Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Khalil ur Rahman

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 6. Daily discharge fluctuation during 2014 in Swat River, USC, and Machai branch. The calculated average monthly production of electricity of River Swat, main canal, and Machai branch of USC is shown in Fig. 7. In the summer season, hydropower production reached up to 10.64 MW, 1.39 MW, and 0.81 MW in River Swat, USC main, and Machai branch, respectively. The potential of USC main sites ranged from 291 kW to 561 kW with annual production of

Figure 6 Daily discharge fluctuation during 2014 in Swat River, USC, and Machai branch. The calculated average monthly production of electricity of River Swat, main canal, and Machai branch of USC is shown in Fig. 7. In the summer season, hydropower production reached up to 10.64 MW, 1.39 MW, and 0.81 MW in River Swat, USC main, and Machai branch, respectively. The potential of USC main sites ranged from 291 kW to 561 kW with annual production of

Related Figures (21)

Fig. 2. River wise hydropower potential of Pakistan. Fig. 1. Study area showing Swat river canal system.
Fig. 2. River wise hydropower potential of Pakistan. Fig. 1. Study area showing Swat river canal system.
Capacities of the existing hydropower stations of Pakistan. Table 1 commercial sectors. On the other hand, the Indus basin has the lar- gest integrated network of canals worldwide. These irrigation canals also have attractive sites for small hydropower generation. Six out of 303 sites on these canals are located in KP, 14 in Sindh and the remaining 283 in Punjab. The hydropower potential for these canals is 684 MW. The USC, which serves as the largest canal of the KP, has not yet been explored for small hydropower poten- tial. Therefore, SSH is one of the good power production candidates to cope with the energy crises.
Capacities of the existing hydropower stations of Pakistan. Table 1 commercial sectors. On the other hand, the Indus basin has the lar- gest integrated network of canals worldwide. These irrigation canals also have attractive sites for small hydropower generation. Six out of 303 sites on these canals are located in KP, 14 in Sindh and the remaining 283 in Punjab. The hydropower potential for these canals is 684 MW. The USC, which serves as the largest canal of the KP, has not yet been explored for small hydropower poten- tial. Therefore, SSH is one of the good power production candidates to cope with the energy crises.
Province based hydropower resources. Table 4
Province based hydropower resources. Table 4
Summary of hydropower resources of Pakistan.
Summary of hydropower resources of Pakistan.
Hydropower resources of KP delivered by WAPDA and SHYDO.
Hydropower resources of KP delivered by WAPDA and SHYDO.
Fig. 3. Comparison of peak demand vs installed capacity.
Fig. 3. Comparison of peak demand vs installed capacity.
Micro-hydropower plants installed by WAPDA. 2.5. Data collection Table 5
Micro-hydropower plants installed by WAPDA. 2.5. Data collection Table 5
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of SSH system approach.
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of SSH system approach.
Fig. 4. Energy consumption trend among different sectors of Pakistan. The equation used for the estimation of annual cost of the pro- ect is given as follows:
Fig. 4. Energy consumption trend among different sectors of Pakistan. The equation used for the estimation of annual cost of the pro- ect is given as follows:
Fig. 8. Monitoring sites on the USC main canal. Besides the collected data, ten sites on the main canal and ten sites on Machai branch were investigated to quantify the actual power that could be produced from each site; these sites are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. Figs. 10 and 11 show the cal- culated annual production of USC main canal and Machai branch, respectively. The production in both figures follows the same pat- tern because the sites receive almost the same potential head and flow rate at all times due to control structures located on the canal. However, due to high flow in the summer season, the production is high; this production ceases to zero in January and February due to de-siltation process. Production of site 9 on the main canal is high because of the drop structure which divides the main canal into Power produced from all the studied sites on both canals is summarized and compared with the data collected at the gauge stations (irrigation department). Fig. 12 shows that the total power produced from the studied sites is more than the respective gauge sites. This means that more power can be produced if all the canals are investigated for potential sites. In the peak season the produc- tion of studied sites on the main canal and Machai branch is three and five times that of gauge station, respectively. There is more than 1 MW difference between the studied sites of both canals in the summer season; this difference reduces to zero in the winter season. The production at both gauge sites follows almost the same
