Hydropower Assessment of site Potential

Introduction - Potential
Energy calculation
Efficiency parameters
Hydrology
Data sources
Professor .Killingtveit

Energy calculation
Screening studies
Pre-Feasibility study
Detailed planning
Operation
1
 Potential for Renewable energy

- Theoretical potential
- Technical potential
- Economical potential

Technical potential is used in the SRREN as: The amount of RE output

obtainable by full implementation of demonstrated technologies or practices
Professor .Killingtveit

No explicit reference to costs, barriers or policies is made

Technical potentials reported in the literature and assessed in the SRREN,

however, may have taken into account practical constraints and when
explicitly stated they are generally indicated in the underlying report

For Hydropower the assessment of technical potential has been done in a

different way than for other RE. It is mainly based on studies of real projects
where environmental, social and economic constraints were considered.
2
 Hydropower potential - Computing theory
Potential for hydropower depends on:

- Head (H, m)
- Flow (q, m3/s)
- Efficiency

P = 9.81 q H (kW)
EEKV = P/(q*3600) (kWh/m3)
EEKV = 9.81* *H/3600 (kWh/m3)

Energy production (kWh): H

Professor .Killingtveit

E = P t (kWh)
Net head HN is always < H
q
due to friction loss in
the water conveying system
This is called Head loss

HN = H kf q2 (m)
3
P = 9.81 q (H - kf q2 ) (kW)
 Hydropower potential - Different methods (GEA, IIASA)

Estimation method Potential Comments

Energy in the Water 504 000 EJ (40% of solar radiation at
Cycle earths surface)
Theoretical potential in 200 EJ Total mass of runoff * g * H
runoff (55 500 TWh)

Technical potential 140-145 EJ Technical potential at known

(39-40 000 sites
Professor .Killingtveit

TWh)
Technical potential at < 57.4 EJ Portion of technical potential
20 c/kWh (15 940 TWh) with cost low enough to justify a
site assessment

Economic potential at < 29.8 EJ Potential at sites with cost that

8 c/kWh (8 300 TWh) compete with large thermal
power plants

4 1 EJ = 277.5 TWh
 Hydropower Potential A Global overview
Professor .Killingtveit

Worldwide technically feasible potential for

hydropower generation is 14,576 TWh
(Today ca 3550 TWh is developed, 24%)

Table 5.1 Regional technically feasible, annual hydropower potential (TWh/yr)

and capacity potential (GW) comparedCorresponding estimated
to annual generation total(TWh)
in 2003/2004 capacity
potential
and installed capacity (GW); also shown of 3,838 capacity
are undeveloped GW; five times
potential the
and
5 average capacity factors in percent (%) (Source:
current (IJHD, 2005).
installed capacity.
 Some important factors used to quantify efficiency

Efficiency
Hydraulic efficiency in the turbine in p.u (typically >0.9 for hydropower)
Total (station) efficiancy also include efficiency in Generator and
Transformer: tot = turb* gen* trafo
Typical values: tot = 0.93 * 0.98 * 0.99 = 0.90

Energy equivalent EEKV ( EEKV = *9.81*H/3600)

Energy potential in 1 m3 of water, in kWh/m3 (Typically EEKV = 1 if H is 400m)
With Annual inflow (Q) in Mill.m3 electrical energy output Ea = Q * EEKV in GWh
Professor .Killingtveit

Capacity factor Cf
How much is the installed capacity utilized?

Resource Utilization Factor Cu

6
How much of the available resource is utilized?
 Different approaches used at different stages in the project

1. Reconnesance (Screening)

Increasing level of detail

2. Pre-Feasibility study

3. Feasibility study
Professor .Killingtveit

4. Detailed design
Hydrological

5. Operation information

requirement

7
 Exercise Part 1 Case Inga Falls in Congo

Remember meaning of different we are using:

1 kW = 1000 W
1 MW = 1000 kW
1 GW = 1000 MW

1 kWh = 1 kW in 1 hour
Professor .Killingtveit

1 GWh = 1000 kWh

1 TWh = 1000 GWh = 1 000 000 kWh

1 EJ (ExaJoule) = ca 277.5 TWh

8
 Capacity factor, Cf
Capacity factor or Load factor
The (net) capacity factor or load factor of a power plant is the ratio of the
actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its potential output if it
had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time

To calculate the capacity factor, take the total amount of energy the plant
produced during a period of time T (EA) and divide by the amount of energy
the plant would have produced at full capacity EP = N (kW) T (h)

