Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus · In order to meet the national target of 14.5% energy savings,...
Transcript of Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus · In order to meet the national target of 14.5% energy savings,...
Final Report
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus
Subsectors:
Floriculture and vegetables in greenhouses
The Cyprus energy profile for the greenhouses sector: current situation and energy saving measures in combination
with RES
Deliverable 3.1
Submitted to:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Submitted by:
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Sylvensteinstr. 2
D-81369 Muenchen Germany
Tel: +49-89-720127 43 Fax: +49-89-720127 91
[email protected] www.wip-munich.de
28 February 2017
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Acknowledgments & Disclaimer
This study has been conducted within the framework of the project “Technical assistance for energy
efficiency and sustainable transport in Cyprus” implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH with financing from the European Commission Structural Reform Support
Services under Contract No. SRSS/S2016/S002 and the German Ministry of Economy and Energy.
Neither GIZ nor the European Commission or German Federal Ministry of Economy and Energy or any
person acting on their behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the European Commission, the German Government or GIZ.
Authors
Essam Mohamed, George Markou, Thanos Balafoutis, George Papadakis (Agricultural University of
Athens), Pavlos Michael (Energy Auditor), Rainer Janssen (WIP)
February 2017
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Table of Contents
Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 8
1. Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 9
2. Introduction - background ................................................................................................... 10
3. Overall and specific objectives of the study ........................................................................ 11
4. Mapping current situation in Agriculture sector in Cyprus – Vegetables and floriculture
greenhouse ............................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Energy and Energy Efficiency in Cyprus ...................................................................... 13
4.2 Regulatory framework ................................................................................................. 14
5. Energy Audits ..................................................................................................................... 16
5.1 Scope and general requirements................................................................................. 16
5.6.1 Indirect energy consumption ................................................................................ 26
5.7 Total primary energy consumption .............................................................................. 32
6. Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................................... 33
6.1 Technical Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................................................ 33
6.1.1 Double inflated polyethylene layer ........................................................................ 34
6.1.2 Use of thermal curtains or thermal screens .......................................................... 34
6.1.3 Greenhouse envelop sealing ................................................................................ 35
6.1.4 Insulation .............................................................................................................. 35
6.1.5 Windbreakers ....................................................................................................... 35
6.1.6 Construction considerations ................................................................................. 35
6.1.7 Using Variable Frequency Drives – VFD (inverters) ............................................. 36
6.1.8 Using efficient motors and pumps ........................................................................ 36
6.1.9 Using temperature integration .............................................................................. 36
6.1.10 Energy recovery units in desalination systems ..................................................... 37
6.1.11 Combined Cooling, Heat and Power (CCHP) or Trigeneration ............................. 37
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
6.2 Quantification of existing energy efficiency potential.................................................... 38
6.2.1 Quantification of energy efficiency and savings in heating systems ...................... 38
6.2.2 Procedure of RETScreen project analysis for energy efficiency measures ........... 46
6.1 Agricultural best practice methods for energy savings ................................................. 54
7. Provision of an outlook of the expected evolutions of the energy efficiency potential by 2020
and 2030 ................................................................................................................................... 56
8. Soft Energy Efficiency Measures ........................................................................................ 57
9. Renewable Energy Penetration in greenhouses ................................................................. 58
9.1 Renewable Energy Potential ....................................................................................... 58
9.1.1 Renewable Energy in Cyprus ............................................................................... 58
9.1.2 Solar energy potential .......................................................................................... 60
9.1.3 Wind potential ...................................................................................................... 63
9.1.4 Biomass & biogas energy potential ...................................................................... 65
9.1.5 Geothermal energy potential ................................................................................ 66
9.2 Penetration of RES in greenhouses ............................................................................ 67
10. Data preparation as input for the energy forecast model ................................................. 76
11. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 78
Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 79
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
List of Figures
Figure 1: Energy consumption by type of fuel in Cyprus 2012 ................................................... 13
Figure 2: Energy consumption by sector in Cyprus .................................................................... 14
Figure 3: Primary energy consumption per facility (MWh) .......................................................... 23
Figure 4: Primary energy allocation per process and energy flow .............................................. 24
Figure 5: Annual Consumption profile (MWh) ............................................................................ 24
Figure 6: Equipment Capacity and Annual Energy Consumption per process. .......................... 25
Figure 7: Indirect energy calculation path .................................................................................. 29
Figure 8: Indirect Energy Intensity in selected greenhouses ...................................................... 32
Figure 9: Trigeneration and fuel use efficiency, source .............................................................. 38
Figure 10: Meteorological data for Paphos and heating degree-days available from RETScreen
.................................................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 11: Basic data of the project ........................................................................................... 47
Figure 12: fuel type selection ..................................................................................................... 47
Figure 13: Energy efficiency measures ...................................................................................... 49
Figure 14: Summary of energy efficiency calculations ............................................................... 49
Figure 15: Cost analysis and input sheet ................................................................................... 50
Figure 16: Financial analysis of the project ................................................................................ 51
Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis of the project .............................................................................. 52
Figure 18: Risk analysis of the project ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 19: Share of renewables in gross inland energy consumption, 2014 a) for EU28 – b) for
Cyprus - % ................................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 20: Global horizontal irradiation map of Cyprus .............................................................. 60
Figure 21: Installed capacity of solar water heaters per 1000 inhabitants .................................. 61
Figure 22: Ground to air heat exchanger ................................................................................... 62
Figure 23: Space heating of greenhouse by solar thermal energy, Source, Solar Panel Plus .... 62
Figure 24: Mean annual wind speed in Cyprus (m/s) – 10m ...................................................... 64
Figure 25: Mechanical wind pumping in Ammochostos ............................................................. 65
Figure 26: Map of ground temperature in Cyprus ...................................................................... 67
Figure 27: RES installations in Cyprus ...................................................................................... 68
Figure 28: Sizing of the PV system for a 2000 m2 greenhouse .................................................. 70
Figure 29: financial analysis of 50.47 kWp PV system ............................................................... 71
Figure 30: Energy production from 50 kW wind turbine ............................................................. 73
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Figure 31: financial analysis of 50 kW wind turbine ................................................................... 74
Figure 32: Biomass heater as alternative solution ..................................................................... 75
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
List of Tables
Table 1: Cultivated areas with greenhouses .............................................................................. 12
Table 2: Time schedule of the site visits and name of participants. ........................................... 19
Table 3: Parameters for the calculation of primary direct energy ............................................... 22
Table 4: Processes in Greenhouses .......................................................................................... 23
Table 5: Types of greenhouses visited ...................................................................................... 27
Table 6: Primary energy for agrichemicals production ............................................................... 28
Table 7: Indirect energy consumption in greenhouses ............................................................... 31
Table 8: Total primary direct and indirect energy consumption .................................................. 33
Table 9: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene covered greenhouse .................. 40
Table 10: Calculation of heating power for double inflated polyethylene covered greenhouse ... 41
Table 11: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene cover and thermal curtains
polyethylene covered greenhouse ............................................................................................. 42
Table 12: Calculation of heating power for double inflated and thermal curtains polyethylene
covered greenhouse .................................................................................................................. 43
Table 13: Heating power requirements and percentage of savings ........................................... 44
Table 14: Annual heating energy consumption for 2040 m2 greenhouse in four different
scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 45
Table 15: Financial results summary for energy efficiency measures in the greenhouse ........... 54
Table 16: Rate of subsidy for selected energy efficiency measures ........................................... 54
Table 17: estimated hours of operation for several equipment in a 2000 m2 greenhouse .......... 69
Table 18: Summary of results for the 50 kW PV system ............................................................ 72
Table 19: Summary of results for the 50 kW wind turbine system .............................................. 75
Table 20: Projection of energy savings potential in Cyprus, Annex 5 ......................................... 77
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Abbreviations
CHP Combined Heat and Power
EEI Energy Efficiency Improvement Measures
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
IRR Internal Rate of Return
NPV Net Present Value
PE Polyethylene
PV Phovotoltaics
RES Renewable Energy Systems
TOE Tonnes of Oil Equivalent
ToR Terms of Reference
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
1. Executive summary
The aim of this study was to give a preliminary insight in the energy consumption profile of the
greenhouse sector and to explore the possibilities for cost effective measures for energy savings
and to assess the potential of Renewable Energy Systems (RES) penetration. To this end, in the
frame of the study, eleven greenhouses from the vegetable and floriculture subsectors were
visited. In these greenhouses a “Walk-through”-energy audit was conducted and along with a
questionnaire and an interview with the owners (or technicians) data were collected in order to
calculate the energy consumptions and to map the most significant items that consume energy.
This level of energy audit is described in the ministerial Degree (KDP) 437/2015 “Methodology
and other requirements for Energy Audits”, furthermore it complies with the Ministerial degree
437/2015 and fulfil the requirements of EN 16247 and EN 16247. Based on the findings of the
audits a list of measures for energy savings was created. Total energy savings per unit area and
for each greenhouse were calculated and the data were extrapolated to the whole greenhouse
sector taking also into account statistical data available from the Ministry of Agriculture.
Direct energy consumption was found to range between 57.3 MWh to 1669 MWh. The highest
direct energy consumption was recorded for on the largest floriculture greenhouse in Cyprus
with a considerable amount of equipment. The lowest direct energy consumption was recorded
for a vegetable greenhouse (1200 m2) hardly without any cooling or energy consuming
equipment. The total direct energy consumption for all greenhouses sector was calculated to be
198.8 GWh of which 12.1% is indirect energy.
Energy consumption in heating was recorded to be the highest among all consumers in the
greenhouse. This is followed by cooling and irrigation processes. Energy was found to peak in
winter months due to heating requirements of the greenhouses. The overall energy potential
was calculated to be 16.7% (33.2 GWh). The combined heat and power cycle should be given
more insight analysis in the case of availability of agricultural residues as fuels, since the current
preliminary analysis is heavily depended on the prices of fossil fuels.
The Pay Back Period (PBP) of the proposed energy efficiency measures ranges between 1 to 6
years. In order to achieve a PBP in the range of 3 years, the study suggested a subsidy intensity
rates that ranges from 30% to 60%.
There are several RE potential in Cyprus, solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy.
However, this study analysed the most cost-effective technologies that are readily available in
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
the market and can be implemented in the near future by the farmers. Therefore, photovoltaic
and wind energy applications were analysed in details. The PBP for photovoltaic and wind
energies were calculated to be 4.9 and 8 years respectively.
2. Introduction - background
In order to meet the national target of 14.5% energy savings, 192 KTOE of primary energy
savings measures should be undertaken in Cyprus. The agriculture sector has been identified as
one of the main economic sectors, as indicated in the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan of
Cyprus. Therefore, energy savings measures in the agriculture sector could contribute to
achieving the national energy savings target.
Furthermore, the penetration of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) in the agriculture sector in
Cyprus has been also identified as one of the Energy Efficiency Improvement Measures (EEI) in
the agriculture sector. Therefore, the Cypriot government is proposing the promotion of grants
schemes to encourage the use of RES in agriculture.
Energy efficiency in agriculture has not been given the appropriate attention in the past, except
for energy used in greenhouses. Nevertheless, the impact of energy efficiency measures in the
agriculture sector is expected to be high, especially when indirect energy use is taken into
consideration. Hence, electricity needed for water and irrigation pumps, lightning agricultural
buildings as well as gasoline for heating purposes is explored to be able to quantify the energy
efficiency potential in the agricultural sector. The overall amount of energy consumed and
efficiency potential is examined in chapter 5.
The GIZ ToR then focuses on Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses and animal constructions, as
the target study units. The main objective of the current report is to analyze and quantify cost
effective energy efficiency measures in Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses and to identify the
potential penetration of RES. This objective is achieved by first conducting an energy audit in the
Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses sectors, followed by comprehensive and cost effective
analysis of required energy efficiency measures. The penetration of RES in the
Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses is also analyzed and projection of results are introduced until
2020 and 2030.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
3. Overall and specific objectives of the study
The overall objective of the current study is to provide policy options for decision makers on
how to increase energy efficiency and renewable energies in line with the commonly agreed EU
energy and climate targets 2020 and 2030, based on analysis and quantification of cost
effective energy efficiency measures in Floriculture/vegetable greenhouses. To identify the
potential penetration of RES and energy efficiency with the ultimate goal of contributing to the
national renewable and energy savings target.
The report’s Specific Objectives can be summarized as follows:
1. Collection of data regarding the current situation for floriculture/vegetables. This
regards the identification of energy profile for greenhouse production of vegetable
and floriculture.
2. Assessment of the current energy needs of the floriculture/vegetables greenhouses
sector by carrying out field visits and conducting comprehensive energy audits that
will act as essential tool for energy planning. Moreover, the energy audits will pinpoint
areas of high-energy consumption and possible energy savings. Besides, it will
prioritize the implementation of energy efficiency measures.
3. Propose measures for cost-effective energy savings and combined methods for
application of energy saving measures and renewable energy technologies in
floriculture/vegetables greenhouses. The report covers both technical and soft
measures and considers potential evolution of costs and efficiency gains for different
technologies until 2020 and 2030.
4. Using the data collected and the estimations derived from previous activities, data
entry procedure will be carried out to support the energy forecast model of the
Republic of Cyprus in the sub-sectors covered by this study.
4. Mapping current situation in Agriculture sector in Cyprus –
Vegetables and floriculture greenhouse
The total gross output of the broad agricultural sector in 2014 reached 666 M€, with a decrease
of 4.9% from 2013 (700.8 M€). The main reason of the reduction is attributed to unfavorable
weather conditions, especially the water scarcity problem, which resulted in the decrease of the
volume of crop production, mainly to cereals, straw and green fodder that decreased by 85.8%,
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
92.0% and 73.8% respectively. With a share of about 210 M€ and 340 M€ for crops production
and livestock production, respectively, accounting less than 3% of the national GDP [1].
Intermediate inputs on the broad agricultural sector accounted about 377 M€ resulting to an
added value of about 289 M€. Intermediate inputs of “electricity, fuels & lubricants, fertilizers and
pesticides” accounted for about 18% of the total Intermediate inputs.
Crop production experienced a decrease of both volume and value of production in 2014. The
volume of crop production decreased by an overall 1.9% in 2014. The total value of crop
production decreased to 209.1 M€ in 2014 from 254.5 M€ in 2013, recording a decrease of
17.8%. More specifically, the volume of production of vegetables recorded an increase in 2014,
while production prices in general, decreased by 10.6%. While in floriculture sector, there was a
reduction in production by about 3% but a reduction in prices by about 38%, mainly due to
reduced prices of imported flowers from third countries [1].
According to the agricultural statistics data available from [2], the total cultivated area for
vegetables for 2014 is 7725 ha of which 370.21 ha devoted to vegetables grown in greenhouses
(4.8%). The total cultivated area for floriculture is 130.70 ha, of which 65.90 ha are cut flowers
and pot plants under greenhouses. The percentage of greenhouses cultivated area to the total
cultivated areas with vegetables and floriculture is calculated to be around 5.55%, see Table 1,
[3, 4].
