Investments in Hydropower Sunil Kumar Dhungel

8/10/2019 Investments in Hydropower Sunil Kumar Dhungel

1/97


2/97

Presentation Outline

Introduction:

Nepals present power system scenario/Present Crisis

Initiatives to address the problem Projects undertaken by NEA for Development

Master plan study of Medium Storage Projects

Challanges, Opportunities and Way forward


3/97

Introduction

Nepal has 83,000/42,000 MWpotential

Present peak requirement noted is 1094.63 MW

Nepal produces only 718.621 MW

Present energy requirement is 5446.285GWH

Available energy is 4218.135 GWH

About 1228.15 GWH energy deficit resultingupto

12-14 hoursof load shedding each day!!


4/97

Installed Capacity: 762 MW

In Grid 757.0 MW Off Grid (Hydro) 5.0 MW

Hydro 708.519 MW Thermal 53.41 MW

NEA 477.93 MW IPP 230.58 MW

ROR 616.519 MW Storage 92 MW

NEPALESE POWER SYSTEM (2013)


5/97

Power Demand and Supply (MW)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

MW

Year

Demand

Installed Capacity

Source: A Year Review Fiscal Year 2006/07 - 2012/13, NEA

146%

648 946

116%

616 706

Demand has increased to 46% from the year 2006/7 to 2010/11, where

as system installed capacity has increased only 16%

2013 System max demand : 1094.62 MW

2013 System energy demand : 5446.285 GWH


6/97

Availability of Power

Note: On the peak day of the year

Source: A Year Review Fiscal Year 2006/07 - 2012/13, NEA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

SupplyR

atio(%)

kWh

kW

Supply Ratio =Actual Supply / Total Demand100%

65%

54%

97%

90%

From the year 2006/07 to 2010/11, energy supply ratio has dropped from 97% to 65%.

Peak Power dropped from 90% to 54%.

Max demand (2013): 1094 MW; Energy demand: 5446.285 GWH


7/97

Seasonal fluctuation of

Power Supply

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Shrawan

(July-Aug'10)

Bhadra

(Aug-Sept2010)

Ashwin

(Sept-Oct'10)

Kartik

(Oct-Nov2010)

Mangsir

(Nov-Dec'10)

Poush

(Dec'10-Jan'11)

Magh

(Jan-Feb'11)

Falgun

(Feb-Mar'11)

Chaitra

(Mar-Apr'11)

Baishakh

(Apr-May'11)

Jestha

(May-Jun'11)

Ashad

(Jun-Jul'11)

GWh

Dry SeasonWet

SeasonWet Season

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

July

ugust

Septe

ctober

ove

b

ece

ber

Ja

ary

February

arch

pril

ay

June

Peak Power

Demand

Peak Energy

Demand

Seasonal fluctuation ofPeak Power and Energy

Demand (MD9%-ED13%)

DrySeason

Wet

Seas

on

Wet

Season

Mismatch in the Supply and Demand of Power

-The fluctuation in Maximum demand and Energy demand through the year is about 9%

and 13% respectively.

-The seasonal fluctuation is about 55%.


8/97

Seasonal Flow Variations

High variations in the flow pattern of the River.

January flow in the river is about 6.34% to 17.36% of the maximum annual

flow.

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1400.00

1600.00

July

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

RiverDischarge

atHEPSitesinCumecs

Months

Average Monthly Flows in Rivers at HEP Sites in Nepal

Kali Gandaki A

Middle Marshyangdi

Budhi Ganga

Kabeli

Rahughat

Upper Arun

Upper Karnali

Marshyangdi

Arun III


9/97

Load gap Antidote of this problem is to build HYDRO

PROJECTSincluding STORAGE PROJECTS.

