Ce30241 CW2 Ay2022-23

CE30241 Coursework Assessment 2 – AY2022-23
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bath

23rd December 2022
Assessment of high-density hydropower and hydrogen fuel-cell

technologies for their suitability as a sustainable energy supply to
new Google data centre in Honoka’a, Hawaii
Table of Contents
Project goals and objectives.................................................................................................. 1

Project description and strategic fit........................................................................................ 1
Description ............................................................................................................................ 2
Project frame ........................................................................................................................ 2
Functional specification ......................................................................................................... 4
Work breakdown structure .................................................................................................... 5
Project schedule ................................................................................................................... 6
Risk register .......................................................................................................................... 6
Stakeholder engagement and alignment strategy ................................................................. 8
Technical comparison ........................................................................................................... 8
Environmental assessment ................................................................................................. 10
Societal impacts and impact assessment ............................................................................ 12
Cost estimate, economics, and business case .................................................................... 13
Project execution strategy ................................................................................................... 15
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 16
References ......................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix B ......................................................................................................................... 24
1. Project goals and objectives
With the rapid rise in access to internet connectivity, with approximately 192 million new users
between October 2021 and October 2022[1], the global requirement for data security and the
provision of Google’s services has increased. Accordingly, the proposition of a new data
centre in Honoka’a, Hawaii, was put forward by Joseph Kava, Google’s Data Centre
Engineering and Operations Executive. Adhering to Google’s pledge of consuming 100%
carbon-free energy by 2030[2], the fundamental means of providing power to this centre is
solely to involve renewable energy. Joseph’s team have contracted an energy development
company named Island Power Inc. (IPL) to manage, oversee and measure the progress of
the project. Upon comparison alongside existing data centres of similar scales, the project
team have concluded that the operation of the proposed centre requires an uninterruptable
120MWh supply of low-cost electrical energy available year-round, which is the primary,
specific goal of this project. This source must also be cheaper than the existing interconnector.
The economics dictate that the project must be delivering power within three-and-a-half years
of project sanction to correspond with operation schedules.
2. Project description and strategic fit
The project involves the acquisition, construction, and successful operation of an
uninterruptable power supply to a new data centre in Honoka’a, Hawaii. Although an existing
interconnector supplies power to the island, the project economics struggle to meet the
threshold requirements if power from the interconnector grows into a dependency. Hence,
sourcing an independent power source is a robust means of reducing operational expenses
(OPEX). Upon the conclusion of IPL’s Assess stage, shortlisted technologies for the project
include a high-density pumped storage hydropower facility manufactured by RheEnergise, a
renewable energy storage company based in London, England[3] and a water electrolysis
system by GreenHydrogen Ltd to produce and store hydrogen, with a fuel cell system to
generate electricity.
Both of the firms’ climate and carbon targets complement that of Google’s and the state of
Hawaii’s goal to generate 100% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2045. The
Waimanu Gap, a valley situated near to the location of the proposed centre is easily accessible
by road and is the intended elevation source to be exploited by RheEnergise for the generation
of the hydropower energy. Also, an expanse of land is available close to the site of the centre
with sufficient area for the equipment required to construct a hydrogen production and storage
facility. A labelled map is provided below offering an illustration of the prescribed site and the
accessibility of the nearby advantages. Therefore, the strategic nature of the location
combined with each party possessing a common objective, the project is highly likely to
provide economic advantages and success.
Figure 1: Labelled map of Honoka'a and its locational benefits
1
3a. Description - Option 1: RheEnergise’s High-Density Hydropower
RheEnergise have developed a pumped energy storage system using a high-density fluid,
HD-fluid R-19TM. It is a mineral suspension in water, stabilised with a surfactant with a density
two-and-a-half times that of water. The system is set-up with storage tanks buried at the top
and bottom of a hill, connected by underground pipes (known as penstocks). Adjacent to the
storage tanks, a power-house contains the pumps that distribute the HD-fluid R-19TM to the
top of the hill and the turbines used to generate electricity. The electricity required by the
pumps is often provided by abundant renewable energy, such as wind and solar power[3].
Fundamentally, the system uses the basic theories of hydropower - the process of
manipulating the potential energy gathered by falling water to spin a turbine. Therefore, from
an economic standpoint RheEnergise’s projects can be 2.5x smaller and provide the same
power as a corresponding water-based hydropower system. RheEnergise licenses projects in
the 10MEe - 50Mwe power range, with a capacity of 10 MWh - 200MWh.
