HYDROPAK Concept design and analysis of a packaged cross-flow turbine

CONTRACT NUMBER: H/03/00078/00/00 URN NUMBER: 04/1885

The DTI drives our ambition of prosperity for all by working to create the best environment for business success in the UK. We help people and companies become more productive by promoting enterprise, innovation and creativity. We champion UK business at home and abroad. We invest heavily in world-class science and technology. We protect the rights of working people and consumers. And we stand up for fair and open markets in the UK, Europe and the world.

The work described in this report was carried out under contract as part of the DTI Technology Programme: New and Renewable Energy, which is managed by Future Energy Solutions. The views and judgements expressed in this report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect those of the DTI or Future Energy Solutions.

First published 2004 Joint: NHT Engineering and IT Power Ltd, 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................I 1. Project Aim and Objectives ..........................................................................................1 2. Background....................................................................................................................2 3. Overview of Project Activities ......................................................................................4 3.1 3.2 Activity [a]: - Develop basic layout design................................................4 Activity [b]: - Compile database of components and sizes .....................7

3.3 Activity [c]: - Develop standard size increments with layout drawings .................................................................................................................9 3.4 Activity [d]: - Analysis of turbine components and development of standardisation strategy ............................................................12 3.5 Activity [e]: - Assessment and optimisation of civil works requirements ..........................................................................................................18 3.6 Activity [f]: - Analysis of O&M constraints................................................21

4. Current Activity..............................................................................................................22 4.1 4.2 Activity [g] - Finalise the outline designs for the HydroPak ....................22 Activity [h] - System costing and economic assessment ........................26

5. Project Conclusions.......................................................................................................29 6. Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................31

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9

Example HydroPak Design Database ........................................................... 8 Detailed HydroPak Component List............................................................ 12 Transmission selection ................................................................................ 15 Shaft sizing Calculations for HydroPak ...................................................... 16 Nozzle area (A) m2 for choosing the MIV................................................. 17 MiniPak Plinth Dimension Selection Table ................................................ 20 Plinth matrix ................................................................................................. 20 Results of Economic Analysis of Hydropak ............................................... 26 Weighting of main costs for main HydroPak components across its range .................................................................................................... 27 Table 10 Cost comparison with competitors that supply packaged crossflow turbines.................................................................................... 29

Figure 1 Head vs. Flow operating ranges of the major turbine types ..................... 3 Figure 2 Operational ranges of hydro turbine types considering power and head, based on speed, showing area that crossflow turbines can best occupy........................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Typical 300 Cross-Flow turbine plan - layout ........................................ 10 Figure 4 Typical 300 Cross-Flow turbine layout - side elevation ........................ 11 Figure 5 Bill of Materials for typical finalised 300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate................................................................................. 22 Figure 6 Example of finalised 300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate........................................................................................................... 23 Figure 7 Detailed components of finalised 300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate................................................................................. 24 Figure 8 Finalised plinth design for HydroPak ........................................................ 25 Figure 9 Economic cost of HydroPak across its range............................................ 27 Figure 10 Contribution of main costs across HydroPaks range............................ 28

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aims and Objectives

The aim of this project HydroPak: Concept design and analysis of a packaged crossflow turbine was to undertake industrial research to complete the conceptual design and economic optimisation of a modular and standardised crossflow microhydro turbine called the HydroPak. The objectives were to develop a concept design for HydroPak that would be an allin-one packaged product of good value and quality, to analyse the principle turbine components to assess the level of standardisation achievable in a turbine range of about 25-500kW and 6-50m head, to analyse and minimise the civil works required for installing HydroPak and assess its operation and maintenance (O&M) implications, and finally to develop cost estimates across the range of machine sizes, with a target of a suite of turbines which can be offered at ex-factory costs in the range 500-600 per kW.

Work and Results

The work in the project has pursued all of the planned activities, firstly developing the basic layout design, deciding on the standard turbine sizes (a suite of 15 crossflow runners) and compiling a database of off-the-shelf and fabricated components required. The turbine components were then analysed in detail and a standardisation strategy was developed with the aim of keeping HydroPak as cheap as possible. The civil works requirements and O&M constraints have also been assessed and optimised with standard approaches taken. The outline designs for the HydroPak range were then finalised following the standardisation strategy and system costing and economic assessment performed to see if HydroPak could be competitive in the market place for packaged micro-hydro power solutions. An example set of detailed layout drawings for one particular turbine size was completed. The final result was that the cost/kW was not the same across the range of HydroPak; predictably, the smaller units were more expensive per kW, as the following table shows. A range of site heads from 10 to 40 metres and low to high flows (0.182 to 1.64 cum/s) was considered in this analysis that gives the widest range possible of HydroPak options within the 15kW to 650kW capacity band that emerged within the project as the target range for HydroPak.
Results of Economic Analysis of HydroPak Capacity (kW) Head (m) Flow (cum/s) Hydropak Cost/kW* ()
* ex-factory cost

18 10 0.182 1504

100 20 0.515 683

300 30 1.05 470

640 40 1.64 334

How HydroPak costs compare with conventional micro- and mini-hydro power (MHP) costs of some example competitors for crossflow turbines are shown in the table below. These costs are for a high head, low flow site and indicative only for a

41kW capacity HydroPak, as the HydroPak approach would in fact be to maximise the site by generating more power than this for the customer. As heads increase at potential sites, the HydroPak design has to change (e.g. larger shaft, different transmission drive etc.) but the overall costs do not increase correspondingly so, as with all MHP products, a lower cost/kW is obtainable at higher heads. Further, because the runner has been standardised to 15 sizes, even for the smallest runner size (dia. 300mm x 200mm width) the increase in head will offer the customer the chance to maximise the site for quite large capacities.

Cost comparison with competitors that supply packaged crossflow turbines Supplier Example capacity (kW) Turbine cost () Controller cost () Czech Republic 43kW 23,323 7,679 721 Vietnam/ Philippines 40kW 6,839 5,211 301 Vietnam 40kW 3,583 4,885 212 China 50kW 5,625 2,581 164 HydroPak (averaged) 41kW 26,354 21,536

Total cost ()

31,002

12,050

8,468

8,206

47,890
1,168

Ex-works cost/kW ()

From this analysis it is clear that HydroPak is the most expensive option for this particular site. But with the cost of the load controller excluded, the turbine cost is comparable with its nearest competitor. This is even at this lower end of its capacity range (below 125 kW) where unit costs were seen to rise quite sharply, as shown in the figure below, and in addition HydroPak supplies a bedplate and enclosure, so the result is good by this measure. The controller itself is an essential part of any hydro system and must be of high quality if reliable and safe operation is to be had over many years. It is this key aspect of quality that would favour the HydroPak and position it well in the pursuit of the market for packaged MHP solutions.

