Pre-Feasibility Study of A Holiday Resort Complex in Barranquilla Colombia

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT
2014-2015 EDITION
Project Group 1
FINAL REPORT
Project Acronym and

Group Number
Group 1
Project title
Pre-feasibility study for the energy supply of a Holiday Resort

Complex in Barranquilla, Colombia.
Name of Students
Davalillo, Leonardo
Okionomus Ali, Propana
Restrepo, Juan Pablo
Rodrguez, Jess
ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1
1/11

2014-2015 EDITION
Project Group 1
FINAL REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, POSITION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

Hydro-electrical and thermal power are the main energy sources using in Colombia. Most of the building complexes
are connected to the national grid and use it to operate and provide their services to the public. Nevertheless, there
are other technologies currently being used in other countries to accomplish similar purposes. Therefore, it is
necessary to perform a pre-feasibility study to evaluate the possibility of introducing these technologies into
Colombian markets.
For the purposes of this analysis, it was decided to perform a case study using Hotel Puerta del Sol, located in
Barranquilla, Colombia, as a model. One of the reasons why this complex was chose was due to the availability of
information regarding its energy consumption.
Barranquilla is a city located in the north of Colombia, near to the coast of the Caribbean Sea. It has a tropical humid
weather, with an average temperature of 27.4 C and a total extension of 154 Km 2. It also has a population of
2,370,753 inhabitants (according to the Alcaldia de Barranquilla, 2014).
This report is expected to accomplish the following objectives:
To determine which is the current situation related to the energy consumption and sources of a holiday resort
complex located in Barranquilla, Colombia.
To propose some alternatives for supplying the energy (electricity and thermal) for a similar holiday resort.
To evaluate and compare all the proposed alternatives, considering technical and economic advantages and
constraints (using RETScreen).
1.1. HOTEL PUERTA DEL SOL PROFILE OVERVIEW

This holiday complex has the capacity to host 220 people within its 107 available rooms. It also counts with several
meeting rooms, where it is possible to gather around 800 people. For this hotel, its two main energetic services are:
air conditioning from the electricity of the grid and steam generation from natural gas combustion in the boilers, for
laundry, kitchen and providing hot water for the rooms. A diagram of the energy consumption is shown in Figure 1.
Refering to the air conditioning system, the hotel counts with two chillers of 281.35 kW (80 TR) each one, with 4
reciprocating compressor of 29.83 kW (40 HP) installed on the roof of the building (Tovar Ospino, 2005).
As it is could be seen in Figure 1, boilers consume 90% of the gas, kitchen accounts for 5% and laundry appliances
the remaining 5%. The two 352.38 kW (40-BHP) boilers operate at a pressure of 689.475 kPa (100 Psi) and are in
charge of the production of steam.
The historical gas consumption from 2000 to 2003 is shown in the Table 1-1. It is possible to see an increase in the
amount consumed from 2000 to 2002 and a decrease during the last period registered. The historical electrical energy
consumption from 2000 to 2003 is shown in the Table 1-2. It is possible to see a constant increase in the amount of
energy that is used per year.
Figure 1. Diagram of Energy Consumption of Hotel Puerta del Sol (Tovar Ospino, 2005).
2/11
Project Group 1

2014-2015 EDITION
Table 1-1. Annual gas consumption of Hotel

Puerta del Sol (Tovar Ospino, 2005).
FINAL REPORT
Table 1-2. Annual Electric Energy

Consumption of Hotel Puerta del Sol
(Tovar Ospino, 2005).
Energy
Year
consumption per
year (Mwh)
2000
2,264
Year
Energy
consumption
per year (m3)
Energy
consumption
(Mwh)
2000
154,992
1,684.61
2001
164,117
1,783.79
2001
2,365
2002
174,821
1,900.13
2002
2,409
2003
165,985
1,804.09
2003
2,457
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
For developing this pre-feasibility study, some activities were organized in order to determine which the actual
situation is regarding the energy consumption of Hotel Puerta del Sol and determining how new technologies could be
implemented in a later analysis. The order of activities is presented in the following lines:
Activity A: Selecting the resort complex.