As of 2010, Three Gorges Dam is the largest power generating station in the
world by nameplate capacity. In 2009, not yet fully complete, it had 26 main
Professor .Killingtveit

generator units @ 700 MW and two auxiliary generator units @ 50 MW for a

total installed capacity of 18,300 MW. Total generation EA in 2009 was 79.47
TWh or 79 470 000 MWh

Capacity factor for Three Gorges can then be computed as:

Cf = 79 470 000 MWh / (365 * 24 * 18 300 MW) = 0.50 (50%)

9 Typical Cf values for hydropower: 0.4 0.6

 Capacity factor for different power technologies

Typical Cf
Thermal power (coal, oil, gas, ..) 0.8 0.9

Nuclear power 0.8 0.9

Hydropower 0.4 0.6 (up to 0.9)

Wind power 0.2 0.3

Professor .Killingtveit

Solar (PV) power 0.1

Typically, comparing different renewables with same capacity::

Hydro give 2 - 2.5 times more GWhs than wind power

Wind power give 2 3 times more GWhs than solar power
Hydro give 4 6 times more GWhs than solar power

Different lifetime increases this difference

10
 Example 1: A small Run-of-River plant
Example 1: A small hydro plant

Head 210 m
Head loss 10 m
Flow 1 m3/s
Efficiency 0.90

P = 9.81 0.90 1 200 (kW)

P = 1765.8 kW
P = 1.766 MW
Professor .Killingtveit

Maximum possible production:

E = 1765.8 24 (kWh/day)
E = 42379 kWh/day
E = 15.47 GWh/year

If capacity factor Cf = 0.4 =>

11 E = 15.47 * .4 = 6.2 GWh/year
 Example 2: Large storage plant
Example 1: A large hydro plant

Head 278 m
Head loss 5m
Flow 2 18 m3/s
Efficiency 0.92

P = 9.81 0.92 36 273 (kW)

P = 88700 kW
P = 88.7 MW H
Professor .Killingtveit

Maximum possible Energy production:

E = 88700 24 (kWh/day)
E = 2 128 792 kWh/day
E = 777 GWh/year

If capacity factor Cf = 0.6 =>

E = 777 * .6 = 466 GWh/year
12
 Utilization factor, Cu
The utilization factor Cu is defined as the share of Potential energy EP
(in per unit or %) that is actually generated in the hydropower plant (EA):

Cu = EA/EP

The Potential energy EP (sometimes called raw energy) is computed as:

EP (kWh/year) = QA (m3/year) * EEKV (kWh/m3)

With QA given in Mill.m3/year EP will be given in GWh/year

The Actual energy production EA is the average annual energy that is

Professor .Killingtveit

actually produced with the selected power plant

Example:
QA = 100 Mill. m3/year
EEKV = 0.90 KWh/m3
EP = 100 * 0.90 = 90 GWh/year

If EA = 65 GWh/year

13 Then, Utilization factor Cu = EA/EP = 65/90 = 0.72 (72%)

 Runoff variability the real problem

Actual energy production depends on Head, Turbine Capacity, Efficiency

and both total amount of water (QA) and the hydrological variability in time
Professor .Killingtveit:

14
 Hydrology Data sources
Information about hydrology can be found from various sources
and with varying degree of accuracy and cost

- Runoff maps giving average runoff per unit area (specific runoff)
- Global
- National
- Project based

- Runoff data from hydrological databases

- Web sources
- National hydrological services
Professor .Killingtveit

- Runoff measurement
- Principles for runoff gauging
- Setting up a new station
- Rating curve calibration
- Data collection and preparation

- Correlation with neighbour stations

- Representativity of stations
15 - Transferring information
 Hydrology Map studies
When a project site have been
identified, we can find:

1) Catchment boundary

2) Catchment area A (km2)

If a runoff map is available for the

area of interest we can also find:

3) Specific runoff qS (l/s*km2)

4) Average runoff qm = A*qS (l/s)

Professor .Killingtveit

5) Annual runoff QA (Mill.m3)

16
 Runoff maps (1) Example from Norway

Specific runoff 20
in l/s*km2
Professor .Killingtveit:

30

B
40

For small catchments (A) the average

specific runoff can be read directly from the
map: sA 27 l/s*km2

17 For large catchments (B) an integrated

average should be computed: sB 35 l/s*km2
 The problem of many different units

Working with hydrology and hydropower

you will meet and use data with many
different units

Resource data (hydrology) may be given as:

m3/s average flow

Mill.m3/year sum annual runoff
l/s*km2 specific runoff
Professor .Killingtveit

mm runoff height (depth)

Some examples:

Time series of flow in m3/s

Data from NVE Atlas in Mill. m3 pr year
Runoff maps in l/s*km2
Water balance maps in mm runoff depth
18
 Runoff maps (2)
Runoff maps usually show isolines for
average annual runoff (Runoff depth) in
(S) mm/year or as Specific runoff (s) l/s*km2

