VODNÍZDROJE, a.s. - OBNOVLJIVI IZVORI ENERGIJE - … 2010/Prefeasibili… · ·...

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.

PREPRE��FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SMALL HYDRO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SMALL HYDRO POWER PLANTSPOWER PLANTS ON WATER MAINS IN FIVE ON WATER MAINS IN FIVE COMMUNITIES WITHINCOMMUNITIES WITHIN MONTENEGROMONTENEGRO

PREDSTUDIJA IZVODLJIVOSTI ZA MALE PREDSTUDIJA IZVODLJIVOSTI ZA MALE HIDROELEKTRANE NA VODOVODIMA U PET HIDROELEKTRANE NA VODOVODIMA U PET

OPOPŠŠTINA U CRNOJ GORITINA U CRNOJ GORI

ODA Trust Fund of the Czech Republic to the EBRD

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

One Exchange Square, London EC2A 2JN

United Kingdom

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.

Jindřicha Plachty 535/16

Prague 5 - 15000

Czech Republic

TOMÁŠ HÁJEK - DANIEL KAHUDA –MENSUR HAMZIĆ

POWER PRODUCTION IN MONTENEGRO / PROIZVODNJA ELEKTRIČNE ENERGIJE U CRNOJ GORI

YEAR 2009

• hydropower plant Perućica: 1099 GWh or 41.04% of total MN electricity production

• hydropower plant Piva: 943 GWh or 35.21% of total MN electricity production

• thermal power plant Pljevlja: 617 GWh or 23.04% of total MN electricity production

• Small HydroPower Plants: 19 GWh or 0.71% of total MN electricity production

HYDRO vs THERMAL POWER PLANTS

• HE Komarnica with power of 168 MW and production of 231.8 GWh/year

• HE na Moraci with power of 238.4 MW and production of 693.7 GWh/year

• In the thermal sector they plan expansion of Thermo power plant Pljevlja with another block with power of 225 MW

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

• Wind: plans – 10MW with combined power till end of 2010

- another six farms with 30MW till 2015

- another 4 farms with power of 20 MW by 2025

• Solar energy- the strategy does not relay greatly on this type of energy because it estimates that installation expenses are too great. Therefore this energy will not be used in production but merely in domestic use and tourism industry on individual grounds.

• Waste energy- Until 2025 there is plans to build only one object of this kind, the estimate power will be 10 MW. The investment is estimated to €32 million.

•Bio-fuel- The estimate is that until 2025 the use of bio-fuel in Montenegro will be 0.68J.

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

There’re fundamentally 3groups of relevant legislation in Montenegrin legal order regarding the SHPPs: basic laws (determining general conditions of renewable energy sources, utilization of water resources, concessions…etc.), implementations of European directives (on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable sources) and regulatory decrees determining specific technical and economical details of implemented energy sources (most relevant for construction of SHPPs).

Basic laws� Law on Energy (Zakon o energetici), Number: 01-70/25, passed: 22nd April 2010� Law on Water: (Zakon o vodama), Number: 01-650/2, Passed: 14th May 2007� Law on Concessions (Zakon o koncesijama), Number: 01-217/2, Passed: 29th January 2009EC directives� 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently

repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/ECRegulatory decrees� Instructions for determining the purchase price calculation methodology for electricity from small hydropower

plants (Uputstva o utvrdjivanju metodologija obracuna otkupne cijene elektricne energije iz malih hidroelektrana), Number: 01-6139/1, Passed: by Ministry for Economic Development on 31st July 2007

� Rulebook on technical conditions needed for connection of sHPP (Pravilnik o tehnickim uslovima za prikljucenje malih elektrana na distributivnu mrezu), Number: 01-1739, Passed: by Ministry for Economic Development on 7th May 2007

� Rulebook on Criteria for Issuing Energy Permission, Content of Application and Register of Energy Permission (Pravilnik o energetskoj dozvoli objavljeno), Number: 01-2470/3, Passed: by Ministry for Economic Development on 6th August 2010

� Rulebook for Hydro Energy Facility in accordance with Law for Spatial Planning and Building (Pravilnik-dokum_mhe idejno rjesenje) – draft version, not implemented yet

TECHNOLOGY

Malá Úpa: Bánki turbine placement (15kW)

Horní Maršov: Bánki turbine placement (15kW)

Trutnov: Pelton turbine placement (25kW)

Trutnov: Pelton turbine regulation

Schematic turbine placement

project schedule

� TASK 1: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS� In cooperation with local expert consultants the terms and conditions of electrical supply and connection to power grid will be reviewed. Besides the technical issues the purchase prices will be estimated. An

analysis of relevant legislative will be worked out concerning construction of a small hydro power plant including the economic issues, permits, license and needed documentation of supplying the power grid.