Activity B: Determining the geographical conditions.
Activity C: Determining the energy consumption and the major energy consuming areas.
Activity D: Determining the expected energy consumption for 2015.
Activity E: Selecting the proposed alternatives for replacing partially or totally the actual system.
Activity F: Bibliographical research of the technical and economic aspects related to each alternative.
Activity G: Performing the pre-feasibility study using the RETScreen software.
Activity H: Discussion and conclusion statements.
The alternatives that were covered are the following ones
Option 1: Using a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Gas Turbine system for covering the expected energy
consumption of both electric and thermal systems. (See Appendix 1)
Option 2: Using a Solar Photovoltaic (PV) panel system for the electric system. (See Appendix 1)
Option 3: Using a Solar Water Heating (SWH) system for covering the demand of the hot water for the rooms.
(See Appendix 1)
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED COMBINED HEAT AND POWER GAS TURBINE.
In order to perform the base case, it was supposed that the electric and thermal load were constant during the whole
year, based on the fact the external conditions in the city do not change significantly during the whole year. Then, it
was considered that for the base case the net power load to cover is 370 kW and the net thermal load to cover is 205
kW. Then RETScreen estimated that the total quantity necessary for each source of energy are 3267 MWh/year and
1796 MWh/year respectively (229932 m 3/year of Natural Gas). The prices taken for the base case and propose case
were 0.13 /kWh for electricity and 0.12 /m 3. (See Appendix 2)
For the proposed case, it were used a set of two turbines Capstone C200 (200 kW) capable of providing a total
amount 2932 MWh/year in relation with the electric energy, and recovering a total amount of 1535 MWh/year of heat.
Then, the remaining quantities to cover from the grid and the natural gas combustion system are 171 MWh/year and
81 MWh/year.
3/11

2014-2015 EDITION
Project Group 1
FINAL REPORT
For the economical analysis, it was considered a fuel escalation ratio and inflation ratio of 3%, a discount rate of 8%, a
project lifetime of 25 year and a debt ratio of 70% with a term of 15 years. The total initial costs were 727,532 ,
covering engineering, the gas turbine, the heating system and other miscellaneous costs. The annual costs were
estimated to be 412,354 , including operation and maintenance, fuel and debt payment. The annual cost savings
were expected to be 421,883 , based on fuel (electricity and gas) savings. (See Appendix 3)
It was obtained that the project has an internal rate of return of 14.5 %, with a payback time of 9.9 years making the
project attractive and profitable. However, it also carries a high risk of 15%, which is mainly affected by the price of the
fuel. This factor makes this option less attractive if there is a reduction in its price.
3.2. PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) PANEL SYSTEM

This system was expected to provide 28% of the electricity requirement for the hotel (105 kW). The total surface to be
used is 622 m 2 and the technology chosen was a system Mono-Si SPR 210 BLK, provided by the manufacturer
Sunpower. The system is formed by 500 units, with an efficiency of 16.9 %, a nominal operating temperature of 45 C
and a temperature coefficient of 40%. The inverter efficiency is 90% and the miscellaneous losses were defined as
15%. Every ten years it is expected to replace the solar PV cells. (See Appendix 2)
For the economical analysis, it was considered the same percentages of the option 1, in terms of fuel escalation ratio,
inflation ratio, discount rate, project lifetime, debt ratio and term of payment. The total initial costs are 1,119,333 ,
covering engineering, the power system and other miscellaneous costs. The annual costs were estimated to be
93,631 , including operation and maintenance and debt payment. The annual cost savings were expected to be
16,691 , based on electricity savings. (See Appendix 3)
It was obtained that the project is unfeasible due to the high cost of investments mainly. Then, in order to make this
project feasible, it was evaluated how this amount should be, considering an internal rate of return of 10%. It was
obtained that the initial cost should be 876 /kW produced (91,980 ). This implies a reduction of 98.22 % of the initial
costs calculated by RETScreen, which could only be accomplished by using a subsidy.
3.3. PERFORMANCE OF THE SOLAR WATER HEATING (SWH)

