Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………… 4
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………. 6
2. REPORT STRUCTURE…………………………………………………….. 6
3. SITE DESCRIPTION………………………………………………………… 6
5. SYSTEM DESIGN……………………………………………………………. 11
Civil Works
Electro-mechanical Equipment
Grid Connection
6. SYSTEM OPTIONS…………………………………………………………. 13
Methodology
Summary of Turbine Options
Optimising the system
Turbine Choice
Pre-fabricated options
7. COSTS v. REVENUE…………………………………………………………19
Revenue
System Costs
Errors
How payback period may be reduced
8. CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………… 24
9. RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………… 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
Photo 1 – Typical section of stream with natural cascades and underlying bedrock
Photo 2 – Single Phase and three phase grid connection near to proposed site
The site proposed by the Client for the possible development of a hydro scheme, to
generate annual cash revenue through sales of energy to the National Grid, is attractive
from the very outset. This is due to the Client’s ownership of the land adjacent to the
stream, the good vehicle access via a parallel gravel track and through the close
proximity of a grid connection.
The attractiveness of the potential scheme is further enhanced after a brief desk study
and site investigation reveals:
The characteristics and topography of the site would suit a run-of-the river scheme. This
would comprise several structures that divert water from the main stream (while
maintaining a compensation flow), remove any debris, convey water to the turbine, and
return water back to the stream. The engineering works would include: intake and weir,
forebay structure with debris screen, penstock pipe and the powerhouse containing a
turbine, generator and control systems. Finally a tailrace that returns the diverted flow to
the stream.
To export the power generated to the local grid – an inverter will convert the DC to AC
current, and a buried/overhead cable connection will convey the energy to the grid.
Based on the measured head, distance between intake and powerhouse, annual
variations in flow and the choice of penstock pipe – it is possible to generate a matrix of
power and energy outputs. As the Client wants to maximize annual revenue we can then
optimum to suit this governing criterion.
Turbine choice can be assisted by considering that the stream discharges approximately
80% of its annual volume during a 4 month ‘spatey’ period. Therefore it is easy to see
that for maximum energy output - high efficiency turbines are preferable over turbines
that maintain output over a large range of flow.
These costs and revenues represent an idea of the scale and time duration of the
investment. In the detail design stage, these will be firmed up as more accurate data on
flow variations and construction costs is collected.
A number of ways in which the cost/revenue situation could be improved have been
suggested including – specifying cheaper materials and equipment, client labour force
used to undertake some of the work, scheduling of maintenance in summer, limit output
to avoid potential grid connection cost issues, use of recycled materials or materials from
other CAT sites, use students and volunteers from nearby CAT to design, install and
supervise works.
If the Client decides to proceed with the project, then flow monitoring should begin
immediately. EA, DNO and adjacent landowners should also be contacted at first
opportunity, to identify any potential issues.
The result should be that the Client has enough information on which to base a
decision whether to develop a micro hydro scheme.
2. REPORT STRUCTURE
The report starts by presenting the results of an initial desk study and site visit
carried out by the Consultant. The purpose of this first assessment was to decide
quickly whether it was worth proceeding to the more in depth pre-feasibility study i.e.
if there were any technical or policy constraints which could fundamentally affect the
viability of the scheme.
The next section looks in detail at the physical characteristics of the site, particularly
its hydrology and topography - important in determining the available flow and head
for the future scheme as they are the key parameters for calculating potential energy
output. Any likely abstraction limitations set by the local planning authorities will be
considered here.
Having defined the site - the report will go on to describe the structural components
of a micro-hydro scheme and look at various options based on different turbines
types and other system components. Each of these options will be analysed to
produce estimated annual revenue. Costs will then be estimated by considering
capital outlay for installation as well as the anticipated running costs.
This information will be presented as a table of cost v revenue for each option – that
will show the scale of required investment and the approximate payback period.
The report will finish by recommending the next steps in the development of the
scheme.
The section of stream between the proposed intake and powerhouse varies in width
between 1.5 – 3 m and ‘funnels’ through the forest 2 – 5 m below the level of the
access tracks. The length of this section is about 200m and the fall about 10m. There
are a number of natural rock cascades (see photo1) which reveal solid underlying
bedrock. The SW side of the stream is generally steeper sided, however along much
of it there is a natural shelf which could be used to support the future penstock.
Ownership of the project site is on the SW side by the Client and NE side by the
Forestry Commission.
Access to the site is via forestry track which runs on both sides along the entire
section proposed for the scheme. A National Grid overhead power supply cable is
located along the A487 about 200-300m below the proposed powerhouse location.
Assuming design flow is 50% annual mean, the power output would be 10kW. On
this basis as well as the favourable access and grid connection - the Consultant
has recommended that the Client proceed to a pre-feasibility study.
Environmental
The stream runs through land in the SW corner of the Dyfi Forest. The flora is
typically pines, other trees, ferns, lichens and mosses (see photo 1). The land is
managed on both sides by the forestry commission for timber production. The stream
is fast flowing and emanates from run off 3km upstream, and does not seem to have
any significant aquatic fauna. All in all the section of stream appear to be of low
ecological value and therefore unlikely to produce any significant issue in an
Environmental Assessment, beyond the standard requirement of maintaining a base
flow throughout the year.
1
Hydra is a flow modeling software from CEH Wallingford.
Forestry
Commission Land
Proposed
Intake
Penstock
Client’s
Powerhouse Single Phase
Land
G id C
Grid Connection
ti
Site
Access
3 – Phase
Grid Connection
Photo 2 – Single Phase and three phase grid connection near to proposed site
Based on these results, a static head = 10.2m will be used for the initial design.
Having compared the data available, in particular the methodology and correlation
with Hydra, Low Flow data was selected as the basis of the energy output analysis
(see Appendix A2).
Note: Q95 – the flow that the EA will likely require to be kept in the stream for
ecological and aesthetic reasons.
2
http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/webdata/064001/g.html
For this project the most appropriate system would be for a penstock only – fed by
an intake/diversion structure and piping water directly to the powerhouse.
• Intake and weir – controls the amount of water taken from the stream
• Forebay structure and screen – removes debris and delivers water to the
penstock
• Penstock – pipe that conveys water to the turbine. Needs to be able to
withstand the pressure of the water plus an allowance for ‘surge’ pressure.
• Powerhouse – contains the turbine, generator and control systems
• Tailrace – returns the water to the river
Source: http://www.energyhimalaya.com/sources/images/
Turbine types are discussed in section 6.4. Generators can be either the more
expensive synchronous type or for small systems the cheaper asynchronous or
induction type.
The powerhouse will also contain electrical wiring, a control system, and potentially
an inverter (see next section) and transformer to match the electricity output to the
frequency and voltage of the grid.
If a synchronous generator is used a grid tie inverters (or synchronous inverters) will
need to be included to convert DC to AC current and synchronise output allowing it
to feed into the grid. If an inductor generator is specified (more likely) then either an
electronic soft start or mechanical drive will be required to get the generator up to
synchronization speed and then a DC-AC inverter to allow a connection.
Before the initial connection, assuming the system output is below 16A/phase3, an
approval process will need to be undertaken by the DNO to check it conforms to the
G83/1 Regulations.
3
Equivalent to approximately 11kW output for 400V 3-Phase generator.
Table 3 sets out the advantages and disadvantages at the extremes of each site’s
potential generation range.
For this project the Client has stated that the intention is to sell all the energy
produced to the local grid to gain as much cash revenue as possible. Therefore the
governing factor for turbine sizing will be:
6.1 Methodology
The selection of the correct turbine size is carried out using an iterative process (see
fig 2) that calculates power (kW) output and the corresponding energy outputs (kWh)
for a range of design flows.
The scope of the analysis is expanded by considering different pipe diameters (D) for
particular flows. Varying D will change the working head, H, driving the design flow –
thereby changing the power and energy output. The result is a matrix of maximum
turbine power output, annual energy production and pipe diameter which enables
revenue and system costs to be estimated thus allowing the cost-benefits of different
systems to be compared (see Appendix C).
4
Capacity Factor = [Energy Generated/yr (kWh/yr)]/[Installed Capacity (kW) x 8760]
“ for a good return on investment on micro-hydro systems aim for a capacity factor (CF)
of 50 – 70%”
5
Pg. 10 Mini Hydro Guide, BHA
Table 5 – Power, annual energy output, penstock diameters and design flows
Design
Flow
100% 75% 50% 33%
(%
Qmean)
Pipe Max Annual Max Annual Max Annual Max Annual
Diameter Power Output Power Output Power Output Power Output
(mm) (kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh) (kW) (kWh)
Notes:
1. An abstraction regime limited turbine flow to 50% above Q95. This is more rigorous,
than typical limits of 25% to ADF, and 50% above ADF.
2. The pipe diameters selected were those sizes commonly available from pipe suppliers
3. Assumed partial flow efficiency – 75% - in later calculations this is further refined to
match established performance curves.
35000
Annual Energy (kWh)
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Flow (cumecs)
Power v Flow
16
Power (kW)
14
12
10
9.5kW
8.7kW 8
5.8kW
3.9kW
6
4
2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Flow (cumecs)
An interesting and useful result from this optimization stage is that in most cases, as
annual energy output reaches its maximum value, peak power output has reduced. The
corollary of this is a smaller turbine (less cost) and larger output (more revenue).
The precise selection of turbine within the overall design is an important step to realizing
the optimum potential from the scheme. To assist in this process graphical tools can be
used such as the performance envelope (see Appendix E); or a conceptual quantity
called ‘specific speed’, Ns , that is a function of turbine shaft speed (RPM), power output
and head:
Table 7 – Specific Speeds including approx. runner diameter for impulse turbines
Shaft Speed (RPM)
Pipe Diameter
(mm) 400 600 800 1000 1500
Approx. Runner
280 186 140 112 75
Diameter (mm)
The results suggest either a Francis or Crossflow turbine, however there are significant
overlaps between different turbine types and therefore other factors need to be
considered to refine the choice, such as:
• Cost
• Availability
• Flow variability
• Performance of turbine at variable flow rates
If we apply the efficiencies from the efficiency v. flow graphs (appendix F) to the design
data for the optimum conditions (table 6), we can compare outputs from Francis and
Cross Flow turbines:
As water flow corresponds to power (kW) and volume discharged corresponds to energy
output (kWh), then knowing that our stream discharges approximately 80% of its annual
volume during a 4 month ‘spatey’ (high flow) period of the year – it is easy to see that for
maximum energy output - high efficiency at higher flow is more important than
maintaining output at lower flows.
• Flexible application
• Rapid assembly
• Simple installation
• Lower construction costs
• Reduced O and M costs
These are fairly innovative systems, which in the case of Toshiba may still not be
competitive in the European market as they are only assembled in Japan. However if
demand in Europe continues to increase, it may mean that these systems become viable
when the project reaches detail design stage.
6
http://www.tic.toshiba.com.au/product_brochures_and_reference_lists/ekids.pdf
7
http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine/
FITs oblige utility companies to pay a premium rate set by the government, for each
kWh produced by RE systems. The rate is significantly above the market rate for
conventional power generation (see Appendix D – for provisional rates). The effect
on potential revenues for a range of annual kWh outputs is set out in Table 9 based
on a FIT rate of 17p/kWh compared to the existing ROC system that pays 2 ROCs
for every MWh of electricity. ROCs currently sell at about £45/ROC (ref:
http://www.nfpa.co.uk/ auctionprices.html). At these rates the potential increase in
revenue amounts to 53%.
If we apply FIT to Table 6, we can generate a table of annual revenue for our
optimum conditions:
Assumptions
1. 4% reduction on final output for breakdown or maintenance days
2. Turbine efficiency at peak output – 90% Francis; 80% Cross flow
3. Partial flow efficiencies – see table in Appendix G
8
Renewable Obligation Certificate
• Capital costs
• Running Costs
• Annual revenue
At the pre-feasibility stage it is difficult to ascribe precise costs to all elements of the
design and operation. However it is possible to start building up a first estimate - by
costing some key items accurately, comparing to similar completed projects and
using established industry guidelines. This will at least enable options to be
compared and the scale of required investment to be understood:
%
CAPITAL Capital
C1 Planning Design £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £5,000
C2 Management and Finance £1,500 £1,500 £1,500 £1,500
C3 215m pressure water pipe £15,171 £23,753 £30,506 £38,246
C4 Other Civil Works £8,000 £8,000 £10,000 £10,000
C5 Electro- Mechanical £4,152 £6,886 £9,006 £9,781
C6 Distribution of Electricity £4,000 £4,000 £4,000 £4,000
C7 Contingency 10% £3,782 £4,914 £6,001 £6,853
£41,605 £54,053 £66,013 £75,379
RUNNING
R1 Insurance 0.5% £208.02 £270.27 £330.07 £376.90
R2 Annual Inspection Fixed £150.00 £150.00 £150.00 £150.00
R3 Maintenance Fixed £300.00 £300.00 £300.00 £300.00
R4 Rates 0.4% £166.42 £216.21 £264.05 £301.52
R5 Administration Fixed £55.00 £55.00 £55.00 £55.00
Cost per year £879 £991 £1,099 £1,183
REVENUE
Expected annual revenue £4,164 £5,321 £6,091 £6,640.87
Less Running Costs £3,285 £4,330 £4,992 £5,457
By way of validating our estimates – the Consultant is aware of a similar (9.5 kW)
scheme9 in Northern Ireland on a site which had particular special structural cost
issues that cost £78, 000 to install and commission.
If time and scale is acceptable to the Client, then the next project stage should
include a more sophisticated analysis that incorporates accurate costs based on
actual quotations and measured drawings as well as the application of discount and
bank interest rates. Table 9 shows the kind of data that may be considered in such
an analysis.
9
Designed and constructed by NewMills Hydro, Carrickfergus, N.I. Cost and size of scheme provided by
Managing Director of New Mills Terry MacGuire during phone conversation on Fri 27th Nov.
For each data set a different optimum flow and overall energy output is returned:
Figure 4 – Energy Output v Flow from Hydra and Low Flow Data
30000
25000
400mm
20000
15000
10000
250mm
5000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Flow (cumecs)
400mm 250mm 400mm Hydra 250mm Hydra
This result is more surprising if one considers the overall volume discharged from the
Hydra model is 0.11% less than the Low Flow model i.e. less potential energy is
Pipe Length
The pipe length was estimated using a distance measuring wheel along the
proposed penstock route which is steep, forested and difficult to access.
Pipe costs are significant in the overall costing of the project (250mm - £70/m;
400mm - £180/m), so establishing accurately the length of pipe will be an important
part of the next design stage.
• Pipe costs based on information available at this time. Cheaper pipes may be
available.
• As land is private with no vehicle loading, penstock pipe could be laid partly
above ground thereby reducing excavation/backfilling costs.
• If plant and labour is available Client can potentially undertake following
works (with supervision): intake works, installation of penstock pipe,
construction of powerhouse and tailrace
• Calculations include 4% downtime for maintenance i.e. 15 days. If
maintenance is carried out in low flow period this will have only small effect
on energy output.
• Limit output to ~3.7kW (Single phase) and ~11 kW (3 phase) i.e. less than
16A/phase, thereby avoid potential grid connection cost issues.
• Specification of inductor generator over synchronous generator – will be
cheaper and will not require expensive grid tie inverter
• Use of recycled materials or materials from other CAT sites
• Use students and volunteers from nearby CAT to design, install and
supervise works.
The estimate of potential revenue from electricity sales against estimated costs
for four different systems suggests a payback period of 12.5 – 14 years for an
investment between £40,000 - 80, 0000. This does not include an allowance for
discount rates.
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to develop the scheme further the following actions are recommended:
• Start collecting accurate flow data. If a measuring weir is used, this can
be incorporated into final design of intake works
• Determine size of investment available
• Think clearly how you would like energy to be used in the future – if
eventually energy is to be used on site this will effect the final design
• Contact Environmental Agency to establish any potential ecological
constraints
• Contact DNO to advise of plans
• Contact Forestry Commission
3. DTI, 1999 - New and Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st
Century: Supporting Analysis, - http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file21102.pdf
A1 -Levels
UP SURVEY DOWN SURVEY
Forward Back Height Forward Back Height
3.98 0.1825 3.7975 2.91 0.31 2.6
3.8375 0.1375 3.7 3.51 0.325 3.185
3.702 0.375 3.327 1.2325 3.842 ‐2.6095
3.925 0.55 3.375 0.0325 3.98 ‐3.9475
3.315 1.415 1.9 0.0325 3.918 ‐3.8855
0.125 3.715 ‐3.59 0.17 2.8275 ‐2.6575
0.735 2.91 ‐2.175 1.26 2.77 ‐1.51
1.328 2.814 ‐1.486
TOTAL 10.3345 10.311
Low Flow Hydra
% %
Flow m3/s Volume m3 Flow m3/s Volume m3
Exceedance Exceedance
‐ ‐ 2.0% 0.8 504576
‐ ‐ 3.0% 0.7 220752
5% 0.666 1050149 5.0% 0.58 365818
10% 0.466 734789 10.1% 0.41 659418
‐ ‐ 15.0% 0.33 509937
20% 0.287 905083 20.0% 0.26 409968
30% 0.202 637027 29.1% 0.2 573955
40% 0.149 469886 39.7% 0.15 501422
50% 0.114 359510 50.0% 0.11 357303
60% 0.087 274363 60.3% 0.09 292339
70% 0.065 204984 70.9% 0.07 233997
80% 0.045 141912 80.0% 0.05 143489
90% 0.03 94608 89.9% 0.03 93662
95% 0.023 36266 95.0% 0.02 32167
‐ ‐ 97.0% 0.02 12614
‐ ‐ 98.0% 0.02 6307
99% 0.014 17660 99.0% 0.01 3154
Total 4926239 Total 4920877
Difference ‐0.11%
0.75 x Qmean
Flow ‐ Q95 50% above Turbine Flow Compensation Power Output Power output
% Exceedance Flow m3/s (m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
0.5 x Qmean
Flow ‐ Q95 Turbine Flow Compensation Power Output Power output
% Exceedance Flow m3/s (m3/sec) 50% above Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
0.5 x Qmean
Flow ‐ Q95 Turbine Flow Compensation Power Output Power output
% Exceedance Flow m3/s (m3/sec) 50% above Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
Q mean
Flow ‐ Q95 50% above Turbine Flow Compensation Power Output Power output
% Exceedance Flow m3/s
(m3/sec) Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
Q mean
Q mean
0.5 x Qmean
Flow ‐ Q95 Turbine Flow Compensation Power Output Power output
% Exceedance Flow m3/s (m3/sec) 50% above Q95 (cumecs) Flow (cumecs) (kW) (kWh)
Q mean
Source: http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine/