Hydropower Feasibility Project

Small Hydropower Plants
Feasibility Studies, challenges,

opportunities and stakeholder analysis
1
By : Nastaran Ehsani
December 2022
2 2 Table of content
Introduction
Stakeholder analysis
Technical and Feasibility studies
A case study review
Micro hydro kinetics technology for existing canals

and waterways:
Transform your waterway into a local energy source!
Source: [1]
Small Hydropower Plants: Feasibility Studies and stakeholder analysis By: Nastaran Ehsani December 2022
stakeholder Technical and Challenges and
Introduction Feasibility Studies
analysis opportunities
3 3
 More than 33% of electricity production in the world is made from

What is SHP? renewable energies, of which hydroelectric production has the largest
share.
Why developing SHP?
Power plant type Capacity
Disadvantages
Large more than 100 MW
SHP development in the
Medium 10 to 100 MW
world
Small 1 to 10 MW
Mini-hydro 100 kW to 1 MW
Micro Less than100 kW
Source : [2]
Source : [3]
4 4
What is SHP?
Why developing SHP?
Disadvantages

world
Large hydropower plants (LHP) impose environmental issues small hydropower plants (SHP)
due to the construction of the dam, including changing the
natural landscape and the increase of greenhouse gases due
to the activities inside the storage tanks as well as cutting down
trees.
5 5
What is SHP?  More compatibility with the environment due to the lack of need for a dam
construction
Why developing SHP?
 Economic benefits and job creation, especially in rural areas
Disadvantages
 Possibility for operation in rivers with low flow
world  Reducing the time required for construction
 Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
 Less land required for operation
 Efficient energy source
 Reliable electricity source
 Low maintenance costs
 Low failure rate
Community participation in the construction of a
microturbine project
6 6
What is SHP?
 Suitable site characteristics required
Why developing SHP?
 Energy expansion not possible
Disadvantages
 Low-power in the dry period
world
7 7
What is SHP?
 Global Data predicts cumulative
installed capacity of SHP to grow from
Why developing SHP? a 2011 figure of 106.7 GW to 137.8 GW
by 2020, climbing at a Compound
Disadvantages Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.9%.
SHP development in the  China is the biggest SHP market
world globally, accounting for 55.3% of the
cumulative installed capacity in 2011.
China has installed 59 GW of small
hydro and is expected to take the
lead among small hydro countries.
China is followed by India and the US,
with 9% and 6.9% of the SHP
installations, respectively.
China‫׳‬s small hydropower resource potential
distribution. Source: [6]
8 8
End user: the implementation of SHP has positive social

benefits as they encourage community participation
and capitalize on local skills for plant construction that
finally leads to job creation specially in rural areas.
Investors and Government: the effect of SHP on the

national budgets is less substantial
Manufacturer: SHP plants are consequently much

quicker to construct and also offer higher rates of return
due to the low capital investment and operational and
maintenance costs.
Legislator: in terms of Environmental effects, the

construction of SHP plants does not disturb the local
habitat. the building of large dams and reservoirs is
unnecessary, thereby avoiding issues of deforestation
and submergence.
9 9
Induction generator (lower than 10 kW) is considered as a good