Although, some potential risks of the system include the potential rejection of the system being
put forward by HEPA (Hawaiian Environmental Protection Agency), with strong regulations
and guidelines regarding land-use and maintaining biodiversity, the habitats of natural wildlife
and the regional landscape. Also, due to the complexity of the project, there is an underlying
risk of cost and schedule overruns, geotechnical risks from the hill itself, and potential issues
with appropriate maintenance and operation. Furthermore, possible fluctuations in the
electricity market and exchange rate changes (due to the company being based in England)
could impact the economics of the project. Therefore, establishing a strong relationship with
the local authorities, thoroughly assessing the suitability of the hill, and considering any
changes in schedule and economic drawbacks in advance, and keeping safety procedures
and protocol for potential accidents on site is of utmost importance.
3b. Description- Option 2: Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s water electrolysis system
Green hydrogen is defined as the hydrogen generated via the separation of water into its
constituent components: hydrogen and oxygen. Green Hydrogen Ltd. carries out this process
with the use of a water electrolyser powered by excess electricity - often obtained from
renewable sources to maintain its ‘Green’ reputation. The methodology involves the use of an
electrolyser to convert water (locally sourced and filtered on-site) into hydrogen and oxygen
with a potassium hydroxide catalyst. The produced hydrogen is to be compressed and stored
in high-pressure vessels of 700 bar before it is decompressed and sent into a fuel cell system.
A hydrogen fuel cell consists of an anode and cathode plate, separated by a PEM (proton-
exchange membrane). Hydrogen is passed through the anode while the oxygen extracted
from the electrolysis process is passed through the cathode. The same catalyst splits the
hydrogen molecules into electrons and protons. The nature of the membrane allows for the
protons to pass through it, forcing the electrons to complete the charge difference by entering
the cathode via passing through a circuit, generating a current and heat as a result. At the
cathode, the hydrogen protons, electrons, and oxygen combine to produce water molecules,
typically in vapour form which is fed back to the start of the process. The sizing, market survey
and risk analysis are presented in Appendix A. This would result in the system being a closed
loop. The proposal should follow all given regulations as presented above for option 1 and
adhere to and consider all risks as above and follow the given mitigation procedures.
4a. Project frame – Option 1: RheEnergise’s High-Density Hydropower
In terms of the HD-Hydro energy storage solution, the scope is as follows: the construction of
a system that provides 20MWe of power for up to six hours at a time (i.e., 120 MWh)
comprising of top and bottom storage tanks with a total working fluid volume of 72,000m3, with
2
tank dimensions of width 100m, length 100m and depth 7.5m. Manifolds should be joining the
tanks, including flow control systems (valves), and twin penstocks with a diameter of 0.8m.
Also, the construction of a power-house, including all master safety valves, the reversible
pump-turbines, electrical equipment, and ancillary systems. The storage tanks and power-
house require reinforced concrete foundations and the penstock requires periodic ‘thrust
blocks’ to withstand the forces involved. The penstocks should be partially buried in trenches
to reduce any visual impacts and working and compound areas should be cleared for
materials, equipment, and the plant. Sufficient electricity to power the facility is required to be
directed towards the power-house, so an overhead powerline and pylon system to connect to
the local transmission lines to and from the subsea interconnector are required.
Due to the current grid connection of 5 MW, the adequate delivery of power to the data centre
must also be considered, with any additional construction of new power lines and transformers
carried out. The given in this option is the availability of a hill owned by a local landowner with
the opportunity to lease it, with 200m of vertical distance between the top and lower storage
tanks. Also, the construction of a sea wall is required to reduce erosion property damage
impacts due to its proximity to the ocean. The project should fall within all local guidelines and
regulations. Signed documents should include an approval from HEPA including an
environmental impact assessment (EIA) and other contracts and licenses. Effective
collaboration with these stakeholders benefits IPL’s efficiency as a whole and is a strong
strategy to ensure the success of the project due to the influence that these have on the
project. Furthermore, pipes must be partially buried and painted to diminish their
environmental impact. As the system is built on a volcano, effective checks must be made to
gather solid conclusions on its inactivity. These issues must be addressed early. With regard
to tactical approaches, the practice of proper planning, maintaining high efficiencies and strong
monitoring are essential for the project’s success.