� TASK 2: ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL CONDITIONS FOR THE SHPP PROJECT� a) Survey and assessment of the existing localities, water capacity and its characteristics in pipelines of mains, holding capacity,

water intake facility, buildings and other equipment and review stability and quantity of water supply.� b) Assessment of head height and flow rates of selected particular locations in the existing conduits and review data

measurement.� c) Assessment of the current technical condition of feeding pipes-camera review, pressure testing, evaluation of pressure

reducers (material, diameters, flow rates).

� TASK 3: ASSESSMENT OF TECHNICAL CONDITIONS FOR THE SHPP PROJECT� From the technical point of view in the application of Crossflow and Francis turbines enables the use of common water supply networks as

energy sources. The turbines are hydraulically designed to cause minimal water shocks even in case of big lengths of water supply pipelines. The Crossflow system provides also a self-cleaning ability of the circular wheel. The used system of regulation and way of positioning the bearings guaranties 100% preservation of water hygienic safety and its sustainable classification as drink water.

� The waterworks belong under facilities with high energy demands. Installation of such a small scale hydro power station turns the system to self sufficient and in most cases it provides also power to public network. During the installation of hydro power stations in the drink water systems there isn’t long interruption of water supplies to publics necessary and also the contamination of this water is out of question. The economic return of this investment is supposed 2-5years.

� TASK 4: PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY� The pre-feasibility study will sum the available knowledge and mainly determine the available capacities of hydro energy in the areas of interest.

There is essential the integration of technical, economic, environmental, legal and social issues within a framework that allows for the development of efficient and sustainable water use strategies.

� Water management in the EU Member States has to comply with the environmental and water quality requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the EU Groundwater Directive (GWD). Under water scarcity or water pollution conditions, efforts are needed to make groundwater use and environmental conservation more compatible. Such approach will be presented in Montenegro and discussed with the policy makers and all target groups interested in the project.

� The pre-feasibility study will determine necessary legal steps to be carried out in order to operate the new hydropower stations. The need of synchronizing the water supply, power generation and connection to power grid will involve an engagement of various subject including regional and local authorities, state supervisory, private and state energy sector etc. The study will provide instruction on legal procedure in case of constructing a small hydro power plant in Montenegro with extra focus on specific case of hydro power plants mounted on actual water supply networks.

� The pre-feasibility study will discuss all well-known and innovative technologies applicable in hydro power stations and finally will offer recommendation of the optimal strategy for effective management. From technical view there will be pointed out the alternatives of applied installations to be most suitable for areas of interest.

field survey

ultrasonic flowmeter: non-destructive approach to determine flow rate in a closed pipeline

Pipewall thickness measurement

Device in operation

Flow rate measurement results

Nr. Location Time res. Duration DN A U Q σ rel σ abs Note

[sec] [min] [mm] [m2] [m/s] [l/s] [%] [l/s]

1 Mojkovac 60 37 250.4 0.049 1.48 73.09 5 3.65 low signal level

2 Andrejevica 60 39 262 0.054 1.82 97.88 3 2.94

3 Berane 1 60 19 204.4 0.033 2.60 85.30 7 5.97 air entraiment

4 Berane 2 60 17 248.4 0.048 2.72 131.76 3 3.95

5 Berane 3 60 18 149.4 0.018 0.61 10.74 3 0.32

6 Rozaje 60 37 300 0.071 1.68 118.49 3 3.55

7 Gusinje 1 60 12 304.6 0.073 0.77 56.33 5 2.82 low signal level

8 Gusinje 2 - 15 150 0.018 3.44 60.75 7 4.25 poor signal level

9 Plav 1 60 20 263.4 0.054 0.57 30.83 3 0.92

10 Plav 2 60 21 352 0.097 0.31 30.39 5 1.52 low signal level

11 Murino 5 30 98 0.008 3.09 23.30 3 0.70

MOJKOVAC

� The town of Mojkovac is supplied with potable water from a 3km distant karstic spring. Unfortunately there’re no hydrological data disposable. The system is designed so that the water the water storage reservoir is filled from a higher elevated spring source by gravity only. Unused water is driven via an overflow out of the system with no other purpose.

