HomeMy WebLinkAboutDesign of Low Cost, Ultra Low Head Hydropower 1981•
•
•
ENG
018 Alaska Power Authority
liBRARY COPY
DESIGN OF LOW COST, ULTRA-LOW HEAD HYDROPOWER
PACKAGE BASED ON MARINE THRUSTERS
Energy Research & Applications, Incorporated
Santa Monica, California
August 1981
DE82 004813
RECEIVE!)
MA '; , 7 1984
AlASKA POWER AliTHORIT't
•
.\ '"\ .. (·. 1 \ \ . I \_:J.·-
:·.¥ .
q
j J
10G058
DOE/ID/12201-T1
(DE82004813)
DESIGN OF LOW COST, ULTRA-LOW HEAD HYDROPOWER
PACKAGE BASED ON MARINE THRUSTERS
Final Report
August 1981
Work Performed Under Contract ~Jo. FC07-SOIDJ'2:01
Energy Research & Applications, Inc.
Santa :\lonica, California
'lf!'ltQOUC!O 8Y
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. I)[!'~Rnlfl!l OF COM.fRCE
Sl'lli!GHHO. VA 22161
..
DOE/ID/12201-Tl
( D E82004813)
Distribution Category UC-97e
DESIGN OF LOW COST, ULTRA-LOW HEAD
HYDROPOWER PACKAGE BASED ON
MARINE THRUSTERS
FINAL REPORT
August 1981
Accomplished under Coop. Agreement DE-FC07-80ID12201
between
Energy Research & Applications, Inc.
and
U.S. Dept. of Energy Idaho Operations Office
DOE Program Officer:
Charles E. Gilmore,
Chief, Advanced Technology Branch
ER&A Project Manager:
John J. Huetter, Jr.
;· ,,
_, ........... : ',,_,~;--.
,...;L.;:Iv"""'A'lYI=I\
',i.'Ork spons::.•rt:d by ar. dgency of the l'mted
G~-, :.:::--.::·.::;-. ·~ ;-.,e1!h.:: :.h:: L ni:eC 5 wtes Goverr.mer. i. no: any a~ncy the reo:, nor an:
. :'7'.:j::~ ::r,:.' \;'~r:a:.:y e\.;-:::~s o: 1:nplied. o: asscmes any kgal h::.bi.liry or
:·::.-; ::::.: ~.: ... ·:...:::~c·y, ~·ur:1p~·:~~ness. o: use:\:inen ar:y in.forma!.lc!1, appa;:nus.
:c-;:::"5-:::1!~ :h::.: its use wou]j not in:rL"1ge privateir 0'~'>11eC
.--._,:-;. ::.;.J:'::1:.....:i .. r::.::--.c!'<.:.:::to..:.:t;, r.::: ~'t:.--.::r~Ai&.::, dues n•.:;t necessariJy cons.tit'.,j~t or imp!y iu
t~:-.-::.-_ ;SZ'::-:::::-::. r;;.;c,:nr:;-;?rH.!.a.~ior.. v: (~vo~ig by the l'r.itt=d StJt~s Governmer.t or a.1·1y a gene;:
;.·:::·:-:. :r~:: \~-:::-..~ r'pinion:o c-~ ;:.;_.:[;or~ e~press.ed hereir: dv not ne..:es:.;;.rily state o:
th:::~...-of tf:(' L'r.i!e:: St:He-' G(':ve;-nment or any a~er:cy thereof."
di:-ectiy fron: the bes: a\'aiJable copy.
:,;_,,,, :·,:>.: T:-:hr.ic:!l i:;fenn~tio:1 Service, C. S. Department of Commerce.
,_;~.::-...: :c:· r-:":::.~~..: --. .. -·~~.n. . .~_ . .), Tht· cod~ i~ ciete::::U:1ej b~,-the number of pa~es u:. tb:::
!r,forr:::li·-':: ?er~~L'1ing to ti,e pricing codes can be found in the current issues of the followmg
pu'c~ic21i0:1s. wf'Jch are ge~e;ally available in n1ost libraries: Energy Research Ab£tracts, (ER-4.);
Go;·enm:c,:r Reparrs Announceme~:rs ar.d Index (GR4 and I); Scientific and Technical Abstract Reports
'ST.iR,. 2:1c :"TIS.PR·360 a,·:riJable from (NTIS) at the above address.
•
TABLE OF co;--.."''E\1'5
FINAL REPORT ON DESIGN OF LOW COST, lJLTRA-W'l HEAD
HYDROPO.~'ER PACKAGE BASED ON MARH,JE T'rlRUSTERS.
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
SECTION 5
SECTION 6
SECTION 7
SECTION 8
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
APPTh'DIX III
EXEQJTIVE SIJ!vMARY
INTROIXJCTION
EQUIPMENT RESEARCH
ULTRA-LOW HEAD HYDROPOWER PACKAGE
ENGINEERING DESIGN
ULTRA-LOW HEAD HYDROPCWER PACKAGE
C(};!PONENT COST ANALYSIS
ULTRA-LOW HEAD SITE APPLICATIONS
IN THE UN!TED STATES
B>.'VIRON'-1ENTAL EFFECTS OF ULHH
PACKAGE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
TECliNOLCXN TRANSFER
FINAL ENGI:l\'EERING DESIGNS
( 4 DRAWINGS)
SUPPORTING DATA AND CALa.JI.ATIONS
SITE SPECIFIC ECON(};ITC A~YSES
PAGE
i
1
13
35
58
73
102
107
115
119
120
142
NOTICE
T HI S D 0 C tT )I! E NT H A S B E E ~ R E P R 0 D tT C E::)
FRO~! THE BEST COPY FUR)riSHED tTS B~t
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTEOGGE IT
IS RECOG)fiZED THAT CERTAI~ PORT:O~S
A R. E I L L E G I 3 L E , I T I S B E I )r G R E L E .l. S E D
IN TS:E I~TEREST OF MAKI)rG AVA!LAB:..E
A S M U C H I ~ F 0 R )I! A T I 0 .:l' .'\ S P 0 S S I B L E .
•
~ ' . · .
. . ·.
EXEC1JTD/E Sllv1MA.RY
The development of potential hydroelectric power at sites with
low heads has traditionally been so expensive in relation to
their power output that such sites have not been cost-effective
for either public or private development. This condition is
magnified at sites with ultra-low heads (defined by the Depart-
ment of Energy as 3 meters or less) which have generally not
been found economically feasible.
Significant reduction in development costs, especially hardware,
would permit additional thousands of potential very low head
hydropower sites to qualify economically as renewable resource-
based power sources.
Energy Research & ,;\pplications, Inc. proposed to address this
problem through a Research & Development Project to determine
if marine thrusters could be engineered into a hydropower package
at ultra-low heads and, if technically feasible, at what cost.
This was accomplished within the context of the U.S. Department
of Energy's Ultra-low Head Hydropower Cost Reduction Program.
Marine thrusters are prD~arily used in large ships, such as
tankers, for propulsion and maneuvering. In this application,
they ftmction somewhat like axial flow pumps. However, the
tunnel enclosure around the impeller blade provides significant
thrust augmentation.
ER&A was successful in characterizing the performance of two
lines of thrusters h'hich moved a vollmle of water at pressures
equivalent to two-three meter heads. Concurrent with t.~is
analysis was a search for anpropriate low cost transmission
and generation equipment available as "off-the-shelf" catalog
items and which matched the predicted power characteristics of
the thrusters operating as turbines.
The result of this effort was the selection of induction motors
to be operated as 6enerators and industrial belt drives linking
the thruster output shaft to the motor-generator's drive shaft.
A modular elbow do'.,T'.stremn section was configured in corrosion-
resistant Cor-Ten Steel and designed for attachment to the
thruster. The function of a conventional draft tube is accom-
plished by a cast i:1 pl2..ce concrete form that mates to the steel
trJUster outlet sectjon, providing transition from circular to
expandi:lg rectangular cross-section.
Eleven distinctly 'Si:ed applications were ultimately developed
and costed. Package costs, less civil works and installation,
ranged from approxima"Cely $25,000 to slightly over $120,000.
The corresponding range of predicted power outputs at three
i
meters (!?.84 ft) heac is 40 Kl\ to 630 Kl\' per package. Average
cost of the ER&A-designed !JT..J1H package is about $260/Kl~ at three
meters. Each unit was further characterized for ooeration
between 6 ~~d 15 feet of head. ·
Comparative concept designs at the feasibility study level of
detail, involving retrofit of the thruster packages or conven-
tional hydropower equipment at three sites resulted in installed
cost savings of 50-60%.
The en\~ronmental effects of operating a thruster-based hydro-
power site are generally similar to a conventional plant operated
in the same mode (run of the river or time of day release). The
low cost of the ULHH package does permit cost-effective power
development at sites which intrinsically have less negative en-
vironmental effect than high head sites. Reduced cost also per-
rni ts flexibility in operation to maintain streamflow levels while
satisfying econowic criteria for power production.
Based on the engineering results of the project and promise for
significant cost-reduction, ER&A proposes to fabricate, install
and test a full-scale unit at an appropriate site.
~ c
I
;-I
i
D
--
ii
I
T E
!_L
I
D
I __ .___._j_
FINAL REPORT
on
Cooperative Agreement #DE-FC07-80ID12201:
DESIGN OF LOW-COST ULTRA-LOW HEAD HYDROPOWER PACKAGE
BASED ON MARINE THRUSTERS
Executed Under PRDA ·nE-RA07-80ID 12087
U.S. Dept. of Energy, Idaho Operations Office
and
Energy Research & Applications, Inc.
1.0 Introduction
The development of hydroelectric power sites with effective head of
three meters (9.8 ft) or less has been severely limited. There are
significant numbers of these sites, even though impoundments wit~
heads of less than ten feet are often excluded from survey lists.
Nor is there an absolute lack of power generating equipment for the
under three meter range; admittedly, the selection is rather limited
at these ultra-low l:eads. The negative envirornnental effects some-
times associated >vith hydropower development are not prohibitive to
ultra-low head site development. Rather, it the same hurdle that
has blocked so many other,vise promising renewable energy resources:
they were not cost-effective to develop for electric power produc-
tion compared to existing power plant designs.
Energy Research & Applications, Inc. proposed to address this problem
by determining if T..arine thrusters could be engineered into a hydro-
power package ~:d, i£ technically possible, at what cost.
The U.S. Department of Energy determined it appropriate to fund, on a
cost-shared basis, a Research and Design activity whose goal was to
lower the cost of ultra-low head hydropower development.
The following sub-sections describe the methodology and results of the
project resulting fror.\ Cooperative Agreement DE-FC07-80ID12201 be~,veen
the Department of E.;1ergy and Energy Research & Applications, Inc.
1.1 The Equipment
Marine thrusters are priTarily used for the propulsion and ~aneuvering
-1-
of large ships-such as tankers, or other off-shore applications: oil
rig support is a typical example. They are variously referred to as
~Jnnel w\rJsters, bow thrusters, and maneuvering thrusters and are
~~~ufac~red in several configurations by about half a dozen comp~~ies
for an international market. (See Figure 1.1, for example.)
The initial task and as it developed, most time-consuming, was the
identification of suitable thrusters, determination of their practi-
cality as turbines, and characterization of their performance as
turbines. The task was complicated by a staggering lack of data on
the performance rr~rine thrusters in their general mode of use.
These units have been in widespread use for only about fifteen years,
coinciding with the advent of the supertankers, and their application
and hydrod:~ic performance are more often observed than predicted
or engineered. (This is primarily due to the effects of other vectors
on the sr~p in which the tP~ter is installed but removal of the
multi-directional effects still didn't provide us much useful data on
their performance.)
Still, there were manv apparent advantages to pursuing the marine
thruster for the blade section in an ultra-low head package. The
units are manufac~Jred with a variety of drive configurations includ-
ing right angle: "L" type, and double right angle: "Z" type, as well
as straightline drives.
The gearboxes are an integral part of the unit; similar to a bulb
turbine in t...'lis respect. Mditionally, thrusters are built for
variable speeds in hostile salt water, dirty harbor, flotsam and
jetsa~-cluttered operating environments so they should prove extremely
reliable in a constant-flow, fresh water application. Finally, the
t...~~sters are available literally as off-the-shelf units with·6-10
weeks delivery time. They were also inex-pensive. What that meant
in terms of a $/KW number when, and if, they could be integrated into
a package that would produce electric power from hydraulic energy was
the core question of this project.
After several false starts and delays in manufacturers' data, it was
decided to get the project on track with a straightforward calcula-
tic~ reactive tru-ust as determined by input power to the thruster
(co;.Nerted to torque) and active blade swept area, which data were
available from some of t.'-le manufacturers .
Characterization of each unit of every manufacturer from which even
minimal data was forthcoming resulted in the discovery of two lines
of equipment for wnich the calculated effective heads, in pressure
equivalents, matched the under-three meter regime we were contracted
to investigate. These were Schottel and Harbormaster.
There was some over-lap in the model lines, \\i th Schottel ma."lufactur-
ing some ~~ller size thrJsters and Harborr.~ster, larger ones.
2-
•
•
•
.. . ... ..
. . _ ... ~ .....
-' ~ . ~···~-' ·, ... ~~~~:··-.f.~gutt;t: ·~~·.l·
. ' ··.··
.,;
-3-... . '
, ...
i"l'
ER~A identified a range of thrusters which moved a flow of water at
pressures equivalent to two to three meter heads. Concurrent with
this research was the search for t.'le appropriate low-cost trans-
mission and generation devices.
The result in this case was the selection of electric induction
motors for use as generators in the package for a grid interface
application. Because of the variety of drive configurations in the
thrusters, the generator can be located some distance away from the
blade section, if that simplifies installation.
Initial research for a suitable low-cost transmission did not pro-
duce any conclusive results. The thruster gearboxes themselves
provided a reduction ratio that ranged from approximately 2:1 to
4:1. Induction motors are commonly available ~~th operating RPM of
720, 900, 1200 and 1800. We proceeded to define the RPM of the
thn.tsters operating in a power-producing mode at three meters head,
as well as determining how the thrusters would perform as turbines
overall.
The design of appropriate inlet and outlet structures, configurations,
and their cost, also had to be developed.
1. 3 Method of Analvsis
After considerable basic research by the assigned engineers, includ-
ing review of the texts by Spannhake and Stepanoff on pump vs. turbine
design, we determined to apply the four-quadrant curves developed by
W. A. Swanson as part of his Cal Tech thesis: "Complete Character-
istic Circle Diagrams for Turbomachinery".
His work compared the perfonnance of an axial-flow pump, "water driven"
as a turbine, with its perfonnance 11wa ter -driving" as a pump. It was
our best engineering judgment that the thrusters so far characterized
could be treated as axial flmv pumps for perfonnance derivation. This
was later confirmed by a technical note prepared by P. K. Dewhurst
in 1971 that Harbormaster thrusters might ~urk as pumps but only with-
in very low head ranges. (Peter Dewhurst is today Executive Vice
Pre ·ident and Chief of Engineering for Harbormaster' s parent company.)
Swanson's thesis included a large-scale diagram of the + 100% HEAD
and + 100% TORQUE relationships, plotted on axes rep':"esenting percentage
of flow and percentage of rotational speed. We replotted the turbine
region on a larger scale and calculated curves for fractions both above
and below the 100% HEAD and TORQUE values. (See Figure 1. 2 for curve
reference.)
There were some aberrations in the curve behavior, including dual inter-
cepts and non-intercept points. These were resolved when it could be
demonstrated that the tangential intercept points lay on a constant
radial line from the axis origin in the turbine quadrant and, further,
-4-
lOO
'll j'--4---+--~--+---~~~~~~~~~~ ~--+---~---+----+--~----r---+---~---r--0~
V'
~--~--~--~-+--~--~~--~--+--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~71
n
,.
Figure 1.2. Four Quadrant Diagram
-5-
gave performance data that looked reasonable compared to our estimates.
Flows and RP''1' s for the various sized units, ranging from 80 to 1000
HP input, could then be calculated by a computer program and subse-
quently were. This program was later expanded to provide for calcula-
tion of necessary design inlet and outlet areas and runaway speed of
the tth~ster acting as a turbine.
We further explored the results of thruster operation as turbines over
a range of heads, stepping down through the series of computerized
performance equations for each of eleven thruster ur~ts at 90%, 80%,
70%, and 50% of the baseline three meter head. Predicted power output
at a head of 1.5 M drons to about one third of the maximum calculated
three meter head value:
The package design parameters now emerging included flows, predicted
~1 of the blade and runaway speed, cone diameters as a function of
th~ter diameter and the overall fact that only the tunnel thrusters,
of all the types surveyed, met our "'"--3 M head equivalent pressure.
This fact further dictated package design. Also, the 1000 HP (input)
unit emerged as an upper size limit due to the diameter of that unit's
blade. At nearly 80 inches across, it began to approach our maximum
head of 117 inches, and anything larger would be clearly impractical
due to physical size restrictions.
1.4 Value Engineering
Since the purpose of the project was cost reduction, we went through
a value engineering exercise as part of the design activity for the
hydropower package.
Basic to tr~s approach, well-established through aerospace industry
experience, is an objective definition of the design function. The
follov.ring categories of questions are then posed, usually in an itera-
tive fashion:
1) What is the design function?
2) r.na. t does it accomplish? .,
:;) What does it cost?
4) Wnat else will accomplish the function?
S) r.na. t does that cost?
This process applies until the minimum cost for a specified function
is achieved, while maintaining the performance parameters required
for that function. The value engineering approach not only was at
the foundation of t1is design research project but applied in the
engineering of specific package components, including draft tube,
head and frequency control, transmission method, and selection of
rr~terials as will be further described in the engineering design.
-6-
1.5 Ultra-Low Head Hydropower Package Engineering Desi~
ER&A began the final engineering exercise through defining the expected
upper and lower boundaries of the perfonnance envelope. We completed
a horizontal configuration design based on the BT200 and BTlOOO model
thrusters. The downside of the perfonnance band was later extended
as Schottel-based designs were developed .
. ,
The basic·design data derived from the analysis phase were further re-
fined into the necessary dimensions and physical characteristics that
resulted in three basic package configurations: horizontal, vertical
with two sub-variations, and a siphon. Exemplary layouts are shown in
the Engineering Design Section.
A key design feature which translates into cost reduction at several
points, from manufacture through site installation, is the modular
elbow which can apply to inlet and outlet structures for each unit
configuration. Similarly, the convergent and divergent cones are
identical for each size unit. The cones and elbows are manufactured
with flanges for assembly with gaskets and structural bolts. With
the very low pressure encountered in this L.. 3 M head regime, even
conventional 0.5 inch bolts and industrial-rubber gaskets exceed
design requirements. Similarly, wall thicknesses of only 0.011 inch
could withstand the pressures but are too fragile for welding and
handling. The rna..xi1ITlllll pressure differential expected will not exceed
two at:mospheres-[29.4 psi) which is handled by a 0.188 inch wall
thickness for the largest diameter package.
Cor-Ten steel is specified for the non-thruster hydraulic portion of
the packagr-due to· a favorable tradeoff benveen corrosion resistance,
structural strength and cost compared to a number of other materials
considered, including some non-metallic candidates.
Two alternatives were developed for the transmission. V-belts and
sheaves proved adequate for RPM and torque of units predicted to
produce from 40 to about 250 KW net output. Additionally, we iden-
tified a fiberglass toothed cog belt similar to an overhead cam timing
belt in an automobile engine that accommodated higher torque loads,
higher speeds, and longer operational life at somewhat greater cost.
The manufacturer's experience in operating conditions indicate that
this type of transmission can provide an efficiency of over 98%,
though 96% is probably more common over a varying range of conditions
and loads.
~et thruster efficiency calculations, for operation as turbines, ranged
from a low of 58% to a rjgh of 72%. An efficiency of over 65% was
computed for all except r~o of the units characterized. Reasonably
conservative calculations indicate that power output will range from
40 I<Jif in the smallest unit to up to 5.37 KW for th.e largest unit within
our physical size restrictions. Applications of the hydropower packages
based on the larger units will be limited. We estimate most applica-
tions will be found for units pro<h.lcing between 130 KW and .200 K'rl,
-7-
:,;, ...
....
!~ ·~ ··~ ' .......
~·: ~ ', I
. '. ·• ..
• . .
. ,
... -· ..
•
Figure 1. 3 '!Ypical Ins~llation of Ultra-Low Head Hydropower Package
Based on Manne Thruster. ·
-8-
' .
possibly in mltiple installations to realize the site's full power
potential as a function of available flows. There are four packages
designed in that range of power output.
1.6 Site Applications
ER&A anticipated that an ultra-low head hydropower package meeting
cost-acceptance criteria would have applications at existing dams,
tvastewater treatment plants, irrigation canal drops, industrial
cooling water outfalls, and, we discovered in the course of the
project, fish ladders, where some of the otherwise lost flows can
be economically recovered.
The actual site numbers by ultra-low head category were not that easy
to extract for a variety of reasons, but we identified the following
potential, qualified as noted below.
DAMS (U.S.): Department of Energy Inventory -784
Positively located by ER&A 153
TREA'IMENT PL\NI'S (U.S.): 62 with adequate flow
IRRIGATION CANAlS (California only): 75
FISH LADDERS (U.S.): Approximately 100
INDUSTRIAL COOLING OOTFAIJ..S: 601 with adequate flow
(Power plants only -U.S.)
Those numbers can be summarized to reach different totals based on
their source and reliability. We come up with a probable market
size of between 800 and 1600 sites with heads ~ 3 meters.
However, it should be noted that a detailed reconnaissance by the
Iowa Natural Resources Cou.""lcil identified 62 dams in that state
suitable for retrofit with our hydropower package design having a
calculated power potential of slightly over 35 megawatts.
1.7 Cost and Economics
Assembled cost of the complete ultra-low head hydrop<Mer package,
defined as the turbine ass~hly, transmission, support structure,
and generator set ranges from $190 to $300/KW at three meters head
with the exception of the 40 K\'1 unit which casted out at $590/KW.
Average cost of the entire line is $258/KW at three meters. This
cost buildup is based on manufacturers' quotes for their components,
bid costs from three sources for fabrication and assembly, and an
allowance for preparation of manufacturing drawings and specifica-
tions. J:hese costs were generally consistent. with the cost buildups
-9-
done in house by our production engineer. Figure 1. 4 compares thruster
package costs v;i th conventional turbine package costs. Tne tur0ine
costs were extracted from feasibility studies for UI1-! sites and infla-
ted to 1981 levels.
We further developed the cost by completing installation designs for
three sites at which feasibility studies including costing had been
done. The sites were representative: a Tennessee wastewater treat-
ment plant, a California· irrigation canal and a low-head dam in Texas.
The first site had already beert fotmd economically feasible, the latter
two were not. Civ~l works requirements and costs were not affected as
dramatically as we had anticipated but still were reduced by about
half in both substance and cost with retrofit of the ER&:\ package design.
Using consistent allowances in each case for engineering (22.5% of
total, or actual cost where known) and contingencies (20%), exemplary
hydropower development economics are in the follmd.ng tables. All
values are expressed in inflation-adjusted 1981 dollars.
Wastewater Plant
Irrigation Canal
Low Head Dam
CONVEI'-.'TIONAL RE1ROFIT
$1908/.KW*
$3735/.KW
$2939/:f.-IV
*installed capacity
ER&:\ l.JU-lH PACKAGE RETROFIT
$1215/.KW
$1523/KW
$1434/k'W
Applying Return on Investment criteria in the economic analysis, the
various project ROTs changed as follows:
CONY~~ONAL RETROFIT ER&A l.JU-lH PACKAGE RE1ROFIT
Wastewater Plant 63% 110.%
Irrigation Canal 32% 80%
Low Head Dam 8% 56%
Furt: errrt:lre, all of the sites retrofit with the thruster-based ULHH
package exhibited a positive cash flow to ti1e investor by year three
of the project and always had a positive present net worth applying
a 20% discount rate.
1. 8 Em~ronmental Effects
wr,i1e hydropower retrofits of ultra-low head dams and man-made water
systems avoid most traditional environmental problems, there are
still some concerns at these sites. At sites where disturbance from
construction is an issue, thruster-based equipment packages and their
-10-
I
~I
4000.
3000
2000
$/KW
1000 ...IQ
0
~~~:.~ --V ..
0
Figure 1.4 Comparative Equipment
Costs and Power Output
8 ALLIS OIAIMERS HORIZONTAL lUBE
b BOFORS NOHAB VERTICAL
G LEFFEL SAMPSON VERTICAL
"U ER&A IKJRIZONTAL llffiUSTER-'IURinNE
A A
,. I ' I I I I I I I ·-t------+----t---+--t --t---r--r---r--t--+---+--r---1--+--._-+--t---t--+--t-
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
KW OUTPUT/UNIT
simplified civil works requirements offer an advantage over tradi-
tional, m:::rre elaborate installations. Tne environmental effects of
operating a thn1ster-based hydropower station will not differ signi-
ficantly from operating a conventional plant in the same mode. A
low-cost U'.~...~"Y pac:.i;:age does pennit the production of power from sites
which intrinsically have less environmental consequence than high head
sites \ihile permitting flexibility in operation to maintain stream-
flow levels in a cost-effective wanner.
1.9 Conclusions
Tne results of this research and design project indicate ~1at an
ultra-low head hydropower package based on marine thrusters can be
produced at a cost from one-third to one-tenth the price of more
conventional hydropm.;er equipment. The basic hardware cost reduction
stems from the initial low cost of the thruster blade section, right
angle drive, and gearbox, supported by value engineering of a package
permitting cost reductions w~thin the wider latitude pennitted by the
low head, low pressure regime.
Translated to actual site applications, consistent levels of engi-
neering design and economic analysis indicate an installed cost re-
duction of S0-60%. This level of ccst reduction is sufficient to
convert potential sites ~1at were previously economically infeasible
into feasible projects, which should satisfy the joint goals of the
project.
A next logical step is the full-scale demonstration of an ER&A-
designed u111H package at an appropriate site to verify costs, ascer-
tain actual power values realizable and collect performance data
over a range of real-world conditions. The U.S. Department of
Energy identified the project as a likely candidate for such demon-
stration funding. Sponsors for this next phase of the activity are
currently being sought in order to validate this low-cost, ul tra-lo\.;
head design.
-12-
. •, -. '-
2.0 Equipment Research:
This section describes the research into the necessary equipment
components of the uun1 package. The results are presented in terms
of the particular units or t}~e of components selected according to
criteria of function, record of performance, and cost.
2.1 Equipment Research: Thrusters
Thruster manufacturers were contacted during the proposal effort, and
their responses indicated interest in the additional potential market
for their products. Schottel was visited in Miami, in mid-Cctober,
1980, and agreed to provide thruster-as-turbine performance calcula-· ·,
tions from their computer facility in the Netherlands. Elliott also
offered a similar study from their home office. Harbormaster reported
that they had no tests or perfonrun1ce data for their thrusters oper-
ated in a turbine mode.
We then started looking for other data sources to use as a check on
the expected data from thruster manufacturers. We had a paper from
Acres American on pumps as turbines and had started to run down the
Kittredge textual reference which led to the Swanson reference. We
also conducted a comprehensive computerized literature search which
produced data on aerospace thrusters for spacecraft maneuvering, but
nothing on marine thrusters as turbines, and little useful data on
thruster perfor;nance prediction. We also had Allis-ChaL11ers litera-
t'Llre that described model testing of turbines and pumps and perfor-
mance curves from those tests. We also had the regular brochures of
tJrbine manufacturers, planr~ng to compare thruster data to that of
propeller-t}~e a.xial flow tt1rbines. None of the turbine data went
below a head of three meters excent Allis-Chalmers units extended
to ti.Jo meters, and ti.JO and a hal{ meters for Ta1npella (botb. were
axial flow tube turbines \vhich was sunnortive of our research on
axial flow thrusters). ·•
We reviewed textbcoks on pump and turbine design by both Spannhake
and Stepanoff. We also investigated aircraft methcds of estimating
propeller performance but they were dependent on coefficients from
airfoil tests. We continued the literature search for formulae on
turbine blade speed ~1d found equations on Bell turbines and in
Spannhake's book.
Harbormaster had supplied drawings, thrust, and budgetary costs of
some of their units that we thought would fit the ultra-low head
region. Both Schottel and Elliott had failed to respond to our
repeated requests for typical costs on a few selected models. On
5 January 1981, Ho\.Jard Bach of Elliott called to say their home
office had declined to do the computer analysis on turbine perfor-
w.ance of t.'lrusters because they were too busy now. Anot.l'ler call to
Schottel also verified t..1.a t they were busy and we w-ould not get the
long-delayed computer study on t..'rrus ten as turbines. We had _learned
earlier that all three thruster manufacturers .regularly C'.istotn design
t.1.e propellers to go wi t:.'-1 their standard gear drives, t" .. mnel housing
13-
dimensions, and particular ship characteristics. Figures 2.1
through 2.-+ shm-; w~e principal thruster lines whose performance was
characteri:ed by ER&A.
We t.l1e:1 began dimensional analysis of P.arbonnaster' s thruster line
to de:fine the equivalent pressure heads and design flows of all
w~eir standard ~~ts. We converted the rated horsepower to torque,
which permitted calculation of the flow velocity. Combined 'lo."ith
the net propeller swept area, this value permitted definition of
maximum rated £1ov.-. The equivalent pressure heads ranged from 7. 56
feet to 9. 54 feet, which qualified these units for the ultra -low
head region of three meters or less as a design point for net head
in turbine mode. IVe rated the calculated thruster head equivalent
to the three meter head design point and calculated resulting velo-
cities and flows. The specific speed equation was used to arrive
at a predicted turbine blade RPM.
The Stepanoff book has presented Swanson's work on "Complete Charac-
teristic Circle Diagrams for l'u:rbomachinery". We made the assumption
that thruster behavior ,.;as analogous to axial-flow pump performance
and applied this "four-quadrant" method of analysis as it correlates
the performa.'1ce of a.'1 axial pump, ''water-driven" as a turbine, with
the "best efficient point" of the pump "v:a ter-dri ving": defined as
100% of head and torque for a range of flows. We were concerned by
some of the bulges in the turbine region of the curves, not being
really sure v:hy they were irregul?.r. This was later attributed to
plotting of empirically-derived data, rather than the smoot..lJ. curves
a theoretical calcula"tion would yield. We adapted this publication,
which is the original data source from Swanson's pump tests. Raw
test data and notes -were not obtainable.
W .A. Swanson's thesis had a large scale diagram of the : 100% head
and ~ 100% torque, plotted on axes of ! percent of flow and ! percent
of rotational speed. We replotted the turbine region on a larger
scale and calcJlated curves for fractions, both above and below 100%
of head and torque. The torque curve looped across the head curve
making two intercepts. We picked the more conservative (higher flow
required) intercept for calculating relationships. A ratio of the
turbine head to the thruster head was calculated for entry into the
Swanson cuYVe and a flow/head product ratio for the torque ratio
entry to the curves. Since these ratios produced odd fractions, we
calc1lated a new set of curves for each thruster. Much to our sur-
prise, all of the cJrves did not cross and our intercept selection
did not appear justified. One tluuster 'lo.as characterized by per-
fonnance cuYVes which were ta.TJ.gential at one point, and this looked
like a logical description of performance. This contact point plotted
out as a constant radial line from the origin and could therefore be
calculated without manual and visual interpretation. This also per-
mitted the characteristic calculation to be exPressed as a series of
equations susceptible to computer solution. See Appendix II for these
equations and Lhe resulting values for the smallest and largest
Harbormaster thrusters evaluated. We applied the ze:-o torque line
to calculate rJnaway speed from the curves.
-14-
•
Fixed Pitch Tunnel Thrusters
Tunnels, rolled of heavy
corrosion resistant steel,
incorporate heavy
"Chill" Rings to minimize
distortion during
installation.
All models incorporate
three point support to
insure a high degree of
structural stiffness.
All models may be installed
with the input shaft center
line set at any point in an
arc 90° on either side of
the vertical.
Input flanges are provided
to accommodate either
standard flange type
coupling halves or Spicer
type flexible shaft flanges.
Low hub to tunnel diameter
ratios and well streamlined
pod assemblies combine
to produce higher thrusts
than usually expected from
thrusters of equal diameter.
RANGE OF UNITS CHAAACTERIZED IN R&D ....
MODEL BT·ZOO BT·Z50 BT ·3411 I BT-4110 I BT 450 BT·550 i BT·i50 BT·&50
!NPUT 130C· ~ 800· 1200· 1 ; ~6 ~. I :200· 1200 1 1800 900 RPM 2100 2100 1~00 ' 1· · •oo
H p 150~ 2CO· 300· i 350-400· sao-1 600· 800·
RANGE 200 250 350 I "00 •eo ; 550 650 850
A DIM 13 5 14 00 1s a ! . s 5 20 0 1~ 25 I 27 5 28 Q ' I
•2 :: I I B DIM .. I 36 7 39 75 .!9 54 88 51 59 25 n 75
! 2, • 9 I I
C :JIM 26 5 2738 31 1 9 JS 00 29 75 i 27 75 41 13
0 :)IM ' 33 25 33 GO 39 81 J 39 81 I 39 81 54.25 l 57 25 5725
EOIM I 42 63 41 75 50 81 I :c :) ~ ! 64 50 76.63 1 79 83 39 63
BT-1000 BT·1200 !IT-1500
900 850 850
a~o-1000· I 1200-•,ooo I 1200 ~51)0
28 31 ! 33 5
79,25 86 25 90 25
41 13 5225 ?2 25
I
I 57 25 94 5 9J :
89C3 1 1e 119
Figure 2.1 Harbormaster Fixed Pitch Tunnel Thrusters
-15-
BT-1900
925
1500·
1900
44
104 5
69 38
:oa
:28.5
BT·lOOO
m
2500·
3000
49.5
'23.9
!4 5
138
167 5
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
en
MODEL
S-IOL
S-51 L
~
Q
Q.
0
0::
0..
I
i
I
MAX
A.P. M.
15 00
1200
: I f--E -,-.--D -1
I
F-t+
I ---,---~-G
l r-------c-----~
RED INPUT H. P. PROP.
F'T. LBS. {)I A.
1.13 200 85 19.0
/.53 514 12 0 29.5
Figure 2.2 Schottel Type L Bow1±rrusters
·16-
A
19.5
28.75
•
•
501
i 1211
;I 1411
I~! 1611 ~~· i 12Cl!
! 124H
2000 56
1714 76
1500 100
1200 155
1000 222
750 389
600 601
460 925
2000 110
1714 150
1500 195
1200 304
1060
487
1400
635
2210
1003
3220
14fi1
591~
2631
9500
4310
15370
5974
1120
503
1550
703
2060
935
3260
1488
4770
21154
Shipping Dil'l'lef1sions (Upper !nches-Lo_, Mlllim<~tersl
Space
Net
We•ght
lb./Kg.
Cu. Fl.
Cu. Mrrs. A e c 0 e F H J L
Nod. Alum.
Iron Allo
25
0 70
37
u
52
1.5
1()4
3.0
156
4.4
375
10.6
700
20
1250
35.1
23
0. 79
42
1 2
60
1. 7
119
3.4
160 s. r
65 51'; 23/1 9 19t, 14 2li
1551 1299 587 229 502 356 70
33Jt. 16~, 1~
857 410 273
563 276
258 125
73 ·., sa~; 211,
1867 1 -+89 705
83 ., 64:. 30',
21co 7632 781
21'·' ss2'
24'\
622
171, 3:;,
~5 89
20
508
4
102
105"-34'-, .16% 15 32'2 25
2686 2149 930 3S1 826 535
5
127
122:, 97', 43:;, 18 36 27'cl SY,
31CS 2477 IICS -+57 914 708 140
'43 116.·, 56~ 24 49 40. 8~
3632 2968 1438 6C9 1245 1016 213
i 7'"6 :41 '': 66'~• JC'1 60 50 22
.:474 3594 1686 775 1524 1270 :i59
ns · rs·t 80'," 38
5715 4-4 '52 2C46 965
74 62"; 13',
1880 '588 342
39 18'•1 1 Hi
991 470 292
832
378
44'', 21 v, :3 25',; 1266
1133 543 330 654 57.!
54 '1. 26 17'> 3:1'' 2360
13713 Otiv 451 ss7 toeo
63J] :)()', 19'-; 38 3680
1613 775 502 965 1670
63 4\i 26 5, 78-10
1600 1245 560 1295 3550
81 60 32 52 16240
2058 1524 813 1320 ;4CO
105 74 40 76 298C<J
2665 1880 1016 1931 '3500
467
2'2
7•% 52" 23'~ 9 19¥. 15 3 33"1 16', 10"'. 30 659 320
1595 '584 587 229 502 381 76 857 410 273 762 299 145
94·, 27»; 10', 2H: 17:4 3'1, 39 18'1 1 33': 970 545
2·.i6 · 705 267 552 us a9 991 470 a51 440 248
~1 m· j~s ~~i ~8 io2 ft?3 ~~ ~jo ~~~: ~~~0
1:?; ,; '0; 36'-, 15 32 ·, 25 5 54·,, 1 i';
:JCJ2 2~65 930 387 S26 635 127 1378 451
1~0" · :5"', 4J:·, 18 36 27:, 5'> 63' :lO' · 19'-, oo·, ~S6J
3569 ?<;..;tC 1 I•JS 4S7 914 706 '40 1613 775 502 1429 2':7 ·)
1010 645
458 293
1520
690
29"1C
1275
.1300
1950
8960
4060
,87:<i
8500
343CC
15550
838 500
381 227
1180 755
505 J.J3
1780
807
3400
1540
5350
2430
Figure 2. 3a Elliott Hori :on tal Shaft Nhi te Gill Bmv/Ster:l Thrusters
-17-
Staooara
tQHltiOI"' I
only
"''OM•1fi!f"''d3td
fOf.lt!~M O~"ly l
Non·,tand.trd 1
rotiUIO!"' only
{ ~ ....
B
c
M
ililhNIM!)-.. T~§§§§~§§§§~~f .... ,.. Ti' l£1YEL :
!_j__ j_~, =~ ===t:=~
WAT'£A INI..£7 --4--tli"'oll-+--
t'!Ull PUntoG 1
0
_j_
.. , .. ,._ ___ F 10..: ----!1·
!+-----------A.-----------..-1
'! I Static DimensiOnS (U-lnc::he:$-L.o...., Millimeters)~
ModeiiA.P.M. H.P. Thrusl Weight
1 I (AbSorbed) lb./Kg A 8 C 0 E F G H lb./KQ.
I 3Z20 75o/. 60 57 14 21 31 30 26 4480
!1000 222 1461 1924 1524 1448 356 533 787 762 660 2030
i
I
!480
389
601
525
5910 101 721} 69;; 17 26 40}> 40 34 8960
2681 2{>65 1842 1759 432 660 1029 1016 884 4060
9500 124 85\<, Blo/. 22 32 51 50 45 15680
4370 $150 2755 2076 559 813 1295 1270 1143 7110
15370 154 1C4 1003·)27\, 40 63 62'1, 80 31360
6974 391? 2842 2553 700 1('16 1600 1588 1524 74230
Standard
1'0\&hOJ'\
only
No,....tanoard
rotallon of'\ly
Standard
rotahon on1y
Staf\t:Sard
rotat10!"' on1~
Figure 2.3.b Elliot Vertical Shaft White Gill BowlStem Thrusters
-18-
SI,AIH'T.liiti.S
~'rl.iTAABO.&.AQ
l
'1\A,;t.;$
I '1<10"1"!3oeot Qi~~ cUPJ:e' 'r>ehes·Lv-'otiilimetersJ
I
-R?M "1P Th"-'StA B C 0 E;j Fjj O¢
lb.! Kg
7:270 57:~ ::14 :la"'t 77"-1 •6:> •l
32 ·~1 +60 JJC() 1470 B6S 375 r;o.5 n;o ~C:43
11080 75 35'\ -18 :a
.~ 525 ;:~ ::;oo t9CS ;co t220 1475 ~ .,-, 36'; l<::! "-3 72 .,_.,~
,SC •.:o , 1 ~ 7 2:324 :l:J5 ~ !24 2UO '9:;!0 t5JC
i 27430 11 '., 3S'~ 72 15i': '.S'-\ 06 77
'-30 ~ 1 i :~..:.a '.:.:..:c 284!J ~lJ tBJO 385(• 251(: 21.35 ' ~oil:; ... ,~~
I
-19-
....
0
!
F·-
!!'ltai<e 'let Sh•coin;
Ale.a Wetqht Space
FE 'l 11:)./ Kg A:' ""
m"
'4 a.:l'O '!91
1 JO J77'J 5.4
22 12?80 :.32
(.:]3 :a~o 94
35 !;72
320 1/j,J
•S J21 '-0 ~2
~ ~j 1•570 JS.4
OMf'iiTHRUSTERT~ ?V SERIES ...
lOWEST-COST
OMNITHRUSTER Maneuvering and Positioning Systems
----~) -···· \ . \'
PV SYSTEMS KEY ADV A:"''T AGES ...
More Thrust Unde~ay
Tnrusts While Pitching
No Re~.ersing Impeller to
Change Direction
Minimum Buo!,:anq Loss
Smaller Hull Penetration
Fuel Sa\'ings
• •
' p
'
1"'7'-
!he OMNTTHRUSTER PV S,·srems dir~t thrust continuous!!> through neutral, port or starboard ll.lithout changing direction or speec
of the prime mover. Th,;; results 1n a rapid response in positioning the bov.-, stem or the vesse1 itself. Thrust is produced continuous!~· ~o~:iti:
nozzles in or out of the water, 1n rough seas, in strong currents, v.ith vessel unde:wa1:, or "''hue pttching, rolling, ya\l.ing or hea•ms.
UI\TJQUE FEATURES INCLUDE ...
• No rotating p;ms to be sto;l::>ed or started. Prod ... ces thrust
port and starboa~c v.1:hout reversing motor
• Mechanicaliy st~ple, long se:-.tce life.
• Easil,· mat:-.:amed. can be servicec:! tn the ~,~.·ater
• Co!'\trol syste~ "'~th prcprieta:-; single level OMNl·
THHUSit.R pne:.::natic logi;: ~.·alve anc standard actuator
q;l:nder~ and pij:Jins !ech:-:>ques for simpktt)• and reliability
• · Sma!! jet openings -less than 2()", of area of the hull pene·
tration of conventional thrusters resubng in fuel s.al.ings.
htgher huli speed. reduced passage time.
" No protrusions no change in hull shape
• Desig:"lecl to use s:endard sh:pyerd consnvc:ion technique~
for s;:>eedier installation, minirruzing l<~bor . . seeing :1me anc:i
dollars.
LOW ll'c'\/LTME.""'T ... LOW rNSTALL~TION COSTS! THE PV SYSTEMS UTIUZE TifE BASIC OMNITHRUSTER
DESIGNS MAKING IT POSSlBLE TO RETROFIT OTHER OMNITHRUSTER FEATURES.
A~'!'~! OX KEn
IOI'P'EU.DI NOZZU: MAX """ox 0\'UAU !ItA .. UN£
5>VJ"T THRWST THIII:ST NOm.! II/EIGHT HtiGHT WIDTH LENGTH
MOOU.S H.P .,. .. L.8! L.8! DV,. l!'oCHfS L.8! INCHtS P,CHU INCH!:S
PV300 so 1.750 1.200 1.000 14 1,400 58.0 ~ 37
P\.'350 75 l.700 1,4:?S 1.275 14 1.400 58.0 ~ 41
PVSOO 1S<l 1.200 3.200 2,500 18 2.200 120 78 47
P\.1600 200 90C 4.000 3.500 24 4,440 83.0 102 47
PV?OO 3SO 'lOJ i,OOO 6,000 24 5,500 'XlO 103 48
PVSOC. 600 soo 11.500 10.500 32 10.500 137.0 ~~ f:l:;
Figure 2.4 Omnithr~ster PV Series Thrusters
-20-
Figure 2. 5
•
\.
Drive Gear System of the Thrusters
c3l for Harbormaster Tunnel Thrusters
S·:hottel L-Type Bow Thrusters)
-21-
is and data reduc:tion :f:"om a large variety of turbine manufac-
tu:::-ers' performance charts revealed t."'la t a constant of 12 m4/ sec was
consistent with 100 KW of power production, regardless of head or flow
conditions. Since we had a pre-established design point for head at 3
meters, we needed to be focused on determination of flow quantity (m3)
and flov; velocitY ( m/sec) in the characterization of the thruster units.
This constai"lt proved more useful in our analysis than -::he classic YQhe
expression since velocity is not incorporated and head will always fall
out when set at 3 meters and the only thruster performance data we had
\.;as velocity and input horsepower. The efficiency inherent in the con-
stant used is the a\·erage efficiencies of tube-type turbines from a
range of rr.anufacturers.
Resulting flows and the flow velocities of the thruster units were then
used to determine necessary inlet area to provide for proper flow to
the thruster operating as a turbine. The section of the thruster con-
taining the gearbox and propeller hub became a venturi throat in achieving
necessary velocities. The reduced flow area expands into a dow~tream
conical section ahead of the outlet sections. TI1e modular design and
fabrication outlet of sections could be held at constant diameter to
help in the cost reduction effort.
Final expansion of flow, to avoid energy dissipation, is accomplished by
a cast in place concrete form to which the outlet section is bolted.
We conducted detailed analysis of the performance of Elliott and Schottel
thrusters as well as Harbonnaster units by the above method. Harbormaster
thrusters were selected as the basic thruster for ULHH package design
because:
1) The m.anufacturer cooperated in supplying the most complete
data and drawings of their thruster units, though it was
not totally sufficient.
2) The equivalent pressure needs calculated for the units fell
into the < 3 M regime of our research. (Some Schottel
units also met this parameter, but similar data was not
available.)
The method of analysis and exemplary calculations are presented in
detail in Section 3, Engineering and Basic Design Data.
2. 2 Equipment Research: Transmission Drive
This ~~ea of equipment research focused on identification and develop-
ment oi a low-cost method of transmitting the torque from thruster blade
rotation to the input shaft of an electrical generator.
The two main components of the blade section-to-generator transmission
drive are described in the following subsections.
2.2.1 Thruster Gearbox Drive
There are manv different drive cor£igurations for the gearboxes of
marine thrusters, as seen in Section 2.1. These include straight-
line drive (both vertical and horizontal), right aP.gle dcive (called
"L" type by thrtt.ster manufacturers) and double right andle drive
( c;;.lled "Z" tyne).
-22-
•
•
.,
•
•
· ..
.Peter Jacobs, Executive Vice President of Schottel, displays
the SlOL unit. Note right-angle drive gearboxes on shelf
at rear .
,: ..
~' : -....... .
'
23 , ..
=:~· ••••
'•
. . .. ~-, !' •
: .
-..... ;.: ...
•••.•. '!'•:
~ • ·.·~~ ~~--~. I : • '
.·1
I ... ; I
... . ~. · .....
'~ : .. ': ..... ... ·--,. ... , .. I ~ ..... -t-"'
. .
A BT340 Thruster Unit on the Production Line at
Ha.rbonua.s ter' s Quincy, Mass. facility. No_!e
three-point stanchions in this design.
Input (output in t:urbine mode) drive shafts of Harbormas"ter rnrus'ter~.
Note heavy-duty bevel ~ear and roller bearings.
24
. .... , ..... .• ,t ,:. . ' • •• :. • ~. t ..
..;:
::-,'f , ...... ~ ••• I;' • • -,.
,··: .
. ·~·-
.........
•
•
... ·:··
Schottel thruster ready for mounting of blade whose design
is always specific to customer conditions and inclUded in
unit price.
25
"; ('!... ..... • • f ~ •••• "; t .. •:
:~,.~ \
".~" .
' ... ~
,;···:.
. :"Y • ··~ "':';
if; .• · ..... ;, •·•••• ,,.:,.. :: ·~ .. ;'
f">.<~· .:·· t. ~ ... : ..
. ~.~:!·~j::,i .. #·H:·~7·'~·••:
~ .. ·• ·.
·.•
The conr1gurations reflect the ship space and f~~ction requirements
o£ the thrusters in their normal, marine application when a prime
mover, operating through a properly ratioed gearbox, spins the
thruster blade for maneuvering power.
All of the thruster units selected and characterized by ER&A as
appropriate to the ultra-low head regime have a right angle drive
gearbox incorporated into their design and manufacture. The gear-
boxes are sealed against salt water intrusion and, though referred
to as '~ressure-lubricated" by manufacturers, are in fact fed
lubricant by gravity from a remote recirculating tank. The basic
internal comoonents of drive directional translation are two bevel
gears in all. cases. Thrust bearings and all rotational or load-
bearing areas are extremely rugged, finely-machined parts meeting
or exceeding marine specifications. The gearboxes are designed for
bi-directional operation and are subject to very rapid changes in
direction of rotation during their marine use.
The upper gearbox seal was the only standard maintenance item iden-
tified by the manufacturers. They recommend inspection and replace-
ment of the seal every 10,000 hours of their normal, ship-mounted
operation. For an ultra-low head hydropower application, the manu-
facturers recommended inspection for leakage and wear of the seal
at 10,000 hours but predicted that it could last much longer in the
relatively benign small hydropower application; possibly 20,000
hours. Replacement is a one-day operation.
~bile the gearbox and drive shaft components are built for very rugged
use in a hostile environment with 1i ttle or no maintenance, they are
normally on intermittent duty cycles. Their longevity in continuous
duty at near-consta."lt RPM is not really known with any degree of
certainty. Very few data points are available. The specific model
thrusters characterized for this project have been in marine use for
10-15 years of intermittent operation. One thruster has been in
continuous duty for 5 years, as a positioning device on an off-shore
barge moored in a river mouth.
The right angle gearbox drive ratios of the standard units range from
1.13 for the smallest SlOL unit to 5.90 for the BT650 unit. Most of
the thrusters incorporate gearbox ratios in the range of 2.5:1 to
3.5:1. (See Table 2.1) The estimated output shaft RPM of the thrusters
ope1ating as turbines is also shown in Table 2.1.
The next required component is the interface between the thruster gear-
box output shaft and the generator shaft.
2.2.2 Generator Final Drive
Gearboxes were known to be expensive and also restricted the possible
configurations for installation of a thruster-based UL~ package.
Equipment research effort therefore focused on two drive possibilities:
1) chains and sprockets, and 2) V-belt and sheaves.
-26-
' t..)
'-.J
'
-
SIOL
-5?/L--
--------· --~~-
BTZoo
----~-~-----
2 5"""0
---------
3!>0
-------
4-00
45"0
55>0
--~?o-
------es-o
8-r/ooo
---
,Rit:ji/T AIVt:i-L£ Esr. 71/RBIN£
-. -q.....-~-. --,-·~-........... _,., .. -,~,-·1 •• --,.-.. --. ~ ..
f:,/.7 7/.3-7 /./3 /032-
15"
1-------------
!IS .3 ~ II -:-c) ___ /.{;3 CJ3b.Z
~------------------------
17(,.5"" 373.4-3 . ..:}~77 12.94-.7
-------2-dJ~?----------------------~-----
385". I 3-'2-~~ /Z-57.~
-----
2'37. 7 330.0 2-~4-a3e.+
3ZCj.t;. 312.6 Z.-94~ (390./
3C/4.4-27/.~ 3.os-828.£"
!i'24-7 3/13. 2-2-53 805'.7
"za.o 220.4--s. 90 J3oo.3
k> ~'3.4-zo~.s-.2.<J5 bO~. Z
------37.5 /88-6 2-9S S57.1 .
·----
Table 2.1 Right Angle ("L" Type) Drive Gearbox Ratios
"
FbreN-ri'AL
cr= N£1{'~7V~
---.
/2-00
/800
;zoo I
'J 00 I ,-20~1
/800 -------
/ZOD
I 8 oo
9oo
1200
!'OO
/200
900
I :Z. oo --9C>D
/2.00
/ZOO
/900 --
900
I zoo
7ZO
900
We contacted local equipment suppliers for sizes, costs, applica-
tions ex-perience, and perfonnance. King Bearing Hawthorne,
California took ~~ active interest in our project and offered one
of L~eir industrial consultants to look at our drive requirements.
They bel :s over chains for t.~e following reasons:
1)
3)
4)
higher load capacity
no lubrication problem
no (or less) stretch problem because of tensile fiberglass
cords in the belt
transnlission efficiency of 94-96% in actual use.
The above adv~11tages are derived from use of the T.B. Wood's Sons
Co. high-speed timing-type belts which feature a cogged tooth inner
surface. They further recorrnnended using V-be 1t and standard catalog
sheaves for the initial packages until actual drive RPM is established,
then specifying load and RPH requirements (driving and driven) for
the Wood's Sons' HTil "Sure-Grip" drive belts and sprockets.
The largest standard belt is 170 rrnn (6. 7 in) wide and each can transmit
294 HP at 1400 RPM on the small sprocket. Multiple belts can be used.
Costs were obtained for the necessary number of belts and sheaves
appropriate to the horsepower rating of each thTilS ter. The costs in
Table 2.2 include an estimate for the fabricated cost of a protective
belt cover. Cost for a single HID "Sure-Grip" belt is roughly similar
for applicatioP~ up to and including the BT340 unit.
Belt and sheave size selected represent those necessary to provide the
appropriate ratio for the lowest cost combination of generator unit
(as a function of RR--1) and transmission drive components.
2.3 E~uiPment Research: Electrical
The intent of project research was to define two general applications
for a low-cost ultra-low head hydropower package:
c.) Grid interface application with direct connection to the
utility's power lines and,
b) stand-alone application.
A number of options for each system configuration based on available
components were investigated.
The grid interface application's hardware package is based on an induc-
tion generator connected to the utility power lines. Figure 2.6 shows
a simplified schematic of the electrical interface components.
Cc:rnponent selection and con.figurati'm for a stand-alone svstem, serving
-28-
s /0 '-
.SS'IL
BT 2.00
250
340
400
4SO
S'SO
65"0
eso
.... Bl 1000
I 1z 74e. "" 10.3 2.. ~2.. I 1200 I
I 1 aao 2.09 o.
I
9.3~ I IS" i 900 ~2.63. I /:ZOO 423 S". I
I 1 goo 31 ~a.
I 12"1S' ' 177 /ZOO b9~7.
1€300 I 4-!30~
!
!
I 12-57 210 I !ZOO ~'7" 7.
' I
i ISOO 4-~.::::>S:
I -
I !
83B z3e 900 1!,810.
/ZOO 7'4-<::J z.
I'!B oo "zz~
I
890 I 3:30 900
I
97.:34.
I /200 i970Z.
I I
I
'
!
ez.a 394-9 oo I J,f:,3 7.
I 2. 0 0 /0,4£ I.
l
e.os ! 525"" 5!00 I 3,4 70.
I
;ZOO 10811.
1300
I .az.a
I
1200 I 2..;-fl{... 9 .
I
1800 12.,100.
i
!
'-0'9 '-97 ' 72 0 2.31 0"-3. ' l
9<!lO ;e, eZS".
SS7 838 7 :z.o 2"f; 882.,
900 20 ~ 82...
(zoo :1 . · 15--z.Z.'1.oo
Table 2.2 Generator and Drive Costs
-29-
1118'95"
'2,11 s-
1,;,.32
2,(.:,00
2,914-
~2"0
i ~55'0
I
j
I
~9"0
4;.335'
-4'9~0
I 5:95!.3
. .
dedicated load '>'.i th a synchronous genera tor proved to be a more
complex problem since L~e grid frequency could not be relied on
for generator excitation \\ith power production controlled to 60 Hz.
Of the possibilities researched, two are presented as being both in-
novative, offering potential for cost reduction, and presenting
little risk in actual operation. One option is based on a snych-
ronous parallel generation system design offered by Certified
Electro }vlfg. Co. of Seattle. The other approach to maintaining
constant frequency output is a mechanical solution, using a constant
upstrea:n level gate to maintain head, hence turbine RFN, constant.
Both are discussed in L~e following subsections along with the
primary grid-interface application.
*SWITCHGEAR
-REVERSE POWER RELAY
-GROUND FAULT RELAY
GEh'ERATOR -VOLTAGE RELAY
-FREQUENCY RELAY
-LOCKOUT RELAY
-CURRENT BALANCE
*METER BOXES
AND
DISCONNECT
*Requirements vary by utility/power company.
I
UTILITY
PO R LINE
I
Figure 2.10 Schematic of Electrical Interface: Grid-connected
2.3.1 Generators
For the most common predicted application, involving interface to
utility power lines, an induction motor (Louis Allis) was selected.
As described previously, the L-type drive system of the thrusters
increases the turbine mode output RPM through internal standard
gear ratios ranging from 1.3:1 up to 5.9:1. The belt-drive system
is selected to match the shaft RPM to the standard RPM of induction
motors operating as generators.
We selected "off-the-shelf" standard units, based on cost tradeoff
bet\\'een RPM for a given power input and transmission costs. Custom
design of generators w~s completely avoided in this package.
Sever~l generator, alternator, and electrical motor manufacturers
were contacted in order to define the most suitable electrical
equipment for each of the proposed ULHH packages. Among those
electrical equipment suppliers contacted were:
Certified Electro Mfg. Co.
General. Electric
KAro l'-1a.'1ufacturing Company
Louis Allis Comoanv
Brov.n, Boveri and Co.
Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Co.
ASEA
-30-
•
..
In this same time fr~~e, we contacted turbine manufacturers and
hydroelectric mad:.i ~ry suppliers to learn more from their ex-
perience about gene· ·tors found suitable for hydropower generating
systems. Analyzing the performance characteristics, availability,
delivery time, cost and applicability to hydropower generating
requirements (continuous duty, etc.) the Louis-Allis induction
units provided the uesired cost and performance advantages, for the
grid-connected UlliH package application. These generators are in-
cluded as package components generically; not excluding other
equipment that may be more appropriate for use in accordance with
site characteristics (such as voltage in the main power line,
special purpose polver requirements, etc. ) . The units are chosen
to provide 3-phase, 240V power. Package cost buildups are based
on these units, as well.
A theory of operation for the induction system was developed by
Certified Electro M£g. Co. for their controls package at ER&A's
request.
2.3.1.1 Theorv of Ooeration: Induction Generation
This system is designed to give the induction system owner maximum
protection for his system, plus meeting all utility and NEMA
standards.
1. When bringing the induction generator on lL~e, a tachometer is
used to read ~1 of the turbine. The induction generator should
be brought on line 1t a null speed (this is a speed at which
power is not being generated or consumed) to minimize line
disturbance.
2. When the turbine is running at null speed a by-pass switch is
used to close ~~e main contactor. At this time a fault is being
indicated by a fault light because the power output is null or
below a pre-set low watt output level.
3. Ttn-bine s-oeed is ;-;ow increased by increasing water flow to ,,..alk
into load. Now producing watt output, the fault light will go
out. Turbine sneed is increased by increasing water flow until
a desired le>el is read on the aMp meter.
4. The induction ge;:·-ntor is now running as desired and can be left
unattended with the assurance that the system is protected agaL~st
all forseen proble~s.
S. If utilitv PO\•ie.t :-e.:eives a single phase condition the current
balance r~lav v.ill trio the lock out relay and the main contactor
off the line'.
6. If the turbine should turn faster and produce more power or voltage
increases to exceed the KVA rating of L~e generator, the over power
relay will trip. The generator is selected for 100% overspeed con-
di.tion. Turbine is shut down by signal to the elec:romechanical
inlet gate.
-31-
7 * I: turDlne -~·~:er supply Sho~ld tape:-0::1: ctue to plugged SCT!;·ens
the under power relay will trip, preventing the generator frcrn
cor.sum.ing power. If a problem should occur in the drive system
:o cause the moto-: to lose the reverse power relay \d.ll
trip :-ather than allow the sys tern to consume power.
8. If a fa~t should occur on L~e utility line the over/under
Yol tage or the oYer/under freo.uency would trip.
2.3.2 Stand-alone .~Dlicatior.s
St~"'1d-alone applications of L~e L'LYH package design as initially
proposed were not reali:ed due to factors occuring subsequent to
the time the project ~>·as proposed, funded, ~"'ld initiated. Sweinhart
Electric Co., who had agreed to help us to put together a solid
state, mechar~cal feed-back speed controller to ER&A design declined
to continue the work because the solid state circuitboard in the
device was no longer being provided as an "off-the-shelf'' catalogue
it~ by the supplier. Existing speed controllers can handle only
up to 60 KW, according to Sweinhart' s experience. However, the
stand-alone application can be implemented in alternate ways, in-
cluding existing methods such as:
a) A S}Tichronous generator operating at a constant head and load
condition achieved by a \'ariable inactive load bank.
b)
c)
Throttled floK to match load requirements.
A si.'T!ple, lov.--cos t concept discovered in the course of this
project and thought worthy of further research and demon-
stration is using the Alv!IL constant upstream Level Gate to
hold head, hence ~1, constant at a site. (See figure 2.11)
This gate is claimed to ~i~tai:: a constant upstream headwater eleva-
tion automaticall v. ~eve::-z.:. ir.s-:::1::..lations have been made. If upstrea.'ll
elevation is cor.stant, then the effective head and flow to the turbine
hill be constant. Since rotational speed of the turbine propeller is
a of head and load variation, if head is constant at a constant
load, R.P:-1 -....ill also be constant and a 60 Hz frequencv is maintainable
at a st~"'ld-alone site. '
The unresolved component in this "constant head" approach the varia-
tion 0~ generator RPM as a function of load. This may be resolved by
incorrora:ing an automatic relay rheostat to a resistance load in order
to keep the effective load on the generator constant. (See Fig. 2.12
for schematic.)
The constant load system is preferred where continouos flow of water is
desired (irrigation canals, outfalls, etc.) and the throttled flow
system is preferred where water conservation is desired or flow varia-
tion occurs. Both systems require speed control, which has tradi-
tionally been provided by mechanical governors, but speed ca."'l be more
economcally controlled today by electronics.
The line voltage is con~rolled by the degree of excitation (which
also affects lead).
-32-
.r,;.·.
.......
··-:,.•
' ·t;.~;!-; ,..,, I. •
The ..,..IL GATE
a~o~tomatically maintains a constant
. '.
. water level on the upstream side of tne
&ate section. It operates .••
,._
itllf---_"_,.
""10 2000 C1'l pel,.,..,.,,.
let'V'IIflin.
,., .,., --l 01,.,.,,.,.. .. ~
• WITHOUT ANY OUTS ICE POWER OR MOTOR
• FREE OF ANY MANUAL INTERVENTION
• IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VOI.UME OF
INCOMING FlOW
• INOEP!NOENTL Y OF. THE
DOWNSTREAM LEVEL
The AMIL Constant Upstream level Gate is your answer for:
. • • DftAINAGf. CANALS, the AMIL
aate controls the water table at the
desired elevation; closed durina dry
weather to prevent abnormallowerins
of the around water, it starts to open
just as soon as there is any inflow of
water to the system.
• • • RlCRf.ATION LAIC.f.S, the AMIL
aate maintains a constant water levet
in all seasons.
• • • F\.000 COHTRCX. OR WAT!R
SUPPLY RESERVOIRS, the AMIL per-
mits a larae im;rease in storage volume
without sac:rincinc spillway capacity
or eltab ility,
Fiiht TtiCI'InoiOfiCIII Pollution
with the amazingly
uncompli~:ated A MIL·· Gate
.•• IRRIGATION CANALS, the AMIL
aate maintains a hiih and cons.t11nt
head on turnouts, irrl$peetive of flow
in the canal or th roual'l the t~Mnoul$.
Used in series alona the distribution
network, AMIL gates insure an aut~
malic, slfe, relia!:>le and flexible irri-
&ation proaram, 11t sharply reduced la-
bor costs. .
• • • OIL POLLUTION CONTROL. the
AMIL gate, with en ALSTHOM AT·
LANTIC Oil Separator/Collector, in·
sures an efficient aravity separation
of oils and other li&ht pollutants from
industrial wastes.
ALSTHOM A'fLANTICt INC.
(""-ty NIIY"~• line.]
~ 'kun (!-..t"' -a--.-.•
to~,....,. ~. t4EW ~ •u. •ooao
l'I~PHOHE; (2'12) ~ ·-·~
Figure Z . .ll Constant Upstream Level Gate
.... ·
-33-,,
. .
.,
•
·,
.•. · .. ~ ..
·. ~~~'-~.;ii/ ::.:~ .:::J
. .. '"; ... ;,; -~·:
~ .... , •.:· ~ .
··~ . •.
... . ~-
RESISTANCE
LOAD
RHEOSTAT
'IURBI?--!E GENERATOR 1 .. VARIABLE I.O.A.D
---:L
Figure 2.12 Schematic for output control with variable loads
However, since we were not able to obtain costs for these gates at
specific flows within the schedule of the project, the actual prospect
for ultra-low head hvdropower cost reduction could not be verified.
Use of the gate, while promising, also requires civil works con-
struction for a leat or bypass channel if the installation is not on
an existing man-made canal or effluent outfall.
2.3.2.1 Theory of Qperation: Synchronous Generation
The method of operation for stand-alone small hydro applications
may very, depending upon type of load, and duty cycle. Mlile costs
are anticipated to be higher than for an induction system, this mode
of operation can generally be justified due to the value of power at
stand-alone small and ultra-low head sites which are typically in
remote locations or serving a specific customer need.
1.
') ...
3.
4.
5.
Start-up is accomplished by initiating flow with low level
excitation to the generator, which can be either disconnected
from the load or connected to a resistive load bank.
~~en the turbine is running at the desired speed (usually slightly
above synchronous speed) and the terminal voltage is at the
desired level, the load is connected to the generator.
The speed aTld voltage will momentarily drop, the controller
hi.ll demand more flow (further opening of the gate valve) and
"i.ll increase excitation to increase the voltage to achieve the
nominal voltage, and frequency status.
Frequency is controlled by flow regulation or load bank switching
and voltage by degree of excitation.
System protection is pro\~ded by sensing + predetermined limit
conditions of speed, CJrrent and voltage,-with the violation
of any limits tripping the circuit breakers and interrupting the
flow. (The p~-otection limits are modified or bypassed during
start-up.)
-34-
3.0 Ultra-low Head Hvdropower Package Engineering Design
3.1 Theoretical Analysis: Development of Basic Design Data
After thruster characteristics and their performance as ~Jrbines
failed to be obtained from the thruster manufacturers, ER&A applied
a dimensional analysis using the manufacturers' data on the thrusters
available to us. The most complete data we were able to obtain was
that from Harbormaster, a division of the Matthewson Corporation.
The methodology of ~1ls analysis is described below.
First, it was necessary to calculate the lifting head and discharge
of the thrusters operating as a thruster. From installation drawings
of the Harbormaster thrusters, the net blade reactive area is:
A = A -A (1) net swept hub
In order to be more explicit, the example for this analysis will be
the BT-200 thruster. In equation (1):
A net = 7.34 0.99 = 6.35 ft 2
Velocity of the water tJuu this area can be calculated by
V _ Power (2 'TI'n) _ p thruster (ft/sec) (Z) -ThTUs t :-oG -ThriiSt
where:
P thruster = 550 x hp (lbs -ft/sec)
HP = Maximum rated horsepower of ~~ruster
Thrust = Rated thrust (lb), from manufacturers data.
Thus, in (2) :
v = 550 X 200
4500
From the equation:
yZ
h = Zg (ft)
where:
= 24.22 ft/sec
h = head (colUITID cf water in ft)
")
g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/sec"-)
then, in (3):
" h = (24.2)'"
64.4 9. 24 ft
-35-
(3)
E . 1 h d 62.4 h qunra ent pressure • ea = 144 4.00 psi.
Discharge (flow) of thruster will be:
Q = V x A in c-Fs net ~ (4)
Therefore, for the BT-200, Q = 24.4 x 6.35 = 155 cfs.
Assuming the design point for ultra-low head
(9.84 ft), the velocity of water V De . = Slgn
the cor ..sequent flow, Q Design = 160 cfs.
application at 3 M
25.18 ft/sec, L~en
It was deterr.~ned for Harbormaster and Schottel units that thruster
parameters of head and flow fall within the range of desired ap-
plication. The next step is to find out the parameters required for
operation as a turbine.
The Stepanoff book had presented W.A. Swanson's work on "Complete
Characteristic Circle Diagrams for Turbomachinery" and we studied
it again since it compared the performance of an axial pump, 'water
driven" as a turbine, with the "Best Efficiency Point" of the pump
defined as 100% of head and torque (see Fig. 3.1). We were con-
cerned by irregular shape of the curves in the turbine region and
went back to the Cal Tech thesis by Swanson which was the original
data source derived from his pump tests.
