EnergyVol.16,No.5, pp. 867-874,1991 0360~5442/91 $3.00+ 0.

00
Printedin Great Britain.All rightsreserved CopyrightIQ 1991PergamonPress plc

WINDMILL-IRRIGATION IN INDIA

CHANDRASHEKHARSINHAt and TARA CHANDRAKANDPAL$

tTata Energy Research Institute, 7 Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110 003 and $Centre for Energy Studies,
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, New Delhi-110 016, India

(Received 29 June 1989; received for publication 4 September 1990)

Abstract-The cost of irrigation water has been computed for two shallow-well,
water-pumping windmill designs in India. An empirical relationship for variation of the
overall efficiency of the windmills with wind-speed is established. Weibull parameters are
computed for Indore, Madras and New Delhi and are used to estimate monthly overall
efficiencies, hydraulic outputs and the costs of delivered water. Regions in India where
windmill irrigation may be economically preferable to alternative technologies for
water-pumping have been identified. The trend of windmill installation in recent years is
briefly analysed.

INTRODUCTION

Surface winds in a large part of the Indian sub-continent are known to be weak for a significant
part of the year. There are, however, geographical pockets where the windspeed conditions are
favourable for wind-energy utilization. A CSIR report’ estimated that about 2.8% of locations
in India have mean annual windspeeds exceeding 17 km/h; 7.5 and 11% have mean annual
windspeeds exceeding 15 and 13 km/h, respectively. Considering that there is a further
potential for developing groundwater for irrigation for over 10 million ha of agricultural land,
there is a significant potential for windmill irrigation. The sub-group on wind energy’ for the
Eighth Five Year Plan (1990-1995) felt that 60 districts in 15 of the 25 states of India had a
potential for an estimated 400,000 water-pumping windmills for irrigation.
The Department of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (DNES) of the Government of India
has installed over 2300 water-pumping windmills all over the country.3 In view of the significant
potential, the diffusion of windmill technology for water pumping has not been very
encouraging. A reason may be poor site selection, which leads to unsatisfactory performance
and consequent dissatisfaction with windmill technology. A survey of 177 windmills (repre-
senting roughly 30% of the installed windmills) in 8 states of India by Moulik et al4 indicated
that 106 of the windmills were sited in areas with inadequate wind or water. The successful
implementation of the proposed plans of the DNES to install 50,000 water-pumping windmills
by 2001 A.D.5 therefore requires a rational siting policy based on the cost effectiveness of
water-pumping windmills. The purpose of this paper is to identify regions in India where
windmill irrigation is economically viable in comparison with alternative technologies.

WINDMILL DESIGNS IN INDIA

Efforts to design and fabricate windmills for water pumping in India may be traced to the
TOOL-ORP project in the 1970s at Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh. Though there have been
several prototypes and field-installed designs of windmills during the last few years, detailed
documentation of their performance is not available. For this reason, our analysis is restricted
to two documented windmill designs (Apoly 12-PU-500 and NAL MP-1, which are hereafter
referred to as I and II, respectively). Some of the main features of the windmills are
summarized in Table 1.
The greater rotor diameter of II, along with six sails forming an airfoil result in a lower cut-in
windspeed (3 km/h) compared with I (9 km/h), thereby making it possible to use II in regions
with relatively less favourable windspeed conditions. The rotor is designed to energize a
867
868 CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINHA and TARA CHANDRA KANDPAL

Table1. Technical specifications and costs

of windmills.

Specifications Apoly-12-PU 500 (I) NAL-MP-1 (II)

Type Horizontal axis Horizontal aXis

No. of blades 12 vanes 6 sails

and type

Rotor diameter 5m 7.5 m

Cut-in velocity 2.5 m/s (9 km/hr) 0.83 m/s (3 km/hr)

Cut-out velocity 10 m/s (36 km/hr) 6.9 m/s (25 km/hr)

Power transmission Vertical rotating Vertical plunger

shaft rod

Pump Piston Centrifugal

Tower Pin and fork with Free Standing,

five wire ropes 4-legged;
and central column: 6.5 m high
6.4 m high

Power Coefficient 0.4 0.3

Capital costs (Rs.) 15,000 25,000

Annual O&M costs 600 700

(Rs/Yr)

Lifetime 15 20

Total annual cost 2802 4047

(Rs/Yr)

1.5 h.p. centrifugal pump rather than a piston pump as in I, which is expected to increase
reliability. The intercepted energy for II is 2.25 times that of I because of the larger rotor
diameter. The rotor power coefficient, on the other hand, is 0.3 for II compared to 0.4 for I,
thereby reducing the useful energy output of II to about 1.7 times that of I. The maximum
recommended total head is 7 m for II and 10 m for I.