� There were identified 2-3 variants of turbine placement at the locality:

� VAR 1: Utilization of actual water inflow to the reservoir with a relatively low gradient but with option to use an existing installation.

� VAR 2: Installation of a parallel pipeline to the section from the spring with utilization of the residual overflow from the spring.

� VAR 3: Increase in the hydraulic gradient by connection to a neighboring unused water source.

MOJKOVAC - variants

940

888

868BAZENRESERVOIRVODOJEMZERO KW

110 L/s

73 L/s

VAR.1DN 250 mm L=2700mQ=73L/s v=1,48m/s

806

LOKALITETLOCALITYLOKALITA

ALTIMETRIJSKIHALTIMETRYVYSKOPIS

MOJKOVACRelativna - GPS i diferencijalni barometarRelative - GPS and diferencial barometerRelativni - GPS a diferencialni barometr

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.

TOPOGRAFIJE I DUZINETOPOGRAPHY AND LENGHTSPOLOHOPIS A DELKY

GPS i 1:25000 kartaGPS and 1:25000 mapGPS and 1:25000 mapa

MIJERENOMEASUREDMERENO

2010

CJEVOVOD / PIPELINE / VODOVOD

KAPTAZ / SPRING / ZDROJ

BAZEN / RESERVOIR / VODOJEM

HIDROSTATSKI PRITISAK / HYDROSTATICPRESSURE / HYDROSTATICKÝ TLAK

HIDRODINAMSKI PRITISAK / HYDRODYNAMICPRESSURE / HYDRODINAMICKÝ TLAK

TURBINE 100kWWATER SOURCEVAR.3, PIPELINE VAR.2

806

Hd

=12

8mH

s=

134m

VAR.2&VAR.3DN 250 mm L=400mQ=110L/s v=2,24m/s

Hd

=1

mH

s=

20m

MOJKOVAC – hydraulic comparisonPipeline lenght L = 2700 M

Pipeline diameter DN = 250 Mm

Altitude of water inlet (watersource) H1

= 888 m a.s.l.

Altitude of water outlet (reservoir) H2

= 868 m a.s.l.

The lowest point of pipeline (Tara river crossing) Hx

= 806 m a.s.l.

Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs

= 20 M

Relevant flow rate Q = 70 l/s

Computed head looses* Zt= 18,94 M

Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H

s-Z

t= 1,06 M

Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 0,49 kW

Pipeline lenght L = 400 M

Pipeline diameter (new pipeline) DN = 250 Mm

Altitude of water inlet (water source VAR.3) H1

= 940 m a.s.l.

Altitude of water outlet (valley) H2

= 806 m a.s.l.


= 134 M

Relevant flow rate*** Q = 110 l/s

Computed head looses* Zt= 6,14 M


s-Z

t= 128 M

Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 100 kW

GENERATOR VAR.1 - INFLOW INTO THE RESERVOIR

Result:

��

This variant has almost zero hydropower potential. All the pressure will be used for losses in the pipeline.

GENERATOR VAR.2&NEW SOURCE VAR.3 – NEW PIPELINE FROM WATER SOURCE TO VALLEY

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This option has considerable hydropower potential. But requires further hydrological measurements, and build new pipelines.

ANDRIJEVICA

� The town of Andrijevica is supplied from a 14km distant karstic water spring. The water is very high and by order it’s exceeding the needs of municipal water supply. The system is designed so that the water storage reservoir is filled from a higher elevated spring source by gravity only. The water unused in the municipal system is driven via an overflow out of the system. Regarding the high length andgradient the pipeline is interrupted by an overflow chamber and also by reduction structure. Logically these sites are well suitable for turbine installation. There were 3variants of solution identified, but in this case all of them can be applied simultaneously to create a sum effect and maximize the efficiency.

