Slide 1

Slide 2

Technical Evaluation and Analysis of Energy Conservation, System Improvement and GHG Emissions Reduction from Capacitor Installation on Agricultural Pumpset Motors February 2013 Sustainable Hyderabad Project: Implementing cooperative and technical solutions to increase energy efficiency in irrigation

Slide 3

Project Scope cBalance Solutions Hub2 1.DISCOM Co-Operative Electric Supply Society (CESS) 2.No. of Sub station 2 a)Vattemula Sub-station 33/11 KV b)Sanugula Sub-Station 33/11 KV 3.No. of Feeder 4 a)Namiligondapally Feeder 11 KV b)Vattemula Feeder 11KV c)Sanugula Feeder 11 KV d)Lingampet Feeder 11 KV 4.Selected feeder for capacitors installation: a)Namiligondapally Feeder 11 KV b)Sanugula Feeder 11 KV 5.Total no. of DTR under Namiligondapally & Sanugula feeder: a)100 KVA 35 No. b)63 KVA 7 No. 6.Total Capacity of DTRs 3941 KVA 7.No. of Villages 5 a)Namiligondapally b)Vattemula c)Kothapet d)Sanugula e)Ramaraopali

Slide 4

Project Scope cBalance Solutions Hub3 8.Total No. of Pumps 809 9.Total Capacity of all pumps 3028 HP 10.Pump Type Classifications: Pump RatingWell TypePump TypeNo. of Pumps 3 HPShallow wellCentrifugal312 5 HPShallow wellCentrifugal203 5 HPBore wellSubmersible248 7.5Shallow wellCentrifugal4

Slide 5

Study Scope cBalance Solutions Hub4 1.DISCOM Co-Operative Electric Supply Society (CESS) 2.Sub station- Vattemula Sub-station 33/11 KV 3.Feeder Namiligondapally Feeder 11 KV 4.Total no. of DTR under Namiligondapally feeder: a)100 KVA 13 No. b)63 KVA 3 No. 5.Total capacity of DTRs 1489 KVA 6.Total area covered 10.07 Kms 7.Total No. of Pumps 325 8.Total Capacity of all pumps 1176.5HP 10.Pump Type Classifications: Pump RatingWell TypePump TypeNo. of Pumps 3 HPShallow wellCentrifugal181 5 HPShallow wellCentrifugal70 5 HPBore wellSubmersible70 7.5Shallow wellCentrifugal4

Slide 6

DTR Selection Methodology cBalance Solutions Hub5 Pump RatingWell TypePump TypeNo. of PumpsCategory 3 HPShallow wellCentrifugal181A 5 HPShallow wellCentrifugal70B 5 HPBore wellSubmersible70C 7.5Shallow wellCentrifugal4D 1.Ideal DTR defined as DTR with 33% distribution across categories A, B, C 2.Deviation from ideal distribution calculated for each DTR: = (% of Category A Pumps 33%) + (% of Category B Pumps 33%) + (% of Category C Pumps 33%) 3.DTRs with lowest sum of differences and mix of overloaded / non-overloaded DTRs selected for study

Slide 7

Evaluation Methodology cBalance Solutions Hub6 Sequential Capacitor Addition - Sampling Plan Table

Slide 8

cBalance Solutions Hub7 Challenging Field Study Non- Cooperation of Farmers Disconnected Capacitors Availability of Water for Pumping Power Supply Timings System Inequilibrium Challenges to Ideal Selection & Evaluation Methodlogy

Slide 9

P1 C1 P2 C2 P3 C3 P4 C4 P5 C5 P6 C6 P7 C7 P8 C8 P9 C9 P10 C10 P11 C11 P12 C12 P13 C13 P14 C14 P15 C15 P16 C16 P17 C17 P18 C18 P19 C19 P20 C20 Scenario 1: Successive connectivity of capacitors DTR

Slide 10

P1 C1 P2 C2 P3 C3 P4 C4 P5 C5 P6 C6 P7 C7 P8 C8 P9 C9 P10 C10 P11 C11 P12 C12 P13 C13 P14 C14 P15 C15 P16 C16 P17 C17 P18 C18 P19 C19 P20 C20 Scenario 2: Successive connectivity of capacitors but random turning off of pumps. DTR

Slide 11

P1 C1 P2 C2 P3 C3 P4 C4 P5 C5 P6 C6 P7 C7 P8 C8 P9 C9 P10 C10 P11 C11 P12 C12 P13 C13 P14 C14 P15 C15 P16 C16 P17 C17 P18 C18 P19 C19 P20 C20 Scenario 3: Connection/Disconnection of capacitors at a time DTR