Fig. 8. Monitoring sites on the USC main canal. Besides the collected data, ten sites on the main canal and ten sites on Machai branch were investigated to quantify the actual power that could be produced from each site; these sites are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. Figs. 10 and 11 show the cal- culated annual production of USC main canal and Machai branch, respectively. The production in both figures follows the same pat- tern because the sites receive almost the same potential head and flow rate at all times due to control structures located on the canal. However, due to high flow in the summer season, the production is high; this production ceases to zero in January and February due to de-siltation process. Production of site 9 on the main canal is high because of the drop structure which divides the main canal into Power produced from all the studied sites on both canals is summarized and compared with the data collected at the gauge stations (irrigation department). Fig. 12 shows that the total power produced from the studied sites is more than the respective gauge sites. This means that more power can be produced if all the canals are investigated for potential sites. In the peak season the produc- tion of studied sites on the main canal and Machai branch is three and five times that of gauge station, respectively. There is more than 1 MW difference between the studied sites of both canals in the summer season; this difference reduces to zero in the winter season. The production at both gauge sites follows almost the same
Fig. 7. Average monthly electricity production of Swat River, main canal, and Machai branch.
Fig. 7. Average monthly electricity production of Swat River, main canal, and Machai branch.
Fig. 10. Monthly electricity production of USC main canal sites. Fig. 9. Monitoring sites on the Machai branch.
Fig. 10. Monthly electricity production of USC main canal sites. Fig. 9. Monitoring sites on the Machai branch.
Fig. 12. Cumulative monthly hydropower production of studied sites versus gauge production. trend because of controlled discharge in the canal. The production of 3 out of 10 sites on the main canal and 2 out of 10 sites on Machai branch are equivalent to the production of the gauge sites on the main canal and Machai branch, respectively. In other words, the studied sites produce two to three times more energy than the gauge sites. 3.1.2. Overlap distribution In this scenario, each site supplies the residential areas in its neighboring districts based on the production capacity. Due to uneven distances between sites and variations in the population E > : ensity, supplied areas by individual production sites overlap. Fig. 13 shows the power distribution under this scenario. It is apparent that the overlap occurs between areas served by sites 4 hrough 10. This overlap exists because of the low population den- ity in the downstream sites. This indicates that these sites have he potential to produce more power than the demand. This situa- tion is quite different in the upstream sites where the population 1 density is high. In these cases, no overlap occurred between sites through 3 due to the high density of residential area.
Fig. 12. Cumulative monthly hydropower production of studied sites versus gauge production. trend because of controlled discharge in the canal. The production of 3 out of 10 sites on the main canal and 2 out of 10 sites on Machai branch are equivalent to the production of the gauge sites on the main canal and Machai branch, respectively. In other words, the studied sites produce two to three times more energy than the gauge sites. 3.1.2. Overlap distribution In this scenario, each site supplies the residential areas in its neighboring districts based on the production capacity. Due to uneven distances between sites and variations in the population E > : ensity, supplied areas by individual production sites overlap. Fig. 13 shows the power distribution under this scenario. It is apparent that the overlap occurs between areas served by sites 4 hrough 10. This overlap exists because of the low population den- ity in the downstream sites. This indicates that these sites have he potential to produce more power than the demand. This situa- tion is quite different in the upstream sites where the population 1 density is high. In these cases, no overlap occurred between sites through 3 due to the high density of residential area.
Hydraulic characteristics and hydropower production of the studied sites at the upper Swat canal and Machai branch with operating hours of 6336 for the month of July 2014 Table 6
Hydraulic characteristics and hydropower production of the studied sites at the upper Swat canal and Machai branch with operating hours of 6336 for the month of July 2014 Table 6
Fig. 13. Areal overlap hydropower distribution at the residential areas surrounding USC main canal
Fig. 13. Areal overlap hydropower distribution at the residential areas surrounding USC main canal
Cost analysis of site 7 on the main canal at USC. Table 7
Cost analysis of site 7 on the main canal at USC. Table 7
Fig. 14. Areal non-overlap hydropower distribution at the residential areas surrounding USC main canal.
Fig. 14. Areal non-overlap hydropower distribution at the residential areas surrounding USC main canal.
Fig. 15. Planned production capacity of different energy resources for 2030.
Fig. 15. Planned production capacity of different energy resources for 2030.
Related topics:
EngineeringEconomics
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved