METHODOLOGY for Conducting Energy Audits on … Methodology small HPPs ENG.pdfSmall HPP Energy Audit...

METHODOLOGY

for Conducting Energy Audits on

Small Hydroelectric Power Plants

(SHPPs)

Ad Hoc Expert Facility

under the INOGATE project

“Support to Energy Market Integration and Sustainable Energy

in the NIS” (SEMISE)

December 2011

The content of this report is the sole responsibility of the Contractor and can in no way

be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

Author:

Larry Good - Key Expert for Sustainable Energy

Small HPP Energy Audit Methodology ii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2

Assessing Condition of Technical & Commercial Accounting ................................................... 2

Preparation of Energy Audit Results .......................................................................................... 3

TEN STEPS - OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 4

INPUTS ..................................................................................................................................... 6

TECHNICAL INPUTS ................................................................................................................. 6

Analysis of Equipment, Conditions & Operating Mode of SHPP................................................ 6

FINANCIAL INPUTS................................................................................................................... 7

STEP 1 BASELINE.............................................................................................................. 8

BASELINE TECHNICAL ............................................................................................................ 8

Energy Efficiency Rates ............................................................................................................ 8

Determining Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................... 10

Energy Balance ....................................................................................................................... 10

BASELINE FINANCIAL ........................................................................................................... 10

Step 1a. Old Re-investment Table ........................................................................................... 11

Step 1b. Annual Income.......................................................................................................... 12

Step 1c. Annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs ...................................................... 12

Step 1d. Other Annual Costs ................................................................................................... 12

STEP 2 NEW CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 13

NEW CONDITIONS, TECHNICAL ........................................................................................... 13

Development of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) ......................................................... 13

NEW CONDITIONS, FINANCIAL ............................................................................................ 13

Step 2a. Initial Investment ...................................................................................................... 14

Step 2b. Life Cycle Re-investments ........................................................................................ 14

Step 2c. Annual Income .......................................................................................................... 15

Small HPP Energy Audit Methodology iii

Step 2d. Annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs ...................................................... 15

Step 2e. Other Annual Costs ................................................................................................... 15

STEP 3 DIFFERENCES: SAVINGS AND BENEFITS .................................................. 16

TECHNICAL – Increased electricity production and reduced losses ............................................ 16

FINANCIAL - Difference between new and old in ...................................................................... 16

Step 3a. Life Cycle Investments .............................................................................................. 16

Step 3b. Annual Savings ......................................................................................................... 17

STEP 4 DISCOUNT RATE ............................................................................................... 17

STEP 5 ANALISYS PERIOD ............................................................................................ 18

STEP 6 RESIDUAL VALUE.............................................................................................. 18

STEP 7 PRESENT VALUE (PV) OF BENEFITS ............................................................ 19

STEP 8 PRESENT VALUE (PV) OF INVESTMENT ...................................................... 20

STEP 9 ABSOLUTE FEASIBILITY: NPV ....................................................................... 21

STEP 10 RELATIVE FEASIBILITY: IRR & SIR ........................................................... 21

SOME ASPECTS of FINANCING REHABILITATION of SMALL HPPs ............................... 24

APPENDIX 1. (Data Collection Form, below)......................................................................... 26

APPENDIX 2. (ECMs, below) ................................................................................................ 26

Small HPP Energy Audit Methodology 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is a best practice methodology for conducting energy audits on small

hydropower plants (SHPPs). The emphasis in this methodology is on correct analysis.

Hydropower plant engineers already know how to take measurements of their operations

with appropriate instruments, so explaining data collection in detail is not necessary here.

What is important is a) which data to collect, and b) correct analysis of the data for

profitable projects. The latter point is critical. Therefore, this methodology dwells on

processing data with a 10-step life cycle cost (LCC) analysis to produce feasibility

indicators that will attract investment.

After explaining the 10-step analysis in theory, the methodology offers examples with

tools and instructions. Four feasible energy conservation measures (ECMs) are analyzed

in detail with working spreadsheets:

• Replacement of existing generating capacity

• New technology to exploit excess water power

• Controls upgrade

• Water pump replacement

The spreadsheets are unlocked. Readers may use them to analyze their own ECMs by

editing input or formulas.

More opportunities than these sample ECMs are possible, and the same methodology may

determine their feasibility. “Feasible” means a project will make more money than it

costs during its economic life.

The methodology also contains a short chapter on financing SHPP EE/RES projects.


INTRODUCTION

This Methodology begins with established, universal, energy auditing practice. The

authors applied it to actual energy audits they conducted at three small hydroelectric

power plants (HPPs) in Ukraine and adjusted the methodology to fit unique conditions

encountered in the HPPs. An energy audit assesses all aspects of a small HPP connected

with electricity production, using water as a renewable energy source.

The result of any energy audit is a set of recommendations, either for reducing energy

related costs or for increasing energy production. In either case, plant efficiency

improves. The audit report defines the opportunities to improve operation and quantifies

their technical and financial feasibility.

To achieve the result of an energy audit at an HPP, the auditors determine the plant’s

actual, meaningful indicators, most importantly its energy efficiency. Indicators are

compared against normative values (benchmarks) to help establish efficient utilization of

water flow. Benchmarks are a tool to identify opportunities and develop measures to

improve plant energy efficiency. The audit also determines the HPP’s specifications, its

energy balance and itemized costs to help achieve improvements.

Audits offer technical suggestions aimed at improving the effectiveness of using water

flowing through the HPP. Improvements require teamwork among well qualified

engineers, energy audit experts, operational personnel and other specialists at the client

site.

As a rule, energy auditors’ proposals are advisory in nature. Therefore, there is always

the risk that their work will remain as only a paper study since implementation of

recommended measures depends on the client plant’s management.

Assessing Condition of Technical & Commercial Accounting

In the beginning, the energy auditor should conduct the following checks and surveys

during initial meetings with the client.

• Instrument characteristics

o Availability

o Type

o Class of accuracy


• Instrument purposes: Measurment of

o Head

o Water flow

o Generator capacity

o Energy consumption

o Internal load

o Electricity prodution

• Compliance of HPP energy accounting system with requirements of technical

regulations

• Condition of HPP’s reporting documents

• Control characteristics of gensets and HPP, their approval by test data, adequate

adjustment of normalizing coefficients to assess the impact of different factors

over time. Check existence and sufficiency of allowed water and energy

consumption for HPP’s own needs (internal load).

• Water flow accounting: To analyze the system accounting for water flow, check

existence of metrological certification or accuracy of test measurments by flow

meters. Without flow meters, analyze the possibility of indirect measurement of

water flow through turbines according to their capacity.

• Missing information: Conduct a survey, with either stationary or portable

instruments, to fill in missing information or if doubts exist about reliability of the

information provided.

Preparation of Energy Audit Results

Upon completion of energy audit the energy auditor prepares a report containing:

1. Executive summary (1 page with most important results)

2. Background and description of existing situation

3. Recommendations quantifying the technical improvement and life cycle feasibility

of each improvement, known as energy conservation measure (ECM)

4. Appendices

a. Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis of each ECM

b. Collected data of interest (nameplate data, records, etc.)


TEN STEPS - OVERVIEW

The goal of an HPP energy audit is to find ways to increase income by producing and

selling more electricity. In 10 steps with a computer spreadsheet, one can find the

economic feasibility of measures to accomplish this. They are called “energy

conservation measures” (ECMs). The 10 step procedure is a life cycle cost (LCC)

analysis. The 10-step calculating tool produces exactly the same results as the traditional

method of finding LCC in tables.

Life cycle cost analysis considers the fact that interest (the cost of capital) diminishes, or

“discounts” the value of increased income more each year. This explains why high

interest rates limit the scope of projects. For illustration, the 10 steps are applied here to a

hypothetical HPP genset energy conservation measure (ECM).

The 10 Steps:

1. Determine old costs (existing baseline conditions).

2. Determine new costs (implementation and beyond).

3. Calculate differences.

4. Choose discount rate.

5. Choose analysis period.

6. Estimate residual value of equipment at end of service life.

7. Calculate present value of annual savings.

8. Calculate present value of investments.

9. Calculate absolute feasibility of project.

10. Calculate relative feasibility of project.

A spreadsheet arranged like a standard financial table shows the analysis period and the

effect of time on future savings and investments.

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

Present Value Savings (or Increased Income)

Total

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

Present Value Investments

Total


The spreadsheet calculates two intermediate values:

• The total (Σ) of the present value of all benefits (called “savings”)

• The total (Σ) of the present value of all investments

For output, the spreadsheet will calculate these results:

NPV – Subtraction of total savings from investments.

Net present value (NPV) is a project's absolute worth.

SIR – Division of total savings by investments.

Savings-to-investment ratio (SIR) is a project's relative worth.

IRR – Use of an iterative algorithm.

Internal rate of return (IRR) is the interest a project will earn.

These are economic indicators of feasibility that investors understand. The analysis

methodology works as follows.


INPUTS

The energy auditor collects data for analysis from records and measurements. (See data

collection forms in Appendix I.) This data is the input to the analysis. Input is organized

by technical and financial categories.

TECHNICAL INPUTS

Analysis of Equipment, Conditions & Operating Mode of SHPP

Inventory list should be prepared for the power plant and the following information

should be collected about the equipment:

• The basic technical data on the major and minor equipment (turbines,

hydroelectric generators, power transformers etc.)

• Water supply schematic and outlet construction

• Analysis of the major water users in the head water and tail water, and also for

production needs of HPPs

• Analysis of HPP’s internal electricity consumption and plan for power supply

• Schematic of primary connections

While analyzing equipment condition, the following issues must be clarified:

• Technical condition of water supplying facilities, hydro-turbine waterways and

outlet constructions for minimizing pressure losses

• Frequency of genset overhauls, existance of measured assessments of production

quality, assessment of the flow portions of hydraulic turbines

• Existance of turbine control and condition of head regulation

• Limits on smallest and largest power generating units and technical condition of

power control devices

• Technical condition of auxillary equipment

Daily schedules of a load curve for an HPP in different seasons and the regulatory regime

of the active and reactive power should be analyzed. The existance and condition of an

automatic device for regulation of active and reactive power, as well as HPP compliance

with primary and secondary frequency regulation must be checked. Also, the average

daily number of starts and stops should be determined.


It is necessary to analyze the water-energy regimes; seasonal, weekly and daily variations

in head water and tail water levels; HPP head, as well as the burden of regulations on the

economy of hydraulic turbines.

FINANCIAL INPUTS

• Electricity sale tariff

• Sales records from recent years

• Operation & maintence costs (O&M), including labor, parts and outside services,

from recent years

• Other costs, e.g., penalties, incentives, legal costs

• Capital reinvestment costs and schedule

• Prices of proposed new equipment, O&M costs and other costs

• Cost of capital (discount rate)

• Economic life of new equipment

• Estimated salvage value at end of economic life

This is the end of the input. Now let’s look at conducting the 10-step analysis.


STEP 1 BASELINE

Begin with good mathmatical definition of the existing situation.

BASELINE TECHNICAL

Energy Efficiency Rates

A turbine genset (Fig. 1) is the primary object of analysis in an HPP energy audit.

Fig. 1. – Process diagram

1- spiral chamber, 2- vane, 3- impeller, 4- draught tube, 5- generator

A hydraulic turbine converts the energy of water flowing under pressure into mechanical

energy of shaft rotation.

The energy source for an HPP is flowing water, used by turbines, under pressure. The

capacity of water flow supplied to turbines is defined as the product of flow times head

(pressure).

N = 9.81 x H x Q (1)


where

N = capacity of water flow (kW)

H = head at HPP, or ∆ elevation between head water and tail water, (m)

Q = water flow through turbines (m3/s)

Water flow through the turbine is calculated by the formula

Q = S х V (2)

where

S = cross sectional area of water inlet (m2)

= Stotal - Sgrille (3)

where Stotal = A х B

Sgrille = δ х L х n

А = depth of water inlet (m)

В = width of water inlet (m)

δ = thickness of trash restraining grille bars (m)

L = length of grille bars (m)

n = quantity of grille bars (m)

V = velocity of water at inlet measured by instruments (m/s)

From this it follows that energy into a HPP depends on head and water flow.

Efficiency of water usage at any point in time is the efficiency of the genset, determined

by the ratio of electric power P at the generator buses to input power of the water flow N.

Ƞgs = output / input = Р / N (4)

where

Ƞgs = genset efficiency (%)

Р = electric power (output in kW)

= х U х I х cos φ (5)

where

U = average line voltage on the buses (kV)

I = average strength of current on the phases (А)

cos φ = power factor

N = water power (input in kW)


For the energy audit. calculate daily average efficiency.

Determining Energy Efficiency

Actual values of water flow and efficiency at hydroelectric power plants are measured by

instruments. The auditor must identify correct measurement intervals, required

instruments and their connection, observation points and responsible personnel. When an

HPP feeds the grid, measurement intervals are 20-30 minutes. Record the times of HPP

load change, and record generator power before and after each change. Large volumes of

measurements require automated data collection.

Formula (4) is used to calculate the actual values of HPP efficiency. In this case, the

efficiency should be determined for each genset, and for the HPP in general, considering

electricity produced. To find input in the absence of flow meters, water flow, Q, is

calculated by flow capacity characteristics of the measured values of P and N. Output is

the value of electric power, equal to the sum of the measured values at the buses of all

generators.

Comparison of actual and regulatory values of energy efficiency should be made for

equal periods of time and for the same modes of HPPs.

Energy Balance

According to the results of instrument measurements made for the energy audits, an

energy balance should be made for the HPP in general. Energy input is water flow and

head. Energy output is produced electric power. Between input and output are losses.

Consider the following losses:

• Water supply facility losses (canals, pipes, penstock, trash screens)

• Hydropower loss in optimum mode

• Modal loss caused by deviation of the actual regime from optimal

• Transformer losses

• Internal consumption for own needs

BASELINE FINANCIAL

Financial baseline definition includes

• Annual sales and costs:


o Income from energy sales

o Operation & maintenance (O&M) costs

o Other costs

• Non-annual costs: Schedule of predicted capital re-investments

Step 1a. Old Re-investment Table

Old equipment naturally needs periodic re-investment to keep it going. The best source of

information for periodic re-investment costs on old equipment comes from maintenance

records. By looking at the past, we can get a picture of the future re-investments

necessary to continue operating the existing equipment at its current level of performance.

In this example the pattern is every four years. It does not matter how long the analysis

period will be (see Step 5). We want to establish a pattern, independent of analysis period.

Small example:

Old re-investment costs = 50 000 UAH every 4 years (from maintenance records)

Last replacement was two years ago, so the next replacement should be in year 2.

This number goes into "Old" column of capital re-investment table in 4 year

intervals.

Old Schedule

Year (UAH) 0 0

1 0

2 50 000

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 50 000

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 50 000

11 0

12 0

13 0

14 50 000

15 0

16 0

17 0

18 50 000

19 0

Investments are considered to be made at the end of each year. That is why there is no

20th year for re-investment. Twenty years of investments are counted from the end of


year 0 to the end of year 19. At the end of the last year of analysis, the project is finished.

Further investment requires a new project with new analysis.

Step 1b. Annual Income

Income numbers come from actual sales receipts. This information is obtained as part of

the baseline in an energy audit. Without monetary documentation, the auditor can look

for meter data and multiply by the known tariff.

Old annual income = old annual energy × energy tariff

Example:

Old annual income = 177,000 UAH/yr (determined by energy audit)

Step 1c. Annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs

O&M costs should come from actual records of maintenance. Often, this data is lost, and

the auditor is forced to estimate. The situation concerning actual O&M costs is unique in

each ECM. In this example, assume poor maintenance at low cost, so O&M = 2,500

UAH/yr.

Step 1d. Other Annual Costs

Sometimes energy projects affect non-energy costs.

Example:

- An HPP does not comply with water level regulations.

- The owner pays penalties.

- The ECM would provide sensors, warnings and controls to avoid non-

compliance.

- Penalties would stop.

