CurvesAvailable Flow Flow Used Available Power
19
Complete Cost Analysis sheet
Flo
w (m
³/s)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0,000
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pow
er (k
W)
Percent Time Flow Equalled or Exceeded (%)
RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO SELECTION OF EQUIPMENT
Turbine efficiency
› Compared with manufacturer’s data for an installed 6 MW GEC Alsthom Francis turbine 40%
60%
80%
100%
Effi
cien
cy (
%)
RETScreenManufacturer
20
Alsthom Francis turbine
Plant capacity & output
› Compared with HydrA for a Scottish site
› All results within 6.5%
• Formula costing method� Compared with RETScreen®, with 11% of a detailed cost estimate for a
6 MW project in Newfoundland
0%
20%
40%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Percent of Rated Flow
Effi
cien
cy (
%)
Turbine Efficiency Curves: RETScreen vs. Manufacturer
Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
Small Hydro Turbine Characteristics Estimate Notes/Ra ngeGross head m 8,00Design flow m³/s 1,000Turbine type - Kaplan See Product Database
Turbine efficiency curve data source - Standard
Number of turbines turbine 1
Small hydro turbine manufacturer ABC ltée
Small hydro turbine model modèle XYZ
Turbine manufacture/design coefficient - 4,5 2.8 to 6.1; Default = 4.5Efficiency adjustment % 0% -5% to 5%Turbine peak efficiency % 87,6%Flow at peak efficiency m³/s 0,8Turbine efficiency at design flow % 87,2%
Turbine Efficiency Curve DataFlow Turbine
efficiencyTurbines running
Combined turbine
(%) # efficiency0% 0,00 0 0,005% 0,00 1 0,0010% 0,00 1 0,00 0,90
1,00
Efficiency Curve - 1 Turbine(s)
21
10% 0,00 1 0,0015% 0,07 1 0,0720% 0,40 1 0,4025% 0,61 1 0,6130% 0,73 1 0,7335% 0,81 1 0,8140% 0,84 1 0,8445% 0,86 1 0,8650% 0,87 1 0,8755% 0,87 1 0,8760% 0,88 1 0,8865% 0,88 1 0,8870% 0,88 1 0,8875% 0,88 1 0,8880% 0,88 1 0,8885% 0,88 1 0,8890% 0,88 1 0,8895% 0,87 1 0,87
100% 0,87 1 0,87
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Effic
ienc
y
Percent of Rated Flow (%)
COST ESTIMATE – INPUT PARAMETERS
Costing method: Formula Currency: Togo XOF Cost references: NoneSecond currency: USA USD Rate: XOF/USD 1,47730
Formula Costing Method Notes/RangeInput Parameters
Project country TogoLocal vs. Canadian equipment costs ratio - 1,10Local vs. Canadian fuel costs ratio - 1,25Local vs. Canadian labour costs ratio - 0,50Equipment manufacture cost coefficient - 0,50 0.50 to 1.00Exchange rate XOF/CAD 400,00
Cold climate? yes/no NoNumber of turbines turbine 1Flow per turbine m³/s 1,0Approx. turbine runner diameter (per unit) m 0,5Project classification:
Suggested classification - MiniSelected classification - Micro
Existing dam? yes/no No
RETScreen ® Cost Analysis - Small Hydro Project Search Marketplace
22 Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
Existing dam? yes/no NoNew dam crest length m 10,0Maximum hydraulic losses % 7%Intake and miscellaneous losses % 1% 1% to 5%Access road required? yes/no Yes
Length km 3,0Tote road only? yes/no YesDifficulty of terrain - 1,0 1.0 to 6.0
Canal required? yes/no YesLength in rock m 280Terrain side slope in rock (average) o 20 Max. 45ºLength in impervious soil m 0Terrain side slope in soil (average) o 0 Max. 15ºTotal canal headloss m 0,28
Penstock required? yes/no YesLength m 70,0Number of identical penstocks penstock 1Allowable penstock headloss factor % 3,0% 1.0% to 4.0%Pipe diameter m 0,84Average pipe wall thickness mm 6,8
Transmission lineLength km 1,5Difficulty of terrain - 1,0 1.0 to 2.0Voltage kV 25,0
Interest rate % 0,5%
INITIAL COSTS / ANNUAL COSTS ESTIMATEInitial Costs (Formula Method) (local currency) Facto r (local currency) Relative Costs
Feasibility Study XOF 6 800 000 1,00 XOF 6 800 000 3,2% 0% -USD Development XOF 7 600 000 1,00 XOF 7 600 000 3,5% 0% -USD
Land rights XOF - 0,0% 0% -USD Development Sub-total: XOF 7 600 000 3,5% 0% -USD
Engineering XOF 1 600 000 1,00 XOF 1 600 000 0,7% 0% -USD Energy Equipment XOF 66 400 000 1,00 XOF 66 400 000 30,9% 100% 44 946 863USD Balance of Plant
Access road XOF 5 200 000 1,00 XOF 5 200 000 2,4% 0% -USD Transmission line XOF 9 600 000 1,00 XOF 9 600 000 4,5% 100% 6 498 342USD Substation and transformer XOF 400 000 12,00 XOF 4 800 000 2,2% 100% 3 249 171USD Penstock XOF 13 600 000 1,00 XOF 13 600 000 6,3% 100% 9 205 984USD Canal XOF 32 400 000 1,00 XOF 32 400 000 15,1% 100% 21 931 903USD Tunnel XOF - 1,00 XOF - 0,0% 100% -USD Civil works (other) XOF 57 200 000 1,00 XOF 57 200 000 26,6% 0% -USD
Balance of Plant Sub-total: XOF 118 400 000 XOF 122 800 000 57,1% 49% 40 885 399USD Miscellaneous XOF 19 600 000 0,50 XOF 9 800 000 4,6% 0% -USD
GHG baseline study and MP Cost -XOF -XOF 0,0% 100% -USD GHG validation and registration Cost -XOF -XOF 0,0% 100% -USD
Miscellaneous Sub-total: XOF 9 800 000 4,6% 0% -USD
23 Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
Miscellaneous Sub-total: XOF 9 800 000 4,6% 0% -USD Initial Costs - Total (Formula Method) XOF 220 400 000 XOF 215 000 000 100,0% 59% USD 85 832 262
Annual Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Re lative Costs Quantity Range Unit Cost RangeO&M
Land lease project 1 -XOF -XOF - -Property taxes % 0,0% 215 000 000XOF -XOF - -Water rental kW 57 -XOF -XOF - -Insurance premium % 0,40% 215 000 000XOF 860 000XOF - -Transmission line maintenance % 5,0% 14 400 000XOF 720 000XOF - -Spare parts % 0,50% 215 000 000XOF 1 075 000XOF - -O&M labour p-yr 2,00 3 000 000XOF 6 000 000XOF - -GHG monitoring and verification project 0 -XOF -XOF - -Travel and accommodation p-trip 4 200 000XOF 800 000XOF - -General and administrative % 10% 9 455 000XOF 945 500XOF - -Other - O&M Cost 0 -XOF -XOF - -Contingencies % 10% 10 400 500XOF 1 040 050XOF - -
Annual Costs - Total 11 440 550XOF 100,0%
Periodic Costs (Credits) Period Unit Cost Amount Interv al Range Unit Cost RangeTurbine overhaul Cost 35 yr 10 000 000XOF 10 000 000XOF - -
-XOF - --XOF - -
End of project life Credit - -XOF -XOF Go to GHG Analysis sheet
RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO PROJECT MODEL – FINANCIAL SUMMARY
R E T S c re e n ® F in a n c ia l S u m m a ry - S m a ll H y d r o P ro je c t
A n n u a l E n e rg y B a la n c e Y e a r ly C a s h F lo w sY e a r P re - ta x A f te r - ta x C u m u la t iv e
