Effectiveness and prospects on implementing SWH system in Astana, Kazakhstan
- 1. Effectiveness and prospects of implementing SWH system in Astana, Kazakhstan ABSEMETOV, Askar MUKUSHEV, Medet YERUBAYEV, Alibek ZHUMANALINA, Zarina ROJAS-SOLORZANO, Luis Split-Croatia May 14-17, 2017
- 2. Table of Contents 1.Introduction & Background 2.Methodology 3.Results 4.Conclusions 2
- 4. Introduction ● Astana, capital of Kazakhstan, is a growing city, with population of 1 million. ● Near 80% of electricity is generated from burning coal. ● Large use of electric water heaters and coal- fire space heaters. ● 100 tonnes of daily harmful emissions to atmosphere. ● Price for electricity has increased two-fold in last 6 years. 4 https://monitor-cdn5.icef.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Kazakhstan-map.jpg
- 5. Introduction 5 • Kazakhstan promotes development and use of RE and government expects investments ~2 billion US$ in RE by 2020 (e.g., EXPO- 2017). • Solar energy is abundant. 2200-3000 sunny hours per year. • Local RE industry is boosting (Astana Solar, Kun Tech, etc.) • 1300-1800kWh/m2/year solar insolation. http://solargis.com/assets/graphic/free-map/GHI/Solargis-Kazakhstan-GHI-solar-resource-map-en.png
- 6. Problem & Aim Main problem Excessive usage of electricity for water heating by private houses that results in large bills, as well as negative environmental impact. Aim Assess the viability of using SWH system in Astana households based on Kazakhstani solar collectors 6
- 8. Methodology Economic- technical evaluation of the project Natural resources assessment Technology justification Life Cycle Cost analysis on the proposed case vs. the base case Base case: 100% electric water heaters Proposed case: SWH complementing electric heaters 8
- 9. Economic-technical evaluation Load, Natural Resources and Technical specifications Determination of cost-effectiveness and benefits Assessment of environmental impact 9
- 10. Natural resources assessment Data on solar energy of the region was obtained and assessed from two sources: 1. RETScreen platform’s uploaded data 2. Local ground station offered by a research entity, NURIS Air temperature, oC Relative humidity, % Atmospheric pressure, kPa Annual values 3.4 67.2 97.8 10
- 11. Technology justification Solar collector types available: 1. Unglazed solar collector 2. Glazed flat-plate solar collector 3. Evacuated tube collector Collector selection factors: 1. Local weather conditions 2. Cost 3. Installation process complexity Flat plate solar collector specifications Kun Tech (Kazakhstan, 2016) Gross area, m2 2.03 Aperture area, m2 1.78 Fr (tau alpha) coefficient 0.81 Fr UL coefficient, (W/m2)/oC 3.59 Storage capacity, L 100 Pump power, W 50 11
- 12. Proposed SWH system The proposed case reduces annual electricity consumption by 56.3% compared to the base case. Total component cost, KZT 1 257 500 Installation cost, KZT 200 000 System total cost, KZT 1 457 500 12
- 13. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) 1. Cost analysis 2. Financial feasibility analysis 3. Risk and sensitivity analysis Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Debt ratio, % 90 50 (HCSBK) Debt, KZT 1 311 750 728 750 Debt interest rate, % 15 5 Debt term, years 5 5 Debt payment, KZT per year 391 315 168 323 13
- 14. 3. Results 14
- 15. Financial & emission reduction results Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Net Present Value, KZT 1 656 487 1 877 325 Annual life cycle savings, KZT/year 205 642 233 058 Benefit-Cost ratio 12.37 3.58 GHG emission reduction, tCO2 3.3 3.3 15
- 16. SWH system in Astana reduction of GHG emissions by 3.3 tCO2/year per household and annual-life-cycle savings of up to 233058 KZT. 206 1 877 Scenario 1 233 1 656 Scenario 2 Annual life cycle savings, thousand KZTNPV, thousand KZT 3.6 12.4 3.33.3 9.0 10.6 Scenario 2Scenario 1 Equity payback, yearsBenefit-Cost (B-C) ratio GHG emission reduction, tCO2 Cumulative cash flow Scenario 1 Cumulative cash flow Scenario 2 Scenario 1 – 10% Equity, 15% interest rate Scenario 2 – 50% Equity, 5% interest rate Source: team analysis 16
- 17. Financial & Risk and sensitivity analysis results Cash-flow diagram for Scenario 2 Risk and sensitivity analysis for NPV Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Median, KZT 1 681 286 1 905 549 Level of risk, % 10 10 Minimum within level of confidence, KZT 1 340 661 1 557 918 Maximum within level of confidence, KZT 2 039 521 2 262 779 17
- 19. Conclusions The proposed SWH system is a convenient technology for residents of Astana because: 1. The system has solar fraction of 52% producing 4.5 MWh of heating demand per year. 2. The electricity consumption decreases from 13.5 MWh to 5.9 MWh (saving 95515 KZT annually). 3. CO2 emissions are reduced from 5.9 tCO2 to 2.6 tCO2 (equiv. to 0.6 cars and light trucks not used annually). 4. Nevertheless, payback should be improved with grants or other incentives. 19