4b. Project frame – Option 2: Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s water electrolysis system
The scope of the green hydrogen project consists of the construction of a system that provides
20 MWe of power for up to six hours at a time (i.e., 120 MWh) comprising of 6 PEM-based
electrolysis modules and an alkaline fuel cell system with 100 200 kW cell units, with purpose-
built structures to house both. Also, the construction of a water storage tank set-up with a
minimum capacity of 75,000 litres is required, with a series of pumps and a filtration system
large enough to withstand the size. A vessel to store the aqueous potassium hydroxide
solution for the electrolysis module is needed, with a pump system and a heat exchanger (with
a built-in cooling system) to raise the temperature of the solution to the required value. The
oxygen generated from the electrolysis process is fed into the fuel cell unit. Both systems
operate at different pressures, so a compressor is required to raise the pressure of the oxygen
to the required value. A compressor is also required to decrease the volume occupied by the
hydrogen before it is sent into the tank units at 700 bars. The construction of a weather-proof,
earthquake-resistant purpose-built structure is required to house the system as a strategic
approach, including the hydrogen tanks - and a decompression system to decrease the
pressure of the hydrogen before it enters the fuel cell system.
With regards to the ground clearance required, the physical dimensions of one fuel cell system
(l × w × h)2 is 1.21m × 0.7m × 2.20m. All 100 units should occupy a ground area of 91.67 m2.
One electrolyser occupies 117.2 m2, therefore 703.2 m2 is required for the total system set-
up. A minimum estimated area of 500 m2 should be set aside for the remaining structures,
including the 764 stored hydrogen tanks. Therefore, the total minimum ground area required
is 1412.07 m2. The given factors include a plot of land available to lease with sufficient space
for all the equipment. Electrical equipment and transmission lines to connect to the subsea
3
connector are also available. The approvals for the project are analogous to those of the first
option and play key roles in the realization of the option. The smooth purchase of the plot of
land near the proposed site is beneficial to begin construction successfully.
5a. Functional specification – Option 1: RheEnergise’s High-Density Hydropower
• To be situated about a hill with a minimum height enough to provide 20MWe of power
for up to six hours at a time (120MWh) with the use of hydropower techniques and HD-
fluid R-19TM (200m)
• Power sourced from abundant renewable energy
• Top and bottom storage tanks with a total working fluid volume of 72,000m3, with tank
dimensions of width 100m, length 100m and depth 7.5m.
• Manifolds joining the tanks, including flow control systems
• Twin penstocks with a diameter of 0.8m, partially buried in dug-out trenches and
installation of periodic thrust blocks
• A power-house (including master safety valves), with sufficient area to house reversible
pump turbines, electrical equipment, and ancillary systems with reinforced concrete
foundations – a minimum of 450 m2
• Working and compound area cleared for materials, equipment, and plant
• Sea wall construction
• Overhead powerline and pylon system connection to subsea interconnector
• Road link from hill to main motorway system
• Construction should be complete within 3.5 years
5b. Functional specification – Option 2: Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s water electrolysis
system
• To have a power generation capacity of 20MWe of up to six hours at a time (120MWh)

• A self-sufficient water source to obtain 74,143.55 L
• Powered by abundant renewable energy sources
• A water storage tank with a minimum capacity of 75,000 L
• Three pumps capable of transporting the given volume of water
• A water filtration system capable of handling the given volume and waste disposal
system for impurities
• A vessel capable of holding the given volume of water and potassium hydroxide
• Heat exchanger capable of heating electrolyte solution and cooling system
• 6 Plug Power EX-4250D electrolysers with individual ground area of 117.2 m2
• 100 Ballard Power hydrogen fuel cell systems with individual dimensions of (l × w × h)2
1.21m × 0.7m × 2.20m
• 764 ILJIN HYSOLUS hydrogen tanks
• Weather-proof, earthquake-proof structure to house tanks
• Two compressors, one expander and a condenser
• Pipelines and installations capable of handling pressures of up to 700 bar and high
volumes of water
• Structure to house fuel cell systems, electrolysers and remaining indoor system
components with security, team of employees, and sufficient safety installations
• Overhead powerline and pylon system connection to subsea interconnector
• Minimum 1412.07m2 land for construction and sufficient land cleared to store materials,
equipment, and plant components prior to construction
• Construction should be complete within 3.5 years
4
6a. Work breakdown structure - Option 1: RheEnergise’s High-Density Hydropower
Figure 2: Work breakdown structure - Option 1: RheEnergise's High-Density Hydropower
6b. Work breakdown structure - Option 2: Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s water electrolysis
system
Figure 3: Work breakdown structure - Option 2: Green Hydrogen Ltd.'s water electrolysis
system
5
7. Project schedule
The proposed project schedule below provides information on the start and finish dates of all
overarching tasks carried out. Sub-tasks (provided in the work-breakdown structure) are not
involved in the Gantt chart. It is therefore assumed that the time taken to complete a main task
includes the completion of the sub-tasks that fall under it.
