11/29/2007
WATER SUPPLY FROM THE IBER LEPENC HYDRO SYSTEM FOR THE PROPOSED KOSOVO C POWER PLANT Evaluation of the Hydro System and Water
Availability Assessment
Kosovo, November 2007 Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 1
11/29/2007
Content 1
Description of the Hydro System
2
Forecast of Power Plants water consumption
3
Water used by other industries
4
Irrigation System consumption forecast
5
Domestic water; Evaluation of present consumption and forecast
6
Consumers identification and prioritization
7
Leakages and flow in the Main Canal
8
Biological Minimum Flow in Iber River
9
Water flow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant
10 Water balance in Secondary Reservoir 11
Natural inflow in the Main Lake
12 Water balance in Main Lake 13 Overflows balance and total discharges in Iber River 14 Sensitive variables: inflow in the Main Lake, water losses in the Main Canal, domestic consumption, water for irrigation 15 Sensitivity analysis 16 Conclusions about water availability 17 Estimation of present losses in the Main Canal 18 Estimation of costs for Main Canal repairs 19 Estimation of costs for Buffer Basin 20 Water tariffs to cover investment costs
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 2
11/29/2007
1 Description of the Hydro System Iber-Lepenc Hydro System was designed do deserve four main categories of water consumers:
Households in Mitrovica, partially in Prishtina and in other small localities; Irrigated land in the upstream of Sitnica River and in Drenas Town area (around 26,000 ha); Several industrial sites (lignite mines, metallurgical factories, manufacturing factories and other); Strong group of thermo-electric power plants (Kosovo A, B and C), using lignite to produce energy.
In the same time, the Hydro-Electric Power Plant, using the water of Gazivode Lake was intended to produce around 100 MWh. The system never worked at full capacity. Kosovo C Poser Plant is not yet a reality, irrigated land never arrived at the planed superficies, and some industrial factories were not completely developed. Presently, the system works at a low level, because of war destruction and of changes in economic structure induced after this period. Only the Hydro-Electric Power Plant works close to the designed capacity and cover around 80% of revenue of Iber-Lepenc Enterprise revenue, the administrator of the overall system. The system still is functional in the most of its components, but some of elements must be repaired or renew. The simplified physical and operational structure of Iber-Lepenc Hydro System is presented in Picture 1. More or less, the schema reproduces the real system:
Kosovo B (and C) are provided by water at the end of the canal; Main quantity of water for domestic consumption go to Mitrovica, at the start of the canal; The most important irrigated area is between these two points.
A more detailed schema is not strictly necessary for present approach.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 3
11/29/2007
Picture 1 – Iber-Lepenc Hydro System 1 2
Hydroelectric Power Plant
3’
Possible Buffer Reservoir
Natural Inflow Start of the Main Canal
Additional Water from Main Lake
Main Lake
Main Canal
3
5
Main Dam
Losses
Secondary Reservoir
Losses
Losses
Losses
Secondary Dam 1
Natural Inflow in the Main Lake
2
Outflow to Hydro-Electric Power Plant
3
Outflow for Hydro-Electric Power Plant
3’
Compensation Flow from Main Lake
4
Biological Minimum Flow in Iber River
4’
Compensation Flow from SR Spillway
5
Flow at Main Canal Start Gate
6
Domestic Water Consumption
7
Water for Irrigation
8
Water Consumption in Industry
9
Additional Flow in Lab River (Kosovo A)
10
Kosovo B Water Consumption
10
Kosovo C Water Consumption
Spillway SR Flow
Biological Minimum Flow
4'
Domestic Water
Water for Industry
Kosovo B Flow
7
4 Iber River
Water for Irrigation
6
8
All Irrigated Area
Mitrovica, Prishtina & Other Municipalities
Mines, Factories & Other
Kosovo A Flow
10
9 Kosovo B
Kosovo C Flow 11
Lab River Losses
Kosovo C
Losses along the Main canal
Kosovo A
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 4
11/29/2007
2 Forecast of Power Plants water consumption Figure 2 reproduce the investment works schedule (and water consumption for all Power Plants) for the planned Kosovo C Power Plant, provided by the team of Lignite Power Technical Assistance Project. Figure 2 – Investment schedule and water needs for Power Plants 2008 Kosovo C Variant 1 Kosovo C Variant 2
2009 Start
2010
2011
2012
Investment works
I 500 0.38 Investment works
MW m3 / sec Start
2013 II 1,000 0.76
MW m3 / sec
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
1,500 1.14 I 500 0.38
III 1,500 1.14 II 1,000 0.76
IV 2,000 1.52 III 1,500 1.14
2,000 1.52 IV 2,000 1.52
2,000 1.52
2,000 1.52
2,000 1.52
2,000 1.52
2,000 1.52
2,000 1.52
Kosovo A
MW m3 / sec
3 units 1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
1,440 0.20
Stop 1,440 0.20
Kosovo B
MW m3 / sec
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Water Needs for all Power Plants 0.90 Variant 1 m3 / sec 0.90 Variant 2 m3 / sec
0.90 0.90
0.90 0.90
0.90 0.90
1.28 0.90
1.66 0.90
2.04 1.28
2.04 1.66
2.42 2.04
2.42 2.42
2.42 2.42
2.42 2.42
2.42 2.42
Water Maximal Needs for all Power Plants 2.42 2016 Variant 1 m3 / sec 2.42 2017 Variant 2 m3 / sec
Kosovo C investment program take into account two variants, differing by the deadline for every production group. Both variants start in 2008, but the first is planned to finish all groups in 2016 3 and the second in 2017. For every energetic group will be necessary 0.38 m / s water flow. At 3 the end of the construction (2016 or 2017) Kosovo C will consume 1.52 m / s. Kosovo A still working until 2020 and the additional water provided by Iber-Lepenc System 3 (passing by Lab River) are quite constant: 0.20 m / s. 3
Kosovo B water consumption is estimated to be 0.70 m / s all the envisaged period. The first year with maximum consumption is 2016 or 2017, depending of the investment variant adopted. The following calculations consider the consumption vales in these years.
3 Water used by other industries The average water consumption of the other industries (mines, metallurgic and manufacturing 3 factories) is estimated to 1.00 m / s for all the period. Presently its consumption is null, the existing industrial units not working. For 2016 0r 2017 is foreseen a possible resuming of the industrial activity. 3
The annual estimated consumption is 31,536 m . Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 5
11/29/2007
4 Irrigation System consumption forecast In 2005 was irrigated around 650 ha of a total of 26,000 ha prepared to be irrigated. The water consumption for irrigation was insignificant. Several documents of Ministry of Agriculture contain different numbers of hectares forecasted to be irrigated in the near future (between 5,000 and 10,000). The consultant assume that in 2016 only is possible to irrigate 10,000 ha with an average water 3 consumption around 2,000 m / ha / season. The specific consumption is close to consumption in Former Yugoslav Republic Macedonia in 2006. The Table 1 contains the calculation of corresponding water flow. Table 2 Days ha % m3 / ha m3 / ha / day Mm3 m3 / s
Jan 31 10,000
Feb 28 10,000
Mar 31 10,000
Apr 30 10,000
0 0.00 0 0.00
0 0.00 0.000 0.00
0 0.00 0.000 0.00
0 0.00 0.000 0.00
Mai 31 10,000 7.00% 140 4.52 1.400 0.52
Jun 30 10,000 23.00% 460 15.33 4.600 1.77
Jul 31 10,000 30.00% 600 19.35 6.000 2.24
Aug 31 10,000 25.00% 500 16.13 5.000 1.87
Sep 30 10,000 15.00% 300 10.00 3.000 1.16
Oct 31 10,000
Nov 30 10,000
Dec 31 10,000
0 0.00 0.000 0.00
0 0.00 0.000 0.00
0 0.00 0.000 0.00
Only in May – September period the irrigation system provide water for its clients. The total volume of water consumed by the irrigation system taken into account for 2016 is 20 3 3 3 Mm . The average water flow is 0.63 m / s, but in full season can be 2.24 m / s.
5 Domestic water; Evaluation of present consumption and forecast Today, the quantity of water provided by Iber-Lepenc System to Municipal Water Companies (in fact only in Mitrovica and rarely in Prishtina through one of the accumulation lakes of the City) is 3 very low: only 15 Mm by year. The Table 2 calculates the per capita consumption and forecast the volume for 2016 year. Table 2 – Present and forecasted domestic water consumption Average Water Delivered in 2006 Period Days m3 l/c/d Jan 31 1,178,496 317 Feb 28 1,077,120 321 Mar 31 1,178,496 317 Apr 30 1,226,880 341 May 31 1,321,344 355 Jun 30 1,278,720 355 Jul 31 1,321,344 355 Aug 31 1,321,344 355 Sep 30 1,226,880 341 Oct 31 1,267,776 341 Nov 30 1,226,880 341 Dec 31 1,267,776 341 2006 365 14,893,056 340
Forecast % l/c/d 93.17% 186 94.28% 189 93.17% 186 100.23% 200 104.46% 209 104.46% 209 104.46% 209 104.46% 209 100.23% 200 100.23% 200 100.23% 200 100.23% 200 100.00% 200
The calculation and the forecast are based to the Iber-Lepenc Enterprise records. Or consumption is not really measured! The basic data contain a large margin of possible errors, but are only available. Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 6
Year 365 10,000 100.00% 2,000 5.48 20.000 0.63
11/29/2007
The per capita consumption in 2006 seems to be extremely large (340 liters / capita / day) very far to consumptions registered in other towns of the region: Slavonski Brod (Croatia) – 145 l / c / d; Vukovar (Croatia) – 141 l / c / d; Bijelo Polje (Montenegro) – 155 l / c / d. A realistic assumption is to consider 200 l / c / d for the future. Taken into account 200,000 people served (minimal assumption) the Table 3 calculates the water flow needed for domestic final users. Table 3 – Domestic Water Users Days l/c/d m3 / s Mm3
Jan 31 186 0.43 1.155
Feb 28 189 0.44 1.056
Mar 31 186 0.43 1.155
Apr 30 200 0.46 1.203
Mai 31 209 0.48 1.295
Jun 30 209 0.48 1.254
Jul 31 209 0.48 1.295
Aug 31 209 0.48 1.295
Sep 30 200 0.46 1.203
Oct 31 200 0.46 1.243
Nov 30 200 0.46 1.203
Dec 31 200 0.46 1.243
Year 365 200 0.46 14.600
The annual distribution of the water demand can be seeing in Picture 3. Picture 3 – Daily domestic water forecast Daily Domestic Water Forecast for Kosovo 180 160 140
l/c/d
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
The monthly recorded consumption is almost constant and proves that the records are not based by measurement.