� VAR.1: Turbine placement in into the overflow chamber.� VAR.2: Turbine placement in the position of pressure reduction

structure.� VAR.3: Turbine placement in the reservoir inflow

ANDRIJEVICA - variants

BAZENRESERVOIR

VODOJEM

VAR.3L=4700mQ=98L/s



ANDRIJEVICARelativna - GPS i diferencijalni barometarRelative - GPS and diferencial barometerRelativni - GPS a diferencialni barometr

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.




2010






Hd

=33

mH

s=

71m

VAR.1L=3000mQ=98L/s

VAR.2L=6600mQ=98L/s

ASBEST PIPELINE DN 250mm PE D63STEELD 273

KUTSKA RIJEKACROSSING

1138

1090

1067

1020

1025

995

1010

976

910

940

CHLORINATION

Hd

=7m

Hs

=91

m

Hd

=1m

Hs

=36

m

TOTAL (km) Altitude (m)

Hs

(m) Q (l/s) Turbine

0,0 1138

2,4 1090

3,0 1067 71 98 VAR.1

4,1 1020

4,7 1025

6,0 995

6,4 1010

9,6 976 91 98 VAR.2

13,4 910

13,6 912

13,8 933

14,3 940 36 98 VAR.3

ANDRIJEVICA – hydraulic comparison

VAR.1 (km) Altitude (m) Hs (m) Q (l/s) Head Loss* Usable pressure Approximate hydropower potential

0,0 1138 Zt Hd=Hs-Zt = Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q =

2,4 1090 (m) (m) (kW)

3,0 1067 71 98 38 33 22,638

VAR.2 (km) Altitude (m) Hs (m) Q (l/s) Head Loss* Usable pressure Approximate hydropower potential

0,0 1067 Zt Hd=Hs-Zt = Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q =

1,1 1020 (m) (m) (kW)

1,7 1025

3,0 995

3,4 1010

6,6 976 91 98 84 7 4,802

VAR.3 (km) Altitude (m) Hs (m) Q (l/s) Head Loss Usable pressure Approximate hydropower potential

0,0 976 Zt Hd=Hs-Zt = Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q =

3,8 910 (m) (m) (kW)

4,0 912

4,2 933

4,7 940 36 98 35 1 0,686

ZERO POTENTIAL

GENERATOR VAR.1

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This option has considerable hydropower potential. Larger diameter of pipeline (Var. 1a: With pipeline DN300), better potential - Pg=40kW.

GENERATOR VAR.2

Result:

�� ☺☺☺☺

Low potential. Larger diameter of pipeline (Var. 2a: With Pipeline DN300), better potential – up to Pg=20kW.

GENERATOR VAR.3

Result:

��

Practically zero potential. Larger diameter of pipeline (Var. 3a: With Pipeline DN30), and water outlet to Kutska Rijeka (altitude 910m) up to Pg=30kW.

BERANE

� The town of Berane is supplied from a 10km distant karstic water spring. The system is designed so that the water the water storage reservoir (about 5km far from the town, there’s a distributary supply line to Buće from this point too) is filled from a higher elevated spring source by gravity only. The water unused in the municipal system is driven via an overflow out of the system. There’s a relatively stable and high discharge (213 L/s) in the pipeline. With no overflow chambers it is driven straight to the reservoir, which appears to be the suitable placement for turbine installation.

BERANE - variants

BERANEBAZENRESERVOIRVODOJEM



BERANERelativna - GPS i diferencijalni barometarRelative - GPS and diferencial barometerRelativni - GPS a diferencialni barometr

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.




2010






DN 4001500m

963

799

Hd

=10

8mH

s=

164

m

DN 3002000m

DN 2252000m

5500m

213 L/s

BERANE – hydraulic comparison


Pipeline diameter DN =

400

300

225

mm

Altitude of water inlet H1

= 963 m a.s.l.


= 164 M


Computed head looses* Zt= 56 M


s-Z

t= 157 M


GENERATOR VAR.1

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This location has considerable high hydropower potential.

ROŽAJE

� The town of Rožaje is supplied from a 9km distant karstic water spring. The system is designed so that the water the water storage reservoir is filled from a higher elevated spring source by gravity only. The water unused in the municipal system is driven via an overflow out of the system.