(Hydro+Thermal+

Others)

Kulekhani I & II

Load shedding

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

SystemLoad(MW)

Time (Hours)

System Daily Load Curve - Peak Load of the YearSystem Peak Load 360 MW at 18.32 hr on Jan 20, 2001

(Hydro+Thermal+Others) Kulekhani I & II Power interruption DMS Load shedding

Role of 92MW Kulekhani

Storage Project in414 MW Capacity System

Daily Load Curve- Peak load of the Year

Jan 13, 20121026 MW


10/97

Power Demand Forecast

NEA/JICA


11/97

Result of power demand forecast (2013-2032)

Energy demand in 2012 (5,380

GWh)

Energy supplied in 2012 (4,146

GWh)

Load shed energy (1,233 GWh)

Low case in 2032: 17,921

GWh

Lowcase

High case in 2032: 22,166GWh

Highcase

Base case in 2032: 19,493

GWh

Basecase

End of price adjustment period

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

Actual power supply/demand

Estimated demand with load shedding

JICA (2012) Base case forecast

JICA (2012) High case forecast

JICA (2012) Low case forecast

Year

(GWh)


12/97

Capacity gap in 2012 (448 MW)

Required generation capacity forecast (2013-2032)

Peak load demanded in 2012 (1,027

MW)

Achieved peak load in 2012 (579

MW)

Low case in 2032: 3,934 MW

Lowcase

High case in 2032: 4,866 MW

Highcase

Base case in 2032: 4,729 MW

Basecase

End of price adjustment period

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

Actual peak load

Estimated peak load with load shedding

JICA (2012) Base case forecast

JICA (2012) High case forecast

JICA (2012) Low case forecast

Year

(MW)

Demandcapacitygap(4,150 MW)


13/97

Wet Season Dry Season

Shortage

Max. Power Discharge

(Installed Capacity)

Overflow (not utilized)

Q

(P)

ROR-type Generation


14/97

Wet Season Dry Season

InflowStorage

Supply

Outflow

Max. Power Discharge

(Installed Capacity)

Q

(P)

Storage-type Generation


15/97

Projected Suitable Combination until FY2031/32

ROR-type generation

Required installed capacity : Ptotal1,200 to 2,300MW

Capacity to be developed : Pdev900 to 2,000MW

PROR-type generation

Required installed capacity : Ptotal800 to 1,500MW

Capacity to be developed : Pdev500 to 1,200MW

Storage-type generation

Required installed capacity : Ptotal2,800 to 3,800MW

Capacity to be developed : Pdev2,700 to 3,700MW


16/97

Initiatives to address the problemInvestment promotion

NEAs own initiatives of Projects identification,

Feasibility study, Project Development

20 year National Master Plan of Storage Hydro

electric Project with Cooperation from JICA.

(Starting December 2011 -Completion August

2013)


17/97

Tamakoshi V HEP : 87 MW

Upper Arun HEP : 335 MW

Upper Modi A HEP : 42 MW

Dhudhkoshi Storage HEP : 300 MW

PROJECTS UNDER DETAIL ENGINEERING DESIGNAND DEVELOPMENT


18/97

PROJECT UNDER STUDY

Kaligandaki-2 Storage HEP : 660 MW

Andhikhola Storage HEP : 180 MW

Tamor Storage HEP : 530 MW

Uttar Ganga Storage HEP : 210 MW


19/97

Nisti-Panha Storage HEP : 190 MW

Bagmati Storage HEP : 140 MW

Gaudi Khola HEP : 17 MW

Indrawati HEP : 92 MW

Nalsyaugad Storage HEP : 410 MW

Projects being undertaken for further study


20/97


21/97

Tamakoshi V Hydroelectric Project

TamakoshiV HEP

Dolakha District,Central Development Region


22/97

Attractive Features of Tamakoshi V HEP

Cascade Project of Upper Tamakoshi HEP. Discharge from Upper

Tamakoshi Project is diverted to the headrace tunnel of Tamakoshi V HEPfrom Tailrace Tunnel of Upper Tamakoshi HEP

Does not need headworks at the Tamakoshi River

Sound geology

Less flood discharge Regulated flow from Upper Tamakoshi. Desigh Dishcarge 66 m3/ sec

No Access Road required

Short Transmission line of about 4 km length.


