PUM REPORT

Empresa Asociativa Campesina de Productin ARUCO

Corquin, Copn, Honduras
Dr. Ir. Wil C. Nuijen
Project No 67514 M HO

- Strictly confidential -

PUM Netherlands senior experts

Visit Address:
Bezuidenhoutseweg 12
2594 AV The Hague, The Netherlands
Mail address:
PO Box 93078
2509 AB The Hague, The Netherlands
Telephone:
+31 (0)70 349 05 55
Fax number:
+31 (0)70 349 05 90
E-mail:
info@pum.nl
Website:
www.pum.nl

Date :
23 octubre 2014
Name customer :
Empresa Asociativa Campesina de Production ARUCO
Project number :
6714 M HO
Contact persons at the customer : Donaldo Gonzales - Gerencia
Osman Romero
- Tesorero
Elmer Lpez
- Administrador

Local Representative:
Country co-ordinator:
Sector co-ordinator:
Project Officer:

Norbert G.M. Bart

Jos Besseling
Gertjan Kooij
Remco van den Berg

(norbert.bart@pum.nl)
(jos.besseling@pum.nl)
(gertjan.kooij@pum.nl)
(remco.van.den.berg@pum.nl)

Name Expert :
Dr. Ir. Wil C. Nuijen
Project dates :
from October 18 to October 28 October (including travel)
Status of the report : draft

CONTENT
1 - PROJECT DEFINITION
2 - ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
2.1 - Energy inventory
2.2 - Energy saving and renewable energy options
2.2.1 A diesel generator with a capacity of 200 kWel
2.2.2 Solar PV system to contribute as much electricity as the available
roof surface allows
2.2.3 Limited solar PV system to operate the plant off-grid outside the
harvest season
2.2.4 Solar hot water panels system to provide for the heat demand
during the harvest period.
2.2.5 Solar drying by small, distributed solar dryers
2.2.6 Hydropower from the rio Aruco
2.2.7 Improved heat performance, based on systems that are
casulla fuel fired
2.2.8 Wind turbines to generate electricity
2.2.9 Improved computerized control
2.2.10 Electricity bill management
2.2.11 Integrating the hulling step
2.2 Detailed analysis of four selected energy saving options
3 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP
4 - FOLLOW-UP BY PUM
5 - LIST OF ANNEXES TO THIS REPORT
6 - LIST OF COPIES HANDED OVER TO ARUCO (not included in this report)
7 - LIST OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS HANDED OVER ARUCO
8 - ANNEXES (p 18 26)
A - Product flow through Aruco
B - Current energy consumption
C - Diesel generator with CHP
D Island operation Solar PC system
E Rio Aruco hydro power system
F Small thermal solar dryer for fincas

page
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
7

8
8
8
8
9
9
9
16
18
18
18
19
20
20
21
24
25
26
27

1.

PROJECT DEFINITION

1.1 - The company and the process

ARUCO is an Association of 170 coffee farmers that takes care of the de-pulping and subsequent
drying of harvested coffee cherries into what is called dry pergamino beans.
They are located halfway between San Pedro Copn and Corquin Copn, in the middle of a
coffee growing area in the South-Western corner of Honduras.
Annually they process about 9000 tonne of cherries, resulting in 2200 tonne of pergamino beans
that are by the exporter hulled and polished to about 1725 tonne of what is called green beans.
After delivery to the plant the cherries are mixed with water and the fruit pulp is removed from
the beans (de-pulping). Than the beans are washed. These wet beans contain about 50%
moisture and have to be dried to about 11-12%. This is the most energy consuming step of the
process. First the beans are spread out on large patios to pre-dry in the sun. After they have lost
about 40% of their moisture, the remainder of the moist has to be reduced to at least 12%, in
large drum dryers (secadores). The drying air that is fed through these secadores is heated in
furnaces (hornos) that are fired with the removed pergamino and silver skin (casulla) of the
beans sent to the exporter. This is a rather cheap fuel and the returned casulla suffices to heat all
four furnaces they operate.
In addition to this they keep a minor part (about 1%) of the beans they dry, for preparing their
own brands of roasted coffee. Therefore they operate a small hulling machine, a roaster (heated
with LPG) and a grinder. The three brands they produce are mainly sold to the local market but
expansion to other markets may be pursued.
The number of fixed staff is about 10, but during the harvesting season (Nov March)
temporary staff at least doubles the number of employees. The balance sheet total of the
company is 40M Le (~2M US$). The annual turnover ranges between 36M Le and 52M Le (1.7M
and 2.5M U$).
The total costs of energy are in the range of 0.86M Le (40k US$). Electricity accounts for about
600k Le (30k US$) and casulla fuel and LPG account for respectively 8k US$ and 2k US$.
The annual operating cost of Empresa Aruco are about 2,556,000 Le (~120k US$). So the energy
costs make about 30% of the operating costs. This motivates them to pursue reduction of the
costs of energy.
1.2 - Stating the problem
The energy costs represent a minor part of the manufacturing costs of the company: 2% of
turnover. The reason why these costs are relatively low is that for the heating they apply the
extremely cheap casulla biofuel. Nevertheless ARUCO wants to save on the energy(cost) by the
application of renewable energy sources (solar PV, solar heat, wind, hydropower, biomass).
Preference should be given to renewable sources that are available in the vicinity of the plant.
They want to have insight in what additional financial sources could be explored. The final

