capacity building workshop on small hydro power · pdf filecapacity building workshop on small...

Capacity Building Workshop on Small Hydro Power Project Development

1

Hydro Power Project DevelopmentApril 17, 2012

Monrovia (Liberia)

Assessment of Micro Hydro Potential in Sub -Saharan Africa Countries: Mali, Togo & Benin

M’Gbra N’GuessanVP Africa, Econoler

Small Hydro Project Small Hydro Project Analysis Analysis

Using RETScreenUsing RETScreen

Photo Credit: M’Gbra N’Guessan, Econoler

Small Hydro Site: Akloa (Togo)

RETScreen ® Small Hydro Project ModelWorldwide analysis of energy production, life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions

• Central-grid and isolated-grid

3

isolated-grid

• Single turbine micro hydro to multi-turbine small hydro

• “Formula” costing method

WWW.RETSCREEN.NET

4

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA REGIONAL MINI/MICRO HYDRO PROJECT

• A regional project initiated by UNDP with the support of 11 SSA Governments

• Funding Source: Global Environment Facility

Sub-Saharan Africa divided into 3 clusters:

5

Sub-Saharan Africa divided into 3 clusters:

• Cluster 1: West Africa (Benin, Mali and Togo)

• Cluster 2: Central Africa (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon)

• Cluster 3: Eastern Africa (Burundi, Congo; DR Congo; Rwanda)Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan

PURPOSE OF PROJECT BRIEFS3 Project Briefs (1 per cluster) have been prepared

for submission to UNDP-GEF for project funding

Each Project Brief lays out:› Energy policies and rural electrification strategy of

each country

6

each country › Legal and institutional framework› Government strategy for micro/mini hydro power

system development› Baseline activity and GEF alternative course of

action› Proposed project financing and incremental costs

OVERALL PROJECT SCHEDULE

Approval for Pipeline Entry by GEF Secretariat

Preparatory Assistance Phase

Project Briefs Validation

Com

mitt

ee

7

April 2004

Validation

May 2004 –February 2005

April 2005

July-Nov2005

Project Briefs Submitted for Review by GEF

GEF Approval of Full-Size Project

End of 2005

1st S

teer

ing

Com

mitt

eeM

eetin

g in

Dou

ala

2nd

Ste

erin

gC

omm

ittee

Mee

ting

in V

ienn

a

FULL-SIZE PROJECT COMPONENTS

1. Identification of mini/micro hydro sites2. Identification and removal of barriers to the adoption

of micro/mini hydropower technologies3. Capacity building and technical assistance for the

deployment of micro hydroelectric plants

8

deployment of micro hydroelectric plants4. Dissemination of project outcomes5. Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E)6. Deployment of micro/mini hydropower plants on a

turnkey basis7. Systems management/ financing schemes/ ownership

structure and plant operation

FINDINGS OF CONSULTANT REPORTS

1. Improved rural access to electricity is a means of improving quality of life and socio-economic development.

2. Participating countries are at various stages of introducing legal and regulatory reforms to liberalize the energy sector.

3. Some countries have gone further in formulating rural electrification policies and strategies that clearly identify

9

electrification policies and strategies that clearly identify actions to be taken to attract much needed investments.

4. All countries offer good to strong candidates for micro hydro deployment, but the technical, financial and/or managerial resources are often lacking.

5. National institutional partners and NGOs/multilateral donors, can provide much needed capacity building and leverage investment capital for identified projects

CLUSTER 1 SUMMARY FINDINGS

• Benin and Mali have both made progress in introducing sectoral reforms and establishing dedicated rural electrification agencies.

• Mali has been the most proactive in developing incentive mechanisms to attract investors, but

10

incentive mechanisms to attract investors, but the financial resource remain limited.

• Given the uneven water situation in Cluster 1 countries, the technical team conducted detailed technical and financial analysis for each site.

