0% found this document useful (0 votes)

29 views87 pages

Taunet Small Hydropower Project Feasibility Study

Q: What engineering considerations are taken into account in the design of the approach canal for the Taunet project?

The approach canal's design takes into account hydraulic and sediment transport considerations. It is designed to handle the design flow plus an additional 10% for flushing the gravel trap. The canal design aims at a minimum flow velocity to prevent sediment settlement, and an overflow spillway to spill excess water back to the river during floods. The hydraulic sizing uses Manning’s equation, ensuring the canal section is optimized to minimize cost while maintaining functional flow characteristics .

Q: How does the Taunet project's design ensure minimal environmental and social impacts?

The Taunet project is designed to have minimal environmental and social impacts by ensuring that all abstracted water is returned to the river after a maximum distance of 1000 meters, maintaining sufficient environmental flow to support local flora, fauna, and downstream community needs. The project will not cause extended flooding or impoundment that would necessitate relocation of the project area population .

Q: How does the Taunet project utilize financial metrics like DSCR and IRR in its viability assessments?

The Taunet project uses the Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) to evaluate its ability to meet debt obligations and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to measure profitability against the capital investment. These metrics help determine the adequacy of cash flow to cover expenses and provide a return on investment, influencing financial decision-making and resource allocation in the project planning stages .

Q: What risk management strategies are employed in ensuring the sustainable operation of the Taunet small hydropower project?

Risk management strategies for sustainable operation include designing flexible layouts that mitigate flood risks, integrating environmental flows to protect ecological communities, and ensuring robust financial planning to absorb economic shocks. The design also anticipates operational disruptions by reinforcing infrastructure against sediment blockage and maintaining continuous stakeholder engagement to adapt operations in response to changing environmental or community conditions .

Q: What criteria were used to choose the Taunet project site for the Chemuka Power Company hydropower project over other potential sites?

The Taunet project site was selected over other potential sites along Sirua, Kimondi, and Yala Rivers based on a ranking system that evaluated overall project cost and energy generation potential. The site emerged as the best ranked due to its favorable cost-effectiveness and energy output assessment compared to other considered locations .

Q: How is the financial feasibility of the Taunet small hydropower project assessed?

Financial feasibility is assessed through various analyses, including determining the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Net Present Value (NPV), and Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR). These metrics evaluate the project's ability to generate sufficient cash flows to cover debts and provide a return on equity. The financial model also considers design flow scenarios, project costs, and revenue projections from energy sales to the grid and local factories .

Q: What factors influenced the decision to set the design flow for the Taunet project at 14.5 m³/s?

The decision to set the design flow at 14.5 m³/s was based on multiple considerations, including energy demand analysis, financial analysis, and resource assessments. Studies such as hydrological assessment, topographical study, and demand analysis were conducted to evaluate different flow options. The selected flow rate was determined to offer a balance between costs, physical site conditions, and the necessary installed capacity to meet energy and power requirements while minimizing idle capacity during low flow seasons .

Q: How was the turbine design optimized for the river conditions at the Taunet project site?

The turbine design was optimized to accommodate the river flow conditions and expected sediment load. Considerations included selecting a turbine type that could handle variability in flow rates and sediment volume, which is typical for the low head, high flow site of the Taunet project. This design approach ensures maximum efficiency and reliability of power generation, even during peak sediment flows .

Q: What were the principal challenges in CTDA Power's site selection for the Taunet project and how were they addressed?

Principal challenges in site selection included balancing resource availability with demand and financial considerations. Limited water resources and terrain conditions did not allow for installing a desired capacity without incurring prohibitive costs. The site selection process involved extensive resource assessments and hydrological studies to find the best compromise between technical feasibility and economic viability, ultimately selecting the Taunet site based on optimal cost-to-energy output ratios .

Q: Why is it important to optimize the headrace canal's slope in small hydropower projects like the Taunet project?

Optimizing the headrace canal's slope is crucial to balance between ensuring efficient water conveyance without sediment deposition or erosion and minimizing head loss that would reduce energy potential. In the Taunet project, slope optimization using least cost methods achieved an economical hydraulic section by varying flow velocity, which is crucial in reducing construction costs and energy loss through head loss .

The feasibility study for the Taunet Small Hydropower Project by Chemuka Power Company outlines the project's potential to generate 15 GWh annually, with 4.13 GWh for KTDA-managed tea factories and 8.77 GWh for the national grid. The selected design flow of 14.5 m3/s will provide an installed capacity of 2.77 MW, with financial analysis indicating an IRR of 6.74%. Various permits are required for project development, with some already secured and others in progress.

Uploaded by

jack Mtua

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

29 views87 pages

Taunet Small Hydropower Project Feasibility Study

Uploaded by

jack Mtua

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

CHEMUKA POWER COMPANY LIMITED

DETAILED FEASIBILITY STUDY OF

TAUNET SMALL HYDROPOWER PROJECT

Taunet, Nandi County - Kenya

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT (FINAL DRAFT)

May 2018

KTDA POWER COMPANY LIMITED

KTDA Farmers Building, Moi Avenue, Nairobi, Kenya. P.O.

BOX 30213, GPO Nairobi.
Tel: +254 023227000-2/02221441-4, Fax: +254 0202211240
Email: info@[Link], Website: [Link]

KTDA Power Company Ltd i May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Executive Summary
Chemuka Power Company is a power generating company owned by KTDA managed factories
i.e. Chebut, Mudete, Kaptumo, and Kapsara and KTDA Power. Chemuka Power Company
contracted KTDA Power to identify and develop suitable small hydropower projects within
Chemuka’s catchment area. The energy generated will be used in the KTDA managed tea
factories of Kaptumo, Chebut, and Mudete with the any excess energy exported to the
national grid.

KTDA Power (KTPC) was given approval of Expression of Interest (EoI) by the Ministry of
Energy to identify and develop suitable hydropower sites in Sirua, Kimondi, and Yala Rivers.
Based on this EoI, KTPC identified several potential sites on these rivers from which the Taunet
project site was selected for further studies after emerging the best ranked site from those
considered. The site ranking was done based on the overall project cost and energy
generated.

This current study developed the project layout and decided on the installed capacity of the
proposed project. The process of selecting the installed capacity involved various resource
and demand assessment studies i.e. hydrological assessment study, topographical study,
factory power and energy demand analysis, and financial analysis. Selection of the installed
capacity was done as a result of optimization study on five design flow options i.e. 8.5, 10.2,
11.5, 14.5, and 17.2 m3/s. The project components were designed for each of these flows and
the corresponding energy generation and projects costs determined. Financial analysis was
conducted on each of the options to determine Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Net Present
Value (NPV), and Debt Service Coverage ratio (DSCR) which were used to select 14.5 m 3/s as
the design flow.

The selected design flow has an installed capacity of 2.77 MW, and annual generation of 15
GWh of which 4.13 GWh will be used in the factories, 8.77 GWh will be exported to the grid,
and 2.1 GWh will be used as parasitic load in the power house and as transmission losses. This
will result in IRR rate of 6.74%, XXXXXXXXX USD as the NPV, and a DSCR of XXXX at factory PPA
rate of XXXX USD / kWh and KPLC PPA rate of XXXXXUSD/ kWh. Capital cost of the project is
XXXXXXXX USD which will be financed using 65% debt and 35% equity. The study considered
debt terms having XXXXX interest rate over a 10-year debt term of which two years will be
during the construction period during which only the interest accrued will be paid.

The annual generation is highly dependent on the environmental flow released. If the
environmental flow equivalent to Q95 i.e. 1.94 m3/s is released, the project will not be
financially viable at the factory PPA rate of 0.16 USD / kWh and the PPA rate will have to be
revised to at least 0.18 USD / kWh. Discussions will be initiated with WRMA to allow
environmental flow release equivalent to 10% of the flow available at any time in the river.

Total project cost with financing will be XXXXXX USD which includes XXXXXXXX USD as interest
repayment during construction and XXXXXXXX USD as O&M cost during the first year of

KTDA Power Company Ltd ii May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

operation. It is taken that the interest and O&M cost will be funded through additional equity
contribution over and above that contributed to cover 35% of the capital cost. Therefore the
total equity contribution will be XXXXXXXXX USD and debt will be XXXXXXXXXX USD.

Several permits and licences will be required before the project is fully developed. The
required permits include NEMA permit, WRMA authorization to construct works, Kenya
Forest Service special use license (since the project is located within a gazetted forest), Power
Purchasing Agreement (PPA) with Kenya Power, Generating Licence from Energy Regulatory
Commission, and way leave acquisition from current occupants. Of the required permits,
NEMA permit has been secured and application has been lodged for WRMA permit, and
wayleave from Kenya Forest Service. Land acquisition is underway, other permits like KPLC
PPA, ERC Generating licences will be applied in due course.

KTDA Power Company Ltd iii May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

This document and its appendices comprise the Feasibility Study Report of the proposed
Taunet Small Hydropower Project.

KTDA Power Company Ltd iv May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Symbols and abbreviations

ACDP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

ACSR Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced

amsl Above mean sea level

B/C Benefit – Cost ratio

C15 Class of concrete (class 15)

C23 Road classification number (Class C road)

C25 Class of concrete (class 25)

CM Cubic meter

DFS Detailed feasibility study

E East

EM Electro-mechanical

EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return

GI Galvanized iron

GPS Global Positioning System

GWh Gigawatt-hour

IRR Internal Rate of Return

km Kilometer

km2 Square kilometer

KG Kilogram

KTDA Power Company Ltd v May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

KPLC Kenya Power

KSh Kenya Shilling

KTDA Kenya Tea Development Agency (Holdings) Limited

KTPC KTDA Power Company Limited

KTPC-CU KTDA Power Company Limited Consultancy Unit

kV Kilovolt

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt-hour

m Metre

m2 Square metre

m3/s Cubic metres per second

mm Millimetre

LM Linear metre

LM1 Traverse station

MoE Ministry of Energy

MW Megawatt

NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NPV Net Present Value

RC Reinforced concrete

RGS River Gauge Station

RoE Return on Equity

RPCs Regional Power Companies

KTDA Power Company Ltd vi May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

S South

SI International Standardization

SM Square metre

SoK Survey of Kenya

SHP Small hydropower

SHPP Small hydropower project

TF Tea Factory

uPVC Unplasticized polyvinyl chloride

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation

USD United States of America Dollar

VAT Value Added Tax

WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984

WRMA Water Resources Management Authority

KTDA Power Company Ltd vii May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

KTDA Power Company Ltd viii May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background
............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 General Description and Location of the Project
...................................................... 1
1.3 Project Salient Features
.......................................................................................... 3
1.4 Previous Studies and Site Selection
........................................................................ 8
1.5 Licencing and Permits
............................................................................................. 8
1.6 Type of Construction Contract
................................................................................12
1.7 Aim of Report
.........................................................................................................12
2 Project alternatives selection ..................................................................................12
3 Hydrological Study ..................................................................................................13
3.1 Flow Duration Curve
...............................................................................................16
3.2 Monthly Median Flows
............................................................................................18
3.3 Flood Analysis
........................................................................................................19
4 Topographical Study and cadastral survey .............................................................19
5 Geology and Geotechnical Investigations ...............................................................21
6 Project Layout Selection .........................................................................................22
7 Project optimization ................................................................................................23
7.1 Energy Demand Analysis
.......................................................................................24
7.2 Installed capacity
....................................................................................................25
8 Conceptual Design .................................................................................................30
8.1 General
..................................................................................................................30
8.2 Diversion Weir
........................................................................................................31

ix
Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

8.3 Undersluice
............................................................................................................33
8.4 Intake
.....................................................................................................................34
8.5 Approach canal
......................................................................................................35
8.6 Gravel Trap
............................................................................................................36
8.7 Headrace canal
......................................................................................................37
8.8 Settling Basin
.........................................................................................................39
8.9 Forebay and penstock intake
..................................................................................40
8.10 Penstock pipe
.........................................................................................................43
8.11 Powerhouse
...........................................................................................................43