result of this PUM mission should be a feasibility study that highlights attractive renewable
energy sources for application by ARUCO (and possibly similar operators, or maybe at the
fincas). This should include the identification of possible funds to support implementation of
those new technologies as well as reliable and capable suppliers.
The final report should address:
1. Most viable options for renewable energy and energy saving.
2. Clear figures that demonstrate expenses versus benefits for selected technologies
3. Capable suppliers for delivery and installation(support)
4. Possible additional sources of funding
It is important to mention that ARUCO currently experiences serious problems with the
electricity supply from the grid. Particularly during the harvest season the voltage regularly
drops below levels where the many fans can maintain their output. This leads to interrupts in
the process. Even more serious are the frequent power cuts. This not only means loss of
production time but also to wasted (half) product.
1.3 - Mission approach
The work plan comprised the following phases:
a. Inventory of current operation and energy consumption.
b. Survey of technically feasible options with first estimate of investment,
operating costs and benefits.
c. Discussion with ARUCO management to select the most viable technologies.
d. Thorough, global detailing of the identified options.
e. Collecting information from suppliers.
f. Drafting the report.
g. Discussing the report with ARUCO management.
h. Revising the report into the final version.
i. Issuing the final report with possible follow-up actions.

2.

days
2
2
1
2
1
1
0.5
1
0,5
------11,0

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

After the inventory phase, I made a list of all option for energy saving and I did a quick scan for
all options. After discussion the most promising option were identified and a more elaborate
study of those options was made.
Below I present the gross list of options with the conclusions drawn. Then I present a detailed
analysis of the five that have been selected as potentially promising. But first I summarise the
findings from the inventory (see Annex B).

2.1 - Energy inventory

A calculation model was created in a spreadsheet (see Annex B), to find out what the energy
consumption and -costs are for the various operating steps of the plant and the office.
The primary process (de-pulping and drying) takes 210 MWh/yr electricity (capacity 156 MW) in
15 weeks in the months November until March.
On top of this the furnaces in the primary process require casulla fuel, up to 175 tonne (=2,625
GJ, ~730 MW). The casulla fuel however is a cheap fuel, so the annual costs for this fuel are only
8.3k US$.
The office and roasting take 12.5 MWh/yr electricity(capacity 11 kW). But they operate all year
round. The roaster also requires extra fuel in the form of LPG: 1362 kg (=62.8 GJ, ~17.4 MWh),
that costs 1.8k US$/yr.
So the total energy costs picture shows like (rounded figures)
Electricity
30k US$
Casulla fuel
8k US$
LPG
2k US$
40k US$
The main focus should be on the electricity, being the largest cost factor!
With this basic figures one is well able to determine and quantify the effects of various
measures, both in terms of energy and in costs.

2.2 - Energy saving and renewable energy options

2.2.1 A diesel generator with a capacity of 200 kWel
This generator can supply all the electricity needed, so no electricity from the grid will be
required.
On top of this it can also provide the required heat for all 10 secadores.
When less secadores are in operation, the amount of heat has a fixed ratio with the electricity
supplied, so it is always in balance.
It will be operated only during the harvest period (15 weeks, 2250 hrs), so it will have an
extended life time.
In the off-harvest season, the diesel generator will be switched off, so the (low) electricity
demand has to be derived from other sources (the grid or a solar PV installation).
The low variable kWh rate for electricity from the grid (0,044 $/kWh) may hamper the return on
investment, as electricity from the generator will cost substantially more ( ~ $0,5/kWh) than from
the grid.