Table 1: Cultivated areas with greenhouses
Cultivated
area (ha)
Percentage of greenhouses
area to the total cultivated
areas by sector
Percentage from total
cultivated land in
Cyprus
Vegetables
Vegetables in
greenhouses
7725
370.21
4.8%
0.28%
Floriculture
Floriculture in
greenhouses
Cut flowers
Pot plants
130.70
65.90
27.32
38.55
50.42%
0.14%
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Total cultivated area
of greenhouses
436.11 5.55%
Total cultivated land
in Cyprus
94786
4.1 Energy and Energy Efficiency in Cyprus
Cyprus is an island with isolated energy system and no interconnections with other European or
international energy networks. There are no indigenous energy sources except of about 2% of
the total primary energy consumption is generated from solar thermal and biomass contribution.
The energy import dependency is therefore reaches 98%. The primary energy consumption in
Cyprus reached almost 2.51 million TOE in 2012, which is lower than the 2.77 million TOE
consumption in 2010. Oil products had the largest share in the energy mix with approximately
1.18 million TOE (68.3%), followed by electricity with 359 042 TOE (20.7%), solar energy and
other RES (thermal energy and electricity) with 104 055 TOE (6%), solid fuels (mainly coal) with
71 340 TOE (4.1%) and, finally, biofuels with 17 001 TOE (1%). This picture has remained
almost unchanged over time, with fossil fuels dominating, with a share of almost 93% of final
energy consumption.
Figure 1: Energy consumption by type of fuel in Cyprus 2012
The breakdown of final energy consumption between industry, transport and services and
households shows a share of approximately 23% for industry, 54% for transport, whereas
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
services and households cover 13% and 8% respectively. The Agriculture sector accounts for
about 2% of the total energy consumption in Cyprus, see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Energy consumption by sector in Cyprus
4.2 Regulatory framework
Legislative Framework for RES was enacted in 2003: A Special Fund has been created aiming
at support of RES and Energy Saving investments in Cyprus. The revenues of this fund are
coming from the consumers paying an additional tax of 0.22 eurocents/kWh. Furthermore,
procedures for licensing and interconnecting wind and photovoltaic installations to the national
grid have been specified. The 13% compulsory target for RES contribution to the final energy
consumption by 2020 is now in track and has been adapted from the EU energy targets, which
is the reduction of at least 20% in greenhouse gases (GHG) by 2020, save 20% of the total
primary energy consumption by 2020, increase the level of RES in the EU´s total energy
consumption to 20% by 2020.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
The current study takes into account the EU regulatory framework and applicable Cypriot
and international legislation regarding energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy.
namely:
- Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency;
- Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable
sources;
- Regulations KDP 184/2012;
- Ministerial Degree 171/2012;
- Law 35(I)/2012, Law 31(I)/2009.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
5. Energy Audits
5.1 Scope and general requirements
Energy audits for the greenhouses sector took place on Monday 05/12/2016 – Friday
09/12/2016. A total of 11 greenhouses were visited and audited. A general description of the
requirements and methodology is presented below for the audits in this chapter, along with the
analysis results stemmed.
The applicable legal framework regarding Energy Audits in Cyprus is regulated by Ministerial
Degree (KDP) 437/2015 “Methodology and other requirements for Energy Audits”. Further,
ANNEX VI of the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive (Directive 2012/27/EU) provides the minimum
criteria for energy audits. Directive 27/2012 establishes a set of binding measures to help the EU
reach its 20% energy efficiency target by 2020. Under the Directive, all EU countries are
required to use energy more efficiently at all stages of the energy chain from its production to its
final consumption.
Ministerial degree 437/2015 states that energy auditors conducting energy audits must apply the
requirements of EN 16247: Energy Audits. EN 16247 specifies the requirements, common
methodology and deliverables for energy audits. It applies to all forms of establishments and
organizations, all form of energy and uses of energy, excluding individual private dwellings.
According to the standard, energy audit is the “systematic inspection and analysis of energy use
and energy consumption of a site with the objective of identifying energy flows and the potential
for energy efficiency improvements”.
A brief description of the minimum criteria for energy audits as provided by EU Directive 2012/27
is given below:
- The audits shall be based on up-to-date, measured, traceable operational data on energy
consumption and load profiles
- Shall be comprise a detailed review of the energy consumption profile of the sites including
transportation
- Shall be built, whenever possible, on life-cycle analysis (LCA) instead of Simple Payback
Period (SPP) in order to take account of long-term savings, residual values of long-term
investments and discount rates.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
- Shall be proportionate and sufficiently representative to permit the drawing of a reliable
picture of overall energy performance and the reliable identification of the most significant
opportunities for improvement.
5.2 Specific Requirements
The specific requirement of the energy audits, as expressed in the terms of reference, was to
provide through the selected process and the analysis conducted the following:
a. Current energy needs of the audited facilities
b. Indications for areas with high energy consumption
c. Prioritization of the energy efficiency measures
d. Identification of areas with possible improvements in operational efficiency
e. Assessment of possible penetration of RES
Based on the above requirements, the energy audit process was planned in accordance with all
the parties involved. Energy audit approaches vary in terms of scope, aims and thoroughness. In
general, energy audits can be categorized based on the thoroughness of the above terms into
the following three categories:
- Level I: Walk-through Energy Audit: Walk-through energy audit provides energy
consumptions costs and energy efficiency data based on energy bills and the results
of a short autopsy. This inspection is based on visual verifications, study of installed
equipment and operating data and detailed analysis of recorded energy consumption.
A candidate list of interventions or investment is provided which need further
examination together with the preliminary estimations of the potential costs and the
corresponding benefit.
- Level II: Comprehensive Energy Audit: This type of energy audit consists in energy
use survey in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the studied installation, a
more detailed analysis of the facility, a breakdown of the energy use and a first
quantitative evaluation of the interventions and investment selected to correct the
defects or improve the existing installation. This level of analysis can involve
advanced on-site measurements and computer-based simulation tools to evaluate
precisely the selected energy efficiency measures.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
- Level III: Detailed Energy Audit: The detailed energy audit (energy study) includes
a detailed analysis of capital-intensive modifications focusing on potential costly
interventions and investments requiring rigorous engineering studies.
According to the above description of Energy Audit Levels, the process selected for
implementation in the current technical assistance study is of Level I: Walk-through Energy
Audit. The main criterion for the final selection of both the process and methodology for the
Energy Audits was the time variable. The time-span available for field visits and analysis was not
allowing the implementation of advanced on-site measurements and computer-based
simulations.
5.3 Process Description
The selected energy audit process was based on the requirements and guidelines which
described above and on the specific requirements of the study. The process chosen was
appropriate to the agreed scope, aims and thoroughness required. Each element of the followed
process is described below:
a. Selection of greenhouses
The selection of the greenhouses sample was performed by MARDE and was discussed in
the mission kick-off meeting. The selection was based on the following criteria:
- The greenhouse sample should contain all sectors of greenhouse cultivation,
namely the vegetable, propagation and floriculture sector.
- Contain greenhouses with conventional cultivation in soil and hydroponic
systems.
- The selected greenhouse is to cover all geographical areas of Cyprus.
- Adequate level of communication with the owners and willingness for
cooperation.
However, MARDE characterized the level of advancement of the selected greenhouses as
above average regarding the type of construction (Gothic, high or low tunnel) and the
existence of equipment, since most of the available greenhouses in Cyprus are low or high
tunnels with hardly no equipment.
b. Preliminary Contacts
During the preliminary contacts with the involved parts, the aims, needs and expectations
concerning the energy audits were decided. The scope and boundaries were set and the
degree of thoroughness was agreed. Various meetings were conducted between the
Energy Auditor and the international experts in order for the final requirements regarding
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
time plans, energy efficiency measures criteria, time commitments and resources to be
finalized.
Further, specific elements of the process and requirements for data collection and
availability as well as validity and format of the energy and activity data were discussed
and decided. Field works strategy and methodology was also decided.
c. Start-up Meeting
The start-up meeting aimed to brief all interested parties about the energy audits
objectives, scope, boundaries and depth and agree the practical arrangements of the
energy audits. Interested parties included the energy study team, involved officials of the
Ministry of Agriculture and the representative of the Ministry of Energy.
During the meeting, which was carried out in the Department of Agriculture offices in
Nicosia, the cooperation of the involved parties was ensured and the field work
methodology and process was disclosed. Arrangement of access to facilities, safety and
security rules and non-disclosure arrangements were discussed and agreed. The
proposed field visits schedule and participants were also decided as presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Time schedule of the site visits and name of participants.
Day - date District Type of greenhouse Name of participants
Day 1: Monday
05/12/2016 Nicosia
Floriculture Propagation
Essam Mohamed Pavlos Michael Cristalla Kosta
Efthimios Odysseos Polycarpos Polycarpou
Orestis Politis
Day 2: Tuesday
06/12/2016 Larnaca
Vegetables Floriculture
Essam Mohamed Pavlos Michael Cristalla Kosta
Efthimios Odysseos Giannis Kizas
Day 3: Wednesday 07/12/2016
Limassol Vegetables Floriculture Propagation
Essam Mohamed Pavlos Michael Cristalla Kosta
Efthimios Odysseos Victoria Christodoulou
Day 4: Thursday 08/12/2016
Paphos Polis
Vegetable Vegetable
Essam Mohamed Pavlos Michael
Efthimios Odysseos Manolis Dimitriou Andreas Pavlou
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Day 5: Friday
0912/2016 Ammochostos
Floriculture Vegetable
Essam Mohamed Pavlos Michael Cristalla Kosta
Efthimios Odysseos Konstantis Spanashis
d. Collection of data
One of the most important elements of the Energy Audit was the collection of data for the
audited facilities. Due to the narrow time frame of the audit process, the decision to create
a form of questionnaire to be sent to the owners was made. The questionnaire was
prepared in cooperation between the local Energy Auditor and the international experts.
The purpose of the questionnaire was to provide the needed familiarity and general
facilities, energy consumption and production data for each of the facilities. The
questionnaires were handed to the facilities’ owners with the cooperation of the Ministry of
Agriculture officials and were filled by the owners in the presence and with the guidance of
local agriculture officials.
Data extracted from the questionnaires included list of energy systems, processes and
equipment, detailed characteristics of the facilities including known adjustment facts, and
how the organization believes they influence energy consumption. Historical data on
energy consumption and production volume were also acquired. The questionnaires
proved to very helpful since an initial picture of the facilities was drawn prior to the
programmed field visits.
e. Field Work
Facilities visits in accordance to the time schedule provided on Table 2 carried out, where
a total of eight facilities were visited in five consecutive days. The visits were conducted by
the local and international experts accompanied by representatives of the Department of
Agriculture and fully access to drawings, manuals and other technical documentation was
given.
Aims of the field visits were the inspection of the facilities, the evaluation of energy use, the
understanding of the operating routines and using behaviors, the generation of preliminary
ideas for energy efficient opportunities and finally, the identification of areas and processes
for which additional quantities were needed for future analysis.
The above aims were achieved by recording all the installed energy consuming equipment
and interviewing the relevant personnel. Available primary data were collected and optical
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
inspection of facilities and equipment was conducted. Part of the field work was the later
collection of electricity and fuel consumption data from the farmers or other service bodies
(like MOA or Cypriot Electricity Authority – EAC, etc.).
f. Analysis
During the analysis stage of the Energy Audit, the existing energy performance situation of the
facilities was established. The analysis included a breakdown of the energy consumption by use
and source, the energy flows and the energy balance of the facilities, the energy demand
profiles, the relationship between energy consumption and adjustments factors and finally the
energy performance indicators.
The adopted energy audit process fulfills both the minimum criteria for energy audits (as set by
the European Union Energy Efficiency Directive) and the guidelines and requirements of the
local legislation. Up-to-date operational and energy consumption data were acquired and a
detailed review of the energy consumption profile was created. The energy audits were
proportionate and sufficiently representative to permit the drawing of a reliable picture of overall
energy performance and the reliable identification of improvement opportunities.
5.4 Assumptions
To calculate the total energy consumption data were taken either during the interviews with the
owners (and technical staff), from the technical specification of the equipment or based on
empirical assumptions.
For the energy audits consumption analysis of the primary data collected, the following
parameters were used, see Table 3:
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Table 3: Parameters for the calculation of primary direct energy
Parameter Value Unit
Thermal Equipment Efficiency 80%
Oil Heating Value 43.40 MJ/kg
Oil Density 0.92 kg/L
MJ to kWh Conversion 0.27 kWh/MJ
Heating Oil Price 0.65 Eur/L
LPG Heating Value 47.80 MJ/kg
LPG Density 0.50 kg/Litre
LPG Price 0.85 Eur/L
Electricity to primary ratio 2.700 kWhp/kWhel
Oil to primary ratio 1.100 kWhp/kWth
Electrical CO2 Emissions 0.794 kgCO2/kWhel
Oil CO2 Emissions 0.266 kgCO2/kWhth
LPG to primary ratio 1.100 kWhp/kWth
LPG CO2 Emissions 0.249 kgCO2/kWhth
5.5 Analysis
The analysis process of the energy audits included the creation of energy consuming equipment
inventory for each of the facilities and the tabulation of primary energy consumption data.
According to the decided process the current energy needs for the greenhouses concern year
2015. Based on the data collected, the current primary energy needs of the audited
greenhouses are presented in Figure 3:
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Figure 3: Primary energy consumption per facility (MWh)
In order to pinpoint the energy intensive processes at the units, an energy allocation is
necessary to show the areas with the largest consumption and to provide guidance on which
processes have the largest energy efficiency potential. Table 4 gives the processes
categorization with references to specific equipment for each one.
Table 4: Processes in Greenhouses
Process Description Equipment Example
Administration Administration processes include tasks related with
administrative part of the greenhouses. Office lighting, Office HVAC,
domestic hot water etc.
Cooling Cooling processes are those related with cooling of the
production facilities Misting pumps, window motors,
cooling pad pumps etc.
Heating Heating processes are those related with heating of
the production facilities Air heaters, Circulation fans etc.
Irrigation Irrigation processes include the tasks of watering,
water pressurization and irrigation control
Submersible pumps, Desalination pumps, pressure
pumps etc.
Processing Processing include the tasks related to packaging and
processing of the products for distribution Air compressors, machine
motors, Process unit lighting etc.
Production Production tasks are related to the processes required
for protection and of the crop Photoperiodic lighting, Disinfection boilers etc.
Storage Storage include all equipment related to storage units Cold storage evaporator fans,
Compressors, storeroom lighting etc.
Based on assumptions regarding the equipment monthly operational hours the primary energy
allocation among the referred processes stemmed. Energy allocation for all the audited facilities
and the resulted energy flow diagram is presented in Table 5.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Figure 4: Primary energy allocation per process and energy flow
Based on the assumed monthly operation hours the primary energy consumption annual profile
was created and is presented in Table 6.
Figure 5: Annual Consumption profile (MWh)
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Further to energy allocation, a useful way to recognize the energy intensity of each process is
the comparison between the installed capacity and the annual energy consumption. .
Table 7 provides the installed capacity in conjunction with the current annual energy
consumption for both electrical and thermal energy per process.