This system was expected to provide 55% of the thermal energy required for heating water in the hotel (113.9
MWh/year). The system capacity was appointed to be 64.4 kW, where the total surface to be used is 100.15 m2 and
the model chosen was Heliotrop Glazed, provided by the manufacturer Deltatec. The system is formed by 50 units,
with a seasonal efficiency of 75 %, a solar fraction of 55%, with some miscellaneous losses of 7.5%. The tank would
have a storage capacity of 6,900 L, requiring a pump which consumes 2.9 MWh/year. (See Appendix 2)
For the economical analysis, it was considered the same percentages of the option 1, in terms of fuel escalation ratio,
inflation ratio, discount rate, project lifetime, debt ratio and term of payment. The total initial costs are 17,227 ,
covering engineering, the power system and other miscellaneous costs. The annual costs were estimated to be 3,412
, including operation and maintenance, fuel costs and debt payment. The annual cost savings were expected to be
1,896 , based on fuel cost savings. (See Appendix 3)
It was obtained that the project is unfeasible due to the low cost of fuel (Natural Gas). Then, in order to make this
project feasible, it was evaluated how this value should change considering an internal rate of return of 10%. It was
obtained that the fuel price should be 0.310 /m 3. This implies an increase of 138.46 % of the fuel price from the base
case, making the project not liable to be executed.
3.4. ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS

The comparison between the emissions produced in the base case and the proposed cases are presented in Table
3-1. It is possible to observe that for the options 2 and 3, there is a reduction in the emissions, considering their
equivalent in tonnes of CO2. This situation can be appointed to the fact that the solar systems do not add any other
any extra emissions, beside the ones that are related to the production of the remaining electric and thermal energy.
4/11

2014-2015 EDITION
Project Group 1
FINAL REPORT
Table 3-1. Comparison of Emissions for all the options.

Option.
Base case
Proposed case
1.
GHG emission: 1,023.4 tCO2
CHP GHG emission: 4,585.3 tCO2
2.
GHG emission: 19.7 tCO2
PV GHG emission: 1.4 tCO2
3.
GHG emission : 27.2 tCO2
SWH GHG emission: 12.6 tCO2
In the case of option 1, it occurred the opposite, where the emissions in the proposed case were higher than in the
base case. This situation can be appointed to the fact that for the generation of power and thermal energy, the CHP
process requires the combustion of a higher quantity of natural gas, in order to fulfil both purposes (electric and
thermal demand).
4. CONCLUSIONS
By analysing the three options proposed for replacing the actual system used for covering the electric and thermal
energy demand of Hotel Puerta del Sol, several performances were obtained. In the case of option one (using a CHP
Gas turbine system), it seemed to be very feasible technically and economically, having an internal rate of return of
14.5 % and a payback time of 9.9 years. However this option would carry a very high risk due to its dependency of the
fuel cost and also will increase the emissions that are being produced by the actual system.
In the case of option 2 (using PV systems for covering partially the electric energy demand), it seemed to be
unfeasible due to the high investment cost. At the same time, it will require a subsidy of 98.22 % of the initial cost in
order to get an internal rate of return of 10 %. Considering environmental constraints, this option resulted to be in
favour of reduction the global emissions produced by Hotel Puerta del Sol.
For the option 3 (using a SWH system for covering the thermal energy demand), the result obtained showed that the
project is unfeasible due to the low prices of natural gas, requiring an increase of 131.46 % of the actual price. This
option would lead to the reduction of the global emissions produced by Hotel Puerta del Sol, due to the decrease on
the expected consumption of natural gas.
5. REFERENCES
RETScreen (2014). http://www.retscreen.net/ang/d_t_guide.php. Natural Resources of Canada.