23/97

Overall Project Layout Plan of Tamakoshi V HEP

Installed Capacity 87 MWAverage Energy output 460.5GWH

Gross Head 160.93 m

Design Discharge 66m3/sec

Interconnection System with UTHEP

8.20 Km long Headrace TunnelUnder ground Powerhouse

UTKHEP TAILRACE

TAMAKOSHI V INLET

FSL = 1 154.42

I TUNNEL

UNDERGROUND P OWERHOUSE

SWITCHYARD

SURGE TANK

TAILRAC E TUNNEL

HRTL=8215m, D=5.6m

ADIT 1, L = 130 m

AD IT 2 , L = 210m

ADIT 3,L=120m


24/97

Without Rolwaling With Rolwaling

Gross Head 160.93 m 160.93 m

Net Head 149.61 m 149.61 m

Installed Capacity 87 MW 87 MW

Annual Energy 419.30 GWh 462.53 GWh

Dry Season Energy 54.67 GWh 65.79 GWh

Wet Season Energy 364.63 GWh 396.74 GWh

Project cost in US$ 131.99 million

Financial cost in NRs $ 13,660.3 million (with IDC)

Debt/equity ratio 70/30

Interest Rate on Debt 8.0%

Return on Equity 14.00%Energy Cost Rs/ Kwh 3.19 / 3.81 (without Rolwaling)

in year 2011 / 2017

Energy Generation And FininancialIndicators


25/97


26/97

Upper Arun Hydroelectric Project

Catchment area 30,400.00 Sq.km. of which 25,300.00 Sq.km. lies within Tibet. This

gives very high firm discharge and low flood discharge

Sound geology

Gross Head 492.00 m

As per feasibility study the Project cost is 479.58 million US$. Unit cost perKilowatt less than 1500 US$. Benefit Cost ratio is 1.69 %

Total annual energy generation is 2050.00 GWh. Installed capacity is 335.00 MW

Main Attractive Features

Upper Arun HEP

Sankhuwasabha District,Eastern Development Region

Dam Site

Powerhouse Site

Arun River

M i F


27/97

Main FeaturesUpper Arun

Installed Capacity 335 MW

Average Energy output 2050 GWH

Design Discharge 79.6 m3/sec

Gross Head 492 m

37 mhigh 80 m long Concrete Gravity Dam with three 22 m high radial gates

Three under ground Desanding basins 128 m long, 24 m wide and 32 m high

7.84 Km long Headrace Tunnel

105 m long, 21 m wide & 35 m high Underground Powerhouse Cavern23.4 Km Access Road


28/97


29/97

Upper Modi-A Hydroelectric Project

Upper ModiHEP

Kaski District,Western Development Region


30/97

Attractive Features of Upper Modi A HEP

Simple Run off the River (RoR) Project

Headwork is located at New Bridge and Powerhouse is located at SauliBazar

Relatively Fair Geology

Design Discharge is 17.60 m3/s

Approximately 10 km of access road need to be constructed and some

portion of the road need to be upgraded Short Transmission line of about 11.5 km length.


31/97

Overall Project Layout Plan of Upper Modi A HEP

Installed Capacity 42 MWAverage Energy output 214.87 GWh

Gross Head 287.69 m

Design Discharge 17.60 m3/sec

5.948 Km long Headrace Tunnel

Surface Powerhouse


32/97

Gross Head 287.69 m

Net Head 149.61 m


Annual Energy 214.87 GWh

Dry Season Energy 33.27 GWh

Wet Season Energy 181.67 GWh

Project cost in US$ 78.73 Million

Financial cost in US $ 13,660.3 million (with IDC)

Debt/equity ratio 70/30

Interest Rate on Debt 8.0%

Return on Equity 14.00%Energy Cost Rs/ Kwh 4.50 in year 2012

Energy Generation And FininancialIndicators


33/97


34/97


35/97

Introduction The Medium Hydropower Project of NEA carried out the Feasibility Study of the

project in 1998.

Review of Development Plan on the Sunkoshi River and Dudh Koshi River was

done in 2011.

