There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Concrete Proposal towards “Hunza Power Supply Company”

Brainstorm: Concrete Proposal towards Hunza Power Supply Company”



Kinetic energy of water flow in a stream or river is a renewable source of energy abundantly available in our region. Harnessing this source through well established methods is both capital and time intensive. I am suggesting an alternate technology suited from affordability as well as indigenous manufacture en mass. This involves use of a “floating hydro-electric generator” tethered to the anchors on river bank and suited to minimum flow in winters and also swollen rivers during summers.

1.3 billion people are without electricity, and over 800 million people depend on high cost, polluting fossil fuel generators for their power. However, over 71% of the planet is covered with slowly moving water in rivers, canals, and ocean currents.

A huge, untouched global market exists to provide electricity where it is unavailable, and also to replace the millions of fuel-burning generators currently supplying power at very high cost.


Asian Scene: Asia’s hydropower technical potential amounts to about 5,980 TWh/year, accounting for 37 percent of the global potential, while the total generation in 2011 amounted to about 37 percent of the economically exploitable generation. Three countries accounted for more than 75 percent of total generation: China (61 percent), India (10 percent) and Turkey (5 percent). Generation in the rest of non-OECD Asia3 amounted in the same year to 182 TWh, about 22 percent of the economically exploitable potential. Russia’s hydropower potential amounts to 1,670 TWh/year and accounts for about 10 percent of global hydropower potential.

Objective: To provide electricity to each village independently through self help and gradually increasing the capacity to meet entire demand needed towards economical transformation. Another associated aspect: For pumping water from rivers to irrigate barren lands.

Inspiration

“The energy challenge – here and elsewhere – will require a multi-faceted response, including bold innovations in the way we both produce and consume energy... Hydroelectric power fulfills that goal. It is ‘clean’ energy – advancing sustainable development while minimising its environmental impact.”  
His Highness the Aga Khan at the Foundation Stone Laying Ceremony of the Bujagali Hydropower Project (Kampala, Uganda) - 21 August 2007

Lets see and create something that has the same look and feel that can be seen in this video I found the other day.

Prototype Development and functionality Tests

  1. Need interested youngsters ready to go for a career in this field to participate.
  2. Collaboration by government and established CSOs such as AKRSP is highly desirable.
Please feel free to add or update these if you think I missed anything!

Experience Shared:    On the other hand, don’t under-estimate what one person looking to change their piece of the world can do. Before I bought the FITZ Waterwheel company, I had been through some hard times. Now 6 years later, I operate 1250 kilowatts of generators commercially, providing clean, environmentally safe power to over 1000 homes. I hope you have as much fun and satisfaction with your waterwheel, whatever the size.
(Rudy Behrens owns the FITZ Waterwheel Company. 118 Sycamore Ct., Collegeville, PA 19426, Phone: (215) 489-6256.)


