|
1. Licensing procedure |
|
|
|
Application number in Regulatory Authority of Energy for the issuance of the Power Production license |
Γ – 05752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Technology |
|
|
|
R.E.S. unit: |
wind park |
|
|
Storage unit |
pumped hydro storage (PHS) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Figure 1: Layout of the hybrid power plant in Crete. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
3. Siting |
|
|
|
Wind park installation location: |
Hill “Oxi Kefali” & Cape “Lithino”, Prefecture of Heraklion |
|
|
PHS installation location: |
Cape “Lithino” Prefecture of Heraklion |
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Figure 2: 3D representation of the wind park’s”Oxi Kefali” siting on a wind potential map background. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Figure 3: 3d representation of the wind park’s”Lithino” siting on a wind potential map background. |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Figure 4: Siting of the pumped hydro storage system in the cape “Lithino”. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
4. Dimensioning |
|
|
|
Nominal guaranteed power (MW) |
36.00 |
|
|
Wind park’s nominal power (MW) |
42.00 |
|
|
Hydro turbines nominal power (MW) |
51.78 |
|
|
Pumps nominal mechanical power (MW) |
36.24 |
|
|
Pumps nominal electrical power (MW) |
39.00 |
|
|
Hydro turbines nominal flow (m3/s) |
19.42 |
|
|
Pumps nominal flow (m3/s) |
13.75 |
|
|
Penstock structure |
double penstock |
|
|
Minimum falling head (m) |
183.97 |
|
|
Maximum pumping head (m) |
223.21 |
|
|
Falling penstock inner diameter (m) |
2 x 3.0 |
|
|
Pumping penstock inner diameter (m) |
2 x 3.0 |
|
|
Upper reservoir total volume (m3) |
1,204,110 |
|
|
Upper reservoir effective capacity (m3) |
1,148,871 |
|
|
Minimum water volume stored in upper reservoir (m3) |
55,239 |
|
|
Total penstock length (m) |
1,175 |
|
|
Lower reservoir |
sea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Figure 5: Penstock route representation on a 3D digitized land terrain. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Figure 6: Vertical cross section of the penstock route. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
5. Energy – environmental results |
|
|
|
Annual cover percentage of the electricity consumption in the autonomous insular system from the hybrid power plant: |
2.21% |
|
|
CO2 emission annual reduction (tn): |
54,670 (3.17%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Figure 7: Power production synthesis during the annual peak power demand period (August) before the introduction of the hybrid power plant. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Figure 8: Power production synthesis during the annual peak power demand period (August) after the introduction of the hybrid power plant. |
||