The development plan reviewed the project based on the Sapta Koshi High Dam

Multipurpose Project

Since the high water elevation of the SaptaKoshi HDMP was fixed at 335.3 amslthe powerhouse of Dudhkoshi needed to be shifted upstream.

Three major alternatives were proposed.

Alt I:

Original dam site+waterway+undewrground powerhouse near Sunkoshi River

Alt II: Original dam site+surface powerhouse site downstream of Dam body (Toe)

Alt III:

Case II+alternative dam site+surface powerhoouse


36/97

Salient features (Original)Dudh koshi

Catchment Area (Dam) 4100 Km2

Design Flow and Rated net Head 136m3/sand 249.3 m

Total Storage Volume 687.4 Mm3


Total, Dry & Wet season Energy 1806 GWh & 360 GWh & 192 GWh

Main Dam Rock Fill Dam of 180 m Tunnel Type Concrete/shotcrete Lined Pressure Tunnel

Tunnel Diameter & Length 9-7.3m& 13260

Surge Tank dia & height Dia 30m& Height 120m

Penstock Type Steel Lined Underground

Type of Powerhouse Underground

Turbine Francis @ 5 nos

Transmission Line to Dhalkebar 93km

Total Project cost 690 MUS$ (1998 Price Level)

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 15.06%

Benefit Cost Ratio(B/C) 1.61


37/97


38/97

Kaligandaki-2 Hydroelectric Project

It is located in Nawalparasi, Tahanu, Palpa and Syangja districts having 11,374 Km2 catchment

area of Western Development Region.

It is Storage type of HEP with 177m high Rockfill Dam.

The Installed capacity is 660 MW with 6 nos. of Francis Turbine each of 110 MW. Thereservoir full supply level is 375 m.

As per pre feasibility study (1985 A.D) the Project cost was 1231.78 million US$.Unit cost per Kilowatt is about1866 US$. The annual energy generation is 3470 GWh.

Nepal Electricity Authority has applied for survey license dated on 2068/12/13. The feasibility

study is ongoing.


39/97

Andhikhola Hydroelectric Project

It is located in Syangja district of Western Development Region.

It is Storage type of HEP with 307 m gross head. It has 3395 m long tunnel.

The project is nearby the urban centre, short access road and short transmission line As per feasibility study (1998 A.D) the Installed capacity is 180 MW. The project cost 374

million US$. Unit cost per Kilowatt is about 2077.78 US$. The annual energy generation is693 GWh. The Benefit-Cost ratio of the project is 1.56 with attractive economic parameter,

IIR= 15.11%


study was completed and revised feasibility study is ongoing.

Syanjha District,

Western Development Region


40/97

Tamor Hydroelectric Project

It is located in Tehrathum and Taplejung districts of Eastern Development Region.

It is storage type of HEP with 190 m high rockfill dam. The full supply level is 535.00 m,

minimum operation level is 516.40 m and tail water level is 352.00 m. it has large catchment

area of 4,893 km2

As per pre feasibility study (2011 A.D), the Installed capacity is 530 MW with 6 nos of

unit each of 93.5 MW. The project cost was 1450 million US$. Unit cost per Kilowatt isabout 2735.85 US$. The annual energy generation is 2736.30 GWh.


study is ongoing.

Tamor Storage Hydroelectric Projec

Tehrathum/ Taplejung District,

Eastern Development Region


41/97

Uttar Ganga Hydroelectric Project

It is located in Baglung district of Dhaulagiri Zone in Western Development Region.

It is seasonal storage type of HEP with 145 m high rockfill dam, 9.82 m long HRT, 3.9 m

pressure shaft tunnel and 140 m long tailrace tunnel.

As per feasibility study (2004 A.D) The installed capacity is 210 MW. The project cost

was 798.96 million US$.Unit cost per Kilowatt is about 3804.57 US$. The annual energygeneration is 1297.00 GWh. The Benefit-Cost ratio of the project is 1.91 with attractive

economic parameter, IIR= 17.17%


study is ongoing.