1600 1400

ex-works cost (/kW)

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Target cost/kW

Hydropak capacity (kW)

Economic cost of HydroPak across its range

The project has confirmed that by taking 'packaged' and 'standardised' approaches to the design process, simplifications can be made that will have significant step

II

reductions in production costs. This satisfies the current market need for mini- and micro-hydro which is no longer about overall system efficiency, but rather on overall low cost even at the expense of some loss in efficiency. The technical, economic and environmental benefits of undertaking this project are clear. The development work has explored a new technical approach to enable UK industry to compete with lower cost micro-hydro imports for the UK market as well as offering an attractive package for turnkey supply to overseas markets. This will help bolster the UK small-hydro industry by investigating the lowest cost possible without losing the UKs reputation for quality and efficiency.

III

Conclusions and Recommendations

This project has successfully researched the possibility and plausibility of producing a plug and play packaged and standardised crossflow turbine, the HydroPak. A packaged system that provides all the mechanical and electrical equipment as a single unit, plus the powerhouse itself will be a unique product. The initial range of 25kW to 600kW and 10m to 50m head gives rise to a colossal range of turbines and standardising across the full range has require careful consideration with regard to the main design aspects of the runner range and turbine housings, optimising and banding of the Standard Industrial Products and, importantly, the introduction of the MiniPak a sub100kW version of the HydroPak. The ex-works cost of HydroPak, as analysed in this project, is of course only part of the final cost that a MHP developer would have to expect, considering the transportation, civil and site works, testing/commissioning required and then the ongoing O&M costs. Although it was not in the remit of the project to cost these through, it has been shown how to standardise civil works for HydroPak and how operation and maintenance can be simplified. The cost analysis of the HydroPaks lower range indicates that further optimising is required, possibly through less costly controllers, to get closer to the target figure. Excluding the controller the HydroPak does compare closely to it nearest and most significant competitor, but it should also be borne in mind that the HydroPak does come as a complete package including bedplate mounting system and enclosure. It is also clear that the controller cost represents a significant portion of the overall cost, especially at the lower range and it may be prudent to see how the costs of this component can be reduced without compromising the quality and safety. Presuming that costs can be driven down as anticipated by this project, the HydroPak will be placed in a very favourable market position as well as being an attractively simple all-in-one solution to offer to private investors, the MiniPak especially. In particular, aid-funded village electrification programmes are increasingly looking at bulk purchase of groups of micro-hydro systems to meet regional needs in developing countries. An all-in package would be a very attractive product for this market as well as satisfying the local (UK and Europe) demand already felt from numerous enquiries about HydroPak as the project has been running. The results of the project have confirmed to NHT Engineering that the packaged approach has significant value and scope and that it is possible to produce a high quality turbine that can compete with imports. The project has provided the basis from which practical development work of the crossflow HydroPak and MiniPak systems could follow. The opportunity to build and test a pilot unit so that the benefits indicated here could be clearly demonstrated would provide the proof and leverage required to turn considerable interest in to orders. This would also include for and enable further analysis on controllers, civil works and O&M requirements of the HydroPak bringing the concept closer to the market place.

IV

HYDROPAK : CONCEPT DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A PACKAGED CROSSFLOW TURBINE

Contract Number: H/03/00078/00/00

FINAL REPORT

1. PROJECT AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The principal aim of the project is to complete the conceptual design and economic optimisations of a modular standardised crossflow turbine called the HydroPak, through industrial research. The specific objectives of this project are: To develop the basic layout and conceptual design of a modular crossflow turbine delivered as an all-in-one packaged product. To develop standard size increments based on an analysis of off-the-shelf components and to suit turbine sizes in the range 25-500kW at 6-50m head. To analyse the principle turbine components to assess the level of standardisation achievable across the range of machine sizes. To analyse the civil works implications in supplying a fixed packaged product, and to develop and minimise the on-site works required for installing HydroPak. To assess the operation and maintenance implications of the HydroPak design. To develop cost estimates across the range of machine sizes.

2. BACKGROUND
The HydroPak concept has emerged to meet the changing nature of the market for mini-hydro turbines in Europe and overseas. In the traditional planning of hydropower developments, public power companies have looked for high efficiency, maximum energy capture, and installing as big a capacity as possible at a specific site. Turbines were therefore customised to meet the needs of each site. The market is changing. Privatised utilities and private investors are now seeking first and foremost high returns and low risk on their investments. This is leading to smaller installed capacities, high load factor installations and a demand for costeffective, rather than optimally efficient, turbines. Developers have discovered that the extra kWhs obtained by maximising a site's potential require a disproportionately high investment. The HydroPak concept of a packaged turbine is targeted to meet these changing market requirements. The versatility and relative simplicity of the crossflow turbine are ideal for this packaged approach, although once proven for the crossflow, this approach could also be adapted for other turbine types. The crossflow is the least efficient of modern-day turbines (i.e. compared with Pelton, Turgo, Francis and Kaplan) and hence has largely been ignored by the traditional hydro industry. It was invented in Europe in the early 20th century and came to prominence principally in developing countries as a low-cost turbine suitable for local manufacture. However, the crossflow is significantly less complex to manufacture than the above turbines, maintains a good efficiency at part-flow, and is applicable to the broadest range of head and flow of all turbines (see Figure 1). Its only drawback is that it achieves peak hydraulic efficiencies of around 80%, as opposed to 90% for the other turbine types.

Figure 1 Head vs. Flow operating ranges of the major turbine types

The UK industry does not currently offer a crossflow turbine product. Recent UK projects have imported crossflow turbines from Eastern Europe rather than use more efficient, but more expensive, Francis turbines available in the UK. This project is therefore an important step towards enabling a major UK manufacturer adapt its design approach to meet changing market demands and thwart the growing competition from cheap imports.

3. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The following Milestones have been completed: Milestone 1 (Concept Design), Milestone 2 (Definition of HydroPak size range with layout drawings) and Milestone 3 (Standardisation Analysis and Recommendations) and Milestone 4 (Final Report and Project Summary). The following activities1 were undertaken within these Milestones: [a] Develop basic layout design [b] Compile database of components and sizes [c] Develop standard size increments with layout drawings [d] Analyse turbine components and develop standardisation strategy [e] Assess and optimise civil works requirements [f] Analysis of O&M constraints [g] Finalise outline designs of the HydroPak range [h] System costing and economic assessment The work completed from each stage of the project is summarised in the following sections.