Such an expense does not improve energy production, but elimination of the expense

would be the direct result of an ECM. The penalty should be included in the analysis as a

cost of operating the old equipment.


STEP 2 NEW CONDITIONS

NEW CONDITIONS, TECHNICAL

Development of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)

If equipment efficiency is above benchmark values, there is less need to develop energy

conservation measures for this equipment. Time would be better spent looking for more

profitable opportunities. However, if equipment efficiency is below benchmarks,

opportunities here should receive high priority. Among possible reasons for low

efficiency may be

• Poor original design

• Deterioration of running parts

• Deviation of performance mode from optimal

• Increased pressure loss in trash holding grids or water supply channel

• Increased level of tail water

• Poor distribution of load between gensets

• Increased consumption of electricity for own needs (internal load).

Perform specific tests to confirm the above. Note results in conclusion.

Poor HPP operation necessitates estimation of its losses and exploration of ways to

improve within the imposed grid requirements. After identifying the causes of reduced

efficiency, suggestions for their elimination should be developed, including specific

technical and organizational measures with assessment of their technical and economic

feasibility.

NEW CONDITIONS, FINANCIAL

Project costs consist of

a) Initial investment

a) Life cycle re-investments (periodic capital investments)

b) Annual income from sales

c) Annual operations & maintenance (O&M) costs

d) Other annual costs

Periodic re-investments, like annual maintenance, prevent deterioration of performance.


Step 2a. Initial Investment

Initial investment is more than just the contractor's basic installed cost of equipment. It

includes all real costs to the project host, e.g., engineering, profit, contingency, taxes, etc.

The analyst should uncover all real initial costs and include them. For convenience, add

costs as a percent of the basic project cost.

Example:

Basic project cost = 78 000 UAH (from energy audit)

Initial investment = basic project cost + engineering + profit + contingency + taxes

= basic project cost × (1 + 0.1 + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.2)

= 78 000 UAH × 1.6

= 124 800 UAH

This number goes into year 0 of the "New" column in the investment table.

Step 2b. Life Cycle Re-investments

Re-investments for new equipment are treated the same as old investments. The best

source of information for periodic re-investment costs on new equipment is from

manufacturers' recommendations. Without them, make an assumumption, of the percent

of the initial investment every 5 years.

Example:

5-yr replacement costs = 25% of initial investment (manufacturer's recommendation)

= 0.25 × 124 800 UAH

= 31 200 UAH

This number goes into the "New" column of the investment table every 5 years.


New Schedule

Year (UAH)

0 124 800

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 31 200

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 31 200

11 0

12 0

13 0

14 0

15 31 200

16 0

17 0

18 0

19 0

Step 2c. Annual Income

The analyst estimates annual income generated from new equipment using the best

available information from manufacturers and the most realistic operating assumptions.

New annual income = new annual energy production × sales tariff

Example:

New annual energy production = 132,000 UAH/yr (audit calculation)

Step 2d. Annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The best source of future maintenance costs is from manufacturers' recommendations.

Operating costs must be estimated realistically.

Example:

New O&M = 5 000 UAH/yr (per manufacturer)

Step 2e. Other Annual Costs

List other annual new costs that will be improved by the project, such as improved

productivity or reduced penalties.


STEP 3 DIFFERENCES: SAVINGS AND BENEFITS

TECHNICAL – Increased electricity production and reduced losses

FINANCIAL - Difference between new and old in

a) Life cycle investments

b) Net annual sales

Step 3a. Life Cycle Investments

Life cycle investments consist of capital required in year zero plus future re-investment

costs separate from annual O&M. They comprise only non-annual costs.

The table below combines old and new costs, then subtracts old from new to find net

amounts for all years. For each year of life cycle investments

net = new – old

Net Investment Schedule (UAH)

Year New Old Net

0 124 800 0 124 800

1 0 0 0

2 0 50 000 (50 000)

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 31 200 0 31 200

6 0 50 000 (50 000)

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 0 0 0

10 31 200 50 000 (18 800)

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 0 50 000 (50 000)

15 31 200 0 31 200

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 50 000 (50 000)

19 0 0 0


Step 3b. Annual Savings

"Annual benefit" is a consistent number that you can depend on every year. It consists of

all steady new income produced by the project, both from energy and elsewhere. The

most common non-energy savings are in O&M. Caution: Factors in annual savings may

be negative. An example would be rigorous new maintenance to replace lax old

maintenance.

All factors must pass reality checks.

Annual cost benefits = (new - old) energy sales

+ (old – new) O&M costs

+ (old - new) other costs

Example:

Annual cost befefits = (171 000 UAH - 132 000 UAH)

+ ( 5 000 UAH - 2 500 UAH)

+ ( 0 UAH - 0 UAH)

= 41 500 UAH

This number becomes input to the LCC analysis as “annual savings” (or “revenue

increase”).

Annual net revenue increase 41 500 UAH/yr

Discount rate

Analysis period yr

Residual value UAH

STEP 4 DISCOUNT RATE

The discount rate for an investment depends on the type of financing, equity or loan. In

the case of pure equity financing, the discount rate equals the return on the best possible

interest rate from any other project. In the case of a loan, the discount rate equals the

lender's interest rate. If there is a mix of equity and loan, then the project's discount rate is

the weighted average of these two separate rates.

For this example, choose a discount rate r = 12% (lender interest rate)

This number goes into the input cell for the discount rate.



Discount rate 12%

Analysis period yr

Residual value UAH

STEP 5 ANALISYS PERIOD

Any number of years up to 20 is generally acceptable for a project's economic life. The

investor will ask the question: How long are we confident that our organization can

support the project and reap its benefits? In an unstable economic situation with high

interest rates, only a short analysis period, e.g., 10 years, should be used. In this case

savings and expenses beyond 10 years become trivial due to heavy discounting. Longer

analysis periods, e.g., 20 years, are for low interest rates. They show greater return in the

outyears.

How can we include equipment with different service lives in the same analysis? If the

service life of equipment is shorter than the analysis period, we include periodic

replacement or overhaul in the investment schedule. On the other hand, if the service life

of equipment is longer than the analysis period, then we claim a higher residual value

(next step) to reflect the market value before total depreciation. This allows technologies

with different life spans to be compared on an equal basis in any time period.

In this example, choose analysis period T = 15 years.This number goes into the input cell

for analysis period.


Discount rate 12%

Analysis period 15 Yr

Residual value UAH

STEP 6 RESIDUAL VALUE

Residual value at the end of equipment service life may be 5% or 10% of the purchase

price of any item that still has market value. Ask yourself the question, how much would

anybody really pay for my used equipment after finishing its predicted life? If equipment

has recently undergone overhaul, it may have a market value of more than 10%. This may

be true of any machine maintained in good working condition.


If a depreciation formula is applied for accounting purposes, residual value may be

different from market value. The choice belongs to the party wanting the analysis.

Residual value acts as a credit to the project in the final year.

Let's say that the residual value = 10% of purchase price of our HPP genset example.

Example:

Residual value = 16 000 UAH

This number goes into the input cell for residual value.


Discount rate 12%

Analysis period 15 Yr

Residual value 16 000 UAH

STEP 7 PRESENT VALUE (PV) OF BENEFITS

The present value of annual benefits (here called “savings”) in a given year is the amount

of the savings in that year divided by (1+ discount rate) to the power of the year when the

savings occur. It reduces the real savings every year. The total PV of project savings

during the analysis period is the sum of all annual PVs.

Let:

PVAS = total present value of all annual savings

T = total number of the years in the analysis

ASt = Annual savings in the year t

This calculation shows that for each year:

PV of savings = year’s savings divided by (1+ discount rate)

raised to the power of the year when savings occur

A spreadsheet calculates the value of life cycle project savings.

151522111 )1(

1

)1(

1

)1(

1

)1(

1

rAS

rAS

rAS

rASAS

T

tttPV

+∗++

+∗+

+∗=

+

∗= ∑=

K


Example:

Revenue increase (UAH/yr) Year 0 1 2 3 4 . . . 13 14 15

Net ann. increases (UAH) 0 41 500 41 500 41 500 41 500 . . . 41 500 41 500 41 500

PV annual increases (UAH) 0 37 054 33 084 29 539 26 374 . . . 9 511 8 492 7 582

Σ PV ann. increases (UAH) 282 651

For T = 15 years, PVAS = 282,651 UAH

STEP 8 PRESENT VALUE (PV) OF INVESTMENT

In the same manner as with savings, let:

PVI = total present value of all investments

T = total number of the years in the analysis

It = investment in the year t

Res. Val. = residual value

15141411000 )1(

Res.Val.

)1(

1

)1(

1

)1(

1

)1(

1

rrI

rI

rI

rII

T

tttPV

++

+∗++

+∗+

+∗=

+

∗= ∑=

K

This calculation shows that for each year:

PV of investment = year’s investment divided by (1+ discount rate)

raised to the power of the year investment occurs

The total PV of investments is the sum of all annual PVs. Although there is no investment

in the final year of economic life, there may be decommissioning costs or cleanup costs.

These have the effect of reducing the residual value of the equipment, which is treated

like a negative investment.

Example:

Investments (UAH) Year 0 1 2 3 4 . . . 13 14 Residual

Net cap.investments (UAH) 124 800 0 -50 000 0 0 . . . 0 -50 000 -16 000

PV cap. investments (UAH) 124 800 0 -39 860 0 0 . . . 0 -10 231 -2 923

Σ PV cap. investments (UAH) 58 105

For T = 15 years, PVI = 58,105 UAH


STEP 9 ABSOLUTE FEASIBILITY: NPV

This step determines the absolute monetary value of a project, i.e., its net present value

(NPV). NPV answers the question, “How much is a project worth?” The NPV of a project

is its life cycle net savings, or how much a project will earn in its lifetime. NPV is a value

that considers the cost of capital.

Profit NPV > 0, project earns money (feasible).

Break even NPV = 0, project breaks even.

Loss NPV < 0, project loses money (unfeasible)

NPV = present value of all savings - present value of all investments

= Σ PVAS - Σ PVI

Example:

NPV = 282 651 UAH - 58 105 UAH

= 224 546 UAH

The value of the project is 224 546 UAH. The project will raise the value of the company

by this amount. NPV gives investors a method to evaluate companies or projects.

STEP 10 RELATIVE FEASIBILITY: IRR & SIR

This step determines the relative monetary values of a project, i.e., savings-to-investment

ratio (SIR) and internal rate of return (IRR).

Step 10a. Calculate savings-to-investment ratio (SIR)

SIR answers the question, how much more will a project save than it costs? An SIR is the

same as a benefit/cost ratio.

Profit SIR > 1.0, project earns money (feasible)

Break even SIR = 1.0, project breaks even

Loss SIR < 1.0, project loses money (unfeasible)

SIR = present value of all savings / present value of all investments

= Σ PV AS / Σ PVI


Example:

SIR = 282 651 UAH / 58 105 UAH

= 4.9

This means savings are almost five times as great as the investments required to achieve

the savings (or increased income). The reason that the project in this example is so

immensely profitable is that future re-investments to keep the old equipment in service

would be very expensive. Recall that the net future investments in Step 3a were mostly

very negative. They acted as a credit to investment in the economic analysis. In other

words, the life cycle cost of the new system is much less than that of the old. Not

including information about old and new future investments would have overlooked a big

advantage in the analysis.

A more modest project than this example may have an SIR of 1.5, which means lifetime

savings (or increased income) are 50% greater than investments, i.e., one and a half times

as great as investments.

Step 10b. Calculate internal rate of return (IRR)

IRR is a hypothetical discount rate that causes the SIR to be 1.0, or the NPV to be 0. The

IRR requires an iterative calculation, easy for a computer.

Profit IRR > discount rate, project earns money (feasible).

Break even IRR = discount rate, project breaks even.

Loss IRR < discount rate, project loses money (unfeasible)

A high IRR earns more profit per investment dollar. IRR is a major decision making tool

for lenders, usually the first question they ask. Investors may each arbitrarily set their own

minimum acceptable IRR, called a "hurdle rate."

In our HPP genset example, the computer calculated an IRR of 42% from the given input.

42% is a very healthy return.

Simple Payback

Simple payback (SPB) is not a feasibility indicator or a life cycle cost indicator. It does

not show if a project is feasible or not. Expressed in years, SPB is simply the initial


investment divided by the annual savings. It does not discount its input or consider future

re-investment costs.

SPB is useful for projects with very quick return. If a project can pay back in a year, for

example, there is no need to calculate discounted future values. For longer paybacks,

however, SPB becomes inaccurate because it only considers first cost and fixed annual

savings.

Furthermore, SPB does not show how much investment is too much. LCC indicators tell

you exactly at what point you start to lose money.

In this HPP genset example, SPB = 3.0 yr

If a company had an arbitrary payback limit of two years, let's say, it would have rejected

the very profitable project in this example with an IRR of 42%.


SOME ASPECTS of FINANCING REHABILITATION of SMALL HPPs

Reconstruction of small hydropower plants, like most projects in energy and

infrastructure, requires significant investment. Given that infrastructure projects have

long life cycles, they create perfect opportunities to attract bank financing.

A project developer may be interested in obtaining debt financing for the following

reasons:

1) To increase the scale of business: With limited equity, debt financing allows a

developer to increase the size of the business and increase business efficiency

using economy of scale.

2) To improve return on equity investment: As long as the debt interest rate is lower

than a project’s IRR, debt financing would provide financial leverage that leads to

increase of equity return. For example, if HPP reconstruction itself provides an

IRR of 18% and debt funding is attracted at 10%, the IRR of equity would be 25-

30%.

3) To obtain tax deductions: Debt financing makes bank interest tax-deductible,

which dereases taxable profit. This in turn decreases income tax.

Nevertheless, debt financing also has some disadvantages for developers which should be

considered. Debt financing

1) Increases risk: In the case where a business earns less income than expected, or

even faces bankruptcy, lenders need to be paid first, regardless of whether the

developer is earning or losing money.

2) Reporting obligation (limitation on borrower): Borrowers must report to lenders

on the status of the collateral. Often, lenders impose limitations on cash

distribution or dividends and require some amount of cash to remain in the

business.

A significant number of energy project developers try to attract debt financing. There are

two approaches to debt financing: a) project financing, or b) corporate (on-balance)

financing.

Project financing is debt funding for particular infrastructure or industrial projects,

typically, provided for a long term. In this case, collateral is not the developer’s assets


but rather equipment or construction facilities acquired by the lender’s and equity

investor’s money. The source of repayment is cash flow provided by the project’s future

operations. Typically, an entity created for project development maintains responsibility

for debt repayment, and the debt cannot be transferred to a project owner’s other assets.

Possible lenders for project financing schemes are

1) Export banks that provide loans for equipment purchased in the country of a

bank’s origin.

2) International financial institutions (IFI), such as EBRD, European Investment

Bank, KfW Bank.

3) Certain local banks.

4) Syndication of several banks, possibly a combination of export banks and an IFI.

In most cases, the lender’s key requirements are as follows:

1) Experienced developer’s team

2) Business conditions

a. Mature project development status (prepared feasibility study, regulatory

approvals)

b. Sound economics of the business, which generates enough cash to repay

the loan even in case risks materialize. (Typically, lenders require

available cash to be 1.4-2.0 over debt service).

c. Guarantee of future electricity sales.

d. Regulatory background.

3) Reliable feasibility study proving source of energy (hydrological study), contracts

with reliable construction company, equipment producers, engineers

4) Detailed legal analysis of the lending entity, foreign exchange risk analysis

Very often to obtain project financing, a project should be reasonably large, greater than 5

million euro. Projects can be grouped together to enlarge their total volume. At the same

time, depending on their current policies, international financial institutions establish

special loan programs for small projects in renewable energy and in energy efficiency to

support their promotion.

Typical terms for long-term project financing are as follows:

1) Debt / equity ratio (portion of debt in total investment) – 40-85%


2) Term of repayment – 5-15 years

3) All-inclusive interest rate – 7-12% in Euro (rates are regulated under OECD rules)

Corporate financing is traditional debt financing where the source of repayment and

guarantee is a sponsor’s holding company, backed by its assets. Banks usually require the

project to be feasible by itself, but the key decision factor is the sponsor’s company

balance sheet.

The following bank requirements would be typical for corporate financing:

1) Reasonable collateral provided as a guarantee for the debt. It can be either

company assets or cash deposit.

2) Strong business strategy of the sponsor’s company, which would guarantee debt

repayment and provide information about the company’s performance forecast.

3) Information about the project, also required but less important than the preceding

points.

Corporate financing conditions, in comparison to project finance, are as follows.

1) Debt portion in the total investment of the project can be up to 100%, depending

on the sponsor’s company balance sheet and collateral provided.

2) Term of repayment is typically shorter than for project financing – up to 5 years,

depending on collateral provided.

A developer’s decision about attracting debt financing for a rehabilitation project depends

on a number of factors such as:

a) Available funds

b) Investment opportunities

c) Ownership policy

d) Other

Nevertheless, since the lending process and negotiations with banks take a long time, the

developer should take a decision regarding debt financing at the early stages of

development (no later than the engineering stage) in order not to delay financial closing.

APPENDIX 1. (Data Collection Form, below)

APPENDIX 2. (ECMs, below)

Содержание Contents

Выработка электроэнергии Electricity production

Support to Energy Market Integration and Sustainable Energy in the NIS (SEMISE)

Office 1-B, B. Khmeinitskogo Str. 30/10, Kiev 01030, Ukraine, Tel: +380 44 2726812/14, Fax: +380 44 272 6815, www.inogate.org

NOTES

Corporation Information

Data

Информация о компании

Данные

ЗАМЕТКИ

HPP DCF

Фамилия, имя, отчество /

First and Last name

Должность/Краткое описание

должности /

description/ Position / short

Телефон /

Telephone

Электронная почта /

E-mail

Подготовлено / Prepared by:

Проект / Project "SEMISE"

Анкета для сбора данных / Data collection form

Дата / Date:

Примечание: Данные, предоставленные в электронном формате, предпочтилельнее бумажного формата /

Note: Data in electronic form are preferable

Данные о компании / Company

Контактное лицо / Contact person(s)

Addıess:

Адрес:

Телефон / Telephone:

Факс / Fax:

Интернет сайт / Web portal:

Prepared by: Date: Page: 1

HPP DCF

Собственник ГЭС / HPP Owner

Год запуска ГЭС /

Year of HPP Commissioning

От какого параметра зависит работа ГЭС (вода

или потребитель) / Parametres HPP depends on

(water, consumers)

Ежедневная выработка за последние 3 года /

Average daily electricity production in 3 last

years

Тариф на продажу электроэнергии (в евро) /

Electricity sale tariff (Euro)

Краткое описание законодательства, которое

регулирует водоиспользование, потребление и

продажу электроэнергии, работу ГЭС / Short

description of legislation on water use, electricity

production and consumption and HPP operation

Особенности работы ГЭС (на энергосистему,

на локальную сеть) / Specifics of HPP operation

(electricity sale to the grid, local network)

Штрафы и / или стимулы /

Fines and/or incentives

Если ли гарантия полной продажи

электроэнергии (Краткое описание) / Is there a

guarantee of all electricity being sold?

Просьба поставить галочку в этой ячейке, если прилагаются

дополнительные таблицы с данными


HPP DCF

Тип управления агрегатами (ручной или

автоматический) / Type of genset control

(automatic or manual)

Какие измерительные приборы имеются на

ГЭС? /

What measuring tools does the HPP have?

Периодичность ремонтов на ГЭС /

Interval between overhauls

Есть ли документация по ремонтам (просьба

предоставить)? / Are overhaul documents

available (please provide)?

Существуют ли чертежи ГЭС (просьба

предоставить) / Are HPP drawing available

(please provide)?


HPP DCF

Тип ГЭС (плотинная, деривационная) /

HPP type (dam, diversion)

Размер и уклон деривационного канала или

трубопровода / Size and slope of diversion

channel, penstock?

Гидрология данного створа /

Hydrology of river at HPP

Отметки воды (нижный и верхний бъеф) /

Water levels (head water, tail water)

Напор на ГЭС / Head

Средний многолетний расход воды через

гидроузел ( м3/сек ) при возможности

помесячно / Average monthly flow (m3/s)

Ежегодное время работы ГЭС / загруженность

/

HPP annual operation time / workload


HPP DCF

Турбины (название и тип) /

Turbines (name, type)

Производитель / Manufacture

Количество Quantity

Номера / Plate number

Установленная мощность /Rated capacity

Установленный КПД /Rated COP

Расход воды (в м3/с), минимальный и

максимальный / Flow (m3/s), max & min

Количество оборотов (об/мин) /

Rotations per minute

Способ доставки воды на турбины (дайте

детали) /Way of supplying water to the turbines

Скорость вращения турбин (об/мин) / Turbines'

rotations per minute

Наличие ремонтной документации /

Availability of overhaul documentation

Приблизительная дата последнего ремонта /

Approximate date of recent overhaul

Приблизительная стоимость капитального

ремонта / Approximate overhaul costs

Ежегодные затраты на эксплуатацию и

техническое обслуживание /

Annual operation and maintenance costs

Периодические затраты /

Periodic reinvestments


HPP DCF

Генераторы (количество, название и тип) /

Generators (quantity, name and type)

Производитель, год выпуска / Manufacture,

year of production

Количество оборотов (об/мин) /

Rotations per minute

Напряжение на обмотках статора (В) /

Stator line voltage (V)

Номинальная мощность / Rated capacity

Вольтаж / частота / Voltage and frequency


Availability of overhaul documentation

Дата последнего ремонта /

Date of most recent overhaul


техническое обслуживание /

Annual operation and maintenance costs

Периодические затраты /

Periodic reinvestments


HPP DCF

Трансформаторы (количество, название и

тип) /

Transformers (quantity, name and type)

Производитель, год выпуска /Manufacture, year

of production

Мощность / Capacity

Высокое напряжение / High voltage

Низкое напряжение / Low voltage


Availability fo overhaul documentation

Дата последнего ремонта / Date of recent

overhaul


техобслуживание / Annual operation and

maintenance costs

Периодические затраты на техобслуживание и

реинвестиции / Periodic costs


Производство электроэнергии (12 месяцев)

Monthly Electrical Production (12 months)

2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Night/ ночь

(kWh)0

Day / день

(kWh)0

Peak/ пик

(kWh)0

Total/ всего

(kWh)0

Amount/Сумма

(UAH)0

Тариф

(UAH/kWh)

2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Night/ ночь

(kWh)0

Day /день

(kWh)0

Peak /пик

(kWh)0

Total/ всего

(kWh)0

Amount/ сумма

(UAH)0

Rate/ тариф

(UAH/kWh)

SEMISE Project

Напряжение / частоты (V - Hz):

Main service voltage level & frequency

Address:Контаке даннтные:

Primary contact

(full name)

Данные по электроэнергии

Electrical Data

Office hours:

Elektrik

Electricity

Название предприятия:

Utility name

Тарифы (UAH/kWh):

Utility rate(s)

Штрафы и стимулы для предприятия:

Utility penalties or incentives

Fax:

E-mail:

Title:

Phone:

SEMISE Project

NOTES/ Заметки

� Какие проблемы?

Concerns, known problems?

Какие у Вас идеи относительно новых возможностей?

Ideas for solutions or new opportunities?

� Какие регуляторные акты принименимы к Вашему бизнесу? Местные или

государственные?

Do any regulations apply to your business? Local or general?

� Какие стимулы применимы к Вашему бизнесу?

Do any incentives apply to your business?

� Включает ли тариф на электроэнергию тариф на спрос и платежи

по разным энергофакторам?

Does the electric tariff include demand charges and power factor charges?

Вопросы заказчику

Questions for Client

Small HPPECM Turbine Controls

Analysis by SEMISE Sustainable energy team31 May 2011

Summary TableImprovements LCC Feasibility Indicators Emissions Reductions

Additional

produc-

tion

(MWh/yr)

Net new

revenue

(1000

€/yr)

Relative

annual

revenue

increase

Net in-

vestment

(1000 €)

NPV

(1000 €)

SIR IRR

Simple

payback

(yr)

CO2

(T/yr)

NOx

(kg/yr)

SOx

(kg/yr)

63 10.5 6.4% 26.3 17.0 1.65 38.4% 2.5 31.4 138 622

(3% annual increase)

Recommendations Actions

1. Install a new control system to provide fully automatic operation of gensets.

• Features: o

Automatic compensation system o

Hydraulic start/stop system for turbines o

Control of all parameters o

Vane hydraulic open/close system o

Equipment protection

• Manufacturer: "Promenergiya" in Ternopol, Ukraine (or equivalent)

Approximate installed costs

(including 5% contingency) Price Qty. Cost

Controls 23,100 € 1 23,100 €

Installation 3,150 € 1 3,150 €

Overall 26,250 €

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Small HPP, ECM Turbine Controls

New Electricity Production

Increase

Old Production

(MWh)

31 May2011

SEMISE

(3.2% increase)


Results

• 3.2% increase in electricity production (avoided production loss)

• 6.4% increase in revenue (less maintanance + avoided production loss)

• Using a 20.5% discount rate: o

NPV = 17.0 thousand UAH€

o IRR = 38.4%

• The project is profitable.

• The benefit from this ECM is the more productive operation caused by the new controls.

• New hydroelectric power production offsets an equal amount of electricty from thermal power plants.

Discussion Controls

The new control system

• Improves safety, reliability and efficiency of operation.

• Optimizes output with less labor input.

• Starts and stops gensets automatically.

• Controls main parameters: o

Water level o

Genset rpm o

Vane position o

Power factor compensation

• Analyzes and displays all data.

• Determines optimal production regime according to HPP characteristics.

• Has all characteristic data uploaded by manufacturer.

• Records all data and analyzes it periodically for energy management studies.

Water tax

• With less downtime, more water volume passes through turbines, allowing more electricity production.

• Water tax is based on water volume, which is calculated from electricity production.

∴ Water tax increases proportionate to increased electricity production in this ECM.

Emissions

• Emissions from hydropower are considered to be zero.

• New hydropower in grid offsets all emissions for the same amount of thermally produced power.

• Emissions factors are taken from government published averages for electric grid.


InputTechnical

Electricity generation 2008 2009 2010 (client records)

Month (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 137,568 169,152 149,292

Feb 148,338 208,644 116,802

Mar 144,516 219,792 229,806

Apr 217,758 216,432 215,310

May 240,342 129,204 130,920

Jun 119,208 144,378 172,590

Jul 109,794 131,490 166,488

Aug 158,910 76,008 94,392

Sep 187,158 93,102 169,338

Oct 241,884 150,318 173,400

Nov 200,352 153,696 147,684

Dec 177,294 123,300 190,938

Parameters for water tax calculation

Head, river at HPP 7.4 m (HPP design)

Turbine efficiency 84% (calc. from nameplate data)

Generator efficiency 94% (calc. from nameplate data)

Annual water volume

Formula W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / (9.81 (m/s

2) x h net (m) x η t x η gen (HPP engineering practice)

where W = annual HPP water volume

E = annual energy production

h = head

η t = turbine effiency

η gen = generator efficiency

Generator

Average output between rebuilds 163.5 kW (client records)

Old annual breakdown time 20 days/yr (client records)

New annual breakdown time 4 days/yr (SEMISE estimate)

Simplyfying assumption: Breakdown times are distributed evenly across all months.

Factors & constants

Gravitational acceleration 9.807 m/s2 (physics)

Seconds in an hour 3,600 s/h (universal)

Hours in a day 24 h/day (universal)

Months in a year 12 mo/yr (universal)

Emission factors for electricity

CO2 0.50 kg/kWh (Ministry of Energy)

NOx 2.20 g/kWh (Ministry of Energy)

SOx 9.90 g/kWh (Ministry of Energy)


Financial

Electricity sale tariff 0.08418 €/kWh (green tariff)

Water tax

Tariff (R) 0.00442 € / 100 m3 (national law)

Formula Cost (€/yr) = [W (m3/yr) / 100] x R (€/m

3 ) (national law)


R = tariff

Operating costs (client)

Quantity of operators

Old 5 persons

New 4 persons

Labor base salary 300 €/mo · person or 3,600 €/yr · person (HPP)

Labor burden rate 38.52% of base salary (Ministry of wages)

O&M costs

Old 625 €/yr (client records)

New 200 €/yr (SEMISE estimate)

Other annual costs

Old 0 €/yr (client records)

New 0 €/yr (none identified)

Investments & re-investments (without VAT)

Old

Re-investment cost 580 €/unit (maintenance records)

Next year of re-investment: yr # 5 (maintenance records)

Re-investment period: every 5 yr after next year (maintenance records)

New

Control system cost 22,000 € (manufacturer)

Installation labor cost 3,000 € (manufacturer)

Re-investment 5% of initial investment (estimate)

1st year of re-investment: yr # 5 (manufacturer)

Re-investment period: every 5 yr after 1st year (manufacturer)

Contingency 5% of initial investment (SEMISE estimate)

Discount rate 20.5% (client)

Analysis period 10 yr (SEMISE determination)

Residual value 5% of initial cost (SEMISE determination)


AnalysisStep 1. BaselineTechnical

Units derivations

Physics Units

Force force = mass x acceleration

F = ma N = (kg)(m/s2)

Mass mass = force / acceleration

m = F/a kg = (N)(s2/m)

Flow H2O vol. flow rate = H2O mass flow rate (because SG H20 = 1)

q dot = m dot m3H2O/s = t H2O/s

= 1000 kg/s

= 1000 (N)(s2/m)/s

= 1000 N · s/m

Power power = force x velocity

P = Fv W = (N)(m/s)

kW = 1000 N · m/s

Old production loss

Old annual breakdown hours

= old annual breakdown time x hours in a day

= 20 day/yr x 24 h/day

= 480 h/yr

Annual production losses

= old annual breakdown hours x capacity of one generator

= 480 h/yr x 163.5 kW

= 78,480 kWh/yr

Distribution of old production losses

= old annual production losses / months in a year

= 78,480 kWh/yr / 12 mo/yr

= 6,540 kWh/mo


Average old electricity production

( 2008 + 2009 + 2010 ) / Qty. of = Average

Month (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) samples (kWh)

Jan ( 137,568 + 169,152 + 149,292 ) / 3 = 152,004

Feb ( 148,338 + 208,644 + 116,802 ) / 3 = 157,928

Mar ( 144,516 + 219,792 + 229,806 ) / 3 = 198,038

Apr ( 217,758 + 216,432 + 215,310 ) / 3 = 216,500

May ( 240,342 + 129,204 + 130,920 ) / 3 = 166,822

Jun ( 119,208 + 144,378 + 172,590 ) / 3 = 145,392

Jul ( 109,794 + 131,490 + 166,488 ) / 3 = 135,924

Aug ( 158,910 + 76,008 + 94,392 ) / 3 = 109,770

Sep ( 187,158 + 93,102 + 169,338 ) / 3 = 149,866

Oct ( 241,884 + 150,318 + 173,400 ) / 3 = 188,534

Nov ( 200,352 + 153,696 + 147,684 ) / 3 = 167,244

Dec ( 177,294 + 123,300 + 190,938 ) / 3 = 163,844

Annual ( 2,083,122 + 1,815,516 + 1,956,960 ) / 3 = 1,951,866

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225


Month


Old Electricity Production(MWh)

31 May2011

SEMISE


Old annual water volume through HPP (for taxes)

Average old HPP electricity prod. = 1,951,866 kWh/yr = 1,951,866 kN · m · h/s · yr (from units calculation)

W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / (9.81 (m/s

2) x h net (m) x η t x η gen

annual energy prod. time constant

gravitational accel. head turbine eff. gen. eff.

1,951,866 kN · m · h 3,600 s s2

s · yr h 9.807 m 7.4 m 0.84 0.94

= kN · s2/m · yr

= t H2O/yr (from units calculation)

= m3H2O/yr (from units calculation)

Old annual avoided emissions = emission factors x old annual HPP electricity production

Old avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 1,951,866 kWh/yr = 976 T/yr

Old avoided NOx emissions = 2.20 g/kWh x 1,951,866 kWh/yr = 4,294 kg/yr

Old avoided SOx emissions = 9.90 g/kWh x 1,951,866 kWh/yr = 19,323 kg/yr

=

=

122,624,561

122,624,561

122,624,561


Financial

Old annual income from sale of electricity

= old annual electricity production x electricity sale tariff

= 1,951,866 kWh/yr x 0.0842 €/kWh

= 164,308 €/yr

Old water tax

Cost (€/yr) = [W (m3/yr) /100] x R (€/m

3)

old HPP water volume for taxes water tariff

100

m3 0.00442 €

yr 100 m3

= 5,420 €/yr

Old O&M cost

Labor cost per person

= labor base salary x (1 + labor burden rate)

= 3,600 €/yr · person х ( 1 + 0.3852 )

= 4,987 €/yr · person

Total old cost of labor for operation

= labor cost per person x old quantity of operators

= 4,987 €/yr · person х 5 persons

= 24,934 €/yr · person

Old maintenance cost = maintanance cost of control system = 625 €/yr (given)

Old annual total O&M cost

= operation cost + maintanance cost

= 24,934 €/yr + 625 €/yr

= 25,559 €/yr

= 122,624,561

=


Old capital re-investments Old schedule

Year (€)

Control system re-investment 0 0

Old periodic re-investment 580 € (given) 1 0

Next re-investment due in year # 5 of project life (given) 2 0

Old re-investment period 5 yr (given) 3 0

4 0

5 580

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 580

11 0

12 0

13 0

14 0

15 580

16 0

17 0

18 0

19 0


Step 2. New ConditionsTechnical

New production losses

New annual breakdown hours

= new annual breakdown time x hours in a day

= 4 day/yr x 24 h/day

= 96 h/yr

New annual production losses

= new annual breakdown hours x capacity of one generator

= 96 h/yr x 163.5 kW

= 15,696 kWh/yr

Distribution of new production losses

= new annual production losses / months in a year

= 15,696 kWh/yr / 12 mo/yr

= 1,308 kWh/mo

New electricity Old Old New New

production average + losses - losses = average

Month (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 152,004 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 157,236

Feb 157,928 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 163,160

Mar 198,038 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 203,270

Apr 216,500 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 221,732

May 166,822 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 172,054

Jun 145,392 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 150,624

Jul 135,924 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 141,156

Aug 109,770 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 115,002

Sep 149,866 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 155,098

Oct 188,534 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 193,766

Nov 167,244 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 172,476

Dec 163,844 + 6,540 - 1,308 = 169,076

Totals 1,951,866 + 78,480 - 15,696 = 2,014,650


New annual water volume through HPP (for taxes)

W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / (9.81 (m/s


new ann. energy prod. time constant


2,014,650 kN · m · h 3,600 s s2

s · yr h 9.807 m 7.4 m 84% 94%

= kN · s2/m · yr



New annual avoided emissions = emission factors x new annual HPP electricity production

New avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 2,014,650 kWh/yr = 1,007 T/yr

New avoided NOx emissions = 2.20 g/kWh x 2,014,650 kWh/yr = 4,432 kg/yr

New avoided SOx emissions = 9.90 g/kWh x 2,014,650 kWh/yr = 19,945 kg/yr

126,568,920

=

=

126,568,920

126,568,920

0255075

100125150175200225


Month

Small HPP ECM Turbine Controls

New Electricity Production(MWh)

31 May2011

SEMISE


Financial

New annual income from electricity sale

= new annual energy production x electricity sale tariff

= 2,014,650 kWh/yr x 0.0842 €/kWh

= 169,593 €/yr

New water tax

Cost (€/yr) = [W (m3/yr) /100] x R (€/m

3)

new HPP water volume for taxes water tariff

100

m 3 0.00442 €

yr 100 m 3

= 5,594 €/yr

New O&M cost

New annual total cost of labor for operation

= labor cost per person x new quantity of operators

= 4,987 €/yr · person x 4 persons

= 19,947 €/yr

Old maintenance cost = maintanance cost of control system = 200 €/yr

(given)

Annual total O&M cost

= operation cost + maintanance cost

= 19,947 €/yr + 200 €/yr

= 20,147 €/yr

=

= 126,568,920


New capital investments & re-investments New schedule

Year (€)

Total initial investment (year 0) = Σ (costs x (1 + 5% contingency)) 0 26,250

1 0

Controls 22,000 € x 1.05 = 23,100 € 2 0

Installation + 3,000 € x 1.05 = 3,150 € 3 0

Totals 25,000 € 26,250 € 4 0

5 1,313

New periodic re-investment 6 0

= 5% of total initial investment 7 0

= 0.05 x 26,250 € 8 0

= 1,313 € 9 0

10 1,313

1st year of new re-investment: Year # 5 (given) 11 0

New re-investment period: every 5 yr after 1st year (given) 12 0

13 0

14 0

15 1,313

16 0

17 0

18 0

19 0


Step 3. BenefitsTechnical

Increase in HPP New Old Increase (from Steps 1 and 2)

electricity production prod. - prod. = in prod.


Jan 157,236 - 152,004 = 5,232

Feb 163,160 - 157,928 = 5,232

Mar 203,270 - 198,038 = 5,232

Apr 221,732 - 216,500 = 5,232

May 172,054 - 166,822 = 5,232

Jun 150,624 - 145,392 = 5,232

Jul 141,156 - 135,924 = 5,232

Aug 115,002 - 109,770 = 5,232

Sep 155,098 - 149,866 = 5,232

Oct 193,766 - 188,534 = 5,232

Nov 172,476 - 167,244 = 5,232

Dec 169,076 - 163,844 = 5,232

Totals 2,014,650 - 1,951,866 = 62,784

Relative annual increase in HPP electricity production

= production increase / old production

= 62,784 kWh/yr / 1,951,866 kWh/yr

= 3.2%

(3.2% increase)

Annual emissions reductions = new avoided emissions - old avoided emissions

CO2 reduction = 1,007 T/yr - 976 T/yr = 31 T/yr

NOx reduction = 4,432 kg/yr - 4,294 kg/yr = 138 kg/yr

SOx reduction = 19,945 kg/yr - 19,323 kg/yr = 622 kg/yr

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225


Month


Increase in Electricity Production

Increase

Old Production

(MWh)31 May2011

SEMISE

(3.2% increase)


Financial

Increase in annual income

Additional annual income from increased electricity sales Additional annual water tax

= ( new - old ) electricity sale income = ( new - old ) water tax

= 169,593 €/yr - 164,308 €/yr = 5,594 €/yr - 5,420 €/yr

= 5,285 €/yr = 174 €/yr

Annual O&M savings Other annual savings

= ( old - new ) O&M cost = ( old - new ) other costs

= 25,559 €/yr - 20,147 €/yr = 0 €/yr - 0 €/yr

= 5,412 €/yr = 0 €/yr

Net annual additional income 5,285 €/yr Electricity sales

- 174 €/yr Water tax

+ 5,412 €/yr O&M savings

+ 0 €/yr Other savings

10,523 €/yr Total

Relative additional income for whole HPP

= net annual additional income / baseline total energy sale

= 10,523 €/yr / 164,308 €/yr

= 6.4%


Life cycle capital investments Net investment schedule (€)

Year New Old Net

Net investments 0 26,250 0 26,250

= new investments - avoided old investments 1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 1,313 580 733

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 0 0 0

10 1,313 580 733

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

15 1,313 580 733

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 0 0

19 0 0 0


Life Cycle Cost Analysis

LCC InputSummary of Steps 3-6

This page collects all necessary input for LCC analysis below from input and calculations above.

Summary of Step 3, Costs & Benefits Life cycle capital

investment schedule

Year Net (€)

0 26,250

Annual revenue increase 10,523 €/yr (from Step 3) 1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 733

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 733

11 0

12 0

13 0

14 0

15 733

16 0

17 0

18 0

19 0

Step 4. Discount Rate 20.5% (input)

Step 5. Analysis Period 10 years (input)

Step 6. Residual Value 5% of initial cost (input)

= 0.05 x 26,250 €

= 1,313 € in yr # 10



LCC Calculations

Step 7. Revenue increase (€/yr) Formula: PV annual increase = annual increase / (1 + discount rate)year

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net annual savings 0 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523

PV annual savings 0 8,732 7,247 6,014 4,991 4,142 3,437 2,852 2,367

Σ PV ann. savings 43,377

Step 8. Investments (€) Formula: PV capital investment = capital investment / (1 + discount rate)year

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cap. investments 26,250 0 0 0 0 733 0 0 0

PV cap. investments 26,250 0 0 0 0 288 0 0 0

Σ PV cap. invest. 26,335

Cash Flows for IRR (€) Formula: Revenue increase - investment = cash flow

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cash flows (26,250) 10,523 10,523 10,523 10,523 9,790 10,523 10,523 10,523

PV cash flows (26,250) 8,732 7,247 6,014 4,991 3,853 3,437 2,852 2,367

Σ PV cash flows (NPV) 17,042

(30,000)

(20,000)

(10,000)

0

10,000

20,000

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

(€)

ECM Years


Cash Flows

Net cash flows

PV cash flows

31 May2011

SEMISE



LCC OutputResults

OUTPUTS Formulas:

Step 9. Net Present Value (NPV, €) 17,042 = Σ PV ann. revenue increase - Σ PV life cycle invest.

Step 10. Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.65 = Σ PV ann. revenue increase / Σ PV life cycle invest.

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 38.4% = Discount rate, where SIR = 1.0, or NPV = 0

Not LCC: Simple Payback (years) 2.5 = Initial investment / annual revenue increase


Enterprise X, SHPP #1ECM Siphon Turbine Gensets

Analysis by SEMISE Sustainable energy team31 May 2011


Produc-

tion

increase

(MWh/yr)

Net new

revenue

(1000

€/yr)

Relative

annual

revenue

increase

Net in-

vestment

(1000 €)

NPV

(1000 €)

SIR IRR

Simple

payback

(yr)

CO2

(T/yr)

NOx

(T/yr)

SOx

(T/yr)

271 21.0 7.9% 78.3 12.7 1.15 24.6% 3.7 135 0.6 2.7

Note: This ECM analyzes either 1 or 2 new siphon turbine gensets.

Select here >> 2 genset(s)


1. Install two siphon type turbine gensets.

• Location: Gate #2

• Specifications

o Capacity: 50 kW

o Flow: 1.25 m3/s flow

• Manufacturer: "Vinnitsya Spetsenergo Montazh" in Vinnitsya, Ukraine (or equivalent)

• Model: GTS-50 (or equivalent)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Month

SHPP #1, ECM Siphon Turbine Gensets

Electricitry Production Increase(MWh)

31 May2011

SEMISE

Increase

8.6% increasewith 2 siphon turbine(s) After

Before

Enterprise X, SHPP #1, ECM Siphon Turbine Gensets



Siphon turbine genset(s) 25,200 € ea. 2 50,400 €

Genset installation 11,550 € ea. 2 23,100 €

Controls 2,730 € 1 2,730 €

Controls installation 2,100 € 1 2,100 €

Overall 78,330 €

Results, using 2 new genset(s)

• 20.1% HPP capacity increase

• 8.6% increase in electricity production (more genset output)

• 7.9% increase in revenue (more genset output + less genset maintenance)

• Using a 20.5% discount rate:

o NPV ~ 12,700 €

o IRR = 24.6%

Discussion More energy from water

• Audit survey found that 3-year average excess waterflow of ~ 41,400 000 m3/yr is not used by the HPP.

• This is a lost water resource that may be managed better to generate more electricity.

• Using 2 new genset(s) (specified above),

o Additional annual water usage will be ~ 24,300 000 m3/yr.

o Additional annual electricity production will be ~ 271,000 kWh/yr.

Options

• This analysis compares the feasibility of either 1 or 2 additional new siphon turbine gensets.

• With genset cost of 25,000 €, ECM is profitable with either 1 or 2 new gensets.

• IRR (interest) is similar with either 1 or 2 additional gensets, but NPV (profit) is higher with 2.

• Basic business principle: Maximize profit.

∴ This audit recommends 2 new siphon turbine gensets.

Technology

• Siphon turbines are designed to work outside the powerhouse.

∴ HPP gains new generation capacity without new powerhouse expense.

Energy accounting

• This ECM is independent.

• It is not influenced by the outcomes of other ECMs in the power house.

∴ In this case, both absolute and relative improvements are calculated from original baseline before

other ECMs.


InputTechnical

Electricity generation 2008 2009 2010 (client records)


Jan 199,371 285,945 217,338

Feb 186,879 295,086 183,876

Mar 230,427 318,846 324,786

Apr 306,720 312,852 313,284

May 313,650 293,133 272,508

Jun 254,688 292,040 316,068

Jul 214,701 257,052 306,498

Aug 292,365 185,328 235,206

Sep 228,933 165,978 174,864

Oct 316,566 217,020 286,644

Nov 295,794 228,780 258,918

Dec 303,357 199,272 312,780

Water bypass flow Height Velocity Width

Gate (m) (m/s) (m)

0.00 0.00 -

#1 = #4 0.15 1.30 5.00 (audit measurement)

#2 0.21 1.35 5.00 (audit measurement)



experimental 0.50 1.50 -




Average height and time 20 08 20 09 20 10 (client records)

of bypass water, Height Time Height Time Height Time

Gate #2 Month (m) (days) (m) (days) (m) (days)

Jan 0.00 0 0.16 8 0.00 0

Feb 0.00 0 0.17 28 0.09 4

Mar 0.00 0 0.28 29 0.20 26

Apr 0.05 22 0.26 30 0.28 21

May 0.20 31 0.05 4 0.20 13

Jun 0.05 7 0.10 19 0.22 30

Jul 0.05 7 0.05 1 0.16 29

Aug 0.25 14 0.00 0 0.10 6

Sep 0.20 14 0.00 0 0.30 23

Oct 0.20 31 0.00 0 0.16 10

Nov 0.05 12 0.00 0 0.00 0

Dec 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.05 2


HPP head 6.88 m (HPP design)

Existing turbine gensets

Quantity of gensets 2 units (HPP design)

Generator (measured at contacts) #1 #2

Phase A current 349 294 A/ph (audit measurement)

Phase B current 342 310 A/ph (audit measurement)

Phase C current 352 334 A/ph (audit measurement)

Stator line voltage 445 459 V (audit measurement)

Cos φ 0.99 0.94 (audit measurement)

Efficiencies (used for water tax calculation)

Turbine 78.0% (from nameplate)

Generator 89.8% (from nameplate)

New gensets, siphon type

Quantity of gensets: either 1 or 2 units (See "Selection" above.)

