Phase IV submission
Energy Component
21 December 2020
Outline
• Grid Infrastructure [I]
• Refinement of the analysis of the Umbarda grid
• Additional village Manbha; Near Umbarda, intense horticulture, high density of water sources
• Indices for infrastructure and electricity access
• Appropriate pump selection [J]
• Efficiency measurements, surveys, analysis; Recommendations for improved selection
• Irrigation infrastructure: Water transfer structures [K]
• Borewell to open well
• Community sources to field
•
Latent demand, analysis of Paid Pending (PP) and pre-PP list (Phase V)
• Estimates of water and energy off-season consumption [H]
Identify and evaluate risks in access to quality power - Refinement of analysis from Phase III
Previous Phases:
● Documented infrastructure in Umbarda,Karanja, Washim; Identified issues
● Identified easy to reach consumers requiring extension of 1-2 poles for connection (Rs.13k per pole)
● Restructuring to provide connections to pending / unauthorized consumers (78, 40% increase in connections) at a cost of Rs.22.5k + cost of
moving 11 km of LT lines; DT never overloaded, and proper voltage for all
Some further refinement in Phase IV:
● Field work to validate assumption of including wells from satellite image
● Open wells were categorized into near Gaothan - not used for agriculture purposes, seasonally used, and a few unused or abandoned .
● Removed gaothan (12) and abandoned (8)
● Cost per connection Rs.27.5k 3
Manbha village considered for grid analysis
• Manbha and Umbarda, on Umbarda feeder
• Manbha has much higher percentage of irrigated land, horticulture, and greater number of wells
• Higher incidence of electricity issues
Village Umbarda ManbhaCultivable area (hectares) 1299 1618
Horticulture (hectares) 2 100
Kharif (hectares) 1294 1502
Rabi (hectares) 71 (5%) 153 (9%)
Number of open wells (registered) 190 412
Number of borewells (registered) 24 56
Number of farmers accessing irrigation tank 43 -
Number of authorized connections 189 243
Horticulture: Sweet orange, lemon Rabi: Wheat, gram
Kharif: Cotton, soybean, tur, udid, moong
Manbha village considered for grid analysis
• 18 DTs , 243 authorized connections
• ~160 unauthorised
• LT end does not get sufficient
voltage to run sprinkler or drip after 1-2 hours after supply begins, as the load increases
• Farmers buy multiple locally
manufactured low-cost pumps as pumps burnout frequently
• SouthEast corner of the village has no DTs, farmers here hook and drag long lines (upto 500m) for irrigation.
Reason is yet to be investigated.
• Comparison with Umbarda in later slides
Work ahead:
• Restructuring analysis
• Install meters on DTs for load
diversity measurements if possible
5
Way Forward
• Load Diversity is an important parameter
• MSEDCL design assumes no load diversity, gap in designed system and actual usage; Increases presumed cost per connection
• LT Rationalization and capacitors
• Karanja office has installed one DT meter and agreed to install one more in principle; Push from head office will help with additional; Needed for Load Diversity determination
• Meeting with MSEDCL to initiate pilot project
• MSEDCL is conducting an exercise geo-tagging all pumps/DTs etc. Data
being submitted at central location
Energy Indices: Measure of Access
● Based on secondary datasets; Prioritize villages for intervention
● Developed for Umbarda, Pilkheda, Manbha
Index name Description of Index Umbarda Manbha Pilkheda
Number of authorised connections per registered water source
Ideal value = 1
No. of connections / [open wells + borewells + irrigation tank users]
(Registered sources, and Authorised connections)
0.7 0.5 1.5
Number of authorised connections per water source
Ideal value = 1
No. of connections / [open wells + borewells + irrigation tank users]
(Estimated water sources) 0.7 0.4 0.7
Pending applications as a fraction of current connections
Ideal value: as small as possible
Paid Pending / authorized connections 0.15 0.08 0.08 [Paid Pending + pre-PP] / total
connections 0.38 0.41 0.30
Average time spent in PP stage 1.94 years
Average time spent in pre-PP stage 3.15 years
Ratio of connections to water sources
Pending connections as a fraction of existing connections
Low indices match with unfulfilled demand, and overloading of system, poor quality of supply
1.5 MSEDCL does not allow more than one connection per source for a farmer Greater than 1 could indicate shared water sources by different gats
7
Energy Indices: Sufficiency of infrastructure
Index name Description of Index Umbarda Manbha Pilkheda
DT Capacity per authorised connection (kVA/Connection)
Most pumps in the state are 5 HP, (Power factor = 0.8). Hence capacity above 7 kVA per connection indicates that the DT are not overloaded in general.
7.7 7.3 7
DT Capacity per connection including pending (Paid pending and pre-PP)
(kVA/Connection)
Farmers often draw energy (through hooking) as soon as they have applied, we can expect this denominator to be more indicative of the actual number of connections.