W.A. Swanson's thesis has a large scale diagram of the + 100% head
and ~ 100% torque, plotted on axes of + percent of flow-and +percent
of rotational speed. We replotted the-turbine region on a larger
scale and calculated curves for fractions both above and below 100%
of head and torque. The torque curve in the turbine quadrant looped
across L~e head curve making two intercepts, so we picked the more
conservative (defined as additional flow requirement) intercept as
our relationar~p.
We calculated a ratio of the turbine head to the thruster head for
entry to the Swanson curve:
Head Yatio h = design
h thruster
9.84 = 9.74
or 106.4% of curve entry point;
1.064
and flow x head product CQ h) ratio for the torque ratio:
Q design h design =
Q thruster h thruster
.,...
! d . eslgn
T thruster
(5)
(6)
Applying (6):
point.
160 X 9.84
bS X 9.24 1.099 or 109.9% of the curve entry
-36-
/I
--r-
.,L---;;L._~;.._--r------------1-zc J : --1
#r --. ___ .;__i-.....J....--+--m
' i
r I =~I
+ T . . ,. \
. ._.Hi
,
: r-1 -Wr -~~·-•II /) q..,..,_.V(!a· . I :r >wmo -
-r,; ..--;.J..,. E +Q
---;------~ :_ 1 IT ~ :1
~ I -~
-----~-
Figure 3.1 Stepanoff' s Four Q.ladrant Diagrams.
Empirical testing done on a pump with a specific speed around 13,500.
Thruster specific speed of 30,000 is not predicted to distort the
analysis or lead to significantly different conclusions.
-37-
Tnese ratios produced odd fractions and graphically were awkward
to interpolate. We therefore calculated a new set of performance
curves for each th-ruster. Hrnvever, all of the resulting curves did
not intersect and our intercept point design did not work. The
characteristic curves of w1e thrusters just touched at one point and,
as a logical solution, w1ese single intercept points describe a
constant radial line from axis origin in the turbine quadrant. Their
value could therefore be calculated, using the following equations:
% Qh = 117 . .51 y h design (7)
h th..""Us ter
for the head curve and
% Q t 113.30 vi Q design h design
Q thruster h thruster
for the torque curve.
Tnen, the mean % Q turbine value is:
9, Q + % Q %Q -• h t turbine -
For the BT-200 thruster:
% Qh from (7) = 121.03% or 1.210;
% Qt from (8) = 118.43% or 1.184
% 'Q"tufrom (9) = 119.73% or 1.197;
The required flow for operation as a turbine at
is therefore:
Qtu = 1.197 X 155 =
Throat ve1oci tY is Vtt--t · uroa
185.5 cfs, from (10).
= Qtu
~
v = 185.5
throat ~ 29.2 ft/sec.
(8)
(9)
the design head
(10)
In order to obtain required flow (Qtu), we calculated the full open
gate intake area as a turbine, which we refer to as the design
intake area, "ith a resulting design intake inside diameter.
A-= Qtu m.net V.
design
=
3 185.5 ft /sec = 7 .37 ft2
25.18 ft/sec
Design intake area = A. ~ + Ah b 1n.ne, u (11)
-38-
* .
?
Adesign 7.37 + 0.99 = 8.36 ft-, from (11)
Dd . es1gr. 12 V4 ·'\iesign (12)
'1T
Dd . 12 V4 X 8.36 = 39.15 in. es1gn 71"
Using Swanson's diagrams, we proceeded to calculate estimated
propeller rotational speed (n) a.."ld nmaway speed (~).
ntu = %n (nthruster) in RPM, where
%n = 0.50297 (% Qtu)
For the BT-200 ~~ruster in this example,
%n = 0.50297 x 1.197 = 0.602 or 60.2%
ntu = 0.602 X 620 = 373 RPM.
Turbine runaway speed (~) is
~ % nk (h ) where K ~~ruster
%~ = ng V~J1 = 184.36% or 1.8436;
~ = 1.8436 x 620 = 1143 RPM.
(13)
(14)
To define the theoretical efficiency of ~~e thruster.as a turbine,
we again applied Steoanoff's equation:
e = 62.4 Q h (lS) ~~ 1thrust :;: V
where Q = discharge (cfs)
h head (ft)
V velocity of water (ft/sec)
For the BT-200:
e = 62.4 X 155 X 9.24 O Sl~5 Sl% th 4500 x 24.44 = · ~ or ·
The above-described dimensional analyses ...,.ere performed by a
specialized computer program for all nine Harbormaster thrusters
wi~~ calculated equivalent heads ranging bet•een 7.56 ft and 9.54 ft.
We ~~en proceeded to analyze the performance of the Elliott d.lld
Schottel thrttsters. Elliott thrusters fell outside :he design
parameters because of their high equivalent heads (25-35 ft).
-39-
Schottel thru.sters' performance places them in the ultra-lov.· head
regime, but due to lack of adequate manufacturer's input data, we
characterized only two smaller units to complete the lower end of
the range. Onmi thruster units are "jet" type and are not applicable
to our project. Harbormaster's thrusters were selected as the basic
line for hydropower package design for the followi.ng reasons:
1. They were responsive with both data and costs to allow
power cost calculation.
2. The calculated pressure heads of their units were appro-
priate to the ultra-low head regine which makes it
possible to use their standard propeller blades without
change.
3. Installation drawings were available on which to base
the engineering design of a hydropower package.
The two small Schottel units were added to provide for smaller
flows than those required for the Harbormaster units.
Since the ultra-low head defir~tion is three meters, or less, we
explored the results of operations at lower heads wi.th our series
of computerized performance equations. The heads were stepped
down at 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, and 50% of the maximum three meter net
head. (See Appendix II) The SO% head causes the flow velocity to
drop by the \!"':":5, or 7 0. 71% of the three meter velocity. The flow
and turbine blade RPM become about 6S% of the maximum and the pre-
dicted KW output drops to 32. S% because of the SO% head factor in
the Qh product parameter. The above values are the result of ad-
justing the water supply area to match reduced pressure caused by
the lower available head (custom duct design for each available
head). We thought that tJris would be the most efficient way to
utilize the fixed blade propeller of the thruster. We then calcul-
ated the flow ~~ power produced by using one common design, sized
for the t.~ree meter head at lower heads, which should be the lowest
cost turbine. However, the method results in a greater flow and
KW output th~~ the custom design above because the flow now follows
the vcs-factor .(70.71%) of w,e flow velocity since the area is held
constant, instead of being reduced for a lower head. Figure 3. 2
show t.'le flow versus head plot of both conditions, with curves of
cons~~t KW superimposed. The calculated values above do not take
into account the effect on efficiency of the constant pitch of the
propeller blade in different water velocity conditions, resulting
fran the head variations. We believe tr.at the true impact of one
standard area versus adjusted area, for head variationS, can only
be detemined by actual w-ater flow testing, which can measure the
propeller rotational reaction under different hydraulic conditions.
Basic Design Data and Configuration
By the Project Interim Review on March 15, 1981 ER&A had completed
-40-
I
9
8
1' ' .., " .~ .,..
';"' Q
~.
~
..
/Co JII(W
6SD
J<.W
E.JOf.fA. 771~VS'r6S"Ifl/l:-'7"'J.-+'~B/Nii!CS T h. IMTWI .,_., ~w~~
_ I t I f I I I I t
/tllf 2.0.0 ,oo ¥06 sr>o tl.tJl:l ?Do eoo ~oo
Figure l. 2 Estimated Power fi1tput of 8T -Series Thrusters ~rating
as 1\Jrhines. Based on Preliminary Computer Results
a horizontal configuratic::1 package design fo-: two units based on
Ha:rbormaster t.~rusters: the BT-200 and the BT-1000. Using t.~
data generated by the computerized calculations (See Figtrre 3. 2)
and applying the ~ctual design of two thruster-based hydropower
units, we were able to derive basic dimensional data for all eleven
thrusters characterized. Figure 3. 3 shows the cor.figtrra tion and
basic design data.
The two hydropower unit designs based on BT-200 and BT-1000 were
the basis for esti.Ir.ates of package costs. The manufacturing division
of Harbonnaster' s parent company, Matthewson Corporation of Quincy,
Mass. provided the cost for the manufacturing and assemblv of the
component parts of the thruster-based package (Figure 3.3). Figures
3.4 to 3.7 show the horizontal, vertical and syphon configurations
of ultra-low head hydropower packages based on Harbormaster marine
thrusters as presented at the Interim Review. Taking into considera-
tion the lXlE Project Monitor 1 s (Tan M:Laughlin) recamnenda tions re-
garding draft tube effects, we re-evaluated the design of the ultra-
low head package. The result was a double elbow ogee curve config-
uration, using standard modules as components. Following the pro-
cedtrre described both in 3.1 and above, we calculated revised basic
design data for the final turbine configuration. Figure 3.8 tab-
ulates this data for the horizontal configuration which, based on
site analysis, is predicted to have the widest application.
3.3 Eng~neering Design of Specific ULtra-low Head Hvdronower Package
From the eleven thrusters characterized as viable bases for an ultra-
low head hydropower package, the Harbormaster tunnel thruster model
BT-340 was selected for final engineering design. The BT-340 unit
was chosen since this thruster is in the middle of the range in
dimensions and calculated performance characteristics, and has one
of the higher costs on a $/HP(or $/KW) basis. The JOOst conmon
application for ultra-low head hydropower units is predicted to be
in the horizontal configuration because of physical size restrictions
(head< 3.CM). For this reason, detailed engineering design has
been completed for a horizontal 1.mit. Appendix I contains engineer-
ing drawings ULH-10001 to ULH-10004 sh~ing in detail the component
parts of the-hydropower package and material specifications.
The convergent/divergent cones attached to the ends of the tunnel
thruster are specified for fabrication in highly corrosion-resistant
Cor·Ten steel. Cone flanges are specified in thicker low carbon
metal plate; designed to match the diameter of the thruster tunnel
shroud at that end and the diameter that was ccmouted for the full
gate condition operating area, at the other (See also Assy. Dwg. ULH-
10003).
Assy. Dwg. ULH-10004 shows the design specification for two identical
elbows that are configured into the draft tube. Construction details
and layout are shown on the drawing. The elbows are fabricated in
the same meterial (Cor-Ten steel) as the cone. The two cones and the
two elbows are provided hith flanges (Dwg. ULH-10003 -Flange Assy.)
-42-
·."'••
. ~ . . ,·.
r---------·-----L ------------1
1-----G------1
Thruster E
MANVFAc."TV-I('t:~ Sc.Ro~L H..;.R73t:>R. MAS' '7"E'R
MOD!E.t-SlOt.. S"Sit-Br-24:; lsr-zso 3"1'0 .t,(.t;~C ./.1-:S"O sso 6S"O 8!>0 10"0
DES14-N .D 21.')) 32.58 3'1.19 'fZ¥6 'J5'.f>7 SZ7Z 5$.53 66. oz.? <f. b6 78.:.1-Z.. 8'f~o
A z.zs 2-ZI. /.SI /.tAt !J.ft:. /.1'-'l /.Z~ ~-~:; !S'f /. S" I /.3'f
B -ZB.b (). 77 (). 71 0. 78 ().6£:, O.{i. I (). 78 0.7/ 0-'8 o.~3
c. (+-;.s·) t?.tf-7 OJ·f7 t/Jf7 0-'r'-7 ~-'f7 O.Jf7 0.4'-7 tJ.J:I-7 ().'1·7 ().lf-7 tJ.tf 7
£ 0·'75" ~-ZS C). '25' CJ. ':25"' d.Zf' /J.'25 o.z) a. -zs tJ.zr (}.?,) o.z(
Ff+.z."") /.70 /76 l7b /.7(:, /.76 j. 7~ /. 76 /76 /. 76 1-76 /.7b
r;r_ '2. "Z.. 2'20 ZUJ z.zo :?.Zt> 2.7~ 2.zo 2.Zo 22-t> z.zo Z.UJ
::J" ass-() . .:$' t).S5' tJ.S!: l).S$' o.s<S" t).S$" o.s5' d.SS" o. S'~ t:J . .:ss-
L l,t. 35' 6:25 S.S3 5-A.If' £'-17 S:'l4 S.'2B 5'":o~ !6.7/ :;-: S'6 s-:g7
I
I
NC T E:: .-tt..L Dth'IEN .SIONS A--'fE a:> l!i:FPP'/e.tl!!fAI-rS /N ,P,qt>~"'( 7"'/0N
71:> D ( /N.f"t.t::>B De.SI'tfjN .c:.""""A.ere~)
Figure 3. 3 Configuration stk:r ~sic: Dime~s-ionai Desiin Da. ta
(Interim Review Status)
-43-
I
~ ....
I
f:igure 3.4 lJUt Hydro)'lOwer Package Rased on Marine Thmstcr -•t.ri wntal Arrangement
(Tnteri.m lteport Status)
" . •·
• ..
·.•
~:-
::c.
~~~
:. ~
·:! ,.
•'
.. •.
,. ~.
•
•
. , ...
•
..
,~ .
Figure 3.5 ULH Hydropower Package Based on Marine Thruster ·Vertical Arrangement
(Interim Report Status)
•; ~ . '
'• lo '
~ ...
10 • .,. • ,• ~ •• .. .........
·4S-
, .
\ •
Figure 3.6 UUf Hydropower Package Based on Marine Thruster -Syphon Arrill\gement
(Interim Report Status)
··• . ·
•
... ~ . ... ~ . . . .. .. . ...•.. . ~: . ~:
;
..
• ' ~·: .
•
..
·•.-., I •
, ..
...
•
•
. ·,
~.,~t;,"-!1
' ., .
--.. .. .. "' ....
,.
~ ......
I
.I
I
I
I
I ' . ',;;,·: ......
Figure _3.7 Assembly View of UUi Hydropower Package Based on Marine Thruster
(Interim Report Status) ·
• .
-47-,''h'
. .
' ,.. ·,.Itt
for a~se:rblir:.g as sho\\n in J)i...;g. UL7-1-10001 \-.ith st.ru:tural bolts.
Tnis t;rpe of a.ssernbly Kas chosen as t~e elbo;.: is designed to be
a modL:2.ar t:?e to be used fo:r variou: hydropowe::-package con-
fi~a:ior~, as ~ill be discussed r~rther in t:~s Final Report.
wg. L'L'-:-10002 is an i!1stallation dra~ing o'E a .340 HP tunnel th::::·uster
(fvbdel BT-340) provided by fiarbo:nnaster Division of Matthewson
Corpora-:ion.
3. 4 Co:Lfi QU:-a :ions for UIJ1 Hv·dropm'v'er Packa2:e A:Yolications
At least L1ree confi~~rations of the ULYH design can be assembled
using modular parts of the package: horizontal, vertical or L~
clined S}?hon and, by using a strait vertical cone draft tube ~o
additional vertical con.figurations can be developed.
Figure 3. 9 shows <L'1 isometric view of a typical UUlH package installa-
tion at an Irrigation Canal Check Point. Figure 3.10 shows a hori::.ontal
installation. In order to increase the recove"Y coefficient of t~e
draft tube, it is necessary to construct a concrete expar.sion struc-
~Jre. Tr~s structure, which provides conversion from round to rec-
tangular area could have been incorporated in L1e draft tube itself
(follohing an alternative design), but ~iL~ the simplicity of the
final design, as developed, we determi::-wd th:H the concrete structure
built on site ~·ill acccmplish the same function ~rithout signifi-
ca..'1tly increasing cost o-: installation.
Overall cost of installation is low compared to that required by
classical turbomachinery, consisting of any necessary excavation and a
concrete foundation 1:0 support the turbine and generator assembly.
Tne ~~~ine ~'1d generator are mounted on a steel support frame ~~t
is a component part of t1e tr~YH package and included in the package
cost.
Using the s~~e elbow modules and short lengths of connecting pipe,
a S}?hon co~i~Jration can be assembled as sho~~ in Figure 3.11.
The syphon can be equipped for autol7'.atic startup using standard
catalog item pressure relief valve for syphons. Alternatively,
when grid-connected, using the induction generator as a motor c~~
initial::e operation of the s)~hon hith t~e turbine propeller work-
ing as a :he same design for the concrete exp~'1Sion structure
can be used as for ~e horizor.tal cor~iguration. A vertical in-
stallation can be confi5~red using ei~~er ~~elbow ~it1 guide \-anes
~'1d a strait cone craft ~Jbe (See Figure 3.12a) or, as a S)?hon
using mxule elbows a.."ld cone draft ~-.:be as shown in Figure 3 .12b.
3.5 EstL~ted Performance Characteristics of the Ul~a-low Head
HVcropower Package
Using the results of the computer-generated data (see preliminary
design dzta in l9pendix II), a ma~ix has been developed showing
t.~e correla:ion be-::ween head, flov; a:-td esti.J-na.ted power out;>ut
-48-
Jl
D
--.......___.._l_
J1AI'It/PAt:.7"C/I? E.R .SG/io77Ckl h'.AR,8o';t 1'11...;.STO;;';:!!?
/HR(.JSI El(. hJODEL S/OL S57-L I BT· ;rt::C 8'1-ZSD 81=Jllfa er-~ '$r-<!-SO -"r-sd,6'r:~ er-BSa 'p=;aco
D R T t.N. I"'·" I z !¥. J '1-.U. .ac 3<1-~0 Jr2. {)0 .,r.,B. C>C !;l,i co -z;;_ao i 6B.o<:~ 71· ()"' 79 ....
I (.INNeR_ Dl~l -"1M ..::..=, .J .l') 7t'{ '8 <?!">"· ._; "/"(0.(, /0"-~ I 2./'f.t. I.J 71.6 IS'2'i'".C 1727. Z ·e.:;.s."" ;@;.Z
A 2(..3 z.s'f /.b'f /..S7 ;.sa ;.se /.3'1 j.g / /. 6 '1 /.,7 /. 4t'
B lib /-0( o.qz. o.es c;. -rs (),83 t/. 7f-tJ.'fO o. f!fif 0.81 o. 7.3' --c. 2-6'1 Z.6'i Z-'9 2-6., z.e., 2.l>'f :z ,, z_,, Z.i'? 2{;.7 z.~<;
D (;NJ10E ~~~.) /IS' /!5 ;.O'f /.CJ'i /.0"'/ ;./0 /-0/3 I /(0 /JO /./0 I O'j
£;: /.1 I /.II /.1/ /,II /II I!/ /.II I II I.! I /.II Ill
.10:.11"'1,.., ... 1"'16&:> C) I] {:;!/ J/].1.(. .J8S': I J~D.O .112-tO 271.( • ..J;g.z ZZt:J.I.f-2065' [/ea.e -n..JtSI-"t. ~. /<>.)"').
~-... ~ R~77o /.13 J.S3 3 ./.f 7 J.Z7 z.s'f ;?.gS' $.oS 2.S3 s.&Jc z ·'1 5" 'Z-95'
IF'.J ,...,,..,"l1"lf'o(', ,oo...;,;e
""'"..,. J<>v-r I'<''-""') 4/S '95" 130 ;s-o /70 Z.'i-0 2'70 3'1C "160 szo bzo
IES r;,..,.,.,rl't> '"'.l!i!3t-"t ·~~ ) r~~,.,..IItCN ~r.: IK zc.c Z2·3 2.82 Jl 7 J,lo.S' tte.z 5'8.8 65'./ G'.J.7 /26.9 J-18 ~
IFI"f"tMA~
t::"J..,. ii-<
t;lil'<~4"""'{ z-s 'f.e G. if (,. Jj 7-9 8-'1 <1.!3 ;.:;. 5' /2. "! 17. z 2o.S'
/EJ'7't"""'0 ~ 22-S" 3-'f.~ t.f&. 'I 57.1 68.6 '16-~ ;#.f /6'7./ Cc.J-r ($ K 27.1 .Jq. 6 7g{.,
NOIE :
COS7".!' E.J'7"1M.;tf'T"E<i::J ON /1.-tii~CJ/ /#:ffJI .1-EVEi-
Figure 3.8 Final Configuration and Basic Design data of ULH Hvdrooower Turbine
Based on Marine Thrusters · . · ' · . " , .
-49-
17 ••.•••
..
· .
... .,.. . .
. · . .. ~ ' ..
•-' ··.···. · ..
...
..
..
Figure 3.9 Typical Installation of Ultra-law Hea.a~~ronC'l~dlJII-'"-II.<ll~t:
on Marine ThnJSten
-so-
'-0
c:
0
..... .. .... -6
N
.....
u
~ . '
( I l I I • t ~~ ~ I ~~ ~i 1 \
I I I
i I -...~ I Ql~ I I
~ : I ~~t!
0 .....
~~~ i
...
(":$
.... "(r'" '
...
~l;jC(
&
'-c:
8
c: _g
s::
U'l -
~ ~\
2
.... ~
~
~'i
..... -,.,.;
\4.L
: ~ \l I ; ::'j ~
I~~
.:::::;;' ~
r~ I :
'-} ~
I ( -
I I
-
I t
I I I
J
" ; I ~
I
lil w
I
"
HciJ/;
W~'TI!'IL
w.eo~.J(_
't'#-'1
1/Yr/IKE Y~f t1 E
{oP:rro/YAL)
&.L 5cr~/C/rL
Eeil~I.P/NF.Yr
~~M
1/k.tY,:c:-6
£J./fJow
I€~NS,If/SSt"~N
Ct:N~~n>~
f e.orvr.eo...s
tVA-~ I<
tv..f·Y
=---~ T~o. "'-tre--AL. -----------------
OP..v~ .d~.c-T
Tt.-.d~
Figure 3.12a Installation with lntake and Vaned Elbow -Vertical Discharge
•
I~
:1 I
~~
L_-_I .f\ l ~f ~ I ' ~~ "' V}Vl ~
'
~
Q
(
~
Q..
>...
VJ
-54-
• expected from the eleven ~1ruster-based packages characterized for
their performance as turbines. (See Figure 3.13) This presenta-
tion of predicted per.~ormance data includes the efficiency of each
thruster canputed in t:.he mar..ner described in Section 3J.. Assuming
that these efficiencies include the overall losses of thrusters
operating in their normal mode, i.e., propeller design efficiency,
mechanical transmission efficiency, and prime mover efficiency, the
overall efficiency was recalculated after the. final design of their
configuration as turbines was completed. According to the litera-
ture!, for the worst case configuration of the draft tube, head
losses can range up to 25% and the mininn.ml coefficient of recovery
for an elbow with round, constant area cross section is 70%. The
result is that effective head losses for the worst case draft tube
configuration can be up to 7.5%.
For a more conservative approach, we assumed that for an elbow with
round constant area cross section as well as for a straight conical
draft tube design tt1e efficiency will be reduced by 10% ( e d= 0. 90).
Therefore, the predicted efficiency of the ULHH package, as designed,
will be as follows:
where:
= efficiency of the thruster operating in
its normal mode
efficiency of the draft tube and cones.
(16)
The calculation used for hydroelectric power potential by the Corps
of Engineers for sr.all hydropower installations is:
p (KW)
where:
h = Gross head (actual difference between head
elevation and tail water elevation) in ft;
Q = (flow) of water in cfs;
e = Efficier:cy of the system.
(17)
Using this equation \vi th specific values for e a, we recalculated
the predicted p~•er output for all eleven unit~ characteri:ed at
heads ranging from 6 ft. to 15 ft. Flows required for each unit
at specified heads, based on a constant cross-sectional area and
full gate intake ope:-.ing were computed based on th.e velocity head
1) "Principles of Hydrodynamic Calculation of Water Tt..'Tbines" by
A. Y. Kolton & I.E. Etinberg. ~bSCOW·, .1958
ic''
expression:
v. n
Q
where:
= v 2 g h
= V A h c
h = Gross head in feet
(18)
(19)
g Gra\'i. tional acceleration constant of 32.2 ft/sec 2
A c
1TD2 = Cross-sectional area of each unit (A=
\\'here D is the design intake diameter) -4-
Figure 3.13 contai:ro.s, in tabular fonnat, the predicted performance
~acteristics of the ULH hydropower packages based on the assump-
t1ons and calculations described above. The efficiency of each
package is sho\\n as ~ constant for various heads and flows, but, in
reality, the efficiencies will vary. The actual efficiency curves
can be determined by laboratory test using a scale model. The best
results will be obtained through actual operation at a test site using
a full scale unit. Testing should be accomplished for various con-
ditio~.s and input characteristics, including head, flow, and using
the f1xed pitch propeller of an alternative design to determine both
actual and optimum efficiencies.
The potential for cavitation, with its negative effect on energy
production and equipment, has been considered in the course of
this project. It is not predicted to occur.
The onlv occurrence of cavitation will be in an abnonnal, or
overs peed, cond.i tion 'M'lich will be corrected as part of the
operational logic. Because of the very low heads for which the
package is designed and consequent low propeller RPM, cavitation
is virtually precluded by the physical parameters of the UlliH
package design.
The :~~ent of t~is project is ultra-low head hydro~ower co~t reduction
through definition, design and assembly of ~ppro~r1ate eqU1pmen~ from
"off the shelf" avoiding costly custom des1gns m favor of ava1lable
component parts: Those were t~e engineering design criteria followed.
Theoretically, ultra-low head hydrop?We~ packages, so_far_defin~d!
have promising performance character1st1cs, have appl1c~t1ons s1rn2lar
to traditional hydropower turbines and are.very_attrac~1ve from the
cost ar~lysis v'i.ew point, as will be descr1bed m Sect1on 4.
-56-
•
..
I
Vl
'I
I
.
A'IOD€L-"'"' {J
rl lw\
5tdL o. zr
---...-,'-. ···--· ---·-
S 51 L o. 7S
!--···· . i··-··-
~l-2o 0 o. 7.1;
1-. -
~f-2f.:> !J. 11
AT-3ku 0.6{
--·· -·
/f;f.ltoo 1). 6u
... --1·----
l.'i·4.lv 0. 71
r----. -...
~~-J .l .J (),60
I··· . --
~r. 6!-, o. rx
~l·jSD ~so
~~,/ooo 0.6S
..
. ,
..
G-~oss 11 G'AJ b 1 Fr.
/ 6.() /.r;o /~.r) 1,3, v /.1-.o II. o 9.~~ 9. tJ J>. 0 7.0 £.8 ..l,o ~.t:J ,3, i) ,. 4 ,.. Q p Q ,. Q ~ a. p ~ po 41 fil: Q
-~-. ·. ,.
78 11 76 n .. 7~ 6( ?o ld 61 .J;t. ·~ 4f fJ, tf J-.J'
.... ---·--" ... ,
167 17o If>.? /,l.f lrt. !39 II<> u; I-f{ /1() ls'i 1'7 IJI fl ~~~-____ T ___ 1----
.2-t~ 2:il If{! :.t(>cf ) 7.:J. 2{,.;; ,;>~;; a1 2t). 117 i:.jj ln. 111 I.,U) 2o;;.
j~ ~~Db --~
31! :us ./."'f 2'r) .4)~ l. :rz 2'/S 1?/ :C6:t 113 #ltl l.!f 237
-~
IJ6! {.<f2 3.-h ~n :s'H U3 .)2.' Z.:!.S 5J{, 20') 3<>3 /J'3 ;>& ~:fl. 27~
1--·· -1····--.
~il 39l yJJ 3S? Hr 3~~ .Y..U 29o -f2.1 .2 i) ~OJ 2'Js;' '11~ ,,~ :J'r
-----~ . -----·· --.......,....
ic>A:~ sn Oo (~~ !6.:> 1,?2 .r..;o 4-n r;., 37!' 'r¥'1 3-:J/J : ' f;e;. ~"I .YS,
r---~·· . .,._...,.
17,3 ~uj 73<; .U3 lilt foJ' b.i? .;s-'} .:6/ 4o3 03 3f~ .Wt:. ~~~ .s-n.
. ....
itJ<ll-'7 •fJ bf] m ?<8 114'!" .1'4~-f?.rilbY f.Jl T-'"J J~ 11!
'7+'0 (IJ1 7J l '12• 66'< ID?J J ?+JJ f n '"J .. L
__ "',.
9), ~I C'J.r
r-~
.t'z i/112. ruz.:~t;t>YI''&>:y,o k/36 !J/ 3 107.1 721 (of" 4 Jf ~ ('3; I
ll
~~---ak.e.l
//·a
-V.ei11U7c.4t.. t41>NGtr14W
-~-z.t:>NniL. ---I SYI"IMN AIHlt.k.Sitt77JAIV
,... & ,.. (J p !J. F Q p Q p Q p
33 J'.f}2.P f';,t.. 2-:J {1.1 lr ~" ~~ 3? IO J"' ,;; • .r
--.... ...
7~ 113 ot::~ 110 ~, /0~ J1 .,3 .Jo J-f Z.l 72. I~
.--~...,
'/(" 17,/ 7~ /~[" 6~ l.fo 47 I 1/j /'I..; I
.. I
I .
12.¥ ~7J /0) .20"} .r'.J' /f.J 7o /7, .r.s I
r-~
I
13(, 2::..Y JI,Y .?4~ "'13. 2:1~ 7~ I
I
''7 3~i-ILto !24. II" 29,/ I
'fo I
~·. -,.._ --
~2~ 101 I ;?+-.S ;:!,~ 31) I
..----
2bt r.t~-.., ,;(J") I I ,...-~ ..
3.2 I
I
I ,~,~. I
-r' I-
I ;
I I r I I
'
Q -E.Sn.l'rUi 'TieD r.t-oW ('i::.F.s)
p -e:sTJA1A77:b CJVTJ'>trr PoWelfl.. f.k.JV)
h. -t!;--'i!D~ #e~.D c~J
€. -E&n Afll 7l':f! l!J I!J!i P,I/S'/C..UJ::NC. Y
figure 3.13 Estimated Perfo1111ance Characteristics of UU-1 Hydropower Packages
4.0 u1.9H Package Co~onent Cost Analysis
T'ne ''l.JI.RH package" is defined, for cost comparison, as a ftm.ctional
equivalent group of components including a turbine, transmission or
speed increaser, generator and controls and, in some cases, special
support structure.
Conventional turbine costs have been taken from a group of recent
feasibility studies with adjustment for inflation at 10% per year.
The new designs for the ER&A t.llruster-based package (adapter cones
and the draft tube elbows) have been estimated from conceptual
dravdngs of three thruster sizes t.i.at ranged from 200 HP to 1000 HP.
Costs for. three-phase induction motors (to be operated as generators)
were taken from the louis-Allis catalogue and adjusted for inflation.
Belt drive costs were obtained from King Bearing Company after con-
sultation on our speed and horsepower range.
4 .1 Draft Tube Costing Method
The draft tube design presented at the Interim Program Review of 25
March 81 featured one 300 elbow with a conical flared discharge
section. Manufacturing quotations were obtained from Harbormaster
on tubes to fit the BT200·and BT1000 thrusters. Since the totals,
received by telephone, were much higher than our expectations, based
on an internal estimate of material, flame cutting, and welding, we
got a "quickie" bid on the BT200 tube (labor only) from Barber
Welding (a Los Angeles area shop). The Barber bid was more in line
with our expectations. The confirmation letter from Harbormaster
showed that their quoted cost included the cost of the thruster,
which brought the draft tube cost down drastically, although it
was still bgher than the local bid from the same design drawing.
Harbormaster' s quotation for 10 units showed a 10% cost reduction
for the BT200 draft tube and a 5% cost reduction for the larger
BTlOOO draft ~Jbe.
The day after the program review, our continuing layout studies re-
sulted in a new design that used two 45° elbows (Figure 3.10).
Controlled discharge is accomplished by an expanding rectangular
cross-section concrete form cast into place downstream from the
outle elbow. The aoproach resulted in a draft tube substitute
at reduced cost.
We then develooed a much more complete material estimate on the draft
tubes for BT200, BT340 and BTlOOO thrusters. These estimates supplied
the baseline data needed to ratio the costs for the full ER&A ULHH
package line.
A reasonably accurate estimate of the manufacturing cost of a
product can only be made by an estimator who is well-acquainted
with the caoabilities of the manufacturing facilitv and the
specific tooling that may be used. Since our internal estimates
are not tailored for a soecific facility, we took ratios from our
internal cost estimates of the 45° elbow design ~1d took total costs
-58-
from the Harbormaster estimates of the original 300 elbow design.
This method is believed to be a conservative approach and is being
used for dollars per kilowatt of electric power generation costing
of the ULHH thruster-turbine package.
4.2 Turbine Package Cost Comoarisons
Figures 4.1 through 4.3 have costs designated as dollars per kilo-
watt of electric power generated, by a specific turbine unit,
located at a specific site.
Dollars per kilowatt is a commonly used cost parameter, but it can
be very misleading if it is applied to a different head and flow
combination at a different site.
The costs of conventional turbines have been obtained from a group
of feasibility studies, with quotations obtained from 1978 to 1981.
Few-studies were provided by ow-OOE Program Office, another was
obtained by ER&A, and yet another was executed by ER&A for the
Tennessee Valley Authority. These costs have been inflated at 10%
per year to make a 1981 cost comparison more accurate. The head and
flow to produce the rated K\'1 output were also extracted from these
Final Reports.
Figure 4.1 combines the dollars per kilowatt for these studies with
equivalent estimated data for ER&A's ultra-low head thruster-
turbines. Because of the mixture of available heads in the group
of studies, the ordinate scatter is large and the trend curves show
chiefly the effect of scale. They also show that horizontal tube
turbines cost more than conventional vertical turbines, while our
thruster-turbines cost less than either of the above, in spite of
the penalty created by the head region of three meters or less.
Figure 4.2a is more meaningful and gives dollars per kilowatt of
different size turbines operated at a constant head. The total
turbine package cost is that of the horizontal tube turbines taken
from the feasibility studies. The Kl'/ output was based on the
S¢rumsand Verksted diagram for determination of turbine size, and
the frequently used parameter of 12 M4/s to produce 100 IO'I. Since
our largest horizontal thrJSter-turbine is less than half the cost
of the conventional horizontal tube tw-bines used in the studies
(although the propeller sizes overlapped) these $/KW lines of con-
stant head fall below those of conventional turbines. An enlarge-
ment of the ULH thruster-turbine costs are shown in Figure 4.2b.
The $/KW li.mi tations caused by head are not peculiar to t'.Jrbine
costs. The cost of electric motors or generators, per horsepower,
is a function of the RPM. Dollars per pound of a manufactured
product are dependent upon similarity of design and production
quantity for its validity. The $/lb of the P..a:rbot:master units is
. fairly consistent due to design similarity. ·
Figure 4.3 shows the package cost of small size conventional ver-
-59-
tical tur~ines taken from the feasibility studies when used L~
low head regions. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show the same type of costs
for t."te ER8A design th.-ruster-turbines used in the ultra-low head
region.