3.1 Activity [a]: - Develop basic layout design

This activity defined the HydroPak concept and produced the Project Profile covering the basic design considerations for powerhouse structure and internal layout of main components, physical properties such as weight and size, penstock angle, turbine specifications, and other requirements such as Health and Safety and target cost/kW. Key conclusions are summarised below: Crossflow runners have a definite operating domain mid-range between Propeller and Pelton types of turbine, running at speeds determined by the head they are operating (between 300 to 1500rpm). See Figure 2. The head at which the crossflow is the better choice (with manageable operating speeds of between 500 to 1,000rpm) is from about 5-6 metres at lower powers (1-10kW) but up to 100 metres head can be acceptable for higher powers of 500 kW. Three runner diameters of 300mm, 400mm and 450mm were fixed as being the most suitable for HydroPak and runner widths would lie between 200mm and 600mm, with initial thought to offer widths in 100mm increments.

Activity [a] was reported against in the First Quarterly Report, [b], [c] & [d] in the Second Quarterly Report, [e] & [f] in the Third Quarterly Report and [g] & [h] in this, the Final Report.

Crossflow runners will run at speeds determined by the head they are operating at. This could be as low as 300rpm for a large runner operating at a low head and as high as 1,500rpm for a small runner operating at high head. Generators applicable for the HydroPak would have operating speeds of 500, 750 or 1500rpm, although the standard types are expected to be 750 and 1500rpm (4 and 8 pole machines).

Figure 2 Operational ranges of hydro turbine types considering power and head, based on speed, showing area that crossflow turbines can best occupy

In certain cases the HydroPak will require a transmission between runner and generator to step-up the speed. The choices for coupling between the two units are therefore: Direct drive, Belt and pulley transmission (normal ratios are usually 1:1 up to 1:4) and Gearbox (normal ratios are usually 1:4 up to 1:15). A draft tube offers some extra efficiency to the turbine and a chance to make use of the extra head resulting when placing the turbine safely above the floodwater level and a housing to take wastewater away would be a requirement at the bottom end of the turbine anyway. However, this extra gain in efficiency needs to be balanced with the additional engineering work required and costs incurred in ensuring an airtight integrity around the turbine seals. The delivered box as conceptualised should comply with the following transportation restrictions (if delivered on a lorry within the UK): Width - more than 2.9 m requires police notification, more than 3.5m requires both police notification and an escort. Above 3.05m requires an extra premium to be paid to the authorities. Height - 16' (4.8m) motorway bridge limit (10'6" (3.2m) is maximum on 5'6" standard lorry bed).

Therefore the box should be preferably less than 2.9m wide by 3.2m high, although this is not totally restrictive, as widths of up to 3.5m can still be delivered without police escort. Space margins around parts of the HydroPak may be required in order to comply with health and safety regulations for equipment. Space for spare parts, equipment and tools for operation and maintenance will also be required within the unit. The following would be of particular relevance: guards around moving parts (turbine shafting and belt drive), space around and access to hydraulic controls, distance required between individual electrical cabinets and cabinets and hydraulic oils, space for first aid equipment, likely spares and tools needed for repair needs in a remote location. Based upon previous NHT designs, the powerhouse structure suggested was to be made up of various metal box sections welded together with a pitched roof, lifting lugs, internal lifting beam, Zintec sheet-metal walls and all to be painted. Additionally, there will be checker plate welded to a base-frame forming a bedplate or plinth onto which the HydroPak will be seated. The rugged and secure design will be located upon a concrete base, the dimensions of which will be clarified later once the HydroPak increments have been determined. Possibilities of this specification and similar being outsourced were explored. Inside the powerhouse the layout has been designed to accommodate the following: HydroPak equipment (penstock connection, intake butterfly valve (optional), turbine (including draft tube if selected), transmission (where necessary), generator), electrical control panel (with access from the outside through doors) and hydraulic power pack for operation of main intake valve (MIV) and valve control on turbine. The HydroPak should have a maximum weight that is manageable for standard lorryloaders that use a knuckleboom crane for loading and unloading on the premise that only standard size lorries will be able to reach remote sites in the UK. The maximum standard lift from lorryloaders is 20 tonne-metres, giving the maximum weight of HydroPak of about 4 tonnes (at a 5 metre reach). This weight will therefore determine the maximum power that will be acceptable for HydroPak; for comparison a 500kW HydroPak is estimated to be around the 4 to 5 tonne mark (turbine 1.2t, generator 1.6t, housing 0.8t, valve 0.4t, misc. 0.5t). However, specialist delivery lorries can carry and lift a 20 tonne load and deliver at a 5m reach, so a weight of 4 tonnes does not have be restrictive. The overall target ex-factory cost is aimed to be in the range 500-600 per kW.

3.2 Activity [b]: - Compile database of components and sizes

A spreadsheet was created that contained a series of tables generated for HydroPak technical analysis and which were driven by the key parameter, the head (H) (see Table 1). With this information, a database within the spreadsheet was then generated for each of the major Standard Industrial Products that HydroPak requires, identifying possible suppliers, specifications and costs as well as useful dimensions and weights. These major components are:

Powerhouse/containers Generator/induction motor Transmission - belts and pulley drives/gearbox drives Runner shaft bearings and seals Main Inlet Valve (MIV)

Other components that will make up HydroPak and will be part of its fabrication are: Adapter piece Turbine housing Turbine Runner Runner shaft Teardrop valve Pulleys Draft tube Hydraulic power pack

Table 1 Example HydroPak Design Database

Net Head (h) - metres Table 1 RUNNER SPEED (n) - rpm Runner diameter (D) - mm 300 400 450 Table 2 FLOW (Q) - cumecs Runner diameter (D) - mm 300 400 450 Table 3 GROSS POWER (P g) - kW Runner diameter (D) - mm 300 400 450 Table 4 ELEC POWER (Pe) - kW Runner diameter (D) - mm 300 400 450 Table 5 TORQUE (T) - Nm Runner diameter (D) - mm 300 400 450 Table 6 SHAFT DIAMETER (d) - mm Runner diameter (D) - mm 300 400 450 Table 7 Transmission choice rpm Runner diameter (D) - mm 300 400 450 max pulley ratio 4.2 Runner length (w) - mm 200 300 400 54.08 54.82 55.77 55.32 57.28 59.56 56.31 59.08 62.12 500 56.88 61.97 65.17 600 58.11 64.39 68.14 10 Runner length (w) - mm 200 300 400 428.6 428.6 428.6 321.4 321.4 321.4 285.7 285.7 285.7 Runner length (w) - mm 200 300 400 0.1819 0.2729 0.3639 0.2426 0.3639 0.4852 0.2729 0.4094 0.5458 Runner length (w) - mm 200 300 400 17.8 26.8 35.7 23.8 35.7 47.6 26.8 40.2 53.5 Runner length (w) - mm 200 300 400 11.8 17.7 23.6 15.7 23.6 31.5 17.7 26.6 35.4 Runner length (w) - mm 200 300 400 310.2 465.3 620.4 551.4 827.2 1102.9 697.9 1046.9 1395.8