Cost Analysis
of
Hydr
opo
w
er
K
e
y findings
i
1.
A
v
er
age in
v
es
tmen
t c
os
ts
f
or lar
ge h
y
dr
opo
w
er plan
ts with s
t
or
age t
ypically r
ange fr
om as lo
w as
USD 1 050
/kW t
o as high as USD 7 650
/kW while the r
ange f
or small h
y
dr
opo
w
er pr
ojec
ts is be
t
w
een
USD 1 300
/kW and USD 8 000
/kW
. A
dding additional capacit
y a
t e
xis
ting h
y
dr
opo
w
er schemes or e
xis
ting
dams tha
t don’t ha
v
e a h
y
dr
opo
w
er plan
t can be significan
tly cheaper
, and can c
os
t as lit
tle as USD 500
/kW
.
T
ABLE
1: T
YPICAL
INST
ALLED
COSTS
AND
LCOE
OF
HYDROPOWER
PROJECTS
Inst
alled costs
(USD/kW)
Oper
ations and
maint
enance
costs
(
%/y
ear of
inst
alled costs)
Capacity f
act
or
(
%)
Le
v
elised cost of
electricity
(2010 USD/kW
h)
Lar
ge h
y
dr
o
1 050 – 7 650
2 – 2.5
25 t
o 90
0
.
0
2 – 0
.
19
Small h
y
dr
o
1 300 – 8 000
1 – 4
20 t
o 9
5
0
.
0
2 – 0
.
2
7
R
efurbishmen
t/
upgr
ade
500 – 1 000
1 – 6
0
.
0
1 – 0
.
05
No
t
e: T
he le
v
elis
ed c
os
t o
f elec
tricit
y c
alcula
tions as
sume a 10 % c
os
t o
f c
apit
al
2.
Annual oper
a
tions and main
t
enanc
e c
os
ts
(
O&M) ar
e oft
en quot
ed as a per
c
en
tage of the in
v
es
tmen
t c
os
t per
kW
. T
ypical v
alues r
ange fr
om 1”% t
o 4”%. Lar
ge h
y
dr
opo
w
er pr
ojec
ts will t
ypically a
v
er
age ar
ound 2”% t
o 2.5”%.
Small h
y
dr
opo
w
er pr
ojec
ts don’t ha
v
e the same ec
onomies of scale and can ha
v
e O&M c
os
ts of be
t
w
een 1”% and
6”%, or in some cases e
v
en higher
.
3.
T
he c
os
t of elec
tricit
y gener
a
t
ed
b
y h
y
dr
opo
w
er is gener
ally lo
w although the c
os
ts ar
e v
ery sit
e-specific.
T
he le
v
elised c
os
t of elec
tricit
y (L
C
OE) f
or h
y
dr
opo
w
er r
efurbishmen
ts and upgr
ades r
anges fr
om as lo
w as
USD 0
.
0
1/kW
h f
or additional capacit
y a
t an e
xis
ting h
y
dr
opo
w
er pr
ojec
t t
o ar
ound USD 0
.
05
/kW
h f
or a mor
e
e
xpensiv
e upgr
ade pr
ojec
t as
suming a 10”% c
os
t of capital. T
he L
C
OE f
or lar
ge h
y
dr
opo
w
er pr
ojec
ts t
ypically
r
anges fr
om USD 0
.
0
2 t
o USD 0
.
19
/kW
h as
suming a 10”% c
os
t of capital, making the bes
t h
y
dr
opo
w
er po
w
er
pr
ojec
ts the mos
t c
os
t c
ompe
titiv
e gener
a
ting option a
v
ailable t
oda
y
. T
he L
C
OE r
ange f
or small h
y
dr
opo
w
er
pr
ojec
ts f
or a number of r
eal w
orld pr
ojec
ts in de
v
eloping c
oun
tries e
v
alua
t
ed b
y IRENA w
as be
t
w
een USD 0
.
0
2
and USD 0
.
10
/kW
h, making small h
y
dr
o a v
ery c
os
t c
ompe
titiv
e option t
o supply elec
tricit
y t
o the grid, or t
o
supply off
-grid rur
al elec
trifica
tion schemes. V
ery small h
y
dr
opo
w
er pr
ojec
ts can ha
v
e higher c
os
ts than this and
can ha
v
e an L
C
OE of USD 0
.
2
7
/kW
h or mor
e f
or pic
o-h
y
dr
o s
y
s
t
ems.
4.
Significan
t h
y
dr
opo
w
er
pot
en
tial r
emains une
xploit
ed. T
he t
echnical pot
en
tial is some 4.8 times gr
ea
t
er
than t
oda
y’
s elec
tricit
y gener
a
tion. T
he t
otal w
orldwide t
echnical pot
en
tial f
or h
y
dr
opo
w
er is es
tima
t
ed a
t
15 9
5
5 T
W
h/
y
ear

.