KTDA Power Company Ltd May 2018

8.12 Tailrace
..................................................................................................................43
8.13 Turbine
...................................................................................................................43
9 Design of Turbine Generator and Associated Equipment .......................................43
9.1 Technical Approach to Turbine Design
...................................................................44
10 Transmission Lines and Sub-stations .....................................................................44
10.1 Tea Factories Associated with the Site
...................................................................44
10.2 Description of Works
..............................................................................................45
11 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment .......................................................47
12 Cost and annual energy estimates .........................................................................47
12.1 Preliminary Cost Estimates
.....................................................................................47
12.2 Annual Energy Estimates
.......................................................................................48

KTDA Power Company Ltd x May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

13 Financial Analysis ...................................................................................................50

13.1 Assumptions / Inputs of the Financial Analysis Model
.............................................50
13.2 Financial Indicators and Sensitivity Analysis
...........................................................51
14 Risk analysis ..........................................................................................................53
15 Project Implementation Plan ...................................................................................54
16 Conclusion and Recommendation ..........................................................................55
17 Appendices .............................................................................................................56
17.1 Appendix 1: pre-feasibility study report
...................................................................57
17.2 Appendix 2: Site Selection Study Report
................................................................58
17.3 Appendix 3: Civil Works Design Calculations
..........................................................59
17.4 Appendix 4: Drawings
.............................................................................................60
17.5 Appendix 5: Hydrological Study Report
..................................................................61
17.6 Appendix 6: Geotechnical Study Report
.................................................................62
17.7 Appendix 7: Topographical Study Report
...............................................................63
17.8 Appendix 8: Grid interconnection study report
........................................................64
17.9 Appendix 9: ESIA study Report
..............................................................................65
17.10 Appendix 10: cadastral study report ...............................................................66
17.11 Appendix 11: Cost Estimates .........................................................................67
17.12 Appendix 12: energy estimates and turbine selection .....................................68
17.13 Appendix 13: Program of works .....................................................................69

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Taunet Small Hydropower Project Location ........................................................ 3

Figure 3-1: Location of River Gauging Stations in relation to the Intake ..............................14
Figure 3-2: Data availability Chart .......................................................................................15
Figure 3-3: Kapsabet DC Rainfall RGS 1FE02 double mass curve .....................................15
Figure 3-4: RGS 1FC01 and RGS 1FE02 Double Mass Curve (larger figures in the

KTDA Power Company Ltd xi May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

appendices) ........................................................................................................................16
Figure 3-5: Flow Duration Curve..........................................................................................17
Figure 4-1: Benchmark monuments ....................................................................................20
Figure 5-1: Slight depression before the forebay. Forebay location can be seen in the
background .........................................................................................................................21
Figure 6-1: Taunet river profile (see larger in the drawings) .................................................22
Figure 6-2: Project Layout ...................................................................................................23
Figure 7-1: NPV-IRR Chart ..................................................................................................30
Figure 8-1: Weir profile ...........................................................................................................32
Figure 8-2: Orifice flow conditions ............................................................................................34
Figure 8-3: Canal slope optimization ........................................................................................38
Figure 8-4: Penstock bell mouth section ....................................................................................41
Figure 8-5: Intake bell mouth plan ...........................................................................................42
Figure 9-1: Turbine Selection Chart ..........................................................................................44
Figure 10-1: Transmission line layout .......................................................................................46
Figure 15-1: Project Implementation Plan ............................................................................55

List of Tables

Table 1-1: List of required permits and licenses ................................................................... 8

Table 2-1: Potential project sites .........................................................................................12
Table 3-1: RGS Properties Coordinates in Arc 1960 UTM Zone 36N ..................................14
Table 3-2: Flow duration curve for River Yala at the proposed Intake Site ...........................17
Table 3-3: Median flow at the proposed project intake .........................................................18
Table 3-4: Flood Return Periods .........................................................................................19
Table 4-1: Established Benchmarks ....................................................................................20
Table 7-1: Cumulative monthly energy demand for Mudete, Chebut, and Kaptumo Tea
Factories .............................................................................................................................24
Table 7-2: Determination of required installation capacity ...................................................25
Table 7-3: Costs of various options .....................................................................................28
Table 7-4: Financial indicators .............................................................................................29
Table 10-1: Factory distances from the Power house ..................................................................45
Table 12-1: Cost estimate for 2.77 MW ....................................................................................48
Table 12-2: Annual Energy Estimates .................................................................................49
Table 12-3: Distribution of available energy .........................................................................49
Table 13-1: 2.77 MW financial indicators .............................................................................51
Table 13-2: Variation of Financial Indicators with reserve flow and Factory PPA rate ..........52
Table 13-3: Impact of construction cost increase .................................................................52
Table 14-1: Project risks and mitigation ...............................................................................53

KTDA Power Company Ltd xii May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

KTDA Power Company Ltd xiii May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Kenya Tea Development Agency Ltd (KTDA) is Kenya’s premier tea organization, providing
management services to the small holder tea farmers for effective production, processing and
marketing of high quality tea. KTDA is currently managing over 60 tea factories located across
the country. The smallholder tea sub-sector supports about 3 million people and earns the
country about Ksh. 38 billion annually in exports, comprising approximately 2.0% of the
national GDP. The sub-sector under KTDA accounts for approximately 62% of the total Kenyan
tea production.

In order to reduce operating costs, increase power supply reliability, and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions during tea processing, KTDA has embarked on hydropower generation among
other initiatives in an attempt to improve earnings for the small-scale tea farmers.

The Agency is in the process of developing the Proposed Taunet Small Hydro- Electric Power
Project, which will be co-owned by KTDA Power Company Ltd and the Chemuka Power
Company Ltd. The proposed Project was aimed at providing power to the Chebut, Mudete,
Kapsara, and Kaptumo Tea Factories. However Kapsara Tea Factory will not be connected to
the power due its long distance from the power house that makes the transmission cost and
losses prohibitive. The four tea factories have formed an umbrella power company which is
the aforementioned Chemuka Power Company.

1.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF THE PROJECT

The proposed project is a run-off the river hydropower project utilizing a design flow of
14.5m3/s and a net head of 21.4 m to produce an installed capacity of 2.77 MW and annual
energy generation of 15.0 GWh/year. 4.13 GWh/year will be used at the connected KTDA
factories, 8.77 GWh/year will be sold to KPLC under the FiT policy and the balance will be
taken up by the parasitic load in the power house and transmission losses. The main project
components are: a diversion weir with a crest length of 43.2 m fitted with a stilling basin, flood
walls, undersluice, and divide walls; intake works including a 110 m long approach canal and
a gravel trap; a 505 m long reinforced concrete 4.65 m wide rectangular section open canal
with 1.8 m flow depth; a forebay cum stilling basin (63.45 m long x 12.7 m wide in settling
zone each chamber); 130m long, 2.9 m diameter penstock with 10 mm thick mild steel liner;
a power house; one Kaplan turbine; synchronous generator a step-up substation, a 33kV
Transmission line - 66Km long, grid interconnection equipment and 3 step-down substations.
More details on the project scope are provided in the sections below.

Taunet Small Hydropower Project area lies within Region VII of the Kenya Tea Development
Agency (KTDA) zones. There are four tea factories located within region VII, namely Chebut,
Kaptumo, Mudete, and Kapsara. Only Chebut, Mudete, and Kaptumo tea factories will be

KTDA Power Company Ltd 1 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

supplied with power from the proposed project since Kapsara factory is located about 105 km
away from the power house. Connecting Kapsara is unfeasible due to excessive transmission
line cost and power losses associated with such a long transmission line. A new small
hydropower project, Kapolet SHP is proposed near the factory as an alternative.

The proposed project utilizes the flow from River Yala, which drains into Lake Victoria after
been joined by other tributaries. The intake and the power house locations are accessed
through an earthen road on the left hand side of the C39 highway right at Tindinyo shopping
centre as one heads from Kapsabet Town towards Kisumu. Tindinyo shopping centre is
located about 22 Km from Kapsabet Town and just before the C39 highway – Yala River bridge.
There is a Catholic Church seminary located at this turn and the said access road also serves
this seminary. The road is being used by the local community and Nyayo Tea Zone tea
collection trucks. Minor upgrade and maintenance to this road will be required during
construction period. Turn off to the site is located about 4km along this road. There are no
existing road connections from this earthen road to the intake, power house or forebay
locations although provisions of the roads exists as footpaths which are not currently
motorable.

Therefore, construction of about 700m of access road is required to reach the powerhouse
from the existing road to allow transportation of construction materials and equipment and
future operational access. This power house road will also be used to access the forebay area.
The intake area can be connected to the existing earthen road by constructing another 700 m
long road or through the project access road that will be constructed along the canal.

Figure 1-1 below shows the general project area location. A larger detailed project area map is
available in the project drawings attached in Appendix 4: Drawings.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 2 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Figure 1-1: Taunet Small Hydropower Project Location

1.3 PROJECT SALIENT FEATURES

This section summarizes details of the proposed project, it is to be noted that some or all of the
features may change after detailed design is done.

Location Taunet Village, Kapsabet, Nandi County.

Kenya

Arc 1960 UTM zone 36N Weir: E 718605, N 18191

Forebay: E 718033.36, N 18142.02

Power house: E 717871.00, N 18082.00

Mudete TF: E 696847.85, N 12456.02

Kaptumo TF: E 728067.77, 8723.14

Chebut TF: E 732852.86, N 22244.99

Grid Interconnection: at Mudete TF

Levels Water Level at Weir Location 1740 masl

KTDA Power Company Ltd 3 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Type Run-of-River
To supply electricity to Mudete, Kaptumo,
Purpose of Project
and Chebut tea factories and sell the surplus
to the National Grid with grid interconnection
at Mudete Tea Factory.

Hydrology

Catchment Area 1434 km2

Long Term Average Flow 18.31 m3/s

Design Flow 14.5 m3/s (Q34)

Design Flood 367 m3/s (1 in 100 year flood)

During operation, environmental flow will be
Environmental Flow
computed as 10% of the flow available in the
river. At design flow this will be 1.45 m 3/s

Diversion Weir
Type
Low height concrete diversion weir of ogee
section

Crest Elevation at Ogee section 1740 masl

Water level at the Weir 1739.72 masl (design conditions)

Crest Length at Ogee section 43.20 m

Height
To extend from suitable foundation
conditions to specified crest level with
maximum height anticipated of 2.85 m from
riverbed level

Low level sluice 2 No. orifice, 2 m wide and 1.4 m deep.

Yes (to be operational throughout all flow
Fish pass / ladder
conditions)

Spillway

Type Overflow ogee weir

Design Discharge 367 m3/s (1 in 100 year flood)

Intake & Headwork structures
Intake Gate controlled side intake. 2 No orifices 2.6 m wide by 1.45 m high.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 4 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Approach canal 110 m long rectangular – reinforced concrete.

4.35 m wide with 1.48 m flow depth and 1:611
canal bed slope

Excess Water Spillway 13.35 m long. Water level at start 1740.82 masl (during 1 in 100
year flood event).

Gravel trap Double chamber, RC structure.

Each chamber is 7.45 m wide x 14.9 m
length x 4.4 m flow depth designed to be
continuous flushing. Flushing flow equal to
10% of power flow.

Intake Guard House Yes, 6 m2

Headrace Canal

Length Exact length of canal to be determined upon optimum layout based on

topographic survey undertaken by
contractor, with preliminary design indicating
canal length of 505 m

Type Reinforced concrete

Dimensions Rectangular, 4.65 m x 1.8 m (flow

dimensions). Minimum freeboard of 0.6 m will
be provided.

Bed slope 1:2000

Surface run-off drainage system Located upslope side with cross drains at 100 m
intervals

Maintenance road 3 m wide, gravel surfaced, uphill side

Forebay / Settling basin

Type Reinforced concrete structure

Dimensions 63.45 x12.7m wide x 2.9 m deep x 2

chambers (Settling section flow dimensions)

Volume Equivalent to 2 minutes’ design flow storage

Water level El 1739.08 masl

Spillway Capacity Full inflow with sudden tripping of the

Turbines

KTDA Power Company Ltd 5 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Spillway Discharge Channel Full discharge of power flow of the turbine via
chute and stilling basin to the river
1 No sluice gate to control intake to penstock
Gates

Penstock

Type Mild steel

Length 1 No about 130 m long 2.9m diameter

2.9m internal diameter with minimum
Diameter / thickness
thickness of 10 mm. To be provided with
saddle supports, anchor blocks and
expansion couplings as necessary.

Power Facilities
Powerhouse Type Surface (20.5 m long, 10.8 m wide and about
9 m high)
Facilities Office, store room, control cabinet rooms,
workshop space, washroom facilities
Turbine Floor Level
1.0 m above the 367m3/s design flood level or
otherwise safely protected from such flood.

Tailrace canal length 20 m

Tailrace canal slope 1/1000

El 1717.18 masl at design operating power
Tailrace Discharge Level (at river)
flow.

Power Parameters

Gross Head 22.49 m

Headrace Conveyance Head Loss 0.59 m

Penstock Head Loss 0.42 m

Total head loss 1.01 m

Net Head 21.48 m

Installed Turbine Capacity 2.77 MW

Turbines 2 Kaplan, Horizontal shaft

Average Energy Generation 15.0 GWh/ annum

KTDA Power Company Ltd 6 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

To include SCADA functionality, suitable for

Control System
use on the Internet and operation by remote
control

Transmission Facilities
Step-up Transformer
1 No three-phase step-up transformer,
3MVA, 3.3/ 33 kV, 50 Hz, dYN11 for 33 kV
substations.

Factory Step-down Transformers 3 No, Three phase, 33/.415kV, 50Hz, Dyn11

Line AVR 3 phase, 33kV, 3MVA, 50Hz

Metering Breaker 3 phase, 33kV, 50Hz

Conductor Size ACSR 75mm2

Transmission line length 66 km 33 Kv

Staff housing
Block with 2 self-contained bedrooms
(extendable), with separate block containing
communal facilities for cooking, eating, and
sitting.
Access Roads
to powerhouse, forebay, and intake,
compacted gravel surfacing and slope
stabilization measures
a barbed wire fence along the perimeter of
Fencing
the acquired land. Two lockable steel vehicle
gates, and appropriate pedestrian gates will
be provided as required.

Financial Parameters

Installed Capacity 2.77 MW

Annual Energy 15 GWh

Factory PPA 0.16 USD / kWh

KPLC PPA 0.1 USD / kWh

Project Cost (w/o financing cost) XXXXXXXXXXUSD

Equity IRR 6.7%

NPV XXXXXXXXXXUSD
Min DSCR XXXXXXXXXX

KTDA Power Company Ltd 7 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Cost / kW XXXXXXXX USD

Cost / kWh XXXXXXX USD

1.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND SITE SELECTION

The current project location was selected after a pre-feasibility study was conducted on
several potential project locations on Rivers Yala, Kimondi and Sirua. Kimondi and Sirua are
tributaries of the Yala River. The pre-feasibility study identified 5 potential projects namely;
Sirua (forest) site along River Sirua, Kimondi (forest) site along River Kimondi and Yala (forest),
Taunet and Tindinyo upstream site along River Yala.

The prefeasibility study found the Taunet site to be the most attractive based on the overall
project cost and energy generated. The report then recommended that detailed feasibility
studies be carried out to determine technical and financial viability of the proposed site. The
pre-feasibility study report is attached to this report as Appendix 1: pre-feasibility study
report.

A further site selection and optimization of the selected project site was carried out. This
optimization included a site visit to determine the best preliminary locations of site
components. The study also sought to establish general land ownership status, potential
transmission line routes, availability of hydrological data, and making contact with the local
authorities. The study recommended the project layout which is further investigated in this
detailed feasibility study. More details about the site selection and optimization can be found
in Appendix 2: Site Selection Study Report.

1.5 LICENCING AND PERMITS

Several permits and licences are required prior to operating the hydropower project and
feeding the generated power to the grid. Table 1-1 below shows the permits and licences
required in hydropower projects and their current status in regard to Taunet SHP.

Table 1-1: List of required permits and licenses

KTDA Power Company Ltd 8 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Item Authorization Issuing Authority Party to Status

procure

Project Approval of the Ministry of Project Done

Project Compa ny’s Energy & Company
Expression of Petroleum ME/CONF/4/1/4B
Interest to Dated: 14th Sep
develop the 2015
Project

Approval under Public Private Project

The public Private Partnerships Unit Company
Partnership Act,
2013, if applicable

Environment Environmental National Project ESIA Study done,

and Social Impact environmental Company Nema Permit No:
Assessment Management 0041600 issued.
license (EIA Authority(NEMA)
license)

Annual Conducted by Project To be done once

environmental NEMA approved Company project
Audits experts construction
starts

Site Approval to site Land owner Project Cadastral Survey

develop the Company ongoing.
project on the Application for
wayleave from
KFS done

Development County Project Initial contact

permission and Government Company done. Awaiting
approval of or official
building plans f communication
the plant from the County.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 9 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

National National Project Will done once a

Construction Construction Company contractor is
Authority Authority appointed.
registration in
respect to the s
ite

KTDA Power Company Ltd 10 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Item Authorization Issuing Authority Party to Status

procure

Certificate of County Project Will done once a

occupation for the Government Company contractor is
site appointed.

Approval for County Project Not done, will be

change of user of Government and Company done after land
the project land to National Land acquisition is
allow electric Commission complete
power generation

Health and Registration of Director of Project Will done once a

Safety site as a Occupational Company contractor is
workplace Safety and appointed.
Health services

General Single Business County Project Will done once a

Business permit in respect Government Company contractor is
licensing of the site and any appointed.
other business
premises

Registration under Kenya Revenue Project Done

the iTax system Authority Company

Energy Call Letter Ministry of Project Will be done

Energy Company after conclusion
of the Feasibility
Study

Approval of PPA, Energy Project Follows the Call

where applicable Regulatory Company Letter
Commission(ERC) and KPLC

ERC Follows after the

KTDA Power Company Ltd 11 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Electricity Project PPA is initialed.

Generation Company
License or permit,
as the case may
be

Item Authorization Issuing Authority Party to Status

procure

Approval for KPLC or EPC Will be done

connection into KETRACO, as the Contractor during the
the National Grid, case may be detailed design
where applicable by contractor.

Water Approval to set up Water Resource Project Application done,

a hydropower Management Company responding to
plant Authority queries in regard to
KFS wayleave
acquisition

Roads Approval to KURA, if any of Project

upgrade off- the roads Company
site public extends to an
roads urban area and
KERRA, if in a
rural area

Employment Work permits for Department of Project No expatriate staff.

expatriate staff Immigration Company
Services

Registration of the NSSF Project Will be done

Company and its Company before project
employees as commissioning
contributors with
National Social
Security
Fund(NSSF)

KTDA Power Company Ltd 12 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Registration of the NHIF Project Will be done

project Company Company before project
and its employees commissioning
as members of
National Hospital
Insurance
Fund(NHIF)

Item Authorization Issuing Authority Party to Status

procure

Registration of the NITA Project Will be done

project company Company before project
with the National commissioning
Industrial Training
Authority(NITA)

The permits and licences must be obtained up to at least the WRMA permit and land
acquisition before construction can begin. It is expected that most of the permits will be in
place within the next three months.

1.6 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT

The proposed project will be constructed under an EPC (Engineer, Procure, and Construct)
Contract. Under this contract type, the Contractor is required to carry out the project detailed
design, procure all the equipment, services and materials required, construct the all the
required works, connect to the KPLC grid and to the connected factories, test and commission
the complete Taunet SHP. The Contractor is guided by the Employer’s Requirements and the
Project specifications, and other contractual documents.

However in regard to the Taunet Project, there will be a slight variation whereby the
Contractor will be required to procure the Electro-Mechanical Equipment from suppliers
prequalified by the Employer instead of having his choice of equipment supplier. This
approach is aimed at guaranteeing the quality of the Electro-Mechanical Equipment.

1.7 AIM OF REPORT

This report has been prepared on the basis of detailed reviews of the pre-feasibility study,
findings of the site visits and the preliminary design.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 13 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

The main purpose of this report is to confirm the technical and financial feasibility of the
Proposed Project.

2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES SELECTION

As noted in Section 1.4, the current Taunet project site was selected from several other
potential projects site. The available project options are listed in Table 2-1 below.

Table 2-1: Potential project sites

Name of Stage Canal Penstock Waterway Gross Head Design Power Power per Cost per
site length length (m) length (km) head pe flow output waterway unit
(km) (m) r waterway (m3/s) (MW) length ($/kW)
length (MW/km)
(m/km)

Sirua Desk 4.0 550 4.55 62

(forest) study

Site 5.0 600 5.60 65

visit
Yala Desk 5.4 600 6.00 46
(forest) study

Site 6.9 650 7.55 46

visit
Kimondi Desk 6.3 450 6.75 60
(forest) study

Site 6.3 450 6.75 50

visit
Taunet Desk 2.3 450 2.75 27
study

Site 2.3 200 2.50 23

visit
Tindinyo Desk 3.7 300 4.00 30
Upstream study

Site 3.7 300 4.00 30

visit

After analysis, the Taunet site was selected as the best site and was recommended for further
studies by the pre-feasibility study report which can be seen in Appendix 1: pre-feasibility
study report. In addition to the prefeasibility study, another study was done to firm up the
location of various project components. It is from this study that the current project layout

KTDA Power Company Ltd 14 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

was derived. The full report of this study is attached as Appendix 2: Site Selection Study
Report.

3 HYDROLOGICAL STUDY

Part of the resource assessment is determination of the flow available for generation. The
water resources assessment was carried out through a hydrological study of River Yala within
the proposed intake catchment area.

Within the catchment area, the river is gauged separately along the Kimondi River at RGS
1FC01 and along Mokong River at RGS 1FD02. Outside the intake catchment area, the river is
gauged at 1FE02 which is about 5 Km downstream stream of the intake location. Figure 3-1
below shows the location of the River Gauging Stations (RGS) while Table 3-1 provides details
of the RGSs.

Table 3-1: RGS Properties Coordinates in Arc 1960 UTM Zone 36N
RGS No. River Coordinates (UTM 36N) Data Range
1FC01 Kimondi 727,848.220 21,863.406 1965-2016
1FD02 Mokong 736,103.237 15,301.726 1985-2016
1FE02 Yala 715,359.862 20,170.069 1961-1998

KTDA Power Company Ltd 15 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Figure 3-1: Location of River Gauging Stations in relation to the Intake

The data availability for the three RGS is as shown in Figure 3-2 below which shows that data
from 1FD02 (R. Mokong) is very scanty and data from 1FC01 (R. Kimondi) is the best in terms
of temporal coverage and would be preferred for hydrological analysis especially since it has
data from recent years. However data from 1FE02 (R. Yala) has the best spatial coverage of
the catchment area and would be more representative. Because of the need to have a good
representation of the catchment area, it was decided that 1FE02 will be used for hydrological
assessment, to allow for temporal changes since 1995, 1FC01 will be used to detect any trends
which will be incorporated into the hydrological assessment.

Various data quality assurance and assessment tests were done to check the quality of
hydrological data before use in the hydrological study. The tests included rating curve checks,
time series consistency checks and double mass curves, details of these can be found in the
hydrological assessment report provided in Appendix 5: Hydrological Study Report . Figure 3-
3 below show the double mass curve for the flow at RGS 1FE02 & rainfall measured at
Kapsabet DC Rainfall station and Figure 3-4 shows as similar double mass curve between flow
at RGS 1FE02 and that at RGS 1FC01. The consistent slopes of these curves indicate that the
data recorded at RGS 1FE02 is fairly consistent and therefore would be representative of the
river hydrology at that point.