Proposed Micro -Hydro Configurations

Cluster 1Configurations

Benin Mali TogoTotal

3 Countries

50-75 kW(cost US$300,000) 1 3 1 5

100-150 kW(cost US$400,000) 3 3 2 8

11

200-400 kW (cost US$600,000) 2 2 2 6

TOTAL # Systems 6 8 5 19

TOTAL kW 750 kW 850 kW 650 kW 2,250 kW

TOTAL COSTUS$2.7

millionUS$3.3

millionUS$2.3

millionUS$8.3

million

SMALL HYDRO PRE -FEASIBILITY

We used RETScreen Model for Cost Analysis

High initial costs

› But civil works and equipment can last >50 years

Very low operating and maintenance costs

12

Very low operating and maintenance costs

› One part-time operator is usually sufficient

› Periodic maintenance of major equipment requires outside contractor

High head developments tend to be less costly

Typical range : US$1,000 to US$5,000 per installed kW

Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan

SMALL HYDRO PROJECT ANALYSIS

Four phases for engineering work:

› Reconnaissance surveys/hydrology studies

› Pre-feasibility study

13

› Feasibility study

› System planning and project

engineering

Photo Credit: M’Gbra N’Guessan


RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO ENERGY CALCULATION

Calculation ofplant capacity

Calculation ofturbine efficiency

curve

Flow durationcurve

Power durationcurve

14

See e-Textbook

Renewable Energy Project Analysis:

RETScreen® Engineering and Cases

Small Hydro Project Analysis

(Chapter 3)

Calculation ofenergy available

Calculation ofpower duration

curve

Calculation ofenergy delivered

(central grid)

Calculation ofenergy delivered

(isolated grid)


USING RETSCREEN MODEL FOR A CASE STUDY

Clean Energy Project Analysis Software

Small Hydro Project Model

Click Here to StartDescription & Flow Chart

Colour Coding

Online ManualClean Energy

Decision Support Centrewww.retscreen.net

15

WorksheetsEnergy Model

Hydrology & Load

Equipment Data

Cost Analysis

Greenhouse Gas Analysis

Financial Summary

FeaturesProduct Data

Weather Data

Cost Data

Unit Options

Currency Options

CDM / JI Project Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis

Version 3.0 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997-2004.

Training & Support

Internet Forums

Partners

NRCan/CETC - Varennes

Marketplace

Case Studies

e-Textbook

www.retscreen.net

DEFINITION OF ENERGY MODEL

Training & Support

Units: Metric

Site Conditions Estimate Notes/RangeProject name Wonougba See Online Manual

Project location Rivière Sio, région Kpalimé, Togo

Latitude of project location °N 6,91 -90.00 to 90.00Longitude of project location °E 6,76 -180.00 to 180.00Gross head m 8,00

Maximum tailwater effect m 0,80

Residual flow m³/s 0,20 Complete Hydrology & Load sheet

RETScreen ® Energy Model - Small Hydro Project

16

Residual flow m³/s 0,20 Complete Hydrology & Load sheet

Firm flow m³/s 0,51Peak load kW 55Energy demand MWh 332

System Characteristics Estimate Notes/RangeGrid type - Isolated-gridDesign flow m³/s 1,000Turbine type - Kaplan Complete Equipment Data sheet

Number of turbines turbine 1Turbine peak efficiency % 87,6%Turbine efficiency at design flow % 87,2%Maximum hydraulic losses % 7% 2% to 7%Generator efficiency % 93% 93% to 97%Transformer losses % 1% 1% to 2%Parasitic electricity losses % 2% 1% to 3%Annual downtime losses % 4% 2% to 7%

RETSCREEN - HYDROLOGY ANALYSISRETScreen ® Hydrology Analysis and Load Calculation - Small Hy dro Project

Hydrology Analysis EstimateProject type Run-of-riverHydrology method User-defined

Hydrology ParametersResidual flow m³/s 0,2

Percent time firm flow available % 50%

Firm flow m³/s 0,51

Flow-Duration Curve DataTime Flow

(%) (m³/s)0% 11,075% 9,57

90% to 100%

Notes/Range

12,00

Flow-Duration Curve

17

5% 9,5710% 7,9415% 5,9720% 4,3325% 2,8230% 2,7035% 2,3940% 1,4845% 1,0350% 0,7155% 0,6560% 0,5465% 0,4270% 0,3575% 0,3180% 0,2885% 0,2790% 0,2495% 0,20100% 0,15

