Clean Energy Project Analysis Software

Small Hydro Project Model

Click Here to Start

Description & Flow Chart
Colour Coding Clean Energy
Online Manual Decision Support Centre
www.retscreen.net
Worksheets
Energy Model Training & Support
Hydrology & Load Internet Forums
Equipment Data Marketplace
Cost Analysis Case Studies
Greenhouse Gas Analysis e-Textbook
Financial Summary

Features
Product Data
Weather Data
Cost Data Partners
Unit Options
Currency Options
CDM / JI Project Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis

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

RETScreen® Energy Model - Small Hydro Project Training & Support

Units: Metric

Site Conditions Estimate Notes/Range

Project name Logging Camp See Online Manual
Project location British Columbia, Canada
Latitude of project location °N -90.00 to 90.00
Longitude of project location °E -180.00 to 180.00
Gross head m 105.00
Maximum tailwater effect m 0.00
Residual flow m³/s 0.00 Complete Hydrology & Load sheet
Firm flow m³/s 0.02
Peak load kW 150
Energy demand MWh 784

System Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range

Grid type - Isolated-grid
Design flow m³/s 0.100
Turbine type - Turgo Complete Equipment Data sheet
Number of turbines turbine 1
Turbine peak efficiency % 82.3%
Turbine efficiency at design flow % 80.4%
Maximum hydraulic losses % 14% 2% to 7%
Generator efficiency % 95% 93% to 97%
Transformer losses % 1% 1% to 2%
Parasitic electricity losses % 1% 1% to 3%
Annual downtime losses % 5% 2% to 7%

Annual Energy Production Estimate Notes/Range

Small hydro plant capacity kW 66
MW 0,066
Small hydro plant firm capacity kW 13
Available flow adjustment factor - 1.00
Small hydro plant capacity factor % 78% 40% to 95%
Renewable energy available MWh 453
Renewable energy delivered MWh 443
GJ 1,596
Excess RE available MWh 10

Flow-Duration and Power Curves

Available Flow Flow Used Available Power
0.350 70

0.300 60

0.250 50
Power (kW)
Flow (m³/s)

0.200 40

0.150 30

0.100 20

0.050 10

0.000 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Time Flow Equalled or Exceeded (%)

Complete Cost Analysis sheet

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
RETScreen® Hydrology Analysis and Load Calculation - Small Hydro Project

Hydrology Analysis Estimate Notes/Range

Project type Run-of-river
Hydrology method User-defined
Hydrology Parameters
Residual flow m³/s 0
Percent time firm flow available % 95% 90% to 100%
Firm flow m³/s 0.02

Flow-Duration Curve Data

Time Flow
Flow-Duration Curve
(%) (m³/s)
0.35
0% 0.30
5% 0.25
10% 0.20 0.30
15% 0.19
20% 0.17
0.25
25% 0.16
30% 0.15
35% 0.14
Flow (m³/s)
0.20
40% 0.13
45% 0.12
50% 0.11 0.15
55% 0.11
60% 0.10 0.10
65% 0.09
70% 0.07
75% 0.06 0.05
80% 0.05
85% 0.04
0.00
90% 0.03 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
95% 0.02
Percent Time Flow Equalled or Exceeded (%)
100% 0.01

Load Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range

Grid type Isolated-grid
Load Conditions
Load-duration curve Typical
Peak load kW 150

Load-Duration Curve Data

Time Load Load-Duration Curve
(%) (kW)
160
0% 150
5% 127
10% 121 140

15% 116
20% 112 120
25% 108
30% 104 100
35% 100
Load (kW)

40% 97 80
45% 93
50% 88
60
55% 84
60% 80
65% 77 40
70% 74
75% 72 20
80% 68
85% 64 0
90% 58 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
95% 52
Percent Time Load Equalled of Exceeded (%)
100% 44

Annual Daily
Energy demand MWh 784 2.1
Average load factor % 60% 60%

Return to
Energy Model sheet

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
RETScreen® Equipment Data - Small Hydro Project

Small Hydro Turbine Characteristics Estimate Notes/Range

Gross head m 105.00
Design flow m³/s 0.100
Turbine type - Turgo See Product Database
Turbine efficiency curve data source - Standard
Number of jets for impulse turbine jet 1 1 to 6
Number of turbines turbine 1
Small hydro turbine manufacturer Dependable Turbine
Small hydro turbine model
Turbine manufacture/design coefficient - 4.5 2.8 to 6.1; Default = 4.5
Efficiency adjustment % 2% -5% to 5%
Turbine peak efficiency % 82.3%
Flow at peak efficiency m³/s 0.1
Turbine efficiency at design flow % 80.4%

Turbine Efficiency Curve Data

Flow Turbine Turbines Combined
efficiency running turbine Efficiency Curve - 1 Turbine(s)
(%) # efficiency
1.00
0% 0.02 0 0.00
5% 0.15 1 0.15 0.90
10% 0.42 1 0.42
15% 0.59 1 0.59 0.80
20% 0.70 1 0.70
25% 0.76 1 0.76 0.70
30% 0.79 1 0.79
35% 0.81 1 0.81 0.60
Efficiency

40% 0.82 1 0.82

45% 0.82 1 0.82 0.50
50% 0.82 1 0.82
55% 0.82 1 0.82 0.40
60% 0.82 1 0.82
0.30
65% 0.82 1 0.82
70% 0.82 1 0.82
0.20
75% 0.82 1 0.82
80% 0.82 1 0.82 0.10
85% 0.82 1 0.82
90% 0.82 1 0.82 0.00
95% 0.82 1 0.82 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
100% 0.80 1 0.80 Percent of Rated Flow (%)

Return to
Energy Model sheet

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
 ®
RETScreen Cost Analysis - Small Hydro Project Search Marketplace

Costing method: Formula Currency: $ $ Cost references: Canada - 2000

Second currency: USA USD Rate: $/USD 1.47730
Formula Costing Method Notes/Range
Input Parameters
Project country Canada
Cold climate? yes/no No
Number of turbines turbine 1
Flow per turbine m³/s 0.1
Approx. turbine runner diameter (per unit) m 0.2
Project classification:
Suggested classification - Micro
Selected classification - Micro
Existing dam? yes/no No
New dam crest length m 0.0
Maximum hydraulic losses % 14%
Intake and miscellaneous losses % 1% 1% to 5%
Access road required? yes/no Yes
Length km 0.4
Tote road only? yes/no Yes
Difficulty of terrain - 2.0 1.0 to 6.0
Canal required? yes/no No
Penstock required? yes/no Yes
Length m 750.0
Number of identical penstocks penstock 1
Allowable penstock headloss factor % 13.0% Increase Maximum hydraulic losses in Energy Model by 3%
Pipe diameter m 0.25
Average pipe wall thickness mm 6.2
Transmission line
Length km 0.1
Difficulty of terrain - 2.0 1.0 to 2.0
Voltage kV 0.6
Interest rate % 8.0%

Cost Adjustment Amount

Initial Costs (Formula Method) (local currency) Factor (local currency) Relative Costs
Feasibility Study $ 15,000 2.90 $ 43,500 8.6% 0% USD -
Development $ 16,000 1.60 $ 25,600 5.1% 0% USD -
Land rights $ - 0.0% 0% USD -
Development Sub-total: $ 25,600 5.1% 0% USD -
Engineering $ 5,000 10.00 $ 50,000 9.9% 0% USD -
Energy Equipment $ 85,000 1.50 $ 127,500 25.3% 100% USD 86,306
Balance of Plant
Access road $ 11,000 1.30 $ 14,300 2.8% 0% USD -
Transmission line $ - 1.00 $ - 0.0% 100% USD -
Substation and transformer $ 1,000 1.00 $ 1,000 0.2% 100% USD 677
Penstock $ 174,000 0.60 $ 104,400 20.7% 100% USD 70,669
Canal $ - 1.00 $ - 0.0% 100% USD -
Tunnel $ - 1.00 $ - 0.0% 100% USD -
Civil works (other) $ 136,000 0.52 $ 70,720 14.0% 0% USD -
Balance of Plant Sub-total: $ 322,000 $ 190,420 37.7% 55% USD 71,346
Miscellaneous $ 46,000 0.15 $ 6,900 1.4% 0% USD -
Load mgmt, transmission line Cost $ 61,000 $ 61,000 12.1% 100% USD 41,292
$ - $ - 0.0% 100% USD -
Miscellaneous Sub-total: $ 67,900 13.4% 90% USD 41,292
Initial Costs - Total (Formula Method) $ 489,000 $ 504,920 100.0% 58% USD 198,944

Annual Costs (Credits) Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Relative Costs Quantity Range Unit Cost Range
O&M
Land lease project 1 $ - $ - $0 - $2,000
Property taxes % 0.0% $ 504,920 $ - 0.0% - 0.6%
Water rental kW 66 $ 18 $ 1,194 $0 - $20
Insurance premium % 0.50% $ 504,920 $ 2,525 0.25% - 1.00%
Transmission line maintenance % 92.0% $ 1,000 $ 920 3.0% - 6.0%
Spare parts % 0.50% $ 504,920 $ 2,525 0.50% - 1.00%
O&M labour p-yr 0.10 $ 40,000 $ 4,000 0.20 - 1.00 $40K - $80K
GHG monitoring and verification project $ - $ -
Travel and accommodation p-trip 2 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 2 - 10 $500 - $10,000
General and administrative % 15% $ 13,163 $ 1,974 1% - 20%
$ - $ -
Contingencies % 10% $ 15,138 $ 1,514 10% - 20%
Annual Costs - Total $ 16,651 100.0%

Periodic Costs (Credits) Period Unit Cost Amount Interval Range Unit Cost Range
$ -
$ -
$ -
End of project life - $ - Go to GHG Analysis sheet

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
 ®
RETScreen Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Analysis - Small Hydro Project

Use GHG analysis sheet? Yes Type of analysis: Standard Complete Financial Summary sheet
Potential CDM project? No Use simplified baseline methods? No

Background Information

Project Information Global Warming Potential of GHG

Project name Logging Camp Project capacity 0.01 MW 21 tonnes CO2 = 1 tonne CH4 (IPCC 1996)
Project location British Columbia, Canada Grid type Isolated-grid 310 tonnes CO2 = 1 tonne N2O (IPCC 1996)

Base Case Electricity System (Baseline)

Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion T&D GHG emission
factor factor factor efficiency losses factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh)
Diesel (#2 oil) 100.0% 74.1 0.0020 0.0020 30.0% 0.0% 0.897
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Electricity mix 100% 247.0 0.0067 0.0067 0.0% 0.897

Does baseline change during project life? No Change in GHG emission factor % -20.0%

Proposed Case Electricity System (Small Hydro Project)

Fuel type Fuel mix CO2 emission CH4 emission N2O emission Fuel conversion T&D GHG emission
factor factor factor efficiency losses factor
(%) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (kg/GJ) (%) (%) (tCO2/MWh)
Electricity system
Small hydro 100.0% 0.0 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% 0.0% 0.000

GHG Emission Reduction Summary

Years of Base case Proposed case End-use Gross annual GHG credits Net annual
occurence GHG emission GHG emission annual energy GHG emission transaction GHG emission
factor factor delivered reduction fee reduction
(yr) (tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) (MWh) (tCO2) (%) (tCO2)
Electricity system 1 to 4 0.897 0.000 443 398 0.0% 398

Complete Financial Summary sheet

Version 3.0 © United Nations Environment Programme & Minister of Natural Resources Canada 2000 - 2004. UNEP/DTIE and NRCan/CETC - Varennes

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
RETScreen® Financial Summary - Small Hydro Project

Annual Energy Balance Yearly Cash Flows

Year Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative
Project name Logging Camp Peak load kW 150 # $ $ $
Project location British Columbia, Canada Energy demand MWh 784 0 (100,984) (70,164) (70,164)
Renewable energy delivered MWh 443 Net GHG reduction tCO2/yr 398 1 4,924 9,553 (60,611)
Excess RE available MWh 10 Net GHG reduction - yr 5 + beyond tCO2/yr 398 2 6,963 9,730 (50,881)
Firm RE capacity kW 13 Net GHG emission reduction - 21 yrs tCO2 8,352 3 9,066 9,865 (41,016)
Grid type Isolated-grid Net GHG emission reduction - 10 yrs tCO2 3,977 4 11,233 9,953 (31,063)
5 13,468 9,989 (21,074)
Financial Parameters 6 15,772 9,965 (11,109)
7 18,148 9,876 (1,233)
Avoided cost of energy $/kWh 0.1800 Debt ratio % 80.0% 8 20,597 9,714 8,481
RE production credit $/kWh - Debt interest rate % 8.0% 9 23,122 9,471 17,952
RE production credit duration yr 15 Debt term yr 10 10 25,726 9,140 27,092
RE credit escalation rate % 2.0% 11 - - 27,092
GHG emission reduction credit $/tCO2 - Income tax analysis? yes/no Yes 12 - - 27,092
GHG reduction credit duration yr 21 Effective income tax rate % 43.6% 13 - - 27,092
GHG credit escalation rate % 0.0% Loss carryforward? yes/no Flow-through 14 - - 27,092
Avoided cost of excess energy $/kWh - Depreciation method - Straight-line 15 - - 27,092
Avoided cost of capacity $/kW-yr - Depreciation tax basis % 86.0% 16 - - 27,092
Energy cost escalation rate % 3.0% Depreciation rate % 30.0% 17 - - 27,092
Inflation % 2.5% Depreciation period yr 10 18 - - 27,092
Discount rate % 12.0% Tax holiday available? yes/no No 19 - - 27,092
Project life yr 10 Tax holiday duration yr 5 20 - - 27,092
21 - - 27,092
Project Costs and Savings 22 - - 27,092
23 - - 27,092
Initial Costs Annual Costs and Debt 24 - - 27,092
Feasibility study 8.6% $ 43,500 O&M $ 16,651 25 - - 27,092
Development 5.1% $ 25,600 Fuel/Electricity $ - 26 - - 27,092
Engineering 9.9% $ 50,000 Debt payments - 10 yrs $ 60,198 27 - - 27,092
Energy equipment 25.3% $ 127,500 Annual Costs and Debt - Total $ 76,850 28 - - 27,092
Balance of plant 37.7% $ 190,420 29 - - 27,092
Miscellaneous 13.4% $ 67,900 Annual Savings or Income 30 - - 27,092
Initial Costs - Total 100.0% $ 504,920 Energy savings/income $ 79,796 31 - - 27,092
Capacity savings/income $ - 32 - - 27,092
Incentives/Grants $ - RE production credit income - 15 yrs $ - 33 - - 27,092
GHG reduction income - 21 yrs $ - 34 - - 27,092
Annual Savings - Total $ 79,796 35 - - 27,092
Periodic Costs (Credits) 36 - - 27,092
# $ - Schedule yr # 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 37 - - 27,092
# $ - Schedule yr # 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 38 - - 27,092
# $ - Schedule yr # 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 39 - - 27,092
End of project life - $ - Schedule yr # 10 40 - - 27,092
41 - - 27,092
Financial Feasibility 42 - - 27,092
Calculate energy production cost? yes/no No 43 - - 27,092
Pre-tax IRR and ROI % 6.1% Energy production cost $/kWh 0.0679 44 - - 27,092
After-tax IRR and ROI % 6.5% Calculate GHG reduction cost? yes/no No 45 - - 27,092
Simple Payback yr 8.0 GHG emission reduction cost $/tCO2 Not calculated 46 - - 27,092
Year-to-positive cash flow yr 7.1 Project equity $ 100,984 47 - - 27,092
Net Present Value - NPV $ (15,065) Project debt $ 403,936 48 - - 27,092
Annual Life Cycle Savings $ (2,666) Debt payments $/yr 60,198 49 - - 27,092
Benefit-Cost (B-C) ratio - 0.85 Debt service coverage - 1.08 50 - - 27,092

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
RETScreen® Financial Summary - Small Hydro Project

Cumulative Cash Flows Graph

Small Hydro Project Cumulative Cash Flows

Logging Camp, British Columbia, Canada
Renewable energy delivered (MWh/yr): 443 Total Initial Costs: $ 504,920 Net average GHG reduction (tCO2/yr): 398

40,000

20,000
Cumulative Cash Flows ($)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(20,000)

(40,000)

(60,000)

(80,000)
Years

IRR and ROI: 6.5% Year-to-positive cash flow: 7.1 yr Net Present Value: $ -15,065

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
 ®
RETScreen Sensitivity and Risk Analysis - Small Hydro Project

Use sensitivity analysis sheet? Yes Perform analysis on Net Present Value - NPV
Perform risk analysis too? Yes Sensitivity range 20%
Project name Logging Camp Threshold 0 $
Project location British Columbia, Canada

Sensitivity Analysis for Net Present Value - NPV

Avoided cost of energy ($/kWh)

RE delivered 0.1440 0.1620 0.1800 0.1980 0.2160
(MWh) -1506520% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
355 -20% -120,254 -96,878 -73,503 -50,128 -26,753
399 -10% -96,878 -70,581 -44,284 -17,987 8,310
443 0% -73,503 -44,284 -15,065 14,154 43,373
488 10% -50,128 -17,987 14,154 46,295 78,436
532 20% -26,753 8,310 43,373 78,436 113,498

Avoided cost of energy ($/kWh)

Initial costs 0.1440 0.1620 0.1800 0.1980 0.2160
($) -15065.2 -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
403,936 -20% -23,965 5,254 34,473 63,692 92,911
454,428 -10% -48,734 -19,515 9,704 38,923 68,142
504,920 0% -73,503 -44,284 -15,065 14,154 43,373
555,412 10% -98,272 -69,053 -39,834 -10,615 18,604
605,904 20% -123,041 -93,822 -64,603 -35,384 -6,165

Avoided cost of energy ($/kWh)

Annual costs 0.1440 0.1620 0.1800 0.1980 0.2160
($) -15065.2 -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
13,321 -20% -61,590 -32,371 -3,152 26,067 55,286
14,986 -10% -67,547 -38,328 -9,109 20,110 49,329
16,651 0% -73,503 -44,284 -15,065 14,154 43,373
18,316 10% -79,460 -50,241 -21,022 8,197 37,416
19,982 20% -85,416 -56,197 -26,978 2,241 31,460

Debt ratio (%)

Debt interest rate 64.0% 72.0% 80.0% 88.0% 96.0%
(%) -15065.2 -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
6.4% -20% -29,098 -15,922 -2,747 10,429 23,604
7.2% -10% -33,974 -21,409 -8,843 3,723 16,289
8.0% 0% -38,953 -27,009 -15,065 -3,122 8,822
8.8% 10% -44,030 -32,721 -21,412 -10,103 1,206
9.6% 20% -49,205 -38,543 -27,881 -17,219 -6,556

Debt term (yr)

Debt interest rate 8.0 9.0 10.0 N/A N/A
(%) -15065.2 -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
6.4% -20% -21,134 -11,683 -2,747 20,336 39,437
7.2% -10% -26,521 -17,440 -8,843 14,476 33,739
8.0% 0% -31,998 -23,304 -15,065 8,478 27,888
8.8% 10% -37,562 -29,273 -21,412 2,345 21,889
9.6% 20% -43,212 -35,346 -27,881 -3,922 15,744

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
 ®
RETScreen Sensitivity and Risk Analysis - Small Hydro Project

Risk Analysis for Net Present Value - NPV

Parameter Unit Value Range (+/-) Minimum Maximum

Avoided cost of energy $/kWh 0.1800 15% 0.1530 0.2070
RE delivered MWh 443 15% 377 510
Initial costs $ 504,920 20% 403,936 605,904
Annual costs $ 16,651 15% 14,154 19,149
Debt ratio % 80.0% 0% 80.0% 80.0%
Debt interest rate % 8.0% 30% 5.6% 10.4%
Debt term yr 10 0% 10 10

Impact on Net Present Value - NPV

Initial costs

Avoided cost of energy

Sorted by the impact

RE delivered

Debt interest rate

Annual costs

Debt ratio

Debt term

-0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600

Effect of increasing the value of the parameter

Median $ -17,092
Level of risk % 10%
Minimum within level of confidence $ -66,472
Maximum within level of confidence $ 27,657

Distribution of Net Present Value - NPV

16%
14%
12%
Frequency

10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-106,870 -89,268 -71,665 -54,062 -36,459 -18,856 -1,253 16,350 33,953 51,556

Net Present Value - NPV ($)

Minimum Median Maximum

5.0% Level of confidence = 90% 5.0%
$ -66,472 $ -17,092 $ 27,657

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

09/07/2004; HYDRO02-B.xls
 TEACHER’S NOTES SMALL HYDRO PROJECT

02 LOGGING CAMP / BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

• The project is not financially viable as presented in the assignment. It is not that far from viability, however: eliminating the
cost of the feasibility study, for example, would make the project profitable.
• The maximum hydraulic losses are greater than the 7% upper limit recommended by RETScreen. This reflects the high
allowable penstock headloss factor, which in turn was necessitated by the 250 mm diameter penstock specified in the
assignment.
• The estimate of the initial costs produced by the RETScreen “Formula Costing Method” has been adjusted to more accurately
reflect the costs for this particular project. While the formula’s estimates of costs broken down by item are less accurate, in the
aggregate the estimate is quite reasonable: the overall costs are estimated by the formula method ($413,000 plus the additional
$60,000 for load management equipment and an underground transmission line, as specified in the assignment) to within 7% of
the adjusted estimate of $504,900.
• The annual costs for transmission line maintenance are $920. This is roughly 3% of the $30,000 cost of the transmission line,
which is within the limits suggested by RETScreen. The 92% factor is required because the transmission line costs have been
included as an “other” cost.
• In the greenhouse gas analysis sheet, the transmission and distribution (T&D) losses have been set to 0%. While this is probably
quite close to the real losses for the given power line, the figure is, in fact, immaterial: since the diesel generators and the hydro
plant are located in the same powerhouse and use the same transmission line, their losses are identical. Thus any T&D loss
figure can be used in this sheet, as long as the same figure is used for both the proposed case and the base case — the
greenhouse gas emission reduction will remain constant.