Double Mass Curve

KTDA Power Company Ltd 16 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Figure 3-3: Kapsabet DC Rainfall RGS 1FE02 double mass curve

Double Mass Curve

Figure 3-4: RGS 1FC01 and RGS 1FE02 Double Mass Curve (larger figures in the appendices)

The area ratio method was used to generate flow data for the proposed intake from the flow
data recorded at the RGS 1FE02. The area ratio method was adopted since the proposed
intake catchment area is a sub catchment of the RGS 1FE02 and the two catchments are
considered similar as they have similar climatic, topographic and land use conditions.

The methodology used in the hydrological assessment is detailed in the hydrological

assessment study report attached in Appendix 5: Hydrological Study Report. The result of the
hydrological assessment is a Flow Duration Curve (FDC) and monthly median flow for the
proposed Project intake. The FDC whose details are highlighted in the following section was
used in determining the preliminary design flow, monthly median flows were also computed
and used as a basis of annual energy estimates.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 17 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

3.1 FLOW DURATION CURVE

A flow duration curve shows the percentage of time a particular flow is equalled or exceeded
over the period of record. Such a curve is prepared on the basis of daily flow measurements
recorded over a prolonged period.

The flow duration curve plotted for the intake site at Taunet SHP is presented in Figure 3-5.

The FDC chart can also be summarized as shown in Table 3-2 below.

Table 3-2: Flow duration curve for River Yala at the proposed Intake Site
Exceedence Exceeded
(%) Flow
(m^3/s)
5 64.74
10 43.18
15 31.38
20 25.33
25 21.14

KTDA Power Company Ltd 18 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

30 18.16
35 15.75
40 13.59
45 11.99
50 10.87
55 9.58
60 8.31
65 7.09
70 6.09
75 5.04
80 4.19
85 3.34
90 2.63
95 1.94

3.2 MONTHLY MEDIAN FLOWS

Monthly median flows were computed for the proposed project intake site. The computed
median flows were used to determine the annual energy estimates. It is noted that although
mean flows could be used instead of the median, the median flows were preferred since the
mean flows are usually distorted by the extreme flows (droughts and flooding events). Median
flows are not so affected by the extreme events and would therefore present a more realistic
(not too high / too low) representation of the flow regime. The median flows are shown in
Table 3-3 below.

It is noted that Flow Duration Curves are typically used to estimate the annual generation,
however flow duration curves do not give an indication of how these energy estimates are
distributed across the year. This distribution of energy generation across the year is important
for projects like Taunet SHP which have a significant internal load and are not fully supplying
energy into the grid.

Table 3-3: Median flow at the proposed project intake

Average Median
Month (m3/s) (m3/s)
1 9.04 4.68
2 7.10 3.56
3 5.97 3.11

KTDA Power Company Ltd 19 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

4 12.05 6.61
5 17.29 11.67
6 15.19 12.27
7 20.87 16.02
8 37.06 26.83
9 34.24 25.51
10 22.56 13.36
11 18.68 11.39
12 13.38 7.15

3.3 FLOOD ANALYSIS

Flood analysis was carried out on the basis of the methodology defined by USGS bulletin 17B
in which annual flood peaks are used to define a log-Pearson Type III distribution. The so
defined distribution is used to estimate the annual floods at various return periods. Table 3-
4 below shows the annual floods at various return periods.

Table 3-4: Flood Return Periods

Q Return
(flood) Period
m^3/s (Years)
12.71 1.0
28.32 1.1
72.93 2.0
180.54 10.0
231.77 20.0
305.89 50.0
367.24 100.0
433.45 200.0
528.85 500.0

The weir and other head works components are designed to safely operate during the 1:100
year flood.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 20 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

4 TOPOGRAPHICAL STUDY AND CADASTRAL SURVEY

A topographical survey was carried out to determine the available head and also to provide
basis of project layout and land acquisition. From the topographical survey which was carried
out using a total station, the water level at the proposed intake location and at the proposed
power house location were determined as 1738.147 masl and 1717.18 masl respectively
translating into a gross head of 20.97 m. however the gross head was improved in the
preliminary design by rising the water level at the intake to 1740 masl through the weir to
achieve a gross head of 22.82 m.

During the topo survey, discharge measurements of the river flow was not done, and since
there is no river gauging station located at the vicinity of the intake location, it is difficult to
determine the flow that corresponds to the measured water level. However the water level
measurement is good enough for gross head determination. During the survey, the river flow
depth was determined as 1m, placing the riverbed level at 1737.15 masl.

In addition to the gross head determination, several benchmarks were established and a
topographical map was prepared. Table 4-1 below show location of the established
benchmarks. The topographical map and the benchmark details which includes GPS location,
elevation and identifiable markings are provided in the topographical study report attached
in Appendix 7: Topographical Study Report.

Table 4-1: Established Benchmarks

Bench Marks Northing Easting Elevation

TN01 18656 719310 1753

TN02 18173.088 718475.661 1753.147

TN03 18008.150 718259.611 1753.304

TN04 18102.717 717910.973 1732.596

TN05 18033.119 718265.425 1756.805

TN06 18182.843 718457.310 1756.197

TN07 18566.578 718783.198 1770.208

The benchmarks were established using concrete monuments similar to Figure 4-1

KTDA Power Company Ltd 21 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Figure 4-1: Benchmark monuments

Cadastral survey to determine and facilitate land acquisition is currently underway, once
completed, the affected lands will be acquired and the landowners will be compensated
appropriately. The cadastral study report is attached in Appendix 10: cadastral study report

Further detailed topographical survey will be conducted by the EPC contractor.

5 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Preliminary site investigations indicated that the site is suitable for construction of the
proposed hydropower project. Exposed boulders can be seen in some sections of the
proposed project layout, however it could not be determined how far they extended
underground. Most of the canal and penstock route is comprised of gentle slopes in
agricultural land which appeared well drained. The project area used to a forest covered by
large trees, it is expected that the soils will be deep. Apart from a shallow valley near the
proposed forebay location, no other geological obstacles are encountered along the
conveyance route. To avoid crossing the valley, it is proposed that the canal go around the
valley. The valley is considered an obstacle as it would require to be avoided or crossed using
a different structure other than a normal headrace canal used in the rest of the conveyance.

Additional geotechnical investigations will be conducted. The geotechnical report will be

attached as Appendix 6: Geotechnical Study Report.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 22 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Figure 5-1: Slight depression before the forebay. Forebay location can be seen in the background

6 PROJECT LAYOUT SELECTION

After the project site was decided on, the next step was to decide on the location of the intake
and the power house. From previous studies the section of the river whose profile is shown
in Figure 6-1 below was selected for development. Initial assessment of the profile would
indicate potential optimization of the layout by moving the intake to intake 2 location.

Intake 1
Intake 2

KTDA Power Company Ltd 23 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

PH 1

Figure 6-1: Taunet river profile (see larger in the drawings)

Moving the intake would result in reducing the headrace length by about 300m and reducing
the gross head by 2.71m which is 12.6% of the available head. The reduced head result at
missed revenue of 211,746 USD / year at the rated annual generation of 15.0 GWh/year. This
loss of revenue is significant especially since the capital cost savings by avoiding 300 m long
canal is 267,297 USD. This additional cost is recoverable within the first 2 years of operation
but lost revenue will be suffered throughout the project’s life. Also been a low head high flow
site, it was deemed important to plan the layout such that head availability is optimized. The
study therefore concluded that the intake will be located at the proposed intake 1 location.

Figure 6-2 below shows the location of various project components, detailed layout is available
in Appendix 4: Drawings.

Figure 6-2: Project Layout

KTDA Power Company Ltd 24 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

7 PROJECT OPTIMIZATION

After the selection of the project layout was concluded, the next step was to determine the
capacity of the project. Since the main objective of the hydropower development by KTDA is
to provide reliable and affordable energy to the tea factories, it is desirable that the installed
capacity is sufficient for all energy and power requirements of the participating tea factories
throughout the year. However due to the available resources of water and the head available,
and other site conditions been limiting, it is often not possible to achieve the desired capacity.
Also trade-offs are also necessitated by financial considerations since incremental capacities
results into incremental costs and the marginal returns may not be sufficient to profitably
cover the incremental costs.

Since the small hydropower project will be implemented as a run-off river project, once
constructed, the available capacity at any time is determined by the river hydrology. During
capacity selection it is important to select an installed capacity that will result in minimal idle
capacity during low flow seasons, and will meet power and energy demand at most times of
the year.

Other than meeting the energy and power requirements, the project is required to meet
certain financial requirements. Principle of which is to generate enough cash flows to service
the development debt and provide a return on equity that is at least high the cost of equity.
The optimization process was therefore aimed at selecting an installation capacity that would
meet the shareholders’ interests in the most affordable and optimum manner.

7.1 ENERGY DEMAND ANALYSIS

To establish the energy demand for the project, energy demand for each of the three factories
i.e. Chebut, Mudete, and Kaptumo was determined. This was done by retrieving power
consumption data from the factories power bills for the period 2012 – 2016 and obtaining the
cumulated monthly energy demand which was met by the KPLC supply. This demand is shown
in Table 7-1 below. An assessment was also done on the amount of energy that was supplied
through diesel generators for the period 2014 - 2016. From the assessment, total annual diesel
generated energy was quantified as 125 MWh which is equivalent to 2.2% of the annual
average energy supplied by KPLC.

Table 7-1: Cumulative monthly energy demand for Mudete, Chebut, and Kaptumo Tea Factories
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

YEAR

2012 506 255 268 330 424 615 340 565 552 587 434 514 5,390
2013 597 547 483 618 598 759 299 422 440 538 594 530 6,425
2014 582 514 416 511 558 669 425 454 450 473 581 451 6,084
2015 427 268 164 295 485 532 428 436 510 535 541 531 5,152
2016 617 378 542 531 590 472 450 384 354 400 512 398 5,628

KTDA Power Company Ltd 25 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

AVE. 545.8 392.4 374.6 457 531 609.4 388.4 452.2 461.2 506.6 532.4 484.8 5,736
STDEV 79 135 156 138 75 113 65 69 76 72 64 59 517
C 0.14 0.34 0.42 0.3 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.09

AGGREGATE MWH DEMAND FROM DIESEL FUEL GENERATORFOR THE THREE FACTORIES

2250 3270 3792 13231 3318 4096

2014

2015 1782 2171 4134 3338 5509 2125 3101 5215 3779 2904 2550 2342

2016 2.54 1309 4195 6260 3219 2712 2399 2891 3538 3725 3456 4288

2.68 5.22 12.49 14.4 13.09 7.26 7.75 11.38 11.11 19.86 9.32 10.73 125

GRAND MWH DEMAND, KPLC + DIESEL GENERATOR 5,735

DIESEL GENERATOR %AGE CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL DEMAND 2.18

STATISTICAL SUMMARY
Annual average energy demand in Mwh 5735
Median Year energy demand in Mwh 5631
Maximum recorded(5yr) energy demand in Mwh 6426
Dry Year/Min. energy demand in Mwh 4303
Wet Year/[Link] demand in Mwh 6960
Apart from the cumulative energy demand, an assessment was done for the peak power
demand for the three factories for the 2012 – 2016 period. This assessment was done because
while energy demand analysis is important mainly in assessment of revenues, the power
demand assessment is important in the assessment of the required plant installed capacity.
It is desired that the installed capacity match power demand.

As determined from the exercise, the Table 7-2 below shows the peak power demand for the
three factories to be connected to the project. The table also include a computation of the
required plant capacity to fulfil peak demand across the year. This computation take into
consideration power used in the normal power house operations (parasitic load) and
transmission losses.

The maximum peak demand was determined from Table 7-2 as 2460 kW which means that
the ideal installed capacity would be greater than 2460 kW.