OVERALL EFFICIENCY AND ANNUAL COST OF WINDMILLS

The overall efficiency of a windmill is the product of the power coefficient of the windmill
rotor and the efficiency of the pump. To estimate the overall efficiency of the windmills, the
reported discharge6,7 of the windmills is converted to water power in watts. The overall
efficiency, for a given windspeed is the ratio of this output to the wind energy intercepted by
the windmill rotor. The variation of the overall efficiency for the two windmills with windspeed
is shown in Fig. 1. The following functions were derived by minimizing the least-squares
functions and represent the variations for I and II, respectively:
N,(V) = 0.0337 - 1.189/(~ + 3.362) + 10.654/(~ + 2.337)’ (la)
and
N,,(V) = -0.2825 + 4.418/(~ + 7.565) - 0.3505/(~ + 1.073)‘; (lb)
here, the windspeed is measured in mlsec.
The 1986 cost of I is reported’ to be Rs. 15,000, while that of NAL-MP-1 is estimated’ to be
Rs. 25,000. These costs include the windmill, pump, transportation, and installation. The
useful life of I is 15 yr compared to an estimated lifetime7 of 20 yr for II. An interest rate of
12% has been used in computing the annual capital costs for windmills.
 Windmill-irrigation in India X69

0.24 0 NAL MP-1

X Apoty 12-PU-500

10 18 26

Veloclty I m/set)

Fig. 1. Overall efficiency vs windspeed for windmills.

Unlike the metal, multivane, water-pumping windmills available on the international

market, I requires considerable attention for trouble-free operation. A variety of items such as
the crank, cross head, piston, valves, PVC sleeves, etc. have to be replaced almost annually.
Based on a detailed maintenance schedule,“’ the annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
cost is estimated to be about 4% of the capital cost (Rs. 6OO/yr). II requires a change of sails
every 18-24 months.’ Assuming the sails are changed in alternate years, the annual O&M costs
for II amount to approximately Rs. 700/yr. The total annual costs for the two windmills are
shown in Table 1.

USEFUL OUTPUTS FROM THE WINDMILLS

The windspeed probability-distribution function is appropriately described by the Weibull

distribution.“,” This distribution is characterized by the shape (k) and the scale (c) parameters
and is expressed as
f(v) = (klc)(t~lc)~-’ exp[ - (v/c)~], (2)
where v is the windspeed. The useful energy output is
K1
E. = (112)pTA ~“f(+$~) dv, (3)
I v,”
where p = mass density of air = 1.29 kg/m’, T = time interval in seconds when the windspeed is
expressed in m/set, and A = swept area of the windmill rotor (Table 1); v, and K, are,
respectively, the cut-in and cut-out speeds of the windmill. N(v) is given by Eqs. (la) and (lb).
Windspeed data from 343 surface meteorological observatories and 65 upper air obser-
vatories of the India Meteorological Department have been given by Mani and Mooley. ” Of
these, 37 represent continuous measurements. The hourly windspeed observed at these stations
may be used to compute the cumulative frequency for different windspeeds. Weibull
parameters are then determined from
F(v) = 1 - exp( - (v/c)“], (4)
where F(v) is the probability that the windspeed is less than v.
870 CHANDRASHFXHARSINHAand TARA CHANDRA KANDPAL

Table 2. performance of windmills for three locations.