2023 2024 2025 2026
Task
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
1. Initial stages
1.1. Roles and responsibilities
1.2. Feasability study and risk assessment
1.3. Land acquisition agreement
1.4. Contracts, licenses and approvals
1.5. Legal, utility and inspection fees
2. Planning
2.1. Project frame
2.2. Functional specification
2.3. Site map and blueprint preparation, with approval from RheEnergise and Google
2.4. Road access and utility supply evaluation
2.5. Project scheduling
2.6. Material, utility and labour measurements
3. Pre-construction and procurement
3.1. Plant access and security
3.2. Material, tools and equipment purchase/hire and delivery
3.3. Temporary control room (portacabin) set-up
4. Construction
4.1a. Power-house
RheEnergise's High- 4.2a. Upper & lower storage tanks

Density hydropower 4.3a. Penstocks
system (a) 4.4a. Sea wall construction
4.5a. Road link to data centre site
4.1b. Water storage tank unit
Green Hydrogen Ltd.'s 4.2b. Water filter unit
electrolysis and fuel cell
4.3b. Plant (indoors)
system (b)
4.4b. Road link to data centre site
5. Project execution and monitoring
5.1a. Initial tests and inspections
5.1b. Initial tests and inspections
5.2a. Clean-up
5.2b. Clean-up
5.3a. Post-construction and opening
5.3b. Post-construction and opening
Figure 4: Gantt chart of both projects including dependencies
The critical path is a series of tasks that are critical to the punctual delivery of the project (i.e.,
the potential delay of a critical task risks the overall delay of the project). The chart displays
that overall project delays are imminent in the initial stage with the delay of the feasibility study
and risk assessment (1.2) and the procurement of contracts, licenses, and approvals (1.5). In
the planning phase, the approval of the site map and blueprint preparation (2.3) is a critical
task. In the pre-construction stage, the delay of the material, tools and equipment
purchase/hire and delivery (3.2) is also critical to prevent any delays in the construction phase,
consequently causing delays for the rest of the project. In the project execution and monitoring
phase, the clean-up process cannot take place without the initial completion of the initial tests
and inspections (5.1), therefore this is also critical.
8. Risk register
The risk register presented below displays the issues that may arise with both projects. It is
provided in figure 5.
Figure 5: General risk matrix
6
The matrix displays the likelihood of the risk occurring on its y-axis, and the severity of the risk
in the case of its occurrence on the x-axis. The consequent numbers are a measure of the risk
rating. A risk between 1-8 on the matrix may not be a major one, and upon impact there is
likely no need to change guidelines, but to review them and periodically ensure that the
controls are effective. A medium risk (between 9 and 12 on the matrix) can result in moderate
impacts. In this situation, implement additional controls to monitor and prevent the situation
occurring again effectively. In the case of a high risk (between 15 and 25 on the matrix), the
guidelines are required to be strengthened and new controls must be identified. All plant
operations must be stopped until the risk is reduced to a medium or low rating.
Table 1: Risk register of both projects

B
A A
(Likelihood
# Cause Risk Effect (Hazard x Risk response actions
of
severity) B
occurrence)
Downtime, pressure
Equipment failure (power-
build-ups, leaks, Repair costs, Regular maintenance and
house, penstocks, indoor
1 fires, electrocution, delays, worker 4 3 12 equipment inspections, introduction
plant components)/faulty
reduced power injury or death of back-up systems
equipment supplied
generation
Accidents/incidents to Frequent training procedures, use of
Risk of worker Worker injury or
2 personnel during plant 4 2 8 safety protocol and personal
safety. death
operation protective equipment (PPE)
Loss towards
Fines, plant shut-
company Frequent reviews on regulations.
Plant failing to satisfy down and
3 reputation, lack 3 1 3 Plans in place in the case of
regulations decommission,
of power to regulation change
damage to plant
Google
Decrease in plant
profitability, Apply energy-saving methods such
Change in energy construction as insulation during construction.