� The waterworks operator has a prepared project of a new water supply conduit. Therefore, there is a good possibility to utilize a suitable terrain configuration and use the old pipeline for a turbine placement in the lowest point of the conduit (VAR1). Because the gradient between the spring source and reservoir appears to be sufficient as well (74m elevation difference), there’s also this option assessed (VAR2). And furthermore, there is also VAR3 to be concerned, where the overflowing water from the reservoir (unused in the municipal supply) will be driven back to the old conduit to flow down the slope again to reach the turbine placement from VAR1. This variant hasn’t been calculated, but it is mentioned in the assessment.

ROŽAJE - variants

1244

118L/s

170 L/s D 3009000m

1140



ROZAJERelativna - GPS i diferencijalni barometarRelative - GPS and diferencial barometerRelativni - GPS a diferencialni barometr

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.




2010






1100

1170

100 L/sD 2501230m

100 L/sD 3005200m

6430m

Hd

=14

7mH

s=

190m

Hd

=44

mH

s=

74m

Hd

=68

mH

s=

70m

30(?) L/sD 3002570m

VAR.1

VAR.2

VAR.3


Pipeline diameter DN = 250,300 mm


= 1244 m a.s.l.


= 190 m


Computed head looses* Zt= 43 m


s-Z

t= 147 m


Pipeline lenght L = 9000 m

Pipeline diameter DN = 300 mm


= 1244 m a.s.l.


= 74 m




s-Z

t= 44 m




Altitude of water inlet (reservoir) H1

= 1170 m a.s.l.


= 70 m

Relevant flow rate (approximate) Q = 30 l/s

Computed head looses* Zt

= 2 m


s-Z

t= 68 m

Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 14,3 kW

GENERATOR VAR.1

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This locality has a considerably high hydropower potential.

GENERATOR VAR.2

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This locality has a considerably high hydropower potential.

GENERATOR VAR.3 – TEORETICAL – BACKFLOW FROM RESERVOIR TO VALLEY

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This locality has considerable hydropower potential.

GUSINJE

� The town of Gusinje is supplied from a 3km distant karstic water spring. The system is designed so that the water the water storage reservoir is filled from a higher elevated spring source by gravity only. The water unused in the municipal system is driven via an overflow out of the system. The karstic spring displays significant fluctuation in the discharge. To investigate this fact there was a basic speleological survey performed under leadership of Željko Madžgalj to find out if the water flow isn’t influenced by another cave system present. This assumption wasn’t proven. There’s no hydrological observation point within the relevant catchment area.

� Recent water supply conduit DN300 is placed in the bed of the former open channel conduit. The pipeline isn’t in a good condition; it’s even partly directly endangered by landslips. A premise of utilization there’s a reconstruction of this conduit. An only suitable location of the turbine there seems to be the inflow to the reservoir.

GUSINJE

GUSINJEBAZENRESERVOIRVODOJEM



GUSINJERelativna - GPS i diferencijalni barometarRelative - GPS and diferencial barometerRelativni - GPS a diferencialni barometr

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.




2010






1194

1000

Hd

=18

0mH

s=

194m

2800mDN300

56 L/s

HIGHPRESSURE!!!

GUSINJE – hydraulic comparison




= 1194 m a.s.l.


= 194 m




s-Z

t= 180 m


GENERATOR VAR.1

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This option has considerable high hydropower potential. But requires further hydrological measurements, and build new high pressure (20bar) pipeline.

PLAV

� The way of water supply significantly differs from other municipalities involved in this assessment. Water is collected from talus springs supplied by riverbank infiltration. The stability of water supply is lower and in case of discharge decrease in the river it represents a significant problem. This is a considerable difference to other localities, where there’s usually high balance of a good quality water and hydraulic gradient as well. Although the focus of this study are mainly power generation suggestions and not the design of water supply conduits, there was suggested utilization of spring located above actual ground water collectors. This would extend the collected water discharge and simultaneously increase the hydraulic gradient. There were discharges of Q=30 L/s measured on site. Connection to the spring would increase this discharge approximately to double value, therefore there was calculated with 60 L/s.

� The only actual suitable turbine placement seems to be the inflow to reservoir (VAR1). In case of suggested collector extension the suitable placement of turbines would be in recent location of the collecting wells (VAR2).

PLAVBAZENRESERVOIRVODOJEM



PLAVRelativna - GPS i diferencijalni barometarRelative - GPS and diferencial barometerRelativni - GPS a diferencialni barometr

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.