Flo

w (m

³/s)

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent Time Flow Equalled or Exceeded (%)

ESTIMATE LOAD CHARACTERISTICSLoad Characteristics Estimate

Grid type Isolated-grid Load Conditions

Load-duration curve User-definedPeak load kW 55

Load-Duration Curve DataTime Load(%) (kW)0% 55

5% 47

10% 46

15% 45

20% 45

25% 44

Notes/Range

50

60

Load-Duration Curve

18

25% 44

30% 43

35% 42

40% 40

45% 39

50% 38

55% 37

60% 36

65% 35

70% 33

75% 32

80% 31

85% 30

90% 29

95% 28

100% 23

Annual DailyEnergy demand MWh 332 0,9Average load factor % 69% 69%

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Load

(kW

)

Percent Time Load Equalled of Exceeded (%)

ESTIMATE ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTIONAnnual Energy Production Estimate Notes/Range

Small hydro plant capacity kW 57MW 0,057

Small hydro plant firm capacity kW 31Available flow adjustment factor - 1,00Small hydro plant capacity factor % 51% 40% to 95%Renewable energy available MWh 257Renewable energy delivered MWh 187

GJ 673Excess RE available MWh 70

Flow-Duration and Power CurvesAvailable Flow Flow Used Available Power

19

Complete Cost Analysis sheet

Flo

w (m

³/s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0,000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Pow

er (k

W)

Percent Time Flow Equalled or Exceeded (%)

RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO SELECTION OF EQUIPMENT

Turbine efficiency

› Compared with manufacturer’s data for an installed 6 MW GEC Alsthom Francis turbine 40%

60%

80%

100%

Effi

cien

cy (

%)

RETScreenManufacturer

20

Alsthom Francis turbine

Plant capacity & output

› Compared with HydrA for a Scottish site

› All results within 6.5%

• Formula costing method� Compared with RETScreen®, with 11% of a detailed cost estimate for a

6 MW project in Newfoundland

0%

20%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Percent of Rated Flow

Effi

cien

cy (

%)

Turbine Efficiency Curves: RETScreen vs. Manufacturer


Small Hydro Turbine Characteristics Estimate Notes/Ra ngeGross head m 8,00Design flow m³/s 1,000Turbine type - Kaplan See Product Database

Turbine efficiency curve data source - Standard

Number of turbines turbine 1

Small hydro turbine manufacturer ABC ltée

Small hydro turbine model modèle XYZ

Turbine manufacture/design coefficient - 4,5 2.8 to 6.1; Default = 4.5Efficiency adjustment % 0% -5% to 5%Turbine peak efficiency % 87,6%Flow at peak efficiency m³/s 0,8Turbine efficiency at design flow % 87,2%

Turbine Efficiency Curve DataFlow Turbine

efficiencyTurbines running

Combined turbine

(%) # efficiency0% 0,00 0 0,005% 0,00 1 0,0010% 0,00 1 0,00 0,90

1,00

Efficiency Curve - 1 Turbine(s)

21

10% 0,00 1 0,0015% 0,07 1 0,0720% 0,40 1 0,4025% 0,61 1 0,6130% 0,73 1 0,7335% 0,81 1 0,8140% 0,84 1 0,8445% 0,86 1 0,8650% 0,87 1 0,8755% 0,87 1 0,8760% 0,88 1 0,8865% 0,88 1 0,8870% 0,88 1 0,8875% 0,88 1 0,8880% 0,88 1 0,8885% 0,88 1 0,8890% 0,88 1 0,8895% 0,87 1 0,87

100% 0,87 1 0,87

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Effic

ienc

y

Percent of Rated Flow (%)

COST ESTIMATE – INPUT PARAMETERS

Costing method: Formula Currency: Togo XOF Cost references: NoneSecond currency: USA USD Rate: XOF/USD 1,47730

Formula Costing Method Notes/RangeInput Parameters

Project country TogoLocal vs. Canadian equipment costs ratio - 1,10Local vs. Canadian fuel costs ratio - 1,25Local vs. Canadian labour costs ratio - 0,50Equipment manufacture cost coefficient - 0,50 0.50 to 1.00Exchange rate XOF/CAD 400,00

Cold climate? yes/no NoNumber of turbines turbine 1Flow per turbine m³/s 1,0Approx. turbine runner diameter (per unit) m 0,5Project classification:

Suggested classification - MiniSelected classification - Micro

Existing dam? yes/no No

RETScreen ® Cost Analysis - Small Hydro Project Search Marketplace

22 Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan

Existing dam? yes/no NoNew dam crest length m 10,0Maximum hydraulic losses % 7%Intake and miscellaneous losses % 1% 1% to 5%Access road required? yes/no Yes

Length km 3,0Tote road only? yes/no YesDifficulty of terrain - 1,0 1.0 to 6.0

Canal required? yes/no YesLength in rock m 280Terrain side slope in rock (average) o 20 Max. 45ºLength in impervious soil m 0Terrain side slope in soil (average) o 0 Max. 15ºTotal canal headloss m 0,28

Penstock required? yes/no YesLength m 70,0Number of identical penstocks penstock 1Allowable penstock headloss factor % 3,0% 1.0% to 4.0%Pipe diameter m 0,84Average pipe wall thickness mm 6,8

Transmission lineLength km 1,5Difficulty of terrain - 1,0 1.0 to 2.0Voltage kV 25,0

Interest rate % 0,5%

INITIAL COSTS / ANNUAL COSTS ESTIMATEInitial Costs (Formula Method) (local currency) Facto r (local currency) Relative Costs

Feasibility Study XOF 6 800 000 1,00 XOF 6 800 000 3,2% 0% -USD Development XOF 7 600 000 1,00 XOF 7 600 000 3,5% 0% -USD

Land rights XOF - 0,0% 0% -USD Development Sub-total: XOF 7 600 000 3,5% 0% -USD

Engineering XOF 1 600 000 1,00 XOF 1 600 000 0,7% 0% -USD Energy Equipment XOF 66 400 000 1,00 XOF 66 400 000 30,9% 100% 44 946 863USD Balance of Plant

Access road XOF 5 200 000 1,00 XOF 5 200 000 2,4% 0% -USD Transmission line XOF 9 600 000 1,00 XOF 9 600 000 4,5% 100% 6 498 342USD Substation and transformer XOF 400 000 12,00 XOF 4 800 000 2,2% 100% 3 249 171USD Penstock XOF 13 600 000 1,00 XOF 13 600 000 6,3% 100% 9 205 984USD Canal XOF 32 400 000 1,00 XOF 32 400 000 15,1% 100% 21 931 903USD Tunnel XOF - 1,00 XOF - 0,0% 100% -USD Civil works (other) XOF 57 200 000 1,00 XOF 57 200 000 26,6% 0% -USD

Balance of Plant Sub-total: XOF 118 400 000 XOF 122 800 000 57,1% 49% 40 885 399USD Miscellaneous XOF 19 600 000 0,50 XOF 9 800 000 4,6% 0% -USD

GHG baseline study and MP Cost -XOF -XOF 0,0% 100% -USD GHG validation and registration Cost -XOF -XOF 0,0% 100% -USD

Miscellaneous Sub-total: XOF 9 800 000 4,6% 0% -USD


Miscellaneous Sub-total: XOF 9 800 000 4,6% 0% -USD Initial Costs - Total (Formula Method) XOF 220 400 000 XOF 215 000 000 100,0% 59% USD 85 832 262

Annual Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Re lative Costs Quantity Range Unit Cost RangeO&M

Land lease project 1 -XOF -XOF - -Property taxes % 0,0% 215 000 000XOF -XOF - -Water rental kW 57 -XOF -XOF - -Insurance premium % 0,40% 215 000 000XOF 860 000XOF - -Transmission line maintenance % 5,0% 14 400 000XOF 720 000XOF - -Spare parts % 0,50% 215 000 000XOF 1 075 000XOF - -O&M labour p-yr 2,00 3 000 000XOF 6 000 000XOF - -GHG monitoring and verification project 0 -XOF -XOF - -Travel and accommodation p-trip 4 200 000XOF 800 000XOF - -General and administrative % 10% 9 455 000XOF 945 500XOF - -Other - O&M Cost 0 -XOF -XOF - -Contingencies % 10% 10 400 500XOF 1 040 050XOF - -