With map showing runoff depth S in mm/year we have:

1000 mm/year is the same as 1 m3/m2 per year

For a catchment of A km2

Q = A * S * 1000000/1000/1000000 (Mill.m3/year)
Q = A * S / 1000 (Mill. m3/year)

If the catchment is 1 km2

Professor .Killingtveit

and average runoff S is 1000 mm/year

Q = 1 * 1000 / 1000 = 1 Mill.m3/year

This is equivalent to an average flow of

qm = Q * 1000000/(3600*24*365) m3/s

If the catchment is 1 km2:

qm = 1 * 0.03171 = 0.0317 m3/s or 31.7 l/s

19 Rule of thumb: 1000 mm runoff equals 1 Mill.m3 pr km2 or 32 l/s*km average flow
A head of 400m and runoff 1000 mm/year gives a potential of 1 GWh/km2
 Catchment Runoff Different measurement units:
River runoff can be measured directly, units are m3/s or l/s (small rivers)
Specific runoff is runoff pr km2, usually given as l/(s*km2) or in mm

Example:
If average annual runoff from a 10 km2 catchment is 1 m3/s then,

- Specific runoff is 1000l/s / 10 km2 = 100 l/(s*km2)

- Annual volume of runoff is 1*3600*24*365 m3 or 31 536 000 m3

or 31.5 Mill.m3/year
Professor .Killingtveit

Converting from precipitation in mm to runoff in m3/s

1000 mm gives 1 m*1m2 = 1m3 of water pr m2 of area
or 1 Mill.m3 in an area of 1 km2 (1 000 000 m2)
For a catchment of 100 km2 this gives 100 Mill.m3/year

Converting from specific runoff in l/s to runoff in mm depth:

A specific runoff of 100 l/s*km2 (0.1 m3/s) corresponds to
Annual volume of = 0.1*3600*24*365 m3/km2 = 3 153 600 m3/year
Converted to Runoff depth divide by area and multiply by 1000
20 3 153 600 m3 / 1 000 000 m2 * 1 000 mm = 3154 mm/year
Professor .Killingtveit: The basis is long term flow measurements

21 NVE station Krinsvatn http://www2.nve.no/h/hd/plotreal/Q/0133.00007.000/index.html

 Flow variability Wet and dry years
Variability from wet to dry years can lead til large variability in hydropower output

Krinsvatn - Average annual runoff for 1961-2004

20

15
Average runoff, m3/s
Professor .Killingtveit

10

60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20

22
 Rough estimate of hydropower potential
If topographic maps and runoff map exist for the project area
the following steps can be taken to estimate energy potential EP:

1) Locate places for power plant intake and outlet at the topographic map

2) Delineate the catchment upstream the site

3) Measure/calculate catchment area (A) in km2

4) Transpose catchment outline to the runoff map (use a copy!)

Professor .Killingtveit:

5) Estimate average specific runoff for the catchment in l/s*km2 or mm/year

6) Compute average annual runoff QA in Mill.m3 per year

7) Estimate gross head H and efficiency for the plant

8) Compute energy equivalent: EEKV = 9.81 H / 3600 (kWh/m3)

9) Compute Energy Potential EP = QA EEKV (GWh/year)

23 NB: This is the theoretical, upper limit, not considering flood spill due to variable flow!!
 Production calculation in Screening studies
In a screening study a large number of possible project sites are investigated
At each site a project (power plant) is identified and the following main
parameters are investigated and computed:

Catchment area (A, km2)

Average specific runoff (qs, l/s*km2)
Average annual flow, qm = qs*A /1000 (m3/s)
Average annual inflow (QA = qm*3600*24*365/1000000, Mill.m3/yr)

Average head (H, m)

Capacity (qmax, m3/s) usually taken as a % of qm (Typically 200-300% of qm)
Professor .Killingtveit:

EEKV = 9.81*H*/3600 (kWh/m3)

Average annual production (EA = QA * EEKV * Cu, GWh/yr)

Cu is Utilization factor, depending on qm, qmax and hydrological variability

Cu is typically 0.5-0.9 but depends strongly on

the selected qmax compared to flow characteristics

For comparison of many alternatives we can usually use same Cu

24
 Flow and hydropower output variability
Vannfring
Flow at ved Gaulfoss
Gaulfossen gaugingi Gaula i 2002 2002
station

700
River flow nearly always varies with time:
- During a day
600 - From day to day
- Seasonally (summer/winter)
- From year to year (Dry/Wet year)
500
As a consequence hydropower output
will be variable and only operate fully part
of the time (Assuming no regulation)
400
m3/s
Professor .Killingtveit