Slide 12

Evaluation Scope cBalance Solutions Hub11 1.Selected DTRs for study : a)KTP I 100 KVA b)VTM IX 100 KVA c)NGP II 100 KVA d)NGP III 100 KVA 2.No. of Pumps connected with selected DTRs 122 3.Total capacity of pumps connected with selected DTRs 450 HP 4.No. of Villages covered - 3 a)Namiligundipalli b)Vattemula c)Kothapet

Slide 13

Results cBalance Solutions Hub12 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 14

Results cBalance Solutions Hub13 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 15

Results cBalance Solutions Hub14 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 16

Results cBalance Solutions Hub15 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 17

Results cBalance Solutions Hub16 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 18

Results cBalance Solutions Hub17 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 19

Results cBalance Solutions Hub18 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 20

Results cBalance Solutions Hub19 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 21

Results cBalance Solutions Hub20 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 22

Results cBalance Solutions Hub21 Method 1: KTP - I

Slide 23

Results cBalance Solutions Hub22 Method 1: VTM - IX

Slide 24

Results cBalance Solutions Hub23 Method 1: VTM - IX

Slide 25

Results cBalance Solutions Hub24 Method 1: VTM - IX

Slide 26

Results cBalance Solutions Hub25 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 27

Results cBalance Solutions Hub26 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 28

Results cBalance Solutions Hub27 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 29

Results cBalance Solutions Hub28 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 30

Results cBalance Solutions Hub29 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 31

Results cBalance Solutions Hub30 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 32

Results cBalance Solutions Hub31 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 33

Results cBalance Solutions Hub32 Method 2 : NGP- 3

Slide 34

Results cBalance Solutions Hub33 Method 2: NGP - 3

Slide 35

Results cBalance Solutions Hub34 Method 2: NGP - 3

Slide 36

Results cBalance Solutions Hub35 Method 2: NGP - 3

Slide 37

Results cBalance Solutions Hub36 Method 2: NGP - 3

Slide 38

Results cBalance Solutions Hub37 ParameterI/kWkVA/kWkVAR/kW BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter min2.803.591.191.100.440.45 25%-ile4.423.841.241.110.720.50 Median4.804.431.251.130.740.51 Mean5.204.521.361.130.770.52 75%-ile6.524.851.271.140.780.53 max8.245.892.131.161.220.60 Method 2: KTP - I

Slide 39

cBalance Solutions Hub38 ParameterI/kWkVA/kWkVAR/kW BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter min4.181.240.72 25%-ile4.401.270.79 Median4.611.300.85 Mean4.784.3161.321.1120.860.486 75%-ile5.211.360.90 max5.571.461.07 Method 2: VTM - IX Results

Slide 40

cBalance Solutions Hub39 ParameterI/kWkVA/kWkVAR/kW BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter min 4.001.150.54 25%-ile 5.211.170.59 Median 5.341.190.65 Mean 5.49 6.432 1.19 1.111 0.64 0.741 75%-ile 6.041.210.68 max 7.081.260.75 Method 2: NGP - II Results

Slide 41

cBalance Solutions Hub40 ParameterI/kWkVA/kWkVAR/kW BeforeAfterBeforeAfterBeforeAfter min 4.773.341.170.780.680.36 25%-ile 5.044.231.201.130.680.52 Median 5.554.771.201.160.690.56 Mean 5.404.781.251.170.720.56 75%-ile 5.735.101.221.170.700.59 max 5.956.641.561.730.890.75 Method 2: NGP - III

Slide 42

ENERGY Conservation 41 Value Additions Reduce Costs, Reduce Risks cBalance Solutions Hub

Slide 43

42 Value Additions - Reduce Costs, Reduce Risks POTENTIAL Conservation Case Scenario: - I 2 R Losses reduction and reduced kVA generation by utility - 3028 hp connected load per feeder - PF improvement from 0.8 to 0.9 - kVA/kW reduction of 9.4% - I/kW reduction of 7.7 % - 3.5 km distance of pump from Feeder - 34 mm2 dia. aluminum conductor - Andhra Pradesh Grid Electricity GHG EF = 0.91 kg CO2e/kWh - 910 hrs. operation per year (5 hrs/day, for 6 months)

Slide 44

cBalance Solutions Hub43 Value Additions - Reduce Costs, Reduce Risks POTENTIAL Annual Conservation Potential: 320 tonnes CO2e/feeder GHG Emissions Annual Conservation Potential: 3,55,00 kWh/year Electricity Annual Revenue Potential: INR 32 Lakh/year Revenue