Head 6.00 m (HPP design)

Turbines

Rated water flow capacity 1.25 m3/s (manufacturer)

Rated effiency 74% (manufacturer)

Generators

Rated power output 50 kW (manufacturer)

Rated overload without damage 3% (manufacturer)


For hydropower calculations:

Hydropower constant 367.1 s3/h · m (HPP engineering practice)


Annual water volume

Formula W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / 9.81 (m/s




h = head



Time

Hours in a day 24 h/day (universal)



CO2 0.50 kg/kWh (national ministry of energy)

NOx 2.2 g/kWh (national ministry of energy)

SOx 9.9 g/kWh (national ministry of energy)


Financial

Electricity sale tariff 0.0850 €/kWh (national green tariff)

Water tax



3 ) (national law)


R = tariff

O&M costs for siphon turbines

Old 0 €/yr (do not exist)

New 2% /yr of genset cost (SEMISE estimate)

Other annual costs for siphon turbines

Old 0 €/yr (do not exist)

New 0 €/yr (SEMISE estimate)

Investments & re-investments (without VAT) for siphon turbines

Old 0 €/unit (do not exist)

New

Siphon gensets

Price 24,000 €/unit (manufacturer)

Installation 11,000 €/unit (manufacturer)

Controls

Controls cost 2,600 € (manufacturer)

Installation (fixed) 2,000 € (SEMISE estimate)

Re-investment 15% of initial investment (manufacturer)





Analysis period 14 yr (SEMISE choice)

Residual value 5% of initial cost (SEMISE estimate)



Units calculations

Physics Units


F = ma N = (kg)(m/s2)


m = F/a kg = (N)(s2/m)


or q dot = m dot m3H2O/s = t H2O/s

= 1000 kg/s

= 1000 (N)(s2/m)/s

= 1000 Ns/m


P = Fv W = (N)(m/s)

kW = 1000 Nm/s

Explanation:

Hydropower constant = seconds-to-hours time conversion / gravitational acceleration

3,600 s s2

h 9.81 m

367.1 s3

h · m

=

=


Old power output, genset #1

Mean current

= sum of current of phases (A + B + C) / quantity of phases

= ( 349 A/ph + 342 A/ph + 352 A/ph) / 3 ph

= 348 A

Generator power output

= x stator line voltage x mean current x cos φ

= 1.732 x 445 V x 348 A x 0.99

= 265 kW

Old power output, genset #2

Mean current


= ( 294 A/ph + 310 A/ph + 334 A/ph) / 3 ph

= 312 A



= 1.732 x 459 V x 312 A x 0.94

= 233 kW

Existing actual genset power output, whole HPP

= output of genset #1 + output of genset #2

= 265 kW + 233 kW

= 498 kW


Average baseline electricity production

( 2008 + 2009 + 2010 ) / Qty. of = Average

Month (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) samples (kWh)

Jan ( 199,371 + 285,945 + 217,338 ) / 3 = 234,218

Feb ( 186,879 + 295,086 + 183,876 ) / 3 = 221,947

Mar ( 230,427 + 318,846 + 324,786 ) / 3 = 291,353

Apr ( 306,720 + 312,852 + 313,284 ) / 3 = 310,952

May ( 313,650 + 293,133 + 272,508 ) / 3 = 293,097

Jun ( 254,688 + 292,040 + 316,068 ) / 3 = 287,599

Jul ( 214,701 + 257,052 + 306,498 ) / 3 = 259,417

Aug ( 292,365 + 185,328 + 235,206 ) / 3 = 237,633

Sep ( 228,933 + 165,978 + 174,864 ) / 3 = 189,925

Oct ( 316,566 + 217,020 + 286,644 ) / 3 = 273,410

Nov ( 295,794 + 228,780 + 258,918 ) / 3 = 261,164

Dec ( 303,357 + 199,272 + 312,780 ) / 3 = 271,803

Annual ( 3,143,451 + 3,051,332 + 3,202,770 ) / 3 = 3,132,518

0

100

200

300

400


Month


Baseline Electricity Generation(MWh)

31 May2011

SEMISE


H2O ∆*gate

height height

Gate (m) (m)

#1 = #4 0.15 0.06

#2 0.21 0.00

#3 0.10 0.11

#5 0.03 0.18

* ∆ = difference in elevation

between gate #2 and others

Calculate overflow for each gate.

Gate #1, 2008 Gate #1, 2009 Gate #1, 2010

H2O ht. velocity overflow H2O ht. velocity overflow H2O ht. velocity overflow

Month (m) (m/s) (m3/s) (m) (m/s) (m

3/s) (m) (m/s) (m

3/s)

Jan 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.47 0 0.05 0.00

Feb 0 0.05 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.55 0.03 0.39 0.06

Mar 0 0.05 0.00 0.22 1.39 1.53 0.14 1.15 0.81

Apr 0 0.05 0.00 0.20 1.35 1.35 0.22 1.39 1.53

May 0.14 1.15 0.81 0 0.05 0.00 0.14 1.15 0.81

Jun 0 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.48 0.10 0.16 1.23 0.98

Jul 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.47

Aug 0.19 1.33 1.26 0 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.48 0.10

Sep 0.14 1.15 0.81 0 0.05 0.00 0.24 1.43 1.71

Oct 0.14 1.15 0.81 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.47

Nov 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Dec 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Gate #2, 2008 Gate #2, 2009 Gate #2, 2010


3/s) (m) (m/s) (m

3/s)

Jan 0 0.05 0.00 0.16 1.23 0.98 0 0.05 0.00

Feb 0 0.05 0.00 0.17 1.27 1.08 0.09 0.88 0.40

Mar 0 0.05 0.00 0.28 1.47 2.06 0.20 1.35 1.35

Apr 0.05 0.57 0.14 0.26 1.46 1.89 0.28 1.47 2.06

May 0.20 1.35 1.35 0.05 0.57 0.14 0.20 1.35 1.35

Jun 0.05 0.57 0.14 0.10 0.94 0.47 0.22 1.39 1.53

Jul 0.05 0.57 0.14 0.05 0.57 0.14 0.16 1.23 0.98

Aug 0.25 1.44 1.80 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.47

Sep 0.20 1.35 1.35 0 0.05 0.00 0.30 1.49 2.23

Oct 0.20 1.35 1.35 0 0.05 0.00 0.16 1.23 0.98

Nov 0.05 0.57 0.14 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Dec 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.57 0.14

Gate #1

5 m

Gate #2

5 m

Gate #3

5 m

Gate #4

5 m

Gate #5

3 m

15 c

m

21

cm

15 c

m

10

cm

3 c

m

Gate surface

Water surface


Gate #3, 2008 Gate #3, 2009 Gate #3, 2010


3/s) (m) (m/s) (m

3/s)

Jan 0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.57 0.14 0 0.05 0.00

Feb 0 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.66 0.20 0 0.05 0.00

Mar 0 0.05 0.00 0.17 1.27 1.08 0.09 0.88 0.40

Apr 0 0.05 0.00 0.15 1.19 0.89 0.17 1.27 1.08

May 0.09 0.88 0.40 0 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.88 0.40

Jun 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.55

Jul 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.57 0.14

Aug 0.14 1.15 0.81 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Sep 0.09 0.88 0.40 0 0.05 0.00 0.19 1.33 1.26

Oct 0.09 0.88 0.40 0 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.57 0.14

Nov 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Dec 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Gate #4, 2008 Gate #4, 2009 Gate #4, 2010


3/s) (m) (m/s) (m

3/s)

Jan 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.47 0 0.05 0.00

Feb 0 0.05 0.00 0.11 1.00 0.55 0.03 0.39 0.06

Mar 0 0.05 0.00 0.22 1.39 1.53 0.14 1.15 0.81

Apr 0 0.05 0.00 0.20 1.35 1.35 0.22 1.39 1.53

May 0.14 1.15 0.81 0 0.05 0.00 0.14 1.15 0.81

Jun 0 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.48 0.10 0.16 1.23 0.98

Jul 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.47

Aug 0.19 1.33 1.26 0 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.48 0.10

Sep 0.14 1.15 0.81 0 0.05 0.00 0.24 1.43 1.71

Oct 0.14 1.15 0.81 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.47

Nov 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Dec 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Gate #5, 2008 Gate #5, 2009 Gate #5, 2010


3/s) (m) (m/s) (m

3/s)

Jan 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Feb 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Mar 0 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.94 0.28 0.02 0.28 0.02

Apr 0 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.81 0.19 0.10 0.94 0.28

May 0.02 0.28 0.02 0 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.28 0.02

Jun 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.48 0.06

Jul 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Aug 0.07 0.74 0.16 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Sep 0.02 0.28 0.02 0 0.05 0.00 0.12 1.06 0.38

Oct 0.02 0.28 0.02 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Nov 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00

Dec 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00 0 0.05 0.00


Sample calculations. (Gate #3, Aug 2008)

Water height (h)

= measured H2O height at Gate #2 - ∆ height between Gates #2 and #3

= 0.25 m - 0.11 m

= 0.14 m

Water velocity

= ( -24.613 ) h4 + 49.972 h

3 + ( -37.372 ) h

2 + 12.163 h + 0.0533

= ( -24.613 ) x ( 0.14 )4 + 49.972 (49.972 x ( 0.14 )

3

+ ( -37.372 ) x ( 0.14 )2 + 12.163 x ( 0.14 )

1 + 0.0533

= 1.15 m/s

Overflow rate

= water height x gate width x water velocity

= 0.14 m x 5.00 m x 1.15 m/s

= 0.81 m3/s

Calculate total natural river overflow from measurements at all gates.

Natural river overflow

20 08 20 09 20 10 Average

overflow volume overflow volume overflow volume volume

Month (m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(1000

m3)

Jan 0.00 0 2.07 1,432 0.00 0 477

Feb 0.00 0 2.38 5,748 0.51 177 1,975

Mar 0.00 0 6.49 16,267 3.38 7,584 7,950

Apr 0.14 273 5.68 14,733 6.49 11,779 8,929

May 3.38 9,043 0.14 50 3.38 3,792 4,295

Jun 0.14 87 0.66 1,092 4.11 10,662 3,947

Jul 0.14 87 0.14 12 2.07 5,191 1,764

Aug 5.28 6,391 0.00 0 0.66 345 2,245

Sep 3.38 4,084 0.00 0 7.30 14,511 6,198

Oct 3.38 9,043 0.00 0 2.07 1,790 3,611

Nov 0.14 149 0.00 0 0.00 0 50

Dec 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.14 25 8

Annual ` 29,156 39,333 55,856 41,448


Sample calculations, August (from Overflow calculations above)

Total overflow in Aug 2008 = flows at gates #1 1.26 m3/s

+ #2 1.80 m3/s

+ #3 0.81 m3/s

+ #4 1.26 m3/s

+ #5 0.16 m3/s

Total 5.28 m3/s

Total overflow volume in Aug 2008

= quantity of days of overflow x total overflow rate x hours per day x seconds per hour

= 14 days x 5.28 m3/s x 24 h/day x 3,600 s/h

= 6,391 000 m3

Average August river overflow

= overflow of (Aug 2008 + Aug 2009 + Aug 2010) / quantity of samples

= ( 6,391 000 m3 + 0 000 m

3 + 345 000 m

3) / 3

= 2,245 000 m3

Overflow calculations

Note: Water velocity is a function of water cross sectional height (h) above gate.

Notes • The function uses measured and empirical data input. Best fit factors: 4th power -24.613

• R2 is obtained using the "least squares" regression method. 3rd power 49.972

• The closest R2 to 1.0 defines the "best fit" curve. 2nd power -37.372

• Here R2 = 0.98 produces the curve shown above. 1st power 12.163

• It means that accuracy is approximately 98%. 0 power 0.0533

V (m/s) = -24.613 h4 + 49.972 h3 - 37.372 h2 + 12.163 h + 0.0533

R² = 0.9798

h (m): height of cross-section of flowing water

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Ve

loci

ty (

m/s

)

Height - h (m)

Water Velocity Function7 Feb 2011

SEMISE


Old average annual energy production

= 3,132,518 kWh/yr (given)

= 3,132,518 kN · m · h/s · yr (from units calculation)


W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / (9.81 (m/s




3,132,518 kN · m · h 3,600 s s2

s · yr h 9.807 m 6.88 m 0.780 0.898

= kN · s2/m · yr



Old annual avoided emissions = emission factors x old annual plant electricity production

Old avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 3,133 МWh/yr = 1,566 T/yr

Old avoided NOx emissions = 2.2 g/kWh x 3,133 МWh/yr = 6.9 T/yr

Old avoided SOx emissions = 9.9 g/kWh x 3,133 МWh/yr = 31.0 T/yr

=

=

238,616,503

238,616,503

238,616,503


Financial

Old annual income from electricity sale

= old annual energy production x electricity sale tariff

= 3,132,518 kWh/yr x 0.0850 €/kWh

= 266,264 €/yr

Old water tax

Cost (€/yr) = [W (m3/yr) /100] x R (€/m

3)

annual HPP water volume water tariff

100

m 3

0.00442 €

yr 100 m 3

= 10,547 €/yr

Old capital re-investments Old Schedule (€)

Year Unit #1 Unit #2

Note: Old siphon turbines do not exist. 0 0 0

∴ No old re-investments. 1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

8 0 0

9 0 0

10 0 0

11 0 0

12 0 0

13 0 0

14 0 0

15 0 0

16 0 0

17 0 0

18 0 0

19 0 0

=

= 238,616,503



Additional water flow capacity 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Rated unit flow capacity 1.25 m3/s · unit 1.25 m

3/s · unit

Quantity of units x 1 unit x 2 units

1.25 m3/s 2.50 m

3/s

Water throughput

1 siphon turbine: Rver overflow through 1 turbine, considering capacity limitation

20 08 20 09 20 10 Average

flow volume flow volume flow volume volume

Month (m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(1000

m3)

Jan 0.00 0 1.25 864 0.00 0 288

Feb 0.00 0 1.25 3,024 0.51 177 1,067

Mar 0.00 0 1.25 3,132 1.25 2,808 1,980

Apr 0.14 273 1.25 3,240 1.25 2,268 1,927

May 1.25 3,348 0.14 50 1.25 1,404 1,601

Jun 0.14 87 0.66 1,092 1.25 3,240 1,473

Jul 0.14 87 0.14 12 1.25 3,132 1,077

Aug 1.25 1,512 0.00 0 0.66 345 619

Sep 1.25 1,512 0.00 0 1.25 2,484 1,332

Oct 1.25 3,348 0.00 0 1.25 1,080 1,476

Nov 0.14 149 0.00 0 0.00 0 50

Dec 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.14 25 8

Totals 10,315 11,414 16,962 12,897

2 siphon turbines: Rver overflow through 2 turbines, considering capacity limitation

20 08 20 09 20 10 Average

flow volume flow volume flow volume volume

Month (m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(m3/s)

(1000

m3)

(1000

m3)

Jan 0.00 0 2.07 1,432 0.00 0 477

Feb 0.00 0 2.38 5,748 0.51 177 1,975

Mar 0.00 0 2.50 6,264 2.50 5,616 3,960

Apr 0.14 273 2.50 6,480 2.50 4,536 3,763

May 2.50 6,696 0.14 50 2.50 2,808 3,185

Jun 0.14 87 0.66 1,092 2.50 6,480 2,553

Jul 0.14 87 0.14 12 2.07 5,191 1,764

Aug 2.50 3,024 0.00 0 0.66 345 1,123

Sep 2.50 3,024 0.00 0 2.50 4,968 2,664

Oct 2.50 6,696 0.00 0 2.07 1,790 2,829

Nov 0.14 149 0.00 0 0.00 0 50

Dec 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.14 25 8

Totals 20,035 21,077 31,936 24,349


Sample calculations, April 2008, 2 siphon turbines (from "Water throughput" above)

Water volume, April 2008

= water throughput, April 2008 x days of throughput in April 2008 x hours in a day x seconds in an hour

= 0.14 m3/s x 22 days x 24 h/day x 3,600 s/h

= 272,818 m3

Average April water volume

= volume of (Apr 2008 + Apr 2009 + Apr 2010) / quantity of samples

= ( 273 000 m3 + 6,480 000 m

3 + 4,536 000 m

3) / 3

= 3,763 000 m3

Summary of river flow that turbine(s) can accept with 2 genset(s): 24,349 000 m3/yr

Graph of excess water data for 1 siphon turbine and 2 siphon turbines (data from Appendix)

New genset efficiency

= turbine efficiency x generator efficiency

= 0.74 x 0.92

= 0.68

477,363 m3

1,974,856 m3

7,950,329 m3

8,928,513 m3

4,294,834 m3

3,946,661 m3

1,763,510 m3

2,245,289 m3

6,198,150 m3

3,610,960 m3

49,603 m3 8,267 m3

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-Dec

3-yr Average Excess River Water FlowTotal overflow

2 turbines overflow

1 turbine overflow

Capacities

13 Feb2011

SEMISE

24 days11 days 18 days3 days 19 days16 days 12 days 7 days 12 days 14 days 4 days 1 day

(m3/s)


Additional electricity generation with 2 siphon turbine genset(s)

with 2 siphon turbine(s)

1 siphon genset: Energy production

Water Genset Hydro- Energy

volume x Head x effiency / power = prod.