Apoly 12-PU-500 NAL MP-1

ocation UeibuLl Monthiy Monthly

nd parameters Effi- useiui Pu, cost Effi- Useful Pu cost
onth ciency, output, % Rs/kWh ciency output % Rs/kWh
k c % kWh kWh

Madras

January 2.0 4.7 9.3 72.8 74.3 3.21 a.0 77.1 96. a 4.37
February 1.9 4.0 9.3 60.0 66.1 3.89 9.1 70.9 95.0 4.76
March 2.2 4.9 9.6 78.2 78. a 2.99 7.7 82.5 97.9 4.09
Apri I 2.5 5.8 a.9 93.4 86.5 2.50 6.2 85.3 99.0 3.96
nay 2.1 5.6 a.6 84.6 79.8 2.76 6.6 77.3 98.0 4.36
June 2.1 5.3 a.9 al .a 79.1 2.85 7.1 78.9 97.8 4.28
July 1.9 4.4 9.1 67.0 70.2 3.48 a.4 73.6 97.6 4.58
August 1.7 4.2 a.5 61.6 64.8 3.79 a.5 67.2 93.7 5.02
September 1.8 3.9 a.9 57.5 63.4 4.06 9.1 67.7 93.9 4.98
October 1.5 3.8 7.8 53.5 57.3 4.37 a.7 59.4 90.2 5.68
November 1.7 5.6 7.7 74 .a 74 .a 3.12 6.6 66.2 95.9 5.09
December 2.2 6.9 7.1 90.9 79.4 2.57 4.9 68.1 98.7 4.95

Annual 803.4 3.49 874.0 96.2 4.63

lndore

January 2.4 4.9 10.0 80.3 al .b 2.91 7.7 87.5 98.5 3.85
February 2.5 5.1 9.9 84.6 84.1 2.76 7.4 89.7 98. a 3.76
Harch 2.5 5.8 a.9 93.4 84.1 2.55 6.2 85.3 99.0 3.96
Apri L 2.5 6.9 7.3 98. i a4.4 2.38 4.6 72.3 99.1 4.66
May 2.5 7.5 6.5 96.5 80.9 2.42 4.0 64 .a 99.2 5.21
June 2.9 7.5 6.4 104.7 85.9 2.23 3.6 67.3 99.4 5.01
July 3.1 6.9 7.3 109.0 91.5 2.14 4.1 78.8 99.5 4.28
August 3.0 a.3 5.3 100.6 79.9 2.32 2.7 55.5 99.3 6.08
September 2.4 6.2 a.2 94.5 85.0 2.47 5.6 79.1 98.9 4.27
October 2.5 5.1 9.9 84.6 84.1 2.76 7.4 89.7 98.8 3.76
November 2.9 4.9 lo.8 a4. i 86.7 2.78 7.7 98.3 99.4 3.43
December 2.4 5.0 9.9 82.0 82.2 2.85 7.6 87.5 98.5 3.85

Annual a.4 1112.3 2.52 955.7 4.23

Yew
-- Delhi

January 2.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 9.1 5.6 60.4

February 2.5 1.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 10.7 6.8 71.4
Yarch 2.8 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 11.4 7.1 76.1
Aprit 2.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 4.2 61.9
YeY 2.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 4.6 68.0
june 3.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.7 6.5 77.4
JULY 3.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.7 5.8 77.4
august 2.8 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 11.6 7.5 77.2
September 2.6 l.L 0.2 0.4 0.8 11.3 7.8 75.5
October 1.8 1.1 0.4 0.8 1.6 a.1 5.8 54.6
Vovember 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.7 7.2 5.2 48.3
December 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.9 i .a a. i 5.9 54.3

FnnUal 4.1 10.0 72.8

 Windmill-irrigation in India 871

Hourly windspeed frequencies from three of the 37 stations, [Indore, Madras (harbour) and
New Delhi (Palam)] have been used to compute the Weibull parameters (Table 2) by
minimizing the least-square functions associated with F(v).

RESULTS

In Table 2, we show the quantities and costs of pumped water in kWh and Rs./kWh,
respectively. The highest and lowest outputs for Madras from the two windmills occur in April
and October, respectively. The total annual output is 803 kWh from I and 874 kWh from II.
The cost of useful output from I varies from Rs. 2.5 to 4.4/kWh for the corresponding months
and the annual average is Rs. 3.5/kWh. For II, the cost of useful output is in the range from
Rs. 3.9 to 5.7/kWh, with an annual average cost of Rs. 4.6/kWh.
The wind conditions at Indore are better suited for I than II (Table 2). The useful output
from I varies from a low of 80.3 kWh in January to a high of about 109 kWh in July and the
associated costs of useful energy are Rs. 2.9 and 2.l/kWh, respectively. The annual average
cost is Rs. 2S/kWh. I gives a higher annual output (1112 kWh) than the 956 kWh from II due
to the greater overall efficiencies and higher cut-out windspeed (Fig. 1). Thus, I is superior for
regions with wind conditions similar to that of Indore.
For Delhi, the wind conditions are not favourable for either of the windmills since the total
annual useful outputs of I and II are only 4 and 73 kWh, respectively.
Madras is located in the coastal area in South India and is exposed to both north-east and the
south-west monsoons. Indore is geographically situated in central India while Delhi falls in the
northern part of the country (Fig. 2). Indore and Madras are favourably situated for
wind-energy utilizationr4 and the mean annual energy content is in the range 500-750 kWh/m’.

Fig. 2. Distribution of the mean annual frequency of hours with windspeeds 67 km/h.13
872 CHANDRASHEKHARSINHA and TARA CHANDRA KANDPAL

Table 3. Cost of grid electricity (COE) from REC-financed projects 1986.

Total viLlages covered (from Ref. 15) 1,90,2100

Total transformer capacity (MVA) from Ref. 15: 12.6500

transformer capacity/viLLage (KVA /vill): 67

Load factorffrom Ref. 15) 0.12

Energy used (kUh/village/yr) 69905

Cost of electrification per village (Rs.) 175000

Life of distribution network (yr) 30
AnnuaL Capital cost (using CRF) in Rs. 23435

O&M of the distribution network (Rs./yr) 59920

TOTAL annual cost (Rs./yr) 83355

Cost of distribution netuork to COE (Rs./kWh) 1.20

Cost of generation (thermal) at busbar (Rs./kWh)

from Ref. 17 0.80

T&D Losses (fraction) from Ref. 16 0.35
COE with T&D losses (Rs./kUh) 1.20

COE total at delivered point (Rs./kUh) 2.40

Assumed pumpset efficiency (%> 40

Cost of useful energy (Rs./kWh) 6.00

A large part of India has wind conditions similar to Delhi and except for regions with
augmented wind flows due to topographical discontinuities, the useful outputs of windmills will
be low and the cost of delivered water will be correspondingly high.
Table 3 is a summary of costs of grid electricity for rural areas. By 1986, the REC had
financed the electrification of 190,210 villages at a cost of about Rs. 175,000/village.‘5 A study
of the REC financed schemes completed up to March 1986 indicated that the average load
factor varied from a low of 0.059 for Karnataka in South India to a high of 0.16 for Haryana.16
For an indicative load factor of 0.12, the cost of grid electricity at the end-use point comes to
Rs. 2.4/kWh. Assuming an optimistic overall efficiency of 40% for electric pumpsets, the cost
of useful energy from grid electricity for water-pumping would be Rs. 6/kWh, indicating the
cost effectiveness of the windmill technology at places with favourable wind conditions.
However, the cost of electrification of a village depends on the distance from the existing grid
and for remote villages the cost of grid electricity itself may exceed Rs. 6/kWh for a distance of
25 km of the village from the grid.” The cost of useful energy for water-pumping using
electricity from the grid in such cases will be over Rs. lS/kWh.

SITING OF WINDMILLS IN INDIA

Figure 2 shows areas in India with windspeeds s7 km/h (1.94 m/set). The States/Union
Territories (UT) are classified into zones on the basis of mean annual frequency of hours per
year (h/yr) when the windspeed is ~7 km/h in a significant part of the State/UT. Zone I has
areas with XNlO h/yr, Zone 2 has areas with 4000-5000 h/yr, Zone 3 has areas with
3000-4000 h/yr, and Zone 4 is comprised of areas with ~3000 h/yr. Indore falls in Zone 4, and
Delhi in Zone 1, while Madras is in Zone 3.
An analysis of official statisticsI on installed windmills in India during 1986-1990 indicates
that in 1985 nearly 47% of the total of 814 windmills were sited in Zone 3. Zone 4, where
windmill irrigation is most cost effective, accounted for only 7% of the windmills, whereas
Zone 1 had nearly 17% of the windmills. The siting of additional windmills in 1985-1986
70
 Windmill-irrigation in India 873

-m
f3oo 31.3.85

m 31.3.86

FJ 31.3.87

6oo - rj-JJ 31-1 .r38

VI
5 0 31.3.89
.-
E
D
.c
3 400 -

200

0
2 3

Zone
Fig. 3. Zone-wise cumulative number of windmills for different years.