Alcaldia de Barranquilla. (2014, 11 25). http://www.barranquilla.gov.co/. Consulted on 2014.
Tovar Ospino, I. R. (2005). Caracterizacin y Diagnstico Energtico del Hotel Puerta Del Sol S.A.
Universidad del Atlantico.
5/11

2014-2015 EDITION
Project Group 1
FINAL REPORT
6. APPENDIXES
6.1. APPENDIX 1. DIAGRAMS OF THE OPTIONS STUDIED.
Figure 2. Diagram of the proposed option 1 (CHP)
Figure 3. Diagram of the proposed option 2 (Solar PV)
6/11
Project Group 1

2014-2015 EDITION
FINAL REPORT
Figure 4. Diagram of the proposed option 3 (SWH).
6.2. APPENDIX 2 BASE CASE AND PROPOSED INFORMATION

Table 6-1. Base case Information
Parameters
Characteristics
Fuel Type
Natural Gas
Total heating (MWh/year)
1,796
Fuel consumption (m^3)
229,932
Fuel price (/m^3)
0.13
Fuel cost ()
29,891
Power Source
Central-Grid
Total Electricity (MWh/year)
3,267
Electricity price (/kWh)
0.12
Electricity cost ()
391,992
Table 6-2 Information for Proposed option 1 (CHP)
Parameters
Characteristics
Technology
Gas Turbine
Manufacturer
Capstone
Model
C200
Total energy capacity output (MWh/year)
2,932
Remaining electricity required (MWh/year)
171
Heat recovered (MWh/year)
1,535
Remaining heat required (MWh/year)
81
7/11
Project Group 1
2014-2015 EDITION
FINAL REPORT
Table 6-3 Information for option 2 (Solar PV)

Parameters
Characteristics
Technology
Solar PV System
Quantity
500 Units
Efficiency (%)
16.9%
Manufacturer
Sunpower
Model
Mono-Si SPR 210

BLK
Total power capacity (kW)
105
Nominal operating temperature (C)
45
Temperature coefficient (%)
40.0
Solar Collector Area (m^2)
622
Miscellaneous losses (%)
15.0
Inverter Efficiency (%)
90.0
Electricity generation (MWh/year)
139.09
Table 6-4 Information for option 3 (SWH)
Parameters
Characteristics
Technology
Solar Water
Heating
Quantity
50 Units
Solar Collector Area (m^2)
100.15
Manufacturer
Deltatec
Model
Heliotrop Glazed
Total power capacity (kW)
64.40
Fr (tau alpha)
0.71
Fr UL Coefficient (W/m^2C)
4.24
Storage Capacity (lt)
6,900
Miscellaneous losses (%)
7.5
Solar Fraction (%)
55
Seasonal Efficiency (%)
75
Pump Electricity (MWh/year)
2.9
Heating delivered (MWh/year)
62.8
8/11
Project Group 1

2014-2015 EDITION
FINAL REPORT
6.3. APPENDIX 3 ECONOMICAL RESULTS

Table 6-5. Economic Summary for propose Option 1 (CHP)
General parameter
Amount
Fuel cost escalation rate (%)
3.0
Inflation Rate (%)
3.0
Discount Rate (%)
8.0
Project life (years)
25.0
Debt Ratio (%)
70.0
Debt ()
509,272
Equity ()
218,260
Debt Interest Rate (%)

Debt Term (years)
8.0
15.0
Debt payments (/year)
59,498
Initial costs
Engineering ()
20,000
Gas Turbine ()
620,000
Heating system ()
10,550
Miscellaneous Costs ()
76,982
Total ()
727,532
Annual costs and Debt Payments

O&M ()
40,000
Fuel Cost ()
312,856
Debt Payment ()
59,498
Total ()
412,354
Annual Savings
Fuel cost base ()
421,883
Table 6-6. Economic Summary for proposed Option 2 (Solar PV)
General parameter
Amount
3.0
Inflation Rate (%)
3.0
Discount Rate (%)
8.0
25.0
Debt Ratio (%)
70.0
Debt ()
783,533
Equity ()
335,800
8.0
Debt Term (years)
15.0
91,548
9/11
Project Group 1