Cost camoariso~ of conventional turbines installed at low and
ultra-low head ~~~1 modular implementation of UL~ package units
was also developed. wnereas one {or, sometimes, two) conventional
unit, often of an open flume type, would normally be specified,
multiple UU{~ packages could be more cost-effectively installed to
better utilize flow duration; hence, increasing annual energy output
of a site. ~~package costs were determined on a $/KW basis for
power output at 3·meters only. Cost per KW of other installations
were calculated at their ac~ual installed heads, which were generally
in the 3 to 7 meter range. In all cases, costs of ULHH packages to
achie\'e equivalent power were substantially lower.
4.3 Transmission and Drive
This section discusses the transw~ssion components, their function
and selection. Both those components integral to the thruster, as
purchased, and added into the package by ER&A are covered.
4.3.1 Right Angle Gear Drive
Both the Harbormaster and the Schottel thrusters that have been
characterized as sui table for the < 3 .M regime have an integral
bevel gear speed reduction system.-rSee Figure 4.8) The gear
ratios range from 1.13:1 in the Schottel SlOL to 5.90:1 in the
Barbormaster BT650. These bevel gears perform a part of the
rotational speed increase from that of the water driven turbine
blade to that of a standard high speed electric motor-generator.
The integral right angle drive has a unique advantage in optional
locations for horizontal generators. The thruster can be rotated
1800 around its horizontal axis to permit a tangential belt or
chain drive to a generator. This bevel gear system has it's own
pre~"urized oil lubrication system and the marine experience has
sho~~ that the chief maintenance item is yearly replacement of the
output shaft seals. The thruster gear system is ruggedly designed
to withstand rapid changes in direction of rotation in normal marine
service. One unit has been in continuous 24 hour service, w"i th no
down time and no maintenance, for over five years. The only right
angle drive available in conventional turbines has a cost of
$230,000 (turbine only) in a 1000 mm runner size to drive a 150 KW
generator. This cost is over 13 times the cost of a BT340 thruster
which, when properly integrated into the ULHH package, has a pre-
dicted output of 155 .KW at 3 .M head.
-60-
•
..
...... "'
4.3.2 Belt Drive Components
The estiTJJated thruster-turbine drive shaft speeds vart greatly, due
to the thruster size and gear ratio, as well as the head variation
down to sot of three meters. The BTZOO output shaft is estimated
to rotate frcm 843 RPM to 1295 RPM, while the BTIOOO goes fran 363
RPM to 537 RPM. Standard generator speeds normally are 3600 RPM,
1800, 1200, 900, and 720 RPM, with the sl!3wer speed units having
higher costs.
King Bearings, Inc. supplied drive sizes and costs on four of our,
eleven thruster-turbine packages. The costs for the remaining
units were interpolated on a horsepower basis. The nmning horse-
power varies fran 62 HP to 838 HP and will be satisfied by standard
Dodge Dyna-V belts, and multiple groove sheaves that use four to
ten belts. A premitml type of timing belt such as the Wood's Sure-
Grip HTD drive was considered and may be used after the speed ratio
is confirmed by field tests of the Ull1H package. This approach was
favored over other possibilities eval~ted due to a lack of lub-
rication requirements and a claim of no stretch problem with the
Woods' belt as it is fabricated of fiberglass tensile cords. The
largest stock belt is 6.69 in. (170 mm) wide and rated for 294 HP
at 1400 RPM on the smaller drive sprocket. Total costs for these
components range from $1895 for the 62 HP thruster unit to $5993 for
the 838 HP unit. (See also Table 2.2)
A simple welded sheet metal cover will be provided for the drive
belt to insure safety. The cover is also intended to give some
weather protection, but it will not be sealed so that heat may be
dissipated.
4.4 Comeonent Value Engineering Before Finalizing the ULHH Package
DesJ.gns
Value engineering (VE) is most effective when it is employed in the
design layout stage. Manufacturing producibili ty is sane times con-
fused with VE. wr distinction is that producibili ty accepts a
configuration and tailors its features, and limits, to achieve the
lowest manufacturing cost that is consistent with the production
quality. Applied value engineering investigates the design function
required, and starts by asking the following questions :
What is the design function?
What does it do?
What does it cost?
What else will accomplish
the function?
What does that cost?
This procedure may follow the original concept design through several
iterations until a reasonable, simple, design is defined. VE, .like
all design, is a series of compromises, and it takes some practice
-61-
aDd cooperation to ac..tueve the minimum cost for a specified function
while maintaining the perfonr.ance parameters reouired for tJJ.at
function.
The draft tube design for the horizontal package configuration illu-
strates a typical design sequence. The first configuration went
from the round thruster shroud to a traditional rectangular controlled
expansion area that continued to flatten and ~~den until it reached
the discharge point under the tailwater. This configuration, when
applied to the BTlOOO thrJster, resulted in large rectangular panels
(96" x 111") that required a 0. 37 5" plate thickness, with 6" tee
stiffeners, notwi thstand.ing low internal pressure ( ~ 5 psi) . After
an ex-pert structural consultant had confirmed our rectangular pressure
vessel problems, we started to look at alternatives. The siphon con-
figuration involved round tubes and cones throughout so we looked at
a pipe bend made by butt-welding mitered segments of special pipe.
The internal pressure stress could now be contained with a wall
thic...lcness of only 0.011" for a low carbon steel pipe seven feet in
diameter. A structure that thin would be too fragile and d.ifficul t
to weld and handle, so we are using a 0.188" wall for the 21-inch
diameter tube. The 0.188" wall is expected to withstand the design
pressure differential on the siphon application, ~ith a two-fold
safety margin.
Another signific~~t cost reduction has been accomplished in the flow
control method. The siphon system operates without flow control
valves and ~~e designed discharge end of the draft tube has been
sized to control the flow for the horizontal turbine to the calcul-
ated design flow.
Shutdo•m valves may be used if there is no other water control on
the channel .
We also evaluated the material to be used for the draft tube and
intake cone, both of wtdch will be welded to the stainless steel
shroud around the propeller. Current pricing from steel seT\~ce
centers is approxiw~tely as follo~~:
SS 304 !:!" Plate: $1.35 to $2.90/lb
Corten !:!" Plate: . 4665 to .4865/lb
Ex-Ten SO 1/8" Plate: .4265 to .4465/lb
.435 L.C. 10 a~: .304 to .306/lb.
Corten and Ex-Ten both have 50,000 psi yield stress and therefore
provide more margin of safety; alternatively, you can buy fewer
, pounds of steel. Cor-Ten is conservatively rated as having four-
times the resistance to atmospheric corrosion of carbon steelS:-It
~een used architecturally on building exteriors where it oxidizes
to a bronze-like patina without scaling.
An engineer normally expects a design standard, such as for a pipe
flaiJ.ge, to be the least expensive way to go. H01·:ever, in reviewing
the American Water Works .A..ssocia. ~ion's design manual, and codes, we
found that the flange for a seven foot pipe was two inches thick,
-62-
..
•
•
7 7/8" wide, and used 64 bolts of l.S-2.0 inch diameter. Investi-
gation revealed that part of the reason was the pressure classifica-
tion of the pipe at 86 psi and 175. psi. Since our predicted internal
pressure is only 4. 383 psi (based on the 3 M head limit), we can make
significant cost reductions in flange and hardware specifications .
The package design includes a support structure for both the thruster-
turbine and the generator. By using a common base beam, we can
assemble the turbine, the transmission, and the generator in the
manufacturing facility at less cost than for on-site assembly. It
also simplifies the concrete work at the site and provides (in smaller
sizes) a convenient shipping unit. This design approach also gives
much closer tolerance control between the turbine and generator for
the transmission-drive installation.
Another design feature is expected to reduce costs in production
runs. The flanges on the cones at both ends of the thruster are
a functional requirement for prime mover maintenance. The other
bolted flange enables the 450 elbow module and the discharge module
to be the same and have multiple uses in different ULHH package con-
figurations (vertical, horizontal and siphon). This multiple use
should increase the number of identical structural modules and
position their costs further down the learning curve.
-63-
. " .
<1000
~
3000
I
()'\
~
I 2000
$/KW
I
I 10(10 -\0 1 0
0
Pi gure h. 1 C"""" rat i ve f'lui vwent Costs and Power ~>W't
8 /\LL1 S C\\f\H1l~ILS 1\0HHONT/\L ·runE
/!:> BOFORS t-0 \J\1.\ VERT I C/\L
8 tEHEL SAMVSJN vr.RTlfJ\L
"V f:\H~/\ \f'ln 7.0NT/\L 1111UISTr.H-nWJ~INE
a
Q ....___ c::> 0
~
0 A
.;r~ ., r \7'--s' _,__,--~-·r > · · • ·~ _..--t -t-·· • · -• f • · 1· __....-t-500 1000 1500 2~ 2500 3000
OJ11'UT /UNIT IN KW
{J
'
•
Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
~ Vl ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~ .$1 ... ...
V) ~ ~ ~
~ .. ... ~ Vl
~
8
\.) .0 T ...
N ~ . l ~ ..,.
w ~ '"' & S) Cl)
~ ~ ~ -":1 Vl .... " ...
ffi ~ Vl
0
CJJ u
Cl)
~ .... -e
~ ~
~
N ..,.
Cl)
""~ <.J ...
~ """'·~· .
~ ,'\l ....
'{\ >.:..
~~ ?:J',c_s "
~
~ 0 -o 0 .0 " Q 1'.1 0
Q 0 0 'o::l ~ Q .0 "' !'.. "\) .. '<:) <:l ~ ~ \J ~ Q
I ' t;j.' ' -o' ("\
'0 ':l <;) 1 ' "\) '0 <::)' ' 1). ,.., !."I ft\ ~ ~ ' ~ !'I ('v
' I). -.3 '\} !'I'. '-..
......... -,,
$ .J-.50..? .35 t7').(:: {7' d ...? /VI ~d;'/1 /
. ,.-·.--'
-65-
~ oc co
~ ~
&.
,.,. s
"g
tn
~
.:::::.
' r..
~ ...,
Ill ... .... .... .::: t-
" "'"" Q ... 0 <::) z ' "g ::l
ffi ~
"" .....
~ ;a .....
Ill
8
~ ..... co
.... ~ § .....
~ .....
~-<'j ...... ~ -o :..::
~ '""' .... :..::
'"' ~ c. ...,
til
0 u
..Q
N . ....
(I)
~ ..... .....
~ " t;.. ~ 0\ ' ~ "" 1'1\ 1-<1
\)I {ril
" l'$l " ' ~ ~ ' r "' !!'\ ,g ~ -3 !'\ ~ l'l'l :.[!~ " \) <::>' ;-3' I ' 1'.'1'1\' il\' II'' ,, {'<\ 10 ()' ~'
~ "\) ~ " ~ '(I '>:J. ~~ N N
" ' #' ..£50.? .i? ~ {7'),/.;J~d
:7NIG'b'!?.L -#"...:?.£ 51JJ/#L v; d:/3
-66-
..
..
OUTPUT
2:5 KW
54 KW
126 KW
300 KW
TURBINE PACKAGE COSTS
(ALL LEFFEL VERTICAL)
TOTAL COST
s 25,590
• 30,940
s 89,700
$ 232,925
S/KW AT NOTED HEADS
S 1024 I KW
AT 20 FT. HEAD
S 573 I KW
AT 20 FT. HEAD
S 712 I KW
AT 13 FT. HEAD
$ 776 I KW
AT 13 FT. HEAD
----------------------------------~-------------------------------------
FIGURE 4.3
-67-
THRUSTER UNIT
2 CONES TO THRUSTER
2 ELBOWS
THRUSTER PACKAGE COMPONENT
COST BUILD-UP
BT 200
$ 12, 100
s 2, 052
3,022
PLANNING, TOOLS &c PACKING 2,440
HARDWARE 100 ·-----
DRAFT TUBE SUB-TOTAL • 7,614
CONTINGENCY &c FEE 1,599 ------
TURBINE TOTAL $ 21,313
BT 340 BT 1000
$ 17,700 $ 57,400
$ 2,451 s 3,954
3,497 9,789
2,620 4,970
150 500 ------------
$ 8,718 $ 21,213
1, 831 4,455 ------------
$ 28,244 $ 83,568
----------------------------------~------··--------------------------------
SUPPORT STRUCTURES $ 1' 892 $ 1 f 980 $ 2,668
DRAFT TUBE DOWNSTREAM 307 307 400
CONTINGENCY &c FEE 462 480 644 ---------------·--• 2,661 $ 2,767 $ 3,712
GENERATOR $ 4,805 $ 7,492 $ 15,227
( 1800 RPM> < 1200 RPM> ( 1200 RPM>
6,967 11,810 24,882
< 1200 RPM) (900 RPM> t720 RPM>
BELT DRlVE COVER 500 600 1,000 ------------------
ALL PRICES F.O.B. MANUFACTURER $ 31,441* $ 43,421* $ 109,120*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------A
* TOTAL PRICES REFLECT GENERATOR SELECTIONS PROVIDING OPTIMIZED THRUSTER
TO GENERATOR RPM MATCH
FIGURE 4,4
-68-
..
ULH THRUSTER PACKAGE COSTS
9.84 FT -------
PACKAGE DRAFT SUPPORT 5< PACKAGE
OUTP\JT THRUSTER GENERATOR TUBE TRANSMISSION COST
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S10L
40 KW • 8,650 • 2,090 • 8,500 • 4,445 $ 23,685
(361) ( 91) (361l ( 191)
S51L
86 KW • 9,500 • 3t 188 $ 1 o, 180 • 4,905 • 27,773
(34'1.1 ( 11 '1.) (37'1.) (18'1.)
BT 200
130 KW • 12, 100 • 4,805 • 13,858 • 5,093 • 35,856
(34'1.) ( 13'1.) (39'1.) (14'1.)
BT 250
146 KW • 13,500 • 6,226 • 14,941 • 5,870 • 40,537
{33'1.) ( 15'1.> {37'1.) (15'1.)
BT 340
155 KW • 17,215 $ 6,226 • 16,045 • 5,833 $ 45,319
(38'1.) (14'1.) (351.) ( 13'1.)
BT 400
191 KW $ 20,500 $ 10,481 • 18,225 $ 6,885 $ 56,091
(37ll (171> (32'1.) <12'1.)
BT 450
278 KW $ 25,000 $ 10,481 $ 20,503 • 7,385 $ 63,369
(39'1.) ( 18'1.) (32'1.) ( 11'1.)
BT 550
298 KW $ 27,700 $ 12,968 $ 22,961 $ 8,025 $ 71' 654
(39'1.) (18'1.) (32'1.) ( 11'1.)
BT 650
370 KW $ 35,600 $ 13,085 $ 26,239 $ 8,690 $ 83,614
(43'1.) (16'1.) ( 3U.) (10'1.)
BT 850
391 KW $ 54,000 $ 18,825 $ 27,432 $ 9,420 $ 109,677
(491) (17'1.) (25'1.) ( 9'1.)
11 FT
BT 1000
634 KW $ 57,900 $ 22.544 $ 30,678 $ 9,250 $ 120,372
(48'1.) ( 191.1 (251) ( 81)
----------------------------------------------------·----------------------· •
')\<_· •
. .
FIGURE 4. 5
~69~
' ...
ULH THRUSTER PACKAGE COST AND OUTPUT
PROPELLER PACKAGE HEAD OUTPUT
MODEL SIZE COST 5.0 FT 7.0 FT 9.8 FT 12.0 FT
<IN l ( s) (I<Wl
----·----·-------------------------------------------------------------
SlOL 19.0 23,685 14 23 40 52
S51L 24.8 27,773 30 49 86 110
BT 200 36.0 35,856 47 78 130 172
DT 250 39.0 40,537 53 88 146 197
BT 350 42.0 45,319 93 155 209
BT 400 48.0 56,091 114 191 257
BT 450 54.0 63,360 167 279 375
BT 550 60.0 71,654 298 403
BT 650 68.0 83,614 370 498
BT 850 71 t 0 109,677 391 527
BT 1000 78.0 120,372 634 723
----------·------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 4,6
-70-•
~ ~ "
•
\• ..
~ ~ \;\ !~ ~~ a
l
"''
\.. ~<t ~ t.u " C(' a~
s
~
~
l
~
i)
Q
:t
4<
~
I
to
• I II) 0 ~ ~ II\ 4
0
&
~ 0 "': ~ ..,.
~ Q> ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ ..... p., ~ ~ 1 ~ ll
~ <\
''--
t( ~
IU l'f\
~
()
!'&
~
~-
'
'· _ ...
\ .
•
.·.:·.·
Figure 4.8 L-Drive Showing Integral Bevel Gear Reduction System ..
•
-72-
5.0 _Ultra-low Head Site Applications in the United States
The purpose of this task was to determine what size market exists
for hydropower equipment packages based on marine thrusters
designed specifically for sites with ultra ·low heads. OO.ring
preliminary engineering analysis it was determined that the minimum
feasible package output, based on equipment limitations and econo-
mics, is about 100 KW. In order to produce a minimum of 100 KW at
a head which is considered ultra-low (10 feet or less), a flow of
140 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater is needed:
p
and Q
where
For P
e
• ~ 8
• {11.8)P
fie
p "' power (KW)
Q = flow (cfs)
h = head (ft)
e = efficiency (%).
• 100 KW, h = 10 feet or less, and
= 85%:
Q = (11.8) flOO)
(10) .85)
,. 138.82 cfs.
5.1 Hydropower Site categories
There were initially five basic categories of hydropower sites
which were thought to satisfy the head and flow criteria: dams,
wastewater treatment outfalls, canal systems, industrial cooling
outfalls, and fish ladders. For each category of application a
broad search was undertaken which encompassed multiple sources of
data. In some cases the scope of the retrofit category was
narrowed to eliminate sites which did not qualify and by the same
token in other cases sites which were not originally considered in
the search, but were later determined promising, were added. For
example, in the industrial cooling outfalls category three cate·
gories of industries were origL~lly judged promising candidates
for thruster hydropower packages. However, after preliminary in-
vestigation it was determined that for only one of the three
industries, thermal power plants, was there sufficient data on
discharges of water to make hydropower retrofit analysis possible.
-73-
This ca tego:::-y •;as :.hen narrowed and refocused accordingly. At the
other end o:f t..'le snectnnn, ERM had not ini tiallv considered the
possible application of this type of thruster package to fish
ladders. .A.s it tl.lTJ'..S out, this could be a very good application
which increases potential market si:e. Since this category v.·as a
recent adCition to the search, it v.ill be discussed in less detail
than the ot..~er four categories.
In some application categories, data were not available in the form
needed. It was therefore necessary, in such cases, to calculate
appropriate values using a set of reasonable assumptions. In
discussions of these site categories, the set of assumptions is
given along Y-ith the methodology for calculations, prior to the
~~lysis for each case.
S .1. 1 DaJTI.s
In the dam category, 153 sites were positively identified as being
suitable candidates for retrofit "'ith the marine thruster package.
The methodology for this survey and the pertinent references are
described below.
ER~~ first restricted the number of dam sites with a potential for
thruster package retrofit, by adhering to ~1e aforementioned cri-
teria (flow of 140 cfs and head of 3 meters (9.84 feet or less).
The reported tabulation is based upon data from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' National Hvdropower Study, 1981; Regions I-VI,
and the Un.ited States Water and Power Resource Service's (formerly
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) Assessment of Small Hydroelectric
Development at Existing Facilities, 1981. This study was cor£ined
to exlStlng power generat1on s1tes Wlth a capacity of one megawatt
or more.
While the tabulation of these studies did yield many potential sites
for tr~ter package retrofit, ER~~ believes more sites exist v.nich
were elilPinated by the screening methods of both groups. ER&A is
av.·are, ~or example, of several dams in Tennessee which have ultra-
low heads and appear good candidates for generating 100-500 KW.
Other states no doubt contain similar sites not appearing on the
Corps of S~gineer's lists. Further confirming this h;~othesis,
ERE;.\ received a list of d.arr..s v.nich fit ultra-low head criteria,
screened from the DOE listing through our EG&G/Idaho Technical
llini tor. This sttrvey show:; an additional 784 dan>..s with 10 feet
or less of head which are candidates for trJUster package retrofit.
A list of these is also included in Table 5~1. The Water and Power
Service has also published data which is aimed at larger dams, using
the same criteria as the Corps. In addition, this agency published
another volume ;..~ich addressed diversion dams. This type of dam
tends typically to be less tr~ one megaw~tt, and about ten feet in
height. Both of ilie above sources were consul ted in ER&A' s tally
of ultra-low head dams.
Tne state locations of the d.a.'T!S cited can be found in Table 5-l.
-74-
It should be noted that some of the installed capacity estimates
for the Corps of Engineers Study are quite liberal. For the sites
with unknown flows but known reservoir storage capacities, flows
were computed assuming the engire content of the reservoir could
turn over in 24 hours. This assumption produced higher flows, in
most cases, than would have been provided by stream gauge data.
5.1.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants
Wastewater treatment plants discharge large quantities of treated
effluent from outfalls with low heads relative to receiving waters.
ER&A's experience with engineering retrofits for recovering energy
fran treatment plant outfalls was the starting point of the in-
vestigation of suitable sites of this category for thruster package
application. The search }'ielded 62 probable locations by methods
described below.
ER&A' s investigation focused on finding plants with a "flow'' of 140
cfs. From past engineering experience, net available heads were
assumed to be 10 feet or less. Wastewater treatment plants are
calibrated in million gallons per day (mgd), and 140 cfs running 24
hours per day yields 90 million gallons per day. A 90 mgd waste-
water treatment plant turns out to be a large facility, which would
be located in a heavily populated or industry-intensive urban area.
Any plant with an outfall head less than 10 feet will require an even
higher flow to attain 100 ~~ capacity.
From a l~st of metropolitan areas and corresponding sewage treat-
ment capacity, ER&A determined the population size which generates
a 90 mgd minimum. A list of U.S. cities which met the population
mininn:ml. was then comoiled. There are two sources of error in this
method. Because the· initial list gave only flows for cities and
not individual plants, there may be cities which have more than one
plant, where the combined flow is 90 mgd or greater, but the indi-
vidual plant's flows are not. This is balanced by cases like New
York City, where there may be 4-5 plants which meet flow require-
ments, but only one plant is tallied.
The search brought 62. possible ~~ruster package retrofit sites to
ER&A's attention. The cities and ~~eir locations can be found in
Table 5-Z. ER&A believes that ~~is analysis results in an accurate
projection of market size. Though not precise in detail, it con-
firms ~~t a healthy market exists in this site category.
5.1.3 California Irrigation Canals
While a great variety of water delivery systems wi~~ ultra-low heads
may prove feasible for ~~ruster package retrofit, ER&A restricted
its market analysis to irrigation canals. Canals are a fairly ~~form
category of structures and are widespread in the Western U.S. Because
of the effort involved in collecting appropriate data about canals
from multiple agencies and jurisdictions and the· cooperativeness of
the California Department of Water Resources and local irrigation
-75-
C.istricts, t:-:e ca.'Ul investigation v;as restricted to CaEfornia.
Tnis fo~JS is ~r~he" s~~ported by the State's legislative and
regulatory support -Eo" low-head hydropower development and at-
tracti\"e, PUC-mandated electricity buy-back rates. Table 5-3
contains a listing of miscellaneous other water delivery systems
Ui'1Covered in the ER&A investigation.
After mu~h preliwinary research, the search for canal sites ~as
defined as a search for checks along canals. A check is a dam
used to regulate the cana2. v.-ater level upstream of the structure
and control dovmstream Hm·; and tencis to be 5 to 10 feet in height.
One list of major (high flow) canals in California was obtained
from the U.S. Deuartment of the Interior Water and Power Resources
Sen-i. ce . A second list of various water deli very systems from the
California Department of Water Resources, increased the number of
canals for analysis. Preliminary data indicated, an::l the operators
of the People's Ditch Company and Fresno Irrigation District con-
curred, ~1at the major canals compiled averaged 30 checks along
their length. Of these, about 5 checks will have a head of 7-10
feet and regulate flows of 140 cfs or greater.
ER&A located 15 maier canal svstems in California. These canals
are listed in Table 5-3. With an average of five eligible sites
for ttL~uster package retrofit per canal, there are a total of 75
possible candidates for UL~ thruster package retrofit. The number
of thruster package applications on Califonua irrigation canals is
high due to the aridity of the terrain in the South and the need to
transport v.-a t~r to it from the north. Additionally, smaller canals
net included 1n the investigation may raise the number of applica-
tions in this category. "1\hlle this m.assive system of canals for
water deli very is typical of arid western states, it is not typical
of states east of the Mississippi River.
5.1.4 Industrial Cooling Outfalls
Orig~ndJy this category was to include these industries; PulJ?-
paper, Steel, and Electric Power because all are known to req~re
huge qwu~tities of water .. ~ter initial investigation it was de-
teYITined that pulp-paper and steel mill did not pro\~de the con-
tinuoQs 140 cis rripJnrurr, requirement for thruster package application
anc tha~ ~~ere was little data on specific plant flows. The scope
c:f w'ris categor,• Y.'as then narrowed and refocused on the power in-
dustry .. tl,gain (as v.i.th wastewater treatment plant outfalls) it
was assumed heads were in the desirable range.
It ~~s dete~ined that the water requirement for steam generated
electricity· is 80 gal per kilowatt hour. To determine the minimum
plant si:e required (in KW of output):
-76-
•
140 cfs = 90 mgd
90 mgd = 1,125,000 KWH at SOyl
day KWH
1,125,000 KWH
day
24 hours
day
= 46,875 KW (47 MW)
Thermal power plants with a minimum 47000 Kl'i capacity were then
reviewed. From the 1975 Electrical World-Directory of Electric
Utili ties, 601 plants with steam tuiinne generators m the Urii ted
States were cited which met possible thruster package retrofit
applications. The breakdown by state can be seen in Table S-4.
The sites are fairly evenly distributed by state with the excep-
tion of California, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, all of which
have many more sites than average.
5. 2 Summa.rv
Beginning with dams and moving through the five categories pre-
viously discussed, the following facts emerge:
Dams: ER&A has tallied 153 sites in this category. This figure
compounded ;rith the 784 figure which was received from EG&G
Project Office in Idaho, brings ~~e grand total to 937 dams ~ith
good potential for retrofit for ultra-low head with marine thrusters.
The Geographical bias is toward the Northeast.
Wastewater Treatment Plants: ER&A located 62 potential sites with
a goOd possibility for thruster package retrofit. There is an
even geographical breakdown on this category, with the only bias
being toward heavily populated or industry intensive areas.
Canals: Tr~s category shows 75 sites in California alone. The
blas 1s toward the arid Western states, with water transportation
systems. There may be the same level of retrofit potential in
other states such as Utah, Nevada, Washington and Arizona.
Industrial Cooling Cutfalls: Originally in this category w"ere
were an estimated 601 possible retrofit sites. However, due to
the problems in getting a con:finnation on the number of downhill
outfalls, ER&A believes tb.at this figure tends to be high. If the
number of sites could be confirmed, this category could be poten-
tially the best because of the universality of application.
Fish Ladders: Estimates by w~e New England River Basin Cammission
1ndicate that there are about 164 economically feasible sites \<j"i th
-77-
potential fo-:-development. wt of this number about 25-50 could
potentially be designated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
use of fish ladders, and the use of the thruster package for energy
recovery in attraction flow within the ladder. If thruster packages
were to be installed for this purpose, it would greatly improve the
economics of fish ladder installations. Currently this technology
would only apply to fish ladders which have not yet been constructed.
5.2.1 Conclusions
The combined total of possible applications from ER&A's five cate-
gories is 1547. Out of that ncmber, about half are predicted to
qualify as physically good candidate sites, with about 350-400
meeting all criteria for hydropower development. Taking this number
into consideration, it appears that there is a good market for ultra-
low head retrofit since ~~y sites require multiple units. Conver-
sations with thruster manufacturers have indicated that ten additional
units sold per year in the domestic market would be more than suffi-
cient to interest them in providing units for an ER&A-designed package.
At a rate of ten per year, they would be manufacturing units for the
package for at least 20 years, at the conservative end of the spectrum.
In view of this, a move to make this potential market into an actual
market is most definitely indicated.
Add to this the rising prices and short supply of fossil fuel, and
the need to find env~ronmentallv sound alternatives. It is in-
creasingly apparent that it is appropriate to move toward actual
development of a marine tbJU$ter package for ultra-low head hydro-
power.
5.3 Feasibilitv Studies for Particular Site Applications
Conceptual designs and economic analyses were done for three ultra-
low head sites to compare thruster-based packages with conventional
installations. The t~ree sites selected were a Texas dam, a Calif.
irrigation canal and a Tennessee waste~~ter treatment plant outfall.
The sites were chosen because they fell within the required head
range ~~d had pre\~ously had feasibility studies completed for con-
ven ional equipment installations. They represent three of the five
site types that have been identified as potential application areas.
Concept design comparing conventional hydroturbine and thruster
package installations are sho~n in Figures 5.1 through 5.6,
The project costs for the comparative concept engineering designs
for each type of application are shown in Tables S.a through S.d.
Thruster installation costs reflect those costs that would be
similar or identical to the conventional installation such as
electrical interface. The civil costs varied according to the
design of the installation and the equipment varied with the type
a.~d number of u.li ts. A summary of the power potential and cost
-78-
•
data are shown in Table 5;·5. These costs are compared with more
rigor and detail in the econanic analysis, Section 7.
-79-
'.•. ".'
..., ~ . 1 I ~ t--4--lr--..r -., ,_ ~-
I .l "\ l II
t \-+-) 'l ( + )-;-1-' +)
..... 1, '-·"" tl \ r
i llifli IIi II li I Jl ill ~n ~~ l
~
-o-~ ~ I -
t 1
'$ g
IJ..
t:::::-~
LnJ n ~
; :: ~ H i~ W""'.::X
1.. .JL. .A. .JLIL. "?' ='~;:) ...L 'i~S
.......-"--.
~
' \
-80-
I
00 ......
I
.. •
~o'+~ 9 5 1-9-.
HEADWATER
~~~-~"\~) ~ATER v r-s•.o• ~~I : ---~--. ::::a, •• , .... <."& .. '. :. :--·0· ' ~~ ._ .. , .. ,, .. ~':·b>-=---·· ....... .
SECTION • A-A
A A
L _j
PLAN 1'..:so'-e-''
Figure 5.2 FRESH 0 HEADWORKS CHECKDAI.I-
ER&A ULH HYDROPOWER TURBINES
BASED ON MARINE THRUSTERS
I 'foe .. /,37B 1,3/3
1300
I Z-00 /14'2
-----...
'''J I /00 I-
;o3Z /03Z J03Z.
ll I O()O
\)
\:, qtJo
i-{4-S'-) (.l.fSb) ('I-Sh)
i"' 8'1 <:J
l<t--1 K.W KW
850
~ f3PO !-774 77.1/-771/-
~ 700
61){)
!"' (3'fz> {3Jfz) (Y-!2)
1-kW KW Kv../
I
00
N 5oo I i-
LJOO
300
1-
NOI t>PE ~AT /1\/Cj--
3(:,!> ..
Z58 J 1-
7..00
. (I 14-)
I-
I~ 2.. /'fS"' kw
/()O i-
3'Z 30
I 2. I
PCT. ;vov. DEC. :TAN FGB MAR. /ff'l?lt-MAY :fi/NE Jl/t.'l 4Vtr. SePT.
AVEI{AcrE frlo;V ..,-H
Figure 5.3 FRESNO HEADW.ORKS CHECKDAI.I -E.R.IrA. ULH
HYDROfo£NERATING UNITS BASED ON MARINE
T H R us T E R s . M A X. F L 0 w I u N IT = 2 5 8 c f ,.
~
• •
fA
EX/26
250 KW
YDRO UNIT
c!.o 11~-m ~rfl ~,.A.,--... /Br .. II II f exiSTING .PIERS ~ ~._ t. STOP 1..0' SLATS
~ -I
TAIL RACE
SLAB
~-PROPOS EO
'~
£XIS TINlA.CKS _A-A
T R A. 5 H $. f C T IQ N__ ---
~ .. ,C! ~ fl .!~
scolt fu t
£ LfCTRICA L £QUIP.
ROOAJ
I
TURBIN££ DRAFT
TUB£ I
Figure 5.4 CITY OF S £G UIN-UA X S TAIICK E PARK DA IJ .. H Y DROEL ECTIIIC
FEASIBILITY CONCEPTUAL DESI~N USIN& E. R.lrA.
ULH HYDRO &ENERA. TING UNITS
•
·'
1
00
-""" •
--------~l
(A)-• f (J(hfMSf f t.,. Sl«• 0 mtllf# Tim~
f.llitf/nf ~~, N<1d (TIIfltl
N~j!fi~wfl:nm lllll Irrn~;~
"'-'""' ,.,.,.,/ ftc_,,,
trypJ st.., t."#
.-.:~.----=-:.. -_--. -SltJI{T}JJJ
-1t:s:!o~.
--$~~F~'--. ~' , , ' , , ' , , ' , I , ,' -'\. , , "'\ ,' r ' \ ,' ,.., ',. ~ II ' r ___ ±---::=-:_---~-'.
---u
(!)
-J-c,,.,,,.,.
2~ ,.II'
Hrdr .. tltril
I I ".j
I I 'J-·r--F«• llf L 1 1 o.,cl_,
tn.;, ,.... ,.. '\
_,________ --~---
--ClliiiNtfJ ,.,_,. ll'ltll
1J.AN_
,__.,.,. __ _
11/,Jr""' If's . ._:
~-
)J:df--U-,_., *--"
~Sit~lll s..,_,rutfmtl '·, '-i // ,.,-.tll .. n
~(I§OKWilm _--e_,_,.
II 4~tJ-' · -J~ Prtp~~ltl
z.tt):,.., r1 ~-;: ·
[LOW_.._ w Sl..,l<1f61. .,,\
11
Normfll filii-'"' ~ . . ll fVtX'I::J
'
1
· ; : •• r ,·T_ , • j • ·• -:-: • • --~:::(~ l~-:1. ~:1·~~1.~1., r-;~rJ !~'!"~ 'd:l • l • .. I --• . /_/' fl. 'ff"-·' rJ$1 .• · • V<~t'd • '. , •
MlwContJrllftl} .-¥l. ~"--· --~~J-. riiO!I-.......