5.1 5.0 5.4
DT capacity per connection
(considering estimated loads from surveys)
In these villages, we have estimated the actual number of connections through
surveys 5.3 4.2 5.3
Measure of sufficiency of infrastructure capacity
Distribution Transformers: Most expensive part of the network, usually the bottleneck DT capacity as a sum of connected load – simple indicator; Load Diversity should be considered for a better indicator
MSEDCL does not
consider load diversity in design
Paid Pending and pre- PP could be an
approximate proxy for unaccounted load
Energy Indices : Sufficiency based on cropping
Seasonal Distribution Transformer Loading index
Capacity of DT considering the power drawl requirement for irrigating crops in that month
Accounted for: Cropping area, irrigation requirement, typical heads, sprinkler/drip/furrow, efficiency of pumps
• Less than 1: DT capacity greater than required power drawl
• Greater than 1: Likely to be overloaded
• Assumption taken of 15 days irrigation, since farmers do prefer to irrigate in the daytime and there is no coordination among farmers in irrigation
• However better measurements for load diversity required
• In December most villages have heavy loading
• Results are averaged over a village
9Assumptions made in the index
Crop No. of irrigations Irrigation method
Soybean 2 Surface
Cotton 2 Sprinkler/ Drip
Cotton 4 Surface/ Drip
Tur 3 Surface
Wheat 2 Sprinkler/ Drip
6 Surface/ Drip
Gram 2 Surface/ Sprinkler
Horticultur e
Dec - May , increasing from 1 per week to every other day using drip; First 2 irrigations are Surface
Efficiency taken as a function of head – approximate linear relationship
Total Head (m) Pump Eff. (%)
< 10 10
10 to 15 20
15 to 30 25
30 to 40 30
Static head varies from 2 m to 15 m from June to May
Irrigtn.
method
Irrigtn.
depth
Addnl.
Head
Surface 50-60 0
Drip 20 25 m
Appropriate Pump selection
• Appropriately sized pump can reduce load (infrastructure cost), as well as improve efficiency (energy savings)
• On-field efficiencies measured for 63 farmers in Washim and Aurangabad;
• Analysis of the pump selection was conducted with 31 farmers in Washim, Aurangabad, Buldhana, Osmanabad, who had recently purchased ISI mark pumps
• 48 farmers, and 9 vendors, from Aurangabad, Buldhana, Hingoli, Washim, Osmanabad and Yavatmal districts were surveyed to find out how farmers select pumps
11
General Insights and Learnings
• Quality of electricity supply is one of the most important determinant for all farmers – low voltage performance, low cost so that replacement is cheap; 85% of 48 farmers (4 districts) surveyed had a backup pump as a contingency; Many who have purchased through PoCRA not using the pump
• Infiltration of ISI mark pumps increasing with programs like PoCRA, and also because these manufacturers have adapted products to higher performance at low voltages
• Farmers follow the advice of the vendors, plumbers, and electricians for selection; Mostly done in a very approximate manner in practice
• Recently Texmo Company conducted a training session for shop owners and pump installers in Buldhana; CRI and Texmo have very nice pump selection softwares meant for vendors, however too sophisticated for farmers
• In PoCRA too, many farmers are buying 7.5 HP pump, but submitting 5 HP (8 out of 12 surveyed on field)
• Even when farmers can satisfy their requirement with a capacity less than 5 HP, they select higher because of MSEDCL’s tariff structure; MSEDCL Tariff bands are: less than 5HP, 5 to 7.5 HP, and > 7.5 HP; A few years ago it was 5 HP and below, and above 5 HP
• Standards for Ag pumps specify very basic information for labelling, considering only a single duty point; Additional
information for other heads has to be specially requested; Since farmers use furrow, sprinkler, drip, depending on the crop, head variation is very large, hence this is an important point
Insights and learnings - Quantified
• Wide range in operating head in the field; In
monsoons pumps seem to be selected for high head usually; Hence low efficiency in monsoons, and with furrow, and higher efficiency when using pressurised irrigation
• Operational efficiencies varying from 5% to 50%
• An analysis of 31 farmers who had recently purchased pumps indicated that 29% farmers had oversized
pumps, hence the load could reduce by 2 kW per farmer, leading to an overall peak load reduction of 13%.
• 29 out of 31 pumps were not selected for the
appropriate duty point and a detailed analysis shows a potential saving of 15% energy.