Table 7-2: Determination of required installation capacity

KTDA Power Company Ltd 26 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Kaptumo 570 524 523 555 542 513 500 494 514 486 557 530
Mudete 740 654 654 684 712 644 644 664 642 659 683 715
Chebut 691 638 639 645 697 662 656 647 783 709 687 660
Total 2001 1816 1816 1884 1951 1819 1800 1805 1939 1854 1927 1905
Captive
Use (kW) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Losses
(10%) 160 145 145 151 156 146 144 144 155 148 154 152

Required
Supply(kW) 2236 2036 2036 2110 2182 2040 2019 2024 2169 2077 2156 2132
Provided
Installed
Capacity
(kW) 2460
2240 2240 2321 2400 2243 2221 2227 2386 2285 2372 2346
It is worth noting that the required peak demand may not be met from month to month due
to hydrology constrains. However, whenever hydrological conditions are favourable peak
demand will be satisfied. Peak demand analysis was not meant to constrain financial
optimization but as an additional metric to guide decision making.

Detailed power and energy demand analysis for each factory and for the project are in section
Appendix 12:

7.2 INSTALLED CAPACITY

As described in Section 7.1 above, it is preferred that the minimum installed capacity be at
least 2460 kW so as to meet the peak power demand during normal plant operations when
design flow conditions are met. It is also important that the installed capacity will result into
a financially viable project. To settle on the optimum installed capacity, an optimization
exercise was done. To kick-start the process, a range of five design flows were selected so as
to have design capacities on either side of the required 2460 kW installed capacity. Table 7-3
below presents the options considered and their cost while Table 7-4 present financial
indicators of the options.

For each of the design options shown in Table 7-3 , hydraulic sizing was done and based on
the hydraulic sizing, quantities and costs were estimated. Generated energy was estimated
on monthly basis using monthly median flows and revenues estimated considering sales to
factories and to the grid. The results of each case were fed into a financial analysis model for
estimation of financial parameters. The financial model which is discussed further in section
13 is fairly simple yet comprehensive enough for feasibility level analysis. The key metrics
aimed at were the IRR, NPV, and DSCR. Revenues were determined based on energy

KTDA Power Company Ltd 27 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

generated for each case. The generated energy was considered to be supplied to the factories
following the demand analysis figures reported in section 7.1 above at a rate of 0.16 USD/
kWh. Surplus energy that could not be used in the factories was considered as exported to
the grid at the KPLC PPA rates corresponding to the installed capacity.

Figure 7-1 and Table 7-4 below presents results of the analysis.
Description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Design flow (m3/s) 8.5 10.2 11.5 14.5 17.2

Percentage exceedence (%) 56 48 44 34 29

Installed capacity (MW) 1.59 1.91 2.17 2.77 3.35

Weir

Crest level (m amsl) 1740 1740 1740 1740 1740

Spillway length (m) 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.2

Height (m) 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85

Head over the spillway (m) during 1:100

2.50 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68
yr flood
Undersluice

Number of orifices 2 2 2 2 2

Width (m) 2 2 2 2 2

Depth (m) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Intake

Number of orifices 1 2 2 2 2

Width (m) 3.05 1.8 2.05 2.6 3.1

Depth (m) 1.45 1.35 1.45 1.45 1.45

Approach Canal

Length (m) 110 110 110 110 110

Width (m) 3.35 3.65 3.9 4.35 4.75

Depth (m) 1.15 1.25 1.3 1.45 1.6

Longitudinal slope 1:387 1:444 1:480 1:558 1:500

Excess water spillway

Length (m) 19.95 16.2 18.85 19.55 22.5

Head on spillway (m) 0.77 0.97 0.99 1.14 1.16

KTDA Power Company Ltd 28 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Headrace Canal
Length (m) 513.5 511.3 507.5 505 493.6
Width (m) 3.6 4 4.4 4.6 4.5
Depth (m) 1.4 1.45 1.45 1.65 1.9
Longitudinal slope 1:1500 1:1500 1:1500 1:1500 1:1500
Forebay cum Settling basin

No. of chambers 2 2 2 2 2

Width of chamber (m) 9.75 10.65 11.3 12.7 13.85

Length of settling zone (m) 48.6 53.2 56.5 63.45 69.1

Inlet transition length (m) 20.15 21.9 22.8 27.05 31.5

Overall settling depth (m) 6.30 6.51 6.66 7.01 7.26

Head pond length (m) 10 10 10 10 10

Backwater spillway
Length (m) 48.6 53.2 56.5 63.45 69.1
Head on spillway (m) 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.30

Penstock
Main pipe length (m) 123 123 123 123 123
Wall thickness (mm) 10 10 10 10 11

Diameter (m) 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.1

Powerhouse

Length (m) 20 20 20 20 20

Breadth (m) 10 10 10 10 10

Floor area (m2) 0 0 0 0 0

Height (m) 10 10 10 10 10

Turbo-Generator
Turbine type Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan Kaplan
Single turbine capacity (MW) 1.59 1.91 2.17 2.77 3.35

KTDA Power Company Ltd 29 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

No. of units 1 1 1 1 1

Transmission line
Length (km) APPROXIMATE 66 66 66 66 66

Voltage level (kV) 33 33 33 33 33

Conductor type ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR

Description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Cross-sectional area of

conductor (mm2)
75 75 75 75 75

Interconnection

Number of factories 3 3 3 3 3

Cheptul Cheptul Cheptul Cheptul

Sub- Sub- Sub- Cheptul Sub-
Grid connection point
station station station Substation station

Table 7-3: Costs of various options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
3
Design flow (m /s) 8.5 10.2 11.5 14.5 17.2
Power output (MW) 1.58 1.91 2.17 2.77 3.35
Annual Energy
(kWh) 11,046,112 12,719,901 13,681,793 15,014,434 15,616,237
Pre-operating
expenses
Engineering and
management
Land acquisition

Total owner's cost

Preliminaries and
general cost
Study and design by
contractor (US$)
Construction cost
(US$)

Civil works (US$)

Hydro mechanical
works (US$)

KTDA Power Company Ltd 30 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Electrical works (TL)

(US$)
Electromechanical
works (US$)
Total construction
cost (US$)

Total Contract Cost

(US$)
Total Project Cost
(W/O financing)

Table 7-4: Financial indicators

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Design flow (m3/s) 8.5 10.2 11.5 14.5 17.2
Power output
(MW) 1.58 1.91 2.17 2.77 3.35
Annual Energy
(kWh) 11,046,112 12,719,901 13,681,793 15,014,434 15,616,237
IRR (Equity)
IRR (Project)

DSCR

NPV

cost / kW

cost / kWh

KTDA Power Company Ltd 31 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Taunet SHP
Installation (MW)
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
7.00% 1,400,000.00

6.50% 1,200,000.00

6.00% 1,000,000.00

5.50% 800,000.00

5.00% 600,000.00

4.50% 400,000.00

4.00% 200,000.00

3.50% -

NPV IRR (Equity)

Figure 7-1: NPV-IRR Chart

The installation capacity of 2.77 MW utilizing a design flow of 14.5 m3/s was found to be
optimum and therefore was selected as the design installed capacity. The selected 2.77 MW
plant was taken through preliminary design (hydraulic sizing), quantities estimations, cost
estimation and financial analysis. This is reported in the next sections of this report.

8 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN

8.1 GENERAL

The project layout comprises head works (a diversion weir, undersluice, intake, gravel trap,
approach canal), headrace canal, Forebay combined with settling basin, penstock pipe,
powerhouse and tailrace, and Generation & transmission facilities.

As indicated before, both the intake and power house locations are accessible from the C39 highway
via an earthen road. The earthen road join the C39 highway at Tidinyo market, this road is currently

KTDA Power Company Ltd 32 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

been used by tea trucks. It may require periodic maintenance by the contractor during the
construction period to address damage by his vehicles.

The intake facilities are located on the right bank of the Yala River. The side intake just
adjacent to the 43.2 m long, 2.85 m high diversion weir placed across the river diverts the
flows into a gravel trap via a 110 m long approach canal. The approach canal will be provided
with an excess water side spillway. From the gravel trap the flow enters into the forebay cum
stilling basin through a 505 m rectangular section headrace canal. The headrace canal will
mainly pass along gentle terrain, hence a headrace canal is suitable.

Furthermore, along locations where a headrace canal would have to traverse through built up
zones, graves or the like, a headrace pipe would be suitable if the alignment is to avoid such
houses and graves. As per the last site visit, the proposed canal does not pass through either
houses or graves that were immediately identifiable. Other social issues (e.g., land acquisition)
may also result in replacing part of the open canal alignment with covered canal. Most of the
conveyance route is gentle expect the area near the forebay where a small valley is
encountered. It is proposed that the canal goes round the valley since it will not result into a
large increase in the canal length. There is a spring in that valley that is used a source of clean
water for families living around the area, this spring shall not be negatively affected by the
project.

From the forebay, a 2.9 m diameter, 130 m long penstock pipe will convey the discharge to
the powerhouse which is located on the right bank of the Yala River. The Forebay will be
equipped with an excess water spillway. From the powerhouse, a short tailrace canal will
convey the power flow back to the river. The power house will be equipped with a single set
of generating equipment. The generated power will be transmitted to the grid
interconnection point and to the tea factories through a 33Kv transmission line approximately
66 Km long in total.

The gross head that is available (from the forebay water level to the tailrace water level) from
this project is 22.49 m. The total waterway length (i.e., length from the intake to the tailrace
end) is approximately 850 m. The proposed project layout arrangement of the project can be
seen in the tender drawings contained in Appendix 4: Drawings, detailed calculations are
found in Appendix 3: Civil Works Design Calculations.

8.2 DIVERSION WEIR

The main diversion weir across the Yala River is a permanent gravity mass concrete ogee
profile weir structure with a 43.2 m long crest. The weir crest is at elevation 1740 masl, raising
2.85 m above the river bed whose elevation is 1737.15 masl. The weir is designed to divert
the required design flow for power generation into the intake and to safely pass 1 in 100 years
floods of 367 m3/s. During the design flow conditions, the water level at the weir will 1739.7
masl and during the 1:100 year flood the water level will be at 1742.45 masl.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 33 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

The weir was designed as mass concrete gravity structure with the hydraulic sizing carried out
following USBR small dam’s guidelines for an ogee weir spillway. The ogee weir downstream
profile was designed to follow a shape defined by Equation 1 below

Equation 1: Weir profile equation

Where the variables are as shown in the Figure 8-1 below and K, n are constants obtained
from Figure 9-21 of the USBR’s Design of small dams1

Figure 8-1: Weir profile

Since geotechnical studies had not be done at the design, the weir was designed as if founded
on alluvial deposits and therefore appropriate cut-offs were designed. The upstream cut-off
is 1.7 m deep and the downstream cut-off is 2.0 m. The cut-offs will be located at upstream
end of the approach canal and downstream end of the stilling basin.

The hydraulic design of the weir was done following the Equation 2 below

1 Design of Small Dams, 3rd Edition. United States Department of interior Bureau of Reclamation
KTDA Power Company Ltd 34 May 2018
Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Equation 2: Weir discharge equation

Where
Q = 100 year return period flood flow i.e. 367 m3/s
L = effective length of crest i.e. 43.2 m
He = head over the crest including velocity of approach head h0 C
= coefficient of discharge.

The coefficient of discharge was computed for a weir following the ideal nappe profile and
having a vertical upstream slope. The depth of approach and effects of downstream
submergence were also considered arriving at a value of 2.21 as the coefficient of discharge.

The weir was checked for stability against sliding and overturning for both normal operating
and flood conditions.

The top level of flood wall at upstream of weir is 1742.75 masl and at downstream it is 1740.45
masl.

As a safe guard against uplift, the weir will be provided with an upstream concrete approach
apron which together with the downstream stilling basin will help to reduce the uplift forces
experienced. The apron was designed to be constructed monolithically with the weir structure
to increase the mass of the weir and provide safe guard against overturning / sliding failure.

The stilling basin was designed for energy dissipation during the 1:100 year flood estimated
at 367 m3/s.

The drawing of the proposed weir is shown in drawing No: 15-FS-02 in Appendix 4: Drawings

8.3 UNDERSLUICE

An under sluice was provided adjacent to the side intake. The purpose of under sluice is to
scour sediment deposited in front of the intake. The top level of under sluice was designed to
be below the invert level of intake to avoid bed load entering into the intake. The under sluice
was designed to discharge twice the intake design flow during flood events to have efficient
scouring action.

Hydraulic sizing was done using a free flow orifice formula adopting the coefficient of
discharge as 0.6. Detailed design of the undersluice channel will ensure that the coefficient is
attained. From the design the undersluice will comprise of two orifices 2 m wide by 1.2 m
deep each. Two orifices are provided especially for ease of operation of the undersluice gates.
The undersluice invert is 1737.10 masl at the upstream and 1736.65 masl in the downstream
to correspond to the riverbed level downstream of the weir’s stilling basin. These invert levels
will be confirmed after detailed topographical survey of the intake area has been done during
the detailed design by the contractor. Downstream of the undersluice gates, the undersluice

KTDA Power Company Ltd 35 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

canal will be 4 m wide with a flow depth of 1.6 m. It is designed to discharge downstream of
the stilling basin.

The undersluice will be provided with sluice gates in the upstream side and river bed scour
protection in the downstream side.

The drawing of the proposed undersluice is shown in drawing No: 15-FS-03 in Appendix 4:
Drawings

8.4 INTAKE

A side intake is located at right bank of the river, adjacent to the under sluice. The intake
consists of two orifices, each controlled by a vertical gate. The size of each intake orifice is 2.6
m wide and 1.45 m high which can convey the design discharge (14.5 m3/s) plus 10%
additional flows for flushing requirements when the river flows are adequate. In such a case,
the intake orifice velocity will be 2.1 m/s. Coarse trash racks will be provided at each of the
intake orifices. Owing to the high volumes of water expected, the trash rakes shall be capable
of mechanized raking in additional to manual raking.

The intake invert level is located about 1.05 m above the river bed level i.e. 1738.22 masl to
exclude bed load from getting into the diverted flow.

The design of the intake considered the intake as an orifice and determined the coefficient of
discharge taking in due consideration the type of orifice flow experienced. Free flow
conditions are satisfied if condition of Equation 3 is meet and submerged flow according to
Equation 4.

Figure 8-2: Orifice flow conditions

0.72

KTDA Power Company Ltd 36 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Equation 3: Free flow condition

Equation 4: Submerged conditions

The discharge coefficient is computed according to Equation 5 and Equation 6 below

depending on whether the flow is free flow or submerged flow respectively.

Equation 5: Coefficient of discharge for free flow condition

Equation 6: Coefficient of Discharge for submerged conditions

The drawing of the proposed intake is shown in drawing No: 15-FS-03 in Appendix 4:
Drawings

8.5 APPROACH CANAL

The approach canal starts immediately after intake structure up to the gravel trap. It is
designed to convey the design flow plus 10% of the design flow for flushing of the gravel trap.
The approach canal is therefore designed to convey during design flow conditions a total flow
of 15.95 m3/s which will comprise power flow of 14.5 m3/s and flushing flow of 1.45 m3/s.
During flood flow conditions the excess flow abstracted above 15.95 m3/s will be spilled back
to river through the excess water spillway along the approach canal. During the 1:100 year
flood, the intake will draw in about 35.75 m3/s of which 19.78 m3/s will be spilled from the
side spillway channel. The length of spillway crest was determined from the normal weir
equation as 20 m.

The approach canal was designed to have a minimum flow velocity of 2.55 m/s to allow for
carrying through to the gravel trap without settling in the approach canal of sediments of
diameter up to 50mm. The limiting velocity was determined using Equation 7 below.

𝑣 = 𝑎 ∗ 𝑑0.5

KTDA Power Company Ltd 37 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Where v = limiting velocity in cm/s d = sediment

diameter in mm a = coefficient depending on the
sediment diameter.
a = 36 for d > 1 mm
44 for 1 mm > d > 0.1 mm
51 for d < 0.1 mm

Equation 7 : limiting Velocity

Hydraulic sizing was done using the manning’s equation with a roughness coefficient of 0.015
corresponding rough finish concrete to allow for the reduction in hydraulic conductivity of the
channel due to the presence of sediments. From the design, a rectangular open canal with a
flow depth of 1.48 m and width of 4.35 was proposed, a minimum free board of 0.6m will be
provided throughout the approach canal as appropriate. The canal slope will be 1:611 to allow
high flow velocity and minimum canal section. The total length of the approach canal 110 m
long.

It is important that the flow in the approach canal is laminar before joining the gravel trap to
increase the gravel trap’s settling efficiency. To achieve this, the minimum length of the
approach canal was set as 10 * its width. Gradual transitions from intake to the approach
canal will be achieved by maintaining an included angle of 15 degrees.

8.6 GRAVEL TRAP

The smaller sized bed load sediments that enter the intake orifices will be transported to the
gravel trap. The gravel trap was designed to settle sediments of minimum diameter 1.5 mm
with 90% efficiency and continuously flush out the settled sediments using 10% of the
abstracted flow. The flushing flow will be released back to the river as part of the required
reserve flow.

The maximum allowable through velocity was determined from Equation 7 above with a
limiting sediment diameter of 1.5 mm. From this assessment, the through flow velocity was
set as 0.3 m/s which is less than the determined maximum velocity of 0.44 m/s. To avoid
hydraulic short circuiting, through flow velocity is limited between 0.15 and 0.3 m/s. The
vertical settling velocity was adjusted to allow for turbulence due to flowing flow. This is
achieved by reducing the settling velocity using the relation shown in Equation 8 below.

Where; ω=net settling

velocity ω0 = settling
velocity in still water v
= horizontal flow

KTDA Power Company Ltd 38 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

velocity h = flow
depth

Equation 8: Net settling velocity

The gravel trap was designed as a two chambered gravel trap. The two chamber configuration
was adopted to reduce the overall depth of the gravel trap. The overall depth of the gravel
trap is greatly influenced by the hopper wall slope angle which is required to be a minimum
of 40 degrees to ensure that no sediments will settle on the hopper sides. This is especially
important for continuous flushing gravel traps in which no sediment storage provision is
made.

From the design for each chamber settling zone was sized to have 7.45 m width, 14.9 m length
and 4.4 m flow depth. The minimum slope of the hopper sides to the horizontal was fixed as
40 degrees to ensure that no sediments will settle on the hopper sides. The inlet transition
from the approach canal to the gravel trap was set as 8 degrees which is within the
recommended range of 5 – 8 degrees.

The gravel trap is required to be located at a minimum distance equal to 10 times the width
of the approach canal from the intake. This distance is required to ensure that the flow
develop into laminar flow which facilitate the settlement of sediments. From this
consideration, the gravel trap would have been located 43.5 m from the intake. However due
to topographical consideration, the gravel trap was located 110 m from the start of the
approach canal to facilitate easy flushing of the gravel trap.

The design calculations can be seen in Appendix 3: Civil Works Design Calculations below and
the drawing of the proposed Gravel is shown in drawing No: 15-FS-01 in Appendix 4: Drawings

8.7 HEADRACE CANAL

The headrace canal starts after the gravel trap and runs up to the combined settling tank cum
Forebay for total length of about 505 m. The function of the headrace canal will be to convey
the design flow to forebay cum settling basin without settlement of sediments and entry of
runoff water. It is proposed to be an open rectangular section reinforced cement concrete
(RCC) canal, some of the sections of the headrace canal will be covered with a top slab for
example to facilitate access across the canal. This covered sections will be required whenever
the canal crosses an existing access road and for each farm that is split by the canal.

The hydraulic design of the headrace canal was done using manning equation assuming
uniform open channel flow throughout the canal. The design approach aimed at having the
best (economic) hydraulic section, minimum head loss resulting from the adopted canal slope,
and having a velocity that will not result into erosion of the canal lining or in deposition of
sediments along the canal.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 39 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

The canal slope was optimized using least cost optimization method. Starting with a minimum
allowable canal flow velocity of 1.5 m/s (to ensure no settlement of sediments occurred along
the canal) the required canal slope to achieve the flow velocity determined from the manning
equation. The velocity was incremented at 0.3 m/s intervals and the corresponding canal
slopes were determined. A hydraulic efficient section was assumed and the canal section
required to convey the design flow was determined. The cost of constructing each canal and
the corresponding cost of energy lost due to head loss was determined. Figure 8-3 below
shows the result of this analysis that indicated the optimum canal slope to be about 1:1666.
1:2000 was adopted as the canal slope.

Canal Slope Optimization

3.00E+06 1.20E+06

2.50E+06 1.00E+06

2.00E+06 8.00E+05

1.50E+06 6.00E+05

1.00E+06 4.00E+05

5.00E+05 2.00E+05

0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 0.0030
Canal Slope

Cost of Energy Lost Total Cost Construction Cost

Figure 8-3: Canal slope optimization

Based on the hydraulic design and optimization exercise as described above, a headrace canal
of rectangular section with flow width 4.6 m, and 1.8 m flow depth with freeboard 0.6 m is
proposed. The longitudinal slope of the canal is 1:2000. The flow velocity along the canal will
be about 1.73 m/s at design flow.

The alignment passes through foot and animals trails which will be provided with suitable
crossing by means of covering the open canal with a top slab. Appropriate fencing has been
proposed along right and left bank of canal. The fence will fully enclose all the project land
and will be provided with lockable gates whenever it cuts across animal and foot trails.

The canal is provided with a side drain in the up slope bank to prevent storm water from
flowing into the canal. The drains will be designed in 100m lengths and after each 100m length
a cross drain will be provided to pass the runoff safely over the canal and back to the river.
The side drain will be sized and designed to drain all the runoff from a catchment area defined
cross drain as the pour point of the drain’s catchment area. The 100 m long status is adopted

KTDA Power Company Ltd 40 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

to limit the run-off catchment area so as to minimize the drain canal section. However at
detailed design, the length can be altered to fit the site conditions.

The drawing of headrace canal including layout and typical sections is shown in drawing No:
10-FS-01 in Appendix 4: Drawings

8.8 SETTLING BASIN

The settling basin and forebay were combined into one structure as a way of reducing the
overall cost of the project. The cost saving is achieved by having the settling basin provide the
required water storage required during the time of sudden closure and opening of the gate
valves during operation. The forebay is therefore is sized only to fulfil the penstock
submergence requirements.

The settling basin was designed to settle and flush out sediment particles of at least 0.3 mm
diameter with efficiency of at least 95%. A hopper type surface settling basin with two
chambers is proposed. Two chambers are ideal first to reduce the overall depth of the settling
basin required to meet side slope requirements and also from an operation perspective, allow
flushing of one chamber without interfering with generation hence improving the uptime of
the hydro plant.

The limiting through flow velocity for sediment diameter 0.3 mm was determined from
Equation 7 as 0.241 m/s but was 0.2 m/s was adopted for design. This is acceptable since 0.2
m/s is less than the limiting velocity and it also lies within the 0.15 - 0.3 m/s range required to
prevent hydraulic short circuiting. The entry transition angle was set as 8 degrees which is
within the recommended 5 – 8 degrees range to ensure gradual increase in the flow area and
reduction in flow velocity which results in improved settling efficiency.

The maximum sediment diameter expected to be flushed out of the sediment basin is 1.5 mm
which is the largest sediment that can be transported through the headrace canal and also
the targeted sediment size in the gravel trap. The sediment basin is designed to allow
intermittent flushing and provides for sediment storage of at least 24 hours at the design flow.
The flushing channels will discharge into the spillway channel which will take the sediments
back to the river. The channel was designed to achieve minimum flow velocity computed
from Equation 7 for sediment diameter 1.5 mm and was sized using manning’s equation with
manning n of 0.02. Each of the chambers will be provided with a flushing channel.

Required storage was computed as to provide at least 2 minutes of design flow, therefore the
minimum storage to be provided is 1740 m3/s.