Annual Costs - Total 11 440 550XOF 100,0%

Periodic Costs (Credits) Period Unit Cost Amount Interv al Range Unit Cost RangeTurbine overhaul Cost 35 yr 10 000 000XOF 10 000 000XOF - -

-XOF - --XOF - -

End of project life Credit - -XOF -XOF Go to GHG Analysis sheet

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

24

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO PROJECT MODEL – FINANCIAL SUMMARY

R E T S c re e n ® F in a n c ia l S u m m a ry - S m a ll H y d r o P ro je c t

A n n u a l E n e rg y B a la n c e Y e a r ly C a s h F lo w sY e a r P re - ta x A f te r - ta x C u m u la t iv e

P ro je c t n a m e W o n o u g b a P e a k lo a d k W 5 5 # X O F X O F X O FP ro je c t lo c a tio n r iv iè re S io , ré g io n K p a lim é , T o g o E n e rg y d e m a n d M W h 3 3 2 0 (2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 ) (2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 ) (2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 ) R e n e w a b le e n e rg y d e liv e re d M W h 1 8 7 N e t G H G re d u c tio n tC O 2 /y r 1 6 8 1 1 3 4 6 9 7 6 1 3 4 6 9 7 6 (2 0 1 5 3 0 2 4 ) E x c e s s R E a v a ila b le M W h 7 0 N e t G H G re d u c tio n - y r 5 + b e y o n d tC O 2 /y r 1 6 8 2 1 9 2 6 3 3 1 1 9 2 6 3 3 1 (1 8 2 2 6 6 9 3 ) F irm R E c a p a c ity k W 3 1 N e t G H G e m is s io n r e d u c tio n - 2 1 y rs tC O 2 3 5 2 1 3 2 5 3 2 3 9 5 2 5 3 2 3 9 5 (1 5 6 9 4 2 9 7 ) G r id typ e Is o la te d -g r id N e t G H G e m is s io n r e d u c tio n - 5 0 y rs tC O 2 8 3 8 3 4 3 1 6 6 3 4 4 3 1 6 6 3 4 4 (1 2 5 2 7 9 5 4 )

5 3 8 2 9 4 0 0 3 8 2 9 4 0 0 (8 6 9 8 5 5 4 ) F in a n c ia l P a ra m e te rs 6 4 5 2 2 8 4 2 4 5 2 2 8 4 2 (4 1 7 5 7 1 2 )

7 5 2 4 8 0 0 0 5 2 4 8 0 0 0 1 0 7 2 2 8 8 A v o id e d c o s t o f e n e rg y X O F /k W h 1 2 0 ,0 0 0 0 D e b t ra t io % 9 0 ,0 % 8 6 0 0 6 2 6 3 6 0 0 6 2 6 3 7 0 7 8 5 5 1 R E p ro d u c tio n c re d it X O F /k W h - D e b t in te re s t ra te % 0 ,5 % 9 6 7 9 9 0 7 7 6 7 9 9 0 7 7 1 3 8 7 7 6 2 8 R E p ro d u c tio n c re d it d u ra tio n yr 1 5 D e b t te rm yr 2 0 1 0 7 6 2 7 9 5 2 7 6 2 7 9 5 2 2 1 5 0 5 5 7 9 R E c re d it e s c a la tio n ra te % 2 ,0 % 1 1 8 4 9 4 4 5 9 8 4 9 4 4 5 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 G H G e m is s io n re d u c tio n c re d it X O F /tC O 2 - In c o m e ta x a n a lys is ? ye s /n o N o 1 2 9 4 0 0 2 4 0 9 4 0 0 2 4 0 3 9 4 0 0 2 7 9 G H G re d u c tio n c re d it d u ra t io n yr 2 1 E f fe c t iv e in c o m e ta x ra te % 3 5 ,0 % 1 3 1 0 3 4 7 0 0 3 1 0 3 4 7 0 0 3 4 9 7 4 7 2 8 1 G H G c re d it e s c a la tio n ra te % 0 ,0 % L o s s c a r ry fo rw a rd ? ye s /n o Y e s 1 4 1 1 3 3 6 5 3 0 1 1 3 3 6 5 3 0 6 1 0 8 3 8 1 1 A v o id e d c o s t o f e x c e s s e n e rg y X O F /k W h - D e p re c ia t io n m e th o d - D e c lin in g b a la n c e 1 5 1 2 3 7 0 6 7 8 1 2 3 7 0 6 7 8 7 3 4 5 4 4 8 9 A v o id e d c o s t o f c a p a c ity X O F /k W -y r - D e p re c ia t io n ta x b a s is % 8 0 ,0 % 1 6 1 3 4 5 1 3 8 3 1 3 4 5 1 3 8 3 8 6 9 0 5 8 7 2 E n e rg y c o s t e s c a la tio n ra te % 4 ,0 % D e p re c ia t io n ra te % 3 0 ,0 % 1 7 1 4 5 8 0 6 6 4 1 4 5 8 0 6 6 4 1 0 1 4 8 6 5 3 6 In f la t io n % 3 ,0 % D e p re c ia t io n p e r io d yr 1 5 1 8 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 1 7 2 4 7 1 6 0