Figure 6: Equipment Capacity and Annual Energy Consumption per process.
5.6 Energy audits remarks
Energy audit remarks include important observations in regard to the audit procedure as well as
preliminary conclusions and discussion for the audits results. During the field visits in the audited
greenhouses, many energy efficiency opportunities were recognized especially for matter
regarding the condition of the greenhouses construction. Further, the owner’s acknowledgment
of their effort to reduce energy consumption, even at the expense of reduced or of low quality
production, due to increased energy cost. The major process affected by these efforts is,
according to the owners the heating of the greenhouses. Even under these conditions, it is
noticeable in the presented analysis that heating is the most energy intensive process. The
technologies used for greenhouse heating (air heaters) consume vast amounts of fuel and must
be operated in accordance to good practices in order to provide the desirable result. Many of the
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
facilities audited were using air heaters supplying air without a distribution system, directly of the
supply nozzle.
It was concluded during the audits that one of the main issues, concerning energy consumption
in greenhouses is the high cost of heating due to high fuel prices. As extracted from the annual
primary energy consumption profile, even though heating is required for around six months
(October to March), the energy required consists more the twice the amount required for all the
other processes during the whole year.
In regard to electrical energy production, it stems from the analysis that even though irrigation
equipment capacity is bigger than both that of cooling and processing, energy needs for cooling
prevail. Greenhouse cooling equipment comes second in primary energy consumption followed
by irrigation equipment. A large share of energy consumption is utilized in processing
equipment, which along with irrigation equipment and in contrast to heating and cooling, is used
throughout the year.
5.6.1 Indirect energy consumption
Besides the direct energy consumption in a greenhouse as electricity and fossil fuels, there is
also the indirect energy consumption, which is the energy consumed in the manufacturing
processes of fertilizers, pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides), rooting hormones,
etc. Direct and indirect energy consumption can differ between countries for the same crop
production. For example, in one hand, more indirect energy could be used for tomatoes
production in one country, due to extensive use of agrochemicals, maintaining low electricity and
fossil fuel consumption (low machinery and modern irrigation). While in the other hand, in other
country where there is extensive use of machineries, heating and cooling systems along with the
use of electrical pumps for irrigation, lead to higher direct energy consumption. The calculation
of direct and indirect energy consumption reflects also the potential of energy savings in each
greenhouse.
In the current study, a blended methodology was followed in order to calculate the indirect
energy consumption in the selected sample of greenhouses (11 greenhouses, see Table 5). The
experts visited 4 floriculture greenhouses, three of which are hydroponic greenhouse. They
visited 2 (two) propagation units and 4 vegetable greenhouse, 1 (one) of which is hydroponic.
(The steps followed to calculate the indirect energy use are summarized below:
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
1. Identifications of the exact data to be collected from the greenhouse (regarding indirect
energy) such as the amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, hormones,
and other agrochemicals used in greenhouses.
2. Preparation of an initial questionnaire with basic data about the greenhouse (in Greek
language), see
3. Annex 1.
4. Interviewing the farmers and collect actual agrochemicals consumption data.
5. Preparation of the reference values of energy contents according to Annex V default
values of the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) for biofuel production pathways
[5] as well as to perform individually adapted calculations and using the BioGrace [6]
values in Table 6.
6. Calculation of indirect energy of each agrochemical use for a period of one year, 2015 or
2016 depending on the availability of data onsite.
Table 5: Types of greenhouses visited
No. of units Code No.
Floriculture greenhouses 4 1 – 4 – 6 - 10
Propagation
greenhouses 2 2 - 7
Vegetable greenhouses 5 3 – 5 – 8 – 9 - 11
Hydroponics 3 – 4 – 6 - 10
Total 11
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Table 6: Primary energy for agrichemicals production
Primary Energy
( Mj fossil/kg)
N-fertiliser (kg N) 48.99
P2O5-fertiliser (kg P2O5) 15.23
K2O-fertiliser (kg K2O) 9.68
CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 1.97
Pesticides 268.40
Following the steps mentioned before, 10 out of 11 initial questionnaires were filled by the
farmers and then collected and analyzed before the site visits begin. During the site visits,
interviews with the farmers were performed and detailed agrochemical invoices were submitted
to the experts. In most of the cases, oral information was given regarding the agrochemical
consumption. There were no data available from two greenhouses regarding their annual
consumption of agrochemicals, due to difficulty of gathering all invoices and the inability to
remember all performed agrochemical applications for one year. Some average values from
similar greenhouses (relative size and type of production) were used accordingly where data
were not available. These data were recorded in the Greenhouses audit datasheet, see Annex
2, and further analysis and calculations were performed to determine the indirect energy
consumption for each greenhouse based on the actual collected data, see Figure 7.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Figure 7
Assumption
s
Interviews
Invoices Agrochemicals
amounts in kg
BioGrace values
in Mj fossil/kg
Indirect energy
consumption in Mj
fossil
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Figure 7: Indirect energy calculation path
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
The floriculture sector (greenhouses 1-4-6 and 10) recorded the highest indirect energy intensity
due to the operation of the greenhouses all over the year for 12 months and the relatively larger
cultivated area, some of which are not closed greenhouses, which make them more vulnerable
to pathogens. The highest values recorded for the indirect energy intensity was for the
floriculture greenhouse No. 10 where there was a lot of cultivated areas under cover but they
was wide open to the environment and without insect screens, see .
Table 7 and Figure 8.
In general, the pesticides resulted in higher contribution to the final indirect energy consumption
see .
Table 7. This is mainly due to the high reference values of energy consumption per kg,
compared to the reference values for the fertilizers. See Table 6. In cases where energy for
pesticides was lower (greenhouses 3-4 and 5) a more controlled and closed structures were
observed, see .
Table 7 and Annex 3.
As it was expected, and due to the high-energy requirements to manufacture nitrogen based
fertilizers and the high amounts of nitrogen fertilizer used in the greenhouses, compared to
phosphorous and potassium fertilization, the indirect energy consumption of nitrogen fertilization
is higher in all cases of greenhouse.
Greenhouse with code numbers 2 and 7 are both propagation greenhouses, as previously
mentioned in Table 5. However, there are many differences between the two greenhouses as
shown in Annex 3. The main differences are that the unit No. 2 is much larger, more organized,
produces mainly vegetable seedlings and has up to date equipment and constructions. For
these reasons, the consumption of the indirect energy is lower in the case of unit No. 2.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 36
Table 7: Indirect energy consumption in greenhouses
Fertilizers (Mj fossil/kg) Total
(fertilizers
Mj fossil/kg)
Pesticides
(Mj fossil/kg) Total
Total area
(1000 m2)
Indirect
Energy
Intensity
(Mj/1000 m2)
A/A
N P2O5 K2O Others
1 14,861.12 2,809.94 2,170.74 11.43 19,853.22 982,523.83 1,002,377.05 34.7 28,886.95
2 17122.005 3175.455 2647.48 274.815 23,219.76 128,617.28 151,837.04 10 15,183.70
3 8,036.81 1,042.49 2,030.38 75.53 11,185.21 3,797.86 14,983.07 7.80 1,921.89
4 179,636.53 25,753.93 87,702.74 490.92 293,584.12 26,088.48 319,672.60 10 31,967.26
5 7,409.74 5,779.79 1,677.06 8.39 14,874.97 11,809.60 26,684.57 2 13,342.28
6 28,196.61 5,892.18 12,012.80 923.38 47,024.97 798,758.40 845,783.37 26.8 31,559.08
7 1,712.20 317.55 264.75 27.48 2,321.98 16,077.16 18,399.14 0.5 36,798.27
8 1,528.49 435.58 358.16 0.38 2,322.61 5,024.45 7,347.06 1.2 6,122.55
9 4,274.69 661.54 799.75 4.00 5,739.98 51962.24 57,702.22 8 7,212.78
10 9,095.68 1,900.70 3,875.10 297.86 15,169.34 257,664.00 272,833.34 6 45,472.22
11 1,943.04 300.70 363.52 1.82 2,609.08 23,619.20 26,228.28 4 6,557.07
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 37
Figure 8: Indirect Energy Intensity in selected greenhouses
5.7 Total primary energy consumption
Adding the total primary energy consumption obtained from the audit procedure and the indirect
energy consumption calculated in the previous chapter, we could estimate the total primary
energy consumption for each greenhouse. Table 8 summarizes the total primary energy
consumption. In the fourth column, the percentage of the indirect to direct energy shows the
intensity of using agrochemicals with regards to the primary energy consumption. The highest
value is reported for the floriculture greenhouse that was very wide open with noticeable
increase in the amount of agrochemicals (greenhouse No 1). While the lowest value is recorded
from the greenhouse No. 2 which is the most sophisticated and highly equipped and close
greenhouse (propagation greenhouse). Finally the specific energy consumption was calculated
in MWh/ton of product for all vegetable greenhouse and some floriculture greenhouses, in
MWh/punch (no data for the production were available from other floriculture greenhouses). The
floriculture greenhouse No. 4 exhibited high specific energy consumption because a lot of heat
losses have been identified in the greenhouse. The vegetable greenhouse No. 3 recorded a
good specific energy consumption due to the hydroponic culture and the controlled environment
of the greenhouse.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 38
Table 8: Total primary direct and indirect energy consumption
A/A
Direct
primary
energy (MWh)
Indirect
primary
energy (MWh)
Indirect to
direct energy
percentage (%)
Total Energy
consumption
(MWh)
Specific Energy
Consumption (MWh/ton)
or (MWh/punch1)
1 465.2 278.4 59.9% 743.6 0.008
2 1308.9 6.9 0.5% 1315.8
3 111.9 4.2 3.7% 116.1 0.61
4 1669.0 88.8 5.3% 1757.8 0.116
5 215.7 7.4 3.4% 223.1 7.4
6 974.2 234.9 24.1% 1209.2
7 208.4 5.1 2.5% 213.5
8 57.3 2.0 3.6% 59.3 2.2
9 210.4 16.0 7.6% 226.5 2.5
10 604.8 75.8 12.5% 680.6 0.009
11 184.0 7.3 4.0% 191.3 4.1
Total 6010.0 726.9 6736.9
6. Energy Efficiency Measures
6.1 Technical Energy Efficiency Measures
Improved energy efficiency is the combination of efforts and measures to reduce the amount of
energy required in the greenhouse. It includes all measures that are suitable to reduce the
consumption of energy for specific components in the greenhouse, thus improving energy
utilization and contributing directly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
production costs [7].
Energy efficiency measures portfolio include many tasks, such as:
1. Double inflated polyethylene cover (up to 40%)
2. Thermal curtains (up to 50% lower thermal energy consumption)
3. Using LED lights for photoperiodism (floriculture greenhouses)
4. Isolating 0.6 m from the ground in greenhouses used for propagation with rooting tables
(3-6%).
1 A punch of flowers=10 flowers stems
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 39
5. Closing gaps (greenhouse envelope sealing) in the greenhouse in windows, doors, etc.
(5 – 25%)
6. Using trees fence line (windbreaks) in the Northern part of the greenhouse (3-6%) in
windy sites.
7. Using gutter-connected structure rather than stand-alone units has 15-20% less surface
area and consequently lower heat loss (up to 20%).
8. Using ventilation fans with variable speed controllers (a fan running at 50% of its speed is
consuming 15% of the nominal power consumed at full speed)
9. Maintenance of ventilation fans. Loose belts reduces air flow by 30% and partially closed
louvers can reduce air flow by 40%
10. Using temperature integration strategy
11. Maintenance of heating system.
12. Energy recovery units in RO desalination units
13. Use of high efficiency motors and pumps
14. Systematic maintenance of heating and cooling systems
6.1.1 Double inflated polyethylene layer
The fact that most of the energy losses of the greenhouse take place through the cover area,
therefore reducing the heat transfer coefficient of the cover material could significantly reduce
the energy consumption. Therefore different technologies can be applied, including increase of
the insulation value using double or triple layer materials and application of coatings (with IR
treatment in the inside layer) to reduce radiation loss. A double inflated polyethlyne layer is
popular choice for the reduction of the energy consumption of greenhouses. The energy
consumption savings ranges from 20 to 40% according to the size, orientation and the glazing
material.
6.1.2 Use of thermal curtains or thermal screens
Since about 80% of greenhouse heating is performed at night time, therefore reducing the heat
transfer coefficient at night time, can drastically reduce heating energy needs. This energy
consumption reduction could be performed by using movable thermal curtains or screens that
include aluminum strips. They are also used as shading screens in summer to reduce cooling
needs. Thermal screens can be used also to cover side walls, however, this option is not widely
applied due to increased cost and the reduced energy savings gain. Thermal screens acts as
insulator between the plant area and the roof of the greenhouse and prevents heat to be lost
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 40
from the roof glazing. Moreover, they reduce the volume of air to be heated in the greenhouse.
The aluminized woven fabrics screens reflect the heat back into the greenhouse.
6.1.3 Greenhouse envelop sealing
Before the application of any energy efficiency measure in the greenhouse, it is highly
recommended to identify and repair or replace any gaps to reduce the so-called infiltration
losses. The infiltration rate in greenhouses is measured by the number of air exchanges per
hour and is proportional to the number of joints in the greenhouse (doors, windows, fans, etc.). a
well maintained greenhouse, will have lower infiltration rate and lower heat losses.
6.1.4 Insulation
Insulation of selected areas in the greenhouse reduces the heat transfer coefficient and reduces
heat losses. Specially in propagation greenhouses where the cultivation take place on growing
and rooting tables, insulation of 0.6 m from the ground can reduce heat losses by up to 6%,
without affecting the percentage of light entering the greenhouse.
6.1.5 Windbreakers
The infiltration rate in a greenhouse is proportional to the wind speed velocity. Reducing wind
speed hitting the greenhouse can reduce the heat losses. It is worth mentioning that reducing
wind speed by 50% by using well designed windbreakers, can reduce heat losses by about 5 to
10%. Mixed species of trees are used as well as fast and slow-growing trees that reduce the risk
of diseases affecting the entire windbreaker. The windbreaker should be in a distance of about 4
to 6 times of the height of the mature trees and located upwind of the prevailing wind direction of
the installation site.
6.1.6 Construction considerations
During the construction face of the greenhouse, some recommendation should be taken into
consideration in order to achieve higher energy efficiency. The gutter connected greenhouses
should be preferred rather that the construction and installation of separate units. A gutter-
connected greenhouse has up to 20% less surface area and as a result less heat losses than
several units with the same covered area. Stand alone greenhouse has a surface area-to-floor
area ration of the range 1.7 to 1.8, while this ration is less than 1.5 in gutter connected
greenhouses.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 41
The natural ventilation opening should be as large as possible to enhance natural cooling and
reduce the need for mechanical cooling. The Natural ventilation openings (roof and side
windows) area to the floor area should be at least 22%. This percentage ensures air circulation
and minimizes the need for mechanical cooling.