Baglung District,

Western Development Region


42/97

Nationwide Master Plan Studyon

Storage-type Hydroelectric Power Development

inNepal

13th

February, 2013Nepal Electricity Authority

JICA Study Team


43/97

Identification and Feasibility Study of Storage

Project1999 Storage Master Plan Study

The study was divided into three phases :

Coarse screening and ranking

Fine screening and ranking

Feasibility study

As the first step, whole nation was

scanned and 102 storage projects

were identified.

Western River Basins : 28

Central River Basins: : 30Eastern River Basins : 44

Coarse screening and ranking of 102 projects are carried out based on the Techno-

environmental aspects and some Threshold Criteria. From Coarse Screening Ten Storage

Projects were selected for the Fine Screening and Ranking.


44/97

Fine Screening and Ranking Study ofTen Storage Projects

Ranking of Ten Candidate Projects:

Ranking of ten projects was donebased on the qualitative andquantitative analysis.

S.No. Name of the Project Total Score

1.0 Mai-0 62

2.0 Upper Mai 62

3.0 Madi Bagnas 67

4.0 Madi Ishneshor 68

5.0 Upper Seti 62

6.0 Ridi Khola 627.0 Indrawati 63

8.0 Surnayagad 61

9.0 Langtang 66

10 Lohore 55

Result of the qualitative

analysis shows that all projects

equally good and competent.

Out of ten projects only four

projects were found to be

economically viable. Lantang,

Upper Seti and Madi

Ishaneshor.

Projects most attractive were

recommended for the

Feasibility Study.


45/97

Evaluation Results of

Promising ProjectsJICA and NEA study team

JICA C it i f th E l ti d th R ki f


46/97

Weight of Evaluation Items (Base Case)Category % Subcategory % Evaluation Item % Point

Technical and

EconomicalConditions

50

HydrologicalConditions

25

Reliability of flow data 25 3.13

Risk of GLOF 40 5.00

Sedimentation 35 4.37

GeologicalConditions

25

Seismicity 30 3.75

Geological conditions of the site 40 5.00

Natural hazard (earthquake) 30 3.75

Lead Time 20Length of access road 25 2.50Difficulty level of funding 35 3.50

Reliability of development plan 40 4.00

Effectiveness ofProject

30

Unit generation cost 25 3.75

Installed capacity 20 3.00

Annual energy production 20 3.00

Energy production in the dry season 35 5.25

Impact onEnvironment

50

Impact on

Natural Environment 50

Impact on forest 25 6.25

Impact on natural reserve 30 7.50

Impact on fishes 20 5.00Impact on protected species 25 6.25

Impact onSocial Environment

50

Impact on locality by construction oftransmission line

20 5.00

Impact on household 25 6.25

Impact on agriculture 20 5.00

Impact on ethnic minority 20 5.00

Impact on tourism 15 3.75

Total 100

JICA Criteria for the Evaluation and the Ranking of

Candidate Storage Projects


47/97

Survey MethodsItems Methods Date

Geological survey

Review of regional geological mapsOn site geological survey of dam, reservoir, HRT and PH

On site landslide and erosion mapping

May 2012to

Oct.2012

Biological survey Review of available literature on flora and fauna

Mapping of forest area using latest (2010/2012)

remote sensing data

On site survey of forests (plot sampling) and wildlife(mammal, birds, and herpetofauna)

Consultation with locals on flora and fauna

Consultation with the fishermen on fish diversity

May 2012

to

Oct.2012

Social survey Mapping of agricultural lands, housing structures, and

other infrastructures using latest (2010/2012) remotesensing data

on site focus group discussion to unravel demography,

landholding, agricultural productivity, markets,

institutions, historic disaster records etc.

