page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16
page 17
page 18
page 19
page 20
page 21
page 22
page 23
page 24
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
page 32
page 33
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
page 39
page 40
page 41
page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98 page 99
page 100
page 101
page 102
page 103
page 104
page 105
page 106
page 107
page 108
page 109
page 110
page 111
page 112
page 113
page 114
page 115
page 116
page 117
page 118
page 119
page 120
page 121
page 122
page 123
page 124
page 125
page 126
page 127
page 128
page 129
page 130
page 131
page 132
page 133
page 134
page 135
page 136
page 137
page 138
page 139
page 140
page 141
page 142
page 143
page 144
page 145
page 146
page 147
page 148
page 149
page 150
page 151
page 152
page 153
page 154
page 155
page 156
page 157
page 158
page 159
page 160
page 161
page 162
page 163
page 164
page 165
page 166
page 167
page 168
page 169
page 170
page 171
page 172
page 173
page 174
page 175
page 176
page 177
page 178
page 179
page 180
page 181
page 182
page 183
page 184
page 185
< prev - next > Energy Hydro power civil_works_guidelines_for_micro_hydro (Printable PDF)
96 CIVIL WORKS GUIDELINES FOR MICRO-HYDROPOWER IN NEPAL
for θ = 2°, Kbend = 0.02
for θ = 3°, Kbend = 0.02
for θ = 12°, Kbend = 0.06
for θ = 8° , Kbend = 0.04
for θ = 3° , Kbend = 0.02
Bend losses = (0.34 + 0.11+ 0.13 + 0.18 + 0.20 + 0.02 + 0.02 + 0.06 + 0.04 + 0.02) x(3.52 / 2g) = 0.70 m
Total head loss = 12.29 m + 0.12 m + 0.70 m = 13.11m
% head loss = (13.11 / 180) x 100% = 7.28%,
Since the head loss is between 5% to 10%, in case of micro-hydropower plant, this could have been accepted. However, since this
is a mini-hydropower plant (500kW installed capacity), a 450mm diameter was adopted which gives a head loss of 7.61m (4.2%)
based on 'optimisation' which is explained below:
The power gained by increasing the pipe diameter from 405 mm to 450 mm at a conservative
60% efficiency =(12.69 -7.38) x 0.450x9.81x0.6
= 14.1 kW
Annual energy gained assuming an overall plant factor of 40%
= 14.1 x 24 x 364 x 0.4
= 49,271 kWh
Expected annual incremental income at Rs 4.0 per kWh of electricity generated
= Rs. 197,084
Note: The Jhankre power plant was initially implemented to provide partial construction power at the intake site for the then under
construction 60 MW Khimti Small hydropower plant. The alternative source of energy was diesel that had a cost of generation of
Rs 4.0 per kWh.
Now the question is, “Is this gain of Rs 197,084 worth the increase in pipe diameter?
The next step is to calculate the Net Present Value of Benefits and compare it with the incremental costs.
NPV of Benefits assuing:
- discount rate i = 10%,
- Economic live, n = 15 years
- Annual income, A = Rs. 197,084
The equation for calculating NPV is: NPV benefit = A
Or NPV benefits = Rs.1,499,336
(1+i)n-1
i(1+i)n
Now the incremental cost in increasing the pipe diameter should be considered:
Assume average pipe thickness = 4.5 mm:
Additional weight (recall pipe length = 550 m)
= P(0.450 –0.405)x4.5 x7.85x550= 2747 kg
Note: A 1 m2 with 1 mm thickness steel plate weighs 7.85 kg and thus 4.5 is multiplied by 7.85 above to calculate the weight
AT Rs 200/kg market price including fabrication transport, site welding & installation the
NPV costs = NRs. 200/kg x 2747 kg = NRs 549,400
Thus, the NPV of incremental costs in increasing the pipe diameter is 36% of NPV of benefit which justifies the decision to adopt
450 mm diameter. However, the following should be noted:
1. Increasing the diameter also somewhat increases the transport and installation costs. The anchor blocks volume would also
increase. As these factors have not been taken into account, if the NPV of costs were close to NPV of benefits it would not have
been worth increasing the pipe diameter. However, at NPV costs = 36% of NPV benefits the decision is well justified as
differences are high