(1000 m3) (m) constant (kWh)

Jan 288 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 3,205

Feb 1,067 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 11,872

Mar 1,980 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 22,032

Apr 1,927 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 21,441

May 1,601 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 17,809

Jun 1,473 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 16,388

Jul 1,077 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 11,985

Aug 619 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 6,887

Sep 1,332 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 14,821

Oct 1,476 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 16,424

Nov 50 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 552

Dec 8 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 92

Annual 12,897 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 143,509

0

10

20

30


Month


New Siphon Turbine Production(MWh)

31 May2011

SEMISE



2 siphon gensets: Energy production

Water Genset Hydro- Energy

volume x Head x effiency / power = prod.

(1000 m3) (m) constant (kWh)

Jan 477 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 5,312

Feb 1,975 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 21,975

Mar 3,960 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 44,064

Apr 3,763 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 41,871

May 3,185 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 35,435

Jun 2,553 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 28,406

Jul 1,764 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 19,623

Aug 1,123 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 12,495

Sep 2,664 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 29,643

Oct 2,829 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 31,476

Nov 50 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 552

Dec 8 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 92

Annual 24,349 x 6.00 x 0.68 / 367.1 = 270,942

Summary of additional energy production for 2 genset(s): 270,942 kWh/yr

New electricity production 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Baseline production 3,132,518 kWh/yr 3,132,518 kWh/yr

Siphon genset production + 143,509 kWh/yr + 270,942 kWh/yr

3,276,026 kWh/yr 3,403,460 kWh/yr

Monthly distribution of new electricity production with 2 siphon turbine genset(s)

Old New

production + Increase = production

(kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 234,218 + 5,312 = 239,530

Feb 221,947 + 21,975 = 243,922

Mar 291,353 + 44,064 = 335,417

Apr 310,952 + 41,871 = 352,823

May 293,097 + 35,435 = 328,532

Jun 287,599 + 28,406 = 316,004

Jul 259,417 + 19,623 = 279,040

Aug 237,633 + 12,495 = 250,128

Sep 189,925 + 29,643 = 219,568

Oct 273,410 + 31,476 = 304,886

Nov 261,164 + 552 = 261,716

Dec 271,803 + 92 = 271,895

Annual 3,132,518 + 270,942 = 3,403,460


Additional new electric power output 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Rated unit capacity 50 kW/unit 50 kW/unit

Quantity of units x 1 units x 2 units

50 kW 100 kW

New average power output 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Old actual output 498 kW 498 kW

New siphon unit output + 50 kW + 100 kW

548 kW 598 kW

Overload check, new turbine gensets

Manufacturer's rated water flow into turbines

= 1.25 m3/s · unit

= 1,250 N · s/m (from units calculation)

Water power input using manufacturer's rating

= gravitational acceleration x head x new rated flow rate

= 9.81 m/s2 x 6.00 m x 1,250 N · s/m

= 73,553 N · m/s

= 73.6 kW (from units calculation)

Manufacturer's rated new efficiency, siphon turbine gensets

= rated new turbine efficiency x rated new generator efficiency

= 74% x 92%

= 68.1%

New generator output using manufacturer's rated water input

= rated new water power in x rated efficiency, whole HPP

= 73.6 kW x 0.681

= 50.1 kW

Allowable maximum new generator output

= rated generator power output x (1 + rated overload)

= 50.0 kW x ( 1 + 0.03 )

= 51.5 kW

Note: 52 kW < maximum allowable HPP output of 51.5 kW.

∴ New generators will not be damaged.



1 siphon genset:

New avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 3,276 kWh/yr = 1,638 T/yr

New avoided NOx emissions = 2.2 g/kWh x 3,276 kWh/yr = 7.2 T/yr

New avoided SOx emissions = 9.9 g/kWh x 3,276 kWh/yr = 32.4 T/yr

2 siphon gensets:

New avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 3,403 kWh/yr = 1,702 T/yr

New avoided NOx emissions = 2.2 g/kWh x 3,403 kWh/yr = 7.5 T/yr

New avoided SOx emissions = 9.9 g/kWh x 3,403 kWh/yr = 33.7 T/yr

Financial

New annual income from electricity sale 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

New annual energy production 3,276,026 kWh/yr 3,403,460 kWh/yr

Electricity sale tariff x 0.0850 €/kWh x 0.0850 €/kWh

278,462 €/yr 289,294 €/yr

New water tax

Cost (€/yr) = [W (m3/yr) /100] x R (€/m

3)

additional water volume water tax

100

m 3 0.00442 €

yr 100 m 3

m 3 0.00442 €

yr 100 m 3

New total water tax, whole HPP 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Old 10,547 €/yr 10,547 €/yr

Additional + 570 €/yr + 1,076 €/yr

11,117 €/yr 11,623 €/yr

New O&M costs = 2% of initial genset cost

1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

24,000 € 48,000 €

x 0.02 /yr x 0.02 /yr

480 €/yr 960 €/yr

1 siphon genset: =

=

2 siphon gensets: = 24,349,483

= €/yr

12,897,078= 570 €/yr

1,076


New capital investments & re-investments New schedule (€)

Year 1 genset 2 gensets

Total genset cost 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets 0 41,580 78,330

Equipment 24,000 € 48,000 € 1 0 0

Installation + 11,000 € + 22,000 € 2 0 0

Total 35,000 € 70,000 € 3 0 0

4 0 0

Total control system 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets 5 3,990 7,590

Equipment 2,600 € 2,600 € 6 0 0

Installation + 2,000 € + 2,000 € 7 0 0

Total 4,600 € 4,600 € 8 0 0

9 0 0

Total initial installed equipment cost 10 3,990 7,590

1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets 11 0 0

Genset 35,000 € 70,000 € 12 0 0

Controls + 4,600 € + 4,600 € 13 0 0

Total 39,600 € 74,600 € 14 0 0

15 3,990 7,590

Contingency ( 5% of total initial cost ) 16 0 0

1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets 17 0 0

39,600 € 74,600 € 18 0 0

x 0.05 x 0.05 19 0 0

1,980 € 3,730 €

Total initial investment (year 0) 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Total initial installed equipment cost 39,600 € 74,600 €

Contingency + 1,980 € + 3,730 €

Total 41,580 € 78,330 €

New periodic re-investment = 15% of (genset equipment cost + controls equipment cost)


Genset equipment cost 24,000 € 48,000 €

Controls equipment cost + 2,600 € + 2,600 €

Total 26,600 € 50,600 €

x 0.15 x 0.15

New periodic re-investment 3,990 € 7,590 €

1st year of new re-investment: Year # 5 (given)

New re-investment period: every 5 yr after 1st year (given)



Increase in electricity production with 2 siphon turbine genset(s)

Electricity production New - Old = Increase (from Steps 1 and 2)

increase Month (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)

Jan 239,530 - 234,218 = 5,312

Feb 243,922 - 221,947 = 21,975

Mar 335,417 - 291,353 = 44,064

Apr 352,823 - 310,952 = 41,871

May 328,532 - 293,097 = 35,435

Jun 316,004 - 287,599 = 28,406

Jul 279,040 - 259,417 = 19,623

Aug 250,128 - 237,633 = 12,495

Sep 219,568 - 189,925 = 29,643

Oct 304,886 - 273,410 = 31,476

Nov 261,716 - 261,164 = 552

Dec 271,895 - 271,803 = 92

Annual 3,403,460 - 3,132,518 = 270,942

8.6% increase

Total increase in electricity production 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

New total production 3,276,026 kWh/yr 3,403,460 kWh/yr

Baseline production - 3,132,518 kWh/yr - 3,132,518 kWh/yr

143,509 kWh/yr 270,942 kWh/yr

Average relative power increase, whole HPP

= ( new average output / old actual output) - 1

1 siphon genset: = ( 548 kW / 498 kW) - 1 = 10.0%

2 siphon gensets: = ( 598 kW / 498 kW) - 1 = 20.1%

Summary of average relative power increase, whole HPP, for 2 genset(s): 20.1%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Month


Electricitry Production Increase(MWh)

31 May2011

SEMISE

After

Before

Increase


8.6% increase


Relative annual electricity production increase

= annual electricity production increase / old annual electricity production

1 siphon genset: = 143,509 kWh/yr / 3,132,518 kWh/yr = 4.6%

2 siphon gensets: = 270,942 kWh/yr / 3,132,518 kWh/yr = 8.6%

Summary of relative annual electricity production increase for 2 genset(s): 8.6%

Annual emissions reductions

1 siphon genset: Annual reductions = new avoided emissions - old avoided emissions

CO2 reduction = 1,638 T/yr - 1,566 T/yr = 72 T/yr

NOx reduction = 7.2 T/yr - 6.9 T/yr = 0.3 T/yr

SOx reduction = 32.4 T/yr - 31.0 T/yr = 1.4 T/yr

2 siphon gensets: Annual reductions = new avoided emissions - old avoided emissions




Summary of emission reductions for 2 genset(s): CO2 = 135 T/yr

NOx = 0.6 T/yr

SOx = 2.7 T/yr


Financial

Additional annual income

Electricity sales 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

New 278,462 €/yr 289,294 €/yr

Old 266,264 €/yr - 266,264 €/yr

12,198 €/yr 23,030 €/yr

Water tax 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

New 11,117 €/yr 11,623 €/yr

Old - 10,547 €/yr - 10,547 €/yr

570 €/yr 1,076 €/yr

O&M savings 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Old 0 €/yr 0 €/yr

New - 480 €/yr - 960 €/yr

(480) €/yr (960) €/yr

Other 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Old 0 €/yr 0 €/yr

New - 0 €/yr - 0 €/yr

0 €/yr 0 €/yr

Net annual additional income 1 siphon genset 2 siphon gensets

Electricity sales 12,198 €/yr 23,030 €/yr

Water tax - 570 €/yr - 1,076 €/yr

O&M savings + (960) €/yr + (960) €/yr

Other savings + 0 €/yr + 0 €/yr

12,198 €/yr 20,994 €/yr

Summary of net additional income for 2 genset(s): 20,994 €

Relative add. HPP income = net annual additional income / baseline total energy sale

1 siphon genset: = 12,198 €/yr / 266,264 €/yr = 4.6%

2 siphon gensets: = 20,994 €/yr / 266,264 €/yr = 7.9%

Summary of relative additional income for 2 genset(s): 7.9%



New Old Net

Net investments 1 2 (none) 1 2

= new investments Year genset gensets genset gensets

- avoided old investments 0 41,580 78,330 0 41,580 78,330

1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0

5 3,990 7,590 0 3,990 7,590

6 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0

10 3,990 7,590 0 3,990 7,590

11 0 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 0

15 3,990 7,590 0 3,990 7,590

16 0 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 0





Summary of Step 3, Costs & Benefits Life cycle net capital

investment schedule

for 2 genset(s) Year (€)

0 78,330


2 0

3 0

4 0

5 7,590

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

10 7,590

11 0

12 0

13 0

14 0

15 7,590

16 0

17 0

18 0

19 0


Step 5. Analysis Period 14 yr (input)

Step 6. Residual Value 5% of initial investment (input)


Total initial investment 41,580 € 78,330 €

x 0.05 x 0.05

2,079 € 3,917 €

Summary, residual value for 2 genset(s): 3,917 €



LCC Calculations


Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net ann. increases 0 20,994 20,994 20,994 20,994 20,994 20,994 20,994 20,994

PV annual increases 0 17,422 14,458 11,999 9,957 8,263 6,858 5,691 4,723

Σ PV ann. increases 94,884


Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cap. investments 78,330 0 0 0 0 7,590 0 0 0

PV cap. investments 78,330 0 0 0 0 2,987 0 0 0


Cash Flows for IRR (€) Formula: Revenue increases - investment = cash flow

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cash flows (78,330) 20,994 20,994 20,994 20,994 13,404 20,994 20,994 20,994

PV cash flows (78,330) 17,422 14,458 11,999 9,957 5,276 6,858 5,691 4,723


(80)(70)(60)(50)(40)(30)(20)(10)

0102030

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

(1000 €)

ECM Years


Cash Flows

Net cash flows

PV cash flows

31 May2011

SEMISE



LCC OutputResults

OUTPUTS Formulas:






SHPP ABCSummary, All ECMs

Analysis by SEMISE Sustainable energy team 31 Aug 2011


ECM

Produc-

tion

increase

(MWh/yr)

Net new

revenue

(1000

€/yr)

Relative

annual

revenue

increase

Net in-

vestment

(1000 €)

NPV

(1000 €)

SIR IRR

Simple

Payback

(yr)

CO2

(T/yr)

NOx

(Т/yr)

SOx

(T/yr)

Turbine Gensets 752 66.3 25.1% 329.9 30.2 1.12 23.0% 5.0 376 1.7 7.4

Pumps 28 2.3 0.9% 0.6 8.8 15.46 362.2% 0.3 14 0.1 0.3

Overall 780 68.5 26.0% 330.5 39.0 1.16 23.8% 4.8 390 1.7 7.7

24.9% increase

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Month

SHPP ABC Summary, All ECMs

Increase in Electricity Production(MWh)

31 Aug2011

SEMISE

After

Before

24.9% increase

SHPP ABC, Summary, All ECMs

Summary Life Cycle Cost Analysis

LCC Input

Life Cycle Investment Schedule Data for graph Baseline Genset Pump Total

Total Net Investments of ECMs (€) prod. + increase + increase = new prod.

Year Gensets Pumps Total Month (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh)

0 329,873 630 330,503 Jan 256 + 62 + 2.4 = 320

1 0 0 0 Feb 276 + 66 + 2.2 = 344

2 0 0 0 Mar 323 + 78 + 2.4 = 403

3 (58,000) (100) (58,100) Apr 324 + 78 + 2.3 = 404

4 (58,000) 0 (58,000) May 250 + 60 + 2.4 = 313

5 0 158 158 Jun 242 + 58 + 2.3 = 302

6 0 0 0 Jul 216 + 52 + 2.4 = 270

7 0 0 0 Aug 198 + 47 + 2.4 = 248

8 (58,000) (100) (58,100) Sep 213 + 51 + 2.3 = 266

9 (58,000) 0 (58,000) Oct 291 + 70 + 2.4 = 363

10 82,468 158 82,626 Nov 270 + 65 + 2.3 = 337

11 0 0 0 Dec 276 + 66 + 2.4 = 345

12 0 0 0 Totals 3,136 + 752 + 27.8 = 3,916

13 (58,000) (100) (58,100)

14 (58,000) 0 (58,000) Relative production increase

15 82,468 158 82,626 = ( genset increase + pump increase) / baseline production

16 0 0 0 = ( 752 MWh/yr + 28 MWh/yr) / 3,136 MWh/yr

17 0 0 0 = 24.9%

18 (58,000) (100) (58,100)

19 (58,000) 0 (58,000) Input Summary

Annual net revenue increase 68,531 €/yr

Discount rate 20.5%

Analysis period 10 yr

Residual value 15,738 €



Calculations


Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Net ann. increases 0 68,531 68,531 68,531 68,531 68,531 68,531 68,531 68,531 68,531 68,531

PV annual increases 0 56,872 47,197 39,167 32,504 26,974 22,385 18,577 15,417 12,794 10,617


`


Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Residual

Net cap. investments 330,503 0 0 (58,100) (58,000) 158 0 0 (58,100) (58,000) (15,738)

PV cap. investments 330,503 0 0 (33,206) (27,509) 62 0 0 (13,070) (10,828) (2,438)


Cash Flows for IRR (€) Formula: Savings - investment = cash flow

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Net cash flows (330,503) 68,531 68,531 126,631 126,531 68,373 68,531 68,531 126,631 126,531 84,269 0 0 0 0

PV cash flows (330,503) 56,872 47,197 72,373 60,013 26,912 22,385 18,577 28,487 23,622 13,056 0 0 0 0


(400)

(300)

(200)

(100)

0

100

200

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

(1000 €)