13
Recommendations and future steps
• Extension program needs to be designed with stakeholders
•
Duty Point should be a commonly understood and used term by krishi sahayaks, farmers and vendors
• Simple rules such as expectations of flow rate / head for
furrow/sprinkler/drip given well depths and water levels, number of sprinkler nozzles, area being irrigated at a time
• More needs to be done so that vendors provide relevant information
in a simpler format to farmers
Irrigation infrastructure: Water transfer structures
• Important to understand energy and water usage in various crops, for sustainability and resource competition; Economic distortions;
Commonly seen:
• Pumped from a borewell to well
• Flow rate from borewell is low; Irrigation infrastructure setup from one well;
• Reasons for transfer, extent of transfer, energy and water estimated
• Observed in Umbarda group, Washim, and in Junoni/Walgud, Osmanabad
• Pumping over km from a river or community water source
• Observed in Yehala, Yavatmal from the dam, and from percolation tanks in Umbarda/Yevta, and in Junoni/Walgud
• Energy expended estimated based on pipe dias, distances, and water
requirements; Value of cooperative irrigation schemes could be estimated
15
Borewell to dugwell transfer –
Observations from Umbarda / Yevta / Manbha
• 70 to 80% of the farmers having both borewell and open well, transfer water from borewell to open well; More common among farmers with large land holdings.
• Water transfer go on from December until April-May; Water availability decreases, and hence feeder energy drawl also goes down over the months
• Dug wells start to dry up starting in January; Borewell transfers required for tur, cotton, and gram; To a much larger extent for sweet orange and lemon
• Farmers often don’t register wells in anticipation of a scheme where they can get subsidy; Hence a major part of unauthorized loading is due to borewells and transfers
• Bore wells are increasing due to lower cost; Last 5 years, number of borewells have increased 3 fold in these villages.
• A dugwell costs 3-5 lakhs, whereas a borewell including cost of pipes and cables costs less than Rs. 1 to 2 lakhs
• Borewell attempts are unreliable. ; A farmer reported that 4 out of 5 attempts of borewell were failure events with each attempt costing between Rs. 20,000 to 30,000
Village
Number of borewells Number of open wells registered in
Talathi office
Feedback from farmers
registered in Talathi
office
Feedback from farmers
Umbarda 24 30 to 40 190 > 200
Yevta 40 >100 - -
Energy consumption due to borewell transfers
Crops
Energy Consumption for direct irrigation (without
transfer)
Energy Consumption with water transfers
kWh/
acre kWh/ m3 kWh/ acre kWh/ m3
Soybean (Kharif) 61 0.14 - -
Cotton (Long Kharif) 184 0.2 278 0.48
Tur (Long Kharif) 92 0.14 139 0.41
Wheat (Rabi) 367 0.24 1039 0.65
Gram (Rabi) 83 0.24 157 -
Orange (year round) 673 0.29 1790 1.11
Papaya (year round) 300 0.29 831 1.11
● Energy used in transfers for orange is likely to be much higher than estimated here: feeder energy consumption indicates at least 2 -3 times more than this (Next slide )
● Metered data from individual farmers may give us a better idea
● Other than energy expenditure, farmer and public investments for wells / transfer infrastructure / piping / pumps also need to be considered
17
Water transfers from dam and irrigation tanks
• For 5 of the 7 cooperatives studied in Kolhapur & Sangli, average energy
consumption was 2 kWh/ ha-mm, compared to individual farmers at 3 kWh/ha-mm for same terrain.
• Indicates 30% energy savings, and load reduction
• No limit on water to be lifted and No check on electrical connection (legal/ illegal)
• Access to water is renewed every year, but energy availability & access taken for granted
Washim Yavatmal
Avg. water transfers distance 500 m 800 m
Energy (kWh/ m3) 0.20 0.22
Water (TCM) 132 581
Energy (MWh) 17.9 89.2
Cropped Area (ha) 33 269
2 km dia
• Umbarda/Yevta (Washim), Yehala/ Kondhai (Yavatmal)
• Umabarda: Wheat;
• Yehala: Wheat, Gram, Groundnut, Cotton, Turmeric
19
Latent Demand (From Phase V)
● Data and inputs from MSEDCL:
● More than ~40% of the Paid Pending (PP) applications in both locations made 3 years ago or more.
● Prominent number due to Right of way issues in HVDS; Contractor Delay - not clear why; Also farmers say no in the end due to change in water source, migration - indicating long wait
● Number in pre-Paid Pending very large; 18% in Document verification - 4-5 years old, not clear why; 70% in Estimate stage - mainly because farmers cannot pay the fee; (Numbers for Karanja)
● There are farmers that never apply: Lengthy process puts them off, Waiting for a scheme to register their well, Only 1-2 irrigations in a season and people don’t pay bills in any case so they see no problem in hooking
● In general, it seems that for the farmers there is a lack of clarity of the process stages, and they are frustrated by the delays, and for some who find their applications in a state of limbo for more than 5 years.
● 2019 - no applications accepted in Pohner section because the office ran out of budget, thus suppressing demand
Section /Subdivision Number of villages Ag consumers to date Paid Pending (PP) Applied, but not yet PP
Pohner (Section), Osmanabad 21 2740 466 (17%) 165 (6%)
Karanja Lad (Subdivision), Washim 112 11533 1248 (11%) ~2240 (20%)
Thank You
21
