Project Selection: A MCDM approach

Site Selection for Hydro Power Plant using

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Outline:

NHPC Limited (Formerly known as National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.), A

Govt. of India Enterprise was established with the objective to plan, promote and organize an
integrated and efficient development of hydroelectric power in all aspects. Since its inception in
1975, NHPC has grown to become one of the largest organizations in the field of hydropower
development in the country. With its present capabilities, NHPC can undertake all activities from
concept to commissioning of Hydroelectric Projects. The Case describes an AHP based approach
to evaluate the sites among those identified to potentially set up hydroelectric power plants
beyond the XI Plan.
Introduction

NHPC Limited (Formerly known as National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.), A

Govt. of India Enterprise, was incorporated in the year 1975 with an authorized capital of Rs.
2000 million and with an objective to plan, promote and organize an integrated and efficient
development of hydroelectric power in all aspects. Later on NHPC expanded its objects to
include development of power in all its aspects through conventional and non-conventional
sources in India and abroad.

At present, NHPC is a Mini Ratna Category-I Enterprise of the Govt. of India with an authorized
share capital of Rs. 1,50,000 Million. With an investment base of over Rs.3,17,000 Million
Approx. , NHPC is among the TOP TEN companies in the country in terms of investment.

Initially, on incorporation, NHPC took over the execution of Salal Stage-I, Bairasiul and Loktak
Hydro-electric Projects from Central Hydroelectric Project Construction and Control Board.
Since then, it has executed 13 projects with an installed capacity of 5175 MW on ownership
basis including projects taken up in joint venture. NHPC has also executed 5 projects with an
installed capacity of 89.35 MW on turnkey basis. Two of these projects have been commissioned
in neighboring countries i.e. Nepal and Bhutan.

SALES Vs PROFIT

Presently NHPC is engaged in the construction of 11 projects aggregating to a total installed

capacity of 4622 MW. NHPC has added 1970 MW during the 10th Plan period and planned to
add 5322 MW during 11th Plan period. 8 projects of 7731 MW are awaiting clearances/Govt.
approval for their implementation. Detailed Projects report is being prepared for 8 projects
of 6505 MW.

Since its inception in 1975, NHPC has grown to become one of the largest organisation in the
field of hydro power development in the country. With its present capabilities, NHPC can
undertake all activities from concept to commissioning of Hydroelectric Projects.

Hydro Electric Power Summary

Hydroelectricity is electricity generated by hydropower, i.e., the production of power through use of the
gravitational force of falling or flowing water. It is the most widely used form of renewable energy. Once
a hydroelectric complex is constructed, the project produces no direct waste, and has a considerably lower
output level of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) than fossil fuel powered energy plants.
Worldwide, an installed capacity of 777 GWe supplied 2998 TWh of hydroelectricity in 2006.[1] This
was approximately 20% of the world's electricity, and accounted for about 88% of electricity from
renewable sources.[2]

The electricity sector in India is predominantly controlled by Government of India's public sector
undertakings (PSUs). Major PSUs involved in the generation of electricity include National Thermal
Power Corporation (NTPC), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) and Nuclear Power

1
Corporation of India (NPCI). India was one of the pioneering states in establishing hydro-electric power
plants. The installed capacity as of 2008 was approximately 36647.76. The public sector has a
predominant share of 97% in this sector.

However the government must speed up the process of clearing new hydroelectric power
projects and should rope in the private enterprise for the purpose of establishing small hydro
schemes. This will require the government to take suitable policy initiatives. The advantages that
hydroelectric power offer over thermal power plants are immense –

1. Hydropower is a renewable source of energy as it is generating by a combination of the

unending rain cycle and the abrupt topography of the earth.

2. It is non-polluting and hence environment friendly.

3. Though hydroelectric power projects take a long time to be built, they have a very long
life. The first hydro-project completed in 1897 is still in operation.

4. Cost of generation, operation and maintenance is lower than the other sources of energy.

5. Ability to start and stop quickly and instantaneous load acceptance/rejection makes it
suitable to meet peak demand and for enhancing system reliability and stability.

6. Hydroelectric power plants offer higher efficiency (over 90 per cent) as compared to
thermal power (35 per cent) and gas (50 per cent).

7. Cost of generation is free from inflationary effects after the initial installation.

8. Storage based hydro schemes often provide additional benefits of irrigation, flood control,
drinking water supply, navigation, recreation, tourism, etc.

9. Hydropower projects, being located in remote regions, lead to development of interior

backward areas in terms of infrastructure facilities like educational institutions, health
centres, roads, telecommunication, etc.

Though concerns remains over the drawbacks of hydroelectric power plants – dislocation of
population residing in the reservoir area, damage to aquatic life (partly controllable by measures
like building fish ladders for the aquatic species moving upstream and using turbines and power
plants of appropriate design so that fishes pass through it with least damage as they swim
downstream), emission of greenhouse gases due to anaerobic decay of the plant material in the
flooded area and a possibility of dam failure or a terrorist attack on it – the advantages of
hydropower far outweigh the disadvantages.

Hence Indian government must make all efforts to increase the installed hydroelectric power
capacity in the country despite the high initial cost incurred in building them in order to achieve
its targets on power supply.

2
Power station State Operator Units Total capacity
(MW)
Srisailam Andhra Pradesh APGenco 1670
Nagarjunasagar Andhra Pradesh APGenco 1 X 110, 7 X 100.8, 5 X 965
30
SardarSarovar Gujarat SSNNL 6X200, 5X140 1450
Baspa-II Himachal Pradesh JHPL 3 X 100 300
NathpaJhakri Himachal Pradesh SJVNL 6 X 250 1500
Bhakra Himachal Pradesh BBMB 5 X 108, 5 X 157 1325
Dehar Himachal Pradesh BBMB 6 X 165 990
BairaSuil Himachal Pradesh NHPC 3 X 60 180
Chamera-I Himachal Pradesh NHPC 3 X 180 540
Chamera-II Himachal Pradesh NHPC 3 X 100 300
Pong Himachal Pradesh BBMB 6 x 66 396
Uri - I Jammu & NHPC 4 X 120 480
Kashmir
Dulhasti Jammu & NHPC 3 X 130 390
Kashmir
Salal J& K NHPC 6 X 115 690
Sharavathi Karnataka KPCL 1469
Kalinadi Karnataka KPCL 1225
Idukki Kerala KSEB 6 X 130 780
Omkareshwar Madhya Pradesh NHPC 8 X 65 520
IndiraSagar Maharashtra NHPC 8 X 125 1000
Loktak Manipur NHPC 3 X 35 105
Koyna Maharashtra MahaGenco 1960
Rangit Sikkim NHPC 3 X 20 60
Teesta - V Sikkim NHPC 3 X 170 510
Tanakpur Uttarakhand NHPC 3 X 40 120
Dhauliganga-I Uttarakhand NHPC 4 X 70 280

Requirements
According to the Government of India estimates, the power requirement in the country will
increase to 200,000 MW by 2012 and to 400,000 MW by 2020. Hence India needs to exploit all
its available natural resources to the fullest in order to bridge the widening demand-supply gap in
the power sector.

Hydroelectricity thus assumes greater importance than before as India still has a huge untapped
hydroelectric power generation potential. According to the Central Electricity Authority, which
generates important statistics on the power generation and usage in the country, the viable hydro

3
potential in India is 84,000 MW at 60 per cent load factor which is equivalent to 1,48,700 MW
installed capacity.

In addition to this, 6872 MW from 1512 small hydro schemes can also be economically
exploited. Further, the government agencies have identified 56 sites from pumped storage
schemes with an aggregate installed capacity of 94,000 MW.

But despite India being one of the pioneering states in hydroelectric power in Asia, with
Darjeeling power plant established in 1898 and Shimsa (Shivanasamudra) power plant
established in 1902, the total installed capacity of hydroelectric power plants in the country was
only 36647.76 MW in 2008.

Currently, the hydroelectric power plants generate only 21 per cent of the electricity consumed in
the country with 76 per cent of the total electricity being generated by thermal power plants
which are highly polluting and depend on non-renewable fossil fuels.

According to S K Garg, Chairman & Managing Director of NHPC Ltd which is India’s largest
hydroelectric power company and which has been conferred Mini Ratna status by the
government of India, a total of 12 projects with a total installed capacity of 5322 MW will be
established by the company during the Eleventh Plan (2007-2012).

Sites evaluated
1. Bursar,J& K

2. KarmoliLumtiTulli ,Uttarakhand

3. GarbaTawaghat, Uttarakhand

4. ChungarChal, Uttarakhand

5. Lachen,Sikkim

4
Parameters for Assignments of Weights
The following parameters were identified to determine the suitability of the Power Plant at a
particular location

Site Requirements

Each site has been further evaluated based upon the following parameters

1. Geology
2. Water Storage Capability
3. Seasonal Variations in Water Supply
4. Raw Material Availability
5. Water Flow Volume

Community Impacts

1. Relocation expenses
2. Local Resources Affected
3. Employment Potential

Environmental Impacts & Public Health

1. Flora and Fauna Submerged

2. Downstream Ecology
3. Construction Hazards
4. Long Term Effects

Land Use Impacts

1. Land Lost in Submersion

2. Cost and Difficulty
3. Terrain Access & Suitability for Construction

Economic Impacts

1. Cost of Alternatives
2. Total Capital Costs & Land Valuation
3. Transmission & Distribution Charges

5
 The percent weight estimates of each of the five 1st level parameters and eighteen 2nd level
parameters were calculated based on opinions from NHPC guidelines, consultants working in
this industry and using case-studies.

The sites are rated on a discrete scale of (1-9) with 1 as the worst and 9 the best against each
criterion as follows:-

CRITERION A B C D E
Geology 4 6 8 9 8
Water Storage Capability 5 7 4 5 2
Seasonal Variations in Water Supply 6 4 5 7 2
Raw Material Availability 6 3 7 4 1
Water Flow Volume 7 5 4 3 1
Relocation expenses 2 6 9 9 9
Local Resources Affected 4 7 6 3 6
Employment Potential 5 6 3 5 3
Flora & Fauna Submerged 3 4 5 3 7
Downstream ecology 2 6 6 3 5
Construction Hazards 2 7 8 9 9
Long term effects 6 4 9 7 3
Land lost in Submersion 5 5 3 5 7
Cost & Difficulty 7 3 9 9 8
Terrain Access & Suitability for Construction 7 5 4 9 10
Cost of Alternatives 3 6 2 1 4
Total Capital Costs & Land Valuation 3 3 6 9 9
Transmission and Distribution Charges 5 7 5 7 8

Subsequently, the preference of each parameter in comparison to the other is calculated further
across different parameters using the above ratings and the priority matrix at the 3rd hierarchy is
determined.

6
Hierarchy
As mentioned earlier, the goal of this problem is to choose the best location for Hydro power
plant. We evaluated the 5 sites based on the criteria by following a 3 level hierarchy as shown
below

Location for Power

Plant

Environmental
Site Community Land use Economic
Impacts &Public
Requirements Impacts impacts Impacts
health

Relocation Flora & Fauna Land lost in Cost of

Geology
expenses Submerged Submersion Alternatives

Total Capital
Water Storage Local Resources Downstream
Cost & Difficulty Costs & Land
Capability Affected ecology
Valuation

Seasonal Terrain Access Transmission

Employment Construction
Variations in & Suitability for and Distribution
Potential Hazards
Water Supply Construction Charges

Raw Material Long term

Availability effects

Water Flow
Volume

The sites, viz. A, B, C, D, E make the 3rd level of hierarchy.

We used AHP to calculate weights for each criterion. Based on the composite weights, the final
site was chosen.

7
Solution
The problem has 5 main criteria and 18 sub criteria. Hence the total number of comparison
matrices is 24 (18+5+1).
At first, weights are determined for the main criteria as follows.
- Normalize the matrix
- Find out the relative weights
- Check whether the matrix is consistent
o Calculate Eigen value
o Calculate Consistency Index (CI)
o Find out Random consistency Index (RI)
o Calculate Consistency Ratio (CR) as
CR = CI/RI

All the calculations were carried out using MS Excel

Comparison matrix
Environmental
Site Community Land use Economic
Criteria Impacts &
Requirements Impacts impacts Impacts
Public health

Site Requirements 1 3 4 1/2 1/4

Community Impacts 1/3 1 1/3 1/6 1/7

Environmental Impacts
1/4 3 1 1/3 1/8
&Public health

Land use impacts 2 6 3 1 1/2

Economic Impacts 4 7 8 2 1

Normalized matrix
Site Requirements 0.1319 0.1500 0.2449 0.1250 0.1239
Community Impacts 0.0440 0.0500 0.0204 0.0417 0.0708
Environmental Impacts
&Public health 0.0330 0.1500 0.0612 0.0833 0.0619
Land use impacts 0.2637 0.3000 0.1837 0.2500 0.2478
Economic Impacts 0.5275 0.3500 0.4898 0.5000 0.4956

8
 The weights are as follows:

Site Requirements 0.1551

Community Impacts 0.0454
Environmental Impacts &Public health 0.0779
Land use impacts 0.249
Economic Impacts 0.4726

Consistency Ratio = 0.064

 The same approach described above is followed to calculate weights of the 18 other
criteria.

One example of the same is given below

Comparison matrix
Seasonal
Water Water
Variations Raw Material
Criteria Geology Storage Flow
in Water Availability
Capability Volume
Supply
Geology 1.0000 3.0000 3.0000 0.5000 4.0000
Water Storage Capability 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 0.1667 1.0000
Seasonal Variations in Water
0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 0.3333 3.0000
Supply

Raw Material Availability 2.0000 6.0000 3.0000 1.0000 3.0000

Water Flow Volume 0.2500 1.0000 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000

Normalized matrix
Water Seasonal Water
Storage Variations in Raw Material Flow
NORMALIZED Table Geology Capability Water Supply Availability Volume
Geology 0.2553 0.2500 0.3600 0.2143 0.3333
Water Storage Capability 0.0851 0.0833 0.1200 0.0714 0.0833
Seasonal Variations in Water
Supply 0.0851 0.0833 0.1200 0.1429 0.2500
Raw Material Availability 0.5106 0.5000 0.3600 0.4286 0.2500
Water Flow Volume 0.0638 0.0833 0.0400 0.1429 0.0833

9
 The weights are as follows:

Geology 28.26
Water Storage Capability 8.86
Seasonal Variations in Water
13.63
Supply
Raw Material Availability 40.98
Water Flow Volume 8.27

Consistency Ratio = 0.053

 Similarly, the weights of each site, viz. A, B, C, D, E are calculated against each 2nd level
criterion and the matrices are checked for consistency.
 In the end, the composite weights for each site are calculated as follows:

The following tables give the composite weights at level 2.

Water Seasonal Raw Water

Site Requirement Storage Variations in Material Flow Weight
Geology Capability Water Supply Availability Volume
Weights 28.26 8.86 13.63 40.98 8.27
A 11.43 21.74 25.00 28.57 35.00 0.231662659
B 17.14 30.43 16.67 14.29 25.00 0.17734751
C 22.86 17.39 20.83 33.33 20.00 0.261542664
D 25.71 21.74 29.17 19.05 15.00 0.222143086
E 22.86 8.70 8.33 4.76 5.00 0.107304081

Community Relocation Local Resources Employment Weight

expenses Affected Potential
Weights 63.3346 10.6156 26.0498
A 5.41 15.38 22.73 0.1098
B 16.22 26.92 27.27 0.2023
C 24.32 23.08 13.64 0.2141
D 27.03 11.54 22.73 0.2426
E 27.03 23.08 13.64 0.2312

10
 Flora &
Environmental Fauna Downstream Construction Long term Weight
Submerged ecology Hazards effects
Weights 34.71 17.45 12.40 35.44
A 13.64 9.09 5.56 20.69 0.1434
B 18.18 27.27 19.44 13.79 0.1837
C 22.73 27.27 22.22 31.03 0.2640
D 13.64 13.64 25.00 24.14 0.1877
E 31.82 22.73 27.78 10.34 0.2212

Terrain Access &

Land lost in
Land use impacts Cost & Difficulty Suitability for Weight
Submersion
Construction

Weights 16.38 53.90 29.73

A 20.00 18.92 20.00 0.1942
B 20.00 8.11 14.29 0.1189
C 12.00 24.32 11.43 0.1847
D 20.00 27.03 25.71 0.2549
E 28.00 21.62 28.57 0.2473

Total Capital Transmission and

Economic Impacts Cost of Costs & Land Distribution Weight
Alternatives Valuation Charges
Weights 10.62 63.33 26.05
A 18.75 18.92 15.63 0.1804
B 37.50 8.11 21.88 0.1481
C 12.50 24.32 15.63 0.2080
D 6.25 27.03 21.88 0.2348
E 25.00 21.62 25.00 0.2286

11
 The final composite weights for A, B, C, D, E are obtained as:

Land Economic
Site Requirement Community Environment use Impacts
15.51 4.54 7.79 24.90 47.26 100.00

A 0.2317 0.1098 0.1434 0.1942 0.1804 18.57105947

B 0.1773 0.2023 0.1837 0.1189 0.1481 15.06245957
C 0.2615 0.2141 0.2640 0.1847 0.2080 21.516254
D 0.2221 0.2426 0.1877 0.2549 0.2348 23.45126371
E 0.1073 0.2312 0.2212 0.2473 0.2286 21.39896325

The final composite weights show that maximum value is 23.45126371. Since this weight occurs for
site D, site D is the winner.

12
 Conclusion

Final Results

Site Name State Percentage

ChungarChal Uttarakhand 23.45126371
GarbaTawaghat Uttarakhand 21.516254
Lachen Sikkim 21.39896325
Bursar Jammu & Kashmir 18.57105947
KarmoliLumtiTulli Uttarakhand 15.06245957

As it is evident from the above scores, based upon the various criteria evaluated in the problem, the best
alternative among the sites is ChungarChal, Uttarkhand.

References

 Site evaluation for ranking study of potential hydro-power projects: An Indian perspective using
spatial technologies- A.K. Charaborti, Water Resources Group, NRSA, Hyderabad, India

 National Hydro power corporation- Beyond 11th year plan http://www.nhpcindia.com/

 Power Plant Engineering – A.K. Raja, AmitSrivastava, Manish Dwivedi

13