Consultation with fishermen on fishery dependency

and markets

May 2012

toOct.2012


48/97

Ranking No. Project Name P (MW) Score Ranking No. Project Name P (MW) Score

1 W-06 Madi 199.8 76 17 C-11 Madi- Ishaneshor 86.0 61

2 W-05 Lower Jhimruk 142.5 71 18 W-01 Barbung Khola 122.9 61

3 W-23 Nalsyagu Gad 400.0 68 19 W-21 Thapna 500.0 61

4 W-12 Tila - 1 617.2 66 20 E-10 Rosi-2 106.5 60

5 W-20 Bhanakot 810.0 66 21 E-09 Piluwa-2 107.3 596 E-01 Dudh Koshi 300.0 65 22 W-11 Thuli Gad - 2 119.7 59

7 W-02 Chera-1 148.7 65 23 E-20 Indrawati 91.2 58

8 W-25 Naumure (W. Rapti) 245.0 65 24 W-22 SR-6 642.0 58

9 W-10 Sharada - 2 96.8 64 25 C-01 Kaligandaki-Modi 816.4 57

10 E-12 Tama Koss-3 287.0 63 26 W-24 Sarada Babai 75.0 57

11 E-17 Sunkosi No.3 536.0 63 27 C-05 Upper Daraudi 111.4 53

12 E-02 Dukh Koshi-2 456.6 62 28 C-18 Ridi Khola 97.0 5313 E-06 Kokhajor-1 111.5 62 29 W-17 BR-4 667.0 51

14 C-02 Lower Badigad 380.3 62 30 C-03 Lower Daraudi 120.2 50

15 C-08 Andhi Khola 180.0 62 31 W-26 Lohare Khola 67.0 50

16 W-03 Chera-2 104.3 62

E: Eastern River Basin, C: Central River Basin, W: Western River Basin.

Evaluation Score and Ranking of 31

Candidate Projects


49/97

Ch


50/97

W-02 Chera-1

Location: JajarkotInstalled Capacity: 148.7MW

Dam height: 186m

FSL: 866m

Effective Storage Vol.: 141

MCMReservoir area: 4 km2

Project Cost: 452 MUS$

Unit generation cost: 8/kWh

Annual Energy: 620 GWh

Resettlement: 566

Chera -1


51/97

Proposed dam axis


52/97


53/97

W-02 Chera-1

Chera 1


54/97

Proposed powerhouse site

Chera -1

Lower Jhimruk


55/97

W-05 Lower Jhimruk

Location:Arghakhachi, Pyuthan

Installed Capacity:142.5 MW

Dam height: 167m

FSL: 597 m

Effective Storage Vol.:212 MCM

Reservoir area: 6 km2

Project Cost: 413MUS$

Unit generation cost:9.1/kWh

Annual Energy: 455GWh

Resettlement: 229

The powerhouse

and dams are

located in the

reservoir ofNaumure project

Lower Jhimruk

Lower Jhimruk


56/97

Lower Jhimruk


57/97

High biodiversity


58/97

W-05 Lower Jhimruk

Madi


59/97

W-06 MadiLocation: Rolpa

Installed Capacity: 199.8 MW

Dam height: 190m

FSL: 1,090 m

Effective Storage Vol.: 235MCM

Reservoir area: 7.7 km2


Unit generation cost: 8

/kWhAnnual Energy: 621 GWh

Resettlement: 336

Madi


60/97

Landslide along the Dhansi

Further study is

needed to confirm

the water tightness

of limestone in

reservoir area anddam site

Madi


61/97

-Paved road 10 km

-Gravel road 21 km

-Hydropower 4 (0.23 mw)

-Drinking Water Schemes22


62/97

Nalsyau Gad


63/97

W-23 Nalsyau Gad

Location: Jajarkot


Dam height: 200m

FSL: 1,570 m

Effective Storage Vol.: 296MCM

Reservoir area: 6.3 km2Project Cost: 771 MUS$

Unit generation cost: 5.6/kWh

Annual Energy: 1,367 GWh

Resettlement: 124

Nalsyau Gad


64/97


65/97


66/97


67/97

Naumure


68/97

W-25 Naumure (W.Rapti)

Location: Argakhanchi, Pyuthan


Dam height: 190mFSL: 517 m

Effective Storage Vol.: 580 MCM





Resettlement: 456

The powerhouse

and dam of Lower

Jhimruk Project is

located in the

reservoir.