2014-2015 EDITION
FINAL REPORT
Initial costs
Engineering ()
4,750
Power System ()
1,050,000
64,583
Total ()
1,119,333

O&M ()
2,091
Fuel Cost ()
N/A
Debt Payment ()
91,540
Total ()
93,631
Periodic costs ()
10 years
Annual Savings
Electricity cost base ()
16,691
Table 6-7. Economic Summary for proposed Option 3 (SWH)

General parameter
Amount
3.0
Inflation Rate (%)
3.0
Discount Rate (%)
8.0
25.0
Debt Ratio (%)
70.0
Debt ()
12,059
Equity ()
5,168
8.0
Debt Term (years)
15.0
1,409
Initial costs
Engineering ()
1,000
Heating System ()
13,300
2,927
Total ()
17,227

O&M ()
808
Fuel Cost ()
1,196
Debt Payment ()
1,409
Total ()
3,412
Annual Savings
Fuel cost base ()
1,896
10/11
Project Group 1
2014-2015 EDITION
FINAL REPORT
Figure 5. Cumulative Cash flow Option 1 (CHP)
Figure 6. Cumulative Cash flow Option 2 including IRR of 10% (Solar PV)
Figure 7. Cumulative Cash flow Option 2 including IRR of 10% (SWH)
11/11

Pre-Feasibility Study of A Holiday Resort Complex in Barranquilla Colombia

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Pre-Feasibility Study of A Holiday Resort Complex in Barranquilla Colombia

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

Project Acronym and

Pre-feasibility study for the energy supply of a Holiday Resort

ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

1. INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, POSITION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

1.1. HOTEL PUERTA DEL SOL PROFILE OVERVIEW

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

Table 1-1. Annual gas consumption of Hotel

Table 1-2. Annual Electric Energy

Activity A: Selecting the resort complex.

The alternatives that were covered are the following ones

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

3.2. PERFORMANCE OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) PANEL SYSTEM

3.3. PERFORMANCE OF THE SOLAR WATER HEATING (SWH)

3.4. ANALYSIS OF EMISSIONS

ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

Table 3-1. Comparison of Emissions for all the options.

GHG emission: 1,023.4 tCO2

CHP GHG emission: 4,585.3 tCO2

GHG emission: 19.7 tCO2

PV GHG emission: 1.4 tCO2

GHG emission : 27.2 tCO2

SWH GHG emission: 12.6 tCO2

RETScreen (2014). http://www.retscreen.net/ang/d_t_guide.php. Natural Resources of Canada.

ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

Figure 2. Diagram of the proposed option 1 (CHP)

Figure 3. Diagram of the proposed option 2 (Solar PV)

ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

Figure 4. Diagram of the proposed option 3 (SWH).

6.2. APPENDIX 2 BASE CASE AND PROPOSED INFORMATION

Total heating (MWh/year)

Fuel consumption (m^3)

Fuel price (/m^3)

Total Electricity (MWh/year)

Electricity price (/kWh)

Table 6-2 Information for Proposed option 1 (CHP)

ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1

Total energy capacity output (MWh/year)

Remaining electricity required (MWh/year)

Heat recovered (MWh/year)

Remaining heat required (MWh/year)

ISP3 ENGINEERING PROJECT

Table 6-3 Information for option 2 (Solar PV)

Mono-Si SPR 210

Total power capacity (kW)

Nominal operating temperature (C)

Temperature coefficient (%)

Solar Collector Area (m^2)

Miscellaneous losses (%)

Inverter Efficiency (%)

Electricity generation (MWh/year)

Table 6-4 Information for option 3 (SWH)

ISP 2015 Draft report Group 1

Solar Collector Area (m^2)

Total power capacity (kW)

Storage Capacity (lt)

Miscellaneous losses (%)