6 Consumers identification and prioritization The total water needs covered by the Main Canal are the sum of foreseeing consumptions of all the consumers. Resuming, the consumers are four:
Households (population); Irrigated farms; Industry (other than electric power production); Thermo-Electric Power Plants.
Simplified prioritization of the consumers specifies several criteria:
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 7
11/29/2007
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Impact of leak of water to the consumer normal activity (or life); Weight of the consumer in the total Main Canal water flow; Available other water sources for the consumer (excepting Iber-Lepenc System); Impact of leak of water to the overall Kosovo community; Foreseen future evolution of consumption; Environmental consequences of the leak of water; Strictness of water characteristics imposed by the consumer; Foreseen problems about payment of the invoices.
The multi-criteria prioritization is described by the Table 4. Table 4 – Multi-criteria prioritization of the water consumers Criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Weight 10 5 8 10 6 10 5 7 Total Range
Domestic 10 5 10 10 10 10 10 3 536 I
Irrigation 6 7 8 6 10 3 10 4 387 IV
Industry 5 8 4 4 6 3 8 6 310 V
Kosovo B 10 7 9 8 3 3 5 10 430 III
Kosovo C 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 10 463 II
Explanations: 1) The main negative impact of water leak is to the population (life in a block of flats without water go to the hell) and to the power plants (it is no possible to work without water). The industry can works sometime with low water consumption and irrigation (even advisable) can miss. 2) The main foreseen consumer will be Kosovo C Power Plant. The small consumer is and will be the households. 3) Excepting Kosovo C and the population in the towns, other consumers have some chances to find other water sources for its needs. Industry can use own wells for underground water. Farmers can exploit the rivers or also wells. Even Kosovo B can eventually take part of the water by Stinica River due to the relatively low consumption. 4) If the population (or part of population) has no water, the social and politically consequences cannot be appreciated, but will be serious. If Kosovo C is not build due to the lack of water all Kosovo will be involved because of problems with energy provision. 5) The population and irrigated farms water consumption is expected to increase constantly. A less accentuated evolution is foreseen for the industry. Consumption of the power plants is constant. 6) The lack of water can have important environmental consequences in the case of households (very evident). If Kosovo C is not carried up because of lack of water, the existent pollutant energy producers must compensate increasing its production. The same situation if Kosovo C production diminishes. 7) The most strictly specifications for water provided are for Kosovo C. The more relaxed are for population (if the drinking water network has a treatment plant) and for irrigation.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 8
11/29/2007
8) Kosovo B (and is expected that Kosovo C will in the same category) is an almost good payer of the bills. The worst client is the Municipal Water Companies and perhaps the situation will not change too much in the future. The weight of every criterion is disputable, but some considerations explain the Consultant options:
The importance of environmental issues, of consumers activity (presumed useful) and of social an politic climate are absolutely maximal; The quality water specifications and the weight of the consumer in total water provided by the system are internal problems of Iber-Lepenc Enterprise; Also the eventually bad debts.
Ordering the consumers by the results of multi-criterion prioritization seems be clear that the most important is to provide enough water for Kosovo C and for population. Follow Kosovo B, irrigation system and industry. Because of height range of Kosovo C (and B) in the prioritization is strongly important to have a large water reserve for this consumer. At the end of Mai Canal the Consultant suggests constructing a buffer basin containing enough water to cover almost one week of Kosovo C demand. The buffer reservoir is useful to assure necessary water in case of total interruption of the flow in the canal, due to the imposed repairs or to some contingent events (natural or human produced). The Main Canal situated of South of the Mitrovica secondary canal can be repaired without causing problems to the main part of the population served, located in the North. The North part of the Main Canal can be also interrupted few days, due to the reserves in drinking water network. Prishtina have own accumulation lakes which work as buffer reservoirs. May be this prioritization can beseem strange for a hydro-system designed mainly for irrigations. With the time, the conditions changed, the system deteriorated and the social and economic priorities are other.
7
Leakages and flow in the Main Canal
Before analyze the losses in the Main Canal is necessary to calculate the total flow demanded by the consumers. The Tables 5 and 6 and Picture 4 explain its structure. 3
Table 5 – Consumers flows in m / s Days Domestic Irrigation Industry Kosovo A Kosovo B Kosovo C Total Cons
Jan 31 0.43 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.52 3.65
Feb 28 0.44 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.52 3.66
Mar 31 0.43 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.52 3.65
Apr 30 0.46 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.52 3.68
Table 6 – Consumers demand in Mm Days Domestic
Jan 31 1.155
Feb 28 1.056
Mar 31 1.155
May 31 0.48 0.52 1.00 0.48 0.70 1.52 4.70
Jun 30 0.48 1.77 1.00 0.48 0.70 1.52 5.96
Jul 31 0.48 2.24 1.00 0.48 0.70 1.52 6.42
Aug 31 0.48 1.87 1.00 0.48 0.70 1.52 6.05
Sep 30 0.46 1.16 1.00 0.48 0.70 1.52 5.32
Oct 31 0.46 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.52 3.68
Nov 30 0.46 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.52 3.68
Dec 31 0.46 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.70 1.52 3.68
Year 365 0.46 0.63 1.00 0.20 0.70 1.52 4.52
3
Apr 30 1.203
May 31 1.295
Jun 30 1.254
Jul 31 1.295
Aug 31 1.295
Sep 30 1.203
Oct 31 1.243
Nov 30 1.203
Dec 31 1.243
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 9
Year 365 14.600
11/29/2007 Irrigation Industry Kosovo A Kosovo B Kosovo C Total Cons
0.000 2.678 0.000 1.875 4.071 9.780
0.000 2.419 0.000 1.693 3.677 8.846
0.000 2.678 0.000 1.875 4.071 9.780
0.000 2.592 0.000 1.814 3.940 9.549
1.400 2.678 1.278 1.875 4.071 12.598
4.600 2.592 1.237 1.814 3.940 15.437
6.000 2.678 1.278 1.875 4.071 17.198
5.000 2.678 1.278 1.875 4.071 16.198
3.000 2.592 1.237 1.814 3.940 13.786
0.000 2.678 0.000 1.875 4.071 9.867
0.000 2.592 0.000 1.814 3.940 9.549
0.000 2.678 0.000 1.875 4.071 9.867
Picture 4 – Consumption forecast Consumption Forecast 7
6
5
m3 / s
4
3
2
1
0 Jan
Feb
Mar Domestic
Apr
Mai
Jun
Irrigation
Industry
Jul
Aug Kosovo A
Sep Kosovo B
Oct
Nov
Dec
Kosovo C
In the present, constant loss in water is produced along the Main Canal by height leakages. Detailed analysis of the phenomena will be presented in the chapter dedicated to the losses. The assessment regards the future and supposes a normal level of the water losses in the canal (uncovered). The Consultant estimates that, after repairs and renews the Main canal losses can be around 25% of total inflow (see Tables 7 and 8). It is an important reduction of actual losses (certainly higher than 50%). 3
Table 7 – Losses in the Main Canal in m / s Days Losses
Jan 31 1.22
Feb 28 1.22
Mar 31 1.22
Apr 30 1.23
May 31 1.57
Table 8 – Losses in the Main Canal in Mm Days Losses
Jan 31 3.260
Feb 28 2.949
Mar 31 3.260
Apr 30 3.183
May 31 4.199
3
Jun 30 1.99
Jul 31 2.14
Aug 31 2.02
Sep 30 1.77
Oct 31 1.23
Nov 30 1.23
Dec 31 1.23
Year 365 1.51
Jun 30 5.146
Jul 31 5.733
Aug 31 5.399
Sep 30 4.595
Oct 31 3.289
Nov 30 3.183
Dec 31 3.289
Year 365 47.484
The flow corresponding to the annual losses is equal to Kosovo C consumption! At the gate of the Main Canal the total inflow must compensate the losses, as shown the Tables 9 and 10 and Picture 5.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 10
20.000 31.536 6.307 22.075 47.935 142.453
11/29/2007
3
Table 9 – Necessary inflow at the start of Main Canal in m / s Days Consumers Losses Start Flow
Jan 31 3.65 1.22 4.87
Feb 28 3.66 1.22 4.88
Mar 31 3.65 1.22 4.87
Apr 30 3.68 1.23 4.91
May 31 4.70 1.57 6.27
Jun 30 5.96 1.99 7.94
Jul 31 6.42 2.14 8.56
Table 10 – Necessary water inputs in Main Canal in Mm Days Consumers Losses Start Flow
Jan 31 9.780 3.260 13.040
Feb 28 8.846 2.949 11.794
Mar 31 9.780 3.260 13.040
Apr 30 9.549 3.183 12.732
May 31 12.598 4.199 16.797
Aug 31 6.05 2.02 8.06
Sep 30 5.32 1.77 7.09
Oct 31 3.68 1.23 4.91
Nov 30 3.68 1.23 4.91
Dec 31 3.68 1.23 4.91
Year 365 4.52 1.51 6.02
3
Jun 30 15.437 5.146 20.582
Jul 31 17.198 5.733 22.930
Aug 31 16.198 5.399 21.597
Sep 30 13.786 4.595 18.381
Oct 31 9.867 3.289 13.156
Nov 30 9.549 3.183 12.732
Dec 31 9.867 3.289 13.156
Year 365 142.453 47.484 189.937
3
Picture 5 – Necessary inflow at the start of Main Canal in m / s Flow at the Main Canal Start Gate 9 8 7
m3 / s
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mai
Jun
Jul
Total Consumers
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Losses
The Main Canal designed capacity is 22.2 m3 / s, but to cover the projected consumer’s needs and the losses is necessary to use only between 21 and 39% of the nominal capacity (see Table 11). M m3 / s Days Start Flow Nominal flow %
Table 11 – Use of Main Canal Capacity Jan 31 4.87 22.20 21.93%
Feb 28 4.88 22.20 21.96%
Mar 31 4.87 22.20 21.93%
Apr 30 4.91 22.20 22.13%
May 31 6.27 22.20 28.25%
Jun 30 7.94 22.20 35.77%
Jul 31 8.56 22.20 38.56%
Aug 31 8.06 22.20 36.32%
Sep 30 7.09 22.20 31.94%
Oct 31 4.91 22.20 22.13%
Nov 30 4.91 22.20 22.13%
Dec 31 4.91 22.20 22.13%
The average annual use of the capacity is 27.13% but in the peak month (July) will be 38.56%. The reserve in capacity of the Main Canal can be useful if the overall consumption will increase or during the repairs works.
