Sedimentation Management

for Bakaru HEPP

February 22, 2017

1. Summary of Existing Studies
BAKARU II HPP:
Detailed Design 1998
Preparatory Study 2010
Update Study 2014 to 2016

Objective of the Update Study

To update, review and revise the earlier
studies to define cascade/ combined
development of the two project (Poko and
Bakaru II HEPPs) and to assess its technical
and economic viability.
1. Summary of Main Features
BAKARU I and II HEPP
Description Bakaru I Bakaru II
Existing Studies Update Study
Power Station  
Type Run-off river Run-off river Run-off river
Maximum discharge 45 m /sec
3
45 m3/sec 50 m3/sec
Effective head 322.2 m 320.5 m 316.5 m
Maximum output 126 MW (2  63 MW) 126 MW (2  63 MW) 144 MW (2  72 MW)
Annual generated energy 999 GWh 471 GWh 351.5 GWh
Catchment area 1,080 km 2

Regulating Pondage  
High water level EL. 615.5 m
Reservoir area 2 km2
Gross capacity 6.92  106 m3
Effective capacity 2.0  106 m3
Effective depth 3.5 m
Dam  
Type Concrete gravity
Height 16.5 m
Crest length 92.5 m
Discharge capacity 2,850 m3/sec
Spillway gate 4 steel radial gates 10.5 m wide  8.0 m high each
Sand drain gate 2 steel radial gates 10.5 m wide  10.0 m high each
Discharge regulating gate 2 steel roller gates 4.0 m wide  4.0 m high each
High water level (H.W.L.) 615.5 m
Low water level (L.W.L.) 612.0 m
GENERAL LAYOUT BAKARU 2
Powerhouse Bakaru II
 2. Present Condition of Bakaru Reservoir
Since 1996 the Bakaru reservoir has been largely filled up with sediments despite of various measures taken by PLN to re-establish and
maintain at least part of the active storage.
Specific sediment yield = 1.65 x 106 m3/year /1,080 km2 = 1,530 m3/km2/year
Sedimentation History of Bakaru Reservoir

Recent Reservoir Dredging

No Contract Duration Realization (M3)
1. 15 Nov 2005 to 22 April 2006 80 000
2. 29 Dec 2006 to 05 Sept 2007 696 220
3. 28 Dec 2007 to 22 Nov 2008 700 000 Bakaru Reservoir with high level of
4. 31 Dec 2008 to 24 April 2010 1 346 000 sedimentation
(2009, upper and October 2014, below)
5. 29 Dec 2011 to 27 Dec 2012 725 000
3. BAKARU II HPP – Reservoir Restoration – Sediment Management (1)
The sediment management policy is largely based on reservoir drawdown flushing supplemented in the
vicinity of the dam by suction dredging and in the upstream part of the reservoir and along the reservoir
boundaries by mechanical dredging as required.
Effective Drawdown Flushing Method
Estimated O&M Cost at Bakaru I & II HPP for Sediment Management

(Reference: Page 8-16 Chapter 8 Cost Estimate, Final Feasibility Report Stage III Vol I – Main Report, April 2016, Poko
and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study)
3. BAKARU II HPP – Reservoir Restoration – Sediment Management (2)
General Principal of the Suction Dredge
Table Theoretical dredging capacity
(50% of theoretical max., by SEDICON, Norway)

:
The SEDICON dredge is a hydrosuction syatem that
uses that the available water head between the
reservoir and the outlet of the discharging pipe for
pumping water and sediment.
: dredge has following advantages
The

 Wide range of sediments, from cohesive clay and

organic material to gravel and stones up to
350mm
 Extreme reliability and low operation cost
 Continuous high suction capacity and low water Methodology of Restoration
consumption Methodology of Restoration
(Reference: ANNEX 3-5 Bakaru Dredging Proposal, Final Inception Report Stage I
Vol 2 – ANNEX February 2015, Poko and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study)

Miwa dam is located near Ina City, in the Nagano district west of Tokyo
(Reference: Page 8-16 Chapter 8 Cost Estimate, Final Feasibility Report Stage III Vol I – Main Report, April 2016, Poko
and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study)
3. BAKARU HPP (+ Poko HPP) – Sedimentation Simulation Analysis (1)

Development of Simulation Model

- River Cross Section
- Riverbed Material
- Water Inflow
Daily (1985 to 2004)
Bakaru Dam Hourly (2005 to 2013)
- Reservoir Water Level
- Sediment Supply
Bed Load
Suspended Load
Region of Calculation (Cross Section) Wash Load

Reproduction Simulation
Poko Dam
- Bakaru Dam
1990 to 1999
1985 to 2013

Prediction Simulation
Bakaru Dam

Region of Calculation (Plan) Grain Size Distribution of Bed Material

3. BAKARU HPP (+ Poko HPP) – Sedimentation Simulation Analysis (2)

Decrease of Development of Simulation Model

Riverbed by
Flushing Operation

Reproduction Simulation
- Bakaru I
1991 to 2000
1985 to 2014

1985 1991
(Bakaru Commencement) Year
2014 Prediction Simulation (100 Years)
1994
1995
1996
Initial.Bed 1994 Riverbed Initial.Bed 1997

Riverbed
Obs.(1994)
Obs.(1997)
Obs.(1999)
1995
1996
1997 900
1991
1992
1993
1998
1999
Max.WL.
- HPPs
1991 1998

640
1992
1993
1999
Max.WL.
850
Bakaru I
635
Comparison between Bakaru I + II
800

Observed Data and Simulation

Elevation [masl.]
Bakaru I + + Poko
Result
630 750
Bakaru I + II + Poko
Elevation [masl.]

625 700
- Countermeasures
620 650
None
615
600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Flushing
Distance [km]

610 1994_WL.
1995_WL.
Dredging
Flushing + Dredging
1996_WL.
Water Level 1997_WL.
1991_WL. 1998_WL.
1992_WL. 1999_WL.
605 1993_WL. InitialBed

Longitudinal Profiles of Riverbed near Bakaru Dam

900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Distance [km]
850
3. BAKARU HPP (+ Poko HPP) – Sedimentation Simulation Analysis (3)
Without Poko (Line with No Circle Mark)
Development of Simulation Model
Flushing + Dredging

2.2 Flushing

Contribution of Mechanical Dredging ?

Contribution of Suction Dredging Reproduction Simulation
Contribution of Flushing
Dredging

No Measure
100-yr

With Poko (Line with Circle Mark)

Prediction Simulation (100 Years)
and Without Poko
- HPPs
Flushing + Dredging
Bakaru I
Bakaru I + II
Flushing
Bakaru I + + Poko
Dredging
Historical Changes of Storage Volume Bakaru I + II + Poko
2.2
(Bakaru Reservoir) - Countermeasures
Note) 2.2 M m3: Initial Excavation of 1 M m3 is Considered
None
and Inclusive. Flushing
No Measure (Suction) Dredging
100-yr
Flushing + Dredging
 4. BAKARU II HPP – Cost Estimate
Total Cost Esimate for Bakaru II HPP as of December 2015 (With strengthening the grid infrastructure of Bakaru II HPP)
In order to secure sufficient effective storage volume of
approx. 2.0 million m3 of Bakaru reservoir, the following
restoration of the reservoir

Estimated Removal of the sediment deposits

1) Drawdown Reservoir 1.51 million m³ (5,600 m long x 90
Flushing m wide x 3.0 m deep).
2) Suction Dredging 4,000 m³/day (discharge of 0.8
m³/s);
Removal of 600,000 m³ of sediment
in 5 months

3) Mechanical Dredging 550,000 m³

Cost Estimate for restoration of the Bakaru reservoir
item USD
Cost of Reservoir Drawdown Flushing 514,080
Depreciation of Suction Dredge Equipment * 227,000
Cost of Suction Dredging Operation 120,000
Cost of Mechanical Dredging 1,651,364
Total Cost of Reservoir restoration 2,512,000

* The cost of the suction dredging equipment is USD 3.4 million,

which can be used for 15 years of plant operation
(Reference: Page 8-13 Chapter 8 Cost Estimate, Final Feasibility Report Stage III Vol I – Main
(Reference: Page 8-15 Chapter 8 Cost Estimate, Final Feasibility Report Stage III Vol I – Main Report, April 2016, Poko Report, April 2016, Poko and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study)
and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study)
 5. Financial Analysis
The financial feasibility of the project is evaluated based on the following financial indicators, the objective of the financial
assessment was to calculate the tariff which would be required to achieve a ROE of 15%.
* Current retail electricity tariffs in Indonesia range from 1,325 to 1,548.81 IDR/kWh (ca. 0.0975 to 0.111 USD/kWh)

FINANCIAL INDICATORS Cash Flow (50 years)

Indicator 
Internal Rate of Return (IRR, Pre-Tax) % 11.46%
Internal Rate of Return (IRR, Post-Tax) % 9.78%
ROE % 15.00%
Discount Rate (WACC) % 3.75%
Equity Payback Period Years 5.0
Project Net Present Value (NPV) TUSD 426,289
Specific Investment USD / kW 1,553
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) USD / kWh 0.0435
Feed-In Tariff USD / kWh 0.0821
  IDR / kWh 1,107
* A debt-equity ratio of 80:20 was used for the analysis for the funding of the capital expenditures (CAPEX)
(Reference: Page 10-25 Chapter 10 Economic and Financial Analysis, Final Feasibility Report Stage III Vol I – Main (Reference: Page 10-25 Chapter 10 Economic and Financial Analysis, Final Feasibility Report Stage III Vol I – Main
Report, April 2016, Poko and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study) Report, April 2016, Poko and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study)

”Surplus energy senario: Allocation of additional energy in excess of Bakaru I HPP to Bakaru II HPP”
Total energy: 351.5 GWh, Firm peak energy: 142.1 GWh, Off-peak energy: 209.4 GWh
6. Project Implementation Schedule
Preliminary Implementation Schedule for BAKARU II HEPP
The present Update Studies reconfirm the technical and economic viability of the BAKARU II HPP, which
is, therefore, strongly recommended for implementation, i.e. to proceed to the next planning stage, tender
design and tender procedures to obtain a possible early commissioning of the hydropower plant. The
milestones of the Consultants activities during this Update Studies are summarized below.

*: Construction period is 3.5 years

(Reference: Page 11-7 Chapter 11 Conclusion and Recommendation, Final Feasibility Report Stage III Vol I – Main Report, April 2016, Poko and Bakaru II HPP Update of Existing Study)