The additional heat supply saves about 7000 bags/yr of casulla, but the value of this casulla is
low (~ $8000 ). This casulla fuel maybe can be sold to ENEE to be used in one of their biomass
fired power stations.
Nevertheless this may be an interesting option that needs to be investigated into more depth.
2.2.2 Solar PV system to contribute as much electricity as the available roof surface allows
The Southward and Eastward directed roof surface is about 1350 m2 and allows for the
installation of 350 panels of 300 Wp each. The peak output of such an installation will be about
100 kW (with full sunshine).
So on sunny days it can cover about half the electricity consumption of the plant, during the
harvest season. Outside the harvest season the electricity has to be supplied to the grid. It is not
clear what the utility ENEE will be prepared to pay for the delivered kWhrs, but it will
definitely not more than the current electricity kWh rate for which they sell.
Making the trade-off, it appears that the costs of such a system will never be recovered. Only
with external subsidies one may consider such an installation.
A photograph of such an installation (of about 600 kWp) in Holland is handed over.
The conclusion is that this opportunity will not further be investigated.
2.2.3 Limited solar PV system to operate the plant off-grid outside the harvest season.
A smaller PV system could provide sufficient electricity to operate the entire office, including
the coffee roasting facility. The most cost-effective solution is a grid-tied PV system, as this does
not require an expensive pile of batteries. With batteries, one can become independent from the
grid, but the batteries are the most expensive part of the entire system (about half the costs).
Another way to save on the costs is to leave the airco units outside the PV system. This will
reduce the cost by about a factor 2.
This solar PV system has to be investigated in more depth.
2.2.4 Solar hot water panels system to provide for the heat demand during the harvest
period.
The heat demand during the harvest seasons is severe (2625 GJ, ~1.2 GJ/hr , ~300 kW)
To have this supplied by solar panels would require at least a panel surface of 800 m2. But this
would only work as long as the sun shines (4-5 hr/day average). If such a system would have
sufficient heat storage, it could supply heat over the entire day(and night). This would require
about a six fold of the 800 m2, yielding 3200 m2. This is a surface almost as large as the entire
surface of the patios they now use to pre-dry the wet beans. Not only the panels would make
such a system very expensive, the heat storage hardly can be overcome, although large (well
insulated) water tanks could be considered. A design of such a water tank from ES Energia Solar
from Medellin, Colombia has been provided.
Decisive in this is the low cost of the current system that operates on the very cheap casulla
biomass.
A solar system can never compete with the casulla.
For this reason this option has to discarded.

2.2.5 Solar drying by small, distributed solar dryers

A solar heating system at the central location may not be an option, but it may well be that
distributed solard systems over the 180 fincas may be an option. The size is much more reduced
and the finca can add value to the beans they deliver.
This option has to be investigated.
2.2.6 Hydropower from the rio Aruco
At a distance of about 100 m behind the Aruco plant flows the river Aruco. A quick scan
revealed that this river has a flow rate of about 7.5 15 m3/s and a decay of about 5 m/km. A
quick calculation reveals that with a distance from about 2 km between a small dam and a
power house, this river should be able to supply 0.6 1.2 MW. Given that Aruco requires at
maximum 200 kW, this seems to be an opportunity to investigate the viability of such a medium
size hydro station.
Co-operation with ENEE seems to be indispensable, as they already are involved in similar type
of hydropower stations (Zacapa: 0.8 MW and La Nieve: 0.5 MW).
This option has to be investigated into more depth.
2.2.7 Improved heat performance, based on systems that are casulla fuel fired
Given the low price of the casulla fuel it will be difficult to justify improvement of the
installation, as the cost for this will be difficult to recover.
But the current furnaces come to the end of their lifecycle and may be need to be replaced. In
that case one could consider high efficiency biofuel furnaces as produced by various
manufacturers in Europe.
I brought brochures of several suppliers and contacted one of them (KBW Powerfire or
Multifire) and it appears that for about $ 40.000 Aruco can have a well designed, reliable
biomass furnace that can provide all the heat that they need, replacing 4 current furnaces that
each cost about the same amount.
This indeed seems to be the way to go, when one or more of the current furnaces have to be
replaced.
I will contact the Dutch supplier to find out whether this type of biomass furnace will be able to
operate on casulla fuel and inform Aruco.
2.2.8 Wind turbines to generate electricity
A quick look at a map with wind Power Density at 50 m, over Honduras reveal that the wind
regime in the mountains around Corquin is very unfavourable for wind turbines. Opportunities
are along the coastline and at steep mountain ridges.
Therefore this option was discarded.
2.2.9 Improved computerized control
The current installation is entirely operated by manual control. Experience proves that a
computer guided control in itself will save between 5 and 10 % energy. This option may be
considered for expansion with new installations or when a major refurbishment has to take
place.