500 428.6 321.4 285.7

600 428.6 321.4 285.7

500 0.4549 0.6065 0.6823

600 0.5458 0.7278 0.8187

500 44.6 59.5 66.9 500 29.5 39.3 44.3

600 53.5 71.4 80.3 600 35.4 47.2 53.1

500 775.5 1378.6 1744.8

600 930.6 1654.3 2093.8

500 12 pole 1.17 1.56 1.75

750 1000 1500 3000 10 pole 6 pole 4 pole 2 pole 1.75 2.33 3.50 7.00 2.33 3.11 4.67 9.33 2.62 3.50 5.25 10.50 if number appears red, consider selecting gearbox rather than pulley and belt

Table 8 nozzle area (A) - m2 for choosing MIV Runner length (w) - mm (D) - mm 200 300 400 300 0.0471 0.0707 0.0942 400 0.0628 0.0942 0.1257 450 0.0707 0.1060 0.1414

500 0.1178 0.1571 0.1767

600 0.1414 0.1885 0.2121

This Table shows that at 10 metres head, the design speeds, flows, powers, torques and suggested shaft diameters appear for each of the 15 choices of HydroPak runner. For example, for the smallest runner (diam. 300, width 200) it indicates that about 12 kW electrical power could be tapped and that a pulley of 3.5 ratio would be required if using a 4-pole generator. It also guides the design area of the turbine nozzle and then the correct size of MIV can be selected from that.

3.3 Activity [c]: - Develop standard size increments with layout drawings
The size increments here are the diameter and length of the runner. The fifteen combinations of size of crossflow runner were finally decided on, made up of three (3) standard diameters (300mm, 400mm, 450mm) and five (5) widths of runners between 200mm and 600mm, in 100mm increments. Based on this, drawings were prepared showing typical side elevations and plan views and standard end plates and top- and bottom-plates for the runner housing. Other items that were drawn to integrate with this standard design approach were:

bed-plate integral to the turbine fabrication, hydraulic tank with actuator integrated to turbine housing, failsafe counterweight to close the turbine via the (teardrop) valve in case of hydraulic failure, safety guards (for pulley transmission), control cubicle integral to bed-plate, consideration was also given to the draft tube.

The example drawings developed of these first layouts are given overleaf, for the case of a 300mm diameter and 300m wide runner. In doing these designs, the need for standardisation of parts has been the foremost consideration so as to achieve the target cost/kW. Examples of the HydroPak layout drawings can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 4 overleaf.

1 6 9 10 7 8

A A

B B

C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF

COMMENTS

QUANTITY

D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE

SCALE

CONTRACT

DRAWING No.

10

Figure 3 Typical 300 Cross-Flow turbine plan - layout

10

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

1 9 10

A A

B B

C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF

COMMENTS

QUANTITY

D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE

SCALE

CONTRACT

DRAWING No.

10

Figure 4 Typical 300 Cross-Flow turbine layout - side elevation

11

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

3.4 Activity [d]: - Analysis of turbine components and development of standardisation strategy
Each of the identified off-the-shelf or fabricated components of the HydroPak (see 4.2 above) was looked at by the project team in detail with the aim of using standard products or manufactured parts as much as possible. The amount of standardisation achievable in coupling the various components together across the 10-500 kW HydroPak range has also been a consideration that has run through all aspects of the research and in the project. The design work focusing around the HydroPak turbine (runner, shaft, casing, draft tube) is an iterative process and has also continued. The major components of the turbine are shown in Table 2 below indicating the component type; for off-the-shelf components. Several suppliers were contacted for each component and a database of specifications and likely costs was made; for the items that require fabrication, NHT the initiator of the HydroPak concept, are envisaged to undertake this work. Each of the components is looked at in more detail in 4.4.1 to 4.4.13 below.
Table 2 Detailed HydroPak Component List Fabricated components Turbine runner and Shafting Turbine housing, Nozzle and Adapter piece Turbine teardrop valve and control arm Pulleys (for use with Belts) Draft Tube Hydraulic Power Pack Bed-plate Control Panel & Distribution Board MiniPak enclosure Off-the-shelf components Synchronous Generators (for developing countries/isolated sites) Asynchronous Generators / Induction Machine (for grid connection) Gearboxes (with Induction Motor to operate as Generator) Pulley Belts (for developing countries) Drive Shaft Couplings Main Runner Bearings and Turbine Valve Bearings Main Inlet Valve (MIV) MCCBs & Contactors Powerhouse Container

As a result of this work, there will not be a complicated array of HydroPak products to choose from and these will be presented and marketed in a simple way to be fully understandable to all potential clients. The emphasis has been to standardise as much as is reasonably possible, without loosing flexibility or trading off efficiency. The strategy for standardisation of HydroPak has been discussed comprehensively by the project team and the approach decided on is to offer the HydroPak in 2 ranges; a MiniPak, capacity up to about 100-150 kW and a full HydroPak, above 100-150 kW. This is because the amount of standardisation achievable naturally decreases as the capacity increases due to more complex systems, and the mark that this tends to happen is about the capacity that a micro-hydro machine becomes a mini-hydro one. This approach has also considered that for every client ordering a HydroPak, there should be a call-up sheet of Standard Industrial Products and this

HydroPak Final Report

12

April 2004

database will be combined with the matched fabricated parts and represent the system build specification.

Fabricated Components
3.4.1 Turbine Runner and Shafting

The turbine runner design has been standardised to specific sizes in Activity [c]. Technical analysis was carried out at the same time on how the runner shaft can be sized for various HydroPak schemes. The task of grouping of these various shaft diameters as part of the strategy for standardisation was carried out in this Activity and is detailed in 4.4.9. It is likely that the shaft would be reduced in the centre of the runner, to allow water to pass more efficiently and that shaft will be vented for high altitude schemes. The opposite end of the runner shaft to the generator will have the option of being utilised for operating mechanical devices which is particularly important for developing countries markets. The HydroPak is likely to have a stainless-steel runner and although the cost will be about 30% higher, the advantages of stainless are that marketing of the product is promoted (stainless is regarded as high-quality), there will be no painting of the runner required, runner visual inspections are made easier due to no paint and metal flaws resulting from NDT2 show up better in stainless steel.
3.4.2 Turbine Housing and Nozzle

The main turbine housing will be made up from 6 pieces of 10mm plate to cope with pressures of the high head schemes, which includes for the nozzle. There will be 2 standard side-plates for each of the 3 runner diameters, 1 curved top-plate and 1 bottom-plate that make up the nozzle shape and 1 front and 1 back plate that form the bottom part of the turbine casing and connect to the draft tube. These nozzle and casing plates will only vary according to the width of the runner and are therefore standardised as much as is possible.
3.4.3 Adapter Piece

The circular to rectangular cross-sectional piece between turbine housing and Main Inlet Valve (MIV) has been designed to be fabricated in two pieces and also have a thickness of 10mm. It will also have a standard flange for connection to the MIV. By forming it two parts, the width required of it can be suited to the width of runner chosen for a particular site.
3.4.4 Teardrop Valve

The teardrop valve fabrication approach will be to cast the correct form as a 620mm long piece that will then be cut to the appropriate length to suit the width of the particular HydroPak. The mechanism to control the valve has been designed and the actuating arm will run through one of the side plates.