6.1.7 Using Variable Frequency Drives – VFD (inverters)
Cooling the greenhouse in summer is considered a challenge, since it constitute the second
largest consumer of energy in the greenhouses after heating. Therefore, minimizing the
electrical energy consumption of the cooling fans can drastically reduce the overall energy
needs of the greenhouse. Higher installed power fans are more efficient. Therefore, installing
higher power than the required could result in some energy reduction. However, a cooling fan
operating at 50% of the nominal power consumes 15% less power than the nominal. VFD can
alter the operational frequency, hence reducing the fan speed and as a result reducing the
energy final energy consumption of the cooling system.
6.1.8 Using efficient motors and pumps
Pumps and motors are used in many operations in the greenhouse. They are used in
irrigation, hydroponic effluents circulation, cooling pad water circulation, etc. there are several
options in the market for efficient motors-pumps with higher efficiency but also with higher cost.
The economic viability of substituting and old motor-pump with an efficient one should be always
assessed carefully as it highly depends on the required installed power in the greenhouse. The
higher the electrical power installed in the greenhouse, the more economically viable this choice
will be.
6.1.9 Using temperature integration
This option regards controlling the inside temperature of the greenhouse by temperature
integration rather than pre defined set point. The energy efficiency of this measure is based on
the fact that the effect of temperature on crop growth and production depends on the 24-hour
average temperature rather than specific day/night temperature. This is applicable provided that
the maximum and minimum temperatures of the crop are maintained. This measure can reduce
energy consumption of the greenhouse in the range of 15 to 20%.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 42
6.1.10 Energy recovery units in desalination systems
In some greenhouses that are based on underground brackish water, using a desalination
system becomes a crucial decision and adds to the electrical energy consumption of the
greenhouse. It is also a fact that the salinity of the ground water increases with time, with the
adverse consequences on the quantity of the fresh water produced and the amount of energy
consumed. Energy recovery devices for Reverse Osmosis desalination systems are available in
the market and can reduce the energy consumption of desalination system from 30 to 50%.
These systems recover the hydraulic energy of the brine which otherwise will be wasted in a
throttling valve.
6.1.11 Combined Cooling, Heat and Power (CCHP) or
Trigeneration
Trigeneration is the simultaneously production of electricity, useful heat and cooling energy by
the combustion of fuel. This fuel could be natural gas, diesel, biogas, solid biomass or solar
energy. Typical coal power stations for electricity production have fuel conversion efficiency of
33%. The remaining 67% is released to the environment as waste heat. Trigeneration cycle
efficiency can reach up to 85%, see Figure 9. At policy level, it must be recognized that serious
efforts have been made at EU level, as instanced by the adoption of Directive 2003/96/EC on
energy taxation, which sets out a favorable context for cogeneration (CHP) and the development
of renewables. Agriculture greenhouse can benefit from this technology, electricity to be used to
run all the equipment (pumps, fans, air circulators, etc), heat to be used to maintain optimum
temperature inside the greenhouse and cooling in summer. This technology can be used in the
greenhouse sector, provided that the cost of fuel justify the capital investment and the O&M
costs. However, preliminary investigation showed that a trigeneration cycle could result in 20% –
30% energy savings and could be economically viable with a payback period of about 6 years
(fossil fuel as input). Therefore, we recommend more detailed investigation of the technical and
economic viability of this interesting energy efficiency measure in the case of availability of “free”
energy from the combustion of agricultural residues.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 43
Figure 9: Trigeneration and fuel use efficiency, source2
6.2 Quantification of existing energy efficiency potential
6.2.1 Quantification of energy efficiency and savings in
heating systems
In order to calculate the energy savings of an energy efficiency measure in heating system, a
greenhouse heating design case was conducted for Cyprus – Paphos. A new greenhouse was
considered for this study with covered area of 2040 m2 as can be shown in the following tables
and in details in Annex 4.
There are various ways to calculate greenhouse heating power needs (kcal/h or kW). In the
current study, the method proposed by ASAE (2000) is applied [8]. In this methodology the
following basic heat transfer equation is applied:
Equation 1
Where:
U = is the overall heat loss coefficient (W m-2 K-1)
A = exposed greenhouse surface area (m2)
Ti = air temperature inside greenhouse (K)
To = air temperature outside the greenhouse (K)
Applying the methodology mentioned before, the required heating power of the greenhouse was
calculated for four scenarios: 2 http://www.mtuonsiteenergy.com/solutions/greenhouses/
Fuel 100%
Electricity 30%
Cooling 25%
Heat 30%
Losses 15%
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 44
1. A greenhouse with single polyethylene gladding, see
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 45
2. Table 9
3. A greenhouse with double inflated polyethylene gladding, see Table 10
4. A greenhouse with single polyethylene gladding and thermal curtains, see Table 11
5. A greenhouse with double inflated polyethylene gladding and thermal curtains, Table 12
The main goal of these calculations is to calculate the final required heating energy of the
greenhouse under the application of two of the most important energy efficiency measures in
greenhouses, namely the double inflated polyethylene layer and the thermal screen. Moreover,
since most of the direct energy consumption in the greenhouse is devoted to heating, therefore
an analytical method to approach the heating energy calculation was required. Based on these
calculated heating energy all other energy efficiency measures that reduces heat energy
requirements are calculated later in the study.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 46
Table 9: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene covered greenhouse
NAME : Department of Agriculture length: m 42.50
CYPRUS width: m 48.00
PLACE: PAPHOS covered area: m2 2,040.00
arches 5.00
Gutter hight: m 4.00
Max. hight: m 6.00
greenhouse data
covered area (m²) 2,040.00
volume under cover (m3) 11,362.80
roof surface (m2): 2,366.40
side and front surface (m2): 820.00
min surrounding temperature.(oC) 0.00
excellent internal temperature (oC) 15.00
temperature diference ΔΤ (oC) 15.00
Κ polyethylane (Single) in kcal/hm2oC 5.16
K fiberglass (kcal/hm2oC) 5.16
K soil (kcal/hm2oC) 1.60
n (number of air exchange) 0.50
pCp (kcal/hm3oC) 0.29
a. Losses from cladding Qc = 246,587.21 kcal/h
b. Losses from soil Qs = 16,320.00 kcal/h
c. Losses from escaping air flow Qa = 25,054.97 kcal/h
Total Q = 287,962.19 kcal/h
demands for REAL thermal power 345,554.62 kcal/h
demands for BOILER thermal power 406,534.85 kcal/h
GREENHOUSE HEATING STUDY
greenhouse dimentions
1. heat losses
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 47
Table 10: Calculation of heating power for double inflated polyethylene covered greenhouse
NAME : Department of Agriculture length: m 42.50
CYPRUS width: m 48.00
PLACE: PAPHOS covered area:m2 2,040.00
arches 5.00
Gutter hight:m 4.00
Max. hight: m 6.00
greenhouse data
covered area (m²) 2,040.00
volume under cover (m3) 11,362.80
roof surface (m2): 2,366.40
side and front surface (m2): 820.00
min surrounding temperature.(oC) 0.00
excellent internal temperature (oC) 15.00
temperature diference ΔΤ (oC) 15.00
Κ polyethylane (double) in kcal/hm2oC 3.61
K fiberglass (kcal/hm2oC) 5.16
K soil (kcal/hm2oC) 1.60
n (number of air exchange) 0.50
pCp (kcal/hm3oC) 0.29
a. Losses from cladding Qc = 191,648.35 kcal/h
b. Losses from soil Qs = 16,320.00 kcal/h
c. Losses from escaping air flow Qa = 25,054.97 kcal/h
Total Q = 233,023.32 kcal/h
demands for REAL thermal power 279,627.99 kcal/h
demands for BOILER thermal power 328,974.10 kcal/h
GREENHOUSE HEATING STUDY
greenhouse dimentions
1. heat losses
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 48
Table 11: Calculation of heating power for single polyethylene cover and thermal curtains polyethylene covered greenhouse
NAME : Department of Agriculture length: m 42.50
CYPRUS width: m 48.00
PLACE: PAPHOS covered area:m2 2,040.00
arches 5.00
Gutter hight:m 4.00
Max. hight: m 6.00
greenhouse data
covered area (m²) 2,040.00
volume under cover (m3) 8,160.00
roof surface (m2): 2,366.40
side and front surface (m2): 820.00
min surrounding temperature.(oC) 0.00
excellent internal temperature (oC) 15.00
temperature diference ΔΤ (oC) 15.00
Κ polyethylane (single+cur.) in kcal/hm2oC 4.13
K fiberglass (kcal/hm2oC) 5.16
K soil (kcal/hm2oC) 1.60
n (number of air exchange) 0.50
pCp (kcal/hm3oC) 0.29
a. Losses from cladding Qc = 209,961.30 kcal/h
b. Losses from soil Qs = 16,320.00 kcal/h
c. Losses from escaping air flow Qa = 17,992.80 kcal/h
Total Q = 244,274.10 kcal/h
demands for REAL thermal power 293,128.92 kcal/h
demands for BOILER thermal power 344,857.56 kcal/h
GREENHOUSE HEATING STUDY
greenhouse dimentions
1. heat losses
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 49
Table 12: Calculation of heating power for double inflated and thermal curtains polyethylene covered greenhouse
NAME : Department of Agriculture length: m 42.50
CYPRUS width: m 48.00
PLACE: PAPHOS covered area:m2 2,040.00
arches 5.00
Gutter hight:m 4.00
Max. hight: m 6.00
greenhouse data
covered area (m²) 2,040.00
volume under cover (m3) 8,160.00
roof surface (m2): 2,366.40
side and front surface (m2): 820.00
min surrounding temperature.(oC) 0.00
excellent internal temperature (oC) 15.00
temperature diference ΔΤ (oC) 15.00
Κ polyethylane (douple+cur.) in kcal/hm2oC 2.89
K fiberglass (kcal/hm2oC) 5.16
K soil (kcal/hm2oC) 1.60
n (number of air exchange) 0.50
pCp (kcal/hm3oC) 0.29
a. Losses from cladding Qc = 166,010.21 kcal/h
b. Losses from soil Qs = 16,320.00 kcal/h
c. Losses from escaping air flow Qa = 17,992.80 kcal/h
Total Q = 200,323.01 kcal/h
demands for REAL thermal power 240,387.61 kcal/h
demands for BOILER thermal power 282,808.96 kcal/h
GREENHOUSE HEATING STUDY
greenhouse dimentions
1. heat losses
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 50
The greenhouse heating power calculated in the four scenarios are summarized in Table 13
along with the percentage of savings that each scenario can achieve. The installation of the
double inflated polyethylene and the thermal curtains can save about 30.4% for heating power.
While the double inflated layer can save alone 19.1% and the thermal curtains about 15.2% of
the initial heating power.
Table 13: Heating power requirements and percentage of savings
Thermal power
demand (kcal/h)
Percentage of
savings
Single polyethylene 406,534.85 0%
Double inflated 328,974.10 19.1%
Single with thermal curtain 344,857.56 15.2%
Double inflated with thermal curtain 282,808.96 30.4%
In order to calculate the annual thermal energy consumption of the greenhouse, we applied the
heating degree days methodology, see Table 13, by using RETScreen software [9]. Heating-
degree days are the sum of the degree-days for each day of the month. For example, degree-
days for a given day represent the number of Celsius degrees that the mean temperature is
above or below a given base.
The heating energy obtained for each scenario in
Table 14 was calculated by multiplying the heating power in Table 13 by the heating-degree
days indicated in Figure 10 by using respective unit conversion.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 51
Unit
Climate data
location
Project
location
Latitude ˚N 34.7 34.7
Longitude ˚E 32.5 32.5
Elevation m 8 8
Heating design temperature °C 6.0
Cooling design temperature °C 30.2
Earth temperature amplitude °C 14.5
Month
Air
temperature
Relative
humidity
Daily solar
radiation -
horizontal
Atmospheric
pressure Wind speed
Earth
temperature
Heating
degree-days
Cooling
degree-days
°C % kWh/m²/d kPa m/s °C °C-d °C-d
January 12.4 71.4% 2.74 100.8 4.3 14.6 174 74
February 12.3 70.1% 3.70 100.7 4.6 14.6 160 64
March 13.6 71.8% 5.11 100.6 4.3 16.6 136 112
April 16.7 71.6% 6.28 100.4 4.1 20.2 39 201
May 19.9 72.9% 7.46 100.3 3.7 24.3 0 307
June 23.3 74.7% 8.40 100.1 3.4 28.7 0 399
July 25.7 75.0% 8.14 99.8 3.2 31.9 0 487
August 26.2 74.9% 7.32 99.9 3.2 32.0 0 502
September 24.3 70.3% 6.23 100.2 3.4 29.4 0 429
October 21.3 66.7% 4.66 100.6 3.5 25.3 0 350
November 17.1 67.5% 3.21 100.8 3.9 20.2 27 213
December 13.9 70.4% 2.45 100.9 4.1 16.1 127 121
Annual 18.9 71.5% 5.48 100.4 3.8 22.9 663 3,259
Measured at m 10.0 0.0
Figure 10: Meteorological data for Paphos and heating degree-days available from RETScreen
Table 14: Annual heating energy consumption for 2040 m2 greenhouse in four different scenarios
Heating
degree-days
°C-d
Single
polyethylene
Double
inflated
Single with
thermal
curtain
Double
inflated with
thermal
curtain
January 174 131,324 106,270 111,400 91,357
February 160 120,734 97,699 102,416 83,989
March 136 103,183 83,497 87,529 71,780
April 39 29,503 23,874 25,027 20,524
May 0 0 0 0 0
June 0 0 0 0 0
July 0 0 0 0 0
August 0 0 0 0 0
September 0 0 0 0 0
October 0 0 0 0 0
November 27 20,425 16,528 17,326 14,209
December 127 96,148 77,804 81,561 66,886
Total 663 501,317 405,673 425,259 348,745
MWh/yr 501 406 425 349
Heating Energy consumption (kWhth/month)
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 52
6.2.2 Procedure of RETScreen project analysis for energy
efficiency measures
In this section, the user enters all general data related to the project such as the project name,
location, type, currency, units and the method of calculation. Then the user selects the site of the
project from the software database. In the current analysis we selected Paphos as case study,
see Figure 11.
In the next step, the user selects and enters the fuel types that will be used during the study.