P ro je c t n a m e W o n o u g b a P e a k lo a d k W 5 5 # X O F X O F X O FP ro je c t lo c a tio n r iv iè re S io , ré g io n K p a lim é , T o g o E n e rg y d e m a n d M W h 3 3 2 0 (2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 ) (2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 ) (2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 ) R e n e w a b le e n e rg y d e liv e re d M W h 1 8 7 N e t G H G re d u c tio n tC O 2 /y r 1 6 8 1 1 3 4 6 9 7 6 1 3 4 6 9 7 6 (2 0 1 5 3 0 2 4 ) E x c e s s R E a v a ila b le M W h 7 0 N e t G H G re d u c tio n - y r 5 + b e y o n d tC O 2 /y r 1 6 8 2 1 9 2 6 3 3 1 1 9 2 6 3 3 1 (1 8 2 2 6 6 9 3 ) F irm R E c a p a c ity k W 3 1 N e t G H G e m is s io n r e d u c tio n - 2 1 y rs tC O 2 3 5 2 1 3 2 5 3 2 3 9 5 2 5 3 2 3 9 5 (1 5 6 9 4 2 9 7 ) G r id typ e Is o la te d -g r id N e t G H G e m is s io n r e d u c tio n - 5 0 y rs tC O 2 8 3 8 3 4 3 1 6 6 3 4 4 3 1 6 6 3 4 4 (1 2 5 2 7 9 5 4 )
5 3 8 2 9 4 0 0 3 8 2 9 4 0 0 (8 6 9 8 5 5 4 ) F in a n c ia l P a ra m e te rs 6 4 5 2 2 8 4 2 4 5 2 2 8 4 2 (4 1 7 5 7 1 2 )
7 5 2 4 8 0 0 0 5 2 4 8 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 2 8 8 A v o id e d c o s t o f e n e rg y X O F /k W h 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 0 D e b t ra t io % 9 0 ,0 % 8 6 0 0 6 2 6 3 6 0 0 6 2 6 3 7 0 7 8 5 5 1 R E p ro d u c tio n c re d it X O F /k W h - D e b t in te re s t ra te % 0 ,5 % 9 6 7 9 9 0 7 7 6 7 9 9 0 7 7 1 3 8 7 7 6 2 8 R E p ro d u c tio n c re d it d u ra tio n yr 1 5 D e b t te rm yr 2 0 1 0 7 6 2 7 9 5 2 7 6 2 7 9 5 2 2 1 5 0 5 5 7 9 R E c re d it e s c a la tio n ra te % 2 ,0 % 1 1 8 4 9 4 4 5 9 8 4 9 4 4 5 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 G H G e m is s io n re d u c tio n c re d it X O F /tC O 2 - In c o m e ta x a n a lys is ? ye s /n o N o 1 2 9 4 0 0 2 4 0 9 4 0 0 2 4 0 3 9 4 0 0 2 7 9 G H G re d u c tio n c re d it d u ra t io n yr 2 1 E f fe c t iv e in c o m e ta x ra te % 3 5 ,0 % 1 3 1 0 3 4 7 0 0 3 1 0 3 4 7 0 0 3 4 9 7 4 7 2 8 1 G H G c re d it e s c a la tio n ra te % 0 ,0 % L o s s c a r ry fo rw a rd ? ye s /n o Y e s 1 4 1 1 3 3 6 5 3 0 1 1 3 3 6 5 3 0 6 1 0 8 3 8 1 1 A v o id e d c o s t o f e x c e s s e n e rg y X O F /k W h - D e p re c ia t io n m e th o d - D e c lin in g b a la n c e 1 5 1 2 3 7 0 6 7 8 1 2 3 7 0 6 7 8 7 3 4 5 4 4 8 9 A v o id e d c o s t o f c a p a c ity X O F /k W -y r - D e p re c ia t io n ta x b a s is % 8 0 ,0 % 1 6 1 3 4 5 1 3 8 3 1 3 4 5 1 3 8 3 8 6 9 0 5 8 7 2 E n e rg y c o s t e s c a la tio n ra te % 4 ,0 % D e p re c ia t io n ra te % 3 0 ,0 % 1 7 1 4 5 8 0 6 6 4 1 4 5 8 0 6 6 4 1 0 1 4 8 6 5 3 6 In f la t io n % 3 ,0 % D e p re c ia t io n p e r io d yr 1 5 1 8 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 1 7 2 4 7 1 6 0
25 Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
In f la t io n % 3 ,0 % D e p re c ia t io n p e r io d yr 1 5 1 8 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 1 7 2 4 7 1 6 0 D is c o u n t ra te % 1 1 ,0 % T a x h o lid a y a v a ila b le ? ye s /n o N o 1 9 1 6 9 9 3 4 5 5 1 6 9 9 3 4 5 5 1 3 4 2 4 0 6 1 5 P ro je c t l ife y r 5 0 T a x h o lid a y d u ra tio n yr 5 2 0 1 8 2 8 1 4 4 2 1 8 2 8 1 4 4 2 1 5 2 5 2 2 0 5 7
2 1 2 9 8 1 7 9 2 6 2 9 8 1 7 9 2 6 1 8 2 3 3 9 9 8 3 P ro je c t C o s ts a n d S a v in g s 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 4 7 1 3 1 2 2 3 4 7 1 2 1 3 5 6 3 4 5 4
2 3 3 2 6 9 1 6 2 2 3 2 6 9 1 6 2 2 2 4 6 2 5 5 0 7 6 In i t ia l C o s ts A n n u a l C o s ts a n d D e b t 2 4 3 4 2 2 5 0 7 6 3 4 2 2 5 0 7 6 2 8 0 4 8 0 1 5 3