2010






1100

991

Hd

=4

3mH

s=

55m

6000mDN300

30 - 60 L/s

1046

Hd

=51

mH

s=

54m

OLDWELLS

NEWWATERSOURCE

1500mDN300



Altitude of water inlet H1 = 1046 m a.s.l.

Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs = 55 m


Computed head looses* Zt = 12 m

Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=Hs-Zt = 43 m




Altitude of water inlet (new water source) H1

= 1100 m a.s.l.


= 54 m




s-Z

t= 51 m


GENERATOR VAR.1

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This option has considerable hydropower potential. But requires further hydrological measurements, and build new pipeline to new water source.

GENERATOR VAR.2

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This option has considerable hydropower potential. But requires further hydrological measurements, and build new pipelines to new water source.

speleological survey by Željko Madžgalj

MURINO

� The town of Murino is supplied from a 3km distant karstic spring source. From the spring the water flows by gravity into a lower situated reservoir providing water supply to the town.

� During the measurements there was an air leak into the water conduit observed. In the consequent hydraulic calculation the assumption was proved the siphon behavior of the conduit –this means the discharge is limited by friction losses. Therefore the conduit has practically no hydroenergetic potential. From the constructional point of view the water conduit design is effective, cheap and functional. On the other hand it doesn’t enable power generation. Therefore the calculation was also performed for possible reconstruction with use of DN200 conduits, where sufficient gradient for use of turbine could be ensured.

� The only suitable turbine placement is the reservoir inflow.

10051005

980

900

80m

MU

RIN

O

BAZENRESERVOIRVODOJEM

20 L/s

3 - 5 L/s

PP - D110 or DN200Q=20L/s

PP - D110 or DN200Q=23-25L/s

PP - D110

900

853



MURINORelativna - GPS i diferencijalni barometarRelative - GPS and diferencial barometerRelativni - GPS a diferencialni barometr

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.




2010






2700 m

ENERGY LINE WITHD110mm PIPELINE.SUCTION SYSTEMAND ZEROHYDROENERG.POTENTIAL

ENERGY LINE WITHDN200mm PIPELINE.

Hd

=98

mH

s=

105m

MURINO – hydraulic comparison




= 1005 m a.s.l.


= 105 m



Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) – SUCTION!!!! Hd=H

s-Z

t= -26 m

Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = ZERO kW




= 1005 m a.s.l.


= 105 m


Computed head looses* Zt= 6,5 m

Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) – SUCTION!!!! Hd=H

s-Z

t= 98 m


GENERATOR VAR.1

Result:

��

This variant has almost zero hydropower potential. All the pressure will be used for losses in the pipeline.

GENERATOR VAR.1 – RECALCULATION WITH PIPELINE DN 200MM

Result:

☺☺☺☺

This option has considerable hydropower potential. But requires build new pipeline.

investment costs and return on investment

� In accordance with legislation of Montenegro the pricing of SHPP power production has been introduced as “Instruction on establishing the methodology for calculating the purchase price for electricity from small hydropower plants” or “Упутство о утврђивању методологије обрачуна откупне цијене електричне енергије из малиххидроелектрана,” pursuant to Article 32, section 5 of the Energy Law ("Official Gazette of RM" No. 39/03) by Ministry of Economy. The guide was published in the Official Gazette of RM "no. 46/2007 of 31.7.2007. This approach declared a single category for electricity purchase up to installed output of 10MW. In this way there was a single purchase price of kWh calculated to be applicable for all the situations. In 2009 there was a new methodology introduced by ministry of Economy of Montenegro defining separate 4groups reflecting different ranges of installed output.

� As the technology of SHPP mounted on water main is unique even among the SHPPs in general the Ministry of Economy has been developing a guide focus especially for such situations. The methodology hasn’t been introduced to the date of this prefeasibility study so the calculation on investment return is based on two above mentioned methodologies to provide at least a reasonable estimate. The exact purchase prices will probably slightly vary from those used in this calculation, but the calculation can be easily adjusted to new methodology.

