|CATEGORIZATION OF PREVIOUS PROPOSALS|
Click to Go Back to Main
On reviewing the existing reports on projects, in depth, it was found that the proposed projects can be classified in two categories
|CATEGORY-1: Those sites for which studies upto pre feasibility or feasibility stage has been done but could not be implemented for various reasons especially due to very high estimated cost of implementation.||CATEGORY-2: Those sites for which only preliminary parameters have been fixed and no funding for carrying out additional investigations is available.|
|The main reasons for dropping the proposals in the above two categories by SECSD along with the revised strategy adopted is given below.|
REASONS FOR HIGH ESTIMATED COST
REASONS FOR UNSUITABILITY
Some of the key factors contributing to such high level of
estimated implementation costs directly or indirectly in the category one
schemes are :
||The factors contributing to the unsuitability of expenditure on further studies for schemes in second category where only preliminary data is available are:|
Increase in quantum of civil works due to inappropriate planning
principles and certain features incorporated in the designs such
as long waterways for getting additional marginal increase in
||(1) Such schemes are not close to the existing rural demand centers.|
|(2) High unit costs in civil works estimate, even for indigenously available construction materials and equipment.||(2)
The sites occur either mainly in the upper reaches of streams where
the drainage area is insignificant, the discharge low and erratic,
with the result that power generation may not be reliable and has a large
variance from year to year |
|(3) High Electro mechanical equipment costs due to inappropriate budgetary cost and improper specifications.||(3)
These sites are situated in reaches where access is difficult. Because of
these factors, these sites call for substantial expenditure on access
roads and transmission.
(4) Alternative layouts for the schemes formulated and studied before selecting the final alternative on techno-economic grounds needed a closer look and review.
In these cases, the alternative approach adapted was to undertake a study
of other streams and rivers in the vicinity of the demand center to
identify promising sites in terms of access, hydrology and other
factors but not necessarily planned for development on the basis of
a naturally occurring head.|
(5) Planning development of a river in its lower reaches with very large catchment (where the river is wide, shallow with considerable flood magnitude) for a power station with very small installed capacity as the load demand is very small.
A series of such viable potential sites
have been identified to meet the demand at an early date. They have
been studied on toposheets exhaustively and reconnoitered well.
Planning of power stations on a stream on isolated basis
without doing planning of the entire stream or river basin.
Simultaneously, a total river basin planning for hydropower using
a cascade approach is formulated such that additional standardized
projects in the cascade on the same river can be implemented in stages
as the load demand grows.
Inadequate reconnaissance and investigation of alternative
sites in the vicinity of a demand center.
Non availability of adequate observed river flow records with
the result that potentially good streams have not been selected
for development. In such cases synthetic hydrology has to be
developed using elaborate models.
Vast distances between towns in a region with the result that
expenditure on transmission lines becomes abnormal if a single
power station is selected to supply all towns. In such a situation
development of local grids has to be done using mini hydro on
SECSD Private Limited