ECM Years

SHPP ABC, All ECMs

Cash Flows

Net cash flows

PV cash flows

31 Aug2011

SEMISE



LCC OutputResults

OUTPUTS Formulas:

Net Present Value (NPV, €) 38,991 = Σ PV annual revenue increase - Σ PV life cycle investments

Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.2 = Σ PV annual revenue increase / Σ PV life cycle investments

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 24% = Discount rate, where SIR = 1.0, or NPV = 0

Not LCC: Simple Payback (years) 4.8 = Net initial investment / annual revenue increase


SHPP ABCECM Turbine Gensets

Analysis by SEMISE Sustainable energy team31 Aug 2011


Additional

produc-

tion

(MWh/yr)

Net new

revenue

(1000

€/yr)

Relative

annual

revenue

increase

Net in-

vestment

(1000 €)

NPV

(1000 €)

SIR IRR

Simple

payback

(yr)

CO2

(T/yr)

NOx

(Т/yr)

SOx

(Т/yr)

752 66.3 25.1% 330 30.2 1.12 23.0% 5.0 376 1.7 7.4


1. Replace both old turbine impellers with new.

• Specifications:

o Efficiency: 91%

o Flow: 9.0 m3/s

o Blades: 6 blades

o Diameter: 1600 mm

o Head: 4.11 m

o Steel mark: St20-gsl, (Ukranian GOST 977-88 (or equivalent), stainless steel for long life)

• Manufacturer: "Minhydro" Ltd. in Kharkiv, Ukraine (or equivalent)

2. Overhaul both entire turbines.

3. Replace both old generators with new.

• Specifications:

o Efficiency: 93%

• o Capacity: 300 kW

• o Speed: 187 rpm

• Manufacturer: OJSC “ZKEM” in Nova Kakhovka, Ukraine (or equivalent)

• Model: VGS 300-0.4-32 U1 (or equivalent)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Month

SHPP ABC, ECM Turbine Gensets


31 August2011

SEMISE

After

Before

24% increase


4. Replace HPP and generator control system with new system.

• Manufacturer: “Promenergia” in Ternopil, Ukraine (or equivalent)



Installed impellers 101,499 € 2 202,999 €

Complete turbine overhaul 10,500 € 2 21,000 €

Generators 143,499 € 2 286,999 €

Control system 33,600 € 1 33,600 €

Generator & controls installation, all 40,775 € 1 40,775 €

Total 585,372 €

• The benefit of this ECM is its huge increase in HPP efficiency from 67% to 85%

• 24% increase in electricity production (more efficiency)

• 25% increase in revenue (more efficiency + less maintenance)


o NPV ~ 30 thousand €

o IRR = 23.0%

• The project is profitable.

• Each new generator will have increased rated capacity of 300 kW.

• HPP output will increase from 485 kW to 601 kW.

• The new equipment can produce an additional 752 MWh/yr, worth 66,252 €/yr.

Discussion Output

• With this ECM, generator capacity will be increased to match full output of rebuilt turbines.

• Original rated genset capacity was probably 250 kW ea., but clear records do not exist.

• Measured output during this energy audit:

o Genset #1: 232 kW, i.e., 7% less than genset #2 due to worn condition.

o Genset #2: 253 kW

• Predicted new output is average, considering wear over equipment's service life.

Other option

• This energy audit also looked at the possibility of increasing turbine capacity.

• However, most of the year the river offers less flow than the HPP's turbine capacity.

• Only approximately 10% of the year is there excess flow.

• Therefore, increasing turbine capacity is not justified.

Water tax

• Water tax is not based on measured water but is calculated from electricity production and efficiency.

• Since production and efficiency change together, water tax does not change in this ECM.

∴ Water tax is not calculated in this ECM.

Emissions





InputTechnical

2008 2009 2010

Electricity generation Month (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (client records)

Jan 239,840 271,000 258,540

Feb 275,830 324,390 227,036

Mar 299,890 321,000 348,762

Apr 330,080 321,780 321,139

May 300,270 220,600 229,984

Jun 195,580 219,550 309,490

Jul 175,880 231,700 241,004

Aug 290,940 158,330 144,750

Sep 225,660 155,740 257,670

Oct 301,100 266,540 303,944

Nov 328,610 226,690 254,129

Dec 337,340 207,020 284,950

Average river flow distribution, mid-level 50% probability, River at SHPP (client records)

Month (m3/s)

Jan 7.9

Feb 5.8

Mar 53.2

Apr 21.4

May 10.3

Jun 8.8

Jul 4.8

Aug 5.9

Sep 6.8

Oct 9.5

Nov 12.7

Dec 13.7

River water intake to turbines

Water height at grilles 2.48 m (audit measurement)

Bar thickness 0.01 m (audit measurement)

Intakes #1 #2

Quantity of bars in grille 64 62 bars (audit count)

Width of inlet opening 3.95 4.02 m (audit measurement)

Water velocity 1.03 1.14 m/s (audit measurement)

Head, river at SHPP 4.11 m (HPP design)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Month

River

Average Monthly Flow Distribution(mid-level 50% probability)

Actual Data

(m3/s)

31 Aug2011

SEMISE


Turbine gensets

Quantity 2 units (HPP design)

Old generators #1 #2

Measurements at contacts

Phase A current 312 365 A/ph (audit measurement)

Phase B current 327 374 A/ph (audit measurement)

Phase C current 310 350 A/ph (audit measurement)

Stator line voltage 436 415 V (audit measurement)

Cos φ 0.97 0.97 (audit measurement)

New equipment

Impellers


Rated water flow capacity 9.0 m3/s (manufacturer)

Blades 6 blades

Diameter 1600 mm

Generators


Rated power output 300 kW (manufacturer)

Average output between rebuilds 300.6 kW (maintenance records)

Rated overload w/out damage 3% (manufacturer)

Скорость 187 об/мин







Financial


O&M costs

Old 45,306 €/yr (client)

New 42,366 €/yr (estimate)

Other annual costs

Old 0 €/yr (client)



Old Unit #1 Unit #2

Re-investment cost 58,000 58,000 €/unit (maint. records)

Next year of re-investment: yr # 3 4 (client)

Re-investment period: every 5 5 yr after next year (client)

New

Turbine impellers

Price 30,000 €/unit (manufacturer)

Installation 18,333 €/unit (SEMISE estimate)

Price of turbine overhaul 5,000 €/unit (SEMISE estimate)

Generator cost 68,333 €/unit (manufacturer)

Control system cost 32,000 € (manufacturer)

Install controls & both gens. 38,833 € (SEMISE estimate)

Re-investment 25% of initial investment (SEMISE estimate)









Units derivations

Physics Units


F = ma N = (kg)(m/s2)


m = F/a kg = (N)(s2/m)


q dot = m dot m3H2O/s = t H2O/s

= 1000 kg/s

= 1000 (N)(s2/m)/s

= 1000 N · s/m


P = Fv W = (N)(m/s)

kW = 1000 N · m/s


Input power of water, genset #1

Total water cross section

= water height at grille x width of inlet opening #1

= 2.48 m x 3.95 m

= 9.80 m2

Cross section of grille bars

= bar thickness x quantity of bars x water height at grille

= 0.01 m/bar x 64 bars x 2.48 m

= 1.59 m2

Net water cross section

= total water cross section - cross section of grille bars

= 9.80 m2 - 1.59 m

2

= 8.21 m2

Water flow rate to turbine

= net water cross section x water velocity

= 8.21 m2 x 1.03 m/s

= 8.46 m3/s (volumetric flow rate)

= 8,455 (N)(s2/m)/s or N · s/m (from units derivation)

Water power into turbine #1

= gravitational acceleration x head x flow rate

= 9.81 m/s2 x 4.11 m x 8,455 N · s/m

= 340,796 N · m/s

= 341 kW (from units derivation)

Output power, genset #1

Mean current


= ( 312 A + 327 A + 310 A) / 3

= 316 A



= 1.732 x 436 V x 316 A x 0.97

= 232 kW

Efficiency, genset #1

= output / input

= 232 kW / 341 kW

= 68.0%


Input power of water, genset #2

Total water cross section

= water height at grille x width of inlet opening #2

= 2.48 m x 4.024 m

= 10.0 m2

Cross section of grille bars

= bar thickness x quantity of bars x water height at grille

= 0.01 m/bar x 62 bars x 2.48 m

= 1.54 m2

Net water cross section

= total water cross section - cross section of grille bars

= 10.0 m2 - 1.54 m

2

= 8.44 m2

Water flow rate to turbine

= net water cross section x water velocity

= 8.44 m2 x 1.14 m/s

= 9.62 m3/s (volumetric flow rate)

= 9,624 (N)(s2/m)/s or N · s/m (from units derivation)

Water power into turbine #2

= gravitational acceleration x head x flow rate

= 9.81 m/s2 x 4.11 m x 9,624 N · s/m

= 387,904 N · m/s

= 388 kW (from units derivation)

Output power, genset #2

Mean current


= ( 365 A + 374 A + 350 A) / 3

= 363 A



= 1.732 x 415 V x 363 A x 0.97

= 253 kW

Efficiency, genset #2

= output / input

= 253 kW / 388 kW

= 65.2%


Output power, actual, whole HPP

= output of genset #1 + output of genset #2

= 232 kW + 253 kW

= 485 kW

Input power, actual, whole HPP

= water power into turbine #1 + water power into turbine #2

= 341 kW + 388 kW

= 729 kW

Efficiency, existing gensets, actual, whole HPP

= output / input

= 485 kW / 729 kW

= 66.5%


Average old electricity production

( 2008 + 2009 + 2010 ) / Qty. of = Average

Month (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) samples (MWh)

Jan ( 240 + 271 + 259 ) / 3 = 256

Feb ( 276 + 324 + 227 ) / 3 = 276

Mar ( 300 + 321 + 349 ) / 3 = 323

Apr ( 330 + 322 + 321 ) / 3 = 324

May ( 300 + 221 + 230 ) / 3 = 250

Jun ( 196 + 220 + 309 ) / 3 = 242

Jul ( 176 + 232 + 241 ) / 3 = 216

Aug ( 291 + 158 + 145 ) / 3 = 198

Sep ( 226 + 156 + 258 ) / 3 = 213

Oct ( 301 + 267 + 304 ) / 3 = 291

Nov ( 329 + 227 + 254 ) / 3 = 270

Dec ( 337 + 207 + 285 ) / 3 = 276

Annual ( 3,301 + 2,924 + 3,181 ) / 3 = 3,136

Actual water flow (from Step 1)

= 8.46 m3/s to turbine #1

= 9.62 m3/s to turbine #2

18.08 m3/s total, whole HPP

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Month


Old Electricity Production(MWh)

31 Aug2011

SEMISE


Existing excess river water flow

= actual average river flow, mid-level 50% probability - existing HPP design flow

Av. flow - Design = Excess

Month (m3/s) (m

3/s) (m

3/s)

Jan 7.9 < 18.1

Feb 5.8 < 18.1

Mar 53.2 - 18.1 = 35.1

Apr 21.4 - 18.1 = 3.3

May 10.3 < 18.1

Jun 8.8 < 18.1

Jul 4.8 < 18.1

Aug 5.9 < 18.1

Sep 6.8 < 18.1

Oct 9.5 < 18.1

Nov 12.7 < 18.1

Dec 13.7 < 18.1

Notes: • Most of the year, river offers less flow than HPP's capacity.

• Only approximately 15% of the year is there excess flow.

∴ Increasing turbine capacity is not justified.


Old avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 3,136 MWh/yr = 1,568 T/yr

Old avoided NOx emissions = 2.20 g/kWh x 3,136 MWh/yr = 6.9 T/yr

Old avoided SOx emissions = 9.90 g/kWh x 3,136 MWh/yr = 31.0 T/yr

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Month

River

Average Monthly Flow Distribution(mid-level 50% probability)

Actual Data

Existing Plant Capacity (18.1 m3/s)

(m3/s)

31 Aug2011

SEMISE


Financial



= 3,136 МWh/yr x 0.084 €/kWh

= 263,954 €/yr

Old capital re-investments Old Schedule (€)

Year Unit #1 Unit #2

Unit #1 0 0 0

Old periodic re-investment 58,000 €/unit (given) 1 0 0

Next re-investment due in year # 3 of project life (given) 2 0 0

Old re-investment period 5 yr (given) 3 58,000 0

4 0 58,000

Unit #2 5 0 0

Old periodic re-investment 58,000 €/unit (given) 6 0 0

Next re-investment due in year # 4 of project life (given) 7 0 0

Old re-investment period 5 yr (given) 8 58,000 0

9 0 58,000

10 0 0

11 0 0

12 0 0

13 58,000 0

14 0 58,000

15 0 0

16 0 0

17 0 0

18 58,000 0

19 0 58,000



Allowable maximum generator output

= rated power output x (1 + rated overload)

= 300 kW x ( 1 + 0.03 )

= 309 kW

Allowable maximum HPP output

= allowable maximum generator output x quantity of gensets

= 309 kW x 2

= 618 kW

Average new HPP output

= average generator output x quantity of gensets

= 301 kW x 2

= 601 kW

Overload check

Manufacturer's rated water flow into turbines, whole HPP

= rated flow per unit x quantity of units

= 9 m3/s · unit х 2 units

= 18 m3/s

= 18,000 N · s/m (from units calculation)

New water power inputs using manufacturer's rating, whole HPP

= gravitational constant x head x new rated flow rate, whole HPP

= 9.81 m/s2 x 4.11 m x 18,000 N · s/m

= 725,522 N · m/s

= 726 kW (from units calculation)

Manufacturer's rated new efficiency, gensets & whole HPP

= rated new turbine efficiency x rated new generator efficiency

= 91% x 93% (from manufacturer)

= 84.6%

Generator power output using manufacturers' ratings

= rated new water power input x rated efficiency, whole HPP

= 726 kW x 0.846

= 614 kW

Note: 614 kW < maximum allowable HPP output of 618 kW

∴ New generators will not be damaged.