Information about flow variability:

Measurement of flow
300 Analysis can be based on
Time series or
3 Duration curves of flow
200

100
2

0 1
25 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02
 Selecting best project alternative (Screening)
For all identified project alternatives do:

1) Compute average energy production EA

2) Compute value of energy production (Benefit)

3) Compute Cost of development

4) Compute Benefit/Cost ratio (and other economic parameters)

5) Compare B/C for all alternatives

Professor .Killingtveit:

6) Also consider other important issues (Environmental, Social impacts)

Select the best project alternative among those identified

=> Go to Pre-Feasibility analysis

26
 Production calculation in Pre-Feasibility studies
The result of the screening process is that one or more projects
that will be taken to a Pre-feasibility study

In a Pre-Feasibility study a more detailed calculation method is needed

in order to have a more realistic calculation and economic optimization

For run-of-river (ROR) projects we can use the duration curve

This is the method recommended for the Project work (next semester)

For storage plant projects we need to set up a simulation model

This method is recommended for detailed study and always
Professor .Killingtveit:

necessary if there is storage in the project

This method will be introduced 4. semester

27
 The Flow Duration Curve

The Flow Duration Curve give the

relationship between any value of
flow and the % of time this flow is
exceeded

Example: A flow of 100 l/s will be

exceeded in 68% of the time on
the right graph
Professor .Killingtveit:

Flow Duration Curves are

sometimes shown with Logarithmic
axis for flow in order to show both
high and low flows with better
resolution.

Exceedance time may be given in

- Per cent (0-100%)
- Hours in a year (0 to 8760 h)
28
- Per unit (0 to 1)
 Flow Duration Curve - Krinsvatn
The duration curve is computed by sorting the time series of data and then
computing the % of all observations are exceeding different flows

Can most easily be computed in Excel using the PERCENTILE function

Krinsvatn - Duration curve for flow data 1961-2005

300

250
Professor .Killingtveit:

200
Discharge, m3/s

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

29 Duration of exceedance (%)

 Flow Duration Curve Computing in Excel
Lislefjddi
Duration Curve example
30 30

25 25

20 1 20
3
Vannfring m3/s

Flow
15
15

10

10
5

5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Professor .Killingtveit:

0
% of time exceeded
01.01.1973 01.01.1978 01.01.1983 01.01.1988 01.01.1993 01.01.1998 01.01.2003

Duration Curve 1973-2007

% Lislefjdd
Average 0.695 =PERCENTILE(Lislefjodd!$C$367:$C$13149;1-B5/100)
0 27.130
1 5.724
2 4.384
3 3.820
=PERCENTILE(Lislefjodd!$C$367:$C$13149;1-B7/100)
4 3.350
2
5 3.020
6 2.710
7 2.430
8 2.190
=PERCENTILE(Lislefjodd!$C$367:$C$13149;1-B12/100)
9 2.020
10 1.850
30
 Flow Duration Curve - Krinsvatn
The duration curve may be difficult to read at very low and very high flows
due to the short duration of these events (Floods and extreme low flows)

Using Logarithmic transformation of the flows will often be very useful

Krinsvatn - Duration curve for flow data 1961-2005

1000.00
300

250
100.00
Professor .Killingtveit:

200
Discharge, m3/s
Discharge, m3/s

10.00

150

1.00
100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

500.10

0
0
0.01 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

31 Duration
Durationofof
exceedance (%)(%)
exceedance
 Flow Duration Curve - Krinsvatn
The duration curve may be difficult to read at very low and very high flows
More detailed plots of Upper and Lower 10% duration may be very useful

Krinsvatn - Duration curve for flow data 1961-2005

300
250
Discharge, m3/s

200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Professor .Killingtveit:

Duration of exceedance (% )

Krinsvatn - Duration curve for flow data 1961-2005

2.5
Discharge, m3/s

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
32 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
Duration of exceedance (% )
 Duration curve for a small hydropower plant
Duration curve for two different gauging stations
Plotted up to maximum flow in the turbine
Bjrnar - Vannfring i kraftverk ved makskapasitet 3.2 m3/s

3.500
2.180
2.907
3.000

2.500
Professor .Killingtveit:

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

33
 Production calculation using duration curves

Simplified calculation using Duration curves

1) Find area under curve below turbine capacity limit

2) Convert area to Mill.m3 of water (QA)

3) Convert volume to production: EA = QA * EEKV

Some problems:
Professor .Killingtveit:

- Bypass/minimum flow
- Turbine minimum flow (cutoff)
- Variable efficiency in turbine/generator
- Head loss (variable, depending on flow)

More accurate computations will be presented before project

work in spring semester using the program system MPC-2004

34 For now using only 1) to 3) will be sufficient

 Computing net available water from duration curve
Blue(0) : Bypass (instream flow) Pink (3): Through turbines
Yellow (1): Flood spill (Usable water)
Yellow (2): Spill because too low flow (below lower limit)
Vannslipping ved Bjrnar - Lislefjddi som vannmerke

5.000
Qflom
4.500 1
Qgjenn
4.000
Qforbi
3.500
Professor .Killingtveit:

3.000
2.500
2.000
3
1.500
1.000

0.500
2
0.000
0
35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
 A warning about time resolution in runoff data
Even daily (average) flow data may overestimate the real production in a small hydropower
plant. This is illustrated by the example below taken from another NVE station at Kjelstad.

Flow measurement at Kjelstad during Week 30-39 in 2010

18
Hourly data
Daily average
16
Weekly average

14

12
Discharge, m3/s

10
Professor .Killingtveit:

0
0

0
10

10

01

01

01
20

20

20

20

20

.2

.2
.

p.
ug

ug

ug
ul

ul

ep

ep
se
.j

.j

.a

.a

.a

.s

.s
21

31

9.

19

29
10

20

30

36
 In complex systems flow data are required many places

In systems with a large number of

sub-catchments it is not practically
possible to measure flow for each
catchment

The solution is usually to compute

flow by correlation
Professor .Killingtveit:

More than one correlation station

is often needed
(low-land, mountain)

37
 Correlation with other gauging stations
Sometimes river discharge data may be available in a neighbouring
catchment (A) but not in the river where our project is located (B)

It is then quite common practice to transfer (scale) data from catchment A to B

B
Professor .Killingtveit:

38
 Correlation with other (nearby) gauging stations
Assuming that hydrological conditions are similar in the two catchments,
River flow in B can be computed by scaling data from A. The scaling can be
based on ratios between either:

Catchment areas (AA/AB)

Average flow (QA/QB)

B
Recommended method:

qA: River flow in catchment A

A
Professor .Killingtveit:

qB: River flow in catchment B

QA: Average annual runoff in catchment A

QB: Average annual runoff in catchment B

qB = qA QB/ QA

It is also possible to do this type of scaling using 2 or more runoff gauging stations
Can be useful if project catchment (B) is hydrologically complex (different flow
regimes within the catchment)
39
 Correlation with other (nearby) gauging stations

Calculation of inflow data by scaling to 6 sub-catchments

from 2 gauging stations with observed time-series
I

WG1 and WG2 are

4 2 stations with flow
2 measurement.
3
Professor .Killingtveit:

From these, inflow

is computed for the
6 modules by the
5 formulas given in
the figure
WG1

WG2 6

40
 Illustrative example

Computing inflow for the 6

modules for a period of 5
days. Flows at WG1 and
WG2 are given for each day,
together with annual average
inflows for the two gauging
stations and the 6 modules.
Professor .Killingtveit

Runoff stations Module local catchments

WG1 WG2 1 2 3 4 5 6
3
Qavg (Mm /yr) 180 720 75 105 60 120 270 90
Weight WG1 1 1 0 1 0 0
factors WG2 0 0 1 0 1 1

Scaling WG1 0.417 0.583 0.000 0.667 0.000 0.000

factors WG2 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.375 0.125

3
Date Observed flows (m /s) Computed flows (m3/s)
01-Jan 120 460 50.0 70.0 38.3 80.0 172.5 57.5
02-Jan 180 550 75.0 105.0 45.8 120.0 206.3 68.8
03-Jan 160 720 66.7 93.3 60.0 106.7 270.0 90.0
04-Jan 140 600 58.3 81.7 50.0 93.3 225.0 75.0
41 05-Jan 120 480 50.0 70.0 40.0 80.0 180.0 60.0
 Summary and recommendations
Hydropower planning depends heavily on correct hydrological information

For small hydro projects the lack of data is often a problem

Average runoff from runoff maps can be used to estimate theoretical

potential but will overestimate the practical output (if not corrected)

For economic optimization of project we need information of flow

variability on daily, seasonal and annual scale

Flow variability is always larger in small rivers than in large rivers

Professor .Killingtveit:

If possible use daily runoff data (weekly or mothly data less good)

If time allows set up a runoff gauging station on the project site.

If you do measurements give high priority to data quality.
(Very uncertain data are sometimes worse than no data at all)

Local measurements can be correlated with neighbouring stations to

produce more accurate flow data for the project

42