F e a s ib il ity s tu d y 3 ,2 % X O F 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 O & M X O F 1 1 4 4 0 5 5 0 2 5 3 5 8 2 6 6 4 2 3 5 8 2 6 6 4 2 3 1 6 3 0 6 7 9 5 D e v e lo p m e n t 3 ,5 % X O F 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 F u e l/E le c tr ic ity X O F - 2 6 3 7 4 9 9 2 4 8 3 7 4 9 9 2 4 8 3 5 3 8 0 6 0 4 3 E n g in e e r in g 0 ,7 % X O F 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 D e b t p a y m e n ts - 2 0 y rs X O F 1 0 1 9 0 9 5 8 2 7 3 9 2 4 5 9 4 3 3 9 2 4 5 9 4 3 3 9 3 0 5 1 9 8 6 E n e rg y e q u ip m e n t 3 0 ,9 % X O F 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 A n n u a l C o s ts a n d D e b t - T o ta l X O F 2 1 6 3 1 5 0 8 2 8 4 1 0 6 9 9 0 9 4 1 0 6 9 9 0 9 4 3 4 1 2 1 8 9 5 B a la n c e o f p la n t 5 7 ,1 % X O F 1 2 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 4 2 9 7 4 4 5 7 4 2 9 7 4 4 5 7 4 7 7 0 9 6 3 5 2 M is c e lla n e o u s 4 ,6 % X O F 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 A n n u a l S a v in g s o r In c o m e 3 0 4 4 9 6 3 0 3 9 4 4 9 6 3 0 3 9 5 2 2 0 5 9 3 9 1
In i t ia l C o s ts - T o ta l 1 0 0 ,0 % X O F 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 E n e rg y s a v in g s /in c o m e X O F 2 2 4 2 4 7 1 3 3 1 4 7 0 3 9 2 5 3 4 7 0 3 9 2 5 3 5 6 9 0 9 8 6 4 4 C a p a c ity s a v in g s /in c o m e X O F - 3 2 4 9 2 0 6 8 4 6 4 9 2 0 6 8 4 6 6 1 8 3 0 5 4 9 0
In c e n tiv e s /G ra n ts X O F - R E p r o d u c tio n c re d it in c o m e - 1 5 y rs X O F - 3 3 5 1 4 6 9 7 2 3 5 1 4 6 9 7 2 3 6 6 9 7 7 5 2 1 3 G H G re d u c tio n in c o m e - 2 1 y rs X O F - 3 4 5 3 8 3 1 9 5 4 5 3 8 3 1 9 5 4 7 2 3 6 0 7 1 6 7
A n n u a l S a v in g s - T o ta l X O F 2 2 4 2 4 7 1 3 3 5 2 8 1 5 9 1 5 3 2 8 1 5 9 1 5 3 7 5 1 7 6 6 3 2 0 P e r io d ic C o s t s (C re d its ) 3 6 5 8 8 7 1 6 1 0 5 8 8 7 1 6 1 0 8 1 0 6 3 7 9 2 9 # T u rb in e o v e rh a u l X O F 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S c h e d u le y r # 3 5 3 7 6 1 5 5 8 0 5 3 6 1 5 5 8 0 5 3 8 7 2 1 9 5 9 8 2 # X O F - S c h e d u le y r # 0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 3 8 6 4 3 6 1 9 0 1 6 4 3 6 1 9 0 1 9 3 6 5 5 7 8 8 4 # X O F - S c h e d u le y r # 0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 3 9 6 7 2 8 8 1 5 0 6 7 2 8 8 1 5 0 1 0 0 3 8 4 6 0 3 4
E n d o f p ro je c t li fe - C re d it X O F - S c h e d u le y r # 5 0 4 0 7 0 3 4 2 0 0 1 7 0 3 4 2 0 0 1 1 0 7 4 1 8 8 0 3 4 4 1 7 3 5 2 8 8 7 6 7 3 5 2 8 8 7 6 1 1 4 7 7 1 6 9 1 1
F in a n c ia l F e a s ib i l i t y 4 2 7 6 8 5 4 4 2 2 7 6 8 5 4 4 2 2 1 2 2 4 5 7 1 3 3 3 C a lc u la te e n e rg y p ro d u c t io n c o s t? ye s /n o Y e s 4 3 8 0 3 2 4 5 2 2 8 0 3 2 4 5 2 2 1 3 0 4 8 9 5 8 5 4
P re - ta x IR R a n d R O I % 2 2 ,3 % E n e rg y p ro d u c tio n c o s t X O F /k W h 9 2 ,5 9 5 2 4 4 8 3 9 4 5 3 0 3 8 3 9 4 5 3 0 3 1 3 8 8 8 4 1 1 5 7 A f te r - ta x IR R a n d R O I % 2 2 ,3 % C a lc u la te G H G re d u c tio n c o s t? ye s /n o Y e s 4 5 8 7 7 2 3 1 4 9 8 7 7 2 3 1 4 9 1 4 7 6 5 6 4 3 0 6 S im p le P a y b a c k yr 1 9 ,6 G H G e m is s io n re d u c tio n c o s t X O F /tC O 2 (4 8 2 6 1 ) 4 6 9 1 6 6 4 7 1 0 9 1 6 6 4 7 1 0 1 5 6 8 2 2 9 0 1 6 Y e a r - to -p o s it iv e c a s h f lo w yr 6 ,8 P ro je c t e q u ity X O F 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 