8 Biological Minimum Flow in Iber River Iber River after the Gazivode Lake must have a Minimal Biological Flow to conserve the 3 environment. The minimal flow is 0.50 m / s and is guaranteed by the outflow from the Secondary Lake. Table 12 – Biological Minimal Flow in Iber River (after the dam) Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Year
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 11
Year 365 6.02 22.20 27.13%
11/29/2007 Days Mm3 m3 / s
31 1.339 0.50
28 1.210 0.50
31 1.339 0.50
30 1.296 0.50
31 1.339 0.50
30 1.296 0.50
31 1.339 0.50
31 1.339 0.50
30 1.296 0.50
31 1.339 0.50
30 1.296 0.50
31 1.339 0.50
365 15.768 0.50
9 Water flow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant Both the inflow and the outflow of the Hydro-Electric Power Plant using the Main Lake water are equal. The Consultant assumes that the internal water losses of the energy production are practically zero. The energy produced (and sold) depends of the daily and monthly planed quantities and not of the demand in a free electricity market. The optimization of the water used and the optimized balance between costs and revenue in the Hydro-Electric Plant can be taken into account only if Iber-Lepenc Enterprise will be able to decide the level and the periods of electricity production. In 2006 the electricity production (and sales) was around 109 MWh (see Table 12). Table 12 – Electricity production in 2006 Average working hours by day Average water consumption Average daily water consumption Average Water flow Annual Water Consumption
8.10 13 379,080 4.39 138.364
h m3 / s m3 / day m3 / s Mm3
Water consumption for electricity production is calculated in Table 13 . Table -13 – Energy production and water consumption Average energy sold in 2004 - 2006 Month Days MWh % Jan 31 12,798 11.77% Feb 28 12,353 11.36% Mar 31 16,365 15.05% Apr 30 13,703 12.60% May 31 10,696 9.83% Jun 30 9,637 8.86% Jul 31 7,956 7.31% Aug 31 1,028 0.95% Sep 30 3,086 2.84% Oct 31 6,172 5.67% Nov 30 4,667 4.29% Dec 31 10,312 9.48% 2006 365 108,772 100.00%
Water used Mm3 m3 / s 16.280 6.08 15.713 6.50 20.818 7.77 17.431 6.72 13.606 5.08 12.259 4.73 10.120 3.78 1.308 0.49 3.925 1.51 7.852 2.93 5.936 2.29 13.117 4.90 138.364 4.39
Calculated water flow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant is shown in Picture 6.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 12
11/29/2007
3
Picture 6 – Flows in Hydro-Electric Power Plant in m / s Monthly Flow in Hydroelectric Power Plant 9 8 7
m3 / s
6 5 4 3
2 1 0 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Electricity produced and the levels of the Main Lake are presently the only real measurements used to manage all the system. The Consultant assumes that in 2016 (or 2017) the Hydro-Electric Power Plant will work in the same conditions and will produce the same energy, with the same time distribution as in 2006. Table 14 forecast the water consumption (inflow from the Main Lake and outflow to the Secondary Reservoir). 3
Table 14 – Flows in Hydro-Electric Power Plants (Turbines) in m / s Mm3 m3 / s
Jan 16.280 6.08
Feb 15.713 6.50
Mar 20.818 7.77
Apr 17.431 6.72
May 13.606 5.08
Jun 12.259 4.73
Jul 10.120 3.78
Aug 1.308 0.49
Sep 3.925 1.51
Oct 7.852 2.93
Nov 5.936 2.29
Dec 13.117 4.90
The values in the table above will change after the optimization study including the re-pumping solution to save the water and to improve the commercial efficiency of the electricity production (the study will be part of the Final Report provided by the Consultant). Water availability for Kosovo C is not affected by these changes because the inflow in the Main Canal not depends of flows in the turbines.
10 Water balance in Secondary Reservoir The Outflow from Secondary Reservoir must cover at least the compulsory Minimal Inflow in Main Canal (useful water consumption plus losses in the canal) and Biological Minimal for Iber River. The main Inflow in Secondary Reservoir is the Hydro-Electric Power Plant outflow. If is necessary, an additional flow by-passing the turbines can be delivered from the Main Lake. If the level of the Main Lake is higher than the maximum admissible level, another additional flow, created by the spillways will appear. Surpassing the Secondary Reservoir spillways the water will go in Iber River, in addition to the Biological Minimal Flow. This flow represent the water available (natural inflow in Main Lake) not valorized by the system (for water consumption or for electricity production). Re-pumping solution operate this reserve. Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 13
Year 138.364 4.39
11/29/2007
Tables 15 and 16 calculate the Minimal Flow in Secondary Reservoir taken into account to cover useful consumptions, losses and Biological Minimal Flow in Iber River 3
Tables 15 – Minimal Inflow in Reservoir Water Balance in m / d Days Flow in MC B.M.F.I.R Minimal Inflow
Jan 31 4.87 0.50 5.37
Feb 28 4.88 0.50 5.38
Mar 31 4.87 0.50 5.37
Apr 30 4.91 0.50 5.41
May 31 6.27 0.50 6.77
Jun 30 7.94 0.50 8.44
Jul 31 8.56 0.50 9.06
Aug 31 8.06 0.50 8.56
Tables 16 – Minimal Inflow in Reservoir Water Balance in Mm Days Flow in MC B.M.F.I.R Minimal Inflow
Jan 31 13.040 1.339 14.379
Feb 28 11.794 1.210 13.004
Mar 31 13.040 1.339 14.379
Apr 30 12.732 1.296 14.028
May 31 16.797 1.339 18.136
Jun 30 20.582 1.296 21.878
Jul 31 22.930 1.339 24.269
3
Aug 31 21.597 1.339 22.936
Sep 30 7.09 0.50 7.59
Oct 31 4.91 0.50 5.41
Sep 30 18.381 1.296 19.677
Nov 30 4.91 0.50 5.41
Oct 31 13.156 1.339 14.496
Dec 31 4.91 0.50 5.41
Nov 30 12.732 1.296 14.028
Year 365 6.02 0.50 6.52 Dec 31 13.156 1.339 14.496
Year 365 189.937 15.768 205.705
Flow in MC – flow in Main Canal (consumption and losses) B.M.F.I.R – Biological Minimal Flow in Iber River
Tables 17 and 18 calculate the water balance of Secondary Reservoir, adding the possible additional water from Mai Lake (farther the Hydro-Electric Power Plant outflow) and possible additional discharges in Iber River. 3
Table 17 – Water Balance of Secondary Reservoir – in m / s Days Outflow HEPP Additional ML Inflow in SL Minimal Inflow Spillway SR Outflow of SR Balance SR
Jan 31 6.08 0.00 6.08 5.37 0.71 6.08 0.00
Feb 28 6.50 0.00 6.50 5.38 1.12 6.50 0.00
Mar 31 7.77 0.00 7.77 5.37 2.40 7.77 0.00
Apr 30 6.72 0.00 6.72 5.41 1.31 6.72 0.00
May 31 5.08 1.69 6.77 6.77 0.00 6.77 0.00
Jun 30 4.73 3.71 8.44 8.44 0.00 8.44 0.00
Jul 31 3.78 5.28 9.06 9.06 0.00 9.06 0.00
Table 18 – Water Balance of Secondary Reservoir – in Mm
3
Aug 31 0.49 8.08 8.56 8.56 0.00 8.56 0.00
Sep 30 1.51 6.08 7.59 7.59 0.00 7.59 0.00
Oct 31 2.93 2.48 5.41 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00
Nov 30 2.29 3.12 5.41 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Days 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 Outflow HEPP 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 13.606 12.259 10.120 1.308 3.925 7.852 Additional ML 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.530 9.619 14.149 21.628 15.752 6.644 Inflow in SL 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 Minimal Inflow 14.379 13.004 14.379 14.028 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 Spillway SR 1.901 2.709 6.439 3.403 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Outflow of SR 16.280 15.713 20.818 17.431 18.136 21.878 24.269 22.936 19.677 14.496 Balance SR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Outflow HEPP – Outflow from Hydro-Electric Power Plant Additional ML – Additional water from Main Lake (by-passing the turbines) Minimal Inflow – Minimal inflow in Secondary Lake (Biological Minimal Flow, Consumption, Losses) Spillway SR – Flow discharged in Iber River by Secondary Reservoir spillways