Non-destructive testing
13

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

3.4.5

Draft Tube

Hydropak will be offered with a basic square/rectangular draft tube or skirt, which is not as expensive to fabricate as a conical draft tube. It offers the advantage of enhancing turbine performance through the discharge or suction head, taking the waste water cleanly away from the turbine and site advantages (i.e. allowing the turbine to be located well above the flood level).
3.4.6 Hydraulic Powerpack

A hydraulic powerpack is required for actuating the turbine control valve and for larger MIVs in larger HydroPak schemes. It will be mounted on the front of the turbine, integral with the turbine housing; the standard casing plates will have the necessary mounting arrangement as part of their design. As well as being electrically actuated, the powerpack could have a hand pump for failsafe/manual operation.

Off-the-Shelf Components
3.4.7 Generators

Three potential suppliers of synchronous generators (where the market would generally be off-grid) were contacted and MarelliMotori product range was selected as high specification, good value hydro rated generator and the company have been extremely helpful in helping select specifications and prices of their range applicable to HydroPak. MarelliMotori, as with other manufacturers can offer a complete range of generators, but the most suitable one will be determined by the call-up sheet in the HydroPak database (an example is shown in Annex 2). This would be chosen to match the clients site needs when coupled with the appropriate turbine and is a better choice than simply offering standard turbines with generators that cover a range of kW capacity in which the clients site falls. In this way, the generator is exactly matched to the hydraulic power available minimising efficiency losses and therefore maximising the energy capture from each site. The generator frame size (from its product no.) will directly guide the dimensions of the bed-plate fabrication on to which it is mounted, as the footing dimensions and height of shaft centreline relate to the frame size. The choice between single and 3-phase (and perhaps 2-phase3) will be offered to clients. The expectation is that 3-phase will generally be chosen except for the very small MiniPaks (below 24 kW) for remote village use where single and 2-phase are likely to be preferred.

Two Phase or split phase, offers higher efficiency than 1-phase. Two phase conductors both equidistant from the neutral. Therefore appliances can be directly supplied with the normal voltage with some of the advantages of higher voltages, such as smaller cables and/or lower losses.

HydroPak Final Report

14

April 2004

For situations where there is a possibility of grid connection, asynchronous generators (or induction motors operating as generators - IMAGs) could be employed, this is discussed further in the next section, as an IMAG could be part of a standard gearbox supply.
3.4.8 Drive/Power Transmission

Using the HydroPak Design Tables developed in the Project the team had a technical tool that could analyse all the various parameters of HydroPak. One of the outputs of this is Table 3 below, showing clearly how the head at the site will guide the drive transmission choice. For example, low heads of 5-15m will require ratios between the larger diameter turbines (400mm and 450mm) and generator (if 1,500 rpm (4-pole)) which are above the normally tolerated ratio for pulley and belt drives (taken as 4.2). This is one situation where gearbox units would have to be employed. The other is for the full HydroPak, capacity about 100kW upwards, because at this size a gearbox becomes the preferred technical choice and the cost/kW of the gearbox drops enough to consider it.
Table 3 Transmission selection rpm Runne r diame ter (D) - mm 300 400 450 500 Trans missio n ratio for 12 pole 1.65 2.20 2.47 @ 5 metres 750 1000 Trans Trans missio missio n ratio n ratio for 10 for 6 pole pole 2.47 3.30 3.30 4.40 3.71 4.95 1500 Trans missio n ratio for 4 pole @ 15 metres 3000 rpm 500 750 1000 Trans Runne Trans Trans Trans missio r missio missio missio n ratio diamet n ratio n ratio n ratio for 2 er (D) - for 12 for 10 for 6 pole pole pole pole mm 9.90 300 0.95 1.43 1.91 13.20 400 1.27 1.91 2.54 14.85 450 1.43 2.14 2.86 1500 Trans missio n ratio for 4 pole 2.86 3.81 3000 Trans missio n ratio for 2 pole

4.95 6.60 7.42 if number appears red, bold and italicized, consider selecting gearbox rather than pulley and belt
pulley

5.72 7.62 4.29 8.57 if number appears red, bold and italicized, consider selecting gearbox rather than pulley and belt

max ratio 4.2

max pulley ratio 4.2

Three gearbox suppliers were approached (Brevini, Rossi and Transdrive) and Brevini were chosen as the preferred supplier due to their interest to work closely on the project. Their recommendation was that planetary units, rather than helical ones, be used for HydroPak preferably with induction motor attached (to save on separate purchase of generator), foot mounting for bed-plate attachment, with an inline shaft, not bevel geared. Using induction motors as the generating end of HydroPak has cost advantages (IMs are cheaper) and supply advantages as it would come as part of a gearbox supply. Also, replacement of an Induction Motor is easier in the developing country environment because they are more widely available than synchronous generators. When connected to the grid an IMAG uses the grid as its control mechanism but in

HydroPak Final Report

15

April 2004

off-grid situations, the technology to control IMAGs is also well-known for microhydro systems due to research work in the last 10 years4. Brevini have produced details of their suggested standard gearboxes for use with the HydroPak, based on analysis of speed increase required, torque generated, and power output at heads of 6, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 metres across the suite of 15 runners at each head. Brevini have provided information and figures including the torque and speed the unit will accept, the standard step-up ratios through the units, induction motor applicable at each runner size and unit prices. In the case of supplying HydroPak to developing countries, pulleys and belts (with guards) would be offered. In special circumstances it is possible to manufacture crowned pulleys for use with flat belts to the required ratio and NHT has the experience and capability to do this. Where possible, standard stock pulley and belt products will be sought from well known suppliers such as Fenner and Cross & Morse.
3.4.9 Turbine Shaft and Couplings

The turbine shaft material to be used for the HydroPak runner has been fixed to be stainless steel, consistent with the runner making welding between the two components more reliable. Detailed design aspects of the shaft were described in 4.4.1 above. Initial shaft sizing was done from the HydroPak Design Tables and calculations show that four main shaft sizes emerge, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Shaft sizing Calculations for HydroPak
Runner length (mm) Runner Diameter (mm) at certain heads 300@10m head 400@10m head 300@20m head 450@10m head 300@30m head 400@20m head 300@40m head 450@20m head 300@50m head 400@30m head 450@30m head 400@40m head 400@50m head 450@40m head 450@50m head 200 300 400 500 600 Calculated shaft size (mm) 55.61 59.20 60.34 61.65 65.56 68.37 70.52 72.85 75.08 76.51 82.14 83.48 89.55 89.90 96.59 57.03 58.64 60.34 62.28 65.37 68.37 63.83 67.26 70.52 65.56 69.32 72.85 70.52 75.08 79.24 73.94 78.95 83.48 76.51 81.83 86.61 79.24 84.87 89.90 81.83 87.73 92.98 83.48 89.55 94.94 89.90 96.59 102.49 91.41 98.23 104.25 98.23 105.65 112.17 98.63 106.08 112.63 106.08 114.16 121.25