appears to have little relation to cost effectiveness; new windmills were evenly distributed in
different zones.
During 1986-1987, more than 30% of the additional windmills were installed in Zone 4.
However, as in the previous years, Zone 2 accounted for nearly one-third of the additional
windmills whereas Zones 1 and 3 received one-fifth each. Thus, by the end of March 1987, of
the total of 1706 windmills in India, a little over 17% were in Zone 4, 34% in Zone 3, 30% in
Zone 2, and over 18% in Zone 1. Of the additional windmills installed in 1987-1988, nearly
58% were in Zone 4 and 26.6% in Zone 3. Therefore, over 84% of the additional 229
windmills installed in 1987-1988 were in regions where windspeed conditions are suitable for
windmill irrigation. Additional windmills installed in 1988-1989 follow a similar trend. Nearly
one-half of the additional 416 windmills were installed in Zone 4. Thus, by the end of March
1989, of the total of 2362 windmills used for water-pumping, Zone 4 had 26.7%, Zone 3
29.8%, Zone 2 25.6%, and Zone 1 17.9%. Continuation of present trends augurs well for the
windmill programme in India.

REFERENCES

1 CSIR, “Choice of Technology for Lifting Irrigation Water,” report of the study sponsored by the
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Swiss Development Agency, New Delhi,
India (March 1985).
2 Draft Report of the Subgroup on Wind Energy (for the Eighth Five Year Plan), Department of
Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, Block 14, C.G.O.
Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi, India (May 1989).
3. DNES Staff, “Annual Report: 1988-89,” Department of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Ministry
of Energy, Government of India, Block 14, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi, India (1989).
4. T. K. Moulik, B. Chaudhry, R. Jha, and M. R. Dixit, “Technoeconomics of Water-Pumping
Windmills,” Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India (June 1985).
5. DNES Staff, “Energy 2001: Perspective Plan (for) Non-Conventional Energy Sources,” Department
of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, Block 14, C.G.O.
Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi, India (February 1987).
6. IERT Staff, “The Apoly 12-PU-500 Water Pumping Windmill,” Institute of Engineering and Rural
Technology (IERT) , Allahabad, India (1981).
7. NAL Staff, “The NAL MP-1 Water Pumping Windmill,” National Aeronautical Laboratory (NAL),
Bangalore, India (undated).
874 CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINHA and TARA CHANDRA KANDPAL

8. R. K. Panda, T. K. Sarkar, and A. K. Bhattacharya, Energy in Agric. 6, 311 (1988).

9. R. Bhatia and R. Samantara, “Wind Ener gy Utilisation in India: Analysis of Economic and
Institutional Aspects,” paper prepared for the International Development Research Centre (IDRC),
Ottawa, preliminary draft (May 1988).
10. S. P. Sinha, “Apoly 12-PU-500 Windmill,” Proceedings of the Wind Energy Workshop, National
Aeronautical Laboratory (NAL), Bangalore, India (1982).
11. E. L. Petersen and I. Troen, “Rational Methods of Wind Energy Siting,” in Reviews of Renewable
Energy Resources, Vol. 3, pp. l-140, M. S. Sodha, S. S. Mathur, M. A. S. Malik, and T. C. Kandpal
eds., Wiley Eastern, New Delhi, India (1986).
12. J. P. Hennessey, J. Appf. Met. 16, 119 (1977).
13. A. Mani and D. A. Mooley, Wind Energy Data for India, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, India
(1983).
14. A. Mani, “Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment in India,” Proceedings of the National Solar
Energy Convention--1986, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, India (1987).
15. REC Staff, “Seventeenth Annual Report: 1985-86,” Rural Electrification Corp. Ltd, Nehru Place,
New Delhi, India (1987).
16. S. Ramesh, S. C. Sabharwal, G. Bhagat, and C. S. Sinha, “Study of Decentralised Energy Options
for the Rural Sector of India,” report prepared for the Rural Electrification Corporation and the
Department of Non-Conventional Sources of Energy, Government of India, by the Tata Energy
Research Institute, 7 Jor Bagh, New Delhi, India (September 1988).
17. C. S. Sinha and T. C. Kandpal, Energy Policy, in press (1991).
18. DNES Staff, Annual Reports (various years from 1982 to 1988), Department of Non-Conventional
Energy Sources, Ministry of Energy, Government of India, Block 14, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi, India.