2.2.10 Electricity bill management

The electricity bill is poorly specified, but it appears that savings can be made to avoid bad
cos() on the consumed electricity. Aruco has installed a capacitor box, but this is difficult to
manage. I proposed that they leave the capacitors on, during the harvest season as all equipment
is in full operation. This is one of the issues to discuss with ENEE.
I prepared a note, addressing 6 issues to be discussed with ENEE. Unfortunately a meeting
could not be set up in the period that I was around as the meeting has to be at ENEEs head
office in San Pedro Sula.
2.2.11 Integrating the hulling step
The last step in the coffee bean processing is the stripping of the pergamino layer and the silver
skin, called hulling. This step is executed at the exporter, with the consequence that the
removed layers (casulla fuel) have to be returned to Aruco to be used as fuel for their furnaces.
To me it seems to be inevitable that sooner or later they have to integrate this step into their own
process (like they earlier did with the de-pulping). Integrating this step in the Corquin plant not
only ads value to the end product, but it also opens the perspective to de-caffeination of part of
the green beans. The demand for decafinated coffy appears to be rising and again this adds
value to their end product, although it may not save energy.
The options to investigate more thoroughly:
Diesel generator with heat supply.
Small solar PV system for the office
Hydropwer in the Aruco river
Solar dryers for distributed processing of microlots
Advanced biofuel furnaces

2.2 Detailed analysis of four selected energy saving options

Diesel generator with heat supply
Diesel generators are ready made available on the market. The only addition that needs to be
made a measure to utilise the cooling heat from the motor for heating the drying gases, so that
in effect we can speak of a co-generation unit.
Suppliers are Caterpillar, John Deere, Cummins, MTU and Mitsubishi.
For the purpose of calculation I selected the Caterpillar C7.1 (200 kWel), although maybe the
smaller C9 could also just fit.
The specification of this generator reads:
CATERPILLAR C7.1 GENERATOR SET SPECIFICATIONS
Maximum Rating
200 ekW (250 kVA)
Voltage
208 to 480 Volts
Frequency
60 Hz
Speed
1800 RPM

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS
Engine Model
C7.1 I-6, 4-Cycle Diesel
Bore
105 mm (4.13 in)
Displacement
7.01 L (427.8 in)
Stroke
135 mm (5.31 in)
Compression Ratio 16.5:1
Aspiration
Turbocharged, Air to Air Aftercooled
Governor Type
ADEMA4
Fuel System
Common Rail

It will cost about 100k US$.

In Combined Heat & Power (CHP) operation one may expect that about 33% of the energy in the fuel is
converted to electricity and about 47% will be converted to heat (see Annex C).
This means that with 200 kW electrical output, one can expect a heat output of 284 kW (~1000 MJ).
As the total heat demand is 730 MJ, this generator is able to replace all furnaces.
However, it will consume about 50 L of diesel per hour, totalling to 112,500 L for the entire harvest
period. This will cost about 120k$. That is
much more than what currently is spend on
both electricity and heat (~ 40k US$).
Even taken into account that one can save
8k $ on the casulla fuel, it appears that
electricity from this generator is about 2.5
times more expensive than from the grid.
One could decide to save on the installation
costs by buying a second hand generator
set, that may cost about 30-40k $, but one
can never save on the fuel costs every year.
The question is is it worth the costs to
have a combined, reliable power source,
independently from the grid?
Caterpillar C7.1 Generator set
Small solar PV system
For the design of the solar system an existing calculation model was applied. The output of this
model is shown in Annex D.
This is most expensive one, that allows operation of the office and the roaster independent from
the grid. In order to supply electricity during no-sun hours, electricity needs to be stored into
batteries. The batteries constitute about half of the total costs.
The initial costs of the entire Solar PV installation will be in the range of 100k $. The savings on
electricity that can be expected about 30 kWh/yr, with a cost saving of about 1500 $/yr.
So pay back can be expected after about 60 yrs. Unless additional funding can be found, this
seems not a viable option.

10

When the airco units are removed from the PV supplied system, the electricity consumption
becomes about half as much, resulting in initial PV system costs of about 50k $.
One could also decide to attach the PV system to the grid. In this case no batteries are needed
and in the maximum configuration (120 panels) the initial costs will drop to about 45 k$. The
drawback is however that in case the grid
voltage is interrupted, the system will not be
able to maintain the voltage.
This variant is much more flexible with regard
to size. One can connect 120 panels, but also
choose every other number of panels, less than
120.
In conclusion, having electricity from the grid
as reference, the payback period of a solar PV
system will be long. With additional funding
however (innovation subsidy?) this may be an
interesting option, as it may make Aruco
independent from the (unreliable) grid.
Pocasa 10 kW inverter 48 Vdc => 110/220 Vac
Installation of such a system at Aruco could look like:

Panels on the roof of the office will be very visible from the road
As can be seen from this photograph, I advise to install the panels on the East-oriented roof
above the office, and not on the South-oriented roof of the main hall.
This has two reasons:
1. During the rainy season, when all the sunshine available should be utilised, the sun
usually shines during the morning, while in the afternoon the rain starts.