54.47 56.37 57.03 57.82 60.34 62.28 63.83 65.56 67.26 68.37 72.85 73.94 78.95 79.24 84.87

Motors as Generators for Micro-hydro Power, Nigel Smith, IT Publications, 1994/2003

16

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

The table shows that across the suite of HydroPak runners at operating heads expected from the range, there are four bands within which there are a number of sizes that can be grouped together: 54-68mm (3 (76mm) shaft machined to 65mm) 68-84mm (3.5 (89mm) shaft machined to 80mm) 84-100mm (4 (102mm) shaft machined to 95mm) 100-122mm (5 (127mm) shaft machined to 120mm)

These bands correspond to the raw stainless steel (Grade 303) shaft sizes widely available from suppliers, which have been checked for price and availability. Couplings between the turbine and gearboxes and for use between gearboxes and synchronous generators have been fully investigated. In the MiniPak range, couplings are fairly straight-forward and reasonably priced but get expensive above 100kW. It was observed that for 65-85mm shaft size (up to 56kW/100 rpm) couplings are reasonably priced, but jump considerably for the larger units of 95-120mm shaft size (upwards of 97kW/100rpm).
3.4.10 Bearings

Bearings have been investigated further by gathering information from SKF, the preferred supplier. HydroPak will require 2 types of bearing; double spherical roller bearings for the runner shaft where it emerges from each end of the turbine housing, and simple, water-lubricated composite bearings for the turbine control teardrop valve where it comes out from one side of the housing to the actuating arm mechanism. Bearing selection has been made based on the 4 sizes decided through the shaft sizing process.
3.4.11 Main Inlet Valve

The Main Inlet Valve (MIV) should be offered as standard on HydroPak due to the safety requirement of having to shutdown the turbine even if turbine teardrop valve does close, if, for example, the turbine has a blockage. Manual operation (through a gearbox if necessary) was the first type to be considered due to expected lower cost, but it has been found that many simple gate valves are also applicable for automation. The size of the MIV will be totally determined by the area of the turbine nozzle, which is a function of the runner size, as shown in Table 5. It shows that gate valves between 245 and 520 mm nominal size will be applicable for HydroPak.
Table 5 Nozzle area (A) m2 for choosing the MIV Runner length (w) mm Runner Diam (D) 200 300 400 500 600 mm 300 0.0471 0.0707 0.0942 0.1178 0.1414 400 0.0628 0.0942 0.1257 0.1571 0.1885 450 0.0707 0.1060 0.1414 0.1767 0.2121 MIV Diam (mm) 300 245 300 346 387 424 400 283 346 400 447 490 450 300 367 424 474 520

HydroPak Final Report

17

April 2004

3.4.12 MCCBs & Contactors

Moulded Case Circuit Breakers (MCCBs) with the relevant contactors have been selected as the only part of the electrical control system required to be supplied separately to the controller, because NHT will manufacture the control panel and distribution board to match each HydroPak, on a standardised basis. This is because they will be rated to the capacity of the HydroPak (with the appropriate oversizing) and bought in addition to the controller. The controller itself will be PLC (S7-200) with G59 configuration and display to inform the user of all the major parameters to do with the turbine. Control panel enclosures themselves will be mounted on the bed-plate. Up to 100kW (for the MiniPak), enclosures will be 1200 mm x 1200 mm, for above 100kW, 1500 mm x 1200 mm, possibly 2000 mm x 1200 mm.
3.4.13 Powerhouse Container

The powerhouse will be in two forms as already indicated; off-the-shelf large enclosures will only be used for the full HydroPaks (more than 100kW) and MiniPaks (<100kW) will come with NHT fabricated box. Initial investigations show that standard large enclosures (shipping cargo containers) look attractive due to the low cost and should be investigated further. For the NHT fabricated enclosure, the safety guards around pulleys/couplings need to be considered in the design. The bed-plate will only be mounted on skids in the case when an enclosure is not required by client and they use an existing building at site. Sound-proofing is considered to be site specific and will be offered as an additional item to the client on a case-by-case basis.

3.5 Activity [e]: - Assessment and optimisation of civil works requirements

Given that the remit of HydroPak is to standardise the design and components of the turbine and deliver as a contained unit, it is appropriate that civil works required to install the turbine are approached in the same way. This activity has examined ways in which the civil works requirements can be standardised and minimised in readiness for the HydroPak installation. Outlined below are the considerations that form the basis of a standard specification for the basic civil works required: Container Footprint - The HydroPak will be contained (see 4.4.13 above) and the container will come in a number of sizes so that it may accommodate the large range of the HydroPak. Therefore the civil works required will vary in size relevant to that footprint required by the HydroPak. Thrust Force - The thrust force of the turbine is the major civil works design consideration and must be accommodated by the concrete plinth built for HydroPak. The thrust force could be generated in three ways: The control teardrop valve is closed high thrust forces can be generated if the turbine is shut down quickly, The turbine runner is blocked by debris as above but potentially worse,
HydroPak Final Report
18

April 2004

 The turbine reaches runaway speeds this can also have the additional effect of introducing high vibration levels. Prevailing site conditions the conditions on the chosen site that the HydroPak is to be located are a key consideration and form a major part of site selection. This covers the water source and preparation of appropriate water supply for the HydroPak, forebay design and construction, screening choice, installation of penstock pipe and connection to HydroPak. These items fall outside of the HydroPak remit and the developer should seek guidance from properly qualified civil or hydraulic engineers or use various reference texts that are available to assist on matters such as penstock design, canalisation, screening etc5. Assumptions have been made that the site is appropriate to install a hydro scheme and that achieving a proper installation is possible by tapping local civil engineering contractors and skills.
The HydroPak Plinth Design

3.5.1

The plinth design is also a standardised part and is in essence a reinforced concrete slab with a square/rectangular hole into which the HydroPak draft tube (or skirt) will locate positively (see Annex 6 for a schematic drawn up for civil works suggestions). The controlling factors that determine the size of the plinth are: Scheme rated size this will determine the thrust forces that the plinth is required to withstand. Container size the container defines the minimum physical footprint of the plinth. Ground conditions assuming that the location has good ground conditions then the plinth footprint need be no larger than that of the container. However, in cases where the ground conditions are poorer, this will influence how the plinth is formed. Outfall design this cannot be standardised as it is very much a site specific item, however it will be influenced by the draft tube of the turbine a matter to be considered further in the detailed design process.