 MOU

Background:
A “road map towards a Better Tomorrow has been proposed since 2005 by Brig Hisamullah Beg SI (M). The top priorities in this mission are development of energy and human resources through “Self Help” efforts of civil society in the region.
Present MOU has been drawn to ensure that the responsibilities for each member of the team are clearly laid down so that this particular effort in realizing an indigenous design of a “Floating Hydro Electric Generator” is successfully concluded.
The salient points of MOU are:
1.     Finances:
 Brig Hisamullah Beg SI (M) will invest the amount towards development of a prototype illustrated by him through the sketches in Fig-1 and Fig-2
2.   Fabrication:
Will be done in accordance with the manufacturing drawing in Baig Engineering Factories in Gilgit owned and supervised by Hayat Baig resident of Rahim Abad Gilgit.
3.   Accounts:
Auditable accounts will be maintained by Baig Engineering separately for the topic
4.   Expense Head:
a.     Materials
b.    Labour Charges
c.     Services
5.    The progress is visualized according to the monitoring schedule placed on the shared drop box folder titled PROJECT.
Modifications/changes will be incorporated through mutual discussions and also reflected in the shared documents.
6.   The venture is basically motivated from TKN concept and participation by LSO/WOs/VOs towards Self Help. However it could also be considered as a business venture for which a separate “Business Plan” will be drawn through mutual agreement.
7.    Agreed on 10th June 2017:
a.     Brig Hisamullah Beg SI(M) Baltit Hunza- Proponent
b.     Hayat Baig- Owner and Chief Executive of Baig Engineering Gilgit- resident of Rahim Abad.
c.      Faisal Hayat- Mechanical Engineering Graduate and trainee partner of the team.

1. Average investment costs for large hydropower plants with storage typically range from as low as USD 1,050/kW to as high as USD     7,650/kW while the range for small hydropower projects is between USD 1,300/kW and USD 8,000/kW. Adding additional capacity at existing hydropower schemes or existing dams that don’t have a hydropower plant can be significantly cheaper, and can cost as little as USD 500/kW.

TABLE 1: TYPICAL INSTALLED COSTS AND LCOE OF HYDROPOWER PROJECTS

Installed costs
costs
( %)
(USD/kW)
( %/year of
Levelised cost of
Operations and
installed costs)
electricity
maintenance
Capacity factor
(2010 USD/kWh)
Large hydro
1050 – 7,650
2 – 2.5
25 to 90
0.02 – 0.19
Small hydro
1,300 – 8,000
1 – 4
20 to 95
0.02 – 0.27
Refurbishment/upgrade
500 – 1,000
1 – 6

0.01 – 0.05
Note: The levelised cost of electricity calculations assume a 10% cost of capital
2. Annual operations and maintenance costs (O&M) are often quoted as a percentage of the investment cost per kW. Typical values range from 1% to 4%. Large hydropower projects will typically average around 2% to 2.5%.
Small hydropower projects don’t have the same economies of scale and can have O&M costs of between 1% and 6%, or in some cases even higher.
3. The cost of electricity generated by hydropower is generally low although the costs are very site-specific.
The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for hydropower refurbishments and upgrades ranges from as low as USD 0.01/kWh for additional capacity at an existing hydropower project to around USD 0.05/kWh for a more
expensive upgrade project assuming a 10% cost of capital. The LCOE for large hydropower projects typically ranges from USD 0.02 to USD 0.19/kWh assuming a 10.% cost of capital, making the best hydropower power projects the most cost competitive generating option available today. The LCOE range for small hydropower projects for a number of real world projects in developing countries evaluated by IRENA was between USD 0.02 and USD 0.10/kWh, making small hydro a very cost competitive option to supply electricity to the grid, or to supply off-grid rural electrification schemes. Very small hydropower projects can have higher costs than this and can have an LCOE of USD 0.27/kWh or more for pico-hydro systems.

4. Significant hydropower potential remains unexploited. The technical potential is some 4.8 times greater than today’s electricity generation. The total worldwide technical potential for hydropower is estimated at 15,955 TWh/year.
Post a Comment