4 Financial loss 3 2 6
prices/market states exceeding budget Sign longer term contracts with fixed
due to high prices
construction costs
Delays and
other additional
Delays in raw costs, project
Disruptions in supply Emergency response plan, diversify
5 material, parts and failing to meet 3 2 6
chain supply chain
component delivery constraint of
completion
within 3.5 years
Natural disaster (due to
Equipment and
nearby volcano, high
infrastructure Repair costs, Disaster preparation contingencies
lightning strike rate,
6 damage, leading to delays, worker 3 1 3 with emergency response plans, sea
coastal proximity and
equipment failure injury or death wall construction
Hawaii earthquake
and associated risks
vulnerability)
Reduce in plant Use of efficient transmission
Decrease in
7 Transmission losses efficiency, reduced 3 1 3 equipment, increase capacities,
reputation
revenues optimise network
The effects of
the fluid are not
known, but it is
likely to destroy
biodiversity,
Leakage into sea, contaminate Frequent check-ups on equipment
HD-Fluid R-19 leak
8 nearby rivers or soil water and 4 1 4 and use of high-quality storage
(option 1)
permeation deplete systems
ecosystems due
to its
composition and
density
difference
Increased costs,
resulting in
Introduce energy efficient
Funding difficulties, potential
Lack of investment infrastructure to plant, find other
9 loss to potential employee 4 2 8
(option 2) ways to source money
external competition strikes, difficulty
(partnerships/grants/loans)
to sustain plant,
delays
Most, if not all the risks provided in the risk register above are likely to impact the accuracy of
the determined schedule, critical path and economic estimates for the power plant. The
occurrence of a risk such as equipment failure is likely to cause delays in the construction or
7
operation of the site. The potential acquisition of additional resources (such as concrete, or
new equipment) or the disposal of faulty equipment is likely to delay critical tasks, such as 3.2
on the Gantt chart provided in section 7. Although faulty equipment is likely to be replaced for
free by the supplier, the increased costs associated with re-purchasing equipment in the case
of any accidents or natural disasters is likely to deteriorate economic estimates. If the plant
fails to satisfy safety regulations, this is expected to have an impact on section 1.5 on the
Gantt chart, further affecting the critical path as a delay in achieving these certifications is also
certain to put the project on hold.
9. Stakeholder Engagement and Alignment Strategy
The internal stakeholders in the process are Google, RheEnergise, Green Hydrogen Ltd., IPL
and each company’s employees/project managers and construction workers/site personnel.
For the green hydrogen project, the companies supplying the material, equipment and tools
are also internal stakeholders. The external stakeholders consist of HEPA, companies
associated with the licensing, legal, inspection and approval aspects of the projects, the
landowners of sites utilised by each option, the general community of Honoka’a and any
potential investors to either option. The primary aim of stakeholder engagement is addressing
the needs of the projects’ stakeholders and providing information on how they are affected by
the project and the impact they will have on it. The severity of these two factors vary for each
stakeholder, allowing for a hierarchy to be created determining how each stakeholder is
managed. The material suppliers, the landowners of each site and the companies associated
with the approval of the project do not provide a risk to successful completion, due to their sole
involvement working with supplied specifications and standards. Therefore, it is necessary
that these stakeholders are merely informed about the ongoings of the project and outcomes
that may impact them directly.
Stakeholders including HEPA, the community of Honoka’a and site personnel require to be
kept involved with the project due to their higher influence. It is important that their opinions
are considered. Although they may not alter the strategy of the project, potentially altering
more minor tactics as a result is likely to maintain or increase levels of commitment and
advocation towards the project. Additionally, the potential employment of locals in carrying out
the construction of the project is certain to benefit the community and increase their support
to the project. Project investors and project managers need to be given the option to be directly
involved in all project actions due to their authority on high-impact decisions surrounding the
project. IPL should work with these stakeholders effectively to ensure that their thoughts are
understood and reflect in the development of the project. Stakeholders such as Google,
RheEnergise and Green Hydrogen Ltd. are primary stakeholders and IPL should work with
them as though they are partners to ensure the success of the project. Due to the extent of
their power and the high risk of project failure in the case of non-cooperation, collaborating
with them and modifying the strategy to align with their views if necessary can sustain their
support towards the project.
10. Technical comparison
Both options are viable methods of generating electricity but carry advantages and
disadvantages within the context of this project. The principal outcome of the project is to
generate the required amount of power while achieving the highest output efficiency to
minimise consumption and electricity costs. According to RheEnergise, round-trip efficiencies
are ~83%[11]. This refers to when the fluid completes a full rotation of the system, undergoing
losses that arise from the turbines, gearbox, pressure drop and friction that cause reductions
in conversion. Efficiencies can be raised by using more advanced designs and materials to
construct components, such as low-drag turbine blades[18] and innovative bearing systems.