Dec 31 4.90 0.51 5.41 5.41 0.00 5.41 0.00 Nov 30 5.936 8.092 14.028 14.028 0.000 14.028 0.000
Year 365 4.39 2.59 6.98 6.52 0.46 6.98 0.00 Dec 31 13.117 1.379 14.496 14.496 0.000 14.496 0.000
3
The Secondary Reservoir capacity is 0.489 Mm . The volume of the water in the reservoir, presuming that at the year start the capacity is full, not change during the year (see Table 19). Table 19 – Secondary Reservoir Content – Mm in Mm3 Days Start End
Jan 31 0.480 0.480
Feb 28 0.480 0.480
Mar 31 0.480 0.480
Apr 30 0.480 0.480
May 31 0.480 0.480
3
Jun 30 0.480 0.480
Jul 31 0.480 0.480
Aug 31 0.480 0.480
Sep 30 0.480 0.480
Oct 31 0.480 0.480
Nov 30 0.480 0.480
Dec 31 0.480 0.480
The Secondary Reservoir is only a buffer reservoir (passive) and has no problems, due to the spillways system and additional water from Main Lake.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 14
Year 365 138.364 81.794 220.158 205.705 14.452 220.158 0.000
11/29/2007
11 Natural inflow in the Main Lake The statistical data about the water inflow in Main Lake are very old (before the construction of the dam), but are only available. Iber-Lepenc Enterprise provided to the Consultant the information in the Table 20. Table 20 – Natural Water Inflow in Main Lake – in Mm
3
1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 25 years Average Median
Jan 70.5 7.9 19.7 19.9 25.7 49.3 6.6 56.2 16.2 4.7 34.5 15.2 18.3 23.6 12.2 64.2 15.5 23.8 20.5 19.7 17.6 22.4 55.3 46.2 8.8 674.2 27.0 19.9
Feb 42.2 8.4 47.7 35.4 32.0 55.5 6.6 92.0 5.5 35.4 32.8 9.0 62.0 17.8 23.3 64.2 26.1 26.0 76.2 32.5 48.7 43.4 50.3 21.3 11.1 905.3 36.2 32.8
Mar 44.3 19.4 44.0 61.8 83.3 36.2 57.9 63.1 16.8 32.1 76.0 38.8 31.7 50.8 85.9 75.5 41.1 68.1 46.4 61.3 50.0 80.6 63.1 49.1 16.9 1,294.3 51.8 50.0
Apr 98.0 108.2 43.0 85.2 104.4 56.9 47.2 73.1 77.3 23.8 118.4 28.6 42.7 47.4 101.9 93.0 36.8 71.9 56.6 103.5 55.0 74.9 93.1 71.6 29.0 1,741.5 69.7 71.9
May 66.8 29.1 11.0 56.3 40.6 43.6 90.9 35.2 79.6 84.9 83.8 26.7 63.1 91.7 108.7 59.2 60.3 108.8 94.8 103.5 20.5 46.5 71.3 33.2 29.6 1,540.0 61.6 60.3
Jun 74.7 32.0 5.9 41.4 26.2 50.6 23.4 21.2 21.0 15.5 83.8 33.5 34.8 26.7 24.1 42.7 48.7 28.7 52.4 32.0 27.2 15.2 46.6 18.4 10.7 837.5 33.5 28.7
Jul 18.3 16.8 4.7 23.1 14.1 29.3 14.7 39.0 9.7 6.7 10.5 34.3 14.4 12.6 16.8 16.5 29.9 12.4 12.8 43.5 4.5 21.1 33.5 7.6 80.5 527.2 21.1 16.5
Aug 9.7 10.7 3.7 21.2 9.4 12.1 9.7 23.1 6.3 6.6 9.0 29.9 8.1 7.2 10.5 13.5 25.9 8.5 4.9 12.3 6.8 8.0 10.7 7.3 11.4 286.5 11.5 9.7
Sep 8.4 10.2 3.7 18.3 7.1 9.4 9.2 46.1 4.2 19.1 5.8 33.8 7.1 5.8 8.6 8.4 24.2 7.7 3.5 6.1 10.0 11.4 7.8 13.0 50.6 339.4 13.6 8.6
Oct 10.1 12.6 15.7 33.8 24.1 10.1 24.4 16.2 4.3 43.5 7.6 11.5 17.6 5.8 17.0 10.7 45.3 2.6 4.0 5.1 8.8 4.9 10.7 9.8 69.4 425.6 17.0 10.7
Nov 10.1 20.8 22.4 38.8 42.3 9.2 65.0 118.2 6.0 22.8 13.4 59.7 49.8 12.6 32.6 11.5 50.8 5.2 20.7 5.9 30.9 5.3 17.8 11.0 42.6 725.3 29.0 20.8
Best year Worst year
56.2 19.7
92.0 47.7
63.1 44.0
73.1 43.0
35.2 11.0
21.2 5.9
39.0 4.7
23.1 3.7
46.1 3.7
16.2 15.7
118.2 22.4
Dec 5.6 67.3 28.3 19.1 98.5 6.9 63.1 116.6 7.9 46.9 18.1 28.0 39.3 12.2 37.6 137.6 54.2 18.9 31.2 7.9 36.9 32.6 18.4 14.5 23.6 971.2 38.8 28.3 Median 116.6 28.3
For the future, the Consultant presumes that the average natural inflow in the Lake will be equal to the average calculated inflow based to the above table. Even if in statistical usual calculation the median is frequently applied, the average seems to be in this case a better option due to the compensation effect of the multi-annual calculation. The comparison between average and median values is shown in Picture 7.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 15
Year 458.6 343.4 249.7 454.3 507.8 369.0 418.6 700.1 254.8 341.9 493.6 349.1 388.9 314.2 479.3 596.9 458.8 382.7 424.1 433.1 316.9 366.5 478.6 302.9 384.3 10,268.1 410.7 358.3 388.9 700.1 249.7
Picture 7 – Monthly variation of the Natural Inflow in Main Lake – in Mm
11/29/2007
3
Monthly Inflow in The Main Lake 80 70 60
Mm3
50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mai
Jun
Jul
Average
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Median
3
The best year was 1955 with 700.064 Mm inflows in the Main Lake representing 170% of 3 calculated average flow; the worst year was 1950 with 289.686 Mm inflows in the Main Lake representing 61% of calculated average flow. The spread of real past values is enough small (40%; +70%) to consider the average method allowable. The foreseen Natural Inflow in Main Lake accepted for the present simulation is shown in the Table 21. 3
3
Table 21 – Natural Inflow in Main Lake – in Mm and m / s Days Mm3 m3 / s
Jan 31 26.966 10.07
Feb 28 36.212 14.97
Mar 31 51.773 19.33
Apr 30 69.660 26.88
May 31 61.600 23.00
Jun 30 33.498 12.92
Jul 31 21.090 7.87
Aug 31 11.459 4.28
Sep 30 13.577 5.24
Oct 31 17.025 6.36
Nov 30 29.014 11.19
Dec 31 38.850 14.50
Year 365 410.724 13.02
12 Water balance in Main Lake The Inflow in the Main Lake is only the natural inflow calculated above as the average of 19481972 inflows. The normal Outflow from the Main Lake reefers to the Inflow in Hydro-Electric Power Plant and to the possible additional water by-passing the turbines to assure the Minimal Inflow in Secondary Reservoir. Tables 22 and 23 calculate the Balance in Main Lake 3
Table 22 – Water Balance in Main Lake – in m / s Days Inflow Outflow Balance
Jan 31 10.07 6.08 3.99
Feb 28 14.97 6.50 8.47
Mar 31 19.33 7.77 11.56
Apr 30 26.88 6.72 20.15
May 31 23.00 6.77 16.23
Jun 30 12.92 8.44 4.48
Table 23 – Water Balance in Main Lake – in Mm Days Inflow Outflow Balance
Jan 31 26.966 16.280 10.686
Feb 28 36.212 15.713 20.499
Mar 31 51.773 20.818 30.955
Apr 30 69.660 17.431 52.229
May 31 61.600 18.136 43.464
3
Jul 31 7.87 9.06 -1.19
Jun 30 33.498 21.878 11.620
Aug 31 4.28 8.56 -4.29 Jul 31 21.090 24.269 -3.180
Sep 30 5.24 7.59 -2.35
Oct 31 6.36 5.41 0.94
Aug 31 11.459 22.936 -11.478
Nov 30 11.19 5.41 5.78
Sep 30 13.577 19.677 -6.100
Dec 31 14.50 5.41 9.09
Oct 31 17.025 14.496 2.529
Year 365 13.02 6.98 6.04 Nov 30 29.014 14.028 14.986
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 16
Dec 31 38.850 14.496 24.354
Year 365 410.724 220.158 190.567
11/29/2007
In July, August and September the natural inflow is lower than the calculated outflow, but in other months the natural surplus in water is important. 3
Considering the real volume of the Main Lake 365 Mm , the variation in water quantity in the Main Lake is calculated in Table 24. Table 24 – Water Volume in Main Lake – in Mm Days Start End
Jan 31 365.000 365.000
Feb 28 365.000 365.000
Mar 31 365.000 365.000
Apr 30 365.000 365.000
3
May 31 365.000 365.000
Jun 30 365.000 365.000
Jul 31 365.000 361.820
Aug 31 361.820 350.343
Sep 30 350.343 344.243
Oct 31 344.243 346.772
Nov 30 346.772 361.758
Dec 31 361.758 365.000
3
The volume at the year start is considered maximal (365 Mm ). Between July and November, the volume of the lake is inferior to the maximal capacity but come back at the end of the year. The Picture 8 represents both variation in volume, inflows and outflows. Picture 8 – Main Lake Volume Variation, Inflow and Outflow – in Mm
3
370.000
70
365.000
60
360.000
50
355.000
40
350.000
30
345.000
20
340.000
10
335.000
0
Mm3
Mm3
Main Lake Content
80
330.000 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mai
Content
Jun
Jul
Inflow
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Outflow
The calculation considered that the maximal volume cannot be surpassed and, if arrive, the spillways will react to discharge the additional water.
13 Overflows balance and total discharges in Iber River The surplus in water discharged by the Main Lake Spillways is calculated in Tables 25 and 26. Table 25 – Water Surplus in Main Lake – in Mm Days Inflow Outflow Balance Start End Surplus
Jan 31 26.966 16.280 10.686 365.000 365.000 10.686
Feb 28 36.212 15.713 20.499 365.000 365.000 20.499
Mar 31 51.773 20.818 30.955 365.000 365.000 30.955
Apr 30 69.660 17.431 52.229 365.000 365.000 52.229
May 31 61.600 18.136 43.464 365.000 365.000 43.464
Jun 30 33.498 21.878 11.620 365.000 365.000 11.620
3
Jul 31 21.090 24.269 -3.180 365.000 361.820 0.000
Aug 31 11.459 22.936 -11.478 361.820 350.343 0.000
Sep 30 13.577 19.677 -6.100 350.343 344.243 0.000
Oct 31 17.025 14.496 2.529 344.243 346.772 0.000
Nov 30 29.014 14.028 14.986 346.772 361.758 0.000
Dec 31 38.850 14.496 24.354 361.758 365.000 21.112
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 17
Year 365 410.724 220.158 190.567
190.567
11/29/2007
3
Table 26 – Water Surplus in Main Lake – in m / s Days Inflow Outflow Balance Surplus
Jan 31 10.07 6.078 3.990 3.990
3
Feb 28 14.969 6.495 8.474 8.474
Mar 31 19.330 7.772 11.557 11.557
Apr 30 26.875 6.725 20.150 20.150
May 31 22.999 6.771 16.228 16.228
Jun 30 12.924 8.441 4.483 4.483
Jul 31 7.874 9.061 -1.187 0.000
Aug 31 4.278 8.563 -4.285 0.000
Sep 30 5.238 7.591 -2.353 0.000
Oct 31 6.356 5.412 0.944 0.000
Nov 30 11.194 5.412 5.782 0.000
Dec 31 14.505 5.412 9.093 7.882
Year 365 13.024 6.981 6.043 6.043
Around 190 Mm of water surpass the needs of the system! In fact, the surplus from the Main Lake enters in Secondary Reservoir and will be discharged in Iber River in addition to the Biological Minimal Flow and to normal discharge generated by the outflow from Hydro-Electric Power Plant. The total discharges in Iber River are presented in Table 27 and 28. Table 27 – Total Discharges in Iber River – in Mm Days Useful discharge Surplus Total
Jan 31 1.901 10.686 12.587
Feb 28 2.709 20.499 23.208
Mar 31 6.439 30.955 37.394
Apr 30 3.403 52.229 55.632
3
3
May 31 0.000 43.464 43.464
Jun 30 0.000 11.620 11.620
Jul 31 0.000 0.000 0.000
Aug 31 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sep 30 0.000 0.000 0.000
Oct 31 0.000 0.000 0.000
Nov 30 0.000 0.000 0.000
Dec 31 0.000 21.112 21.112
Year 365 14.452 190.567 205.019
Table 28 – Total Discharges in Iber River – in m / s Days Useful discharge Surplus Total
Jan 31 0.710 3.990 4.700
Feb 28 1.120 8.474 9.593
Mar 31 2.404 11.557 13.961
Apr 30 1.313 20.150 21.463
May 31 0.000 16.228 16.228
Jun 30 0.000 4.483 4.483
Jul 31 0.000 0.000 0.000
Aug 31 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sep 30 0.000 0.000 0.000
Oct 31 0.000 0.000 0.000
Nov 30 0.000 0.000 0.000
Dec 31 0.000 7.882 7.882
Year 365 0.458 6.043 6.501
Iber River receives a lot of non-used water and not only Biological Minimal Flow! In addition the Main Canal has 25% losses, so the value of the non-used water in the system is higher (see Tables 29 and 30). Table 29 – Non-used Water – in Mm Days Losses Surplus Total % of Inflow
Jan 31 3.260 10.686 13.946 51.72%
Feb 28 2.949 20.499 23.448 64.75%
Mar 31 3.260 30.955 34.215 66.09%
Apr 30 3.183 52.229 55.412 79.55%
3
May 31 4.199 43.464 47.663 77.38%
3
Jun 30 5.146 11.620 16.766 50.05%
Jul 31 5.733 0.000 5.733 27.18%
Aug 31 5.399 0.000 5.399 47.12%
Sep 30 4.595 0.000 4.595 33.85%
Oct 31 3.289 0.000 3.289 19.32%
Nov 30 3.183 0.000 3.183 10.97%
Dec 31 3.289 21.112 24.401 62.81%
Year 365 47.484 190.567 238.051 57.96%
Jun 30 1.99 4.48 6.47
Jul 31 2.14 0.00 2.14
Aug 31 2.02 0.00 2.02
Sep 30 1.77 0.00 1.77
Oct 31 1.23 0.00 1.23
Nov 30 1.23 0.00 1.23
Dec 31 1.23 7.88 9.11
Year 365 1.51 6.04 7.55
Table 30– Non-used Water – in m / s Days Losses Surplus Total
Jan 31 1.22 3.99 5.21
Feb 28 1.22 8.47 9.69
Mar 31 1.22 11.56 12.77
Apr 30 1.23 20.15 21.38
May 31 1.57 16.23 17.80
The water use efficiency of the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System will be around 40%. A very important reserve in water (in the Main Lake) seems to be an opportunity for the future development.
14 Sensitive variables: inflow in the Main Lake, water losses in the Main Canal, domestic consumption, water for irrigation For the water equilibrium in Iber-Lepenc Hydro System, almost four variables are important: Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 18
11/29/2007
Natural Inflow in the Main Lake (unique source of water); Water losses in the Main Canal (real, physical losses); Domestic consumption (impact to the social and political situation); Water for irrigation (the initial scope of the canal).
The consumptions of power plants (including Kosovo C) are fixed by the technology. The sensitivity of domestic consumtion variation is very low because of the reduced weight in the total consumption. The population is a priority and must be provided first!
15 Sensitivity analysis 15.1 Variation of Natural Inflow in Main Lake The variation of assumed average inflow can create problems in the system: the water volume in the lake can be inferior at the year end to at the year start and in time the lake will be empty. For the assumed hypotheses regarding consumption and losses (25%) the minimum natural 3 inflow in the Main Lake can not be lower than 343 Mm by year, representing 83.50% of the average inflow. Table 31 explains in detail the limitation. Table 31 – Dependence of Water Balance to the Natural Inflow in the Main Lake Inflow Variation -50% -45% -40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70%
Main Lake Inflow (Mm3) 205.362 225.898 246.435 266.971 287.507 308.043 328.579 349.116 369.652 390.188 410.724 431.261 451.797 472.333 492.869 513.405 533.942 554.478 575.014 595.550 616.087 636.623 657.159 677.695 698.231
Deficit (Mm3) -50.000 -41.000 -33.000 -25.000 -18.000 -12.000 -5.000
When the deficit appears, the inflow is not enough to compensate the outflow, and the Main Lake can emptying. Picture 9 – Dependence of Water Balance to the Natural Inflow in the Main Lake
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 19
11/29/2007 800
0
700 -10 600 -20
400
-30
Mm3
Mm3
500
300 -40 200 -50 100
0 -50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Main Lake Inflow (Mm3)
40%
50%
60%
-60 70%
Deficit (Mm3)
15.2 Variation of Losses in Main Canal Starting to 80% of “nominal” losses (25%) the calculation takes into account 100% maximal increase (50% losses). Considering all other data unchanged, the maximum admissible losses 3 can be 38.12% (87,756 Mm lost). Over this limit the water balance of the Main Lake become negative. Table 32 reefers to the losses variation Table 32 – Variation of Losses in Main Canal Losses Variation -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Losses (%) 20.00% 21.25% 22.50% 23.75% 25.00% 26.25% 27.50% 28.75% 30.00% 31.25% 32.50% 33.75% 35.00% 36.25% 37.50% 38.75% 40.00% 41.25% 42.50% 43.75% 45.00% 46.25% 47.50% 48.75% 50.00%
Losses (Mm3) 35.613 38.440 41.357 44.371 47.484 50.704 54.034 57.481 61.051 64.751 68.589 72.570 76.706 81.003 85.472 90.123 94.969 100.020 105.291 110.797 116.553 122.576 128.886 135.504 142.453
50% losses in main canal (this value seems to be surpassed by present losses) generate 142 3 Mm water definitively non-recuperated! Picture 10 – Variation of Losses in Main Canal Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 20
11/29/2007 60%
160
140 50% 120 40%
30%
80
Mm3
Mm3
100
60 20% 40 10% 20
0% -20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Losses (%)
60%
70%
80%
90%
0 100%
Losses (Mm3)
15.3 Losses Variation and the Minimal Natural Inflow in the Main canal The maximum losses in the Main Canal, necessary to not disturb definitively the water balance (calculated above for “nominal” values of the other inputs) depend of the losses level. Table 33 explains this dependence. Table 33 – Dependence of Minimum Natural Inflow in the Main Lake to the Losses in the Main Canal Losses (%) 20% 21% 23% 24% 25% 26% 28% 29% 30% 31% 33% 34% 35% 36% 38% 39% 40% 41% 43% 44% 45% 46% 48% 49% 50%
Minimum Inflow (Mm3) 322.994 327.717 332.646 337.698 342.955 348.376 353.962 359.753 365.791 371.993 378.482 385.177 392.119 399.347 406.864 410.724 410.724 410.724 410.724 410.724 410.724 410.724 410.724 410.724 410.724
Deficit (Mm3)
-2.000 -4.000 -7.000 -10.000 -13.000 -16.000 -19.000 -23.000 -26.000 -30.000
The value of maximal losses for average conditions is confirmed (no more 38%). Picture 11 - Dependence of Minimum Natural Inflow in the Main Lake to the Losses in the Main Canal Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 21
11/29/2007 450
0
400 -5 350 -10 300 -15 Mm3
Mm3
250
200
-20
150 -25 100 -30 50
0 20%
23%
25%
28%
30%
33%
35%
38%
Minimum Inflow (Mm3)
40%
43%
45%
48%
-35 50%
Deficit (Mm3)
15.4 Losses Variation and Irrigated Area In the base assumptions, the Consultant supposed 10,000 ha of irrigated land. If other hypotheses still unchanged, this area can increase or decrease related to the losses in the main canal. The dependence is shown in Table 34. Table 34 – Irrigated Area and Losses in Main Canal Losses (%) 20% 21% 23% 24% 25% 26% 28% 29% 30% 31% 33% 34% 35% 36% 38% 39% 40% 41% 43% 44% 45% 46% 48% 49% 50%
Irrigated Area Increase (%) 160.00% 148.90% 137.90% 126.90% 115.80% 104.80% 93.80% 82.70% 71.70% 60.70% 49.60% 38.60% 27.60% 16.50% 5.50%
Irrigated Area (ha) 26,000 24,890 23,790 22,690 21,580 20,480 19,380 18,270 17,170 16,070 14,960 13,860 12,760 11,650 10,550 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Even if the losses are 38% the irrigated area can increase with 15.80%, but in this case the water balance will have any reserve. The designed irrigated area (26,000 ha) can be served if the losses in the main canal are only 20%. Picture 12 – Dependence of Irrigated Area to the Losses in the Main Canal Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 22
11/29/2007 180%
30,000
160% 25,000 140%
120%
20,000
15,000
ha
100%
80%
60%
10,000
40% 5,000 20%
0% 20%
23%
25%
28%
30%
33%
35%
Irrigated Area Increase (%)
38%
40%
43%
45%
48%
0 50%
Irrigated Area (ha)
Reduction of losses is the way to irrigate more land!
16 Conclusions about water availability
If the total losses in the canal are lower than 25%, the system can provide enough water to cover all consumers needs (as defined above).
The conclusion is consistent for the inflows in the Main Lake taken into account in the calculation.
The reserve in water is effective: the annual inflow in the Main Lake can decrease from 3 410 Mm3 to around 322 Mm without affect the consumers.
Only in 5 years of 25 the inflow in the Main Lake was lower than 322 Mm (probability 20%).
Even in this case, in 4 or five years, the water missing in the Main Lake is compensating by additional inflow (see Figure 13).
3
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 23
11/29/2007
Picture 13 – Natural Inflow in the Main Lake (25 Years) Annual Inflow in Main Lake 800
700
600
Mm3
500
400
300
200
100
0 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
After a bad year, followed several good years, and the lack in water was compensated. No one reason that these phenomena not repeat in the future.