11

So an easterly orientation will catch most of the available sunshine.

2. Covering the roof with panels will reduce the radiation on the roof so that it will be less
hot in the office during sunny days. This will definitely improve working conditions for
the personnel and reduce the use of airco units.
The Dutch company WhisperPower creates \integrated back-up system for periods that the grid
power is not available. $. I enquired what they have to offer for what price. They offer a system
called Grid Independer, consisting of grid connection with charger, batteries, charge
controllers, 12 kW generator and 10 kW inverter for about 45 k$. On top of this come the 120
panels, so the total system cost will be at least 90k
Hydropower in the Aruco river
Assessing the flow of the rio Aruco, I estimated:
Flow rate
1.5 3 m/s
Width
10 m
Depth
0.5 m
So the resulting flow can be estimated at 7.5 15 m2 per second.
When a decay of 10 meter can be found between a small dam and a hydrogenerator, this could
yield an amount of electricity of about 800 kW. That is four times more than will be required,
and opens the perspective that even after the rain-season, during the harvest period, sufficient
flow remains to generate this 200 kW.
This flow rate found complies well with a flow figure from an (old) proposal for irrigation
works, that assumes that at least almost 1 m3/s can be derived from the Aruco in the dry season.
It appears that this project has not been granted, so no interference with our idea should be
feared.
Therefore it was investigated what a distance needs to be bridged to find a decay of about 10 m.
It appears that starting from the bridge across the rio Aruco one can go upstream for about 1 km
to find a height increase from 810 to 815 m and. In the other direction again one km off-stream
will result in a height decrease to 799 m. The total difference will be 11 m but may even be
extended, by bridging a longer stretch of the river track.
A draft design could look like the sketch below:

12

Generated power :
P = n x d x Q x g x h = 0.8 x 1000 x (7.5 -> 15) x 9.8 x 11 = 650 -> 1300 kW
n = efficiency of turbine/generator (0.8)
d = density of water (1000 kg/m3)
Q= flow (7.5 15 m3/s)
g = gravitational constant (9.8 m/s2)
h = height difference

A 760 kW hydropower Kaplan turbine at San Louis II station,

in El Salvador, operated by SECSA (El Salvador)

13

Cost vs benefit for a 200 kW hydropower station:

The initial costs of such a hydro station can be estimated at 6400 ($) x 200 (kW) = 1.3M US$.
(Renewables First, UK)
When an annual operating cost is assumed of about 5.000 $1 , the total cost of such an installation
over 20 year will be as high as 2.3 M$. During this period this installation will generate
0,7 x 200 (kW) x 20 (yr) x 8760 (hr/yr) = 25 GWhr
Assuming a price of 0.10 $/kW, this yields a benefit of 2.4 M$.
So it appears that costs and benefits can balance if one receives a favourable kWh price for
electricity delivered to the grid!
This is an option that certainly needs to be investigated further.

Solar dryers for distributed processing

It has been seen that applying solar dryers seem to be no option for central application. Even at
the fincas it will be difficult to justify application of such dryers for pre-drying of the entire
harvest. However for so called microlots this could be a solution.
I contacted the company ES Energa Solar in Medellin (Colombia) about their capability to
provide such a small solar dryer for a reasonable price.
This resulted in the proposal that is attached as Annex F to this report. It is a small 2 x 2 x 3 m
dryer capable of drying about 35 kg
cherries a per load and would cost
about $ 2000.
My addition to this design would be a
blind that can cover the solar window,
to create the possibility of temperature
control.
For the farmers that participate in
Aruco, this may be an interesting option
that needs to be worked out further,
maybe with a local workshop to
produce the units. This could als be a
follow-up project for PUM.
A small solar dryer, as made by ES Energa Solar

11

As the Rio Aruco is a sediment loaded river, sediment may accumulate in the forebay. The forebay may need to be
cleaned maybe once every five years.

14

Advanced Biofuel furnace

The current furnaces within Aruco are rather straight-forward for the price that has been paid
for these furnaces (~40 k $). That the design is rather basic can be understood, as making
expenses to improve the efficiency hardly yields, given the cheap casulla fuel they are operated
with.
Nevertheless from Europe I know that there are much better biomass furnaces on the market
with a much better performance.
I contacted one of the suppliers of KBW furnaces and found out that a furnace that could
provide all the heat that is needed for the 10 secadores, only costs about 40 50 k$ (off Europe).
These furnaces are highly automated and have a perfect efficiency.