Generators choice for micro hydro generation due to its well-known features
of robustness, high power density, reduced maintenance, simple
design, self-protection capacity and no need of auxiliary DC
Turbine
excitation sources. They are usually less expensive and can
operate both on-grid and off-grid modes. But, as the induction
Site Selection generator does not have a separate field winding, a capacitor
bank (connected in parallel with the generator) is needed to build
Costs up the terminal voltage.
Benefit
Synchronous Generator (For higher powers), synchronous
Payback period generators can be considered the most efficient ones, because of
the technologies used for their control. These generators are
equipped with an automatic voltage regulator that allows them to
control the output power factor directly by changing the current,
giving further voltage support. However, they raise the overall cost
of the system owing to their high prices. These generators are more
expensive and more difficult to maintain than induction
generators.
Source : [4]
Introduction Feasibility Studies opportunities
analysis
1010
According to head, turbines are classified as
Generators
Head ranges Meter
Turbine
High more than 75 m
Site Selection Medium 30-75 m
Low 3-30 m
Costs
Ultra low Below 3
Benefit Source : [3]
Payback period
Source : [10]
Source : [9]
Introduction Feasibility Studies opportunities
analysis
1111
 With the aim of using water turbines in small hydroelectric power plants, it is
Generators necessary to consider characteristics such as output power and discharge
flow rate when choosing them.
Turbine
Site Selection Source : [5]
Costs
Benefit
Payback period
1212
Location and Accessibility of Site: It is preferable to select the site near the load center and convenient
Generators
for access.
Turbine Condition of Water discharge: This is the most vital factor to determine whether or not the site is feasible. It
is important to locate the project on a river with abundant runoff and stable base flow. The study of water
Site Selection discharge in feasible site selection has a direct relationship with the output power of the power plant:
𝑃𝑇 = 𝜌gQH
Costs
where PT is the theoretical output power in watts, ρ is the water density in kilograms per cubic meter, g is
Benefit the gravitational acceleration in meters per square second, H is the useful height of the catchment in
meters, and Q is the water flow rate in cubic meters per second, which is equal to average speed of
Payback period water flow (Vavg) and the cross section area of the media (S). This method can be formulated as follows:
Q = Vavg x S
To calculate the useful output power of the power plant, it is necessary to consider the efficiency factor
of the power plant. The output useful power of the power plant will be equal to:
𝑃out = 𝑃𝑇 × 𝑅a
where Pout is the useful output power in watts and Ra is the efficiency of the generator and turbine.
1313
Condition of Water discharge:
Generators
 The penstock diameter d can be calculated as follows, where D is diameter, Q
Turbine is the flow rate, n is the manning coefficient, H is the net head and L is the
length of penstock in meters.
Site Selection
Costs
Benefit
Payback period
 The length of a penstock for a given design consideration can be obtained as

follows, where tg is water acceleration constant in pipe (s) and V is the flow
velocity in ms-1.
𝐿 = 𝑔 ∗ 𝐻 ∗ 𝑡𝑔/𝑉
1414
Generators
Turbine  Topographical Conditions: This may influence mostly the construction cost.
We should take the advantage of the narrow water (canyon), natural fall,
Site Selection
chute, and river bend to get higher water head with less amount of
Costs engineering.
Benefit  Geological Condition: Special attention should be put on the foundation of

the intake, open canal, forebay, and powerhouse.
Payback period
**** Landslide: this is the main risk for SHP projects.
1515
Generators Source : [8]
Turbine
Site Selection
Costs
Benefit
Payback period
1616
 The weighting of the assessment index is the feasibility criteria using the
Analytic Hierarchy Process method.
Generators
Source : [8]
Turbine
Site Selection
Costs
Benefit
Payback period
AHP method for selection hydropower plant criteria
1717
Costs
Generators
Turbine Operation Investment
Repair and Technical

Site Selection maintenance (electrical
and
Costs mechanical)
Bank interest
Distribution
Benefit lines
Administrative
Payback period building Engineering
cost
Distribution Government
lines operation expense
Operators
management
Mechanical &
Electrical
equipment
1818
Generators
Turbine  Profit can be calculated daily, monthly or annually, which is the result of
Site Selection
power production and sales. Benefit-cost analysis can be used as a
determining factor for whether or not an investment is possible.
Costs
 Benefit cost ratio (BCR) is sometimes the simple way to evaluate feasibility
Benefit of an investment. BCR is a comparison between benefit and cost of an
investment.
Payback period
 The investment is feasible if BCR is equal to or higher than 1; on the other
hand, it is not feasible for the BCR value lower than 1.
1919
Generators
Turbine  Payback period is the time period for paying back all of the cost. The
Site Selection
payback period is calculated by counting the number of years taken to
recover the cash invested in a project. The investment is feasible if the
Costs payback period is lower than investment period.
Benefit
Payback period
Introduction analysis Feasibility Studies opportunities
2020
The key barriers hindering the development of SHP
 Lack of infrastructure in the design and