Naumure


69/97

Assumed

instability of

reservoir

surrounding

slopes where

rocks are

influenced by

MBT.


70/97

-Forest 7.85 km2

-High biodiversity

-TML 79km


71/97

W-25 Naumure (W.Rapti)

Lower Badigad


72/97

C-02 Lower Badigad

Location: Gulmi

Installed Capacity: 380.3 MW

Dam height: 191 m / FSL: 688 m

Effective Storage Vol.: 506 MCM





Resettlement: 1.606

Badigad

Khola

RapidSedimentation due

to the large-scale

landslide at the

fault zone in the

reservoir area.


73/97

Lower Badigad dam site

Instability of

dam site

where an

active fault

passes


74/97

-Resettlement

1606 HH

-Ethnic minority 5

-Cultivated land

(5.90 km2)

-Occupational

Fishermen 86

-Temples 9

-Suspension Bridges

15

-Hydropower (28 kw

& 0.7 MW)

-Drinking Water

Schemes 29


75/97

C-02 Lower Badigad

Andhi Khola


76/97

C-08 Andhi Khola

Location: Syangja


Dam height: 157 m

FSL: 675 m

Effective Storage Vol.: 239 MCMReservoir area: 5.5 km2



Annual Energy: 649 GWh

Resettlement: 542

House

Relocation of dam site

due to the FSL rising

project of Kali Gandaki A.


77/97


78/97


79/97

C-08 Andhi Khola


80/97

Dudh Koshi


81/97

Dudh Koshi


82/97


83/97

E-01 Dudh Koshi


84/97

Kokhajor-1


85/97

Not enoughwatertightness of

reservoir area

underlain by not

well cemented rock

(Upper Siwaliks)


86/97

-Ethnic minority 5

-Development plan

6


87/97


88/97

Sunkoshi-3


89/97

Assumed

instability of

reservoir

surrounding

slopes covered

with colluvium.

Sunkoshi-3


90/97

-Forest 8.16 km2

-Resettlement 1599 HH

-Cultivated land (9.39 km2)

-Occupational Fishermen 80

-Temples (more than 10)

-Tourist 20,000-Paved road 7.2 km

-Suspension Bridges 16

-Drinking Water Schemes 22

-Development plan 10


91/97

E-17 Sun Koshi No.3

Dam site of the Sun Koshi HEP

10 candidate projects identified in Master plan study


92/97


93/97

Challenges


94/97

Challenges

Load shedding has Negative impact on Industries, commerce,employment and national economy, social disorder and resentment

Declining overall rate of countrys development

Reduced export and increasing import

IPPs discouraged for investing in HEPs

NEAs financial health declining

Energy surpluses in wet season and deficit in dry season

(Q40 design). Management of surplus energy.

Favorable PPA for all investors

Nepal Governments Ten year 10,000 MW and 20 Year 25 000 MWPlan implementation.

Way forward


95/97

Way forwardOpportunities

Nepal has growing and guaranteed energy market. Energy market is flexible and adaptive to the market demand with

export potential

Investor friendly plan, policy and PPA. NEA open to collaborate withinvestors/ partners/Donors and Developers

Heading towards deregulated energy market and allow market toaddress the problems of developing energy sector.

Government committed to fulfill its commitments and obligationstowards IPPs and investors for Transmission lines, substations etc./ FixTariff for storage projects

Create autonomous and profitable NEA in true sense.

Flexible or Fix tariff on cost plus basis and PPA on competitive basis. Better NEA means better confidence to IPPs.

Assured returns on investment

Cooperation between all stakeholders

C ll b ti h


96/97

Collaborative approach

ProfitableNEA/IPPs

and

No loadshedding

NEA

IPPs

Governmentand political

parties

InvestorsDomestic

andforeigners

Thank you!


97/97

Thank you!

.

Investments in Hydropower Sunil Kumar Dhungel

Documents

Transcript of Investments in Hydropower Sunil Kumar Dhungel