Schematic diagram of a KBW advanced biofuel furnace

It should be considered to install such a type of furnace, when one or more of the current ones
need to be replaced or a new extension is foreseen.
Back in Holland I will contact the supplier and discuss detail with him and inform Aruco before
the end of November.

15

3.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP

The most promising options are:

Diesel generator with heat supply.
Although this may cost more than what they currently pay for their energy, it will definitely
provide a more reliable and stable supply of both electricity and heat. Aruco has to decide
whether this is worth the price. In the detailing section of this report the decisive figures can be
found.
Hydropower from the rio Aruco
Co-operation with ENEE has to be pursued, to make this happen. Both ENEE and the El
Salvador company SECSA have experience with this type of installation. I myself am also able to
do a better analyses and produce defining documents that can be used in negotiations.
Small independent solar dryers
Small solar dryers at the fincas may be of interest for farmers producing their own microlots.
Investigate whether there is a demand for such a dryer for a price between 2000 and 3000 $ and
the number of units needed. PUM could help to finalize the design (possibly in co-operation
with ES Energia Solar from Medellin or a local manufacturer)
Aruco must have a serious discussion with ENEE, concentrating on the 6 pints in my note.
On the longer term they should keep in mind:
That there are much better biomass furnaces on the market than thy currently operate.
When these have to be replaced they should aim for the more advanced biomass
furnaces.
Computerized control improves quality and avoids waste of (half) product. Further one
can count on energy saving of about 5 10%
Integrating the hulling step in the Aruco is an advantage as it not only creates more
added value and prevents transport of casulla, it also opens the opportunity for decaffeination of the beans.

Shorten the drying cycle

As the highest energy expenses are in the electricity for the fans to push the air through the
drum dryers and the rotation of the drums, shortening of the drying cycle will be be the best
way to save (electrical) energy.
In the drying process the beans will enter with a moisture of about 40%. So in the beginning of
the process the evaporation is the most fast and the temperature of the beans will be lower than
that of the drying air. As the beans dry the rate of evaporation will decrease, resulting in a
gradual decrease of the temperature difference between the drying air and the beans. The
temperature of the beans may not exceed a certain level of say 40-50 oC.

16

Keeping this in mind, one could consider to start the drying process with a high temperature
(maybe 80 oC) of the drying air, and during the drying process gradually reducing the
temperature of the air. If this way the drying cycle can be reduced from 36 hrs to 24 hours, one
will save 30% on the electrical energy of the dryers. This may be an easy way to save substantial
amounts of electricity!
It would be worthwhile to experiment with this kind of approach.
Carbon Credits
The question was raised whether Carbon Credits could play a role to compensate for investment
costs. A quick calculation reveals that the amount of avoided CO2 emissions will be
For the solar system (with 120 panels): 9k tonne of CO2
For the hydro station
: 170k tonne CO2
The price of Carbon Credits is low right now, about 6.5 $/ tonne CO2, so this is negligible for the
solar system. It may be of interest for the hydro system (170 x 20 x 6.5 = 22k $, annual CO2 x
lifetime x Carbon Credit per tonne), although substantial effort has to be made for correct
monitoring and reporting.
I would not count on this.

Actions agreed
In summary what I will do:
Check with the supplier(s) of advanced biomass furnaces the applicability of those furnaces for
the coffee drying process.
I will investigate other sources of additional funding and report to Aruco before the end of
November.
What Aruco will do:
On short notice Aruco has to sit together with ENEE to straighten out the issues that are on the
table and documented by me.
Aruco has to decide ultimately just after the harvest period ends how to proceed.
When Aruco decides to work out one of the options presented, PUM can provide support in the
subsequent steps to be performed. It can be me or one of the other specialists of PUM.

17

4.

FOLLOW-UP BY PUM

PUM will check somewhere around April next year whether there is a demand for additional
support from PUM at Aruco.
At this stage I see no basis for a Business Link, nor for a grant from the Hans Blankert Fund.

5.

LIST OF ANNEXES TO THIS REPORT

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

6.

Diagram of product flow through ARUCOs process

Inventory of current energy consumption and costs.
Detailed analysis of Diesel driven co-generation unit.
Detailed analysis of an island solar PV system to feed the office.
Quick scan of rio Aruco hydropower system.
Opportunity for distributed drying at the fincas

LIST OF COPIES HANDED OVER TO ARUCO (not included in this report)