In f la t io n % 3 ,0 % D e p re c ia t io n p e r io d yr 1 5 1 8 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 5 7 6 0 6 2 4 1 1 7 2 4 7 1 6 0 D is c o u n t ra te % 1 1 ,0 % T a x h o lid a y a v a ila b le ? ye s /n o N o 1 9 1 6 9 9 3 4 5 5 1 6 9 9 3 4 5 5 1 3 4 2 4 0 6 1 5 P ro je c t l ife y r 5 0 T a x h o lid a y d u ra tio n yr 5 2 0 1 8 2 8 1 4 4 2 1 8 2 8 1 4 4 2 1 5 2 5 2 2 0 5 7

2 1 2 9 8 1 7 9 2 6 2 9 8 1 7 9 2 6 1 8 2 3 3 9 9 8 3 P ro je c t C o s ts a n d S a v in g s 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 4 7 1 3 1 2 2 3 4 7 1 2 1 3 5 6 3 4 5 4

2 3 3 2 6 9 1 6 2 2 3 2 6 9 1 6 2 2 2 4 6 2 5 5 0 7 6 In i t ia l C o s ts A n n u a l C o s ts a n d D e b t 2 4 3 4 2 2 5 0 7 6 3 4 2 2 5 0 7 6 2 8 0 4 8 0 1 5 3

F e a s ib il ity s tu d y 3 ,2 % X O F 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 O & M X O F 1 1 4 4 0 5 5 0 2 5 3 5 8 2 6 6 4 2 3 5 8 2 6 6 4 2 3 1 6 3 0 6 7 9 5 D e v e lo p m e n t 3 ,5 % X O F 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 F u e l/E le c tr ic ity X O F - 2 6 3 7 4 9 9 2 4 8 3 7 4 9 9 2 4 8 3 5 3 8 0 6 0 4 3 E n g in e e r in g 0 ,7 % X O F 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 D e b t p a y m e n ts - 2 0 y rs X O F 1 0 1 9 0 9 5 8 2 7 3 9 2 4 5 9 4 3 3 9 2 4 5 9 4 3 3 9 3 0 5 1 9 8 6 E n e rg y e q u ip m e n t 3 0 ,9 % X O F 6 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 A n n u a l C o s ts a n d D e b t - T o ta l X O F 2 1 6 3 1 5 0 8 2 8 4 1 0 6 9 9 0 9 4 1 0 6 9 9 0 9 4 3 4 1 2 1 8 9 5 B a la n c e o f p la n t 5 7 ,1 % X O F 1 2 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 4 2 9 7 4 4 5 7 4 2 9 7 4 4 5 7 4 7 7 0 9 6 3 5 2 M is c e lla n e o u s 4 ,6 % X O F 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 A n n u a l S a v in g s o r In c o m e 3 0 4 4 9 6 3 0 3 9 4 4 9 6 3 0 3 9 5 2 2 0 5 9 3 9 1