ClOd of llntlt TWo#~
!iEC~_6_-A_
llY
f'OWfR Pli\NT
PU\N 8 SI::CliON
I ... I I 1'1 Aft f
Figure 5.4a CoNVENTIONAL DAM SITE INSTALLATION
..
1200
1000
800
{/)
c..
(.)
600 z
~
0
...J
t..
400
200
0
•
~ I I
i;" r~,L I I
!~. 1'.
I' I ~ I . :'\
~I 1\ I I
1),.
I •l I 'I I , I
!~ \)... I I
f' I~ I I !
I• I ~~-_; I I
)1. I~-lA" This curve is be sed on
I ~ I :'\_! I v I Historical Flows 1 I :-A lie red eurve to I i}-.JI durin~ 196~-1977 p.r~od. I reflect rtQulation ' 1 I I' I I I I I l_l 1 1 I I I I
"" from upstream reserv~ir: ! I 1!1~ ' ~~I I I i I I I I I i I
I I I I I -~ i_} I i i ! I I I I I ! I l . ' ' I I I
:I I I : I i I ...... I., ' I ! I , I I I I : I I I I I I I I I I
I I ! ! I I I i ! I I • i I I I :No., ;·~ I I I I i I I i i I : I ! I
I i i. I I I I I I I I I I II~ ~-~ .. 1 I ! i ! I I I I
I I I I I : I I I . I I I ! I I I AI "*I ~.J.. I I I I I : I I I ' ! I
I I I I I I I : This eurve adjusted' I ! I tx1'\... i I I I I
! I I i I I i I ' down to reflect ~otal I I I i i ': ~ ~ I I i !
i l I '• i period of record. I ll I I I ~...:! I I '· I I I I • I
I ! I I I I i J I I I I I I I I I I I i'\ !il I ! I l
I I I I I : i I I ! I i I I : I i I ! I I I ! ! I N\1 I
I II I I I I I I I ' ! I i I i I I I I I I I ! I ! I I I ~~~ I
I ! ! I : I i I I I I I ! I I I I i I I I i :\ I I
I ' I i ! I : I I . . I ! I I I ! I ! ~ ; I I i I I I i ; I I I I ' I
I ! ! I I I I i I 1 i l ! i ! I i . ; I I I i I I I I I ' I U_! I I ! I I I i
I I I l I I I J I i I I I '
0 10 20 30 ~0 50 60 70 eo 90 100
,.o of Time Flow Exceeds
Figure S.S
~ss-
FLOW DURATION CURVES
FOR GUADALUPE RIVER
OEC./978 PLAT£ 2
POWERJ
HOUSE PROPOSED
SYPHON
TURBINE
PROPOSED
UPTAKE
WEIR 7
---:b.
FP.Oirl NEW
--+-!..._---++-' C H L ORI HATi'tH
TANKS
PROPOSED
UPTAKE
CHAMBER
NEW
EXISTING
84" OUTFALL
SYPHON
Figure 5.6 Hydropower Installation at Central M>.rrP, Nashville, Tenn. Using
ER&A ULH Hydropower Unit Based on Marine Thrusters.
Syphon Configuration
·86-
.... :
'L
l
~
() -J.,..
"'t :..
lu
.,J
L!..l
.390
J
_180
..
"
EXI STt NG
84" OUTFALl.
r
E
TUJtS I ltE I N~ ..l.KC:
!T~.JCT~E
I
\ '---------------__ , __ ......... .._~
EXIHfMG
OUTF'Alt.
CHAASEP.
AAX. WATER
EL.EV.
399.0
~
SECTtGI A-A
SCALE p• • 10 I
I
PRCPOS£0
TURB.INE EFF'I.UEHT
Figure 5,7
' E
410
.
t: . ..
4rOO z
0 -... c > .... -'""
390
380
PROPOSED HYDROPOWER INSTALLATION AT Cs:HTRAL WWTP -NASHVILLE, TE..NN,
UsING •SAMSON• TuRBINE <THE JAMES LeFFEl & Co.·) -TVA/NASHVILLE
ENERGY RECOVERY PROJECT -E.R&A, JULY 30~ 1980
-37-
TABLE 5.a
SUf.fviAHY OF POWER AND Q)ST nATA FOR SITE APPLICATIONS
Ci\LIH'lRNI A IlffiiCJ\.TlON
SEGUIN, 1TiXAS DAM SITE I Tf:NNESSEE WWTP SITE I CANJ\1 srm
r..onvent ional 'I1uuster I Conventional Thruster I Conventional 'I11n1stcr
PCli/ER DATA
llcad (ft) 9.5 9.5 13 13 I 6.7 8
II of Units 2 3 1 1 I 3 4
Type of Units l.effel-250 BT-250 Samson S51L I I.effel-74 BT-340
Flow (cfs/tmit) 400 247 145 147 I 318 258
Installed
I
00
Capacity (KW) 500 384 I 126.8 121.4 I 390 456
00
Energy OJtputl I
(KWII/yr) 1,700,000 1, 547,000 1,014,000 971,200 I 1,705,200 1,755,600
COSTS DATA
Construction ($) 1,349,500 558,700 207,700 114 '000 I 1,234,400 567:120
Project Management
and Engineering ($) 120,000 125,700 34,260 34' 260 222,600 127,600
--
Total ($) 1,469,500 Q84,400
I
241,960 148,260 1,457,000 694.720
Cost per Kilowatt
of Installed
Capacity $2939/KW $1782/KW I $1908/KW $1215/KW I $3735/KW $1523/KW
1. See Tables S.b.l, S.c and 5.d for power potput detennination
"
TABLE 5.b
ORD~ OF MAGNin.JDE COSTS
COmENTIONAL INSTALlATION DAM APPUCA.TION
Item
Estimated Costs
Dec. 1978
Construction
Civil Works
Excavation and care of Water.
Concrete Structure ••
Steel Superstructure .•...•
Machinery
Turbine and Governor. . . . .
Speed Increaser and Gt,.erator
Miscellaneous Equipment
Electrical . • •
Subtotal
Contingencies @ 20%
$ 70,000
150;000
70,000
410,000
160,000
22,000
55,000
$ 937,000
186,000
Subtotal $1,123,000
Engineering. . . . . . . . . . •.
FERC License Application . . • . .
*Expenses by City Before Operation
100,000
10,000
87,000
Installed Cost Totals $1,320,000
*Includes loss of revenues when existing hydro
plant will not operate during construction,
bond sale cost, legal services, and interest
on money during construction and before start
of operation.
-89-
Adjusted to
July 1981
$ 84 ,ooo· ·
180,000
84,000
492,000
192,000
26,500
66 10u0
$1,124,500
225 2 000
$1,349,500
120,000
12,000
104!500
$1,586,000
TABLE 5.b.l
EJ-..'ERGY P~'TIAL AXID SrnEDULE
SEGUIN, TEXAS ULTRA-LCW HEAD DAM
H "' 9. 5 ft.
BT-250 -3 Units
Flow/Unit = 247 cfs
Number of Units
3
1
Power Potential
384 kW @ 741 cfs
128 KW @ 247 cfs
Energy Potential
% of Time Operation
34 %
36 %
Total -70 %
34 %
36 %
2978 HRS @ 512 KW = 1,143,552 KWHR
3153 HRS @ 256 KW 403,584 KWHR
1,547,136 KWHR/YR
@ $ .038/KWHR
$ 58, 791/YR REVENUE
-90-
•
.. '
TABLE S.c
ENERGY POTENTIAL AND SCHEJlJLE
CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION CANAL GiECK D.AM
H = 6.7 ft (Approx. 2 meters)
BT-340 -4 Units
Flow/Unit = 258 cfs
Est. Power/Unit = 114 KW
Annual En.ergy Operating 700 hrs/month, 7 months
·1 Month @ 114 KW =
3 Months @ 342 KW =
3 Months @ 456 KW =
79,800 KWH
718,200 KWH
900,000 KWH
TOTAL = 1,755,600 KWHR(YEAR
@ $.065/KMffi.
$114,144/YEAR IN REVENUE
-91-
. . "
TABLE S.d
ENERGY POTDtfiAL AND SCHEDULE
~"'ESSEE WASTB\'ATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTFAll
H = 13 ft
Flow 137 cfs
S51L -1 Unit
Est. Power = 121.4 KW
.A.nnua1 Energy Production Operating 8000 hrs/yr
12 Months @ 121.4 KW = 971,200 KWHR/'{R
(8000 hrs) @ $0.035/KW'HR
$ 33,992/YR AVOIDED wST
-92-
..
TABLE 5-l
ULTRA-I..JJ'/ HEAD DftM SITES
The following is a breakdown by state of possible ultra-low head
dam sites. Unless noted otherwise the sites are listed by the dam
name. In some cases however, the dam names were not given, and
then the sites are listed by river name and numerical designation.
Flows are 140 cubic feet per second and greater.
Head (ft)
ARIZONA
Laguna 10
Fire Mountain 10
CALIFOR.~A
Camp Creek 9
Laguna 10
Putah 10
COLORAOO
Last Canal 8
Frenchman 7
Loutzenhizer 8 9
Montrose 8
Selig 10
South Platte 5
Leon Creek 10
Park Creek 8
North Padie 6
Gunnison 8
Ht.mter 10
IDAHO
Cross Cut 10
IU.INOIS
Marseilles 1.3
Rock River 9
Peoria 9
Sears 11
Sylvan Slough 9
Coiro 9
Lyndon 10
Above Lyndon 10
Sinissippi Bayou 10
Latham Park 11
For ban 9
-93-
E\DL~ \l.;\
Perkins\"ille
Killbuck
Shoals
Parker City
Layfa;ette
K~h!SAS
Glen Eden
M""INE
Farmington
-~~drooscoggin #1
West Branch
Stilh;ater
Penobscot #1
Penobscot #2
Saco River lt1
Saco River It 2
Aroostook River
Saco River # 3
Sabassticook River
Androoscoggin #2
Machias
Ossipee
Baskahegan
MASSAOOSETTS
Baskahegan
Miller
MICHIGA.."l'
Ceresco Dam
Lvons Dam
Bryce Morrow
Escanaba
Upper Menominee
Lower Menominee
Thompson
NEBRASKA
Franchman
Dulap
Bostwich
Arcadia
KE\'TIJC1.'Y
Kentucky River # 1
O~~o River Lock #11
Ken tuchy River # 2
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
7
5
5
5
4
10
6.5
4
9
4
5
7
9
9
10
11
9
11
11
11
12
11
7
6
8
8
8
10.5
12
-94·
•
MJNTANA.
Yellowstone 8
Beaverhead 10
Ft. Snow 9
Willow Creek s
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Blackstone 8
Contoocook ltl 8
Contoocook If 2 11
Winnepesauk IH 10
Winnepesauk #2 10
Pequawkt 10
Contoocook #4 10
Upper Amo 11
Winnepesauk lf3 11
NEW YORK
East Creek 9
Black River itl 8
Seneca River 8
Black River It 2 10
Raquette River 10
St. Regis River 10
Requette River lf2 9
Black River #3 9
NEW MEXICO
Vennejo 5
Leasburg 7
Messina 10
Percha 8
Angostura 5
Isleta 5
San Acacia 8
OHIO
Island Park Dam 7
Dayton Park Dam 5
Piqua Falls ¥1 8
Piqua Falls #2 8
OREGON
Cottonwood 11
Miller 5
PENNSYL VA.1\IIA
Allegheny River #1 11
• Allegheny River !f2 13
Allegheny River lf3 10
-95-
PEN."'iSYLVM1A (continued)
r.1onongahe la # 1 8
f.1onongahe la t! 2 10
Ohio River 10
Allegheny #4 11
Allegheny if 5 12
Allegheny #6 10
RHODE I SLA.ND
Blackstone 11
Cornoton Lower Dam 10
Breystone 7
Fruit of Loom 10
TEXAS
Riverside 8
UTAH
Duchesne 6
Indian Creek 5
Slatenrille 8
Stoddard 8
VERM0!'-.1'
Missisquoi #1 11
Missisquoi #2 10
Otter Creek 10
Conn. River 8
Winooski 8
WASIIT:NGTON
Prosser 7
Sunnyside 6
l't'ISCONSIN
West Depere 7
Clam Lake #1 6
Clam Lake #2 6
Lynni.lle 5
Mendota Locks 8
Horicon 9
Hustiford 7
Saint 7
Rice T<m!ahawk 10
Spitit River 10
Willow River 11
Appleton 7
Appleton 9
Ra.pide Croche 10
Lime Kiln 9
-96-
.. WISCONSIN (continued)
Hi.rr:ray 7
Jobes 7
M:>oselake 10 .. Glenda 7
Neenah 8
WYOO~
Little Sandy 9
tbrse Creek 6
•
•
-97-
TABLE 5-2
CITIES Willi WASTEi~ATER TREA'IME..\'T PLA.\'TS
SUITABLE FOR UL TR.t\.-LOW HEAD RETROFIT
l .. L.ti.B.A.. \1. !1. HARYLA.ND Columbus
Bimingham Baltim::>re Toledo
M?bile M>\SSACHUSETIS OKLAHCMA..
ARIZOKA Boston Oklahcma City
Phoenix MIOUGAN Tulsa
.AR.T(Al\'SAS Detroit PENNSYLVM'IA
Little Rock Flint Philadelphia
CALIFOR..\i1A Grand Rapids Pittsburgh
Los .1-\ngeles Lansing RHODE ISlAND
Sacramento MINNESOTA Providence
San Diego fuluth SOUTH DAKOTA
San Jose l'<fi.nneapo lis Rapid City
FLORIDA MISSOORI TE!\.TNESSEE
Jacksonville Springfield Knoxville
St. Petersburg St. Louis Memphis
Tampa NEBRASKA TEXAS
GEORGIA Onaha />us tin
Atlanta NEW MEXICO Dallas
ILLINOIS Albuquerque Ft. Worth
Chicago NEW YORK WASHINGTON
INDIANA Albany Seattle/Tacoma
Indianapolis Buffalo Spokane
IOWA Rochester UTAH
Des MJines Syracuse Salt Lake City
KANSAS ]'.()RTH CAROLINA VIRGINIA
Ka..11S as City Charlotte Norfolk
Wichita Winston-Salem Richmond
KEN'IUCKY NORlli DAKOTA
Louisville Fargo
LCUISIANA OHIO
Baton Rouge Cincinatti
New Orleans Cleveland
-98-
•
•
•
•
TABLE 5-3
CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION CANAlS SUITABLE FOR
RETROFIT WITH trr..'I'RA-I.OW HEAD PACKAGE
CANAL FLOW (CFS)
Tehama Colusa 2300-1700
Delta Mendota 3200-4600
Friant Kern 15000-5000
Madera 625-1000
Corning 88-500
Putah South 3500
Folsom South 180-956
Coalinga 435-1140
Contra Costa 32-330
San Luis 8350-13100
Fresno Main Canal 900
Cottonwood I 1700
Cottonwood I 1300
People's Weir Canal 3000
Beardsley Diversion Canal 1500
-99-
TABLE 5-4
POWER Pl.A.l\7 DIS'IRIBUTION BY STATE
FOR ULTR.Z..-1~· HEAD RETROFIT
ALA..BA\1.-\ "1 MOl'; "!ANA I
.A.LA.SKA 0 N'EBRASKA
ARIZON.A. 12 NEVADA
C.A.LIFORNIA 35 NEW HAMPSHIRE
COLORW 7 NEW JERSEY
CONNECT! CUT 9 NEW MEXICO
DElAWARE 5 NEW YORK
WASHINGTON D.C. 6 NJRTH CAROLIN.A.
FLORID.>\ 12 NORTH D.A.KOTA
GEORGIA 6 OHIO
HAWA.II 3 OKLAHCMA.
IDAID 1 OREGON
IlLINOIS 8 PENNSYLVANIA
INDIANA 19 RHODE ISLAND
IOWA 19 SOU1H CAROLINA
KANSAS 7 SCXJTH DAKOTA
ID'1UC1.'Y 8 TENNESSEE
LCUISIANA 10 TEXAS
MAINE 3 UTAH
MARYLA...ND 13 \TER]'.I)f'.,l'f
MASSACHUSETIS 15 VIRGINIA
MIGITGAN 18 WASHINGTON
t--111\:'\TESOTA 13 WEST VIRGI:t\r:IA
MISSISSIPPI 9 l't1SCONSIN
MISSOORI 3 WYCMING
-100-
3
5
4
3
20
6
31
14
2
31
11
2
44
2
11
11
13
66
5
0
6
3
6
16
0
•
TABLE 5.5
MISCEllANEOUS WATER DELIVERY SYSTEMS IN CALIFORNL<\
KW HEAD CFS
GLENDAlE, CITY OF
GLENDALE DISI'RIBUTION SYSTEM (PIPELINE)
LOS ANGELES 400 200 28
IRVINE R.ANCH WATER DIST.
IRVINE LAKE PIPELINE
(RATILESNAKE RESERVOIR) ORA.1..!'GE 500 220 30
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
FRANKLIN INLET (PIPELI!'-i'E) 800 100 110
LOS ANG""'cl.ES DIST. SYSTEM
PIPELINE -LOCATION 2 270 130 29
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICf OF SCUTHERN CA
SAN DIMAS PIPELINE -LOS ANGELES 9,900 400 300
SAN BER'I\!ARDINO VALLEY MUNICIP.t\1 WATER DISTRICf
LYTLE CREEK TIJR\'OUT (PIPELINE) SA!'I BERi'-l'ARDINO 1,300 330 55
SA!'I DIEGO, CITY OF
ALVARADO TREATMENT PLl.J'<'T (PIPELINE) -SA!'I DIEGO 1,700 160 150
POINf LCMA WASTEWATER TREATNFNT PL\Nf (PIPELI~) 1,200 76 220
SM'TA r.-K:lNICA, CITY OF
l'<ONT OLIVETTE (PIPELDiE) • LOS A'IGELES 150 200 14
CALEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICf
CONEJO PUMP STATION (PIPELINE)
VE.1ID.JRA 600 170 50
EL SEGUNOO, CITY OF
EL SECUNDa DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (PIPELINE) 500
U.S. WATER & POi'fER RESOURCES SERVICE
;\LL AMERICAN CA.."iAL DROP ;;o. 1 4,700 11 600
•
-101-
6.0 E~\~ron~ental Effects of Ultra-low Head Hydropower Package
Installation and 0Derat1on
This sect:..on briefly reviews some classical environmental concerns
about hydropower, followed by discussion of issues which are releva..~t
to ultra -low head sites. 'While hydropower retrofits of lf.i.J-1 dams
and particularly man-made ~~ter use systems avoid most traditional
env~ron~ental problems, some topics are still sensitive at these
sites. Finally, brief discussions of the environmental effects of
development at the three exemplary thruster-package installation
sites (ref. section 5) are presented. Cases where the thruster-
based facility is predicted to have environmental effects different
from the conventionally designed installation are noted.
6.1 Classical Environmental Problems
The construction and operation of high-head, "classical" hydro-
power installations cause serious environmental problems. Of
major concern are:
1) blocking fish passage
2) fish mortality from turbines
3) reseT\~ir level fluctuations
4) downstream water level fluctuations
5) release of deep, deoxygenated water from reservoirs
6) release of reservoir water greatly different in
temperature from downstream receiving waters
7) reseT\~ir dredging
8) reseT\•oir siltation
T.~ese problerr~ are compounded when endangered or threatened species
are involved.
Because many of the ultra-low head sites identified during this in-
vestigatio:~. are man-made waterways, environmental issues surrounding
retrofit for hydropower are trivial. On natural streams , many of
the above classical problems are reduced as a direct function of
head. ·
6. 2 En".rironrnental Issues at ULH Sites
At all four types of ULH sites determined suitable for thruster-
package retrofit (dams, w~stewater treatment plants, irrigation
-102-
•
•
canals, power plant cooling outfalls). but especially at the three
non-dam categories, the greatest concern regarding operation of a
hydropower station is not interfering with the primary ftmction of
the sites. Other possibly significant environmental issues are
discussed below.
6.2.1 Fish Passage
An ultra-low head hydropower installation at a dam on a natural
watercourse presents a physical barrier to fish traveling upstream.
Fish moving downstream which are too small to be screened out by
an intake trash rack are faced with injury or destruction if they
involtmtarily ride through the turbine. However, problems of fish
moving either direction are reduced at ULH installations. A three
meter or lower barrier can be negotiated more easily by an anadro-
mus fish than a high head dam, but nevertheless may require a fish
ladder or lift. Slower rotational speeds of turbcmachinery at
ultra-low heads may reduce injuries inflicted upon fish passing
through.
At any ULH dam it is fair to attribute blocking fish passage to
hydroelectric facilities only if the dam allowed free passage prior
to power development.
6 . 2. 2 Dredging
Dredging impotmdments behind ultra-low head dams may be necessary
to increase storage and operational flexibility for hydropower.
There are two main problems associated with dredging. First, im·
poundment organisms can be stressed and even killed by turbidity
created through dredging action. Turbidity blocks light and reduces
primary productivity, decreases visibility for visual hunters, clogs
gills, and circulates possibly toxic bottom sediments through an
impotmdment. Second, dredged material requires disposal, which is
an. especially serious problem when sediments are known to be toxic.
(Reservoir bottoms accumulate contaminants contained in runoff from
surrotmding areas . )
6.2.3 Water Quality Differences Above and Below Installations
Ultra-low head dams L~ound shallow bodies of water which do not
experience the thennal and chemical stratification seasonally typical
of large, deep reservoirs. Consequently, the quality of water released
from ULH installations poses little threat to downstream organisms .
Water quality is also a sensitive issue at wastewater treatment plant
and industrial cooling outfalls. Sewage plants are required by law
to deliver water with particular concentrations of dissolved oxygen
to receivi.t1.g bodies. Because hydropower intakes !liLI.$t deliver pre-
ssurized flows to turbines, capturing head at wastewater treatment
plant outfalls may require enclosing in pipe formerly free-falling
-103-
\\'a ter. Thus, oxygen other...'i se taken up during the drop no longer
contributes to the final Oz concentration. Oxygen uptake is a
function of: 1) contact time, 2) existing concentrations of Oz,
3) ,.,ater temperature, and 4) contact surface area. Because an
ultra-low head drop takes half a second or less, very little o2 uptake is lost by eliminating the free fall, and none is lost
frc:m ,.,ater already saturated ,..i th Oz.
Power plant cooling outfalls deliver warm water to generally cool
bodies of \\ater. While capturing the energy wasted in falling
water will not '=hange the character of the water, it should be
noted t~t power plant operators l'oill be sensitive about any
activity which involves cooling outfalls. Numerous studies have
been conducted to determine what ecological changes are caused by
the warm effluent streams. Generally, results indicate warmer
water species move in to exploit new habitat, and former colder
water residents are displaced.
6.2.4 Fluctuating Release Schedules
Non-dam ultra-low head hydropower installations will most likely
be operated using flows routinely associated with activities at the
site. Thus, any fluctuations in the \\ater release schedules of
waste-water treatment plant, irrigation canal, and industrial cooling
outfall ULH hydropower stations will be a function of changes in
water use for non-hydropower purposes.
At ULH dams, run-of-river operation is expected except where huge
volume.s of water are impounded. Generally, storage behind dams
\\ith less than 3 meters of head is inadequate to allow daily or
seasonal peaking. llill pri...me movers are too large, relative to
head, to tolerate significant variation in upstream water leveL
Thus operation of ULH installations at most dams should not cause
fluc:uations in reservoir or downstream water levels which might
affect human water users or upset resident ecological communities.
6. 2. 5 Endam:ered Soecies, Wild Rivers, and Historic Sites
Spe~ies on federal ~~d state endangered and threatened lists are
a p:..cblem only at ultra-low head sites on natural streams. Piny
action resulting from construction or operation of the hydropower
facility wr~ch directly ha~s or alters the habitat of these rare
plants and animals is not permitted. At ULH dam sites it is likely
that endangered and threatened species will pose a problem only
when an aquatic organism with S'uch status is present on the parti-
cular stretch of stream.
On federally and state designated \\'ild and scenic rivers, it is
UDlikely that any development would be contemplated, since they
are by definition free of dams and impoundments. Only uses of
these rivers which do not affect their value as recreational and
. aesthetic resources are allowed by law. Same Ulli dams deemed
-104-
•
•
•
...
suitable for hydropower retrofit will be old mills or other sites
with historical value. Development at such sites should be inte·
grated with the preservation of the mills and other aesthetically
valuable attributes of the locations .
6.2.6 Construction Disturbance
At different categories of UIR sites, there are different forms of
potential disturbance from construction of hydropower facilities.
On natural streams and in irrigation canals, erosion and siltation
resulting from grading powerhouse sites are of concern. Dry or
off-season construction and care on the part of the contractor
minimize these disturbances. At sewage plants and industrial cooling
outfalls, the primary consideration would be avoiding interference
with plant operation during installation.
6.2.7 Flooding Risk
In the event that an ultra-low head dam retrofitted for hydropower
has the prime mission of flood control, at times power generation
llllSt be forsaken in the interest of public safety. Most of the
l..llR dams identified in the ER&A inventory are not currently operated
as flood control structures.
Flooding of a different type is a concern at wastewater treatment
plants. Plants serving cities with combined s tormwa ter and sanitary
sewage collection are overloaded during periods of heavy rain. Most
plants cannot handle the increased volume of influent and basically
pass both sewage and stonn loads through the system tmtreated. At
such. a plant, tmder the stated conditions, effluent could be routed
to bypass any hydropower generating station and escape to receiving
waters as quickly as possible.
6.2.8 N::>ise
At all four categories of ULH sites, noise from a hydropower in-
stallation may be of concern. At large-scale sites, hydroturbine
generating units create quite a roar. At small sites, such as those
with ultra-low heads, the !"..tshing sound of tailwater discharge
should muffle machine noises.
at le Thruster-Based d:o-
The following paragraphs briefly cover environmental considerations
sterrming from the retrofit of three sites for which thruster and
conventional hydropower retrofits have been engineered and cos ted •
. •'"'.
~ ' . · .. ~ , .
-lOS-
'' ,":
6.3.1 Nash·ville Central Wastewater Treatment Plant
The thruster package LI.Stallation Y.i.ll be much simpler than a
previous design based on an open flume turbine. (See Section
S, Figures 5.6 and 5.7) Reduced ci\~1 works.requirements lessen site
disturb~'1ce during construction. The only area of possible environ-
mental concern at this site is the potential loss of Oz uptake due
to enclosing flows for hydropower. Tneoretical calculations in-
dicated any loss of Oz would be too small to measure; this result
would hold for either conventional or thruster package installation.
6.3.2 Seguin Dam
Also, at the Seguin, Texas dam site (See Section 5, Figure 3) the
thruster-based package can be installed with much less civil con-
struction than the open flume unit designated during the 1978
feasibility study. Othe~i.se, the difference between designs is
minor. In general, the original analysis noted that 1) diverting
water to turbines would el~inate some aesthetically pleasing free-
fall of water over the dam, 2) the new hydroelectric facility would
add to ambient noise levels at the site, ~~ 3) water level fluctua-
tions under the existing operating scheme would be damped. The
study anticipated no environmental impact assessment would be
necessary.
6.3.3 Fresno Irrigation District
At Fresno (See Section 5, Figure 2), as at the other sites, the
thruster-based package design involves simpler civil works than
the original design and thus less construction disturbance. At
this site the primary concern is operation of the hydropower system
compatibly >dth the irrigation system.
-106-
..
•
7.0 Economic Analysis
This section describes the method of economic ~~lysis, further
development of a computer model to permit detailed comparison of
sites and exemplary application of the model to the three UUlH
sites selected for cost analysis, comparing standard and thruster-
based hydropower retrofits.
7.1 ER&A Proprietarr Model
ER&A has expanded its proprietary econanic analysis model which
calculates internal rate of return (IRR) on investments in hydro-
power facilities. For this UlliH project the existing model would
utilize the following inputs :
Price of Electricity ($/KWH)
Elec. Inflation Rate (Decimal)
Annual O&M Expenses ($)
O&M Inflation Rate (Decimal)
Period of Analysis (yrs.)
Energy Produced (KWH/yr)
Amount of Loan ($)
Cash Down by Investor ($)
Period of Amortization (yrs.)
Interest Rate on Loan (Decimal)
To produce the following outputs;
Annual Loan Payment
Electricity Benefit
Barrels of Oil Saved
Rate of Return
( $)
($/yr.)
(bbl/yr)
(%)
This model permits alternative hydroelectric investments to be
compared to one another using rate of return as a measure of
investment merit. Samples of this model's output are set forth
in Append:b: III. This model, although valuable for comparing-
alternative investments, provides only limited i~J:ormation .
In order to more realistically evaluate the econanic and financial
merit of an UIHH project it was determined that the model should
be expanded to include greater realism in providing the informa-
tion required by investment decision-makers, including: providing
-107-,.,-.
pro forma cash flows, allowing for multiple loans v.i. th independent
8uortl:ation schedules, staggered effective date.s for each com-
ponent of the investment, provision for non-linear irJ1ation rates,
and other factors.
A list of inputs to L~e model is presented in·Table 7.1 Since the
sites being evaluated are municipal, the model does not provide tax
analysis, or the impact of taxation in this economic evaluation.
The model's out:put is divided into 6 sections, each of which is
described below.
7.1.1 Capital Costs
This section describes, by major catetory, the Capital Cost
Components of the Project.
PRE-OPERATIONAL CAPITAL COSTS
Land and Water Rights in Year $
Feasibility Study in Year $
Design and Development in Year __ -$
Constru.ction in Year $
7.1.2 AIL~ual Costs and Revenues
This information is presented in the following format:
YEAR
0
1
N
O&.}vf
COSTS
X
X
X
REVENUE FRCM
ENERGY SAVED
X
X
X
REVENUES FRCM
ENERGY SOLD
X
X
X
0&~' Costs include the necessary labor and materials for ongoing
ope .. :a tion as well as an allowance for replacements, during the
life of the project.
Revenue from energy saved sets forth the internal avoided cost of
energy which ,.,ill be S'...Ipplied by the facility in replacement of
purchased energy. Actual purchased energy rates/costs are used
in calculating this value.
Revenue from energy sold to an external consumer (e.g. , power
company) is based on actual published purchase rates.
Inflation factors are applicable to the base year rates to account
for anticipated cost changes. Different and distinct inflation
-108-
•
•
"
rates may be applied to each category and year.
7.1.3 Loan Amortization Schedule
Since each of the major capital cost component categories may be
separately financed, under different rates and payment schedules,
separate loan amortization schedules are provided for each ap-
plicable category of loan used to finance the project.
SEPARATE LOA..\/ S01EDULE FOR
(LAND AND WATER RIGHTS, FEASIBILITI,
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION)
AT %
PAYMENTS INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 0
7 .1.4 Cash Flow
The net annual cash flow (cash in minus cash out) due to operation
is presented for any selected period of time, from year zero to
year "n" of the pro j ec t.
PROJECT CASH FLOW
YEAR Cl.SH FLCW
7.1.5 Present Worth and ROI .~alysis
PRESENT WORTH .AND R. 0. I. Al\/AL YSIS
AT DISCOONI' RATE OF %
AND A SALES VALUE OF $
YEAR
1
2
n
PRESENT
WORTH
EQUIVALENT
.A.!'lNUAL WORTH
INI'ER:.\/AL RATE OF REIUR..\1 = %
The discount rate is specified in the inputs. The sales value
at the end of the period is calculated by capitalizing the cash
flow in year "n" at the input discount rate.
-109-
..
..
Present worth and equivalent annual worth are calculated using the
follo"~ng formulae:
E.A.Y.' = PW lP (I + D) TJ Lei + D)T -1
Equivalent A:r!.J.ual Worth =
(Present Worth for Time Period T) (Discount Rate) (I + D) T~e Period CI + Dtime) _1
PW = NR
Present Worth = (Net Revenue in Time Period I)
(1 + Discount Rate/Time Period) (T~e Perlod I)
The ROI (Internal Rate of Return) is then determined by finding a
discount rate which produces a present worth of zero.
The model will calculate these results for a range of discount rates
speci:':ied in the input. An explanation of Rate of Return evaluations
is included in Appendix III.
i.1.6 Surnmarv of Analvsis
For each of the discount rate spedfied as an input, the model
provides a summary of the significant parameters in Year 20 •
.sm.MARY OF ANALYSIS AT TIME OF SALE
PRESENT
WOR'IH
YEAR 20
EQUIVALENT
ANNUALWOR'IH
PAYOUT
PERIOD I.R.R.
--------------~-------------------------------------------
The payout period is determined by the number of years when the
cumulative Equivalent Annual Worth is equal to zero.
-llO-
7.2 Inputs used for Economic Analysis of Site Applications
The actual inputs used in operating the economic :model for each of
the three sites are set forth in Table 7 .1. These inputs are
derived from two sources: Engineering analysis done d:tn-ing the
course of this project, and assumptions made to pennit consistent
analyses of different equipment retrofits at different sites.
In making the thruster-based package and conventional hydropower
economic comparisons, some assumptions were made with regard to
certain of the inputs. These are:
1) The planning periods and sale of assets were projected
to be 20 years .
2) The year of operation was delayed one year for each step
that had yet to occur (For example, if the feasibility
study, design and development and construction steps all
remained to be done, the operations began in year three.)
3) The energy produced was based on the power generating
equipment for each specific site installation and was
derived from the feasibility study for the particular
site which had already been done.
4) Since all of the cases are municipalities, land and water
rights have already been obtained and therefore no
acquisition cost was included.
5) The feasibility study, design, and development and con-
struction costs are site and installation specific and
the values used are set forth in Section 5. 2.
6) The annual inflation rates for these costs were consis-
tent. The actual values used are set forth in Table 7 .1.
7) The operation and maintenance costs were based on 1% of
the installed equipment costs. These costs include re-
placement items. O&M was inflated at a consistent 9% for
the 20 years.
8)
9)
The cost of energy purchases avoided or the price of
electricity sold to the local utility reflect the actual
rates applicable to each site.
The feasibility study, design and development and con-
struction loans were all assumed to be 90% financed.
The interest rates on these loans would be dependent on
the type of bonds or financing these government agencies
could find, Typically, these rates would be tmder 15%.
The interest rates actually used reflect local financing
options for each site.
-111-
..
10) In order to ac~ount for the residual value of the
installation at the end of the 20 year planning
per)od., a "sale value" was calculated using the
following formula:
Sale Value of _ Revenue in the 20th Year
the Project -ASsumed Discount Rate
7.3 Results of Economic Model Runs
A brief examination of the summaries of the model's output
(Table i.2) shows that for each site the thruster provides ~ie
follOhing econowic benefits:
1) Initial capital cost no greater than 61% of conventional
turbine retrofit.
2) cash flm'ls which are substantially higher, and which
become positive earlier in the project life.
3) More favorable payout periods and IRR's for each site
application.
The full output results of each economic analysis run are provided
in Appendix iII.
•
"
.. •
TABLE 7.1 INPUTS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SITE APPLICATIONS
J, Pf..-4AINHVtr ,1'1/iililiDI:> {Y4i1-4A.S)
Z. ~NITNf"-~>'tTl: ~ S,.L.C
;:!1. Y6A-1: t:>l"' oPE£1ff.ATU::>N
<¥. ENd~ Ci-Y f'Col> In::.~&> { KWN/VIt.)
S ENEAti-Y VJE/> (K'wN/y.c.)
CQJT 61" J..AIVI> # "-""re<. AIAWI'S
'· )'£"'"'-Ol" 001.-!N PAY101SIVT
7-CCJ.JT IN Tol>A~'.J pot...L"'JI:f:S
._ INI"t.ATI<>N A.Aras
C CUr """ l"'ii:A.TI#IILJTY J'Ttd.l 7'
9. )'£4-t. 01" t:>C>k/"1 PAY,...Ii!N-r
10. cosr ltV 1Z>A-'IYU DoLLAifi.S
I/. h"U"f.JI7'1t:>N R.ATlliS
ca:;r oF t,es...,.,..;. DEifi!f:l.I>I'"'ENr
12. yeA-< """ Dor..-JN p,qy,.,e ... rr
J~. ee>Jr IN 71>l>-'IY ·s Oo'"L"''.t<S
1'(-. IN !"'LA T1t>N RATeS
Ci!JIJT OP CoN.f"rRVc770N
1$". )I~ DF i:x:::n.vl'l ?AY MENT
II.. Ce>JT IN n>A-'j Y'J DOL-L-Ali/if'
/7.pvFl-477oN IZ<!TE=S
ltfl. OJ/I"l £)/(f'GNS,;i
1.,./NRA iii>IV A.ATS.f
.j'O_COJT ..,... EN~<rf ~;....;,_
Z/. /NRATtt>N R.t~re.s
ZZ. R-tr<li' R>"{ 61L-.TR.t<:tT'f
U.JNRATtt>N RATer
LO-'W t : u..v£> J w-'1~ tl?t<itftl
Z."/:. FIR•'ICf•~ oP U>.ltN ,.,.,-C">S"f
2.$-Af'-'mB.t:!.q_ oF PAYn.?eNTS
:U.. JNTE~es-r ~TE
LOAN Z.: Pl!ii "l.S181._1ry Jrvt:>Y
V.~,RM..710J.i 1>~ LDNV ¥ CA-JH
Z.. -'tvt>oiJ.tii.li! t>l"' _,AYmGN-rr.
:21<1. ;N7.£i"l;EUr ,;2A Tl5:
L04N 3 'pes~ AH1> bE.vfELl>P.
.3CVi('AI.:1?.,.., ~ ~ -'IS <YUH
Jl.JVV/h#i!J€"( -i"'AYI'MENTS
:r.il,{N76"f_li?~7' l<i.ATE
J-.0./t"' 'I t CONJ TteVCTICJN
;u . .I'"~ ,C. T'OAJ OF' £.0-'!.AI .t4S CA-!:H
3'f.NI/h7M8( o,;:;; PAY/>lliN<.rr.>
.iS: /NT/!!I'{EJ7 AATEi
U·
TIO: o<"'S V"-TR"-LDW J-1 -0
.O .... M Sl _,.IIi
CONVIINTINV.Ii"-
ZC>
Z.o
3
1; 7<:>01 ooo
11 70D1 DOO
...,._. --
I I zo1 ooo
./s-
2
/ /Zo1 ooo
.IS
3
.:/1 3 -r.,, 000
.10
I /~ZOCJ .,,
#.o3e
./Z
-e-
-6-
...s-
-e-
.10
10.
.077!.-
.10
20 :,,
·10
20
-II
WA.VJ'TE~
zo
z.o
.iii
t,. ;t' ... 7, ooo.
/J $"~71 QOO
¢ --
I
zo,ooo
.t£
2
13'1-1 eoo
./!:"
3
55o,ooo
.10
s;ooo .o.,
1.038
• I 2.. -
e-..,_
e-
./0
10
.077S'
./0
20
./I
./0
20
.II
-ri/iiN..; 1111 S .C .. .., W<oo.T T5' """' T .. "t
T~/li,.il\"rM~T" P4....4HT
Ct:JNy~T>IN"t-t... ~"!'E.~
ZC> 2.0
2.c> :z.o
.iii 3
~~~~0 9~-0
/1 ot-11 oe>O 'f7t1 z.oo -----a------.9-
-e-
3¥,Zi>O -
I
2.07; 700
.10
i, 730
.O"J
J'.031+
./2
-e>-
-& ...,..
..e>-
-10
-e-
.,9--
.10
2o
.O'f!J
./C>
;zo
.095'
------o-.....
d-
--..i'~Z'-0
9
I
/1-ljooa
. ./0
"'zo
.09
#.o3N
.I z.
e-
d-
e-
e-
./0
t;-
&
.tO
20
-0"1~-
./0
20
.09S'
C"""<.I ... <>ANI ....
C.4JV.4£-
2.0
Z.c>
3
'J<>NhL
'l 70S/ 2 .. 4dl
-a-
-Q ---e-
I
:z.o,.,ooo
.;.5"
2.
2.'2z,.;;oo
3'
~2.3'1',000
.10
B,-'r-<1'-D .o.,
--e-
,J.oo37
.1'2.
---6----
-10
20
O.OB
-~0
2.0
.oe
... o
2.0 .oe
~'J':!$1:-rm•.J
:Z.P
:z.o
3
'/7-fl/ ... 0
..&----6----
I
zo1 ooo
.I.>
z
,..,.~700
3
S6.71 tzo
..ro
:z.,'-IZO
.0"/
.......
/.06:17
./2..
-6--
..e-
..a--
./0
zo
Cl.OB
./0
;zo
-08
./0
2.-D
.os
TABLE 7.2 SUMMARY RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSES
n::)<' /1 s v '-H LVIM srr e: 7/;;'NN IE S .> E': E tv/..JTP SITS CAL.IFO/IGNI,IJ IRRI<i". C-4 N-1'-Sl"7l'i
~Vi¥NT(.QfY/tl-:Z::IIRJtm}-£0NVI6"(T/ON'!_k_~ 77-/,<?US(F.~I CON~77<VV/)<.._____:zzf_,/f?(ISlfi6
/O'TAt-C4PITAC-COSTS' ll't '7771 ee.s· 9181 eoaj uz, 73o
C4slf PLoW IN YE"A"'\ :
I -2.3oo
s -{2~373
/0 -lf9,f!lb z.
2.0 33"1/l.!fJ{
J? 0 .T: ""'tNAL..YS/S AT A
20"'7., DISCDVNT ,R,.qre; /INl::>
~ 20 YIS~~ ANAL.YS/S :
PReSENT wo-e.rH VN D~
cQ<II VA{J!!!AIT ;iJNNV"'t-Wt:>ttl.Tr/
P-4You( PEt«.N:>E> (ov Y~RS)
/NTEt«.N ""'-A'"'TJ;"; OF lii!'lintl~
(o/.,)
-2t;:3,..iZO
-S""f, 074
zo YRS.
q '7o
-2.3'00
b,fJ7S
67; 8(:,1
4-3C,1 /h2.
./3C,/4-53
Z~O:Z./
ILl-
3lo/o
-Z(;,I.3.Yt:,
Z<;,1 G. IB
6 7, 'lbl
:z. 7o1 t:,.o~
19z,.t,.tz3
3'91 S"IS"
.tf
~3?,
I s-91 (, t:, D
-JLI-zt:,
36;02.2
7(4; Z31
2.72, 70€\
Z3~ct.':>
Y81 l".B3
.3
l/0 ?.
<j "f{,.D1 .< 7 S"
Z3oo
-/2.-C..D
/.]7, b7<J
!3zD1 7B'}
27'8;07S"""
57; Jo!>
13
3:Z '? ..
937/170
-2.300
/O':tj!"'"S"
2 sz., 3'!6
"?7S; '1''11
6 T3,; /I/
136'1 ZZ9
s-
6o'?o
L---------· ---
.. "
..
8.0 Technology Transfer
As originally proposed, transfer of the ultra-low head hydropower
tedmology from the R&D arena to the conmercial marketplace was
tQ be accomplished primarily through licensing agreements with
thruster equipment suppliers.
This effort was to have been supported by presentation of project
results at technical conferences and the publication of articles
in selected trade journals. These latter activities were to provide
visibility of the ULHH technology to potential users and stimulate
interest in site developers and small utilities.
This plan for technology transfer was based on our perception of
the benefits stream flowing from a successful low-cost UlliH tech-
no logy, heavily influenced by our pre-proposal discussions with
the thruster manufacttn-ers. Also, there was at that time, poten-
tial for DOE funding of selected cost-reduction projects based on
the most promising R&D results.
By the completion of this project, however, it has been determined
that the proposed approach is t.mWorkable. The current plan for
validation, development, and conmercialization of the low-cost
UlliH technology is outlined in the following sections.
8.1 Elements of the Technology Transfer Plan
Basic to the change in the proposed plan is the lack of interest
expressed by thruster manufacturers in fabricating the ER&A design
for UlHH packages. Both Harbormaster and Schottel, whose units
have been characterized for the 3 M design point, were contacted
to build the complete package. Both declined, primarily because
it was not in their line of business to fabricate, market, and
engineer small hydropower installations. They were unfamiliar
with this area and not especially prone to diversification, away
from their primary marine market.
We determined in the process of costing and value engineering the
packages that local metal shops were competent to fabricate ULHH
units to our design and more cost-competitive than was apparent
in the Harbormaster cost quotes, which were used as a baseline.
It also became clear that no site developer was willing to invest
in an UlliH design wi t.l-:lout one or more successful installations of
a full-scale operating unit. ER&A agreed that it was reasonable
to know, from experience, whether the thruster-based package would
actually work as a hydroturbine, the actual power generated, ar.d
the actual cost to fabricate and install packages based on tl1e
developed designs.
It was st.mned up by one of the technical staff, in internal dis-
-llS-
cussions as how to accomplish t..ns task: '"1\fi thout a successful
dem:mstra:ion, there won't be any ted1nolog;,· transfer."
Tnere v:as no ma.TJ.agemen~ argument that one successful test is worth
more than dozens of technical papers, "expert" opinions, and
articles. It also follows tr~t a test validation of the design
would generate much better data for any professional publication
or tec~Jilcal presentation.
The technology transfer pl~, therefore resolved itself into two
main elements and one supporting element:
1) ER~~ would assume prime responsibility for engineering,
fabrication ~~d marketing of the ULHH package, either
independently or in joint venture with a capital partner.
2) We would attempt to find sponsorship ~,d sites suitable
for test and evaluation of the equipment as the next
logical step in the Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation cycle, in order to validate the design.
3) The second element of the pl~' would be supported by
presentation of the technology and its applications at
technical conferences and by direct proposals to
potential funding organizations and individuals.
8.1.1 ERSA Prime Contractor Status
ER&A has taken the following steps to provide for the fabrication
and ir.stallation of ULHH packages, should they prove as cost-
effec~ive as engineering research indicates:
1) Licensed our senior engineer in CaliforrJ.a and Tennessee,
where numbers of ultra-low head sites adeauate to support
a market have already been identified. ·
2) Renewed a California Contractor's License.
3) Begun negotiations with Harbormaster and Schottel on
marketing agreements for use of their thrusters in the
hydropower application. (They have accepted this
proposal in principle. Details are still being negoti-
ated.)
4) Initiated a patent search through patent counsel as a
first step in determining patentability of the applica-
tion design.
5) Verified fabrication, assembly, and component costs
through quotes on detail designs.
-116-
..
•
.. 6) Initiated the contingency plan for staff skills and
personnel necessary for turnkey projects.
8.1.2 Test and Validation
Proposals for the test, evaluation, and performance enhancement
of a thruster-based ULHH package were presented to a select grou~
of organizations with sponsorship potential as well as to owners
of suitable sites.
The proposal is for a lZ-month project to prepare final engineering
and manufacturing drawings for a specific unit size and site in-
stallation; then, fabricate, deliver, install, operate, and monitor
the unit to verify envirornnental effects; costs, and document its
performance. Total project cost was estimated to be on the order
of magnitude of $300,000, using a BT340 thruster-based hydropower
package.
ER&A was not initially overwhelmed with positive responses from
funding sources, though there was understandably a good deal of
interest by site owners/operators in the cost reduction potential
of the technology.
At the time of submittal of t.lris Final Report, it now appears that
both funding and one or more sites suitable for a full-scale test
will be forthcoming, thereby effectively accomplishing this element
of the technology transfer plan. Sequence of events and projec-
tion for commercialization are described in Section 8.2.
8.1.3 Technical Data Dissemination
A paper describing the ULHH cost-reduction project and results of
Tasks 1-7 was written by ER&A staff and management. It was subse-
quently accepted for presentation at ''Waterpower '81.", the bi-
annual international conference on hydropower, scheduled for 22-25
June 1981 in Washington, D.C.
There was an expression of interest in the technology by about a
dozen site owners, agency officials, and developers. Among them
was Lee DeLano, Sr. Civil Engineer for the Modesto Irrigation
District. Technical information, generally in the fonn of the
"Waterpower '81" paper, was provided to all those requesting it.
Site-specific proposals were generated for the ~Westo Irrigation
District and twu others, based on follow-up conversations.
8.2 Plan Imolementation and Commercialization
Subsequent to the "Waterpower 81" conference, the Department of
Energy Program Office responsible for this project offered to make
some matching funds available for field test of a full-scale ULYH
package based on the ER&A design. There was, however, not enough
-117-
.. ~.
. . . ;,. ·.,. :
...
funding available . to cover ccmplete · cost of the .test project.
· ER&A ~sequently identified a list · of sites ~ose physicai· para-
meters were wi. thin the range of UUiH package performance so far
characterized. We then arranged to provide for the rna tching
project .funds at these sites and got agreements fran site owners/-
developers for installation, test and evaluation at their site.
A proposal for Field Test at one or more sites of varying character
(irrigation canal, low-head dam) was presented to DCE 30 July 1981
with rna tching . funds for two sites assured by the respective owners .
Funding for tha.tamol.mt above OOE's contribution at other sites is
to be ER&A's responsibility.
A successful field test and execution of marketing agreements with
the thruster manufacturers will provide the framework for camner-
cialization of the technology directly through ER&A. We do not now
maintain that eventual patentability is a necessary condition for
us to invest in this activity, though it would be useful protec-
tion for a small business enterprise.
ER&A believes the market size is adequate and specific customers·
for the technology and associated project services have been·
identified. We have also beeri approached by frur other parties
interested in a joint venture for product developnent and marketing
on a "capital for equity'1 basis. Discussions with .at least two of
these companies are proceeding based on their interest in· different
applieations or geographic regions. It does not appear to be an
insurmotmtable problem to secure funding for ;.~ full-scale conmer-
cial market penetration if the· technology's function and ·costs can
be reasonably validated.
Figure 8.1 One of Sites Proposed for ULHH Field Test:
Stone Drop, 1-Dd.esto Irrigation District
-118-
· .
. .. ; .:.
11
•
..
•
,
APPENDIX I
FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGNS
ULH PACKAGE
-119-
.. .... 1-----:! _____ ......... ~----------+-------~ l •
I
I
)
I
I
'
... ·_L ..f ...... -.-.::::::·.:;.
:.:-····-.::~
l
<i .. ~ " .. .. ~ ----e ~
Ji'1-C
•
I
' I ~
1
!
..
APPENDIX II
SUPPORTING DATA AND CALCULATIONS
•
/'l-0
. -·--------· ----:-
---·--· •-~ ... -~~-w-----
--. --·----------·-
•
·_,...._
;·• -~ :t~T=JIO -: ··-
'.
f' 't' ... :. .,-' t
-...,..,__.,.·~~;~L~~-----~-==-=
. ·-'-;.--·---,.--------~ -----~----..
---w--~---,--· -·-.----•·-·-...;.··----~ •
--.~--~
---·-----... ----------------... ------------
: ::--~iENT OF lliRf.isifi-~i~.--~
~STEP.~'S FOOR QUA1)RAN!_E~t
-121·
----,.--:;
-----~-,
-~-·-r
METHJD OF G-!ARA.crERIZ.ATION OF THRUSTER PERFORMA..".JCE AS A 1URBINE
~et OR AREAthroat
TORQUEth
FLCW VELOCITI V th
PRESSURE PSith
DESIGN FLOW
DESIGN HEAD
HEAD RATIO
TORQUE RA..TIO
= AREA.shroud id. -ARPAmm
550 (THRUSTER H.P ·max or rated)
= =
=
=
v 2 th yg
62.4 h
144
= Vth Anet
v 2
= th
0"4':'4
= V 2&h design OR V variable
Qtu = V var Anet
= hvar FOR 4 QUAD CURVE ENI'RY
~
= Qvar ~r
Qth hth
THRUSTER EFFICIENCY e = 62 •4 QthH
tth vth
~--
= 117.51 V tr
-122-
•
11
•
'mROAT VELOCITY V throat = ~
net
t n
nJRBINE (BLADE) RPM
INI'AI<E AREA
DESIGN AREA.
DESIGN INTAKE DIA.
• A. + A. . 1nt. net · 1llJb
= 12 V4 \nt des
1T
nJRBINE RLlNAJ'fAY SPEED (TORQUE = 0) = % nr = 179. 0 J hth
nJRB INE RUNAWAY RPM
= Qth hth = KW
13.95
. ~ ' ·,
•' ~ ' ..
. ... .
CCJ-fPUTER IlA.TA FOR TrlEORETICAL AIXA.LYSIS OF BASIC DES1Gl\ DATA
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I. D.
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUSTEF EFF.
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE S?EED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIG~ !NTAKE AREA
INTAKE. I.:>.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
BT200
36.7 IN,
620 RPM
6.35 SQ. FT.
24.44 FT/SEC.
9.28 FT.
4.02 PSI
155.27 CFS
81.73 ~
9.8425 FT.
1. 06
1. 09
373.36 RPM
25.18 FT/SEC.
185.91 CFS
29.27 FT/SEC.
8.38 SQ. FT.
39, 19; IN.
2,49 IN,
143.93 KW
1143,04 RPM
8.85825 FT.
.95
.93
349.65
23.88
174. 1
27.41
8.28
38.97
RPM
FT/SEC.
CFS
FT/SEC,
SQ. FT.
IN.
2. 27 IN.
121.81 KW
1084.88 RPM
7,874 FT.
HEAD INC. RATIO .85
POWER INC. RATIO .78
-124-
•
•
•
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
r.~"UW.-E.-t-;t;?.T--
INTAKE DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I. D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I,D,
INTAKE DIA, INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
324.98
2:2.5:2
16 1 • 8:2
2~.47
8' 18
RPM
FT/SEC.
CFS
FT/SEC.
SQ. FT.
'2-S .... 73--t ~L ~
2.03 IN,
100.22 KW
1022.36 RPM
6.88975 FT.
.74
.64
299.2
21.06
148.98
23.45
8.07
38.46
RPM
FT/SEC.
CFS
FT/SEC.
SQ, FT.
IN.
1.76 IN,
80.74 KW
956.33 RPM
5.9055 FT.
.64
• 51
272.06 RPM
19.5 FT/SEC.
135.46 CFS
21.33 FT/SEC.
7,94 SQ. FT.
38, 16 IN,
1, 46 IN,
62.93 KW
885.39 RPM
4.92125 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO ,53
POWER INC. RATIO .39
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RU!\IAWA '( POM
243.23 RPM
17.8 FT/SEC.
121.11 CFS
19.07 FT/SEC.
7.8 SQ, FT.
37.81 IN.
1.11 IN,
46.88 KW
130~.~"5 °?"'1
-125-
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I,D,
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUST~R EFF.
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
?OWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I,D,
INTAKE DIA. !NCR,
ESTIMATED ?OWER
RUNAWAY R?M
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
?OWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA. !NCR.
ESTIMfiTED ?OWER
RUNAW~Y RPM
HEAD
BT250
39,75 IN.
643 RPM
7.55 SQ. FT.
24.55 FT/SEC.
9.36 FT.
4.05 PSI
185.35 CFS
78.75 ~
9.8425 FT.
1. 05
1. 08
385.07
25. 18
220.69
29.23
9.83
42.46
R?M
FT/SEC.
CFS
FT/SEC,
SQ. FT.
IN.
2.71 IN.
!:70.86 KW
1180. 17 RPM
8.85825 FT.
.95
.92
360.62
23.88
206.68
27.38
9.72
42.22
R?M
FT/SEC.
CFS
FT/SEC.
SQ. FT.
IN.
2.47 IN.
144. 0 1 I<W
1119. 61 R?M
7.874 FT.
HEAD INC. RATIO .84
POWER INC. RATIO ,77
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
335. 18 R?M
22.52 FT/SEC.
192. 1 CFS
25.45 FT/SEC.
9.6 SQ, FT.
41,95 IN. -126-
•
INTAKE DIA. INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOC lTY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D.
INTAKE DIA, INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA. INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
2.2 IN.
118.98 KW
1055.58 RPM
6.88975 FT.
.74
.63
308.59 RPM
21.06 FT/SEC.
176.86 CFS
23.43 FT/SEC.
9,47 SQ, FT.
41.66 IN.
1.91 IN.
95.85 KW
987,4 RPM
5.9055 FT.
.63
.5
280.61 RPM
19.5 FT/SEC.
160.82 CFS
21.3 FT/SEC,
9.32 SQ, FT,
41,33 IN,
1. 58 IN,
74,7 KW
914.16 RPM
4.92125 FT.
HEAD INC. RATIO .53
POWER INC, RATIO .38
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOC lTY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA, INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
250.88 RPM
17.8 FT/SEC,
143.79 CFS
19.05 FT/SEC,
9, 15 SQ, FT,
40.95 IN.
1. 2 IN.
55.66 KW
834.51 RPM
·127-
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I. D.
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUSTER EFF.
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D.
INTAKE DIA. !NCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I. D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ES'~"lMATED POWER
Rur...;WAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN F'-OW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D.
BT340
42,75 IN.
551 RPM
9.74 SQ. FT,
24.55 FTISEC,
9.36 FT.
4.06 PSI
214.61 CFS
75.13
9.9425 FT.
1.05
1, OS
329.97 RPM
25 , 19 FT I SEC ,
255.53 CFS
29.23 FT/SEC,
11 , 39, SQ, FT,
45.6~ IN.
2.92 IN,
197.83 KW
1011.31 RPM
9.95925 FT.
.95
.92
309.02 RPM
23.99 FT/SEC,
239.3 CFS
27.39 FT/SEC,
11.25 SQ, FT.
45, 41 IN.
2.66 IN.
166.74 KW
959.42 RPM
7.974 FT,
.94
.77
297.23 RPM
22.52 FT/SEC.
222.43 CFS
25.45 FT/SEC,
11 • 1 SQ, FT.
45. 12 IN.
..
-128-
•
INTAkE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAkE AREA
INTAkE I.D.
INTAkE DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESICN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAkE AREA
INTAkE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
2.37 IN.
137.76 xw
904.!5!5 RPM
6.8897!5 FT.
.74
.63
'264.44 RPM
21.06 FT/SEC.
204.78 CFS
23.43 FT/SEC.
10.9!5 SQ, FT.
44.8 IN.
2.05 IN.
110.98 xw
846.13 RPM
!5.90!5!5 FT.
.63
,!,5
240.46 RPM
19.!5 FT/SEC.
186.21 CFS
21.3 FT/SEC.
10.78 SQ, FT.
44,4!5 IN.
1. 7 IN,
86.!5 KW
783.36 RPM
4.9212!5 FT.
HEAD INC. RATIO .!53
POWER INC. RATIO .38
TURBINE SPEED
DESICN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
214.99 RPM
17.8 FT/SEC.
166.49 CFS
19.0!5 FT/SEC.
10.!58 SQ. FT.
44.04 IN.
1, 29 IN.
64,4!5 KW
71 !5, 11 RPM ' .
-129-
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I, D,
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUSTER EFF,
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I,D,
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAl)
HEAD INC, RATI 0
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I. D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
EST!MATED POWER
RUNA1AY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE LD.
400
49 IN,
492 RPM
11.-79 SQ, FT .•
23.4 FT/SEC.
6.51 FT.
3.69 PSI
275.62 CFS
6_6 ....§.4 --::·
9.8425 FT.
1' 16
1. 24
312.61 RPM
25. 18 FT/SEC,
346.66 CFS
29,59 FT/SEC,
15, 16 SQ, FT,
52.72 IN,
3.72 IN,
25g..,..93 KW
947, 37 RPf'l
8.85625 FT.
1· 04
1. 06
292.9 RPM
23.88 FT/SEC,
326.47 CFS
27.7 FT/SEC,
14,98 SQ. FT.
52.41 IN,
3, 41 IN,
227.46 KW
898.75 RPM
7.874 FT.
.93
• 89
272.2 RPM
22.52 FT/SEC,
303.39 CFS
25.74 FT/SEC.
14.78 SQ, FT,
52.06 IN,
..
-130-
. '
•
INTAKE DIA. !NCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
3.06 IN,
187, 91 l<W
847.35 RPM
r;.,S8975 FT.
HEAD INC. RATIO .31
POWER INC. RATIO ,73
TURBINE SPEED 250.56 RPM
DESIGN VELOCITY 21.06 FT/SEC.
DESIGN FLOW 279.27 CFS
THROAT VELOCITY 23.7 FT/SEC.
DESIGN INTAKE AREA 14.57 SQ, FT.
INTAKE I.D, 51.68 IN,
INTAKE DIA. INCR. 2.68 IN.
ESTIMATED POWER 151.35 KW
RUNAWAY RPM 792.63 RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA, !NCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
5.9055 FT.
.69
.58
227,78 RPM
19.5 FT/SEC.
253.88 CFS
21.54 FT/SEC,
14.33 SQ, FT.
51.26 IN.
2. 26 IN.
117.93 KW
733.83 RPM
4.92125 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO .58
POWER INC. RATIO .44
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. !NCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
203,6 RPM
17.8 FT/SEC.
226.93 CFS
19.26 FT/SEC.
14, 06 SQ, FT,
50.77 IN.
1. 77 IN.
87.84 I<W
669.89 RPM
·131-
MODEL NUMBER 450
SHROUD I.D.
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUS1'ER EFF.
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEErl
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I. D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUN.' '.JJA Y RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
54,88 IN,
45S RPM
14.25 SQ, FT.
24.79 FT/SEC,
9,54 FT.
4, 13 PSI
353.12 CFS
79.64 '1.
9.8425 FT.
1. 03
1, OS
271.63 RPM
25.18 FT/SEC.
415.48 CFS
29.17 FT/SEC,
18.68 SQ, FT.
58.53 IN.
3.65 IN,
321,66 KW
834.46 RPM
8.85825 FT.
.93
• 89
254.39 RPM
23.88 FT/SEC.
389.11 CFS
27.31 FT/SEC.
18,47 SQ, FT.
58.2 IN.
3.32 IN,
271. 12 KW
791.64 RPM
7.874 FT.
.83
.75
236.46 RPM
22.52 FTISEC.
361.68 CFS
25.39 FT/SEC.
18.24 SQ. FT.
•
·132-
•
•
•
rNT~lf\1:. 1 • lJ •
INTA~E DIA. INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I. D.
INTAKE: DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I. D.
INTAKE DIA. lNCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
::>71 e~;,;; 1Nt
2.95 IN.
224.01 KW
746.37 RPM
6.88975 FT.
.7'2
• 61
217.71 RPM
21.06 FT/SEC,
333 CFS
23.38 FT/SEC,
17, 99 SQ, FT,
37,43 IN,
2. 55 IN.
180.46 'KW
698.16 RPM
5.9055 FT.
.62
.49
197.97 RPM
19.5 FT/SEC.
302.81 CFS
21.26 FT/SEC,
17.71 SQ, FT.
56.98 IN.
2, 1 IN.
140,66 KW
646.37 RPM
4.92125 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO .52
POWER INC, RATIO ,37
TURBINE ?PEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DlA, !NCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
177.01 RPM
17.8 FT/SEC.
270.75 CFS
19 , 0 1 FT /SEC ,
17.39 SQ. FT.
56,47 IN,
1.59 IN •
104,81 K'W
590 .os RPM '·
-133-
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I, D.
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUSTER EFF.
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. !NCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. !NCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUN> '..JAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D,
BT550
61 IN.
474 RPM
18.48 SQ. FT.
22.41 FT/SEC,
7,8 FT.
3.38 PSI
414.05 CFS
66.59 1.
9,8425 FT.
318.24 RPM
25. 18 FTISEC,
552,7 CFS
29.91 FT/SEC,
23.77 SQ, FT.
66.02 IN.
5.02 IN.
427.9 I<W
953.31 RPM
8.85825 FT.
1. 14
1. 21
297.94 RPM
23.88 FT/SEC.
517.45 CFS
28 FT/SEC.
23.48 SQ, FT.
65.61 IN.
4.61 IN.
360.54 KW
904,39 RPM
7.874 FT.
1 I 01
1. 01
276.84 RPM
22.52 FT/SEC.
480.79 CFS
26.02 FT/SEC,
23. 17 SQ. FT.
65. 17 IN,
..
"
•
-134-
"
INTAKE DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D,
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA, !NCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
4, 17 IN,
297,78 KW
832.67 RPM
6.88975 FT.
.as .sa
254.78 RPM
21.06 FT/SEC,
442.48 CFS
23.95 FTISEC.
22.82 SQ,
64.69 IN,
3.69 IN,
239.8
797.6
.76
.66
KW
RPM
FT.
231.57 RPM
19.3 FT/SEC.
402. 18 CFS
21.76 FT/SEC,
22.44 SQ. FT.
64.14 IN.
3, 14 IN,
186.82 KW
738.43 RPM
4.92125 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO .63
POWER INC. RATIO .5
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
206.93 RPM
17.8 FT/SEC.
359,39 CFS
19.45 FT/SEC.
22 SQ, FT.
63.52 IN,
2.52 IN,
139. 12 KW
674.09 RPM
-135-
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I.D.
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUSTER EFF.
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA. INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
BT650
69,25 lN.
322 RPM
-:i2 ~-03': SQ , FT ,
22.07 FT/SEC.
7.56 FT.
3.28 PSI
486, 18 CFS
64. 17 ~
9.8425 FT.
1. 3
1. 48
220.36 RPM
25,18 FT/SEC.
661, 51 CFS
30.03 FT/SEC,
30,4 SQ, FT.
74.66 IN.
5.41 IN.
51:2.-:14 KW
657,57 RPM
8.85825 FT.
1. 17
1. 27
TURBINE SPEED 206.3 RPM
DESIGN VELOCITY 23.88 FT/SEC.
DESIGN FLOW 619.29 CFS
THROAT VELOCITY 28.11 FT/SEC.
DESIGN INTAKE AREA 30-;05--SQ-, Fp
INTAKE I.D, 74.23 f~
INTAKE DIA. INCR, 4.98 IN,
EST.MATED POWER 431.51 KW
RUNAWAY RPM 623.83 RPM
HEAD 7.874 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO 1. 04
POWER INC, RATIO 1. 06
TURBINE SPEED 191. 67 RPM
DESIGN VELOCiTY 22.52 FT/SEC.
DESIGN FLOW 575.39 CFS
THROAT VELOCITY 26. 12 FT/SEC.
DESIGN INTAKE AREA 29.68 SQ, FT.
INTAKE I. D. 73.76 IN.
•
..
-136-
•
•
INTAKE DIA. INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
4,51 IN,
356.37 l<W
588.15 RPM
6.88975 FT.
HEAD INC. RATIO .91
POWER INC, RATIO .87
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
176.39
21.06
529.51
24.03
29.26
73.25
4 IN,
286.96
550. 16
5.9055
.78
.69
RPM
FT/SEC.
CFS
FT/SEC.
SQ, FT.
IN.
KW
RPM
FT.
160,31 RPM
19.5 FT/SEC.
481.24 CFS
21.84 FT/SEC.
28.8 SQ, FT.
72. 67 IN.
3.42 IN.
223.54 KW
509.35 RPM
4.92125 FT.
HEAD INC. RATIO .65
POWER INC, RATIO .52
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D,
INTAKE DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
143.24 RPM
17, 8 FT I SEC ,
430 CFS
19.52 FT/SEC,
28,28 SQ, FT.
72, 01 IN,
2.76 IN.
1.66.45 KW
464.97 RPM
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I.D,
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL,
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUSTER EFF.
HEAD
BT850
72,75 IN.
305 RPM
24.59 SQ. FT.
22.26 FT/SEC,
7,7 FT.
3,33 PSI
547.43 CFS
i ~6. 23'"" ~
9.8425 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO 1.28
POWER INC, RATIO 1.45
TURBINE SPEED 206.45 RPM
DESIGN VELOCITY 25. 18 FT/SEC,
DESIGN FLOW 736.73 CFS-
THROAT VELOCITY 29.96 FT/SEC,
DESIGN INTAKE AREA 33.54 SQ, FT.
INTAKE I, D, 78.42 lN.
INTAKE DlA. !NCR. 5.67 IN,
ESTIMATED POWER 570.37 i<W
RUNAWAY RPM 617.43 RPM
HEAD 8.85825 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO 1. 15
POWER INC. RATIO 1. 23
TURBINE SPEED 193.28 RPM
DESIGN VELOCITY 23.88 FT/SEC,
DESIGN FLOW 689.72 CFS
THROAT VELOCITY 28.05 FT/SEC,
DESIGN INTAKE AREA 33. 15 SQ. FT.
INTAKE I. D. 77.97 IN.
INTAKE DIA. INCR, 5.22 IN.
ESTII ;..TED POWER 480.58 KW
RUNAWAY RPM 585.74 RPM
HEAD 7.874 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO 1. 02
POWER INC, RATIO 1. 03
TURBINE SPEED 179.58 RPM
DESIGN VELOCITY 22.52 FT/SEC.
DESIGN FLOW 640.85 CFS
THROAT VELOCITY 26.06 FT/SEC,
DESIGN INTAKE AREA 32.73 SQ, FT.
INTAKE I, D. 77.47 IN.
•
•
-138-
•
. '·
INTAKE DIA. INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAO INC. RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESICN VELOCITY
DESICN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESICN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESICN VELOCITY
DESICN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESICN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA, INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
4.72 IN.
396.91 KW
552.24 RPM
6.88975 FT.
• 9
.85
165.27 RPM
21.06 FT/SEC,
589.77 CFS
23.98 FT/SEC.
32;27 SQ, FT.
76.92 IN.
4, 17 IN,
319.62 I<W
516.58 RPM
5.9055 FT.
.77
.67
150.21 RPM
19.5 FT/SEC.
536.03 CFS
21.8 FT/SEC,
31.76 SQ, FT.
76.31 IN,
3.56 IN.
248.99 I<W
478.26 RPM
4.92125 FT.
HEAD INC, RATIO .64
POWER INC, RATIO .51
TURBINE SPEED
DESICN VELOCITY
DESICN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESICN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I. D.
INTAKE DIA, INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
134.23 RPM
17,8 FTISEC.
478.98 CFS
19.48 FT/SEC.
3 1 , 1 8 SQ, FT,
75,61 IN,
2. 86 IN.
185 •. 41 l<W
436,59 RPM
-139-
MODEL NUMBER
SHROUD I. D.
THRUSTER SPEED
NET THROAT AREA
THRUSTER VEL.
NET HEAD
NET PRESSURE
THRUSTER FLOW
THRUSTER EFF.
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
?OWER INC, RATIC
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED ?OWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
?OWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D.
INTAKE DIA. !NCR.
ESTIMATED ?OWER
RUNAw;;y RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC. RATIO
?OWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
TNTt:.ll:'l=' T • T'l .
BT1000
79. 25 IN,
305 RPM
29.98 SQ, FT.
23.91 FT/SEC,
8.88 FT.
3.85 PSI
716.89 CFS
72.22 ~
9.8425 FT.
1 • 11
1. 17
188.78 RPM
25. 18 FT/SEC.
882.19 CFS
29.43 FT/SEC.
39.32 SQ, FT.
84.9 IN,
5.65 IN.
6 S-2:"-r 9 9 K W
574,8 RPM
8.85825 FT.
1
1
176.78 RPM
23.88 FT/SEC,
826.1 CFS
27.56 FT/SEC.
38.86 SQ, FT.
84.41 IN,
5. 16 IN.
575.61 KW
545,3 RPM
7.874 FT.
• 89
.84
164.29 RPM
22.52 FT/SEC.
767.76 CFS
25.61 FT/SEC.
38.37 SQ. FT,
,Q ':;j. J:l.t:! Tl\1.
..
"
-140-
•
. ',:·
INTAKE DIA, INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPE.ED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D.
INTAKE DIA, !NCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC. RATIO
TURBINE SPE.ED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I.D,
INTAKE DIA, INCR,
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
HEAD
HEAD INC, RATIO
POWER INC, RATIO
TURBINE SPEED
DESIGN VELOCITY
DESIGN FLOW
THROAT VELOCITY
DESIGN INTAKE AREA
INTAKE I, D.
INTAKE DIA. INCR.
ESTIMATED POWER
RUNAWAY RPM
4.63 IN.
47'5.52 KW
514.11 RPM
6.88975 FT.
.78
.68
151. 24 RPM
21.06 FTISEC.
706.78 CFS
23.58 FT/SEC,
37.83 SQ.
83.28 IN.
4,03 IN.
383.03 KW
480.91 RPM
5.9055 FT.
.67
.s..;
FT.
137.51 RPM
19.5 FT/SEC.
642.6 CFS
21.43 FT /SEC,
37.23 SQ, FT.
82 .• 62 IN,
3,37 IN.
298.5 KW
445.23 RPM
4.92125 FT.
.55
. 41
122.92 RPM
17,8 FT/SEC,
574.45 CFS
19.16 FT/SEC.
36.54 SQ. FT.
81, 85 IN,
2.6 IN,
222.37 KW
406.44 RPM
-141-
•
'
APPENDIX III
SITE-SPECIFIC EcoNoMIC ANALYsEs
·14-2-
•
...• . .
'>.
··~
How to Calculate
the Rate of Return
on a Real Estate Investment
by Donald J. Valac~l
The use of "Internal Rate of Return" to evaluate real estate investments
is growing rapidly, as accountants have come to recognize the advantages of
discounted cash flow techniques in this area. This article demonstrates, through
a step.by-step example, how this method can be used.
The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) method for evaluatin;
· real estate inv·estments overcomes many of the short-
comings of. the more conventional measures of real estate
return. The IRR--the interest rate which equates the present
value of the expected cash inftow.s to the initial cash ·outlay,_
has gained wide acceptance in recent years' as a measure of
return on real estate investments, particularly among institu-
tional investors. 2
This article will illustrate, throu&h the use of a prac:ticai
example,just how the IRR would be calculated for a proposed
real estate investment. ·
...
62
A. PRACTICAL EXAMPLE
Let us assume that an individual investor (a
cash basis taxpayer filing a joint return) is con·
sidering the purchase of an existing furnished
apartment building. The total purchase price is
$500,000 with a down payment of S 100,000.
For purposes of evaluating this investment, we
make the following assumptions:
11 Tbe purchase will be financed with a first mon-
gag~ loan of$400,000 at 9-112'1'C interest for 30 years,
amortized monthly on a level payment basis (the an-
nual payments totaling $40,361) In ad.dition, the in·
vestor will be required to pay three loan points (or
$12,000) to obtain the loan.
21 Legal fees, escrow fees, title fees, and other di·
rect costs of acquiring the property will be $6,000.
These costs will be allocated to the land, building,
and furnishings according to their respective val-
ues.3
3/ The total purchase price of the property (includ-
ing the capitalized acquisition costs of $6,000) of
$506,000 will be allocated 20% to the land,
($1 0!,200), 60% to the building {$303,600), and 20%
to the furnishings ($I 0 1,200). This allocation is
based on an ''arm's length"' agreement between the
buyer and the seller.·
4/ The building, with a depreciable basis of
$303,600, has an estimated useful life of 25 years,
and will be depreciated using the 125% declining·
balance method. The furnishings with a depreciable
basis of $101,200, have an estimated useful life of
six years. and will be depreciated using the 150%
declining-balance method.
51 The gross income for the first year is estimated to
be $8.5,000 and it is anticipated that the gross in-
come will increase 5% a year. Vacancy and collec·
tion losses are estimated to be 5o/c of gross income.
Operating expenses are projected to be 40% of the
effective gross income (gross income after vacancy
and collection losses).
61 The investor will sell the property after five years
and the property will appreciate at 5% a year (com·
pour -led).
7/ The investor's marginal effective tax rate for or·
dinary income will be 50l/t over the five-year period
of ownership. Capital gains. upon disposition, will
be taxed at 20% (i.e., 40'7c of the taxpayer's
marginal rate of 50%). For simplicity, the minimum
tax on preference items has been ignored.
&' Selling costs will be 7% of the selling price. The
DONALD J. VALACHI, D.B.A., CPA, is an Associate Profes-
sor of Real E.state at California State University, Long
Beach.
-144-
prepayment penalty on the mortgage loan will be
3% of the amount by which the prepayment exceeds
20% of the original principal amount of the loan.
91 The purchase transaction will close on January 1
of the coming year and the sale transaction will
close on December 31, five years later.
lti' The periodic cash flows are received at the end
of each year (this is the conventional assumption).
PREPARING THE SCHEDULES
The calculation of the lRR requires that costs
and benefits be considered over the full "in-
vestment cycle," i.e., acquisition. operations.
and termination. Therefore, given the assump-
tions of our hypothetical investment proposal.
we prepare the appropriate schedules for each
phase of the cycle.
Acquisition
We start our analysis by determining the ini-
tial cash outlay is to be $118,000 as follows:
Down payment $100,000
Legal fees, escrow fees, etc. 6,000
Loan points 12,000
Initial cash outlay S 118,000
Of course, none of these payments are im·
mediately tax deductible.
Operations
Before annual cash flows from operations
can be projected. we must prepare (I) an amor-
tization schedule for the loan points, (2) an
amortization schedule for the first mortgage
loan, (3) a depreciation schedule for the build-
ing, and (4) a depreciation schedule for the fur·
nishings.
We prepare the amortization schedule for
the Joan points as follows:
Amortization Unamortized
Year Deduction• Loan Points
0 SI2,000
I $4()() 11,600
2 400 11,200
3 400 10,800
4 400 10,400
5 400 IO,OOOl
We next prepare an amortization schedule
for the fir~! mortgage loan. Although payments
on the loan are made monthly, they ar~ shown
JULJ.t.U(Of79
•
•
•
..
Exhibit 1/ Schedule of Projected Annual Cash Flows
1m..l ~ Year 3 !.!!r.J :!!!!2
Gross lneome $85,000 $89,250 $93,713 $98,398 $103,318
Less: Vacancy and Collection Losses (4,250) (4,463) (4,686) (4,920) (5,166)
Effective Gross I ncot!le $80,750 $84,787 $89,027 $93,478 $98,152
less: Operating Expenses (32,300) (33,915) (35.611) (37.391) (39,261)
Net Operating Income $48,450 $50,872 $53,416 $56,087 $58,891
Less: Amortization of Loan Points (400) (400) (400) (400) (400)
Interest Expense (37,894) (37,650) (37.380) (37,085) (36,759)
Depreciation Expense:
Building (15,180) (14,421) (13,700) (13,015) (12,364)
Furnishings (28,300) (18,225) (13,668) (13,669) (13,669)
Taxable lneome (LOS$) ($33,324) ($19,824) ($11,732) ($8,082) ($4,301)
Net Operating Income (from above) $48,450 $50,872 $53,416 $56,087 $58,891
Less: Total Loan Payment (40,361) (40,361) (40,361) (40,361) (40,361.)
Cash Flow Before Tax $8,089 $10,511 $13,055 $15,726 $18,530
Tax Effect (50% o! Taxable Loss)• 16,662 9,912 5,866 4,041 2,150
Cash Flow (After Tax) $24,751 $20,423 $18,921 $19,767 $20,680
•Note tn.at tile P<Opo<t)< -a tu lou for !!Kh year of the fi,..·yur hoidint periexl. The~· ..,in~t l)l't)Ciuc:ed by tile lo!Ms "'" apptoxim.tted by
•Pt)ly•nt tile in ... stor's moilf111n•l •flec:ttu rate of 50% to :no amount of tnt losses. (Th<S usumH, of course, thll the <l1'111$1or n.as tual>lt onccme
from ott>e< soun:u in order to ytolize the tu los.s.eo llt:nerate<J by tho! pn:operty.)
,~ annual p<.~y·ments by convention. Accord-
1gly, our schedule will appear as follows-:
Unpaid
Annual Interest Principal Prin~;ipal
Year Payment Expense Payment Balance
0 S400,000
I $40,361 $37,894 $2,467 397.533
2 40,361 37,650 2.71! 394,822
3 40,361 37,380 2,981 391,84!
4 40,361 37,085 3,276 388,565
5 40,361 36,759 3,602 3&4,963
The depreciation schedule for the building
... ou!d be as follows:
Year
0
l
2
3
4
5
Total
Depreciation
Expense
Sl5,!80
14,421
13,700
13,015
12.364
$68,680
U ndepreciated
Balance
$303,600
288,420
273,999
260,299
247,284
234,920
The final schedule preliminary to preparing
the projected ca~h flow schedule is the depreci-
ation schedule for the furnishings. Using bonus
depreciation and a switch to straight-line at the
beginning of the fourth year (so as to achieve
maximum depreciation) our schedule would be
as follows:
Year
0
I
2
3
4
5
Total
Depreciation
Expense
S28,300"
18,225
13,668
13.669 7
13,669
$87,531
U ndepreciated
Balance
$101,200
7:,900
5·Ul75
41,007
27.338
13.669
Now we are ready to determine the project-
ed annual cash flows generated by the property
over the five-year holding period. This sched·
ule is shown in Exhibit I (above) .
Termination
The assumption was made that the invest·
ment will be terminated at the end of the fifth
-HS-
63
Exhibit 2/ Cash Proceeds From Sale
Calculalion of Tax Due:
Gross Sales Price
Less: Selling Expenses (7%)
.Net Sales Price
Less: Adjusted Basis:
Original Basis
Depreciation (Yrs.. 1-SJ
Adjusted Basis
Gain on Sale
Depreciation Recapture
Capital Gain
Tax on Recapture (50% of $7 .960)
Tax on Capital Gain (20% of
$235,591)
Total Tax Due
Cash Proceeds from Sale:
Gross Sales Price ·
Less: Selling Expenses
Total iax Due
Unpaid Mortgage Principal
Prepayment Penalty on
Mortgage Loan ($9,149)'
Less Tax Savmgs (4,5 75)d
Add: Tax Savings from Deduction
of Unamortized Loan Points
Cash Proceeds from Sale
Total
$638,000'
(44,660)
$593,340
$506,000
(156,211)
$349,789 ----
$243,551
{7,960)
$235.591
$ 3,980
47.118
$51,098
$638.000
(44.660)
(51,098)
(384,963)
(4,574)
$5,000"
$157.705
•· T~ Hl!on0 pr•e• of!~ property ... , alfoca~.,a t><ttween land.
buil61ng, and furn!\htngs based on an arm's length agrttt'hent bt-
~er. tnt Miler 1m1 buytr,
b. The depreciation r..eapture (i.e., 1~ dtptOC11t10n 1!1owed
.. r-uch exct"t:Q.:d tl\lt 'fll'tuc:h wou)d n.~ been allow•blt vnder the
str••ih\·ilne mdhod) on the build•ne •• determ•~ as touo..s,
ltU Deprlic•ation that .-ould haY!! been
allowat>le u!'!Oer the stra•iht·lint mtth:l<l
(auumonJ • l:llfl> wlval" value I
Md<hQNII i)ept"'Ciat!On
$68.680
!50.7201
s 7,960
Th\1$, $7.950 olltlt pin on tile sale of the build in& ts r..eapture<l,
•.e., ....:oen•led A CW'tiir.vy lnc:ot'ne. fthole tne remo•ni~ S235.5SI
of the lot& I '"'" is lona·ta<m capital eain.
e. TM prep.llyrnt!nt per.arty is •• fot;o.s (~ auumplon 8):
-146-
Land Building
$127,600 $~95,703
(8,932) {34,700)
$118.&68 $461,003
$101,200 $303,600
-0· {68,680)
$101,200 $234,920
$
$
17.468 $226,083
-0· (7 ,960)"
17,468 $218,123
Amcvnt pte03•d.
LHS: 20% x orJg1n11 prtncrpal
of $400.000
Prtp.llymenl on excess .of 20% of
(X'lliMI pnnclpal
Prep.11yment penalty pereentaee
f'n!p.llyment penalty
Furnishings
$14,697
(1,028)
$13,559
$101.200
(87.531)
$13,669
·0-
-0·
-0·
$384.963
180.0001
30.:.963
.03
$9.149
d. Althouwn the il'vestor ..,m pay .i prepayment penalty of
$9, 14 9. tl>i• will be Ooductiblt in the yur the loon •• pal(! off.
Since the ii'YHtor's rnarfinaJ e!!ecti .. l.ll• ratt woll 1>t 50'll.. ~
will hlvt tox ""vines of $4,575. Hence. the aner-tu c:o<t ot tne
prep.11yment Pt!"•lty will be only $4,574. The ul\omo<lited PO'loon
of the loan points ($10,000) will be a la>-doductlblt npenH
if\ tne ,.., the loan •• Pll•d ol'f. Applying tht investor's marg.nal
e!fect"-t to• rate of !>0% to tile l"'ount of the doduetlon •ill
mull •n tax savinp of $5.000.
..
,.
•
't.•
"IRR overcomes many shortcomings of
the conventional measures of return."
year. Given a .5% annual (compounded) appre-
ciation rate, the property will be sold for ap-
proximately $638,000, which is allocated
among land, building, and furnishings on an as-
sumed arm's length basis. • The cash proceeds
from the sale will be $1.57,70.5, as calculated in
Exhibit 2 (on page 64).
CALCUlATING INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
We now turn our attention to calculating the
expected rate of return on the investment. As
you recall, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is
the interest rate that equates the present value
of the expected ..:ash inflows (including the sale
proceeds) to the initial outlay of $118,000-and
it is this interest rate we are seeking. This inter-
est rate-the IRR-is found by trial and error.
Using an arbitrarily selected rate, we calculate
the present value of the expected ·cash inflows
from the investment. 9 The present value so ob·
tained is then compared with the initial cash
outlay. lf the present value exceeds the cash
outlay. the procedure is repeated using a his;ll·
cr intcre:-1 mte. Conversely, if the present val-
ue is less than the cash outlay, the procedure is
repeateJ using a /own interest rate. Once we
h::~ve two interest rates which straddle the I RR,
i.e., one interest rate results in a higher present
value and the other a lower present value than
the initial cash outlay, we can determine the
approximate IRR by "eyeballing" the dif-
ferences or by interpolating them. This calcu-
lation is shown in Exhibit 3 (opposite).
The first two columns in Exhibit 3 show the
years and the corresponding cash flows for
those years. The third column shows the dis-
~:ount factors for an arbitrarily determined 20%
interest rate, for years 1 through 5, obtained
from a present value table. The factors are then
multiplied by the cash flows for the corre-
sponding years, resulting in the present value
of each year's cash flow, as shown in the fourth
column. The resulting present values are now
added to determine the present value of the in·
vestment. Since the present value ($ 126,985)
exceeds the cash outlay ($118,000), we try a
i><£ P'IIACTICAL 4CCOUNT.UCT
higher rate (viz., 2.5%), and repea( the proce-
dure. At an interest rate of 2.5%, the present
value ($109, 174) is less than the cash outlay.
Thus, the required IRR is straddled, i.e., we
know that it falls between 20% and 2.5%.
We can look at the two differences ($8,985
and $8,826), called net present value, and thus
Exhibit 3/ Calculation of the Internal Rate of Return
Trial and Error Computations:
Present Present
Value F'resent Value
Interest Value of Interest
Cash Factor Cash Flows Factor
Year Flow (20%) (2) X (3) (25%)
1 $24,751 .833 $20,618 .800
2 20.423 .694 14,174 .640
3 18.921 .579 10,955 .512
4 19,767 .482 9,528 .410
5 20,680 .402 8,313 .328
5 157.705* .402 63,397 .328
Present Value of Investment 126,985
less: Initial Cash Outlay (118,000)
Difference (Net Present Value) $8985
Approximating the IRR by lnterp<Jialion:
1. Present Value oil nvestment at 20%
less: Present Value ollnvestment.)!t IRR
(Equal to Initial Cash Outlay)
Oil'ference !Dl>
2. Present Value of Investment at 20%
Less, Present Value of Investment at 25%
Difference (D2l
Present
Value of
Cash Flows
(2) X (5)
$19,801
13,071
9,688
8,104
6,783
51,727
109,174
(118,000)
($8,826)
$126,985
(118,000}
$8.985
$126,985
(109,174)
$17,811
IRR • Smaller Interest Rate ..;-01ti'erence in Interest Rates
X (01 + 02)
IRR • 20% + 5% ($8,985/17,811)
IRR • 20% + 2.52%
IRR • 22.52%
•Tne $15 7, 705 represents the cash proceeds from the
sale.
-l4i-
"eyeball" the IRR a.s being approximately
midwav between 20 and 2Y;C, i.e., 22.5%,
'Y'hich may be close enough for OUI purposes.
However, if we want to '-alculate it more
precisely, we can interpolate these two dif-
ferences.
To calculate the interpolated IRR, we apply
a fraction to the 5'/c difference between the two
assumed intet·est rates (25%-2Ql1c). The numer·
ator of this fraction is $8,985, i.e., the difference
between (l) ..present value at 20'/c ($126,985)
and (2) the ptesent value at the still undeter·
mined IRR, whi'-h by definition is equal to the
initial cash outlay ($118,000). The denominator
is $I 7,81 I, the difference betwe:en the present
values at 20"/c and 25% ($126,985-$109,!74).
We apply this fraction (8,985 ..:. 17 ,811) to the
5% difference in assumed interest rates, and
get 2.52% or .02520. Adding this .0252 to our
lower assumed intere-st rate of 2Wc gives us an
IRR of 2:?..52%.10
A FEW WORDS OF CAUTION
Since the futu1 e produc.tivity of in,ome·pro·
ducing real estate cannot be projected with a
high degree of accuracy, a single I RR calcu·
lation c.aunot be U6ed with a high degrt:e of cvn-
1 E.opec!&lly from the time a dts<:ussion of it appared '" flu f'roctit:al
A.c,:oumo,t ln l9~r1 Sec A<ms.tro"nJ, .. How to £v.Juate a Rc.:.a.i t:sta1c ),...
Vt!Umen\:· Tht ProcJu:tJl ACC'l:#l~thOM (Ju ... Au.-, t;-it}. pp .41-46.
2. Wiley ... Rul .t.su•t~ ln\'cStmen: ArWyiis. An Empinca.l Study ... Tht
Appro/Sa! Journal I(Xtober l'fl6l. pp $U-$92.
l fhe IX'• lion or th• >Cquisnion eusu alh.oc.ated to the land will, of
eour><, nvt b< d~uctible while tht port tons ai!OG.ated to the buildllli and
furnssh.lnr' will be depreclait:e: Q\'er thci1 respective bves.
4 Scc:tlof! 46 1\J) requires: that lo.an points be Oe:duc:tcd ra.tabl)c ovc:r the
l&rm of the'"""· HcntO<. ~00 !Stl,QOO.')O yeanl will be oeductoc annuaJ.
ly.
5 Ut><:>" >&lc of the prc>penr and the payrn.nt of tho unpaid pnrw:i'pal
baJIIJ\ce of th< loo.l' ax tho end of the fifth year, th< enti"' una.moniud
P<'l'!io" or k>&r. pomts (S!O,I)Oill will b< ocducted.
6 -,. additional "bonus' dcprooi&tion in the first year is 20'1< or the
¢qSt of t.anl;ibl• pe""'nal proptrty whoch has a useful life of "' lust llix
yean., applied ID propeny <:<>•tina up to $20.000 ion a JOint "'turn). Thut
the dcprcc•U•on doduetiotl for the first Y""' is e.lculatcd u lollowt:
Bonus dcpn.::iallOII (20'Jii • $20,000) ~.!1100
R.c1ular depreciatiOn:
O.p=iablo buit
tAts: "bonus" dc!"""ci&tion
Balance •ubject to n:Jut&r depreciation
~~ )I' W'llllht·iinc ...... of lt.-2!.!'11.
O.proeiation UpeHW: for 'I'CAJ l
$!01.200
. ..!"·~~
9'1.200
7. Switched to tt.t straillht .11,.. ""''hod or dcp=ialion at the bqinninc
of Year~. """" otnul!ht·lin• dcpnoeiation (as•umina. .c.cr.. w.._,c value)
-148-
fidence. Therefore, the IRR should be calcu-
lated under varying sets of assumptions regard·
ing gross income, operating expenses, property
appr~iation, etc. The availab11lty of comput·
ers simplifies the tedium of the calculations re·
quired to undertake this "sensitivity analy-
sis.'' 11
The IRR overcomes many of tht: short-
comings of the more conventional measures of
real estate return.11 However, the IRR should
not be relied on as the exclusive criterion of
investment desirability, since it does not take:
into account risk and various non-financial
considerations. 13 Moreover, there are several
problems connected with the application of the
JRR when comparing alternative real estate in-
vestments, the nature of which we beyond the
scope of this artide.14
·In sum, while the ~..ur~~ •. epl!Jal simplicity of
the lRR makes its calculation a eld.tively easy to
explain, it is no panacea. It due-;,, however,
overcome many of the shortcomings of the
rule-of-thumb measures often employed in
practi.:.e. As accountants, we should all be
thoroughly familiar with the IRR computations
since they can be extremely helpful in appro-
priate cases. a
on the S.C I ,007 llfl<lcp...,.;atood balat>tr uc-:to !~ dolcli~Un& ~ ill
Y cat 4 Uld thefUI\er.
I. for putpOSCJ Of our c:aieulation, it is usumed th&f the land """"" ,.
....... t.t m of the uxal nh>o, th&t the lumishilll• .... oold at • ,.....
wllich. lifter O<od...:tion of £ht alloc&Mo totlhn& expense•. equals the Ul!l>-
~aated buio, IU!d th&t ttw: buildina rq>rea.cnu the b.l"""" of the Mia
price.
9. In pr~~~:l.ic:•, the lRR is o!\cn dctcrmined by computer. WMn <:ak:\r
latina the IRR ma.nuall) (with the aid of • c:aleulator), an analyso can. if ht
bu. &1pcricn¢C ...tth simila.t propen)-tyt:~Cs.. Jid.ec:t an interest rate, t:bai
.,..,....n 10 be • """"" approximatioll.
JQ. Tile U.ll:'.'!-io an "''P''•inw• r&l< because our in"'rpol.ation usu"-"
....... Nlatioar.hipo wl>creu the rcl.atoonship< an, m fact. curv\linc:.v aooi
~ the .,.-uc.ru v&h.le iDI&rut factoro ,..,. rounded to C>ofy 3 dolcimt.l ...._,,
I L Sec, e.,., Cooper Uld l'tlyrr, "foi"'C:Ulin& the llale• of llc:tum Oft ""
Apartment Investment: A Cue Slu<:ty," 1M App.roi.uJI ),..,....,, (July
tml. pp. lll-337.
!1. f'or • ciioeuuion of tho shotl.c.omi""' o( oeveral of the .-e commonly
-.d rule-of-thumb --oC ro.aJ aatato ,.., ...... , -koula<:, "Trutll m
baS Estaao llc:poi-Una:· I(HJ EstGJt l(~v~<-w (Sprina tml. pp. 9(>.,,
IJ. Wc:uMr, Schm'bcr, ...S !.yo~~, Alo..trti"f l••·rst•t~l'lll R<ol EstGJ•
(~: Rca.kcn Natioft~ Mn.U.., !nii.IIUI&, 1975\, p. 46. For & cli1-
-ion ot rill: Mt.lyllit -l"ybtT, "A C..mpuuor Simulalion Moclcllo
,.......,,... tho llill: in llc&l Eswe lavewncnt," """'rico• Rroi Estatt """'
UrN~~ £c-• A.z....,;.o""" ;.,.,..,.., Uune Jm), pp. 4-71
14. For a ctitioruo of the pn>bOe..,. with t.br huernai Rat< of 1\.<tum u •
..,....,... ofra!U~ate ,...um.-"'""""'' IU!d Fiftd!ay, "llc&l E>~.at<: 1,_
-~ A~~: IRR \1~ Fhi.RR," Tl.t Real Estatr Appf'Oi#r
Ut>ly·A"""t 1"7$), I"D· l--20
JIJUAUG17S
•
•
0
,.,
2
·' ..,
5
E
2
9
l c
. 1
12
1 :;
14
15
15 . ..,. ' ..
18
1:3
20
TEXAS CONVENTIONAL
PRE~OPERATIONAL COSTS
LAND AND WATER RIGHTS IN YEAR 0 $ 0
FEASIEI~lTY STUDY IN YEAR 1 $ 23000
DESIGN ~ND DEVELOPMENT IN YEAR ~ $ 1'58700
CONSTRUCTION IN ~EAR 3 s 1796185"
ANNUAL COSTS AN~ REVENUES
0
0
0
0
-15"810
-17232 -18784
-20474
-2~317
-2>4·~25
-26514
-2S9Cl
-315"02
-:34337
-37427
-40796
44467
-48469
-528:32
-57587
-62769
PRCPEPT"r
T~XES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
-149-
co:; oF
0
0
0
0
101649
1 13847 ...
12750~
142810
159947
175:41
200E2S
224714
251 E·SO
281 8·S2
315707
353592
3SE023
4.:.35.:.E ,JQ--..,.,., -t t I -
5563.34
6231~1
RE'v'ENL'ES FPOr-~
'="! ~'!="-·" .... -.-.-""":1 f"\ ,:_,lf_r"' . .J& .::,t ... -.j,
0
0
0
0
0
1'1
" c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,"\
0
!"'
'-c
0
0
-· .... : ....... -..
c
2
2
4
'5
E
8
9
10
<
'
lEAR
('
. .,
"' ..;
6 .,.
'
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16 . -• I
18
19
2C
0
'":""' -",..... (l .:.. :: \) .....
-sese
":· r. £:,.. ,_.\,.' --v
,.., ("_ t:!" r ·=''-·..:-;,
:scs:;
305G
20'50
305C
3C5C
3050
-:.,".~~"'. -· '-'' ""'"'
0
:5E.7C
l:-935
17S3E
!7926
1:"'93€
~793E.
17'?3E.
793E
17926
17936
1793E·
17936
17926
1192-6
'-c::;-:,c ... ) ""'_ .....
li9?S
AT 7. 75':'.
INTE:P:::ST
0 0
0 2300
1604 144E.
149: <tc='C"O ... ...., ·...1'-1
~ .-.-1 . ~-.. 1E.7=
1~41 1809
1 1 c 1 1949
950 21 00
(C,.; 2253
e. 1: 24~8
4"=''=' 2E.27 -· ..:,, :: 2831
LOAN SCHE~ULE FOR
DES! Gr; Af'~::J DE'JEI:O?MENT
AT 111
INTE~EST
0
c
l '57 1 1
15-467
15:95
! 4~.93
145'59
1412-7
137;-"5
12809
12245
1 1619
10924
10152
9297
8347
...,....,0"':· ' ..... _,_
E121
-150-
??WC I?AL
0
0
15S7C
"':\'::'?C:: .... ___ _
24ES
2741
3043
3377
3749
4161
4619
5127
SESl
,6217
7012
7783
863~
953'?
0
2C700
192:4
~ 7E.SE
1 E C -1.
14:2C8
1 '"7•~r~C • ..__ .._ ·...lw
10:59
70Q-I ..__.t•
54SE.
.....,o·-:·1
-'-"-' .L
0
0
0
~ .:!.C:E.G'5
.. 3~-1-'~
.,..,="::"~-... _ . ...,~ __ :
:z~osr:
1 164~~
1' :220
1 CSE-29
~C": ~ -.
---l
92301
2·.;51 ~-
""""'07Q
J ·-'-.l' -
•
•
•
•
YEAR
0
3
..t
5
7
s
9 . " • 'J , . . '
lE-,.,. . '
'0 .;....,;
•o ._,
20
PAYMENTS
0
0
0
17SE 1-S
203001
203001
203001
203001
203001
~02~;=~!
203001
203CC:
:·:3oo;
20-?.COi
203001
2030).
203001
203001
203001
2:'J30C1
203001
LOAN SCHErULE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
AT 11'.4
.INTEREST
0
0
0
0
1"':."'~0,.,..,
•I I \,J.;..~
175053
171978
1685E6
164778
:E-0573
1S590E
138.592
131~07
12:364:3
1 149 1 4
1052::::4
94469
E-9278
-151-
PRINCIPAL
0
0
0
1i961e
25179
27949
31023
34436
3822..!
71494
79358
88088
9777"'7
!08~33
120472
1.'33:-"23
BALANCE
0
0
0
161656E·
!591:387
1563432
1532415
1497980
1459756
!417328
1270233
1"317957
1 ..,~·:·::·-: ~
.:. ----·-J.
: 124022·
1044670
956522
858805
/5027:
629801
496077
PRCJECT CAS~ FLOW
YEAF. CASH FLOW
•
0 c
·2300
'":) ·18920 ...
'=' -200605 •.
4 -138148
5 -1273;"3
6 -l !5262 --101652 t
C:• -~·6357 '-'
9 -69172
10 -49E.64
1 1 -281:-4 ·-. .:. -""59
~ ·: :c~.:::-
'·' .-573..;.:?
10:: 918~5' ·~ 15 ~30E19
17 174139
18 223003
19 277861
20 339444
------------------------~------------------------------------------
•
•
-152-
•
'
•
PRESENT WCRTH A~D R.Q. I. ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 1~~
AND A SALES VALUE OF 52262959
"fEAR
0
1
2
:3
4
""
E·
E
9 . ,...
l. ....
~ . . .
12
1:3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
INTERNAL R.ATE
PRESENT
WORTH
c
-2000
-1630€
-148207
-22719.:0
-290520
-340351
-378566
-4CE.7SE
-~:s..:.::=
• 4 3S;-8':·
-444241
-444983
-440658
-432554
-421255
-407306
-391124
-373105
-3535,91
-194573
OF RETUR~J
-153-
=
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2:300
-100:30
-64911
-79578
-86667
-89933
-90992
-9C655
-89:37':
-874~9
-849'35
-82091
-78926
-75562
-7204:3
-E.S40E
-64679
-E·0836
-57045
-31085
101
YEt.R
0
3
4
s ..
I
8
9
lC
1 1
12
l4
,=:
L ••
16
·~ l. l
18
19
20
PROJECT CASH FLOW
CASH FLOW
0
-2300
-18920
-200605
-138148
-1273i:?.
-1 ! 5262
-101652
-8E·357'
-69172
-49864
-2817"..;
"'7·:! = """'~ _..,._,..-I
5724?.
91859
130E.lg
17412·9
223CC'3
!i7861
339444
-154-
•
•
•
•
..
. . ·,_.
PRESENT WCFTH AND R.O. [, ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 20%
AND A SALES VALUE OF S1697219
YEAR
0
1 ., ...
3
4
5
6
7
~
'?
10 .. • • . ., ·-13
14
15
lE
17
f Q . ....,
19
20
PRESENT
WQRTH
0
-1917
-15056
-131146
-197769
-248957
-28755~.
-315927
_-:.-:·.:I*\, .
·-··--,_. 4 " -<:43--+1 7
-3~:"4;-o
-361~62
-361347
-3e'8860
-354394
-348432
-34l3E7
-3335:8
-325142
-316444
-26332C
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN = 9'l
-155-
EQUIVALENT
ANNUP..L WORTH
c
-2300
-9.S55
-62258
-76396
-83246
-86470
-8;-E4E
_o-:-... -c .....,, .... t:· ._.