New production factor

= new average output / old actual output

= 601 kW / 485 kW

= 1.24

New electricity production Baseline New prod New

Month (MWh) factor (MWh)

Jan 256 x 1.24 = 318

Feb 276 x 1.24 = 342

Mar 323 x 1.24 = 401

Apr 324 x 1.24 = 402

May 250 x 1.24 = 310

Jun 242 x 1.24 = 299

Jul 216 x 1.24 = 268

Aug 198 x 1.24 = 246

Sep 213 x 1.24 = 264

Oct 291 x 1.24 = 360

Nov 270 x 1.24 = 335

Dec 276 x 1.24 = 343

Annual 3,136 x 1.24 = 3,888


New avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 3,888 MWh/yr = 1,944 T/yr

New avoided NOx emissions = 2.20 g/kWh x 3,888 MWh/yr = 8.6 T/yr

New avoided SOx emissions = 9.90 g/kWh x 3,888 MWh/yr = 38.5 T/yr

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Month


New Electricity Production(MWh)

31 Aug2011

SEMISE


Financial

New annual income from sale of electricity

= new annual energy production x electricity sale tariff

= 3,888 МWh/yr x 0.0842 €/kWh

= 327,266 €/yr


Year (€)

Cost оf installed impellers 0 329,873

= ( impeller price + impeller installation price ) x quantity of units 1 0

= ( 30,000 €/unit + 18,333 €/unit ) x 2 units 2 0

= 96,666 € 3 0

4 0

Cost of turbine overhaul 5 0

= price of overhauling 1 turbine x quantity of turbines 6 0

= 5,000 €/unit х 2 units 7 0

= 10,000 € 8 0

9 0

Generator cost 10 82,468

= generator price per unit x quantity of generators 11 0

= 68,333 €/unit + 2 units 12 0

= 136,666 € 13 0

14 0

Total initial investment (year 0) = Σ (costs x (1 + 5% contingency)) 15 82,468

16 0

Impellers, installed 96,666 € x 1.05 = 101,499 € 17 0

Overhaul of turbines + 10,000 € x 1.05 = 10,500 € 18 0

Generators + 136,666 € x 1.05 = 143,499 € 19 0

Controls + 32,000 € x 1.05 = 33,600 €

Gen. & controls installation + 38,833 € x 1.05 = 40,775 €

Totals 314,165 € 329,873 €

New periodic re-investment

= 25% of total initial investment

= 0.25 x 329,873 €

= 82,468 €

1st year of new re-investment: Year # 10 (given)

New re-investment period every 5 yr after 1st year (given)



Increase in HPP New - Old = Increase (from Steps 1 and 2)

electricity Month (MWh) (MWh) (MWh)

production Jan 318 - 256 = 62

Feb 342 - 276 = 66

Mar 401 - 323 = 78

Apr 402 - 324 = 78

May 310 - 250 = 60

Jun 299 - 242 = 58

Jul 268 - 216 = 52

Aug 246 - 198 = 47

Sep 264 - 213 = 51

Oct 360 - 291 = 70

Nov 335 - 270 = 65

Dec 343 - 276 = 66

Annual 3,888 - 3,136 = 752

Relative annual increase in HPP electricity production


= 752 MWh/yr / 3,136 MWh/yr

= 24.0%

24% increase

Average relative power increase, whole HPP

= ( new average output / old actual output) - 1

= ( 601 kW / 485 kW) - 1

= 24.0%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Month



31 Aug2011

SEMISE

After

Before

24% increase


Annual emissions reductions = (new - old) avoided emissions




Financial


Additional income from electricity sales

= ( new - old ) electricity sale income

= 327,266 €/yr - 263,954 €/yr

= 63,312 €/yr


= ( old - new ) O&M costs = ( old - new ) other costs

= 45,306 €/yr - 42,366 €/yr = 0 €/yr - 0 €/yr

= 2,940 €/yr = 0 €/yr

Net annual additional income 63,312 €/yr Еlectricity sales

+ 2,940 €/yr O&M savings


66,252 €/yr Total

Relative additional income, whole HPP


= 66,252 €/yr / 263,954 €/yr

= 25.1%



Year New Old Net

Net investments 0 329,873 0 329,873


2 0 0 0

3 0 58,000 (58,000)

4 0 58,000 (58,000)

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 58,000 (58,000)

9 0 58,000 (58,000)

10 82,468 0 82,468

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 58,000 (58,000)

14 0 58,000 (58,000)

15 82,468 0 82,468

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 58,000 (58,000)

19 0 58,000 (58,000)






investment schedule

Year (€)

0 329,873


2 0

3 (58,000)

4 (58,000)

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 (58,000)

9 (58,000)

10 82,468

11 0

12 0

13 (58,000)

14 (58,000)

15 82,468

16 0

17 0

18 (58,000)

19 (58,000)




= 0.05 x 314,165 €

= 15,708 € in yr # 10



LCC Calculations


Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


PV annual increases 0 54,981 45,627 37,865 31,423 26,077 21,641 17,959 14,904



Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cap. investments 329,873 0 0 (58,000) (58,000) 0 0 0 (58,000)

PV cap. investments 329,873 0 0 (33,149) (27,509) 0 0 0 (13,048)



Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cash flows (329,873) 66,252 66,252 124,252 124,252 66,252 66,252 66,252 124,252

PV cash flows (329,873) 54,981 45,627 71,014 58,933 26,077 21,641 17,959 27,952


(400)

(300)

(200)

(100)

0

100

200

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

(1000 €)

ECM Years


Cash Flows

Net cash flows

PV cash flows

31 Aug2011

SEMISE



LCC OutputResults

OUTPUTS Formulas:






SHPP ABCECM Pumps

Analysis by SEMISE Sustainable energy team31 Aug 2011


Additional

produc-

tion

(MWh/yr)

Net new

revenue

(1000

€/yr)

Relative

annual

revenue

increase

Net in-

vestment

(1000 €)

NPV

(1000 €)

SIR IRR

Simple

payback

(yr)

CO2

(T/yr)

NOx

(T/yr)

SOx

(T/yr)

27.8 2.3 0.9% 0.6 8.8 15.46 362% 0.3 13.9 0.1 0.3


1. Replace two old, identical, turbine-cooling and bearing-lubricant water pumps (4 kW ea.) with new pumps.

• Specifications:

o Power: 0.75 kW

o Flow capacity: 7.2 m3/h

o Power factor: > 90%

o Control module: (TBD)

• Manufacturer: Pedrollo

• Model: CP-150 Inox



Pump / motors, installed 189 € 2 378 €

Controls, installed 252 € 1 252 €

Overall 630 €

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


Month

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Increase in HPP Production(= Decrease in Pump Consumption)

After

Before

Pump(kWh)

31 Aug 2011

SEMISE

0.9% HPP production increase

81% pump consumption decrease

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Results

• The benefit of this measure is to reduce internal load, allowing more production to be sold.

• 0.9% increase in electricity production (more genset output)

• 0.9% increase in revenue (more genset output + less genset maintenance)


o NPV = 8.8 thousand €

o IRR = 362%

• The project is extremely profitable.

Discussion Pumps

• Existing pumps o Oversized at 4.0 kWo Low efficiencyo Operate full time all year round, i.e., maximum operating time and consumption

• New pumps o Serve same load as old pumps but draw only 0.75 kWo Reduce internal energy consupmtion by 28 MWh/yr

Water tax

• Water volume through the HPP before this ECM = water volume after this ECM.

• In theory, water tax is based on water volume, but water volume through the HPP is not measured.

• Instead, water tax is calculated from a) electric output, b) turbine efficiency, and c) generator efficiency.

• Only electric output changes in this ECM; efficiencies do not.

∴ Water tax increases with this ECM even though water volume does not.

• This is like a small penalty for reducing internal load.

Emissions




SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

InputTechnical

Baseline electricity generation 3,135,586 kWh/yr (client data)

HPP operating time 8,642 h/yr (client data)

Pumps

Quantity 2 items (audit count)

Flow 7.2 m3/h (audit measurement)

Existing pumps, аctual motor readings

Voltage 420 V (audit measurement)

Amperage 7.8 A (audit measurement)

Power factor 0.70 (audit measurement)

New pumps

Rated motor power 0.75 kW (manufacturer)

Power factor > 90% (SEMISE requirement)

Parameters for water tax calculation

Head, river at SHPP 4.11 m (measured)

Turbine efficiency 76.2% (calculated)

Generator efficiency 87.2% (nameplate)

Annual water volume

Formula W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / (9.81 (m/s




h = head



SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Formulas, factors & constants


1.7321 (math)

Time


Hours in a day 24 (universal)

Days by month: Month (universal)

Jan 31 days

Feb 28.25 days (average)

Mar 31 days

Apr 30 days

May 31 days

Jun 30 days

Jul 31 days

Aug 31 days

Sep 30 days

Oct 31 days

Nov 30 days

Dec 31 days

Annual 365.25 days (average)





SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Financial


Water tax



3 ) (national law)


R = tariff

O&M costs


New 50 €/yr (estimate)

Other annual costs




Old

Re-investment cost 100 € (maintenance records)

Next year of re-investment: yr # 3 (maintenance records)

Re-investment period: every 5 yr after next year (maintenance records)

New

Cooling water pump, installed prices

Pump with motor 180 €/unit (manufacturer)

Controls 240 € (manufacturer)

Re-investment 25% of initial investment (SEMISE estimate)







SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


Old pump actual power input


= 1.732 x 420 V x 7.8 A x 0.70

= 3.97 kW

Hours in a year

= days in a year x hours in a day

= 365.25 days/yr x 24 h/day

= 8,766 h/yr

Operating portion of total time

= annual HPP operating time / hours in a year

= 8,642 h/yr / 8,766 h/yr

= 98.6%

Simplifying assumption: Pump consumption is distributed evenly throughout year.

Old pump electricity consumption

Days in Hours in Operating Old pump Old pump

each mo. x a day x portion x demand = cons.

Month (days) (h/day) of time (kW) (kWh)

Jan 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,913

Feb 28.25 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,655

Mar 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,913

Apr 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,819

May 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,913

Jun 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,819

Jul 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,913

Aug 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,913

Sep 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,819

Oct 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,913

Nov 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,819

Dec 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 2,913

Annual 365.25 x 24 x 0.986 x 3.97 = 34,325

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


Average old HPP electricity prod. = 3,135,586 kWh/yr = 3,135,586 kN · m · h/s · yr (from units calculation)

W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / (9.81 (m/s




3,135,586 kN · m · h 3,600 s s2

s · yr h 9.807 m 4.11 m 76.2% 87.2%

= kN · s2/m · yr




Old avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 3,136 MWh/yr = 1,568 T/yr

Old avoided NOx emissions = 2.20 g/kWh x 3,136 MWh/yr = 6.9 T/yr

Old avoided SOx emissions = 9.90 g/kWh x 3,136 MWh/yr = 31.0 T/yr

Financial



= 3,135,586 kWh/yr x 0.084 €/kWh

= 263,954 €/yr

421,474,946

=

=

421,474,946

421,474,946

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


Month

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Old Pump Electricity Consumption(kWh)

31 Aug2011

SEMISE

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Old internal electricity cost for pumps

= old pump energy consumption x electricity sale tariff

= 34,325 kWh/yr x 0.0842 €/kWh

= 2,890 €/yr

Old water tax

Cost (€/yr) = [W (m3/yr) /100] x R (€/m

3)

old HPP water volume for taxes water tariff

100

m 3 0.00442 €

yr 100 m 3

= 18,629 €/yr

Old capital re-investments Old schedule

Year (€)

Old periodic re-investment 100 € (given) 0 0

Next re-investment due in year # 3 of project life (given) 1 0

Old re-investment period 5 yr (given) 2 0

3 100

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 100

9 0

10 0

11 0

12 0

13 100

14 0

15 0

16 0

17 0

18 100

19 0

=

= 421,474,946

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


New pump electricity consumption

Days in Hours in Operating New pump New pump

each mo. x a day x portion x demand = cons.

Month (days) (h/day) of time (kW) (kWh)

Jan 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 550

Feb 28.25 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 501

Mar 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 550

Apr 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 532

May 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 550

Jun 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 532

Jul 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 550

Aug 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 550

Sep 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 532

Oct 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 550

Nov 30 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 532

Dec 31 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 550

Annual 365.25 x 24 x 0.986 x 0.75 = 6,482

New annual average HPP electricity production

= old production + (old - new) pump consumption

= 3,135,586 kWh/yr + 34,325 kWh/yr - 6,482 kWh/yr

= 3,163,430 kWh/yr

= 3,163,430 kNmh/s · yr (from units calculation)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


Month

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

New Pump Electricity Consumption(kWh)

31 Aug2011

SEMISE

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

New annual water volume through HPP (for taxes)

W (m3/yr) = (E x 3600) / (9.81 (m/s


new ann. energy prod. time constant


3,163,430 kN · m · h 3,600 s s2

s · yr h 9.807 m 4.11 m 76% 87%

= kN · s2/m · yr




New avoided CO2 emissions = 0.50 kg/kWh x 3,163 MWh/yr = 1,582 T/yr

New avoided NOx emissions = 2.20 g/kWh x 3,163 MWh/yr = 7.0 T/yr

New avoided SOx emissions = 9.90 g/kWh x 3,163 MWh/yr = 31.3 T/yr

Financial

New internal energy cost for pumps

= new pump energy consumption x electricity sale tariff

= 6,482 kWh/yr x 0.0842 €/kWh

= 546 €/yr

New water tax

Cost (€/yr) = [W (m3/yr) /100] x R (€/m

3)

new HPP water volume for taxes water tariff

100

m 3 0.00442 €

yr 100 m 3

= 18,795 €/yr

=

425,217,643

=

=

=

425,217,643

425,217,643

425,217,643

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


Year (€)

Cost of both pumps, installed 0 630

= installed price x quantity of units 1 0

= 180 €/unit x 2 units 2 0

= 360 € 3 0

4 0

Total initial investment (year 0) = Σ (costs x (1 + 5% contingency)) 5 158

6 0

Pumps, installed 360 € x 1.05 = 378 € 7 0

Controls, installed + 240 € x 1.05 = 252 € 8 0

Totals 600 € 630 € 9 0

10 158

New periodic re-investment 11 0

= 25% of total initial investment 12 0

= 0.25 x 630 € 13 0

= 158 € 14 0

15 158

1st year of new re-investment: Year # 5 (given) 16 0

New re-investment period every 5 yr after 1st year (given) 17 0

18 0

19 0

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


Increase in HPP production Pump Pump HPP (from Steps 1 and 2)

(=decrease in pump cons. cons. prod.

consumption) before - after = increase


Jan 2,913 - 550 = 2,363

Feb 2,655 - 501 = 2,154

Mar 2,913 - 550 = 2,363

Apr 2,819 - 532 = 2,287

May 2,913 - 550 = 2,363

Jun 2,819 - 532 = 2,287

Jul 2,913 - 550 = 2,363

Aug 2,913 - 550 = 2,363

Sep 2,819 - 532 = 2,287

Oct 2,913 - 550 = 2,363

Nov 2,819 - 532 = 2,287

Dec 2,913 - 550 = 2,363

Annual 34,325 - 6,482 = 27,844

Relative annual HPP production increase


= 27,844 kWh/yr / 3,135,586 kWh/yr

= 0.9%

Relative annual pump electricity consumption decrease

= consumption decrease / old consumption

= 27,844 kWh/yr / 34,325 kWh/yr

= 81.1%



0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


Month

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Increase in HPP production(= Decrease in pump consumption)

After

Before

(kWh,pumps)


31 Aug 2011

SEMISE


SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Annual emissions reductions = (new - old) avoided emissions

CO2 reduction = 1,582 T/yr - 1,568 T/yr = 13.9 T/yr



Financial


Additional income from electricity sales Additional annual water tax

= ( old - new ) internal energy cost for pumps = ( new - old ) water tax

= 2,890 €/yr - 546 €/yr = 18,795 €/yr - 18,629 €/yr

= 2,344 €/yr = 165 €/yr


= ( old - new ) O&M cost = ( old - new ) other costs

= 150 €/yr - 50 €/yr = 0 €/yr - 0 €/yr

= 100 €/yr = 0 €/yr

Net annual additional income 2,344 €/yr Electricity sales

- 165 €/yr Water tax

+ 100 €/yr O&M savings


2,278 €/yr Total

Relative additional income, whole HPP


= 2,278 €/yr / 263,954 €/yr

= 0.9%

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


Year New Old Net

Net investments 0 630 0 630


2 0 0 0

3 0 100 (100)

4 0 0 0

5 158 0 158

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 100 (100)

9 0 0 0

10 158 0 158

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 100 (100)

14 0 0 0

15 158 0 158

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 100 (100)

19 0 0 0

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps





investment schedule

Year (€)

0 630


2 0

3 (100)

4 0

5 158

6 0

7 0

8 (100)

9 0

10 158

11 0

12 0

13 (100)

14 0

15 158

16 0

17 0

18 (100)

19 0




= 0.05 x 600 €

= 30 € in yr # 10

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


LCC Calculations


Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


PV annual increases 0 1,891 1,569 1,302 1,081 897 744 618 513



Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cap. investments 630 0 0 (100) 0 158 0 0 (100)

PV cap. investments 630 0 0 (57) 0 62 0 0 (22)

Σ PV cap. invest. 608


Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net cash flows (630) 2,278 2,278 2,378 2,278 2,121 2,278 2,278 2,378

PV cash flows (630) 1,891 1,569 1,359 1,081 835 744 618 535


(1,000)

(500)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

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

(€)

ECM Years

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

Cash Flows

Net cash flows

PV cash flows

31 Aug 2011

SEMISE

SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps


LCC OutputResults

OUTPUTS Formulas:



Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 362% = Discount rate, where SIR = 1.0, or NPV = 0


SHPP ABC, ECM Pumps

METHODOLOGY for Conducting Energy Audits on … Methodology small HPPs ENG.pdfSmall HPP Energy Audit...

Documents

Transcript of METHODOLOGY for Conducting Energy Audits on … Methodology small HPPs ENG.pdfSmall HPP Energy Audit...