The settling basin will be provided with an excess water spillway capable of spilling and
discharging the spill safely back to the river. The spillway was designed for a minimum flow
equal to the design flow of 14.3 m3/s.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 41 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

From the design each chamber was sized to have a flow width of 12.7 m, a flow depth of 2.9
m and 63.45 m length in the settling section. The entry transition section length was adopted
as 27.05 m.

Normal water level at the settling basin end is 1739.08 masl.

Exit transition of the settling basin will double up as the entry section into the forebay.

The drawing of the proposed Settling basin / forebay is shown in drawing No: 30-FS-01 in
Appendix 4: Drawings

8.9 FOREBAY AND PENSTOCK INTAKE

As noted in section 8.8, the forebay is incorporated with the settling basin to form one
structure. The storage requirements will be met by the settling basin and the forebay section
is designed to fulfil the penstock submergence requirements. The forebay will also comprise
the intake into the penstock including accommodating the penstock bell mouth and
supporting the fine trash rack and penstock sluice gates.

The penstock bell mouth will be designed to have an opening area defined in Equation 9
below.

Where C0 = co-efficient of contraction equal to 0.6 head greater than 15m and 0.7 for lesser heads
Ø = angle of inclination of penstock center line to horizontal which was taken as 30 degrees

KTDA Power Company Ltd 42 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Equation 9: Penstock intake area

Figure 8-4: Penstock bell mouth section

The intake depth is computed using Equation 9 below.

ℎ𝑒 = ℎ1 + ℎ2

Equation 10: Penstock intake depth

Where

Ø = angle of inclination of penstock center line to horizontal which was taken as 30 degrees

The width of the penstock intake is them calculated using Equation 11 below.

Equation 11: Width of Opening

From the design the intake depth was determined as 3.35 m and the intake width as 3.8 m.
The shape and other dimensions of the bell mouth intake are as defined in Figure 8-4 and
Figure 8-5 below.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 43 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Figure 8-5: Intake bell mouth plan

To prevent development of vortices, required submergence of the penstock’s centre line was
determined from Equation 12 below. ℎ = (0.5 + 2𝐹) ∗ 𝐷

Equation 12: Penstock Submergence

Where
h = minimum submergence of the penstock centre line
D = penstock diameter
F = Froude number (v/ (sqrt (9.81*D))
From design, the minimum submergence of the penstock centre line was determined as 5.05
m

The penstock intake will be provided with a fine trash rack. The provided trash rack is inclined
65 degrees from the horizontal and will have 25 mm spacing between 10 mm wide vertical
bars. Head loss through the trash rack was determined from Equation 13 below

Equation 13: Trashrack Headloss

Where
d = width of the trashrack bars s
= spacing between bars
v = velocity of flow through the bars
𝜑 = trash rack inclination from horizontal

The normal water level at forebay is 1739.08 masl and the minimum draw down level is
1736.18 masl.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 44 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

The drawing of forebay is shown in drawing No: 30-FS-01 in Appendix 4: Drawings

8.10 PENSTOCK PIPE

The mild steel penstock pipe will convey the flow from the forebay into the powerhouse. The
size of the pipe is optimized on the basis of loss of revenue versus cost of the penstock pipe.
The optimum size of the pipe for the design discharges of 14.5 m3/s is 2.9 m diameter.
Therefore a steel penstock of diameter 2.9 m and a wall thickness of 10 mm is proposed.

The drawing of penstock pipe is shown in drawing No: 10-FS-01 in Appendix 4: Drawings

8.11 POWERHOUSE

The size of the powerhouse depends largely on the number of turbine units, working bay,
panel board area and control room. The height of the powerhouse will be governed by the
position of the crane beam installation level and the clear space required to lift one of the
units while the others are in operation.

The proposed powerhouse is located on the right bank of the Yala River and will house one
generating unit. It will be 20.5 m long, 10.8 m wide and about 9 m high from foundation to
top of the roof. The powerhouse will be reinforced concrete frame structure. Office room,
control room and panel board room have also been provided.

8.12 TAILRACE

The flow from the powerhouse will be discharged back to the Yala River through a tailrace
canal. The tailrace canal is about 20 m long 4 m wide and 2.35 m high. The tail water level
during normal operation will be 1717.18 m.

8.13 TURBINE

One double regulated Kaplan turbine are proposed to install at the powerhouse. The turbine
will be directly coupled to synchronous generators. Selection of the turbine and other E&M
equipment is discussed in section 9.

9 DESIGN OF TURBINE GENERATOR AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

9.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH TO TURBINE DESIGN

For SHP installations manufacturers are not in the position to carry out a turbine design from
first principles together with model tests as this would be a very costly approach. Turbine
suppliers will be in a situation to adapt existing standard designs to the requirements of the
Taunet SHP site. The most appropriate approach to supply is therefore that a turbine design

KTDA Power Company Ltd 45 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

should be offered by the Tenderer to meet the Employer’s Requirements and that this design
should be technically evaluated by the Client’s engineer at the time of tender evaluation, who
would prepare a technical evaluation report including recommendations.

The general turbine application chart shown in Figure 9-1 indicates the possible use of Kaplan,
Francis and Cross flow turbines. However, the Kaplan turbine provides the best fit over the
full range of available flow at Taunet site. Effective exploitation by both Francis and Cross flow
turbines would require at least two units. The slow speed Francis turbine would also call for
special generator manufacture with the attendant higher cost. The Kaplan selection is further
justified by its superior weighted average efficiency and hence power and energy output.

A double regulated Kaplan Turbine is proposed for this site, the turbine design will be carried
out by the Contractor. Appendix 12: provides more details in regard to the turbine selection
and energy estimates.

Figure 9-1: Turbine Selection Chart

10 TRANSMISSION LINES AND SUB-STATIONS

10.1 TEA FACTORIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE

There are four tea factories located within Zone VII, namely Chebut, Kaptumo, Mudete, and
Kapsara but only Chebut, Mudete, and Kaptumo tea factories will be supplied with power
from the proposed project but due to the long distances from the generation point to Kapsara,
it shall not be possible to connect it. The distances of the factories from the power are as
shown in Table 10-1 below:

KTDA Power Company Ltd 46 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Table 10-1: Factory distances from the Power house

Factory Distance from Power House(Km)

Chebut 19

Kaptumo 35

Mudete 24

Distance to Tindinyo tee-off 5

10.2 DESCRIPTION OF WORKS

The proposed power will be generated from the small hydro plant on the Yala River. A stepup
substation stepping up the generated voltage to 33KV shall be constructed at the Power
House. The generated power will be evacuated through a 33KV overhead transmission line
constructed using ACSR conductor supported on concrete poles. The construction shall be as
per the KPLC standards and specifications.

The 33KV transmission line shall be constructed after design approval and wayleave
acquisition. The step-up substation shall have a protective fence around it with an access gate
of 4m provided. The transmission line from the substation shall leave as a single circuit up to
the tarmac road (C39 Kapsabet – Chavakali Road) which is about 5 km. At this point (Tindinyo
shopping centre) the line shall tee off, one line going to Chebut and the other line going to
Mudete Tea factory. The line to Chebut shall have a Tee off (at Kamobo Center) to Kaptumo
Tea factory. The line to Mudete shall feed power to the factory and within the same factory
compound, it shall be paralleled to the KPL 33kV grid through an automatic synchronization
breaker installed before the KPLC metering breaker. The total transmission line shall be
approximately 66 Km and its layout is shown in Figure 10 1 below. A larger drawing is provided
as drawing No: 70-T01 in Appendix 4: Drawings.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 47 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Figure 10-1: Transmission line layout

At each of the 3 factories (Chebut, Mudete and Kaptumo), there shall be a feeder from the
hydro power plant which shall be used as the primary source of power with the KPLC feeder
becoming the secondary. The hydro feeder at each factory shall comprise of a step-down
1MVA, 33/0.433kV, Dyn11 transformer and two control and protection (CP) panels with
change-over and interlock mechanisms all manufactured as per the KPLC standards. The
control and protection panels shall comprise of ACBs, 3 phase energy meters, earthfault and
overcurrent relays, ammeters and voltmeters for each phase. Each panel shall have a cable
incoming chamber and there shall be a third panel housing the factory outgoing cable. All
these switchgear shall be housed in a newly constructed room within the factory. This room
shall be constructed by the contractor at his/her own cost.

The KPLC 33kV metering breaker that shall form part of the grid paralleling scheme and the
Chemuka hydro power selling point, shall be located within Mudete tea factory premises. At
this factory, there is a KPLC 33kV feeder emanating from Chavakali 33/11kV Substation and
feeding the factory. This feeder has other customers fed from it and this might be affecting
the stability and quality of supply. To ensure quality supply, a grid study shall be carried out
to determine at what point on the line a 3 phase automatic voltage regulator (AVR) shall be
installed by KPLC at the expense of the contractor. The other available option of connecting
to KPLC was at the 33/11KV Cheptulu substation but the substation is located on a very small
piece of land which is fully utilized. The substation has two 33kV incomers and four 11kV
feeders thus creating a challenge of getting space to locate the fifth feeder. In order to create
space for the fifth feeder, a lot of land would have to be purchased and KPLC redesign all the
other feeders plus the incomers to allow room for the fifth feeder. Since this is an expensive
option, the option of paralleling at Mudete tea factory is preferred. An alternative dedicated
line was also explored from the powerhouse to Cheptul substation which was bringing total
distance to 83 km. The option of a dedicated line was later not pursued taking into account

KTDA Power Company Ltd 48 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

the line losses and the cost involved in terms of construction and comparing with having a line
to Mudete tea factory and also considering the line losses, it became unfeasible. After doing
analysis for power losses to the different distances for the factories using 75mm 100mm and
150mm square ACSR conductor, it was found out that 100mm and 150mm square conductor
to have the least energy losses and being transmitted at [Link] a more detailed design will
be done to get optimization conductor size that needs to be used for this project.

Detailed description of the transmission infrastructure design and scope of work can be found
in Appendix 8: Grid interconnection study report.

11 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

A detailed Environmental and Social Impact Assessment is been undertaken. Preliminary

assessment indicate that the project will not have adverse effect on the environmental or the
social status of the community in the project area mainly because;

• It will not result into any extended flooding or impounded of large areas requiring
relocation of the project area population
• All the water abstracted will be returned back to the river after a maximum distance
of 1000 m.
• A sufficient environmental flow will be maintained in the river along the by-based
section. The environmental flow will be enough to sustain the flora and fauna of the
river and the domestic water requirements of the downstream communities

Once completed, the detailed Environmental and Social Impact Assessment report will be
attached in Appendix 9: ESIA study Report

12 COST AND ANNUAL ENERGY ESTIMATES

12.1 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES

Preliminary cost estimates for the proposed project were determined using the preliminary
design developed during this study. Unit prices were determine from prices and quotations
obtained from recent similar projects. The preliminary cost estimates will be used in project
optimization to determine the optimum project capacity. The costs have also been used to
determine the financial feasibility of the project.

A summary of the cost estimates are presented in Table 12-1 below, detailed breakdown is
provided in Appendix 11: Cost Estimates.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 49 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Table 12-1: Cost estimate for 2.77 MW

SN Description Total Cost % of
(USD) Total
Cost
1 Preliminary studies 1.3%

2 Engineering and management

3 Land acquisition

Total owner's cost

4 Preliminaries and general cost

5 Study and design by contractor

6 Construction cost
A Civil works

B Hydro mechanical works

C Electrical works (TL)

D Electromechanical works

Total construction cost

Total Contract's cost

Total project cost w/o

financing
Per kW total cost

Per kW Contract's cost

In addition to the contract cost, there will be other costs relating to financing and starting of
operations. Key of those are interest repayment during construction period and the operation
and maintenance cost during the first year of operation. Assuming 0.65:0.35 debt / equity
ratio, the debt will be XXXXXXXXXXX USD which will result into annual interest of XXXXXXXXX
USD / year during the two year construction period (see section 13 ). Annual O&M cost is
XXXXXXXX USD, resulting into a total of an additional 1,122,102.39 USD required before
operation.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 50 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

12.2 ANNUAL ENERGY ESTIMATES

Table 12-2 below shows the annual energy estimates for the proposed project. The estimates
have been developed from the monthly median flow for the Yala River at the proposed intake.
They are based on a design flow of 14.5m^3/s, and a net head of 21.44 m, with the equipment
efficiency been as indicated in the table. The environmental flow is estimated at 10% of the
available flow. The water rules based on the old water act of 2002 require a reserve flow of at
least Q95, which in this case will be 1.94 m3/s. It is however expected that we are able to
negotiate with WRMA for a lower reserve flow considering the low environmental impact of
the project. For example in other jurisdictions like Rwanda, hydropower projects are allowed
to abstract up to 90% of the available flow which is basis of the 10% reserve flow assumed.
With 1.94m3/s reserve flow, the annual energy reduces to 13.2 GWh whose effect is
addressed in the financial analysis section below.