-.se.ea:3
-S~265
-S3489
-81399
-79172
-76866
-74523
-72177
-69852
-E;-56E
-6533-1
-5~074
.,
PRESENT WJR7H AND ~.O,I, A~ALYS:S
t.T A T: I5cc:,;~~7 F'ATE: OF 2'.57
A~D A SALES VALUE OF $:35777::
0
1
.;.
3
A
"' . ..;
E
7
8
9
lQ
11 ,.., ·-! :';'
:.::.
15
1E.
17
18
19
20
PRESENT
WORTH
0
·1840
-13949
-116659
-173244
-214981
-245197
-266515
-281003
-290287
-295641
-29806:
-2SS 11 ::·
-2!:E·E'5:
-29.;1::3
-'?Of\ ·;·;:j-,. -"""to.'~-·-· 1
-287220
-283299
-27e2e1
-275277
-255709
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN = 8%
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2300
-9E,87
-59764
-73359
-79940
-83077
-84310
-84413
-83822
-82801
-81518
-80028
-78..;7"7
-7E915
-75376
-73885
... 72456
-71 1 0 1
-69826
-64673
SUMMAPY OF ANALYSIS AT TIME OF SALE
DISCOUNT
RATE
• 15
.2
.25
PRESEN7
WORTH
-194573
-263320
-255709
YEAR 20
EQUrVALENT
AI'JNUAL WORTH
-31085
-54074
-64673
-156-
PA''!'OUT
PERIOD
20
20
20
I. R. R.
10~
9%
8~
•
•
•
YEAR
0
1
2
:3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
•
•
TEXAS THRUSTER
PRE-OPERATIONAL COSTS
LAND AND WATER RICHTS IN YEAR 0 $ 0
FEASIBILITY STUDY IN YEAR 1 $ 2:3000
DESICN AND DEVELOPMENT IN YEAR 2 s 17827:3
CONSTRUCTION IN YEAR 3 $ 732050
ANNUAL COSTS AND REVENUES
OS<M
COSTS
0
0
0
0
-7058
·7693
-8386
-9140
-9963
-10859
-11837
-12902
-14063
-15329
-16709
-18212
-19852
-216:38
-2:3586
-25708
-28022
PROPERTY
TAXES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
·157-
COST OF
ENERCY SAVED
0
0
0
0
9:2501
103601
116033
1:29957
145552
163018
182580
204490
229029
256512
287294
321769
360381
403627
452062
506310
567067
REVENUES FROM
ENERC'!' SOLD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
YEAR PAYMENTS
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
FEASIBILITY STUDY
AT ta
INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------·----
0
1
0
:2300
0
0
0
:2300
0
20700
----------------------~-----------------------------------------------
LOAN SCHEDULE fOR
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
AT 1U
YEAR PAYMENTS INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
·------------------------~--------------------------------------------
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
2 17827 0 17827 160446
3 :20148 17649 :2499 157947
4 20148 17374 2774 155173
5 20148 17069 3079 152094
6 20148 16730 3418 148676
7 20148 16354 3794 144882
8 20148 15937 4211 140671
9 20148 15474 4674 135997
10 20148 14960 5188 130808
1 1 20148 14389 5759 125049
12 20148 13755 6393 118657
13 20148 13052 7096 11156 1
14 20148 12272 7876 103684
15 20148 11405 8743 94942
16 20148 10444 9704 85237
17 20148 937F. 10772 74465
18 20148 6191 11957 62508
19 20148 6876 13272 49236
20 20148 5416 14732 34504
-158-
..
•
•
..
•
• . '
''• •,
YEAR PAYMENTS
0 0
1 0
2· 0
3 7320~
4 8273~
5 8273~
6 82735
7 82733
a 8273~
9 8273~
10 8273~
11 8273~
12 82735
13 8273~
14 8273~
15 8273~
16 8273~
17 8273~
18 8273~
19 8273~
20 8273~
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
AT 11 ~
INTEREST
0
0
0
0
72473
71344
70091
68700
671~7
6~443
63341
61429
~9086
56484
~3~97
~0392
46834
4288~
38~01
33636
2823~
PRINCIPAL
0
0
0
7320~
10262
11391
12644
1403~
1~578
17292
19194
21305
23649
262~0
29138
32343
3~901
398~0
44233
49099
~4500
BALANCE
0
0
0
658845
648~83
637192
624~49
610~14
594936
577644
5~8450
537144
~1349~
48724~
4~8107
42~764
389863
350013
305780
2~6680
202180
-------------M------------------------------·---------------------------
-159-·.
PROJECT CASH FLOW
YEAR CASH FLOW
0 0
1 -2300
2 -17227
3 -93352
4 -17440
5 -6975
6 4765
7 17934
8 32706
9 49276
10 67861
11 88705
12 112083
13 138300
14 167702
15 200674
16 237647
17 279106
18 325594
19 377719
20 436162
•
•
-160-
..
..
•
•
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O.I. ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 15~
AND A SALES VALUE OF S2907747
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
i
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
INTERNAL RATE
PRESENT
WORTH
0
-2000
-15480.
-76861
-86833
-90300
-88240
-81498
-70807
-56799
-40025
-20959
-10
22468
46169
70831
96227
122163
148473
175013
379327
OF RETURN
,., ..
-161-
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2$00
-9522
-3$66$
-30414
-26938
-23316
-19589
-15779
-11904
-7975
-4005
-2
4024
8065
12113
16161
20202
24229
28236
60602
•3a
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O.I. ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 20~
AND A SALES VALUE OF $2180810
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.19
20
INTERNAL
?RESENT
WORTH
0
-1917
-14297
-68321
-76731
-79534
-77938
-72933
-65327
-55777
<•44817
-32878
-20308
-7382
5680
18705
31559
44139
56369
68192
136453
RATE OF RETURN
-162-
£QUI VALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2300
-9358
-32433
-29640
-26595
-23437
-20233
-17025
-13837
-10690
-75=8
-4575
-1629
1232
4001
6673
9244
11714
14079
28C7.1
= 31~
•
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O.I, ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 2~X
AND A SALES VALUE OF $1744648
YEAR
0
1
2
3
....
~
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
INTERNAL RATE
PRESENT
WORTH
0
-·1840
-13249
-61046
-68190
-7047~
-69226
-6~46~
-~9978
-53364
-46078
-38458
-30756
-23153
-15777
-8717
-2027
42~8
10123
15566
40709
OF J;~ETURN
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2300
-9201
-31274
-28874
-26206
-23455
-20709
-iS017
-15409
-12905
-10518
-8256
-6125
-4126
-22~9
-522
1089
2577
3949
10296
= 30'1
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AT TIME OF SALE
DISCOUNT
RATE
.15
.2
.25
PRESENT
WORTH
379327
136453
40709
YEAR 20
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
60602
28021
102.96
-163-
PAYOUT
PERIOD
13
14
17
31X
31X
30'1
YEAP
0
2
3
4
"" "' e.
7
8
9
tC
1 !
12
13
14
15
16 .....
• I
18
19
20
TENNESSEE CON"vENTIONAL
PRE-OPERATIONAL COSTS
LAND AN~ WATEP RIGHTS IN YEAR 0 $ 0
FEASIEILIT1 STUDY IN YEAR 0 s 0
DE5ICN AND DEVELOPMENT IN YEAR 0 s 34260
CONS7R~CTION !~ YEAR
Ot~M
COSTS
c
0
-":·t"\CI:' -..,;-..; ....
-2240
-Z442
-2E~·Z
-290: -au;::.
-8447
-3757
-409E·
-4464
-48Se:.
-5304
-5781
-6301
-68E!:
-7487
-8161
-2·895
-9696
PF:OPER'!"Y
TAXES
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
! 228470
COST OF
ENERGY SAVED
0
0
39940
4.6!732
50100
~6 i 12
E·284E
~0387
788~:~
oc-.c ,,
\..1\,../tC..-·""f
98889
110756
124C46
t3S932
155604
174276
195189
21SE.l2
244845
274227
307l:S4
REVENUES FROr-'1
ENERCr SOLD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C'
c
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
•
..
•
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
YEAF! PAYMENTS INTEREST PF!INCIPAL BALANCE
0 3426 0 3426 308'34
1 3499 2929 570 30264
2 3499 2875 624 29640
3 3499 2816 683 289.'57
4 3499 2751 748 28209 .. 3499 2680 819 27390 ~
6 3499 2602 897 26493
7 3499 2517 982 25511
8 3.:199 2424 1075 24436
9 3499 .,"='..,. ---i 1178 23259
.. t· -· t.-...--~-== 2ZlC ,...,OQ ..... '-'-2196'S
l 1 3499 2087 1412 20557
12 3493 1953 1546 190~1
13 3499 1806 1693 17318
14 3499 1E45 18~4 15465
15 3499 1469 2030 13435
16 3499 1276 2223 11212
17 3499 1065 2434 8779
18 3499 834 2665 61:4
19 3499 581 2918 3195
20 3499 304 3195 0
. I
•
' ...
-165-
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
YEAR PAYMENTS INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE •
c 0 0 0 0
1 22E47 0 22847 205623 ..., 23333 19534 ":)~QC
-_}f -..; 20182~
3 23::t33 19173 4150 19766~
4 23333 18778 4555 193108
5 23333 18345 4988 188120
6 23333 17871 5462 182652 ..,. 23333 17353 5981 !76677 ' c :!2::t33 1678.; 654S 170122 '-'
~ 23333 16162 ~~..,.,
I ~ I .J. 16::9'57
1 0 23:3,?~· 15421 "":"OE:"-: , '.J._j·-15:1C.:!
~:=··:::33 ~ 4~·;tc:: ~==c _, . ..,t_-l..;.E::2E
1::i. 233:33 13·31 e 9415 13709(:
~3 23333 13024 10310 12E.7S:
14 23:3:';:3 12044 l 1"'0C _....,; 1 1549~
15 23333 10972 12362 103130
16 23333 9797 1353E, 89594
17 23333 8511 14822 74772
18 23333 7103 16230 58541
19 23333 :561 1-... -'"' I l I ..:. 407E9
20 ~:.=::333 30":'-'liooJI ·~ 19460 21309
•
-166-
•
PROJECT CASH FLOW
YEAR CASH FLOW
-~-------------------------------------------------------------------------·
0 -~426
1 -26346
2 11052
3 15660
4 20826
5 26618
6 33112
7 40392
s 48554
9 57704
• t' 67961 J. ._ ..
1 \ .. 79459
'~ .. ..::. q~-· •Q --·~'""!'liWO.I
13 106796
14 122990
15 141142
16 161488
17 184293
18 209852
19 238499
20 270606
II
-167-
_ .... -
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O.I. ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 151
AND A SALES VALUE OF 51804041
YEAR
0
1 .,
3
.:.
C' ...
€
c; ;.;.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 ·-L i
lE
19
20
PRESENT
WOPTH
-3426
-26336
... 17979
-768:::: .. ,~c: ...... ...:..,..,
174':'3
3~7-:"4
-+69~S
62831
79235
96033
1:3113
130373
147730
165113
182458
199716
216841
23379e.
250S56
377318
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
-168-
..
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
-S426
-30286
-11059
-3365
1480
5::::08
.~.3~6
t t ~C."":!'
.l. "-.1-'-''
14002
16505
19135
21612
24051
26460
2884::
31203
33542
358~8
8E:.l!B
40424
6028:
63,;,
•
,
•
•
• • ill ~ •• • • • •• '
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O. I, ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 20~
AND A SALES VALUE OF 513~3031
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 ,.
c. ..
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lS
19
20
INTERNAL RATE
PRESENT
WCRTH
-3426
-2!5381
·17706
-8644
1-'00
12C97
2318S
31~459
4~7=1
56934
67910
78605
88962
98944
108523
1176S4
t'2641S
1347:2~
142607
150072
192423
OF RETURN
-169-
"'
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
-3426
-30457
-11589
-410::3
541
404'!
6972
9560
11923
t-·124
lo19S
18166
20040
21829
23538
25170
26729
28217
2=635
~0984
',9515
63~
PRESENT WORTH AND P.O. I. ANALYSIS
AT A ~15COUN! FL~E OF 25:
ANI:' A SALES VA:....UE OF $102.2425
YEA.R
0
1
2
5
4
5
E·
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1-.:.
1 ~:=t . ' -~
'"' J.-
1 E·
17
18
19
20
INTERNAL RATE
PRESENT
WORTH
-3426
-24'503
-17430
-9412
-882
7841
16521
24992
SS13S
40883
4S18C
55005
51 :?.51
~~"":"~-:,.: ,_ f ........ -...
72E.32
77"598
~.::: i 4:.?.
86292-.
90072
98'511
1 091 ~ 0
OF RETURN =·
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
-3426
-30628
-12104
-4822
-373
2915
5598
7906
9954
11805
15494
15044
16470
1 ~...,.t!~*•
.i. I I \J•:O
~c.:-e;-. 4 W--.;:.
20107
21131
22070
22931
~3719
27596
63%
SUMMARY OF ANALYSiS AT TIME OF SALE
DISCOUNT
RA7E
• 15
.25
PRESENT
WORTH
377318
192423
109110
YEAR 2C
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
60281
39515
27596
-170-
PAY0\...!7
PERIOD
4
4
5
•
•
•
YEAF:
0
1
2
3
4
Cit ...,
6 ..,.
' s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
)
•
TENNESSEE THRUSTER
PRE-OPERATIONAL COSTS
LAND AND WATER RIGHTS IN YEAR 0 s 0
FEASIBILITY STUDY IN YEAR 0 S 0
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT IN YEAR 0 s 34250
CONSTRUCTION IN YEAR s 12'5400
ANNUAL COSTS AND REVENUES
COS7S
0
0
·10~3
-11 s 1
-1299
-1416
-1'542
-1682
-183.2
-1998
-2178
.. 2:=74
_.,~QO
-·-'-'W
·2821
-3074
-3351
-36'53
-3981
-4340
-4730
-51'56
FPOPEPTY
TAXES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
·171-.
ENERG"l' SA\E::J
0
0
38254
42844
47986
'53744
60193
6741E
75506
84567
947l5
106081
118810
133068
149036
166920
1869'51
20938'5
234511
262652
294170
PE'-/E: JUES FR·JM
ENERGY SOLD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
" ..
LOA~ SCHEDULE FOR
DESICN AND DEVELOPMENT
AT 9.5~
YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL
0 34!6 0 3426
1 3499 2929 570
2 34~9 2875 624
3 3499 2816 683
4 3499 2751 748
c 3499 2680 819 "' 6 3499 2602 897 .. 3499 2517 982 I
8 349~ 24!4 107"5
9 3499 2321 1178
l () "':1 ,;QQ -·""""""'""' ~2!C 1289
1 ~ 2499 2087 1412
l"' 3499 1953 1546
1 ::· 3499 i80E 1693
14 3499 1645 1854
•c lw 3499 1469 2030
16 2499 1276 2223
17 3499 106.5 2434
18 2499 834 2665
19 3499 581 2918
20 3499 304 3195
-172-
BALANCE
30834
30264
29E.40
28957
28209
27390
2649:= .
25'511
2443E
23259
2!969
20S5f
190ll
17318
15465
13435
)1212
8779
6114
3195
0
I
•
/
I
I
• LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
CONSTRUCT! ON
...
YEAR ?AYMEN'!"S INTEREST • ?RINCI?AL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 0
1 12540 0 12540 112860
2 12807 10722 2085 110775
3 12807 10524 2283 108491
4 12807 10307 250C 105991
c: 12807 10069 2738 103253 ·.I
6 12807 980-= 299·S 100255 .,. 128a7 I
QC'~1 .... ...,._..., 328:3 96973
8 12807 9":11":1 -· ... 3595 92372
s 12807 8871 3S36 8~4..:!2 . ·" l2.SJ;"' 84'::!7 431C oc: ~ ·~"':' ... •.· """'"""·~ ....
1 1 12807 8088 4719 80412
12 12807 7639 5168 75245
13 12807 7148 5659 69586
14 12807 6611 6196 63390
15 1280;:' 6022 6785 56605
16 12807 C:':>..,...,. ...J-....J t I 7430 49175
17 12807 4672 8135 41040
13 12807 3899 8908 32132
19 12807 3052 5754 22377
20 12.S07 2126 lOE.s: ~ 1696
•
~173~
"i ••
.. .
II
FRCJECT CASH FLOW
YEAR CASH FLOW •
-----------------------------------~---------------------~------------------
0 -342E·
-16039
2 208~5
3 25347
4 30381
5 36022
6 42344 .,. 49~29 I
8 57367
9 66263
lC 7E231 .. 87-'C'l J. •
!2 9~917
~ =· : : :?9 4 1
14 L29E.5E
15 147263
!6 166992
17 189097
19 2138E·5
19 241616
20 272708
•
-174-
•
•
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O. I. ANAL~2:S
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 15%
AND A SALES VALUE CF Sl81BOSS
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 .,. ,
8
9
10
1 ' ..
~ "':'• ·-13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
INTERNAL RATE
PRESENT
WORTH
-3426
-17373
-1604
15062
32433
30342
68S49
87231
105984
124820
143662
162~':0
18112.':
19964:3
217967
236065
253911
271483
28.~764
305741
433488
OF RETURN
-liS-
"'
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
-3426
-19979
-986
6597
11360
15018
19140
20967
23619
25159
28E.2S
3!039
33A.l4
357!38
38076
40371
42644
44894
47122
49327
69255
1101,
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O. ;, ANALYSIS
AT A C!SCOUNT RATE OF 20%
AND A SALES VALUE OF $1363541
YEAR
0
1
"':' ....
3
4
5
6 ..,.
I
8 e
: 0
1 1
12
13
14
1'5
16
17
18
19
20
INTERt~AL RATE
PRESENT
WORTH
-3426
-16792
-2309
12359
27010
41487
55668
69463
82804
95646
!C795~,
119721
l-',0"':'0 ;,v..,-o
141577
151675
161234
170266
178789
185822
19438'5
Z8t065
OF RETURN
-176-
..
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
-3426
-20150
-1512
5857
10.434
13872
16740
19271
21580
~·~'7,.,0 .. _. _ ......
..,t:""':!"'IC"!"'.
--" •..tf\,(
27668
:2s~e2.
31235
32897
34485
36000
37446
38823
40133
48683
11 0 "·
•
•
1
•
•
'
•
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O.I. ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 25~
AND A SALES VALUE OF 51090833
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4 ,
6
7
s
9
10
• 1 ...
12
13
14
15
1€-
17
18
19
20
INTERNAL RATE
PRESENT
WORTH
-3426
-162~7
..;2910
10068
22~12
34315
45416
5~782
65406
74300
82485
89993
96859
103!23
108825
114007
118707
122965
126818
130300
146020
OF RETURN ..
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WOPTH
-3426
-20321
-2021
~1~8
9~32
12760
15388
17646
19648
21455
23102
24612
26002
27221
2S4Se.
29541
30536
31449
32286
33051
36931
11 0'1.
SUMMARY OF ANALlS~S AT TIME OF SALE
DISCOUNT
PATE
• 15
.2
.25
PPESE:'-JT
:..JOPTH
433488
237065
146020
YEAR 20
EQUIVAl..ENT
ANNUAL WORTH
6925~
48'683
36931
PAYOUT
PERIOD
3
3
3
. '
11 0'4
11 0'4
1101.
~
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
c::
"" 6
"'!'
' 2
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
1~
16
17
18
19
20
CALIFORNIA CONVENTIONAL
PPE·OPERATIONAL COSTS
LAND AND WATER RIGHTS IN YEAR 0 $ 0
FEASIBILITY STUDY IN YEAR s 23000
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT IN YEAR 2 s 294389
CONSTRUCTION IN YEAR 3 $ 164298£.
COSTS
0
0
0
0
·11914
-1 :2ee~
·141'55
-15429
-16817
-18331
-199Sl
-21779
-23739
-25875
·28204
-30743
-33509
-365:::5
·39812
-43396
-47301
ANNlAL COSTS ANr REVENUES
PROPERTY
TAXES
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COST OF
ENERCY SAVED
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
REVENUES FROM
ENERGY SOLD
0
0
0
0
170912
191.428
214:::·99
240127
268942
301215
337361
377844
423186
473968
530844
594'546
665891
745798
835294
935529
1047792
-----------------------------------------------------------------------·
-178-
,
•
~CAN SCHEDULE FOR
FEASIBILITY STUDY
• AT 8'1
YEAR PAYMENTS. INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 0
1 2300 0 2300 20700
2 2108 1656 452 20248
3 :2108 1620 489 197:39
4 2108 1581 528 19232
5 2108 1539 570 18662
6 2108 1493 615 18046
7 2109 1444 665 17382 (i~
e 2108 1391 71·S 166.64
9 2108 1333 ~~-I f -15889
1(1 2 ~ :j~. ,,.,""'!'J1 S:?7 15051 ,_, .
• 1 2:C3 1204 '304 14!47 .. . ... . .:. 210S 1132 Q.,._
""'I / 1317 •
13 :2108 1054 1055 12116
14 2108 969 1139 10977
15 2108 SiS 1230 9747
16 2108 780 1329 8418
17 2108 673 1435 6983
18 2108 559 1550· 5433
19 2108 4:35 1E74 3760
20 2108 301 1808 1952
. . .. , .
-179-... ... ""
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR r
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
AT ax
YEAR FA'l'MENTS INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
2 29439 0 29439 264950
3 26986 21196 5790 259160
4 26986 20733 6253 2'52.907 s 26986 20233 6753 246154
6 26986 19692 7293 238860 .., 26986 I 19109 7877 230984
8 26986 18479 8507 ~2~477
9 26986 17798 9188 2132E9
~c 2E.98E 17063 9923 20836E
1 1 ZE.9S=· l52ES 1071£ 1;-:e.s::: . -26986 J,.;.. 15412 11574 181076
13 2E.986 l44~S 12500 168577
14 26986 13486 13500 1'55077
15 26986 12406 14'580 140498
16 26986 11240 15746 1247~2
17 26986 9980 17006 1 0774E.
18 26986 8620 18366 89380
19 26986 7150 19835 69'545
20 26986 5'564 21422 48123
•
-130-
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
AT Sl.
YEAR PAYMENTS INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 a
1 0 a 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
3 164299 0 164299 1478688
4 150608 118295 32313 1446375
5 150608 115710 34898 1411478
6 150608 112918 37689 1373788
7 150608 109903 40705 1333084
e 15060·S 106647 43961 1289123
9 150608 1 ~·'3l~':l 4.7478 1241645 . ~ !~O~iJ= 993:?: ~:~76 ! 1sc:se·~ ' .
1 ! 150608 952:;0 ~5378 1134991
12 150608 90799 ~9808 1075182
13 150608 8601'! 64593 1010589
14 150608 80847 69760 940829
15 150608 75266 75341 865488
16 1SOE.Q8 69.239 81369 784119
17 150608 62730 87878 696241
18 150608 55699 94908 601333
19 150608 48107 102501 498832
20 150608 39907 110701 388130
•
-181-
. '
PRCJECT CASH FLOW '
YEAR CASH FLOW
0 0
-2300
.;. -Sl54i
;: -193893
4 -20698
5 -1250
6 20543
":" 44997 '
8 72423
9 103188
10 !37'679
11 1753E.4
< -. ' .:. z:e;.!s
1 :? 2~,.~."?~ 1
. .:: s::.2s:::e
15 38.:! 1, 01
16 452E·80
'-529571 ! I
1£:. 615779
!9 71 ....... ,..,JIIO\ .. .G. .. ~..::
2C 820789
--------------------------------------~----------------------------------------
•
-182-
..
•
PRESENT WORTH AND R.G.t. ANAL)SlS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 15%
AND A SALES VALUE OF $5471930
'(EAR
0
• ..
2
3
4
=:
..1
E ..,.
J
c
s
i c
11
12
~3
14
1::'
1 E.
17
18
19
20
PRESENT
WORTH
0
-2000
-258'54
-!':"3013
-164847
-165473
-!56592
-13967~,
-l 1E~C:
-86670
-52E.3S
-14730
26342
6::963
115604
162808
211 183
260394
310152
360211
744698
INTE?.NAL RATE OF PETUPN
-183-
=
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2300
-15903
-67016
:..57740
-49363
-41377
-:33':7:3
-2.':2.:: 1
-15164
-10488
-2814
4860
12531
20195
27843
35468
43061
50613
s.s 115
118974
3Z'%
;~
PRESENT WORTH AND R.O. J, ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 201
AND A SALES VALUE OF $4102~47
YEAR
0
1 ., ...
3
4
5
6
=· 9
10
11
!2
13
14
15
16
""':" • I
•o ...
19
2C
PRESENT
WORTH
0
-1917
-23824
-13~742
-145723
-l4E.22S
-139250
-' .,&:; -·::)'".' ... --· --
- 1 o·:<:. .. :
-8995'
-E.771 ~
-43979
-19323
I:'~C~ ...,;,· .. .:..
30905
55835
80319
104189
12731 E'o
1496 e
27so·~=
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2300
-15594
-&4440
-56291
-48896
-41902
-35175
·28E"5 . ..:;
-22315
-16152
-10164
,4355
1269
6703
11942
16982
21821
26457
30890
57105
INTERNAL RATE OF FETURN : 321
-184-
•
•
•
PRESE~T WORTH AND P.O.!, ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 251
AND A SALES VALUE OF $3253158
YEAR
PRESENT
WORTH
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCOUNT
RATE
• 15
'"I '"' "'Cf . .:.-...
0 0 0
1 -1840 -2300
2 -22030 -15299
3 -121047 -62012
4 -129525 -54846
5 -129938 -48317
6 -124553 -42201
7 -115116 -36416
8 -102966 -30931
9 -as 117 -25733
10 -74334 -20819 .. -5918..! -1-51 ae . . . '"' ·44083 -1:834 ....
l.3 -~=-=:s -7~::=
14 -15125 ·39S~
15 -1611 -417
16 11 131 2863
17 23056 5897
18 34149 869-4
19 44416 11266
20 91731 2320C
INTERNAL RATE OF PET~RN = 31 ~1
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AT TIME OF SALE
PRESENT
WORTH
74<1.698
276075
91731
YEAR 20
EGlUlVAJ..ENT
ANNUAL WORTH
118974
57105
23200
PAYOUT
PE?IO:J
12
13
16
3:::~
32~.
31'.t
-------------------------------------------------------------------------~~-
-185-
0
1
3
4
=
.,.
8
Q
10
1'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CALIFORNIA THRUSTER
PRE-OPERPTrONAL COSTS
LAND AND WATER RIGHTS IN YEAR 0 $ 0
FEASIPILITY STUD~ IN YEAR $ 23000
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT IN YEAR 2
CONSTRUCT!O~ IN YEAR 3 $ 754837
-~.c:-c
c
0
0
0
-3416
-:=:723
-4;)59
-.!424
-4822
-5256
_c:-~...,c
.....,. --·
-6245
-6,:?,0;-'
-7..!1=
-soe,7
-821~
-9SOS
-10473
-1 1415
-! :2443
-125E3
ANNUAL COSTS AND REVENUES
p;::::'PEF.:TY
TLXES
0
0
0
'J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
/"'.
\..
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
-186-
COST OF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
$ 195333
REVEi-JUES FPOM
E"E?.G I SOL:
0
0
0
0
1759E·9
197086
220736
247224
276891
310118
347=:3:;
389012
435ES4
4S~S7"~
54E.534
612112
68!5:;72
767841
8599E2
9631 e.o
1078762
•
LOA~ SCY~DULE FOR
FEASIBILITY STUDt
AT 8;'.
YEAR PAYMENTS INTEREST PRINCI?AL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 0
1 2300 0 2300 20700
2 2108 l656 452 20248
3 2108 1620 489 19759
4 2108 1 ~.s 1 528 19232
5 2108 1539 570 18662
6 2108 t49:3 615 18046
7 2108 1444 665 17382
Q 21 oe. 1391 718 16E-64 ....
9 2108 1?33 --... 11-..J 15889
l 0 2108 .~~· 0":>":-1':051 J. ..:. .• i "o.J·-'J
! ~ Z!OS 120~ 904. !.:J.l47
!2 2108 l • ":;"' .... __ 9:--7 ~2!71
1.::, '}~t\Q 1 ·: r:..! " ..... ,:-: .. "": J t c: . -· .... J. ·~·~ .... ., ·--J.-"' 4;·-· ... . -"":•. (\ ~ -· .,.._. SE·-= 1139 10977
15 2:C8 o-o
1-il""" 1230 9747
1 E-2108 780 1329 8418
17 210S 673 1435 5983
18 2108 c:-coo _,. ·...J""' 1550 5·n·:
19 2108 435 1 E.7 4 3760
20 2108 3Cl 1808 1952
-187-
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
DE51GN AND DEVELOPMENT
AT 81'
YEAR PAYMEN7S INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0
2 19523 0 19533 175800
3 17906 14054 3842 171958
4 17906 13757 4149 167809
5 1790E. 13425 4481 163325
E. l7906 13066 4839 158489
7 17906 12679 5226 153263
8 17906 12261 5645 147618
9 179;:)6 11809 E096 141522
lC 1790E. ! 13:!2 6584 134932·
! 1 179 OE 1079': 711 1 1~7S2e
~., 17906 l C122: 7E.79 120l42 , ·': :;·;:cE 0.::.<~'"': C·"":'~ ·" , ~ 1 0~ •
J.· .. · -~oo..-.-~--""":' .... ~ ~,.,.._.-
14 17906 ~.~~a 8957 102897
,r:; 1790E. e-.~~""=· 9674 93223 "·~ .............. ""'
16 17906 7458 :0448 o,..,...,.~t::"
...._,.;,_/ r ....,}
17 17906 6622 11284 71492
IS 17906 !:719 12186 59306
19 179CE. 4744 13161 46144
20 17906 3692 14214 31930
•
·188-
LOAN SCHEDULE FOR
CONSTRUCTION
AT ex
'tEAR PAYMENTS INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
3 7~484 0 75484 679353
4 69194 '54348 1484!5 664'508
'5 69194 5:3161 16033 648475
6 69194 51878 17316 631159
":' 6~194 50493 18701 612458 ' 8 69194 48997 201.97 592261
9 69!94 47381 21813 570449
1 0 69194 45686 23'552 546.S91
11 69154 43751 25442 e2t44S
12 ~91='4 4!ilS 2747E 49:?971
' . 6:319.! .3~~ ~ .~ -.,:;,c~::. 46429~ -·-... '( ·-
14 69194 37144 :32050 432245
1e 69194 .34'580 3461A. 397631
16 69194 3!810 87383 360248
17 69194 28920 40374 319874
15 69194 2'5'590 43604 276270
19 69l94 22102 47092 229178
20 691S4 18334 50859 178319
•
. .,, ..
..
PROJECT CASH FLOW
YEAR CASH FLOW
0 0
1 -2300
2 -21642
3 -95498
4 83346
5 104155
6 127470 ..,. 15359:?. I
0 182862 ....
9 215E55
lC 252356
2935E.·:J
~2 329::~·s
.. --;:. 2"?:350
1 •1 4.:19240
'"' 514095 .. --·
16 58E757
17 J.l 668161
18 759·::59
19 851530
20 975991
-190-
-, ...
PRESENT WORTH AND P.O. I. ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF te%
AND A SALES VALUE OF $6506609
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
s
6 ..,.
J
8
s
1 0
' ' 12
•':"! . ·-'
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
r f,;TEP.NAL RATE
'-.~ .·.
PRESENT
WORTH
0
-2000
-18364
-s 1155
-33502
18281
73390
131131
1909CS
252211
31~6CO
,?7~6·:.;
44112·7
504792
'568283
631462
694166
756255
817615
878151
1335340
OF RETUR~J
-19'1-
=
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2300
-11296
-35544
-11735
5454
19392
31519
42544
'52857
62685
-""""" _,.. ... .:...~.o:
81391
90414
99272
107991
116584
125060
133424
141678
213336
·90%
. .
PRESn~T WOR7H A~J!:). F·, 0, I.. ANAl,.. ~-sIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 20%
ANJ A SALES VALUE OF ~4879957
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
~ "" e.
7
~.
s
1 c
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
PRESENT
WORTH
0
-1917
-16946
-72210
-3.2017
9841
~2030
95395
13792:?
l""c-•o I .,11 .........
Z204E2
25999!
2<=lB08.S
334666
369655
403023
434759
464876
493398
520365
673111
:NTERNAL RATE OF RE7URN
-192-
=
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
-2300
-11092
-34280
-12368
3291
15796
26465
3594.!
44584
~259C
60085
67!49
73834
80176
86199
9192-e.
97364
102531
107436
138228
~ 0 ':4
..
PRESENT WORTH AND R,Q,I, ANALYSIS
AT A DISCOUNT RATE OF 25%
AND A SALES VALUE OF $3903965
YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
c
"" 6 ..,.
I
8
9
lO
~ ~
12
.~
14
15
!6
17
18
19
20
:NTERNAL !'.ATE
PRESENT
WORTH
0
·1840
-15691
·645S5
-30447
3682
37098
69309
999SS
128932
15E.033
181250
:20459:
::26107
245865
263953
280469
:295514
309194
321610
377872
OF RETURN =
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
0
·2300
-10896
·330S7
·12893
1369
12569
21925
30036
37230
43701
-'9571 = -~.: ":'!·"': ·-., ~ --
5'3815
64294
68395
7:214S
75581
78716
81578
9~570
so~
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS AT TIME OF SALE
DISCOUNT
RATE
• 15
.2
.25
PRESENT
WORTH
1335340
673111
37787:2
EQUIVALENT
ANNUAL WORTH
213336
13S228
95570
PAYOUT
PERIOD
5
5
5
I.R.R,
SOl
SOl
80'%.
----·--------------------------------------------------·---·-------·--
-193-
41U.S. GOVERNMeNT PRINTING OFFICE 1981·740·14S-'27&4
. ~
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technlcallnfonnatlon Service
8Ditnafleld, v •. 22111
D NTIS·65 (9·79)
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID ~ J U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
COM-211
U.S. MAIL
®
1
VALUE OF SHIPMENT
DDCUIElto:iolloP:-li)Otl'rllloCTNO.
PURCHASE ORDER NO.
8656791
CARD SERIAL NO.
DEPOSIT ACCT. NO.
ORDERED A8
THIS IS NOT A BILL. IT IS YOUR RECORD OF SHIPMENT. INVOICE WILL FOLLOW FOR SHIP A.<D BILL.
FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT ON THIS ORDER. PLEASE RETURN THIS CARD WITH YOUR CORRESPONDENCE.
, ·-
NO. OF COPIES
~ -r _.