The types of fuel we are considering in the study are electricity (0.15 €/kWh), diesel fuel for
agricultural use (0.65 €/L) and biomass fuel with associated cost of (230 €/ton), see Figure 12.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 53
Project information
Project name
Project location
Prepared for
Prepared by
Project type
Facility type
Analysis type
Heating value reference
Show settings
Language - Langue
User manual
Currency
Symbol
Units
Climate data location
Show data
Κύπρος
Department of Agriculture
Dr. Essam Sh. Mohamed
Method 2
English - Anglais
Euro
Paphos/Baf Intl
Site reference conditions
English - Anglais
Select climate data location
Energy efficiency measures
Cyprus Energy Efficiency in Greenhouses
Metric units
See project database
Other
Lower heating value (LHV)
Figure 11: Basic data of the project
Fuel Fuel type 1 Fuel type 2 Fuel type 3 Fuel type 4 Fuel type 5 Fuel type 6
Fuel type Electricity Diesel (#2 oil) - L Biomass
Fuel consumption - unit MWh L t #N/A #N/A #N/A
Fuel rate - unit €/kWh €/L €/t #N/A #N/A #N/A
Fuel rate 0.150 0.650 230.000
Schedule Unit Schedule 1 Schedule 2 Schedule 3 Schedule 4 Schedule 5 Schedule 6
Description 24/7
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied
Temperature - space heating °C 15.0
Temperature - space cooling °C 30.0
Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied
Temperature - unoccupied +/-°C 3.0
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied
Occupancy rate - daily h/d h/d h/d h/d h/d h/d
Monday 24
Tuesday 24
Wednesday 24
Thursday 24
Friday 24
Saturday 24
Sunday 24
Occupancy rate - annual h/yr 8,760 0 0 0 0 0
% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Heating/cooling changeover temperature °C 16.0
Length of heating season d 103
Length of cooling season d 262
RETScreen Energy Model - Energy efficiency measures project
Energy efficiency measures project
Fuels & schedules Show data
Figure 12: fuel type selection
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 54
The next section is the core of the calculations for the energy efficiency measures. The
measures considered in the study are the following: see Figure 13
1. Using LED lights for photoperiodism instead of normal non-efficient filament pulps.
2. Using periodic LED lights for photoperiodism
3. Applying efficient pumps and motors
4. Using inverter to control the fan speed
5. General maintenance for the cooling fan belt, the heating system
6. Installation of energy recovery unit in desalination plants
7. Construction considerations (natural ventilation, gutter connected greenhouse, etc.)
8. Double inflated PE layer
9. Thermal screen
10. Isolation of the north part and 0.6 m from the ground of the greenhouse
11. Closing gaps of the greenhouse
12. Applying temperature integration
For each of the above mentioned measures, the user enters the expected reduction in heating
or electric power along with the incremental initial cost required to implement the measure.
Then, the software calculates the energy and associated cost savings. As can be shown in
Figure 13, the simple payback period of the proposed measures ranges from 0.1 to 6.1 years.
Low values for payback period are calculated for measures that have low initial cost and high
fuel cost savings, such as the maintenance of the heating system and applying temperature
integration. Another reason could be the cost effectiveness of a measure (€/kWh saved), such
as using the double inflated PE layer.
In Figure 14, the software calculates the percentage of energy savings in both electrical and
thermal energy. The proposed energy efficiency measures can reduce energy savings by 15.4%
and electrical energy by 26.4% while the total energy savings can reach up to 16.3%.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 55
Show: Heating Cooling Electricity
Incremental
initial costs
Fuel cost
savings
Incremental
O&M savings Simple payback
Include
measure?
Fuel saved GJ GJ GJ € € € yr
Heating system
Mixed biomass heater 0 - - 0 0 0 -
Diesel heater 0 - - 0 0 0 -
Cooling system
Building envelope
Ventilation
Lights
LED lights for photoperiodism - - 21 1,100 893 0 1.2
LED lights for photoperiodism (periodic operation 20%) - - 26 1,500 1,074 0 1.4
Electrical equipment
Hot water
Pumps
Efficient pumps (10%) - - 14 3,000 588 0 5.1
Fans
Inverter for cooling fans (15%) - - 33 1,950 1,360 0 1.4
Maintainance of cooling fans belts (20%) - - 41 1,300 1,712 0 0.8
Motors
Process electricity
Efficient Motors (15%) - - 10 2,000 411 0 4.9
Energy recovery for desalination (30%) - - 20 5,000 821 0 6.1
Process heat
General heating system Maintainance (20%) 331 - - 600 5,935 0 0.1
Construction considerations (20%) 331 - - 10,000 5,935 0 1.7
Process steam
Steam losses
Heat recovery
Compressed air
Refrigeration
Other
Double inflated PE (20%) 157 0 0 2,350 2,818 0 0.8
Thermal Screen (15%) 251 0 0 14,000 4,500 0 3.1
Isolation of the North part - 0.6 m (5%) 83 0 0 700 1,484 0 0.5
Closing gaps (10%) 3 0 0 100 46 0 2.2
Temperature integration (15%) 249 0 0 300 4,451 0 0.1
Total 1,405 0 165 43,900 32,028 0 1.37
Facility characteristics Show data
Figure 13: Energy efficiency measures
Fuel type
Fuel
consumption -
unit Fuel rate
Fuel
consumption Fuel cost
Fuel
consumption Fuel cost Fuel saved
Fuel cost
savings
Electricity MWh 150.000€ 173.2 25,977€ 127.5 19,119€ 45.7 6,858€
Diesel (#2 oil) L 0.650€ 251,562.8 163,516€ 212,839.7 138,346€ 38,723.1 25,170€
Total 189,492€ 157,465€ 32,028€
Project verification
Fuel
consumption
Fuel type Base case
Electricity MWh 173.2
Diesel (#2 oil) L 251,562.8
Heating Cooling Electricity Total
Energy GJ GJ GJ GJ
Energy - base case 6,846 0 623 7,470
Energy - proposed case 5,792 0 459 6,251
Energy saved 1,054 0 165 1,218
Energy saved - % 15.4% 26.4% 16.3% Show data
Benchmark Comparison
Energy unit GJ Country - region
Reference unit m² 2,040 Facility type
Base case Proposed case Fuel cost savingsFuel
Fuel
consumption -
historical
Show dataSummary
Fuel
consumption -
unit
Fuel
consumption -
variance
See benchmark database
Figure 14: Summary of energy efficiency calculations
Figure 15 shows the associated costs of the measures. The user in this section enters the unit
costs or percentages or lump sums of the energy efficiency measures, spare parts,
maintenance, etc. The initial cost was calculated to be 48000 €.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 56
Method 1 Notes/Range Notes/Range Second currency
Method 2 Second currency None
Cost allocation
Unit Quantity Unit cost Amount Relative costs
Feasibility study cost 1 1,000€ 1,000€
Subtotal: 1,000€ 2.1%
Development cost 1 1,500€ 1,500€
Subtotal: 1,500€ 3.1%
Engineering cost 1 1,000€ 1,000€
Subtotal: 1,000€ 2.1%
Incremental initial costs 43,900€ 91.5%
Spare parts % 2.0% -€
Transportation project -€
Training & commissioning p-d -€
User-defined cost 1,000 -€
Contingencies % 1.0% 47,400€ 474€
Interest during construction 6.00% 1 month(s) 47,874€ 120€
Subtotal: 594€ 1.2%
47,994€ 100.0%
Unit Quantity Unit cost Amount
O&M (savings) costs project -€
Parts & labour project 1 500€ 500€
User-defined cost -€
Contingencies % 500€ -€
Subtotal: 500€
Diesel (#2 oil) L 212,840 0.650€ 138,346€
Electricity MWh 127 150.000€ 19,119€
Subtotal: 157,465€
Unit Quantity Unit cost Amount
Diesel (#2 oil) L 251,563 0.650€ 163,516€
Electricity MWh 173 150.000€ 25,977€
Subtotal: 189,492€
Unit Year Unit cost Amount
User-defined cost -€
-€
End of project life cost -€
Development
Engineering
Go to Emission Analysis sheet
Settings
Initial costs (credits)
Fuel cost - proposed case
Feasibility study
Fuel cost - base case
Periodic costs (credits)
Annual costs (credits)
Annual savings
Energy efficiency measures
Balance of system & miscellaneous
Total initial costs
O&M
Figure 15: Cost analysis and input sheet
The financial analysis in Figure 16 shows the financial parameters used in the analysis and the
project costs and savings summary as inputs to the model. The model calculates the NPV,
payback period, IRR. The financial results are summarized in
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 57
Table 15. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis were performed in order to test the effect of
possible prices changes, such as increasing or decreasing the diesel cost by -/+ 20%. In both
cases, the base case (without energy efficiency measures) and the proposed case (with energy
efficiency measures) when the fuel cost increases by 20% the resulted NPV will be less than a
predetermined value (100000 €).
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 58
Financial parameters Project costs and savings/income summary Yearly cash flows
General Year Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative
Fuel cost escalation rate % 1.0% 2.1% € 1,000 # € € €
Inflation rate % 2.0% 3.1% € 1,500 0 -47,994 -47,994 -47,994
Discount rate % 6.0% 2.1% € 1,000 1 31,838 31,838 -16,156
Project life yr 20 0.0% € 0 2 32,151 32,151 15,995
0.0% € 0 3 32,467 32,467 48,463
Finance 0.0% € 0 4 32,787 32,787 81,250
Incentives and grants € 0.0% € 0 5 33,109 33,109 114,359
Debt ratio % 91.5% € 43,900 6 33,435 33,435 147,794
Debt € 0 1.2% € 594 7 33,764 33,764 181,557
Equity € 47,994 100.0% € 47,994 8 34,095 34,095 215,653
Debt interest rate % 9 34,431 34,431 250,083
Debt term yr € 0 10 34,769 34,769 284,852
Debt payments €/yr 0 11 35,110 35,110 319,963
12 35,455 35,455 355,418
€ 500 13 35,804 35,804 391,222
Income tax analysis € 157,465 14 36,155 36,155 427,377
Effective income tax rate % € 0 15 36,510 36,510 463,887
Loss carryforward? € 157,965 16 36,868 36,868 500,755
Depreciation method 17 37,230 37,230 537,986
Half-year rule - year 1 yes/no Yes 18 37,596 37,596 575,581
Depreciation tax basis % € 0 19 37,964 37,964 613,546
Depreciation rate % € 0 20 38,337 38,337 651,883
Depreciation period yr 15 € 0 21 0 0 651,883
Tax holiday available? yes/no No 22 0 0 651,883
Tax holiday duration yr 23 0 0 651,883
€ 189,492 24 0 0 651,883
Annual income € 0 25 0 0 651,883
Electricity export income € 0 26 0 0 651,883
Electricity exported to grid MWh 0 € 0 27 0 0 651,883
Electricity export rate €/MWh 0.00 € 0 28 0 0 651,883
Electricity export income € 0 € 0 29 0 0 651,883
Electricity export escalation rate % € 189,492 30 0 0 651,883
31 0 0 651,883
GHG reduction income 32 0 0 651,883
tCO2/yr 0 33 0 0 651,883
Net GHG reduction tCO2/yr 113 Financial viability 34 0 0 651,883
Net GHG reduction - 20 yrs tCO2 2,259 % 67.3% 35 0 0 651,883
GHG reduction credit rate €/tCO2 % 67.3% 36 0 0 651,883
GHG reduction income € 0 37 0 0 651,883
GHG reduction credit duration yr % 67.3% 38 0 0 651,883
Net GHG reduction - 0 yrs tCO2 0 % 67.3% 39 0 0 651,883
GHG reduction credit escalation rate % 40 0 0 651,883
yr 1.5 41 0 0 651,883
Customer premium income (rebate) yr 1.5 42 0 0 651,883
Electricity premium (rebate) % 43 0 0 651,883
Electricity premium income (rebate) € 0 € 345,979 44 0 0 651,883
Heating premium (rebate) % €/yr 30,164 45 0 0 651,883
Heating premium income (rebate) € 0 46 0 0 651,883
Cooling premium (rebate) % 8.21 47 0 0 651,883
Cooling premium income (rebate) € 0 No debt 48 0 0 651,883
Customer premium income (rebate) € 0 €/MWh 49 0 0 651,883
€/tCO2 (267) 50 0 0 651,883
Other income (cost)
Energy MWh Cumulative cash flows graph
Rate €/MWh
Other income (cost) € 0
Duration yr
Escalation rate %
Clean Energy (CE) production income
CE production MWh 2,145
CE production credit rate €/kWh
CE production income € 0
CE production credit duration yr
CE production credit escalation rate %
Fuel type
Energy
delivered
(MWh) Clean energy
1 Diesel (#2 oil) 2,145 Yes
2 Electricity 127 No
3 No
4 No
5 No
6 No
7 No
8 No
9 No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No Year
Power system
Cu
mu
lati
ve c
ash
flo
ws (
€)
Pre-tax IRR - equity
Pre-tax IRR - assets
Electricity export income
GHG reduction income - 0 yrs
GHG reduction cost
Net Present Value (NPV)
Annual life cycle savings
Benefit-Cost (B-C) ratio
Debt service coverage
Energy production cost
Simple payback
Equity payback
Total annual costs
Declining balance
O&M
Fuel cost - proposed case
RETScreen Financial Analysis - Energy efficiency measures project
No
Annual costs and debt payments
Cooling system
Energy efficiency measures
User-defined
Balance of system & misc.
Incentives and grants
Initial costs
Feasibility study
Development
Engineering
Periodic costs (credits)
Heating system
After-tax IRR - equity
After-tax IRR - assets
Total initial costs
Customer premium income (rebate)
Other income (cost) - yrs
CE production income - yrs
Total annual savings and income
Annual savings and income
Fuel cost - base case
Debt payments - 0 yrs
End of project life - cost
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Figure 16: Financial analysis of the project
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 59
Perform analysis on
Sensitivity range
Threshold 100000 €
€
38,395 43,194 47,994 52,793 57,592
€ -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
151,594 -20% -118,710 -123,509 -128,309 -133,108 -137,907
170,543 -10% 118,434 113,635 108,835 104,036 99,236
189,492 0% 355,578 350,778 345,979 341,180 336,380
208,442 10% 592,722 587,922 583,123 578,324 573,524
227,391 20% 829,866 825,066 820,267 815,468 810,668
€
38,395 43,194 47,994 52,793 57,592
€ -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
125,972 -20% 749,703 744,903 740,104 735,304 730,505
141,718 -10% 552,640 547,841 543,041 538,242 533,443
157,465 0% 355,578 350,778 345,979 341,180 336,380
173,211 10% 158,515 153,716 148,917 144,117 139,318
188,958 20% -38,547 -43,346 -48,146 -52,945 -57,744
Fuel cost - proposed case
Net Present Value (NPV)
20%
Initial costs
Fuel cost - base case
Initial costs
Figure 17: Sensitivity analysis of the project
The risk analysis part of the project is shown in Figure 18. In this section, this section allows the
user to perform a risk analysis by specifying the uncertainty associated with a number of key
input parameters and to evaluate the impact of this uncertainty on after-tax IRR - equity, after-tax
IRR - assets, equity payback or Net Present Value (NPV).
The risk analysis is performed using a Monte Carlo simulation that includes 500 possible
combinations of input variables resulting in 500 values of after-tax IRR - equity, after-tax IRR -
assets, equity payback or Net Present Value (NPV). The risk analysis allows the user to assess
if the variability of the financial indicator is acceptable, or not, by looking at the distribution of the
possible outcomes. An unacceptable variability will be an indication of a need to put more effort
into reducing the uncertainty associated with the input parameters that were identified as having
the greatest impact on the financial indicator.
The direction of the horizontal bar (positive or negative) provides an indication of the relationship
between the input parameter (fuel cost) and the financial indicator (NPV). There is a positive
relationship between an input parameter and the financial indicator when an increase in the
value of that parameter results in an increase in the value of the financial indicator. For example,
there is usually a negative relationship between initial costs and the Net Present Value (NPV),
since decreasing the initial costs will increase the NPV.
The frequency distribution histogram provides a distribution of the possible values for the NPV
resulting from the Monte Carlo simulation. The height of each bar represents the frequency (%)
of values that fall in the range defined by the width of each bar. The value corresponding to the
middle of each range is plotted on the X axis. Looking at the distribution of financial indicator, the
user is able to rapidly assess its' variability.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 60
Risk analysis
Perform analysis on
Parameter Unit Value Range (+/-) Minimum Maximum
Initial costs € 47,994 10% 43,194 52,793
O&M € 500 20% 400 600
Fuel cost - proposed case € 157,465 20% 125,972 188,958
Fuel cost - base case € 189,492 10% 170,543 208,442
Net Present Value (NPV)
So
rted
by t
he i
mp
act
Relative impact (standard deviation) of parameter
Impact - Net Present Value (NPV)
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
O&M
Initial costs
Fuel cost - base case
Fuel cost - proposed case
Median € 337,940
Level of risk % 20.0%
Minimum within level of confidence € 153,183
Maximum within level of confidence € 540,985
Fre
qu
en
cy
Distribution - Net Present Value (NPV)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
-135,607 -38,094 59,418 156,931 254,443 351,956 449,468 546,981 644,493 742,006
Figure 18: Risk analysis of the project
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 61
Table 15: Financial results summary for energy efficiency measures in the greenhouse
Parameter Value
Thermal energy savings 15.4%
Electrical energy savings 26.4%
Total energy savings 16.3%
NPV 345.9 €
Simple payback period 1.5 year
IRR 67.3%
Required investment cost 47.99
During the analysis of the individual energy efficiency measures, some had payback period
higher than 3 years and some had high initial cost. These energy efficiency measures are
summarized in the following Table 16 and the suggested rate of subsidy to be applied is
indicated.
Table 16: Rate of subsidy for selected energy efficiency measures
Energy efficiency measure Rate of subsidy %
Thermal screen 40%
Double PE 30%
Mixed biomass heater 60%
Efficient motors and pumps 40%
Energy recovery units for desalination 50%
CHP (Trigeneration) – needs more investigation 60%
6.1 Agricultural best practice methods for energy savings
There are some best practice agricultural methods that could be applied in order to reduce,
mainly the consumption of agrochemicals (indirect energy consumption) and direct energy
consumption, these practices include but not limited to:
1. Following instructions of the Department of Agriculture for the beneficial use of
agricultural residues or the safe procedures for their management. Collecting the
agriculture residues just outside the greenhouse will constitute a source of pathogens
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 62
ending at entering the greenhouse and lead to the increase in the amount of pesticides
and fungicides that considerably increase indirect energy consumption.
2. Rainwater harvesting is a very good and efficient way of reducing the amount of water
needed from the well or from the main irrigation network. For each 1000 m2 of
greenhouse, 500 m3 of storage will be needed.
3. Regular (once a year) water analysis can result in adjusting the recipe of the hydroponic
fertilization system and as a result, either introduce the required substances to the plant
or reduce some other substances that might exist in water.
4. Calibration of EC and pH sensors, as uncalibrated sensors can result in using more
fertilizers than the plants need or less fertilization than the needed. In both cases, energy
efficiency use will be reduced (kWh/kgproduct).
5. Using shading nets instead of shading chemicals reduces the amount of chemicals input
to the agriculture process.
6. Soil and plant leaves analysis to justify the amount of fertilizers required.
7. Integrated Pest Management control (reducing indirect energy use)
The total primary direct energy savings potential (16.3%) obtained in Table 15 corresponds to
about 979.6 MWh. Assuming that best practical agricultural methods, mentioned before for
energy efficiency, additional 20% energy efficiency could be gained from the primary indirect
energy consumption, which corresponds to 145.4 MWh. Therefore, the maximum energy
efficiency potential in the agriculture sector is about 16.7%.
According to Table 1, the total area covered by vegetable greenhouses and floriculture
greenhouses is 7725 ha and 130 ha respectively. According to surveys of the Department of
Agriculture [3, 4], the 55% of the cultivated area with vegetable greenhouses have similar
energy consumption with the sample greenhouses visited. Moreover, 100% of the cultivated
area with floriculture greenhouses will have similar energy profile with the current study;
therefore, the total primary energy consumption for the vegetable greenhouses is calculated to
be 121.4 GWh. In addition to that, for the floriculture greenhouse sector to be 77.5 GWh,
therefore, the total primary energy consumption is calculated be198.9 GWh, of which about 24
GWh is indirect energy (12.1%). Finally, the maximum energy saving potential for the
greenhouse sector is calculated to be (16.7%) or 33.2 GWh.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 63
7. Provision of an outlook of the expected evolutions of the energy
efficiency potential by 2020 and 2030
The maximum energy saving potential obtained in the previous chapter suggests that 100% of
the farmers that own similar equipment with the sample greenhouses visited will apply 100% of
the proposed energy saving measures. However, in a business as usual scenario in 2020 and
due to continuation of the economic crises and a continued low policy intensity scenario in the
agricultural sector without any specific promotion and education activities, we assume 10% of
the farmers applying 25% of the energy efficiency measures. That corresponds to maximum of
0.83 GWh energy savings, comprising 0.42% from the total energy consumption.
Expectations to the year 2030 could be more ambitious, this is assuming an increased policy
intensity with the adaptation of soft measures proposed (training and awareness raising
measures) to the farmers, which might encourage more farmers to apply more energy efficiency
measures. In this case, we assume that 50% of the farmers will apply 50% of the suggested
energy efficiency measures. That corresponds to 8.3 GWh energy savings, comprising 4.1%
from the total energy consumption.
Taking into account that the agriculture sector energy consumption is 2% of the total energy
consumption in Cyprus, this comprising for about 0.05 TOE (581.5 GWh). For 2020, assuming
also that 10% of the farmers could apply 25% of the measures, mainly related to the reduction of
indirect energy use, the energy savings potential could be calculated to be 2.43 GWh.
Regarding 2030 and due to possible increase in fuel prices and more incentives for energy
efficiency measures, we assume 30% of farmers applying 50% of the suggested energy saving
measures, this comprises to 14.57 GWh (2.5% of total energy consumed in Agriculture).
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 64
8. Soft Energy Efficiency Measures
Soft energy efficiency measures that could be applied include:
Several leaflets, which contain information about energy consumption, indirect energy,
and energy efficiency measures. These leaflets should be available in all local offices of
the department of agriculture.
Conduction of awareness raising workshops regarding energy audit and its importance in
identifying major energy consumers and benefits of applying energy efficiency measures.
Linking farmers with already available EU vocational training projects that deal with
energy efficiency and renewable energy penetration in agriculture. For example
Erasmus+ Vocational Training – Sector Skills Alliance.
Policy measures that can promote energy efficiency measures, such as including the
energy efficiency measures in the Rural Development Program (RDP) and promote the
energy audit as an agriculture good practice.
Linking energy efficiency measures with the CO2 emissions reduction and the good
practices of water use efficiency and conservation.
Promotion of detailed energy audits, especially for large-scale greenhouse units.
Training of local agriculture officers on topics related to energy efficiency measures.
Development of a compendium for energy efficiency measures and penetration of
renewable energy systems in greenhouses to be distributed in all local offices of the
department of agriculture and be available for all farmers.
Conducting information days to be addressed to Engineers and energy auditors to make
them familiar with the procedure of energy audit in greenhouses.
Energy efficiency measures and penetration of renewable energy measures to be
available in the website of the department of agriculture.
Development of guidelines of the construction, operation and maintenance of
greenhouse dedicated to the optimization of energy use.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 65
9. Renewable Energy Penetration in greenhouses
9.1 Renewable Energy Potential
9.1.1 Renewable Energy in Cyprus
The energy policy of Cyprus is in line with the European Union goal of promoting the use of
energy from renewable sources, as a major step towards the reduction of global warming and
climate change phenomena.
The EU RES Directive [10] sets out specific national targets to be achieved by each individual
Member State, regarding the share of RES generated in each Member State by the year 2020.
For Cyprus, the national target states that the share of energy produced from RES must be at
least 13% out of the gross national final consumption of energy in 2020.
In light of the above, the Cyprus Government has launched a number of financial measures in
the form of governmental grants and/or subsidies, which aim at providing support and incentives
for the promotion of RES-E utilization in Cyprus. The main types of RES technologies which are
promoted under these measures for integration in the Cyprus power system are Solar energy,
Wind energy and Biomass.
Cyprus ranks first in the world in solar energy use for water heating in households, and has
achieved significant progress in the production of energy from Renewable Energy Sources
(RES).
Cyprus has already exceeded its intermediate 2020 targets, with RES comprising of about 8.7%
of its total electricity generation, compared to the 7.45% threshold for 2015- 2016, see Figure
19. In addition, Cyprus holds the EU-28 record according to the “European Solar Thermal
Industry Federation” for use of solar water heating systems per capita. Currently, more than 93%
of households and 52% of hotels in Cyprus heat water through solar power heating systems.
The most important projects relating to power generation from RES concern wind parks and
photovoltaic (PV) parks, concentrated solar thermal plants and biomass and biogas utilization
plants. 6 wind parks are currently in operation, while as regards solar energy, 4 PV parks have
been connected to the national grid so far, generating 1,000 MWh, [11].
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 66
(a)
(b)
Source: Eurostat statistics explained – Renewable Energy Statistics
Figure 19: Share of renewables in gross inland energy consumption, 2014 a) for EU28 – b) for Cyprus - %
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 67
9.1.2 Solar energy potential
Cyprus enjoys a considerable solar potential as can proved by the average bright sunshine per
day of 11.5 hours in summer whilst in winter this is reduced only to 5.5 hours in the cloudiest
months, December and January. A typical year in Cyprus includes more than 300 sunshine
hours. The total annual solar irradiation in horizontal can exceed the 1727 kWh/m2, see Figure
20. According to 2014 data of the World Energy Council, Cyprus is leading the top ten countries
worldwide, in the Installed capacity of solar water heaters per 1000 inhabitants, see Figure 21.
This fact suggests the industrial and commercial success of the solar thermal energy
applications and the high level of acceptance by the people.
Source: GHI Solar Map © 2016 Solargis
Figure 20: Global horizontal irradiation map of Cyprus
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 68
Source: Data from-World Energy Council, Energy Efficiency Indicators for 2014
Figure 21: Installed capacity of solar water heaters per 1000 inhabitants
Stabilizing the temperature inside the greenhouse can be very challenging especially during cool
nights in winter and very high temperature during the day in summer. There are some solar
thermal application that could be applied in greenhouses. The most obvious option is the
greenhouse heating and cooling systems. One option is to heat the greenhouse environment
(the air) through the connection of solar thermal collectors to a hot water hydraulic system and
heat storage tank, see Figure 23. Forced air or radiant floors are the main main could perform
the heat transfer to the greenhouse. Another type of heating and cooling system is the ground to
air heat exchanger (GAHE). During the day, the fan draws hot air from the greenhouse through
a manifold of pipes buried underground. This cools the greenhouse, and simultaneously heats
the soil. When the greenhouse needs heating during cold periods, the GAHE system draws heat
back up from the soil, creating warm air to heat the greenhouse. In other words, a GAHE system
stores the heat from the greenhouse in the soil underground. The soil acts as thermal storage,
helping regulate the air temperature of the greenhouse. Concentrated solar power could be also
used to obtain higher temperatures and efficiencies in the heating and cooling processes.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 69
Figure 22: Ground to air heat exchanger
Figure 23: Space heating of greenhouse by solar thermal energy, Source, Solar Panel Plus3
3 http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/residential/solar-space-heating/
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 70
Despite the tremendous solar thermal potential in Cyprus and the availability of technical options
that was discussed earlier, there are some challenges that face the application of solar thermal
systems in the greenhouse sector:
• The thermal energy is required in the greenhouse mainly for space and soli heating. This
thermal energy requirements is needed in winter months (see table 14 – page 44) and mainly
during the night. Consequently, there is a total mismatch between production and consumption
profiles. This fact reduces the efficiency of the solar thermal system, especially in cloudy days in
winter.
• The mismatch of production and consumption profiles could “theoretically” be solved by
installing large scale thermal energy storage tanks, with questionable efficiency and costs.
• The high thermal load for a greenhouse in Cyprus that was analyzed in the report (about
500 kWhth/yr) mainly in winter and night will require also very large installation area for the solar
collectors and the thermal energy storage, which leads to other problems such as changing
agriculture land use.
• After consultation with MARDE and according to the ToR, we have agreed to propose
cost effective measures that can be applied, at least in the near future, and with some
reasonable subsidy. Solar thermal systems for heating greenhouse could not satisfy these
criteria mainly due the high initial capital costs.
Therefore, the solar thermal and ground source heat pumps are currently too expensive to be
exploited on the scale of small greenhouse with limited available area [12]. However, using solar
cooling for the refrigerators in the floriculture and propagation greenhouses would be profitable,
should the prices of fossil fuels and electricity increase and the subsidies for agriculture energy
reduces.
9.1.3 Wind potential
The average wind speed in some areas, which is suitable for the installation of wind farms, is
about 5-6 m/s, see Figure 24. However, there are some barriers to further exploitation of wind
energy in Cyprus, such as the limited potential for wind energy generation, competition and
conflict with touristic real estate, social barriers, such as social acceptance of the technology,
technical barriers, such as limitations with the penetration of wind power into the national grid
and concerns for the system stability.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 71
During the site visits in Cyprus and especially in the area of Ammochostos, the experts noticed
many multi-blades mechanical wind turbines for underground water pumping. The agricultural
officers noted that this area is famous of the use of such wind turbines, that many of them still
under operation. These types of wind turbines do not need high wind speed regimes and the
cut-in wind speed is lower than that of the wind turbines for electricity generation. In this case,
further investigation i.e. detailed wind potential and study of the penetration of mechanical wind
pumping should be performed, see Figure 25.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment
Figure 24: Mean annual wind speed in Cyprus (m/s) – 10m
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 72
Figure 25: Mechanical wind pumping in Ammochostos
9.1.4 Biomass & biogas energy potential
Sources of biomass in Cyprus include biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste, sewage
sludge, solid and liquid agricultural residues and solid and liquid wastes from food and drink
industries. The main technologies for the production of energy from these biomass resources
are the direct combustion of solid agriculture residues for the production of heat or anaerobic
digestion for the production of biogas, which can then produce heat and/or electricity as
mentioned in chapter 6.1.11.
According to CRES [13], the potential of solid biomass reached4 100 Kton/yr which corresponds
to an energy production of 34 – 45 ktoe, mainly from vines and olive trees. Taking into
consideration the annual required thermal energy in a 2000 m2 greenhouse without any energy
efficiency measures to be 500 MWh/yr as indicated in Table 14, the maximum theoretical
greenhouses area that could be heated with solid biomass can reach 209 ha (48% of cultivated
greenhouse area). Furthermore, if energy efficiency measures are taken into consideration, this
area could be increased to 299 ha (69% of cultivated greenhouse area). Taking into account that
these quantities are dispersed in farms across the island, it becomes evident that this potential is
difficult to utilise in a cost-effective manner [14].