A selection matrix for the plinth will have the variable parameters of length, width, depth, spacing of reinforcement and outfall pipe size. Table 6 shows initial design work done on this plinth, which will be applicable for MiniPak, delivered in a small fabricated enclosure or a full HydroPak located in a building, thereby not requiring a container to house it but still a footing to locate it.

recommended references are 1) Micro-hydro Design Manual, A.Harvey 1993 (IT Publishing), 2) A Laymans Guidebook on How to Develop a Small Hydro Site, ESHA, 1994 (CEC), 3) Micro-hydro Power, A Guide for Development Workers, Fraenkel et al. ,1991, (IT Publishing). HydroPak Final Report
19

April 2004

Table 6 MiniPak Plinth Dimension Selection Table Head (m) 2-6 7-15 16-30 31-50 Width (m) 2 2.2 2.5 3 Length (m) 2.5 3.5 4 4 Thick (mm) 200 250 300 350 Pipe (mm) 400 600 800 1000 Mesh T8 393 T10 393 Double T12 393 Double T16 393

But for HydroPak delivered in large containers, the plinth outside dimensions will be controlled by container size and scheme rating. Table 7 provides an example of the selection matrix: Table 7 Plinth matrix
Length (m) Container A 6.10 Container B Container C Container D 6.10 9.15 12.20 Width Depth (m) (mm) 2.75 250 3.05 3.05 3.05 300 350 400 RE-bar (mm) 9 12 12 16 Spacing Scheme size (mm) (kW) 200 >100 200 200 200 >200 >400 >400

HydroPak Final Report

20

April 2004

3.6 Activity [f]: - Analysis of O&M constraints

The approach towards Operation and Maintenance (O&M) procedures and schedules for the HydroPak has been to minimise the need for client/operator input from installation onwards. The following key areas have been the main consideration: Delivery and cranage requirements the enclosure of the HydroPak will be restricted to the dimensions allowed for by transportation on local roads. As well as having lifting lugs outside for cranes at site, the containers should also provide suitable locating points for lifting heavy equipment about inside the container. Access to equipment: The control panel will have easy access and be located close to the powerhouse entrance, Access to the runner is through a removable hatch allowing quick and easy removal of debris. System shutdown and start-up: Typically this will be made though opening and closing a main inlet valve. Options of manual or hydraulically operation will be given depending on the size of the MIV, Auto Emergency shut down using heat and vibration sensors within the shafting will also be offered as an option in conjunction with an automated MIV. Maintenance schedule and procedures there are three main components in the HydroPak, the turbine, speed increasing gearbox (favoured for the European market) and generator. Of these three components, two come as subassemblies and have their own maintenance regimes identified in the manufacturers literature. Every effort has been made to keep the maintenance requirement minimal for the turbine unit and the key areas will be: Low maintenance bearings will be used requiring minimal greasing (often the problem is over enthusiastic greasing) and where appropriate water lubricated composite bearings incorporated (for the turbine control teardrop valve), Bearing packing gland routine check/adjustment procedure will be easy to follow; this will be checked every three months, The maintenance regime will be based upon hours of operation. Flooding as the turbine unit is housed in a container, flooding is less likely to be an issue, clearly the positioning of the HydroPak can be a significant factor also.

HydroPak Final Report

21

April 2004

4. CURRENT ACTIVITY
The current Milestone covers activities [g], and [h]: Finalise the outline designs for the HydroPak and System costing and economic assessment. Detailed work for Milestone (4) is shown below.

4.1 Activity [g] - Finalise the outline designs for the HydroPak
Following the design work done in Activities [c], [d] for the turbine itself and components relating to it and activity [e] for the civil works requirements of HydroPak, this activity has been finalised the HydroPak designs, as presented in Annex 3. As noted on page 4, these detailed designs are not in the public domain and they remain the intellectual property of partners in this project. Below examples are provided for typical 300mm diameter turbine including the BoM and final plinth design matrix.

Figure 5 Bill of Materials for typical finalised 300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate

HydroPak Final Report

22

April 2004

10

A A

B B

C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF

COMMENTS

QUANTITY

D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE

SCALE

CONTRACT

DRAWING No.

10

Figure 6 Example of finalised 300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate

23

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

1 6 9 10 7 8

A A

B B

C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF

COMMENTS

QUANTITY

D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE

SCALE

CONTRACT

DRAWING No.

10

Figure 7 Detailed components of finalised 300 diameter cross-flow turbine on bed plate
24

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

10

A A

B B

C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF

COMMENTS

QUANTITY

D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE

SCALE

CONTRACT

DRAWING No.

10

Figure 8 Finalised plinth design for HydroPak

25

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

4.2 Activity [h] - System costing and economic assessment

The aim of the project has been to develop a range of crossflow turbines that are packaged and ready to install on site in one unit. The target cost of 500-600 per kW ex-works was set as a baseline objective. With the outline designs finalised, four examples, based upon genuine enquiries to NHT, were chosen and the fabrication costs for each component was estimated by NHT Engineering on the basis that it was not a one-off but a batch. The off-theshelf component costs were from real quotations from companies that had been approached in activity [d], outlined in 4.4 above. There is also a consideration of the normal overhead for NHT Engineering to provide such units from their works to the open market. The four examples were 18, 100, 310 and 640kW respectively (see Table 8) and so give a good spread across the available capacity range. The heads considered were 10, 20, 30 and 40 metres respectively and therefore also give a good analysis across the main head range for a crossflow turbine. As the results show, the smaller HydroPak (MiniPak) has a fairly high ex-works cost per kW capacity but this drops dramatically for the HydroPaks in the mini-hydro range (i.e. above 100kW). For these cases the target costs of were easily achieved.
Table 8 Results of Economic Analysis of Hydropak Capacity (kW) Head (m) Flow (cum/s) Hydropak Cost/kW* ()
* ex-factory cost

18 10 0.182 1504

100 20 0.515 683

300 30 1.05 470

640 40 1.64 334

How the cost of HydroPak per kW varies across this given range can be seen in Figure 9, and as was expected in the earlier stages of the project, it is confirmed that HydroPak needs to be considered in two major ranges; below 125kW (the MiniPak) where cost/kW rises quite rapidly from 600 to approximately 1,500/kW with decreasing capacity of the machine, and above 125kW (the full HydroPak), where cost/kW settles down to a very competitive figure of 350-600/kW ex-works.

HydroPak Final Report

26

April 2004

1600 1400

ex-works cost (/kW)

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Target cost/kW

Hydropak capacity (kW)

Figure 9 Economic cost of HydroPak across its range

The relative weighting of costs between HydroPak turbine fabrication and assembly, off-the-shelf components, enclosures & control panels/instrumentation and the overhead cost are shown in Table 9. For the smaller unit, the overall turbine fabrication and assembly costs are heavier while the costs for enclosures and panels also decrease across the range. This was discussed in an earlier report for the electronic controller unit, noting that this item has a minimum cost even for the smaller capacity and that the MiniPaks would have to accept this cost giving a higher per kW cost than larger units. For off-the-shelf component costs, the smaller unit has lighter costs because a gearbox and induction motor (as generator) combo unit can be employed at capacities of below about 100-150kW reducing off-the-shelf costs considerably as shown shaded area. The overhead share is lower for the smaller unit because of the relative expense of the turbine manufacture itself at this smaller capacity.
Table 9 Weighting of main costs for main HydroPak components across its range Capacity (kW) Turbine fabrication and assembly Enclosure and control panels Turbine off-the-shelf components Overhead 18 27% 26% 6% 40% 100 17% 20% 7% 56% 300 12% 17% 14% 56% 640 14% 15% 14% 58%

HydroPak Final Report

27

April 2004

Further economic analysis of HydroPak was done to show how these main costs vary and contribute to the final ex-works cost across the range. The results are shown in Figure 10 below.
220000 200000 180000 160000 140000

manufactured components enclosure, control and panel boards off-the-shelf components overhead

cost ()

120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

sub-total ex works

Hydropak capacity (kW)

Figure 10 Contribution of main costs across HydroPaks range

It can be seen that the various component parts (Standard Industrial Products and in-house manufactured) are narrowly banded and that there is a near linear relationship between costs and generating capacity. The overhead has not been aggregated but established for each of the example systems, from this we can see that the overheads increase as the HydroPak scheme size increases. It shows how important the overhead cost as a part of the overall ex-factory cost. This is especially the case at the smaller end of the scale where there are relatively high component costs making it necessary to keep overheads to an absolute minimum if the supplier of HydroPak is to be able to operate commercially at the same time as trying to provide a competitive product.

HydroPak Final Report

28

April 2004

5. PROJECT CONCLUSIONS
Through the research done in this project, HydroPak has reached target price per kW for the conventional mini-hydro range (i.e. above 125kW) with estimated exworks cost of 350-600 per kW, The target price has not been reached in the smaller, micro-hydro range (below 100kW); the price per kW for MiniPaks in this range rises quite rapidly to a maximum of about 1,500. At low HydroPak capacities the economy-of-scale issue makes the analysis on pure cost/kW less useful than whether the overall ex-works cost seems reasonable to potential customers. It is known that a total cost for a small MiniPak of 20-40,000 (as achieved in the project) is a price that a small developer is likely to choose especially as the product can be sold with a known and good energy capture at a range of hydro power sites. A comparison with other companies that supply micro-hydro range (below 100kW) crossflow turbines (but not specifically packaged in an enclosure ready for site) indicates that HydroPak may not be that competitive with target countries in the east of Europe and will have difficulty competing on price with Vietnamese and Chinese companies (see Table 10). However HydroPak will offer the quality, efficiency, guarantees and reliability in operation that is expected to be superior to any of these suppliers. Moreover, it will come supplied in an enclosure ready to plug and play and so reduce the overall scheme cost significantly.
Table 10 Cost comparison with competitors that supply packaged crossflow turbines Supplier Example capacity (kW) Turbine cost () Controller cost () Czech Republic 43kW 23,323 7,679 721 Vietnam/ Philippines 40kW 6,839 5,211 301 Vietnam 40kW 3,583 4,885 212 China 50kW 5,625 2,581 164 HydroPak (averaged) 41kW 26,354 21,536

Total cost ()

31,002

12,050

8,468

8,206

47,890
1,168

Ex-works cost/kW ()

In the mini-hydro range (above 100kW), because the cost/kW ex-works becomes a competitive figure of 350-600/kW, it is thought that HydroPak will become much more competitive at higher capacities. There is increasing attention being given to cost optimisation in the mini-hydro sector globally and some examples of other company activity is given below. It is important for the UK small hydro power (SHP) industry not to be left behind when there are already companies filling the market segment that requires standard and off-the-shelf approaches to SHP equipment supply that is reasonably costed and deliverable in a short time. o Brazil - Alstom has recently optimised its mini-hydro product Mini-AquaTM and since its introduction in mid-2002, more than fifty units have been sold

HydroPak Final Report

29

April 2004

half of which have been supplied to Brazil. Mini-AquaTM is Alstoms new, standardised solution with hydro turbine, generator and control systems integrated into a single optimised product specifically for mini-hydro plants. The advantages of Mini-Aqua - high product reliability, reasonable costs, and short lead time satisfy the customers need for secured investments.6 o Japan Toshiba have developed a standard micro-hydro power system for heads as low as 2 metres and power outputs between 5 and 100 kW. The system can utilise river or irrigation water and is aimed at remote communities with the 50kW package weighing just 1 tonne making siteinstallation relatively easy7. Hitachi has also ventured into the supply of small crossflow turbines to add to their large range of hydropower equipment. China the many SHP companies that traditionally offer a huge range of different turbines, with units picked from large tables to match site are now re-assessing this approach for their micro-hydro range of machines. Some companies now have integrated micro-hydro units (turbine and controllers) with ranges of 1-100kW that are low priced enough to be affordable to farmer and small village users in China and the nearby Asian countries.

The results of this project show that it is possible for the UK to supply a competitive crossflow HydroPak system in the mini-hydro range of hydro power development and to provide a quality product that is in the correct price range for an independent developer to consider in the micro-hydro range. The market for these packaged products is quite active and because many potential developers have asked for details of HydroPak as the project has progressed, it is therefore vital that follow-up R&D work is done to build and test a pilot HydroPak (micro-hydro level or MiniPak) in Northern Ireland. This will also allow the civil works and O&M requirements of HydroPak to be fully tested.

6 7

Source: World Pumps Buyers Guide, 2004 Source: Modern Power Systems, July 2001
30

HydroPak Final Report

April 2004

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report would like to acknowledge the following for their kind assistance in providing information that enabled a detailed HydroPak design to be researched as presented in this report: 1. Mark Watson and other staff of MarelliMotori at the UK office that gave us quotations for generators allowing the costing the whole range of HydroPak machines. Ken Self and other staff of Brevini, both in the UK and their Italian headquarters that met with the authors to discuss the HydroPak principle in detail and then provided a thorough technical and price list of gearbox and induction motor combo units applicable to a range of potential HydroPaks. Suppliers of other components applicable to the HydroPak who shared their technical specifications and potential prices for supply to a HydroPak and enabled the economic costing to be completed. In particular, Luck Gill (Reynolds Clutches and Couplings), Caroline Walker (Adpatainer) and Paul Goodman (MAC containers).

2.

3.

HydroPak Final Report

31

April 2004