In the same time, is very important to use current flows compensation with spillways and additional water from Main Lake.
For the present simulation the calculated spillways and additional water from Main Lake flows are presented in Table 35.
Table 35 – Additional Water from Main Lake and Discharges from Secondary Reservoir – in Mm Days Additional Water from Main Lake Spillway Secondary Reservoir
Jan 31
3
Feb 28
Mar 31
Apr 30
May 31
Jun 30
Jul 31
Aug 31
Sep 30
Oct 31
Nov 30
Dec 31
Year 365
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.530
9.619
14.149
21.628
15.752
6.644
8.092
1.379
81.794
1.901
2.709
6.439
3.403
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
14.452
Picture 14 – Additional Water from Main Lake and Discharges from Secondary Reservoir Monthly operational flows 25
20
Mm3
15
10
5
0 Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mai
Main Lake Additional Water
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Secondary Reservoir Spillway
In the first part of the year, the height energy production demand a large flow in the Hydro-electric Power Plant and the water flow entering in Secondary Reservoir is too large to be absorbed by the consumers (the flow in Main Canal must be relatively low).
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 24
11/29/2007
In the second part of the year, the water flow needed to produce electricity is lower than the flow necessary to provide normal water quantity by the Main Canal.
This lack of flow is compensated by the additional water from Main Lake, eluding the turbines.
Resuming: Iber-Lepenc Hydro System is able to provide water for Kosovo C Power Plant in 2016 if: ⇒
The Main Canal is repaired to have maximum 25% losses;
⇒
At the end of the Main Canal will be build a Buffer Reservoir with corresponding capacity;
⇒
The water compensation in Secondary Reservoir is operated with accuracy;
⇒
The weather not changes very much and the rainfalls not decrease dramatically.
Other issues: ⇒ ⇒
Re-pumping water in the Main Lake is a solution to increase the commercial efficiency of the energy production, but depends of markets conditions; The overall water use efficiency still low (40%) and the system can provide more water for consumers (first priority irrigation, domestic).
NOTE: Detailed calculations of the values presented above in attached Flows and Balance.xls
17 Estimation of present losses in Main Canal Losses estimation is based on extended site visits during the two first missions of the Consultant team and on usual calculation of flows. Detailed sheets for all type A (trapezoidal section) sections of the canal are given in appendix. These sheets include photographs of salient parts of the canals, as well as main repairs (see § 18 hereafter ) Table 36 – Data Collected in Site Visits Sheet
Chainage (Km)
Type of canal
Slab N°
Type of loss
Estimated flow (l/s)
Picture N°
SECTION INVESTIGATED ON NOVEMBER 9th 2007 1/2 0 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Tunnel Pridvorice Covered canal / Tunnel 3 1.3 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Covered canal C1 4 2.6 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Tunnel Uglare Covered canals / Tunnel
Canal length type A 537.65 379.21 378.60
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 25
11/29/2007 Aqueduct Radoviq 5/5A 6/7/8/8A Tunnel Varace (?) Aqueduct Varace? 9/9A Aqueduct Dvorishte? 10 Aqueduct Ornice 11 Aqueduct Zupce Tunnel Zupce Siphon Zupce 1 Tunnel Zupce2 Siphon Zupce 2 Tunnel Zupce 3
4.3 4, 6 (?) 5 (?)
7.7 (?) 8.8 9.3
Aqueduct Covered canal A-1 (trapezoidal canal) A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Tunnel Aqueduct A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct + covered canal A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Covered canal /aqueduct Tunnel Siphon Tunnel Siphon Tunnel + covered canal
SECTION INVESTIGATED ON OCTOBER 9th 2007 12/13/14 11.5 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct Koshtova Aqueduct 15 12.5 A-1 (trapezoidal canal) Siphon Koshtova Siphon 13.5 B3 (concrete walls) Tunnel Koshtova Tunnel 14.5 B3 (concrete walls) Tunnel Lushta Tunnel Covered canal 16 16.5 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) B6 (concrete walls) 17 17 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) 18 17.5 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) Siphon Siphon 19 18 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) 20/21/22 A-2 (trapezoidal canal) 23 19.2 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct Xhosha Aqueduct 24 19.8 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct Polja Aqueduct Gjosha 25/26
20 20.4
Tunnel Verbnice 27/28 Tunnel Miladin 29 Aqueduct Leskove 30/31/32 Aqueduct Krivotok 33 Tunnel Mitkovic Aqueduct Mitkovic
22.3 23.8 24 25.1
Damaged water stop joint?
359
108
Damaged slab
20
367
112
Damaged water stop joint? Drainage pipe (flowing)
1 50
369 404/ 7
427.22 1,316.00
832.22 292.63
Lower slabs
20
420 / 421
259.87
235
Drainage pipe (flowing)
20
29
1,018.98
5
Drainage pipe (flowing)
20
33
224.96
5 10 250
50
78 128
Wall Drainage pipe (flowing) Landslide
56 195/196
Drainage pipe (flowing) Bottom slabs
10 20
61-62
5
75-76
330.87
Leakage (water stop)
54 to 58
400.00 303.48 400.00 874.02 351.59 297.99
Leakage (water stop + unauthorised pipe)
Aqueduct A A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Covered canal C2 Tunnel Covered canal B7 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Tunnel A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Tunnel Aqueduct
SECTION INVESTIGATED ON OCTOBER 10th 2007 34 26.2 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 35/36 26.6 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct Mitkovic 27 Aqueduct 37/38 27.1 A-3 (trapezoidal canal) 27.6 Canal B7 Tunnel Bukoshka 28 Tunnel Covered canal B9 39 28.9 A-4 (trapezoidal canal) 40/41/42/43 29.7 A-4 (trapezoidal canal) Siphon Oblevik 29.5 Siphon
1
10
81 432.53
791.47 84.63 Leakage (water stop)
10
91-94
Unauthorised pipe
10
96-97
857.16 68.03
72 200
Drainage pipe (flowing) Drainage pipe (flowing) Leakage (water stop)
5 20 5
106 122 125
400.00 457.16 442.83
193
Drainage pipe (flowing)
3
151
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 26
312.49 1,438.39
11/29/2007 Tunnel Nevolan 44 Siphon Nevolan 45 Aqueduct Kodra 46 Aqueduct Axhin Potok 47/48/49/50/51 Aqueduct Cardak 52 Aqueduct Selan 53/54/55 Tunnel Mihaliq Siphon Mihaliq 56
32.2 33.3 33.5 33.7 34 34.2 35.9 36.1 36.5 37 38.5 38.7 39.1
Siphon Vugoa Rupa Siphon Ropok Potok 57 Aqueduct Dedovac Siphon Zabel Aqueduct Regula 58/59 Siphon Curillo
42.2 42.6
45.7 46.8
Tunnel A-5 (trapezoidal canal) Siphon A-5 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct A-5 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct A-5 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct A-6 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct A-6 (trapezoidal canal) Tunnel Siphon A-6 (trapezoidal canal) Canal B10 Siphon Covered canal Siphon A-7 (trapezoidal canal) Aqueduct Siphon Aqueduct A-7 (trapezoidal canal) Siphon
118.03 207.46 Leakage (water stop)
10
162
Leakage (water stop)
30
173
Leakage (drilled hole)
30
189-190
Leakage (drilled hole)
30
195
392.59 1,712.51 371.66 1,542.49
433.30
377.95
468.99
Total length of type A canal Total length of canal (southern part)
Table 37 - Estimation of Losses Based to the Above Data 595 Total estimated identified losses l/s 149 Provision for unidentified losses (25%) l/s 488 Other assumed losses to be added (losses through joints) l/s (250 joints per km x 5,00 ml of joint under water x 0,02 l/s/ml of joint)
Total losses in investigated part of the canal: (37,7 km) Assumed average flow: (estimated water height: 1 m) Losses with the present flow:
l/s 3 2.46 m /s 50%
1,232
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 27
19,534.96 49,185.00
11/29/2007
Standard Calculations Manning-Strickler formula: Q = K S R^2/3 i^1/2
For smooth concrete lining:
75 to 90
Value considered:
K = 80
Trapezoidal Canal Freeboard: f L s = 1 V: 1.50 H
s = 1 V: 1.50 H H Water level in October 2007 l
Wet surface Wet perimeter Hydraulic radius Concrete lining Section A1
L (m)
S = (L + l) / 2 X H P=L+l+2xH/s R = S / P = (L + l) / 2 X H / ( L + l + 2 x H / s) K = 80 l (m)
5
H (m) 2
2
s 1
0.67
S (m ) 3.50
P (m) 10.61
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 28
R (m) 0.33
I (m) 0.00030
3
Q (m /s) 2.32
V (m/s) 0.66
11/29/2007
18 Estimation of cost for Main Canal repairs Using the exhaustive inspection of the main canal described above, the cost estimation for the repairs dissociates two categories: ⇒ Urgent repairs (can start immediately) ⇒ Less urgent repairs (can start only if the canal is emptying) Based to the current prices of materials and of labour in Balkans countries, and cross checking with the recently repairs works made by Iber Lepenc Enterprise, the Consultant propose the follow costs: Table 38 – Urgent repairs cost estimation Phase I – Urgent repairs Drainage pipe leaking Mobilisation Diversion of water Pumping of water Removal of slabs Excavation Laying of pipe dia 400 Concrete wrapping Culvert heads Laying and compacting fill material Drainage layer under slab Supply and place PVC Supply and place wire mesh 3 2 Laying slabs u (= 1m = 8m ) SUB-TOTAL: Slabs Mobilisation Diversion of water Pumping of water Breaking of concrete Digging under slab Laying and compacting fill material under slab Drainage layer under slab Supply and place PVC Supply and place wire mesh Supply and place concrete SUB-TOTAL: Landslide Mobilisation Access track, including site reinstatement Diversion of water Pumping of water Removal of slabs General excavation Excavation for pipe laying
Unit
Unit cost
Unit quantity
Total quantity
Lump sum 2 m h u 3 m ml 3 m u 3 m 2 m 2 m 2 m
5,000.00 4.00 5.80 100.00 8.00 80.00 240.00 1,337.50 14.00 15.00 0.35 4.00 190.00
1.00 80.00 1,008.00 15.00 1,000.00 50.00 40.00 2.00 950.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 15.00
8.00 640.00 8,064.00 120.00 8,000.00 400.00 320.00 16.00 7,600.00 960.00 960.00 960.00 120.00
40,000.00 2,560.00 46,771.20 12,000.00 64,000.00 32,000.00 76,800.00 21,400.00 106,400.00 14,400.00 336.00 3,840.00 22,800.00 443,307.20
Lump sum 2 m h 2 m 3 m 3 m 2 m 2 m 2 m 3 m
5000 4 5.8 12.5 8 14 15 0.35 4 190
1.00 4.00 60.00 8.00 8.00 6.40 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.96
3.00 144.00 2,160.00 288.00 288.00 230.40 288.00 288.00 288.00 34.56
15,000.00 576.00 12,528.00 3,600.00 2,304.00 3,225.60 4,320.00 100.80 1,152.00 6,566.40 49,372.80
Lump sum Lump sum 2 m h u 3 m 3 m
5,000.00 10,000.00 4.00 5.80 100.00 8.00 8.00
1.00 1.00 224.00 2,880.00 60.00 960.00 1,800.00
1.00 1.00 224.00 2,880.00 60.00 960.00 1,800.00
5,000.00 10,000.00 896.00 16,704.00 6,000.00 7,680.00 14,400.00
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 29
Total cost
11/29/2007