4 1 toe=11.63 MWh
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 73
Regarding forest biomass potential utilization in Cyprus, it has been indicated that due to the
semi-arid climate, the forest biomass productivity is very low for cost effective utilization and that
the short rotation crops have not been exploited yet in the island as a source of solid biomass
[15].
While there are a lot of obstacles and barriers to the utilization of agricultural and forest solid
biomass residues, it is not the case in using biodegradable animal, food and drinks, municipal
wastes and sewage through anaerobic digestion and the production of biogas. This is mainly
because of the electricity production tariff from biogas (0.135 €/kWh) and the existence of legal
framework in order to mitigate the animal waste management problem. In 2015, fourteen biogas
to electricity installations were in operation around Cyprus, their capacity reaching 9.7 MW and
generating 37.5 GWh of electricity—less than 1 % of total electricity produced in that year [14].
The thermal energy wasted to the environment during the production of these amount of
electrical energy could be utilized in greenhouse heating as indicated in chapter 6.1.11.
All in all, due to the low precipitation rate (semi-arid environment), there are limited forest
biomass resources available in Cyprus. However, the potential of agriculture residues and
landfill gas have not been fully exploited yet [12]. The main exploited biomass resource that has
been commercially viable in Cyprus is the utilization of biogas production, mainly from animal
wastes due to incentives for electricity production from biogas plants.
9.1.5 Geothermal energy potential
Geothermal energy uses the ground temperature to cover heating or cooling requirements by
using ground source heat pumps. The main areas with high geothermal potential in Cyprus are
the South Eastern and South Western parts of the island as shown in Figure 26, which
demonstrates that in these areas, a ground temperature can reach the value of 34 to 35 oC.
One of the main applications of utilization of geothermal energy in greenhouses is the
greenhouse heating. Advantages of geothermal greenhouse heating include cutting of fuel cost
up to 80% and O&M costs to about 5-8% (depending on the site) besides the elimination of CO2
emissions around the greenhouse due to fossil fuels combustion for heating. Other applications
include greenhouse cooling by using geothermal heat bumps. Geothermal energy could be also
utilized by producing electricity by converting the heat energy of the geothermal water to
electricity via thermodynamic cycles, such as Rankine Cycle.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 74
However, geothermal energy is not yet exploited in Cyprus due to the complexity of the system
installation and high upfront or capital, maintenance and operation cost in some cases.
Source: Geological Survey Department
Figure 26: Map of ground temperature in Cyprus
9.2 Penetration of RES in greenhouses
As can bee seen in Figure 27, wind and solar energies have the highest installation power,
mainly due to their cost-effectiveness and maturity and the existence of support schemes.
Furthermore, the high potential of wind and solar energies in Cyprus, they are expected to play a
crucial role in supplying electrical energy to greenhouses. In 2013, the Cyprus Energy
Regulatory Authority and the Cypriot Government launched a law regulating the use and
production of electricity from renewable energies5. According to this law, photovoltaic system
could be connected by three types of connections:
1. Residential photovoltaic systems (up to 5 kWp). This system regards the installation
of PV systems mainly on the roof of residential houses. The connection method to
5 Ν.112(Ι)/2013, Ν.121(Ι)/2015, Ν.157(Ι)/2015
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 75
the national electricity grid will be by the net metering system. However, this category
is further divided into three sub-categories
A1. PV system for residential buildings concerning specific category of people
who need subsidies
A2. Residential photovoltaic systems without subsidies
A3. PV systems for non-residential building (including agriculture)
2. Industrial or self-production (from 10 kWp to 10 MWp). This system regards the
installation of a PV system on the roof of and industrial buildings or on nearby area
mainly to cover the electricity needs of the building. These buildings could be public,
commercial, industrial, agriculture, livestock buildings, schools or fishing
enterprises. These systems do not inject electricity in the national electricity grid.
3. Autonomous systems (without permits up to 20 kWp). These systems are appropriate
for isolated areas not connected to the national electricity grid (including
agriculture). They could be hybrid systems (more than one renewable energy
technology) or imply energy storage systems (batteries and charge controllers). As a
general guideline for this category, it is stated that “before the installation of the PV
system, it is recommended to take energy efficiency measures into consideration in
order to lower the energy consumption requirements”.
Figure 27: RES installations in Cyprus
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 76
For the greenhouse described in Annex 4, a photovoltaic system was designed to cover the
annual electrical energy needs (62 MWh/yr) that was calculated using the installed power of
each equipment, the number of items for each equipment and the estimated daily hours of
operation indicated in Table 17.
Table 17: estimated hours of operation for several equipment in a 2000 m2 greenhouse
Month of the year
Heating hours/day
Cooling hours/ day
Cooling panel
pumps hours/ day
Irrigation pumps
hours/ day
Circulation fans
hours/ day
Windows motor
hours/ day
Thermal screen motor
hours/ day
1 6 0 0 2 6 0.05 0.08
2 5 0 0 2 5 0.05 0.08
3 3 3 2 2 3 0.05 0.08
4 1 6 5 2 1 0.05 0.08
5 0 8 7 4 2 0.05 0.08
6 0 10 10 4 2 0.05 0.08
7 0 14 13 4 2 0.05 0.08
8 0 20 18 4 2 0.05 0.08
9 0 18 16 3 2 0.05 0.08
10 0 9 8 2 2 0.05 0.08
11 2 0 0 2 2 0.05 0.08
12 4 0 0 2 4 0.05 0.08
The results of the design was that a PV system with an installed power of 50.47 kWp is suitable
to cover all the energy needs of the greenhouse along with a backup generator of about 48 kW
for peak load coverage, see Figure 28.
The financial analysis, see Figure 29, of this PV system showed that it has a positive NPV value
(153000 €) and a simple payback period of 4.9 years. Summary of results are shown in Table
18. Land rent or purchase for the installation of the PV system, was not considered in the
analysis.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 77
Inverter
Incremental
initial costs
Capacity kW 50.0 Peak load - annual - AC 6,000€
Efficiency % 95%
Miscellaneous losses % 5%
Battery
Days of autonomy d 1.0
Voltage V 48.0
Efficiency % 80%
Maximum depth of discharge % 40%
Charge controller efficiency % 94%
Temperature control method Ambient
Average battery temperature derating % 3.2%
Capacity Ah 1,200 10,634
Battery kWh 58 28,800€
Technology Photovoltaic
Resource assessment
Solar tracking mode Fixed
Slope ˚ 20.0
Azimuth ˚ 0.0
Show data
Daily solar
radiation -
horizontal
Daily solar
radiation - tilted
Electricity
delivered to
load
Month kWh/m²/d kWh/m²/d MWh
January 2.74 3.69 5.37
February 3.70 4.59 5.34
March 5.11 5.81 5.91
April 6.28 6.57 5.72
May 7.46 7.32 5.91
June 8.40 7.98 5.72
July 8.14 7.84 5.91
August 7.32 7.48 5.91
September 6.23 6.92 5.72
October 4.66 5.72 5.91
November 3.21 4.30 5.72
December 2.45 3.38 4.90
Annual 5.48 5.97 68.02
Annual solar radiation - horizontal MWh/m² 2.00
Annual solar radiation - tilted MWh/m² 2.18
Photovoltaic
Type mono-Si
Power capacity kW 50.47 144.2%
Manufacturer
Model 206 unit(s)
Efficiency % 15.0%
Nominal operating cell temperature °C 45
Temperature coefficient % / °C 0.40%
Solar collector area m² 336.5
Control method
Miscellaneous losses % 5.0%
Summary
Capacity factor % 21.9%
Electricity delivered to load MWh 68.02 108.4%
Peak load power system
Technology
Fuel type
Fuel rate €/L 0.620
Charger efficiency % 90.0%
Suggested capacity kW 35.0
Capacity kW 43 122.9%
Electricity delivered to load MWh 0.0 0.0%
Manufacturer
Model 1 unit(s)
Heat rate kJ/kWh 10,000
GM
FAM.0
Reciprocating engine
Oil (#6) - L
Maximum power point tracker
Yingli Solar
Proposed case power system
mono-Si - Panda - YL245C-30b
Figure 28: Sizing of the PV system for a 2000 m2 greenhouse
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 78
Financial parameters Project costs and savings/income summary Yearly cash flows
General Year Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative
Fuel cost escalation rate % 1.0% 0.5% € 500 # € € €
Inflation rate % 2.0% 1.5% € 1,500 0 -97,293 -97,293 -97,293
Discount rate % 6.0% 1.0% € 1,000 1 20,243 20,243 -77,050
Project life yr 20 95.5% € 92,917 2 20,440 20,440 -56,610
0.0% € 0 3 20,639 20,639 -35,970
Finance 0.0% € 0 4 20,840 20,840 -15,130
Incentives and grants € 0.0% € 0 5 21,043 21,043 5,914
Debt ratio % 0.0% € 0 6 21,248 21,248 27,162
Debt € 0 1.4% € 1,376 7 21,455 21,455 48,617
Equity € 97,293 100.0% € 97,293 8 21,664 21,664 70,281
Debt interest rate % 9 21,875 21,875 92,156
Debt term yr € 0 10 22,088 22,088 114,243
Debt payments €/yr 0 11 22,302 22,302 136,546
12 22,519 22,519 159,065
€ 500 13 22,738 22,738 181,803
Income tax analysis € 0 14 22,959 22,959 204,762
Effective income tax rate % € 0 15 23,182 23,182 227,944
Loss carryforward? € 500 16 23,407 23,407 251,350
Depreciation method 17 23,634 23,634 274,985
Half-year rule - year 1 yes/no Yes 18 23,864 23,864 298,848
Depreciation tax basis % € 0 19 24,095 24,095 322,943
Depreciation rate % € 0 20 24,329 24,329 347,272
Depreciation period yr 15 € 0 21 0 0 347,272
Tax holiday available? yes/no No 22 0 0 347,272
Tax holiday duration yr 23 0 0 347,272
€ 20,547 24 0 0 347,272
Annual income € 0 25 0 0 347,272
Electricity export income € 0 26 0 0 347,272
Electricity exported to grid MWh 0 € 0 27 0 0 347,272
Electricity export rate €/MWh 0.00 € 0 28 0 0 347,272
Electricity export income € 0 € 0 29 0 0 347,272
Electricity export escalation rate % € 20,547 30 0 0 347,272
31 0 0 347,272
GHG reduction income 32 0 0 347,272
tCO2/yr 0 33 0 0 347,272
Net GHG reduction tCO2/yr 49 Financial viability 34 0 0 347,272
Net GHG reduction - 20 yrs tCO2 986 % 21.2% 35 0 0 347,272
GHG reduction credit rate €/tCO2 % 21.2% 36 0 0 347,272
GHG reduction income € 0 37 0 0 347,272
GHG reduction credit duration yr % 21.2% 38 0 0 347,272
Net GHG reduction - 0 yrs tCO2 0 % 21.2% 39 0 0 347,272
GHG reduction credit escalation rate % 40 0 0 347,272
yr 4.9 41 0 0 347,272
Customer premium income (rebate) yr 4.7 42 0 0 347,272
Electricity premium (rebate) % 43 0 0 347,272
Electricity premium income (rebate) € 0 € 153,008 44 0 0 347,272
Heating premium (rebate) % €/yr 13,340 45 0 0 347,272
Heating premium income (rebate) € 0 46 0 0 347,272
Cooling premium (rebate) % 2.57 47 0 0 347,272
Cooling premium income (rebate) € 0 No debt 48 0 0 347,272
Customer premium income (rebate) € 0 €/MWh 49 0 0 347,272
€/tCO2 (271) 50 0 0 347,272
Other income (cost)
Energy MWh Cumulative cash flows graph
Rate €/MWh
Other income (cost) € 0
Duration yr
Escalation rate %
Clean Energy (CE) production income
CE production MWh 68
CE production credit rate €/kWh
CE production income € 0
CE production credit duration yr
CE production credit escalation rate %
Fuel type
Energy
delivered
(MWh) Clean energy
1 Solar 68 Yes
2 No
3 No
4 No
5 No
6 No
7 No
8 No
9 No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No Year
Power system
Cu
mu
lati
ve c
ash
flo
ws (
€)
Pre-tax IRR - equity
Pre-tax IRR - assets
Electricity export income
GHG reduction income - 0 yrs
GHG reduction cost
Net Present Value (NPV)
Annual life cycle savings
Benefit-Cost (B-C) ratio
Debt service coverage
Energy production cost
Simple payback
Equity payback
Total annual costs
Declining balance
O&M
Fuel cost - proposed case
RETScreen Financial Analysis - Power project
No
Annual costs and debt payments
Cooling system
Energy efficiency measures
User-defined
Balance of system & misc.