manufacture of turbines, installation and
operation
 Lack of access to appropriate
technologies pico, micro, mini and small
hydropower.
 Lack of local capacity (local skills and
know how
 Lack of information about potential sites
(hydrological data)
 Lack of SHP awareness, incentives and
motivation
 Lack of private sector participation in
SHP development.
Case Study
2121
Techno-economic Feasibility Study of the Gunde Teklehaymanote
Micro-hydropower Plant at Tindwat River, Central Gondar, Ethiopia [10]
Case Study
2222
Financial analyses
➢ RETScreen V.4 software was used in analyze the economic
feasibility of the project. This software can assess viability factors
like the project site, equipment performance, initial costs,
periodic project costs, financing, savings, and environmental
features.
➢ Undertaking was calculated for 50 years of lifetime. From the
completion of a fifty-year lifetime in each 15-year small
repaire cost was calculated once. The annual escalation cost
of Gasoil used to be calculated with the records from 2007-
2014, as referred literature from previous work [16]. The
inflation rate in Ethiopian was once calculated from the facts
from 1988-2010. The obtained value of the former is 1.1%
that of the latter 2.6%. A was chosen once.
discount rate of 10%
Case Study
2323
 The complete initial price of the challenge is US$ 253537.
Case Study
2424
 The study shows that this mini-hydropower project can be developed with an
installed power of 18 kW, where the Kaplan turbine is recommended.
 The construction of small scale hydropower in the tindwat river is technically
and economically feasible with total net present cost of US $ 253537, cost of
energy $0.09/kWh, simple payback period of 5.9 years, and internal rate of
return 23.9%.
 The result also shows that construction of hydropower curtails greenhouse gas
emissions of carbon dioxide by 588.65m3 of gasoil per year.
References
2525
 [1] General Electric Renewable Energy: https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/about-us
 [2] H. Jangavar, Y. Noorollahi and A. Emami Meybodi (2018): Economic and Environmental Analysis of the Small Hydropower Plants
Development, Iranian Journal of Ecohydrology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1255-1268,. (in Persian)
 [3] Emmanuel G. Michael, Design aspects and sustainability of mini/micro hydropower schemes. Renewable Energy Projects Consultant UNIDO.
 [4] W. Ali, H. Farooq, A. U. Rehman, M. Jamil, Q. Awais and M. Ali (2018): Grid Interconnection of Micro Hydro Power Plants: Major
Requirements, Key Issues and Challenges, International Symposium on Recent Advances in Electrical Engineering (RAEE), Islamabad, Pakistan,
pp. 1-6.
 [5] Jawahar, C. and Michael, Prawin (2017): A review on turbines for micro hydro power plant, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. vol.
72, pp. 882-887.
 [6] Ximei et al., (2015): Small hydropower financing in China: External environment analyses, financing modes and problems with solutions.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48, 813-824.
 [7] A. Zangeneh, S. Jadid and A. Rahimi-Kian (2010): Normal boundary intersection and benefit–cost ratio for distributed generation planning,
European transactions on electrical power, Vol. 20, pp. 97–113.
 [8] S Suryadimal et al (2020): Selection criteria of feasibility assessment on mini hydro power plant in Batang Sumani River Solok West Sumatera.
 [9] Hatataa et al., (2019): A feasibility study of small hydro power for selected locations in Egypt
 [10] Belay et al., (2020): Techno-economic Feasibility Study of the Gunde Teklehaymanote Micro-hydropower Plant at Tindwat River, Central
Gondar, Ethiopia. Iranian (Iranica) Journal of Energy and Environment 11(2): 130-136.
 Moeini Hadizadeh, J., (2021): A Review of Small Hydropower Plants in Iran and the World: Installed and Potential Capacities, Challenges and
Opportunities
Questions and Answers
2626
Thank you for

your Attention!

Hydropower Feasibility Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydropower Feasibility Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Small Hydropower Plants

Feasibility Studies, challenges,

Micro hydro kinetics technology for existing canals

 More than 33% of electricity production in the world is made from

Why developing SHP?

SHP development in the

End user: the implementation of SHP has positive social

Investors and Government: the effect of SHP on the

Manufacturer: SHP plants are consequently much

Legislator: in terms of Environmental effects, the

Induction generator (lower than 10 kW) is considered as a good

Site Selection Source : [5]

 The length of a penstock for a given design consideration can be obtained as

Benefit  Geological Condition: Special attention should be put on the foundation of

Generators Source : [8]

AHP method for selection hydropower plant criteria

Turbine Operation Investment

Repair and Technical

 Lack of infrastructure in the design and

 The complete initial price of the challenge is US$ 253537.

Thank you for

You might also like