In i t ia l C o s ts - T o ta l 1 0 0 ,0 % X O F 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 E n e rg y s a v in g s /in c o m e X O F 2 2 4 2 4 7 1 3 3 1 4 7 0 3 9 2 5 3 4 7 0 3 9 2 5 3 5 6 9 0 9 8 6 4 4 C a p a c ity s a v in g s /in c o m e X O F - 3 2 4 9 2 0 6 8 4 6 4 9 2 0 6 8 4 6 6 1 8 3 0 5 4 9 0

In c e n tiv e s /G ra n ts X O F - R E p r o d u c tio n c re d it in c o m e - 1 5 y rs X O F - 3 3 5 1 4 6 9 7 2 3 5 1 4 6 9 7 2 3 6 6 9 7 7 5 2 1 3 G H G re d u c tio n in c o m e - 2 1 y rs X O F - 3 4 5 3 8 3 1 9 5 4 5 3 8 3 1 9 5 4 7 2 3 6 0 7 1 6 7

A n n u a l S a v in g s - T o ta l X O F 2 2 4 2 4 7 1 3 3 5 2 8 1 5 9 1 5 3 2 8 1 5 9 1 5 3 7 5 1 7 6 6 3 2 0 P e r io d ic C o s t s (C re d its ) 3 6 5 8 8 7 1 6 1 0 5 8 8 7 1 6 1 0 8 1 0 6 3 7 9 2 9 # T u rb in e o v e rh a u l X O F 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S c h e d u le y r # 3 5 3 7 6 1 5 5 8 0 5 3 6 1 5 5 8 0 5 3 8 7 2 1 9 5 9 8 2 # X O F - S c h e d u le y r # 0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 3 8 6 4 3 6 1 9 0 1 6 4 3 6 1 9 0 1 9 3 6 5 5 7 8 8 4 # X O F - S c h e d u le y r # 0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 3 9 6 7 2 8 8 1 5 0 6 7 2 8 8 1 5 0 1 0 0 3 8 4 6 0 3 4

E n d o f p ro je c t li fe - C re d it X O F - S c h e d u le y r # 5 0 4 0 7 0 3 4 2 0 0 1 7 0 3 4 2 0 0 1 1 0 7 4 1 8 8 0 3 4 4 1 7 3 5 2 8 8 7 6 7 3 5 2 8 8 7 6 1 1 4 7 7 1 6 9 1 1

F in a n c ia l F e a s ib i l i t y 4 2 7 6 8 5 4 4 2 2 7 6 8 5 4 4 2 2 1 2 2 4 5 7 1 3 3 3 C a lc u la te e n e rg y p ro d u c t io n c o s t? ye s /n o Y e s 4 3 8 0 3 2 4 5 2 2 8 0 3 2 4 5 2 2 1 3 0 4 8 9 5 8 5 4

P re - ta x IR R a n d R O I % 2 2 ,3 % E n e rg y p ro d u c tio n c o s t X O F /k W h 9 2 ,5 9 5 2 4 4 8 3 9 4 5 3 0 3 8 3 9 4 5 3 0 3 1 3 8 8 8 4 1 1 5 7 A f te r - ta x IR R a n d R O I % 2 2 ,3 % C a lc u la te G H G re d u c tio n c o s t? ye s /n o Y e s 4 5 8 7 7 2 3 1 4 9 8 7 7 2 3 1 4 9 1 4 7 6 5 6 4 3 0 6 S im p le P a y b a c k yr 1 9 ,6 G H G e m is s io n re d u c tio n c o s t X O F /tC O 2 (4 8 2 6 1 ) 4 6 9 1 6 6 4 7 1 0 9 1 6 6 4 7 1 0 1 5 6 8 2 2 9 0 1 6 Y e a r - to -p o s it iv e c a s h f lo w yr 6 ,8 P ro je c t e q u ity X O F 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 9 5 7 7 6 9 1 3 9 5 7 7 6 9 1 3 1 6 6 4 0 0 5 9 3 0 N e t P re s e n t V a lu e - N P V X O F 7 3 1 5 6 7 4 5 P ro je c t d e b t X O F 1 9 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 1 0 0 0 6 6 9 7 3 1 0 0 0 6 6 9 7 3 1 7 6 4 0 7 2 9 0 2 A n n u a l L ife C yc le S a v in g s X O F 8 0 9 1 0 8 1 D e b t p a ym e n ts X O F /y r 1 0 1 9 0 9 5 8 4 9 1 0 4 5 4 2 4 0 4 1 0 4 5 4 2 4 0 4 1 8 6 8 6 1 5 3 0 6 B e n e f it-C o s t (B -C ) ra tio - 4 ,4 0 D e b t s e rv ic e c o v e ra g e - 1 ,1 3 5 0 1 0 9 2 1 1 0 3 5 1 0 9 2 1 1 0 3 5 1 9 7 7 8 2 6 3 4 1