9 5 7 7 6 9 1 3 9 5 7 7 6 9 1 3 1 6 6 4 0 0 5 9 3 0 N e t P re s e n t V a lu e - N P V X O F 7 3 1 5 6 7 4 5 P ro je c t d e b t X O F 1 9 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 1 0 0 0 6 6 9 7 3 1 0 0 0 6 6 9 7 3 1 7 6 4 0 7 2 9 0 2 A n n u a l L ife C yc le S a v in g s X O F 8 0 9 1 0 8 1 D e b t p a ym e n ts X O F /y r 1 0 1 9 0 9 5 8 4 9 1 0 4 5 4 2 4 0 4 1 0 4 5 4 2 4 0 4 1 8 6 8 6 1 5 3 0 6 B e n e f it-C o s t (B -C ) ra tio - 4 ,4 0 D e b t s e rv ic e c o v e ra g e - 1 ,1 3 5 0 1 0 9 2 1 1 0 3 5 1 0 9 2 1 1 0 3 5 1 9 7 7 8 2 6 3 4 1
V e rs io n 3 .0 © M in is te r o f N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s C a n a d a 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 4 . N R C a n /C E T C - V a re n n e s
RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO PROJECT MODEL – PROJECT CASH FLOWS
Cumulative Cash Flows Graph
Small Hydro Project Cumulative Cash FlowsWonougba, rivière Sio, région Kpalimé, Togo
Renewable energy delivered (MWh/yr): 187 Total Initial Costs: XOF 215 000 000 Net average GHG r eduction (t CO2/yr): 168
2 000 000 000
2 500 000 000
26Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan
IRR and ROI: 22,3% Year-to-positive cash flow: 6,8 yr Net Present Value: XOF 73 156 745
Version 3.0 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2004. NRCan/CETC - Varennes
Cum
ulat
ive
Cas
h F
low
s (
XO
F)
(500 000 000)
0
500 000 000
1 000 000 000
1 500 000 000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Years
Base Case Electricity System (Baseline)
Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission factor
CH4 emission factor
N2O emission factor
T & Dlosses
GHG emission factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh)100,0% 74,1 0,0020 0,0020 17,0% 1,081
0,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000
Electricity mix 100% 297,6 0,0080 0,0080 17,0% 1,081
Does baseline change during project life? No Change in GHG emission factor % -20,0%
Diesel (#2 oil) 30,0%
Fuel conversion efficiency
(%)
28
Proposed Case Electricity System (Small Hydro Proje ct)
Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission factor
CH4 emission factor
N2O emission factor
T & Dlosses
GHG emission factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh)Electricity system
Small hydro 100,0% 0,0 0,0000 0,0000 8,0% 0,000
GHG Emission Reduction Summary
Base case Proposed case End-use GHG credits Net annualGHG emission GHG emission annual energy transaction GHG emission
factor factor delivered fee reduction(yr) (tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) (MWh) (%) (tCO2)
Electricity system 1 to 4 1,081 0,000 172 0,0% 186(tCO2)186
Complete Financial Summary sheet
Years of occurence
Gross annualGHG emission
reduction
(%)
100,0%
Fuel conversion efficiency
CONCLUSION
• RETScreen was used to estimate capacity, output and costs based on site characteristics such as flow duration curve and head
• RETScreen allowed the Technical Team to achieve preliminary feasibility study and cost
32
achieve preliminary feasibility study and cost assessment
• Run-of-river projects: • Lower cost & lower environmental impacts • But need back-up power on isolated grid
• Initial costs high and 75% site specific
Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan