Upload
buidang
View
218
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 134 M
Relevant flow rate*** Q = 110 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 6,14 M
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H
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
LOKALITETLOCALITYLOKALITA
ALTIMETRIJSKIHALTIMETRYVYSKOPIS
ANDRIJEVICARelativna - 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
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
LOKALITETLOCALITYLOKALITA
ALTIMETRIJSKIHALTIMETRYVYSKOPIS
BERANERelativna - 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
DN 4001500m
963
799
Hd
=10
8mH
s=
164
m
DN 3002000m
DN 2252000m
5500m
213 L/s
BERANE – hydraulic comparison
Pipeline lenght L = 5500 M
Pipeline diameter DN =
400
300
225
mm
Altitude of water inlet H1
= 963 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 164 M
Relevant flow rate Q = 213 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 56 M
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H
s-Z
t= 157 M
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 190 kW
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
LOKALITETLOCALITYLOKALITA
ALTIMETRIJSKIHALTIMETRYVYSKOPIS
ROZAJERelativna - 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
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 lenght L = 6430 M
Pipeline diameter DN = 250,300 mm
Altitude of water inlet H1
= 1244 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 190 m
Relevant flow rate Q = 100 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 43 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H
s-Z
t= 147 m
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 103 kW
Pipeline lenght L = 9000 m
Pipeline diameter DN = 300 mm
Altitude of water inlet H1
= 1244 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 74 m
Relevant flow rate Q = 170 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 30 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H
s-Z
t= 44 m
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 52 kW
Pipeline lenght L = 2570 m
Pipeline diameter DN = 300 mm
Altitude of water inlet (reservoir) H1
= 1170 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 70 m
Relevant flow rate (approximate) Q = 30 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt
= 2 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H
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
LOKALITETLOCALITYLOKALITA
ALTIMETRIJSKIHALTIMETRYVYSKOPIS
GUSINJERelativna - 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
1194
1000
Hd
=18
0mH
s=
194m
2800mDN300
56 L/s
HIGHPRESSURE!!!
GUSINJE – hydraulic comparison
Pipeline lenght L = 2800 m
Pipeline diameter DN = 300 mm
Altitude of water inlet H1
= 1194 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 194 m
Relevant flow rate Q = 56 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 14 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H
s-Z
t= 180 m
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 70 kW
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
LOKALITETLOCALITYLOKALITA
ALTIMETRIJSKIHALTIMETRYVYSKOPIS
PLAVRelativna - 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
1100
991
Hd
=4
3mH
s=
55m
6000mDN300
30 - 60 L/s
1046
Hd
=51
mH
s=
54m
OLDWELLS
NEWWATERSOURCE
1500mDN300
Pipeline lenght L = 6000 m
Pipeline diameter DN = 300 mm
Altitude of water inlet H1 = 1046 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs = 55 m
Relevant flow rate Q = 60 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt = 12 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=Hs-Zt = 43 m
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 18 kW
Pipeline lenght L = 1500 m
Pipeline diameter DN = 300 mm
Altitude of water inlet (new water source) H1
= 1100 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 54 m
Relevant flow rate Q = 30 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 3 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) Hd=H
s-Z
t= 51 m
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 10 kW
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
LOKALITETLOCALITYLOKALITA
ALTIMETRIJSKIHALTIMETRYVYSKOPIS
MURINORelativna - 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
2700 m
ENERGY LINE WITHD110mm PIPELINE.SUCTION SYSTEMAND ZEROHYDROENERG.POTENTIAL
ENERGY LINE WITHDN200mm PIPELINE.
Hd
=98
mH
s=
105m
MURINO – hydraulic comparison
Pipeline lenght L = 2700 m
Pipeline diameter DN = 110 mm
Altitude of water inlet H1
= 1005 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 105 m
Relevant flow rate Q = 23 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 131 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) – SUCTION!!!! Hd=H
s-Z
t= -26 m
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = ZERO kW
Pipeline lenght L = 2700 m
Pipeline diameter DN = 200 mm
Altitude of water inlet H1
= 1005 m a.s.l.
Relevant geodetic height (hydrostatic pressure) Hs
= 105 m
Relevant flow rate Q = 23 l/s
Computed head looses* Zt= 6,5 m
Usable pressure (hydrodynamic pressure) – SUCTION!!!! Hd=H
s-Z
t= 98 m
Approximate hydropower potential** Pg= 0,007*Hd*Q = 16 kW
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