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

Map with direct normal solar irradiation over Honduras

Map with wind Power Density at 50 m, over Honduras
Photograph of Spring Solar vacuum type solar collector
Photograph of 2300 panel solar PV (600 kWp) installation at a Dutch farm
Photograph of a small solar dryer, made by ES Energa Solar in Medellin (Colombia)
Datasheet of a hot water storage tank made by ES Energa Solar
2p
Draft design of a small solar dryer for distributed application at fincas
Cost/benefit analysis of a small hydropower plant with an example from SECSA (El
Salvador)
9) Technical specification of the Caterpillar C15 diesel generator set.
10) Photographs of a Caterpillar C15 generator set and Pocasa 10 kW, single phase inverter
11) Power diagram for a motor driven generator with utilisation of the heat
12) Cost estimate for a 10 kW, single phase Solar off-grid system
13) Graphical representation of WhisperPower Grid Independer 7 kW electricity supply
system for island operation
2p
14) Electricity rates of ENEE, the Honduras Electricity company
15) List of issues to be discussed with ENEE
16) KBW Multifire product sheet for a 20-120 kW biomass furnace
2p
17) Pyrotec product sheet for advanced biomass furnaces (390-1250 kW)
2p
18) Sketch for a hydropower station in the rio Aruco
19) Diagram of product flow in Aruco production process

18

7.

LIST OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS HANDED OVER ARUCO

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

File with all photographs that I took from the installations at Aruco
Calculation model for product flow
Calculation model for energy consumption and costs
Additional material collected from the internet and private sources
Text of this report (as WORD file)

19

ANNEX (A) Diagram of product flow in Aruco drying process

20

ANNEX (B) Inventory of current annual energy consumption and costs

power
rating
(kWh

load
facTor

Power
Load
(kW)

operating hrs
(hrs)

Depulping (current installation for ~25% of drying cap.)

water pump (submersion)
3.7 0.65
water pump (circulation)
3.3 0.65
21.
drive motors (7 motors)
6 0.65
transport screw 1
2.0 0.65
transport screw 2
7.5 0.65
Output capacity (wet beans, max capacity)

24.8
2.4
2.1

1,050
1,050

14.0
1.3
4.9

1,050
1,050
1,050

Horno 4 - Pre-dryer

14.6

drive motor
burner feed
casulla fuel (bags/hr)
Output capacity (beans with ~50% moisture)

22.
0 0.65
0.4 0.80
0.7

Secadora secion 1 6
Horno 1
burner fan
3.7 0.65
fans for exhaust gasses
7.5 0.65
casulla fuel (bags/hr)
1.2
Horno 2
burner fan
3.7 0.65
fans for drying air
7.0 0.65
casulla fuel (bags/hr)
1.0
drum-dryer (x6)
tolva ventilation fan (7.5 kW over 2)
3.8 0.65
drying air fan
5.2 0.65
rotation motor
5.0 0.60
input elevador (half the capacity of one that serves all)
drive motor
5.2 0.60
output elevador (x3)
drive motor
2.5 0.60
conveyor belt
drive motor
2.2 0.60
Output capacity (green pergamino beans)

21

14.3
0.3

71.6
7.3
2.4
4.9
7.0
2.4
4.6
52.9
2.4
3.4
3.0
3.1
3.1
4.5
1.5
1.3
1.3

Energy
Cons.
(kWh)

26,003
2,525
2,252
14,742
1,365
5,119
1000 kg/hr
1,462

100
100
100

2,250
2,250
2,250
2,250
2,250
2,250
500
1,800
1,800
360
80
360

1,430
32
70 bags/yr
2000 kg/hr
110,204
16,380
5,411
10,969
2,700 bags/yr
15,649
5,411
10,238
2,250 bags/yr
76,217
1,219
6,084
5,400
1,123
1,123
360
120
475
475
550 kg/hr

Power
Rating
(kWh

Load
facTor

Secadora section 7-10

Horno 3
burner fan
3.7 0.65
fans for exhaust gasses
7.0 0.65
casulla fuel (bags/hr)
0.9
drum-dryer (x4)
Tolva (hopper) ventilation fan
2.2 0.65
drying air fan
4.0 0.65
rotation motor
5.5 0.60
input elevador (half the capacity of one that serves all)
drive motor
5.2 0.60
conveyor belt
drive motor
2.2 0.60
Output capacity (green pergamino beans)
Roaster
internal rudder
external rudder (cooler)
exhaust fan
LPG gas
grinder (cap 100 kg/hr)
Output capacity (roasted and ground beans)
Other workfloor related
Workfloor lighting
Outside terrain lighting
Office
Office lighting
Office equipment (PC's, etc)
Airco-units (3 units)

0.3 0.65
0.3 0.65
0.8 0.65
3 lbs/hr
2.2 0.65

2.8
1.5

0.6
2.0
7.0

power
Load
(kW)

40.7
7.0
2.4
4.6
29.3
1.4
2.6
3.3
3.1
3.1
1.3
1.3

2.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.4

1.00
1.00

4.3
2.8
1.5

1.00
0.50
1.00

9
0.6
1.0
7.0

operating hrs
(hrs)