Incentives and grants
Initial costs
Feasibility study
Development
Engineering
Periodic costs (credits)
Heating system
After-tax IRR - equity
After-tax IRR - assets
Total initial costs
Customer premium income (rebate)
Other income (cost) - yrs
CE production income - yrs
Total annual savings and income
Annual savings and income
Fuel cost - base case
Debt payments - 0 yrs
End of project life - cost
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Figure 29: financial analysis of 50.47 kWp PV system
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 79
Table 18: Summary of results for the 50 kW PV system
Parameter Value
Installed power 50.47 kWp
Load energy consumption 62 MWh/yr
Energy delivered by PV 68.02 MWh/yr
Initial investment 978000 €
IRR 21.2%
NPV 153000 €
Payback period 4.9 yr
Applying the same methodology for the installation of 50 kW wind turbine, the resulted annual
electrical energy production was calculated by RETScreen to be 55.38 MWh, which does not
cover the required annual electrical energy needs of the greenhouse (62 MWh/yr). Moreover, the
NPV value was calculated to be 77792 € and a simple payback period of 8 years, see Figure 30
and Figure 31. These financial results for the wind energy exploitation are less viable than the
case of the PV system. Summary of data are presented in
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 80
Table 19.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 81
Inverter
Incremental
initial costs
Capacity kW 50.0 Peak load - annual - AC 6,000€
Efficiency % 95%
Miscellaneous losses % 5%
Battery
Days of autonomy d 1.0
Voltage V 48.0
Efficiency % 80%
Maximum depth of discharge % 40%
Charge controller efficiency % 94%
Temperature control method Ambient
Average battery temperature derating % 3.2%
Capacity Ah 1,200 10,634
Battery kWh 58 28,800€
Technology Wind turbine
Resource assessment
Show data See maps
Resource method Wind speed Paphos/Baf Intl
Electricity
delivered to
load
Month m/s m/s MWh
January 4.3 4.3 5.91
February 4.6 4.6 5.34
March 4.3 4.3 5.91
April 4.1 4.1 5.72
May 3.7 3.7 4.74
June 3.4 3.4 3.45
July 3.2 3.2 2.80
August 3.2 3.2 2.80
September 3.4 3.4 3.45
October 3.5 3.5 3.98
November 3.9 3.9 5.38
December 4.1 4.1 5.91
Annual 3.8 3.8 55.38
Measured at m 10 10
Wind shear exponent 0.25
Wind turbine
Power capacity per turbine kW 50.0
Manufacturer
Model
Number of turbines 1
Power capacity kW 50.0 0.6%
Hub height m 25 4.8 m/s
Rotor diameter per turbine m 15
Swept area per turbine m² 177
Energy curve data Standard
Shape factor 2.0
Show data
Wind speed
Power curve
data
Energy curve
data
m/s kW MWh Show figure
0 0.0
1 0.0
2 0.0
3 0.0 11.6
4 0.0 39.1
5 4.4 80.5
6 8.9 129.1
7 15.6 178.6
8 24.4 224.6
9 33.0 264.4
10 44.0 296.1
11 50.0 319.2
12 55.0 333.9
13 58.0 341.1
14 62.0 342.3
15 64.0 338.7
16 66.0
17 65.0
18 64.0
19 64.0
20 64.0
21 63.0
22 63.0
23 63.0
24
25 - 30
Array losses % 5.0% Show data
Airfoil losses % 2.0% Unadjusted energy production MWh 73
Miscellaneous losses % 2.0% Pressure coefficient 0.99
Availability % 95.0% Temperature coefficient 0.99
Gross energy production MWh 71
Summary Losses coefficient 0.87
Capacity factor % 12.6% Specific yield kWh/m² 351
Electricity delivered to load MWh 55.4 88.2%
See product database
Per turbine
Proposed case power system
Atlantic Orient
AOC 15/50 - 25m
Figure 30: Energy production from 50 kW wind turbine
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 82
Financial parameters Project costs and savings/income summary Yearly cash flows
General Year Pre-tax After-tax Cumulative
Fuel cost escalation rate % 1.0% 0.4% € 500 # € € €
Inflation rate % 2.0% 1.1% € 1,500 0 -142,333 -142,333 -142,333
Discount rate % 6.0% 0.7% € 1,000 1 17,892 17,892 -124,441
Project life yr 20 96.5% € 137,400 2 18,056 18,056 -106,385
0.0% € 0 3 18,220 18,220 -88,165
Finance 0.0% € 0 4 18,387 18,387 -69,778
Incentives and grants € 0.0% € 0 5 18,554 18,554 -51,224
Debt ratio % 0.0% € 0 6 18,723 18,723 -32,500
Debt € 0 1.4% € 1,933 7 18,894 18,894 -13,607
Equity € 142,333 100.0% € 142,333 8 19,065 19,065 5,459
Debt interest rate % 9 19,238 19,238 24,697
Debt term yr € 0 10 19,413 19,413 44,110
Debt payments €/yr 0 11 19,589 19,589 63,699
12 19,766 19,766 83,465
€ 1,500 13 19,945 19,945 103,410
Income tax analysis € 1,318 14 20,125 20,125 123,534
Effective income tax rate % € 0 15 20,306 20,306 143,841
Loss carryforward? € 2,818 16 20,489 20,489 164,330
Depreciation method 17 20,673 20,673 185,003
Half-year rule - year 1 yes/no Yes 18 20,859 20,859 205,862
Depreciation tax basis % € 0 19 21,046 21,046 226,908
Depreciation rate % € 0 20 21,235 21,235 248,143
Depreciation period yr 15 € 0 21 0 0 248,143
Tax holiday available? yes/no No 22 0 0 248,143
Tax holiday duration yr 23 0 0 248,143
€ 20,547 24 0 0 248,143
Annual income € 0 25 0 0 248,143
Electricity export income € 0 26 0 0 248,143
Electricity exported to grid MWh 0 € 0 27 0 0 248,143
Electricity export rate €/MWh 0.00 € 0 28 0 0 248,143
Electricity export income € 0 € 0 29 0 0 248,143
Electricity export escalation rate % € 20,547 30 0 0 248,143
31 0 0 248,143
GHG reduction income 32 0 0 248,143
tCO2/yr 0 33 0 0 248,143
Net GHG reduction tCO2/yr 43 Financial viability 34 0 0 248,143
Net GHG reduction - 20 yrs tCO2 857 % 11.9% 35 0 0 248,143
GHG reduction credit rate €/tCO2 % 11.9% 36 0 0 248,143
GHG reduction income € 0 37 0 0 248,143
GHG reduction credit duration yr % 11.9% 38 0 0 248,143
Net GHG reduction - 0 yrs tCO2 0 % 11.9% 39 0 0 248,143
GHG reduction credit escalation rate % 40 0 0 248,143
yr 8.0 41 0 0 248,143
Customer premium income (rebate) yr 7.7 42 0 0 248,143
Electricity premium (rebate) % 43 0 0 248,143
Electricity premium income (rebate) € 0 € 77,792 44 0 0 248,143
Heating premium (rebate) % €/yr 6,782 45 0 0 248,143
Heating premium income (rebate) € 0 46 0 0 248,143
Cooling premium (rebate) % 1.55 47 0 0 248,143
Cooling premium income (rebate) € 0 No debt 48 0 0 248,143
Customer premium income (rebate) € 0 €/MWh 49 0 0 248,143
€/tCO2 (158) 50 0 0 248,143
Other income (cost)
Energy MWh Cumulative cash flows graph
Rate €/MWh
Other income (cost) € 0
Duration yr
Escalation rate %
Clean Energy (CE) production income
CE production MWh 55
CE production credit rate €/kWh
CE production income € 0
CE production credit duration yr
CE production credit escalation rate %
Fuel type
Energy
delivered
(MWh) Clean energy
1 Wind 55 Yes
2 Oil (#6) 23 No
3 No
4 No
5 No
6 No
7 No
8 No
9 No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No
# No Year
Power system
Cu
mu
lati
ve c
ash
flo
ws (
€)
Pre-tax IRR - equity
Pre-tax IRR - assets
Electricity export income
GHG reduction income - 0 yrs
GHG reduction cost
Net Present Value (NPV)
Annual life cycle savings
Benefit-Cost (B-C) ratio
Debt service coverage
Energy production cost
Simple payback
Equity payback
Total annual costs
Declining balance
O&M
Fuel cost - proposed case
RETScreen Financial Analysis - Power project
No
Annual costs and debt payments
Cooling system
Energy efficiency measures
User-defined
Balance of system & misc.
Incentives and grants
Initial costs
Feasibility study
Development
Engineering
Periodic costs (credits)
Heating system
After-tax IRR - equity
After-tax IRR - assets
Total initial costs
Customer premium income (rebate)
Other income (cost) - yrs
CE production income - yrs
Total annual savings and income
Annual savings and income
Fuel cost - base case
Debt payments - 0 yrs
End of project life - cost
-200,000
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Figure 31: financial analysis of 50 kW wind turbine
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 83
Table 19: Summary of results for the 50 kW wind turbine system
Parameter Value
Installed power 50 kW
Load energy consumption 62 MWh/yr
Energy delivered by PV 55.38 MWh/yr
Initial investment 142330 €
IRR 11.9%
NPV 7792 €
Payback period 8 yr
The alternative use of mixed combustion biomass heater is not also justified since there is no
significant biomass potential in Cyprus. Besides, the annual cost of biomass would reach the
value of 250 – 300 per ton, which will not allow for fuel savings. The payback period calculated
was about 11.5 years, which is not considered encouraging factor for investment. However,
using agricultural residues as a fuel would definitely favor the use of biomass heaters in
greenhouse heating.
Figure 32: Biomass heater as alternative solution
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 84
10. Data preparation as input for the energy forecast model
Based on the findings of the study, the data required to estimate the maximum (theoretical)
energy saving potential on greenhouse is presented, see Table 20, according to the tables
provided by the Cyprus University of Technology and according to the following assumptions:
1. The current fuel consumption (electricity and Gasoil) is based on the finding of the
current study from the energy audits of the visited greenhouses and the calculation of the
indirect energy consumption and extrapolation of the data to all greenhouse sector,
taking into consideration the synthesis, type and number of greenhouses in Cyprus.
2. Regarding the projection evolution of the reference scenario for 2020, it is assumed that
10% of the farmers applying 25% of the energy efficiency measures. That corresponds to
maximum of 0.83 GWh energy savings. While for the projection of 2030, it is assumed
that 50% of the farmers applying 50% of the energy efficiency measures. That
corresponds to maximum of 8.3 GWh energy savings.
3. The middle scenario regards increasing the above figures by 50%.
4. The ambitious scenario for 2020 regards the application of a factor of 400% (four times
more energy savings to be expected) of the reference scenario. While for 2030 the
maximum theoretical potential calculated in this study, is applied 16.7%.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 85
Table 20: Projection of energy savings potential in Cyprus, Annex 5
I. Today's fuel consumption by type of agricultural activity
(toe) LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity
Greenhouses 11629.6 5472.7
Animal farms
Rest of agriculture
Total 11629.6 5472.7
II. Projected evolution of fuel consumption (in abolute terms or as a percentage change compared to 2015)
1. Reference scenario
Year: 2020 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity Year: 2030 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity
Greenhouses 11581 5449.91 Greenhouses 11144.3 5244.37
Animal farms Animal farms
Rest of agriculture Rest of agriculture
Total 11581.0 5449.9 Total 11144.3 5244.4
2. Middle scenario (cost-effective energy saving potential)
Year: 2020 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity Year: 2030 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity
Greenhouses 11556.78 5438.49 Greenhouses 10901.63 5130.81
Animal farms Animal farms
Rest of agriculture Rest of agriculture
Total 11556.8 5438.5 Total 10901.6 5130.8
3. Ambitious scenario (maximum realistic energy saving potential)
Year: 2020 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity Year: 2030 LPG Gasoil Biomass Electricity
Greenhouses 11435.46 5381.34 Greenhouses 9687.46 4558.76
Animal farms Animal farms
Rest of agriculture Rest of agriculture
Total 11435.5 5381.3 Total 9687.5 4558.8
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 86
11. Conclusions
The present report describes a preliminary study on the energy consumption profile of the
greenhouse sector and gives an insight of the most energy consuming processes. The
greenhouses that were visited and audited were selected by the Department of Agriculture so to
reflect greenhouses applying best practices.
In order to have a more real energy consumption profile, a more detailed energy audit is
necessary (Level III: Detailed Energy Audit) by installing data loggers and monitoring real
consumption throughout a whole year in an adequate number of farms that will reflect
consistently the various greenhouses types.
The overall energy savings potential was calculated to be 16.7% (33.2 GWh). However, in a
business as usual scenario in 2020 and due to continuation of the economic crises and a
continued low policy intensity scenario in the agricultural sector without any specific promotion
and education activities, we assume 10% of the farmers applying 25% of the energy efficiency
measures. That corresponds to maximum of 0.83 GWh energy savings, comprising 0.42% from
the total energy consumption. Expectations to the year 2030 could be more ambitious, this is
assuming an increased policy intensity with the adaptation of soft measures proposed (training
and awareness raising measures) to the farmers and the escalation and uncertainty in fuel costs
that might encourage more farmers to apply more energy efficiency measures. In this case, we
assume that 50% of the farmers will apply 50% of the suggested energy efficiency measures.
That corresponds to 8.3 GWh energy savings, comprising 4.1% from the total energy
consumption. Preliminary investigation showed that a trigeneration cycle could result in 20% –
30% energy savings and could be economically viable with a payback period of about 6 years
(fossil fuel as input). Therefore, we recommend more detailed investigation of the technical and
economic viability of this interesting energy efficiency measure, should the logistics of biomass
are elaborated.
There are several RE potential in Cyprus, solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy.
However, this study analysed the most cost-effective technologies that are readily available in
the market and can be implemented in the near future by the farmers. Therefore, photovoltaic
and wind energy applications were analysed in details. The PBP for photovoltaic and wind
energies were calculated to be 4.9 and 8 years respectively.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 87
Annexes
Annex 1: Basic questionnaire
Annex 2: Greenhouse audit data sheet
Annex 3: Detailed observations and recommendation of the visited greenhouses
Annex 4: Details of an energy efficient greenhouse in Cyprus – Paphos – offer in Greek
Annex 5: Excel sheet for the provision of energy saving potential in Cyprus
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 88
References
1. SS,STATISTICAL SERVICE, AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 2014. Summarised economic accounts of the broad agricultural sector. Detailed data in quantity and value terms, on crop and livestock production, forestry, fishing, and intermediate inputs. Data are also presented on employment, investments, and land utilization, as well as output and input indices.Date of Release: 26/09/2016. (2016). Available from:http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/F9A639CC1FAC3F3FC2257777004049A9/$file/AGRI_STAT-2014-260916.pdf?OpenElement.
2. REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS - AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 2014 - Areas and production of main products . 2014; Available from: http://www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/agriculture_51main_en/agriculture_51main_en?OpenForm&sub=1&sel=2. Access Date: 20/11/2016.
3. Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment - Department of Agriculture - survey for vegetables under greenhouses, 2014 - 2015. Available from:http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/page01_en/page01_en?OpenDocument.
4. Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment - Department of Agriculture - survey for floriculture, 2014. Available from:http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/page01_en/page01_en?OpenDocument.
5. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (Text with EEA relevance). 2009; Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32009L0028. Access Date: 03/11/2016.
6. BioGrace project - harmonising the European calculations of biofuel GHG emissions. 2014; Available from: http://www.biograce.net/content/abouthebiograceproject/about_the_biograce_project. Access Date: 08/01/2017.
7. Baptista1, F.J., D. Briassoulis2, C. Stanghellini3, L.L. Silva1, A.T.Balafoutis2, A. MeyerAurich4, and A.Mistriotis, ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN TOMATO GREENHOUSE PRODUCTION. A PRELIMINARY STUDY, in GreenSys 2013, Jeju, Korea: http://www.greensys2013.org/2013.
8. American Society for Agricultural Engineers, ANSI/ASAE EP406.3 MAR98, heating, venting and cooling greenhouses, 675: 682., 2000.
9. RETScreen is a Clean Energy Management Software. 2017; Available from: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/software-tools/7465. Access Date: 07/01/2017.
10. DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL - on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently
repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. 2016; Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN. Access Date: 26/01/2017.
11. Cyprus Investment Funds Association - CIFA - Growth Sectors - Energy. 2017; Available from: http://investcyprus.org.cy/en/growth-sectors/cyprus-investment-sectors/energy-sector. Access Date: 27/01/2017.
12. Warwick HRI (2007), “Direct energy use in agriculture: opportunities for reducing fossil fuel inputs”, May 2007, Warwick WRI, the University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom. . Available from.
Energy Savings Potential in Cyprus Floriculture, vegetables in greenhouses
WIP GmbH & Co Planungs KG Page 89
13. Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism - Energy Production from Renewable Sources by 2020: The Cypriot Case. 2008; Available from: http://www.mcit.gov.cy/mcit/mcit.nsf/dmlindex_en/dmlindex_en. Access Date: 25/01/2017.
14. Zachariadis, T., Hadjikyriakou, Costas Social Costs and Benefits of Renewable Electricity Generation in Cyprus. (2016). Available from:http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319315348.
15. Loizou L., P.G.,Biomass estimation from young stands, Cited in Cyprus Energy Agency 2010, Uses of Wood Biomass, Nicosia. (2007). Available from: http://www.cea.org.cy/TOPICS/Renewable %20Energy/biomass%20final.pdf (in Greek).