Table 12-2: Annual Energy Estimates

Month of the Median Flow Environmental Available
Year (m^3/s) Flow (10% of Flow(m^3/s) Turbine 1 Total Energy
median flow) Turbine 1 % of Design Turbine 1 Generator Overall Power (Kw) Gross Energy
M^3/s Power Flow Effeciency 1 Effeciency (Kwh)
Flow Effeciency
(m^3/s)

Jan 4.68 0.47 4.21 4.21 29.0% 85.7% 92.1% 78.9% 699 520,118
Feb 3.56 0.36 3.20 3.20 22% 83.7% 91.3% 76.5% 515 346,240
Mar 3.11 0.31 2.80 2.80 19% 82.9% 91.0% 75.5% 444 330,232
Apr 6.61 0.66 5.95 5.95 41% 90.2% 93.1% 84.0% 1,051 756,852
May 11.67 1.17 10.50 10.50 72% 93.6% 96.2% 90.1% 1,990 1,480,653
Jun 12.27 1.23 11.04 11.04 76% 93.9% 96.5% 90.6% 2,104 1,514,923
Jul 16.02 1.60 14.41 14.41 99% 93.5% 97.0% 90.7% 2,750 2,046,198
Aug 26.83 2.68 24.14 14.50 100% 93.5% 97.0% 90.7% 2,766 2,057,871
Sep 25.51 2.55 22.96 14.50 100% 93.5% 97.0% 90.7% 2,766 1,991,488
Oct 13.36 1.34 12.02 12.02 83% 94.1% 96.8% 91.1% 2,303 1,713,385
Nov 11.39 1.14 10.25 10.25 71% 93.5% 96.1% 89.9% 1,938 1,395,286
Dec 7.15 0.72 6.44 6.44 44% 90.9% 94.0% 85.5% 1,158 861,188

Design Flow 14.5 m^3/s Capacity 15,014,434 KWh Captive use 75 KW

Net Head 21.44 m To KTDA 4,128,920 KWh Transmission Losses 8%

SHPP Rated
Capacity
2.77 MW To KPLC 8,765,360 Kwh KWh

Table 12-3 below shows how the generated energy is distributed to the factories and KPLC.

Table 12-3: Distribution of available energy

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Available power flow in M3/second 4.21 3.2 2.8 5.95 10.5 11.04 14.4 14.5 14.5 12.02 10.25 6.44

KTDA Power Company Ltd 51 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

OutputP(KW) 698 483 422 1041 1977 2109 2750 2767 2767 2294 1930 1128
Parasitic(KW) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
System loss(KW) 50 33 28 77 152 163 214 215 215 178 148 84
Available P(KW) 573 375 319 889 1750 1871 2461 2477 2477 2041 1707 969
Available E(MWH) 413 270 230 640 1260 1347 1772 1783 1783 1470 1229 698
Load Fcator(5yr) 0.38 0.3 0.29 0.34 0.38 0.46 0.3 0.35 0.33 0.38 0.38 0.35
Available Export to Factories(MWH) 157 81 67 218 479 609 388 452 461 507 467 244
Available Export to Kplc(MWH) 256 189 163 422 781 738 1384 1331 1322 963 762 453
Total Factory Demand(MWh) 546 392 374 457 531 609 388 452 461 507 533 485
Deficit(-)/Surplus to Fcatories -389 -311 -307 -239 -52 -66 -241

Import From KPLC(MWh) 389 311 307 239 52 0 0 0 0 0 66 241

Net Generation in MWh
12,894

Export to Grid in MWh

8,765

Export to the three

Fcatories(MWh) 4,129

Factory imports from KPLC(MWh)

1,606

13 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

The financial analysis of the project was carried out based on financial model developed for
the purpose.

13.1 ASSUMPTIONS / INPUTS OF THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS MODEL

Debt to equity ratio 65% : 35 %

Debt Term 10 (2 years grace period during which

only interest is paid, 8 years
repayment period).

O&M Annual O & M cost for equipment and

facilities taken as 2.5% of the annual
gross revenue. Other O&M costs were
computed as per schedule attached in
the appendices. The inflation rate on
the O&M was not considered since it is
taken care of by the FiT tariff.

Income tax rate 30%

Cost of Equity 7.5%

KTDA Power Company Ltd 52 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Cost of Debt 6.0 %

Weighted Average Cost of Capital 5.4%. The WACC was used as the
discount rate

KPLC FiT Tariff 0.1 USD/Kwh as computed from the

FiT policy

Factory Tariff 0.16 USD/Kwh (Diesel generated

energy valued at 0.32 USD/Kwh)

Construction Period 2 years

Economic life 20 years

Capital Investment deductions at 150% of total cost deducted over 10

years

Major overall Taken to be included with the O&M

rates retained.

Debt Service Reserve Account Equivalent to 6 months of debt

service. The fund is released at end of
debt service

Cash Reserve Equivalent to 1 year O&M cost. The

fund is released at end of economic life

13.2 FINANCIAL INDICATORS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Table 13-1 below shows the financial indicators of the project after the financial analysis. Table
13-1: 2.77 MW financial indicators
Installed Design Pay Back Period NPV (USD) Project IRR (%) DSCR
Capacity (MW) Flow (Operation Years)

2.77 14.5

Check Greater than Greater than Greater than Greater

Economic life: OK 0: OK WACC (5.4%): OK than 1 :
OK

KTDA Power Company Ltd 53 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

All the financial indicators from the table above shows that the project is financially viable.
However the project is very sensitive to risks some of which have a very high likely hood of
occurrence. For example the project is highly sensitive to the value adopted for
environmental (reserve) flows. Table 13-2 below show variation of financial indicators with
reserve flow and factory PPA rate. It can be seen that if a lower environmental flow cannot be
agreed with WRMA, then the factory PPA will need to be revised upwards to improve the
project’s viability.

Table 13-2: Variation of Financial Indicators with reserve flow and Factory PPA rate
Factory
PPA
(USD/kWh)
IRR IRR IRR
E flows (%) NPV DSCR (%) NPV DSCR (%) NPV DSCR
10% of
available
flow 6.7%

1.0 m^3/s 5.8%

Q95 (1.94
m3/s) 4.4%

Increasing the construction period by 1 year will result into an project IRR of 5.8%, and NPV of
378,929 USD, an increase of construction time by 2 years will result into reduction of project
IRR to 5.0% and NPV to -389,824 [Link] rate of 4.4% is lower than the cost of capital (5.4%)
hence making the project financially unviable. Table 13-3 shows the impact of construction
cost increase on the project’s financial viability. It is noted that increase of the construction
cost by more than 20% would make it impossible to repay the debt using the project cash
flows.

Table 13-3 below show the impact of construction variation on the IRR. Increase of
construction cost beyond 20% of the estimates will make the project financially unviable.

Table 13-3: Impact of construction cost increase

IRR
Pay Back Period Equity
Case NPV (USD) DSCR
(Operation Years) (%)

Base Case 9.5

5% increase 10

KTDA Power Company Ltd 54 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

10% increase 10.5

20% increase 11

5% Decrease 9.5

10%Decrease 9

20% Decrease 8.5

14 RISK ANALYSIS

The table below shows some of the risks that can be realized in development of the proposed
project

Table 14-1: Project risks and mitigation

Risk Party responsible Mitigation

Plant design EPC Contractor Agree on the Plants

specifications during
negotiation of the EPC
contract

Land risk Project Company Secure all land rights

Regulatory/institutional Project company Project to be properly

approval structured to ensure that it
satisfies legal requirements
and to avert delays in
approvals.

Stake holders to be engaged

as early as possible

Government (“GOK”)
to assist in procuring
approvals in certain
circumstances

KTDA Power Company Ltd 55 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

Delays in construction Project company Ensure that penalties that

accrue to the project
EPC contractor company are passed on to
EPC Contractor under the EPC
contract

Offtake credit risk Project Company Contractual remedies for

default in payment under the
PPA

Government of Kenya letter

of Support(“GOK Letter”B) if
offtaker is a state entity

Cost overrun during Project Company Fixed fees under EPC and
construction and O$M Contracts
operations phase

Inadequate resource Project Company Adequate feasibility study

Poor plant performance Project Company Pass on risk to O$M

Contractor by having back to
O$M Contractor back provisions under the
PPA and the O$M Contractor

Political events, where GOK GOK letter

offtaker is a state entity

Default in debt service Project Company and sponsors Identify and secure the key
project aspects to ensure that
project operates at the
projected level

Environmental non Project Company Routine environmental

compliance audits

Social risk-lack of Project Company Stakeholder management

support from the local
community

KTDA Power Company Ltd 56 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

15 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The project implementation plan is shown in the Figure 15-1 below (also attached in
Appendix 13: Program of works), it shows the remaining activities from this feasibility stage
to project commissioning and their respective timelines. It should be noted that substantial
time will be spent in the procurement process for the EPC Contractor, if this time is reduced,
the project commissioning time can be brought forward. From the proposed schedule, the
Contractor will be commissioned on 1st March 2018 and the completed project will be
commissioned on 24th March 2020.

Figure 15-1: Project Implementation Plan

16 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on this feasibility study, the proposed 2.77 MW Taunet Small Hydropower Project has
been found to be technically and financially feasible and is proposed to be taken into
Tendering Stage. The remaining permits and licenses should be acquired during the tendering
process so that by the time a contractor is commissioned, all will be in place.

KTDA Power Company Ltd 57 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

17 APPENDICES

KTDA Power Company Ltd 58 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

17.1 APPENDIX 1: PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT

17.2 APPENDIX 2: SITE SELECTION STUDY REPORT

KTDA Power Company Ltd 59 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX :

17.3 APPENDIX 3 CIVIL WORKS DESIGN CALCULATIONS

KTDA Power Company Ltd 60 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

17.4 4 DRAWINGS

KTDA Power Company Ltd 61 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX :

17.5 APPENDIX 5 HYDROLOGICAL STUDY REPORT

KTDA Power Company Ltd 62 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

17.6 6 GEOTECHNICAL STUDY REPORT

KTDA Power Company Ltd 63 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX :

17.7 7 TOPOGRAPHICAL STUDY REPORT

KTDA Power Company Ltd 64 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX :

17.8 8 GRID INTERCONNECTION STUDY REPORT

KTDA Power Company Ltd 65 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX :

17.9 9 ESIA STUDY REPORT

KTDA Power Company Ltd 66 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

17.10 APPENDIX 10: CADASTRAL STUDY REPORT

KTDA Power Company Ltd 67 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 1 :

17.11 1 COST ESTIMATES

KTDA Power Company Ltd 68 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 1 :

KTDA Power Company Ltd 69 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 1 :

17.12 2 DEMAND ANALYSIS, ELECTROMECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SIZING AND

SELECTION

KTDA Power Company Ltd 70 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 1 :

KTDA Power Company Ltd 71 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 1 :

17.13 3 PROGRAM OF WORKS

KTDA Power Company Ltd 72 May 2018

Chemuka Power Company Taunet Small Hydropower Project Detailed Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 1 :

KTDA Power Company Ltd 73 May 2018

Common questions