� The cost estimates are based on experiences from infrastructure constructions both in Montenegro and the Czech Republic. Even in the dry period of the year (the field measurements were performed during August 2010) the water mains are fully used so there’s no significant danger of major discharge drops during some periods. Furthermore, as the turbines operate on supply water mains their efficiency correlates to with the water supply schedule, which is supposed to be up to 365day/year. And finally, because of the rich water resources of Montenegro, the operation of turbines are (unlike in the Czech Republic) independent of municipal water consumption. This fact ensures availability for power generation to even 24h/day. Also the water turbines are typically capable of 100,000hours operation with no significant maintenance. Therefore the assumption is 358days/year of continuous operation leaving 1week for possible maintenance needs and power grid failures.

investment costs and return on investment - old methodology - 2007

PcQ

Tc PR

Uu

uMHE ++=

where:

cHME – SHPP electricity purchase price [h€/kWh]

Tu - total costs of generated, imported or otherwise acquired electricity (regarding major supplier), except for

electricity generated by domestic hydropower plants not recognized as SHPPs [€]. Costs are recognized as

legitimate by the Agency for previous year or period that served as a parallel to form a total price of electricity in

Montenegro

Qu - The total amount of electricity to which the total cost is regarded [kWh]

CPR - The price of electricity transmission services by the Agency approve and publish the license holder for the

transmission of electricity for that calendar year, calculated as the ratio of approved eligible costs and planned

volume of net transfer of power for consumers in the energy balance of Montenegro expressed in [h€/kWh]

R - The amount of subsidies per unit of quantity, if they are determined by other applicable laws, expressed in

[h€/kWh]

MOJKOVAC ANDRIJEVICA BERANE ROŽAJE GUSINJE PLAV MURINO

VAR.2&3. VAR.1 VAR.2 VAR.1 VAR.2 VAR.3 VAR.1 VAR.2

hydropower potential [kW] 100 23 5 190 103 52 14.3 70 18 10 16

new pipeline diameter [mm] 250 no no no no no no 300 300 300 200

new pipeline length [m] 400 no no no no no no 2800 1500 1500 2700

new construction needed [y/n] yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes no yes no

maximal annual capacity (365d) [kWh/y] 876000 201480 43800 1664400 902280 455520 125268 613200 157680 87600 140160

estimated annual capacity (358d)

[kWh/y] 859200 197616 42960 1632480 884976 446784 122865.6 601440 154656 85920 137472

Preferred turbine type Pelton Bánki Bánki

Pelton/Bánk

i Pelton Bánki Bánki Pelton Bánki Bánki Bánki

INVESTMENTS NEEDED - ESTIMATE

Power generation unit 80,000 € 25,000 € 12,000 € 100,000 € 80,000 € 40,000 € 25,000 € 80,000 € 25,000 € 20,000 € 25,000 €

Generator placement or building

adaptation 40,000 € 12,500 € 6,000 € 50,000 € 40,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 20,000 € 7,000 € 12,500 € 7,000 €

New pipeline connection or adjustment 40,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 150,000 € 38,000 € 38,000 € 100,000 €

Electro-technical infrastructure 5,000 € 15,000 € 14,500 € 36,000 € 14,000 € 10,000 € 7,000 € 4,500 € 8,000 € 6,000 € 4,000 €

Project management 55,000 € 21,000 € 15,000 € 65,000 € 48,000 € 24,000 € 18,000 € 84,000 € 26,000 € 26,000 € 45,000 €

Construction total cost 220,000 € 83,500 € 57,500 € 261,000 € 192,000 € 94,000 € 70,000 € 338,500 € 104,000 € 102,500 € 181,000 €

PURCHASE PRICE CALCULATION - OLD METHODOLOGY (Ministry of economy, 46/2007, 31st of July 2007)

EUR/kWh 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793 0.0793

EUR/year 68135 15671 3407 129456 70179 35430 9743 47694 12264 6813 10902

investment return [years] 3 5 17 2 3 3 7 7 8 15 17

investment costs and return on investment - newmethodology - 2009

group annual output [GWhr/year]

I < 0.5

II 0.5 - 3.0

III 3.0 - 15.0

IV > 15

group

i[%] T[year] CGOR[€/MWhr] tEKV[hr/year] cFO[1000€/MWhr] I[mil€/MW]

C [€/MWh]fixed variable

I

8 12 0

4000 108 2.7 114.41

II 3300 60.8 2.2 106.9

III 3300 32.2 1.8 84.83

IV 3150 29.8 1.35 66.57

where:

I – specific investment [€/MW]

tEKV

–annual operation [h/year]

i – discount ratio [%]

T – guaranteed time of purchase prices [years]

cFO

– specific maintenance cost [€/MWhr]

For needs of investment assessment the Montenegrin Ministry of Economy developed a table for calculation:

MOJKOVAC ANDRIJEVICA BERANE ROŽAJE GUSINJE PLAV MURINO

VAR.2&3. VAR.1 VAR.2 VAR.1 VAR.2 VAR.3 VAR.1 VAR.2

hydropower potential [kW] 100 23 5 190 103 52 14.3 70 18 10 16

new pipeline diameter [mm] 250 no no no no no no 300 300 300 200

new pipeline length [m] 400 no no no no no no 2800 1500 1500 2700

new construction needed

[y/n] yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes no yes no

maximal annual capacity

(365d) [GWh/y] 0.8760 0.2015 0.0438 1.6644 0.9023 0.4555 0.1253 0.6132 0.1577 0.0876 0.1402

estimated annual capacity

(358d) [GWh/y] 0.8592 0.1976 0.0430 1.6325 0.8850 0.4468 0.1229 0.6014 0.1547 0.0859 0.1375

Category II I I II II I I II I I I

Preferred turbine type Pelton Bánki Bánki Pelton/Bánki Pelton Bánki Bánki Pelton Bánki Bánki Bánki

INVESTMENTS NEEDED - ESTIMATE

Power generation unit 80,000 € 25,000 € 12,000 € 100,000 € 80,000 € 40,000 € 25,000 €

80,000

€ 25,000 €

20,000

€ 25,000 €

Generator placement or

building adaptation 40,000 € 12,500 € 6,000 € 50,000 € 40,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 €

20,000

€ 7,000 €

12,500

€ 7,000 €

New pipeline connection or

adjustment 40,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 € 10,000 €

150,000

€ 38,000 €

38,000

€ 100,000 €

Electro-technical

infrastructure 5,000 € 15,000 € 14,500 € 36,000 € 14,000 € 10,000 € 7,000 €

4,500

€ 8,000 €

6,000

€ 4,000 €

Project management 55,000 € 21,000 € 15,000 € 65,000 € 48,000 € 24,000 € 18,000 €

84,000

€ 26,000 €

26,000

€ 45,000 €

Construction total cost 220,000 € 83,500 € 57,500 € 261,000 € 192,000 € 94,000 € 70,000 €

338,500

€ 104,000 €

102,500

€ 181,000 €

PURCHASE PRICE CALCULATION - NEW METHODOLOGY (introduced on 2nd of December 2009)

EUR/MWh 106.9 114.41 114.41 106.9 106.9 114.41 114.41 106.9 114.41 114.41 114.41

EUR/year 91848 22609 4915 174512 94604 51117 14057 64294 17694 9830 15728

investment return [years] 2 4 12 1 2 2 5 5 6 10 12

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

� Some of the localities provide easy and very effective options for small hydro power plants placement with a very short repayment time (Berane, Rožaje). Some need replacement of water supply conduits to provide relatively high performance (Mojkovac, Andrijevica, Gusinje, Murino). In some of the cases there can be profitably united the need of conduit reconstruction with a secondary increase in power potential (Andrijevica, Gusinje, Murino) and sometimes there can be designed a joint solution to ensure a sufficient water supply source with gaining a power potential (Plav).

� All the assessed municipalities are suitable for further hydropower project development. As the technology is benefitting from already installed capacities the construction actions are mostly limited to the installation of power generators and accessories only. Therefore social and environmental impacts are negligible. On the other hand on national level the topic represents a big potential for domestic municipalities, research and private sector as the concerned pilot localities are well comparable to many other municipalities in Montenegro, where this technology can be implemented.

Dissemination

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTIONTHANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION

ODA Trust Fund of the Czech Republic to the EBRD

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

One Exchange Square, London EC2A 2JN

United Kingdom

VODNÍ ZDROJE, a.s.

Jindřicha Plachty 535/16

Prague 5 - 15000

Czech Republic

TOMÁŠ HÁJEK - DANIEL KAHUDA –MENSUR HAMZIĆ

VODNÍZDROJE, a.s. - OBNOVLJIVI IZVORI ENERGIJE - … 2010/Prefeasibili… · ·...

Documents

Transcript of VODNÍZDROJE, a.s. - OBNOVLJIVI IZVORI ENERGIJE - … 2010/Prefeasibili… · ·...