Laying of pipe dia 400 Concrete wrapping Culvert heads Backfilling Drainage layer under slab Supply and place PVC Supply and place wire mesh 3 2 Laying slabs u (= 1m = 8m ) SUB-TOTAL: Unauthorised pipe Diversion of water Pumping of water Filling SUB-TOTAL Drilled hole Diversion of water Pumping of water Filling SUB-TOTAL Reconditioning of track Mobilisation Km 26 Km 32 Km 33 SUB-TOTAL Crest ditch Mobilisation Km 27 Excavation for levelling Digging ditch Concrete lining SUB-TOTAL TOTAL PHASE I
ml 3 m u 3 m 2 m 2 m 2 m
80.00 240.00 1,337.50 14.00 15.00 0.35 4.00 390.00
300.00 240.00 1.00 1,500.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 60.00
300.00 240.00 6.00 1,500.00 480.00 480.00 480.00 60.00
24,000.00 57,600.00 8,025.00 21,000.00 7,200.00 168.00 1,920.00 23,400.00 203,993.00
2
4.00 5.80 1,000.00
10.00 168.00 1.00
10.00 168.00 1.00
40.00 974.40 1,000.00 2,014.40
m h u
2
4.00 5.80 1,000.00
10.00 168.00 1.00
20.00 336.00 2.00
80.00 1,948.80 2,000.00 4,028.80
Lump sum m m m
3,000.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50
3.00 428.58 59.02 196.29 683.89
9,000.00 8,571.60 1,180.30 3,925.90 22,677.80
Lump sum 3 m m m
5,000.00 8.00 8.00 190.00
1.00 1.00 0.50 0.20
1.00 250.00 125.00 50.00
5,000.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 9,500.00 17,500.00 739,850.80
m h u
Table 39 – Less urgent repairs cost estimation
Phase II – Less urgent repairs Drainage pipe leaking Removal of slabs Excavation Laying of pipe diameter 400 Concrete wrapping Backfilling Laying slabs SUB-TOTAL: Slabs Mobilisation canal empty Diversion of water canal empty Pumping of water
3
2
Unit
Unit cost
Unit quantity
u 3 m m 3 m 3 m
100.00 4.00 80.00 240.00 6.00 445.00
15.00 1,000.00 50.00 40.00 950.00 15.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1,000.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 500.00 360.00
27.10 135,500.00 97,560.00
27,100.00 0.00 0.00
u (= 1m = 8m )
Lump sum 2 m h
Total quantity
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 30
Total cost
Breaking of concrete Digging under slab Laying and compacting fill material under slab Drainage layer under slab Supply and place PVC Supply and place wire mesh Supply and place concrete SUB-TOTAL: Walls (aqueducts, concrete canals) Mobilisation Water stop Additional concrete SUB-TOTAL Joints Joint preparation Joint laying SUB-TOTAL Track Km 16,5 Mobilisation Excavation Filling with compacted material Supply and laying of material SUB-TOTAL TOTAL PHASE II
2
m 3 m 3 m 2 m 2 m 2 m 3 m
Lump sum m 3 m
m m
Lump sum 3 m 3 m 3 m
11/29/2007
12.50 8.00 14.00 15.00 0.35 4.00 190.00
8.00 8.00 6.40 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.96
2,168.00 2,168.00 1,734.40 2,168.00 2,168.00 2,168.00 260.16
27,100.00 17,344.00 24,281.60 32,520.00 758.80 8,672.00 49,430.40 187,206.80
3,000.00 20.00 455.00
1.00 10.00 10.00
9.00 90.00 90.00
27,000.00 1,800.00 40,950.00 69,750.00
1.00 2.00
12.80 12.80
62,511.87 62,511.87
62,511.87 125,023.74 187,535.62
3,000.00 2.50 14.00 20.00
1.00 8.00 1.50 0.50
1.00 827.18 496.31 163.78
3,000.00 6,617.40 6,948.27 3,275.61 19,841.28 464,333.70
Table 40 – Main canal repairs (cost estimation) Phase I Active slide repair (Km 17) Drainage pipes (leaking): 8 locations Slabs (36 units) Filling up drilled holes and unauthorized pipes (3 places) Track reconditioning (684 ml : Km 26,32,33) Crest ditch (250 ml : Km 27) SUB-TOTAL Phase II (canal empty) Slabs (271 slabs) Track building (331 ml : Km 16,5) Repairing leakages in concrete walls (9 waterstop joints) Joints laying (4884 ml) SUB-TOTAL
% of losses 20% 11% 5% 6%
42% % of losses 12% 6% 40% 58%
% of total cost 17% 37% 4% 1% 2% 1% 62% % of total cost 16% 2% 6% 16% 38%
Urgent repairs 203,993 443,307 49,373 6,043 22,678 17,500 742,894 Less urgent repairs 187,207 19,841 69,750 187,536 464,334
GRAND TOTAL
1,207,228
Some repairs should also be carried out in the main Gazivode dam, such as reconditioning the track on top of the dam. Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 31
11/29/2007
More detailed terms of reference for additional studies (detailed design) are given in appendix.
19 Estimation of costs for Buffer Basin In order to ensure a continuous and guaranteed water flow to Kosovo B and future Kosovo C Power Plants, it is proposed to build a buffer basin which should preferably be located nearby Bevolaq pumping station, about 5 km from the end of Iber Lepenc Main Canal. In order to be able to store a two weeks demand for Kosovo B (and future Kosovo C) Power Plants, it was computed that a 2 million m3 capacity buffer basin is required. Assuming the feasibility (to be checked in details) of a 5 m deep basin (water level – invert level), and based on standard costs for such works (dykes), a preliminary estimate of a 400,000 m2 Buffer basin was computed : costs would be between 7,7 and 11,6 millions Euros, depending mostly on the availability of materials for the dykes. More detailed terms of reference for additional studies (detailed design) are given in appendix.
20 Water tariffs to cover investment costs In 2006, Iber Lepenc Enterprise water revenue was mainly generated by Kosovo B Power Plant (573 M€) and by drinking water companies (256 M€). For the first time the company invoiced consumption for population. Table 41 – Iber Lepenc Enterprise revenue Revenue (€) Kosovo A Power Plant Kosovo B Power Plant Other Industry Water Companies Agriculture (irrigation) Total Water Revenue
2004 37,936 529,458
2005
2006
514,422
573,435
52,565 619,959
54,748 569,170
256,611 65,928 895,974
In ILE’s records, Kosovo A Power Plant and other industry not figure like consumers in 2006 (even if some water provided by ILE was used by industry). Table 42 – Tariffs Tariffs Kosovo A Power Plant Kosovo B Power Plant Other Industry Water Companies Agriculture (irrigation)
2004 0.0514 €/m3 0.05 €/m3
2005
2006
0.05 €/m3
0.05 €/m3
0.0422 €/m3
0.0308 €/m3
0.0158 €/m3 0.0256 €/m3
The tariff for agriculture is calculated, in fact ILE use 100 €/ha. For example, equivalent tariff in 3 3 2006 was: 100 €/ha tariff / 3,851 m /ha calculated water consumption = 0.0256 €/m .
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 32
11/29/2007
The tariff for water companies and the tariff for agriculture (irrigation) seem to be subsidized by the Power Plants. But, is possible that electricity production subsidies all water distribution activity (more population and agriculture and less power plants). In ILE’s accountancy operational costs, generated by water distribution or by electricity production are not separated and is not possible to distribute with accuracy the expenses between the two main activities (or between different water consumers), and to have a more detailed evaluation of the amount of the subsidies. In the near future is necessary to create almost two costs centres in ILE: Energy Production and Water Distribution to have the possibility to know real costs for the two main commercial activities. In the present is not clear if water tariffs cover all expenses generated by water distribution or part of these expenses is covered by the production of electricity. The inadequate cost registration by ILE’s accountancy is more evident if the depreciation (non cash cost) is taken into account. In the past three years analyzed (2004 – 2006), the company has a comfortable gross margin (between 1 and 1.8 million € each year) proving that the sales revenue covered all operational costs. In the same time, the gross financial result was strongly negative (between 3 and 5 million €). As a result, the cash in hand was consistent (0.6 – 2.8 million €), in the last two years allocated mainly to several investments and repairs. Without investments (in canal repairs and in buffer basin) Kosovo C cannot be provided in water and the losses in main canal will increase (assumed losses 60% in 2012 and 75% in 2021). With these assumptions (very possible), to have a minimal net profit the tariffs must be: 3
⇒ 62.13 € / MWh if only electricity tariff is increase (water tariff 0.05 € / m ); 3 ⇒ 0.19 € / m if only water tariff increase (electricity tariff 21.51 € / MWh); 3 ⇒ 0.11 € / m and 44.50 € / MWh if both two tariffs growth. No one of above structure of tariffs are affordable for the industrial consumers (the water tariffs for population and agriculture still are unchanged) or for the energy market! If the calculated and non distributed depreciation of fixed assets is included in the tariffs, the resulting tariffs become too height. The proposed costs centres must separate not only operational expenses, but also the non cash costs like depreciation. Present level of depreciation seems to be fictional, based to a bookkeeping revaluation. (Fore more detailed description of the situation in this possible case, see attached Model ILE without investments.xls) To avoid amplifying this situation, the investment costs will be allocated only to the activity which is affected by the investment. The additional costs, generated by the investments in main canal and in buffer basin (if the owner will be ILE) will affect only the tariff for non-domestic consumers (power plants and other industry). These consumers are directly involved in the investment. The tariffs for domestic consumers and farmers still are the unchanged.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 33
11/29/2007
20.1 Increase in tariff due to the repairs of the main canal Overall repairs works to the main canal are split in two phases: Phase I – cost 742,894 € can be finished in 2008; Phase II – cost 464,334 € possible to finish in 2010. To start phase II is necessary to can stop the water distribution for a long period (several weeks). So it is compulsory to have the buffer basin complete. The additional revenue (obtained by increasing the tariff) during 25 years must cover the total cost of the repairs. If the phase I will be financed by a grant, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets in the same 25 years. 3
The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00043 €/m . When the phase I is financed by own sources of ILE, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets and to company’s expenses for the repairs. 3
The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00096 €/m . If the phase II will be financed by a grant, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets in the same 25 years. 3
The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00025 €/m . If the phase II will be financed by own sources of ILE, the total investment cost reefers to depreciation of new fixed assets and to company’s expenses for the repairs. 3
The increase in tariff need in this case is 0.00058 €/m . In conclusion, to cover all the costs of the repairs of the main canal, the tariff for water delivered 3 for industry (including power plants) must increase between 0.00068 €/m (if the investment is 3 financed by a grant) and 0.00154 €/m (if ILE finance itself the repairs). The increase is not large, the total tariff for industrial water consumers will be around 0.051 €/m 3 (0.05 €/m in 2006).
3
20.2 Increase in tariff due to the construction of the buffer basin If the buffer basin will be in the property of ILE, the increase in tariff must cover the total investment costs (own sources involved, loan service and depreciation). Considering that the basin will be constructing in two years (2008 - 2009) and the capital expenditure is around 10 million €, the increase in water tariff for industrial clients must be: ⇒ Investment financed by own sources of ILE 3
The increase in tariff to cover total cost of the investment is 0.023 €/m . The increase is not enough to have positive cash in hand in 2008 and 2009. ILE’s capacity to create cash for 3 investment can be restored only if the tariff increase with 0.1185 €/m . Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 34
11/29/2007
This case is not affordable, because of height increase in tariff. ⇒ Investment financed 50% by loan and 50 % by own sources 3
The increase in tariff to cover total cost of the investment is 0.0266 €/m . The increase is enough to have positive cash in hand in the next 25 years. The loan conditions taken into account are: loan duration 15 years, grace period 3 years, interest 7%, commitment fee 1%, front end fee 1%. 3
The final tariff for industrial clients will be around 0.08 €/m . The difference between Variant I and Variant II Kosovo C construction is insignificant regarding additional tariffs involved by the investments in main canal repairs or in buffer basin. ILE is able to finance the investment in buffer basin, using a loan to cover incentive gap in cash created by the capital expenditure in 2008 and 2009. Possible optimal investment scenario is: Repairs of the main canal – Phase I – 2008 – financed by grant Repairs of the main canal – Phase II – 2010 – financed by ILE’s own sources Buffer basin construction – financed 50% by loan and 50% by ILE’s own sources The financial forecasts for Iber Lepenc Enterprise for this scenario are shown in the following tables:
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 35
11/29/2007
Variant I of Kosovo C construction Profit & loss account (â‚Ź) Kosovo A Power Plant Kosovo B Power Plant Other Industry Water Companies Agriculture (irrigation) Kosovo C Power Plant Revenue from Water Distribution Hydro Power Plant Revenue from Core Business Other Revenue Total Revenue Labour Maintenance & Repairs Electricity Materials Bad Debts Expenses Other Operational Expenses Total Operational Expenses Gross Margin Depreciation Grant Amortization EBIT Interest EBT Income Tax Net Profit / Loss
2007 36,936 579,536
2008 473,131 1,655,958 473,131 262,953 220,833
2009 478,059 1,673,207 956,119 254,815 220,833
2010 482,988 1,690,457 1,448,963 246,452 220,833
2011 487,916 1,707,707 1,951,665 237,865 220,833
3,086,006 2,255,696 5,341,702 173,010 5,514,712 1,635,612 86,230 146,202 58,810 534,170 232,056 2,693,080 2,821,632 6,090,230
-4,782,390
-3,268,598 186,875 -3,455,473
3,583,033 2,255,696 5,838,730 173,010 6,011,740 1,635,612 462,231 167,492 67,374 583,873 232,056 3,148,638 2,863,101 6,627,375 34,173 -3,730,100 301,875 -4,031,975
4,089,693 2,255,696 6,345,389 173,010 6,518,399 1,635,612 478,483 188,031 75,636 634,539 232,056 3,244,357 3,274,042 6,650,591 34,173 -3,342,376 402,500 -3,744,876
-4,782,390
-3,455,473
-4,031,975
-3,744,876
270,867 65,000 952,340 2,255,696 3,208,036 173,010 3,381,046 1,635,612 86,230 85,083 34,225 232,056 2,073,206 1,307,840 6,090,230 -4,782,390
4,605,986 2,255,696 6,861,682 173,010 7,034,692 1,635,612 478,483 207,819 83,596 686,168 232,056 3,323,734 3,710,958 6,650,591 34,173 -2,905,460 385,729 -3,291,190
2012 492,845 1,724,956 2,464,223 229,054 220,833 936,405 6,068,315 2,255,696 8,324,012 173,010 8,497,022 1,635,612 478,483 257,257 103,482 832,401 232,056 3,539,291 4,957,731 6,650,591 34,173 -1,658,688 352,188 -2,010,875
2013 492,845 1,724,956 2,464,223 229,054 220,833 1,872,810 7,004,720 2,255,696 9,260,417 173,010 9,433,427 1,635,612 478,483 287,657 115,711 926,042 232,056 3,675,561 5,757,866 6,650,591 34,173 -858,553 318,646 -1,177,198
-8 2 -1,1
-3,291,190
-2,010,875
-1,177,198
-1,1
Iber Lepenc Enterprise will have financial losses until 2016, when Kosovo C Power Plant will work with full capacity. The historical depreciation of fixed assets (6,090,230 â‚Ź) strongly affect the final efficiency (the gross margin is positive every year, proving that ILE operations are efficient). In the same time, this depreciation generates important cash in hand.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 36
2 4 1,7 2,4 2 2 1,8 7,0 2,2 9,2 1 9,4 1,6 4 2 1 9 2 3,6 5,7 6,6
11/29/2007 Balance sheet (â‚Ź) Existing fixed assets New fixed assets New intangible assets Non-current assets net value Inventory Trade receivable Advance payments Cash and cash equivalent Current assets Assets Share capital Retained earning Grants received Equity Loan Non-current liabilities Advances received Trade payables Tax payables Short term part of the loan Current liabilities Equity & liabilities Sources and utilizations (â‚Ź) Retained earnings Depreciation & provisions Grants received Disbursements of new loans Decrease in working capital Total sources Loss Capital expenditure Loans repayment Grants amortization Increase in working capital Total utilizations Net cash Cash in hand & equivalent
2007 79,273,465
79,273,465 676,048 2,566,596 165,446 3,895,380 7,303,471 86,576,936 113,454,835 -28,414,299 408,495 85,449,031 712,138 712,138 185,263 137,872 92,631 415,766 86,576,936
2008 73,183,235 6,030,039 574,289 79,787,563 640,547 2,785,147 181,362 3,700,573 7,307,629 87,095,192 113,454,835 -31,869,771 408,495 81,993,559 3,587,138 854,328 4,441,466 332,394 161,577 166,197 660,168 87,095,192
2009 67,093,005 10,904,037 913,146 78,910,188 1,126,841 2,993,897 292,747 2,794,179 7,207,664 86,117,852 113,454,835 -35,901,746 408,495 77,961,584 6,462,138 820,155 7,282,293 395,292 281,037 197,646 873,976 86,117,852
2010 61,002,775 10,999,335 791,471 72,793,581 990,796 3,152,870 276,247 5,236,345 9,656,259 82,449,839 113,454,835 -39,646,622 408,495 74,216,708 5,982,971 785,982 6,768,953 464,324 288,525 232,162 1,464,178 82,449,839
2011 54,912,545 10,607,082 623,363 66,142,989 826,770 3,220,875 252,547 8,317,017 12,617,210 78,760,199 113,454,835 -42,937,812 408,495 70,925,518 5,503,805 751,809 6,255,613 539,648 290,429 269,824 1,579,067 78,760,199
2012 48,822,315 10,214,829 455,254 59,492,398 669,058 3,263,181 236,268 12,826,529 16,995,037 76,487,435 113,454,835 -44,948,687 408,495 68,914,643 5,024,638 717,636 5,742,274 698,385 303,773 349,193 1,830,518 76,487,435
2013 42,732,085 9,822,576 287,146 52,841,807 628,805 3,396,508 245,670 17,869,075 22,140,059 74,981,865 113,454,835 -46,125,885 408,495 67,737,445 4,545,471 683,462 5,228,934 832,783 315,861 387,675 2,015,487 74,981,865
3
4
2 2 7 11 -4
6
7
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
6,090,230
6,090,230 854,328 2,875,000 45,436 9,864,994 3,455,473 6,604,328
6,627,375
6,650,591
6,650,591
6,650,591
6,650,591
6,650,591
6
9,502,375 4,031,975 5,750,000
104,607 6,755,198 3,744,876 533,984
234,610 6,885,202 3,291,190
383,135 7,033,727 2,010,875
82,493 6,733,085 1,177,198
6,650,591 1,143,657
6
34,173
479,167 34,173
479,167 34,173
479,167 34,173
10,059,801 -194,806 3,700,573
34,173 592,621 10,408,769 -906,394 2,794,179
4,313,033 2,442,166 5,236,345
3,804,529 3,080,672 8,317,017
2,524,215 4,509,512 12,826,529
1,690,538 5,042,546 17,869,075
6,090,230 4,782,390
220,010 5,002,399 1,087,831 3,895,380
2,875,000
For detailed calculation and forecasts see attached Model ILE.xls.
Water Supply from the Iber-Lepenc Hydro System for the Proposed Kosovo C Power Plant 37
479,167 34,173 8,923 1,665,920 4,984,672 22,853,747
5 28