V e rs io n 3 .0 © M in is te r o f N a tu ra l R e s o u rc e s C a n a d a 1 9 9 7 - 2 0 0 4 . N R C a n /C E T C - V a re n n e s

RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO PROJECT MODEL – PROJECT CASH FLOWS

Cumulative Cash Flows Graph

Small Hydro Project Cumulative Cash FlowsWonougba, rivière Sio, région Kpalimé, Togo

Renewable energy delivered (MWh/yr): 187 Total Initial Costs: XOF 215 000 000 Net average GHG r eduction (t CO2/yr): 168

2 000 000 000

2 500 000 000

26Econoler / Cabinet EATP Abidjan

IRR and ROI: 22,3% Year-to-positive cash flow: 6,8 yr Net Present Value: XOF 73 156 745

Version 3.0 © Minister of Natural Resources Canada 1997 - 2004. NRCan/CETC - Varennes

Cum

ulat

ive

Cas

h F

low

s (

XO

F)

(500 000 000)

0

500 000 000

1 000 000 000

1 500 000 000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Years

RETSCREEN® SMALL HYDRO PROJECT

27

MODEL – GHG CALCULATION


Base Case Electricity System (Baseline)

Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission factor

CH4 emission factor

N2O emission factor

T & Dlosses

GHG emission factor

(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh)100,0% 74,1 0,0020 0,0020 17,0% 1,081

0,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000

Electricity mix 100% 297,6 0,0080 0,0080 17,0% 1,081

Does baseline change during project life? No Change in GHG emission factor % -20,0%

Diesel (#2 oil) 30,0%

Fuel conversion efficiency

(%)

28

Proposed Case Electricity System (Small Hydro Proje ct)

Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission factor

CH4 emission factor

N2O emission factor

T & Dlosses

GHG emission factor

(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh)Electricity system

Small hydro 100,0% 0,0 0,0000 0,0000 8,0% 0,000

GHG Emission Reduction Summary

Base case Proposed case End-use GHG credits Net annualGHG emission GHG emission annual energy transaction GHG emission

factor factor delivered fee reduction(yr) (tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) (MWh) (%) (tCO2)

Electricity system 1 to 4 1,081 0,000 172 0,0% 186(tCO2)186

Complete Financial Summary sheet

Years of occurence

Gross annualGHG emission

reduction

(%)

100,0%

Fuel conversion efficiency

SUMMARY OF PREFEASIBILITY STUDY BENIN

29

SUMMARY OF PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY MALI

30

SUMMARY OF PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY TOGO

31

CONCLUSION

• RETScreen was used to estimate capacity, output and costs based on site characteristics such as flow duration curve and head

• RETScreen allowed the Technical Team to achieve preliminary feasibility study and cost

32

achieve preliminary feasibility study and cost assessment

• Run-of-river projects: • Lower cost & lower environmental impacts • But need back-up power on isolated grid

• Initial costs high and 75% site specific


Questions?

3333

www.econoler.comwww.econoler.comPhoto Credit: M’Gbra N’Guessan Energy and Water are Sources of Life


capacity building workshop on small hydro power · pdf filecapacity building workshop on small...

Documents