Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect

Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366

www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Tmrees, EURACA, 13 to 16 April 2020, Athens, Greece

Solar Energy Application in Drainage Pumping Stations to Save

Water and Reducing CO2 Emission
Nadia M. Eshra ∗, Mariam G. Salem
Hydropower Unit, Nile Research Institute (NRI), National Water Research Center (NWRC), El-Qanater El-Khairiya, Egypt
Non-Conventional Water Resources Department, Environment &Climate Change Research Institute (ECRI), National Water Research Center,
(NWRC), El-Qanater El-Khairiya, Egypt
Received 5 August 2020; accepted 31 August 2020

Abstract
Freshwater resources in Egypt are very limited. Additionally, drains are important unconventional water resources. The
objectives of this paper are divided into two goals. The first goal is to save freshwater by reducing the evaporation from
the drainage channels. Secondly, to reduce the CO2 emission by replacing the traditional fuel of the drainage’s pump station
by renewable energy. Many drainage pumps in Egypt are old and cause CO2 emission that is estimated by tons. Solar cell
power represents the alternative fuel resource for these drainage pumps, it also reduces the emissions. The pump station on the
Algharak drain in Egypt was studied as a sample for the drainage systems. Climate data such as solar irradiation, evaporation,
air temperature, specific humidity, and wind speed were collected. The pump station data such as pump discharge, number
of units, and the head were collected. Two scenarios of the pumping operation of the pump stations on Algharak drain were
studied. In each scenario, the solar pumping power, area of solar cells, evaporation loss, and the value of reduction of CO2
were estimated. The results of this research could be used all over Egypt to help save a number of unconventional water
resources.
⃝c 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Tmrees, EURACA, 13 to 16 April 2020.

Keywords: Drainage in Egypt; Renewable energy; Solar pumping; Non-conventional water; Climate change

1. Introduction
The world these days is suffering from a shortage in freshwater resources. Water demand all over the world
is increasing because of population growth, industry, agriculture, and tourism development. Freshwater resources
are considered a cause of war in the Middle-East. To avoid these wars, countries must start searching for ways
to optimize available conventional water resources and get the maximum benefit from the unconventional water
resources, Beithou [1]. Egypt is the largest Middle-Eastern country in terms of population. So the biggest challenge
is ensuring the conservation of freshwater and other water resources; conventional and non-conventional. In Egypt,
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nadiaeshra@gmail.com (N.M. Eshra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.08.056
2352-4847/⃝ c 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Tmrees, EURACA, 13 to 16 April 2020.
 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366 355

agricultural land represents about 4% of the total land area of the country. It is one of the most intensively cultivated
lands in the world with diversified crop patterns. The River Nile and the interventions made on the river since the
end of the 19th century have greatly contributed in regulating its natural flow by building dams, diversion canals
and irrigation systems. Waterlogging and salt accumulation occurred due to the rise of the groundwater level. Open
main drains were excavated to remove excess water from the irrigated lands but were not efficient until the drainage
was improved. In an arid country like Egypt, drainage is a necessary measure for the protection and sustainability of
agricultural productivity, NDP [2]. Referring to some studies, the agriculture drainage network returns are estimated
by 4.5 BCM/year, Ashour et al. [3]. This is considered an important value for developing a country such as Egypt.
Irrigation drainage networks contain around 33 pump stations. The status of these pumps is very old where their
commission dates ranged between 1953 and 1986, while the most recent were commissioned in 1998, El Sersawy
et al. [4]. They consumed a huge amount of traditional fuel which lead to emissions of CO2 and caused negative
impacts on the environment. Also, part of the drainage water evaporated because of the open channel drainages.
Covering the surfaces of the drains with a solar cell helps in generating clean energy and operating these pumps.
This is considered an effective solution to reduce emissions and also to reduce the evaporation loss from drains.
This research introduces a new approach to save an amount of fresh water from the unconventional water
resources in the drainage open channels. It depends on reducing the evaporation and in addition takes part in
reducing the air pollution by reducing the CO2 emission, as the pump station in the drainage will be replaced by a
solar cell.

2. Methodology
Four modules were carried out in the methodology of the study. First, we selected the study area and downloaded
climate data. We collected data for the pump stations and drainage network. Second, we calculated the consumed
fuel and power by the pump stations and estimated the amount of CO2 emission. Third, we calculated the solar
energy required for replacing the traditional fuel and estimated the solar cells area. Fourth, we determined the
evaporation from the drainage and compared the different alternatives of operation scenarios. Fig. 1 shows the
methodology flow chart.

Fig. 1. Methodology flow chart.

2.1. Study Area Description

The studied area extended from longitude 30◦ 34’1.2”E to 30◦ 43’19.2”E and latitude 29◦ 8’6”N to 29◦ 14’16.8”N.
This studied area is located south of the Fayoum depression on the west of the River Nile. Most of the studied
area is agricultural land. These agricultural lands discharge its drainage water into a small drain. Then, these small
drains discharge directly into Algharak drain for an extended length of about 20 (km). There are three pumping
stations constructed on Algharak drain known as Algharak Alsoltani 1, 2 and 3 respectively. These pump stations
lift drainage water from Algharak drain. Fig. 2 shows the locations of the three pumping stations.
356 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366

Fig. 2. Algharak drain pump stations 1, 2, and 3.

2.1.1. Download Climate Data

The climate and weather data were studied using the Global Solar Atlas [5] and NOAA surface flux [6]. The
data included: daily global horizontal irradiation (kWh/m2 /day), annual global horizontal irradiation (kWh/m2 /year),
photovoltaic power output (kwh/kwp/day), mean air temperature (◦ K), mean specific humidity (kg/kg), mean
horizontal wind speed (m/s), and mean vertical wind speed (m/s). Figs. 3–5 show the digital elevation model, solar
irradiation, and photovoltaic power along Algharak drain terrain. For sea level, the elevations along the drain were
significantly different which viewed the need for the three lifting pump station. El-Gharaq drainage passing through
the elevation at the first Algharak Alsoltani pump – station 1 – is the lowest at about 1 (m). The second Algharak
Alsoltani pump – station 2 – is higher at about 2 (m). The third Algharak Alsoltani pump – station 3 – is the highest
and is around five times as high as the second pump station at about 10 (m). Obviously, the Algharak drain must
have pumping stations to elevate its water. There was a slight difference in the daily global horizontal irradiation in
all the three pump stations at values of 5.904, 5.949 and 5.952 (kwh/m2 /day) respectively. Furthermore, the yearly
global horizontal irradiations were 2156, 2173 and 2174 (Kwh/m2 /year) respectively. Moreover, photovoltaic power
outputs were 4.989, 5.034 and 5.037 (kwh/kwp/day) respectively.

Fig. 3. Global horizontal irradiation (kwh/m2 /day), base map after Global Solar Atlas [5].
 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366 357

Fig. 4. Global horizontal irradiation (kwh/m2 /year), base map after Global Solar Atlas [5].

Fig. 5. Photovoltaic power output (kwh/kwp/day), base map after Global Solar Atlas [5].
358 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366

Clearly, the geographic locations of the three pump stations have potentially high solar irradiations and thus high
photovoltaic power.
The weather data was downloaded from NOAA surface flux as mean data for the year 2018 shown in Figs. 6–9.
There were no differences between the mean weather data between the three stations. The mean air temperature
was 22.2 (◦ C), the mean specific humidity was 7.1 (g/kg), the mean horizontal wind speed was 0.2425 (m/s) and
the mean vertical wind speed was −1.825 (m/s). The weather data was used to estimate evaporation from the drain.

Fig. 6. Mean air temperature (◦ K), base map after NOAA surface flux [6].

Fig. 7. Mean specific humidity (kg/kg); base map after NOAA surface flux [6].

The mean wind speed was estimated according to Eq. (1).

√
ν = U 2 + V 2 , (m/s) (1)
Where :
U : Mean horizontal wind speed, (m/s)
V : Mean vertical wind speed, (m/s)
ν : Mean wind speed, (m/s)
 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366 359

Fig. 8. Mean horizontal wind speed (m/s), base map after NOAA surface flux [6].

Fig. 9. Mean vertical wind speed (m/s), base map after NOAA surface flux [6].

2.1.2. Pump Stations Data

There are three pumping stations along the Algharak drain and every station has four pumping units. Table 1
shows the amount of discharge and the static head of the pump stations. Table 1 also shows the stream suction and
expulsion.

Table 1. Pumps station data of Algharak drain.

No. Name
1 Algharak Alsoltani 1
2 Algharak Alsoltani 2
3 Algharak Alsoltani 3
The stream No of Units Discharge (m3 /s) Static head (m)
Suction Expulsion
Algharak Alsoltani 1 Algharak Drainage 4 1 4
Algharak Alsoltani 2 Algharak Drainage 4 1.8 6.5
Algharak Alsoltani 3 Algharak Drainage 4 2.1 6.95
360 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366

2.2. Calculation of the consumed power, fuel and CO2 emissions by pump stations

Pump stations use two sources of electrical power: generators or the electrification of the grid. Generators operate
by diesel which is a high environment pollutant. The grid operates on natural gas, which is less polluting compared
to diesel, but there is still a fair percentage of pollution.