2,250
2,250
2,250
500
1,800
1,800
360
360

1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
500

Energy
Cons.
(kWh)

62,587
15,649
5,411
10,238
2,025 bags/yr
45,340
715
4,680
5,940
1,123
1,123
475
475
450 kg/hr
1,593
195
195
488
3,000 lbs/yr
715
23 kg/hr

800
5,000

9,724
2,224
7,500

2,600
2,600
1,000

11,160
1,560
2,600
7,000

ANNUAL PLANT ENERGY LOAD, CONSUMPTION AND COSTS

Electricity
Casulla fuel
LPG
TOTAL FUEL COSTS

222,733 kWh
7,045 Bags
3,000 Lbf

22

166.9 645,924
176,125
38,340
860,389

HNL
HNL
HNL
HNL

30,325
8,269
1,800
40,394

US$
US$
US$
US$

List of parameters used:

standard load factor
exchange rate $ => Lempira (HNL)
diesel cost per liter
diesel cost per kg
diesel heating value
LPG cost per kg
LPG heating value
weight of one bag with casulla fuel
casulla fuel cost per kg
casulla heating value
electricity kWh rate
pound (lbf)
solar irradiation at Corquin
kWh => MJ conversion

0.65
21.3
23.1
27.2
45
28.2
12.8
25
0.42
15.0
2.9
0.454
1550
1

(is the actual power that motors consume

Le
with respect to the nominal value)
Le/L
= 1.08 $/L
= 0.0241 $/MJ
Le/kg = 1.18 $/kg
MJ/kg
Le/kg = 1.32 $/kg
= 0.0287 $/MJ
kWh/kg = 46.1 MJ/kg
kg (approximately)
L/kg
= 0.02 $/kg
= 0.0013 $/MJ ( cheap!)
MJ/kg (assumed)
Le/kWh 0.136 $/kWh (variable rate is lower:
kg
about 0.044 $/kWh
kWh/m2/yr
= 4.25 kWh/m2/day ~4-5 sun hours
kWh = 3.6 MJ

The casulla fuel consumption is about 175,000 kg/year (~ 7000 bags/year)

The pergamino and silver skin, removed from the dry pergamino beans that are the end product of
Aruco amounts to about 2250,000 kg. So they do not use all the casulla that comes from the beans they
produce.

23

ANNEX (C) - Detailed analysis of diesel driven co-generation unit.

24

ANNEX (D) - Summary for an island solar PV system to feed the office

COST ESTIMATE FOR 10 kW, single phase SOLAR system (off-grid)

WRAP-UP
Load

Total of all devices / appliances

Panels

JaTech

8,100 (W)
45,200 (Whr/d)
250 Wp
60 cell / 32 V
No of panels:
panel price:
total cost of panels:

120
250 US$
30,000 US$

Charge
Controller(s)

Victron Blue Solar MPPT 150/70

output current:
Nominal battery volt:
Price indication:

70 (A)
48 (V)
3,300 US$

Batteries

Victron OpzS solar 910

Unit voltage:
Unit capacity:
No of units:
Costprice of batteries:

2 (V)
910 (Ah)
120
48,000 US$

Inverter

Gaia New Power

Continuous power:
Nominal input voltage:
Price indication:

10,000 (W)
48 (V)
5,000 US$

Wiring and mounting materials

6,000 US$

Labor cost for installation

6,000 US$

TOTAL SYSTEMS COST (installed and running)

98,300 US$

- When the solar system will be operated grid-connected, the total price drops to ~ 50,000 US$ !
- When the airco units will be removed from the system (off-grid), the price will also show a significant
drop to about 50,000 US$!

25

ANNEX (E) - Quick scan of rio Aruco hydropower system.

26

ANNEX (F) - Opportunity for distributed drying at the fincas

27

Remark
This design was based on the erroneous assumption that the annual output of a finca would on average
be about 5000 kg of cherriesa per year.
This actually appears to be at least 10 times higher and would consequently result in a larger dryer with
consequently an increased cost price.
It however seems to make no sense to pre-dry the entire output of a finca using this kind of solar dryers.
Such a solar dryer would simply be too big.
There seems to be an interesting application however for relatively small solar dryers.
They could be used to process microlots of beans at the fincas.
The director, Alberto Arango, of ES Energa Solar from Medellin (Colombia), where they have a long
standing experience with large scale solar heating systems, is prepared to help with the design and
manufacturing of such a type of solar dryers.
Therefore I give his, name, telephone number and E-mail address:
Alberto Arango
Telephone: + 57 321 6395195 (also on WhatsApp)
E-mail: albertoarango@esenergiasolar.com

28