2.2.1. Calculation of the consumed fuel and power by the drainage pump stations
Two alternatives can be used to operate the drainage pump station considering the number of daily operational
hours is 8 h. The first alternative is operating by traditional fuel (fossil fuel). The second alternative is operating by
electricity directly from the grid. The thermal power stations which represent around 92% of the electrification of
the grid use petroleum derivatives or coal. With the two options, CO2 is emitted with different percentages, Eshra
[7].
• The first alternative: the operation depends on the traditional fuel; the power is generated through fossil fuel
(Diesel). The electric power consumed by the pump station was calculated using the global equation for power in
two forms (kW) and (Hp), Engineering toolbox:
QHγ
P= , (kw) (2)
102η

QHγ
P= , (Hp) (3)
75η
Where :
H : The differential head calculated from suction and expulsion of pump, (m)
P : The consumed power in pumps, (kw or Hp)
Q : The pump discharge, (m3 /s)
η : The pump efficiency, (-)
γ : The water density, (1000 kg/m3 )
As the drainage pump stations used were very old, their efficiency ranged between 30% to 40%. The consumed
fuel can be calculated using the following functions considering that the efficiency is 40%. Eqs. (4)–(6) according
to Eshra [7]:
mf = Vρ, (kg/s) (4)
Where :
mf : The weight of consumed fuel, (kg/s)
V : The volume of liquid (diesel, petroleum), (m3 /s)
ρ : The specific weight of liquid, (kg/m3 ).
Thermal power for fuel :
Pth = mf × L.C.V (5)
Where :
L.C.V : Lower calories value for fuel, it is estimated by (42000 kJ/kg)
mf : The weight of fuel consumed, (kg/s)
Pth : Thermal power for fuel, (kw)
• The second alternative: the operation depends on the electrification of the grid. Thermal power stations are
predominant in electric generation using 85% natural gas and 15% diesel and coal. The amount of fuel needed
to generate 1 (kwh) is estimated by 206.3 (gram) according to the annual report of The Egyptian Electricity
Company Holding [8].
Calculation of the amount of CO2 emitted from pump stations operation depends on a scientific formula:
Emitted value of CO2 = Quantity of Fuel × Emission Factor (6)
According to the Engineering toolbox and U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA [9], from the next two
Tables 2 and 3, CO2 emission factors from different fuel were found in Table 4.
 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366 361

Table 2. Values of (Btua ) content in different fuel, [10].

Fuel type Unit Energy content (Btu)
Diesel 1 Gallon 139000
Gasoline 1 Gallon 124000
Heating Oil 1 Gallon 139000
Natural Gas 1 Cubic Foot 950–1150
a Btu; British thermal unit is a standard unit of energy.

Table 3. CO2 emission/Million Btu for different fuel, [8].

Fuel type CO2 Emission in pounds/million Btu
Diesel 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Heating Oil 161.3
Natural Gas 117

Table 4. kg CO2 emission/unit from different fuel.

Fuel type Kg CO2 /kg fuel
Diesel Fuel 3.15
Natural Gas 2.75

2.3. Estimation of the solar energy required to replace fossil fuel

Solar energy could be used to replace fossil fuel or grid electricity. The number of operational hours depends on
the average daily sunny hours. Photovoltaic power output (kwh/kwp/day) was used to estimate daily solar irradiation
hours based on Global Solar Atlas data (2019). The solar power consumed by the pump station and the area of the
solar cell were calculated using the following formulas:
QHγ g
P= , (kw) (7)
3600hr α

P
As = , (m2 ) (8)
r
Where :
As : The solar panel area, (m2 )
g : The gravity of earth, (9.81 m/s2 )
H : The differential head calculated from suction and expulsion of pump, (m)
hr : The photovoltaic power output, (kwh/kwp/day)
P : The solar consumed power in pumps, (kw or Hp)
Q : The discharge in pump, (m3 /day)
r : The solar panel yield, (kwp/m2 )
α : The solar system efficiency, (-)
γ : The water density, (1000 kg/m3 )

2.4. Calculate the evaporation from drainage channels

2.4.1. First method

Depending on the satellite images and field measurement, Shafik [11] concluded that the annual evaporation
could be calculated as follows:
i=12
∑ Aδ E m n
V = (9)
i=1
1000000
362 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366

Where :
A : Surface area of the drainage channel, (km2 )
Em : Average monthly evaporation, (mm/day), according to El Afandi and Abdrabbo [12] is 6.41
n : No. of days in each month, (-)
V : Annual volume of evaporated water, (Billion m3 /year)
δ : Area factor, (-), solar cells outside drain banks by about 20% of its width

2.4.2. Second method

According to Engineering toolbox [5] and Stefan, Preud’homme [13,14] the evaporation loss from the drain
water surface was calculated as follows:
f A δ(xs − x) × 24 × 365
V = , (10)
γ × 106
f = (25 + 19ν)

Tw = 5.0 + 0.75Ta (11)

Where :
A : Surface area of drainage channel (km2 )
f : Evaporated water factor, (kg/m2 h)
Ta : Ambient air temperature (◦ C)
Tw : Surface water temperature, (◦ C)
V Annual volume of evaporated water, (Billion m3 /year)
x : Air humidity ratio, (-)
xs : Maximum humidity ratio of saturated air at Tw surface water temperature, (-)
δ : Area factor, solar cells outside drain banks by about 20% of its width, (-)
ν : Mean wind speed, (m/s)
γ : Water density, (1000 kg/m3 )

3. Results and Analysis

Two main issues were covered in this study: solar energy application in water resources and reducing the CO2
emission by replacing the traditional fuel with the solar cell. Two scenarios were tested. The first scenario was the
operation of one pump in each station, while the second scenario was the operation of 4 units (pumps) in each
station. Consumed fuel and CO2 emission in the first and second scenarios with their alternatives (by diesel fuel
and by electrification grid) were represented in Figs. 10 and 11 respectively. Replacing diesel with solar energy
leads to reducing the emission of CO2 in one-unit pump operation by an estimated value ranging from 184.31 to
672.49 (ton/year). While the emission is reduced by a value ranging from 130.82 to 477.34 (ton/year) if the fuel
used was natural gas. Replacing diesel with solar energy leads to reducing the emission of CO2 in 4-unit pumps
operation by an estimated value ranging from 737.23 to 2689.95 (ton/year), While the emission is reduced by a
value ranging from 523.29 to 1909.34 (ton/year) when natural gas is used.
The study in this issue had the same trend of some studies addressing the application of solar energy in water
resources such as Chandel et al. [10] who reviewed water pumping by photovoltaic cells technology. They concluded
that the technology was reliable and economically efficient for water supply systems in rural, urban , and remote
regions. The payback period was less than 6 years. Additionally, photovoltaic water pumping reduced CO2 emissions
all over its 25 years of life. Large projects of photovoltaic water supplies need governmental incentives to replace
diesel and electrical water pumping. Also; Benghanem et al. [15] studied the size of photovoltaic water pumping
and concluded that the pumping flow rate increased as the pump electric power increased for different water heads.
In the current study, the consumed solar power and solar panel areas according to each scenario were estimated
as shown in Table 5. The table shows the amount of pumping discharge, head, and photovoltaic power output
in the different scenarios of operation at each pump station. The pumping discharge and head were different in
each pump station. Consequently, there was a significant increase from Algharak Alsoltani pump station 1 through
 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366 363

Fig. 10. Consumed fuel and CO2 emission in the first scenario (one Pump).

Fig. 11. Consumed fuel and CO2 emission in the second scenario (Four Pumps).

to Algharak Alsoltani pump station 3. For this reason, the estimated solar power of the three pump stations was
251.6897, 729.6114 and 909.6014 (kwp) respectively in the first scenario (i.e. one pump in each station). This
increased to 1006.759, 2918.446 and 3638.406 (kwp) in the second scenario (i.e. four pumps in each station). As
a result, the estimated solar panel areas significantly grew to 1677.931, 4864.076, and 6064.01 (m2 ) respectively
in the first scenario. This further increased to 6711.726, 19456.31, and 24256.04 (m2 ) in the second scenario. The
second issue covered was the evaporation of the water surface which is represented here by the agricultural drainage
channel. The study regarding this issue had the same trend of Poós and Varju [16] who studied the evaporation of
the water surface. The main factors of evaporation were ambient air velocity, ambient air and water temperature.
The driving forces for evaporation were two forces. The first driving force was the temperature difference between
ambient air and water surface temperature. The second driving force was the difference of absolute humidity. In
this study, the evaporation loss according to each scenario was estimated by two methods; Eqs. (9)–(11) as shown
in Tables 6 and 7. Fig. 12 shows the estimated saving of water evaporation in the first and second scenarios by two
methods. Depending on the mathematical comparison of the results, there was no significant difference between the
two methods. The water evaporation was lowest in the first pump station and more than triple in the third pump
station. The total amount of water evaporation from the three pump stations elevated between 50,000 and 200,000
(m3 /year) in the two scenarios.
364 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366

Table 5. Estimated consumed solar power and solar panel areas.

Table 6. First method; Monthly evaporation data around Algharak drain, source of evaporation
data from NOAA surface flux [6].

Table 7. Second method; Monthly evaporation data around Algharak drain, source of weather data
from NOAA surface flux [6].

4. Conclusions and Recommendation

The study introduced an approach to estimate the participation of drainage systems in Egypt using unconventional
water resources. The Algharak drain in the drainage systems was studied as a sample, where this drain contains
three pump stations. The study covered two main issues. First, replacing the traditional fuel with the solar cell
 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366 365

Fig. 12. Saving of evaporation water in first and second scenarios.

as an application to water resources and reducing the CO2 emission. The second issue was the calculation of the
evaporation due to covering the drainage channel by solar cells. Two scenarios were studied of minimum and
maximum pumping operation. The minimum is represented in a one-pump unit for each station and the maximum
is represented in a four-pump unit in each station. The results of this research indicated that the potentiality in solar
energy was about 5 (kwh/kwp/day). The photovoltaic power output of the two scenarios was as follows: the first
scenario gives 1891 (kwp) for the three stations that are grouped from a covered area of 12,606 (m2 ). Whilst the
second scenario gives 7563.6 (kwp) for the three stations that are grouped from a covered area of 50,424 (m2 ).
Replacement of the traditional fuel for drainage pumps with solar energy leads to a reduction in the emission of
CO2 in maximum pumps operation by an estimated value ranging from 737.23 to 2689.95 (ton/year) if diesel is
used. However, the value of the CO2 emission ranges from 523.29 to 1909.34 (ton/year) if natural gas is used. As
for the calculation of evaporation, two different methods were used to validate the results where their mathematical
comparison was very close. The saving in the total amount of evaporation water ranged from 50,000 to 200,000
(m3 /year) of minimum and maximum pumping operation. We recommend this approach to be circulated to the
agricultural drainage network channels in order to recover an important value of freshwater, regarding the new
circumstances of expecting that Egypt’s share of the Nile water will decrease.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could
have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References
[1] Beithou N. Non-conventional water resources - review and developments. Int J Res Sci 2015;3(1):1–8, Available at: https://www.rese
archgate.net/publication/278967308.
[2] NDP Project, National Drainage Program (NDP). Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) summary. African
Development Bank Group; 2015.
[3] Ashour MA, El-Attar ST, Rafaat YM, Mohamed MN. Water resources management in Egypt. J Eng Sci Assiut University
2009;37(2):269–79.
[4] El Sersawy HM, Eshra NM, Salem MG. Innovative solution of the irrigation system management between Aswan and Esna. J Energy
Nat Resour 2018;7(2):60–74.
[5] Global Solar Atlas. 2019, Available at: https://solargis.com.
[6] NOAA surface flux. 2018, Available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.ncep.reanalysis.surfaceflux.html.
[7] Eshra NM. Renewable energy for pump stations operation in delta region using GIS technique study case. El_Menoufia Governorate
APCBEE Proc 2013;5:535–45, Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.comwww.sciencedirect.com.
[8] Egyptian Electricity Company Holding. Annual Report, 2017/2018. 2018.
[9] USEnergy Information Administration. 2019, Available at: http://www.eia.gov/tool/faq.phd?id=73&id=11.
[10] Chandel SS, Nagaraju Naik M, Chandel Rahul. Review of solar photovoltaic water pumping system technology for irrigation and
community drinking water supplies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:1084–99.
[11] Shafik NM. Study of evaporation losses in Lake Nasser. Cairo, Egypt: Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering, Irrigation,
and Hydraulics Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University; 2004.
366 N.M. Eshra and M.G. Salem / Energy Reports 6 (2020) 354–366

[12] El Afandi G, Abdrabbo M. Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration equations under current climate conditions of Egypt. Turk J
Agric - Food Sci Technol 2015. Available at: www.agrifoodscience.com.
[13] Stefan HG, Preud’homme EB. Stream temperature estimation from air temperature. J Am Water Resour Assoc 1993. Available at: htt
ps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1993.tb01502.x.
[14] Google Earth. 2019, Available at: https://www.googleearth.
[15] Benghanem M, Daffallah KO, Almohammedi A. Estimation of the daily flow rate of photovoltaic water pumping systems using solar
radiation data. Results Phys 2018;8:949–54.
[16] Poós Tibor, Varju Evelin. Dimensionless evaporation rate from the free water surface at tubular artificial flow. Energy Procedia
2017;112:366–73.

Further reading
[1] https://engineeringtoolbox.com/energy-content-d_868.html, 2020.
[2] https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/evaporation-water-surface-d_690.html, 2020.