8
Additionally, using modelling tools and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations can
assist in foreseeing the performance of innovative turbine designs[19]. Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s
electrolysis and fuel cell system is less efficient. Primarily, the fuel cell system utilised provides
an efficiency of 53.5%[6], and the complexity of its set-up (displayed in Appendix A) also
presents a greater number of opportunities for losses. As fuel cell systems lose the majority
of their output from heat, introducing a heat recovery system is likely to raise efficiencies here.
With the potential for increased energy demands, the adaptability of both systems to
accommodate this should be assessed. RheEnergise offers up to 10 hours of storage
capacity[11] and is a maximum, set value that cannot be modified without any major
infrastructural changes. However, Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s system is a highly modular one. In
a situation where the data centre requires a higher amount of power, replacing parts to
increase capacities can accommodate the rise and is a low-cost solution in comparison with
the first option. However, raising the number of hydrogen tanks poses a risk of increased
impact in the case of an ignition source. A possible method of mitigation is to hold the hydrogen
tank facility in a location absent from any residential areas or other plant equipment with
sufficient safety measures, such as a flammable gas detection and alarm system. Considering
Hawaii’s tropical climate, protection from heat and direct sunlight would also be required.
Furthermore, the size of a typical RheEnergise system is 1 hectare[11] (approximately 10000
square metres), compared with Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s system sized in Appendix A at 1412.07
square metres. As a consequence of a footprint over seven times smaller, managing and
operating option 2 is much more feasible than option 1, even if the footprint is slightly increased
due to higher energy requirements. As well as the adaptability of the project with regard to
coping with changes in energy demands, the modularity of option 2 is also beneficial when
considering any technological advancements. Both technologies are actively being
researched but any developments leading to upgrades in efficiency are more likely to be
implemented into option 2 due to the greater simplicity of application. For example, the
potential upgrade of turbines for RheEnergise’s system is likely to require the modification or
refurbishment of the powerhouse, a costly and time-consuming procedure. This process also
applies to the potential replacement of parts, which would also be a smoother process for the
green hydrogen system. However, the rapid advancements in fuel cell technologies in recent
years can lead to the obsoletion of existing parts quickly, resulting in a risk of higher investment
requirements, a fairly unavoidable consequence of using this technology.
Hydropower has a long history of use in energy production. The first hydropower project was
created in 1878[12]. It has therefore been the subject of extensive research, investment and
development and a greater level of expertise on the method is likely available than on
hydrogen fuel cells, developed in 1959[13]. Therefore, any issues with RheEnergise’s system
are likely to be diagnosed sooner than Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s system. The topographical
conditions in option 1 may also prove to be an obstacle to maintenance and reparability, due
to the potential complexity of accessing and executing work on high-gradient plots of land.
The high gradient also bears complications in the installation process, as excavation and land
preparation require higher funding, infrastructure, and time.
As RheEnergise’s system is situated in a coastal zone, the tanks, penstock connections and
turbines are significantly more susceptible to corrosion. Coastal areas have higher average
air humidity (arising from the greater rates of evaporation from large bodies of water), and
coastal winds carry this moisture inland. The air composition near the sea therefore contains
a high concentration of saltwater vapour containing chloride ions. This is the primary cause of
deterioration of concrete buildings in coastal areas[16]. Furthermore, airborne sand particles
are highly abrasive and hence can also cause a risk of damage to infrastructure. Therefore,
9
coatings with high chemical and abrasion resistances are required to prevent this issue, a
highly specific modification[17]. Hawaii faces an average of 1ft/year of erosion[18], so the
installed sea wall would also require frequent maintenance and refurbishment, ideally with a
team available to assess alternate options in a situation where the wall fails to protect the
system. As the proposed site for the green hydrogen system is not specified as a coastal zone,
an advantage of option 2 is that these considerations are not required.
Both options have the capacity to store and provide 120MWh of power to the centre. A
drawback of both methods is that they are dependent on a stable supply of abundant,
renewable electricity. Due to Hawaii’s geographic isolation, sudden changes in energy
demand may require electricity from these sources to be redirected. Therefore, both systems
are vulnerable to such disruptions. This poses the risk of power cuts in the new centre or an
increased dependence on the interconnector to supply power to the centre, an economically
impractical solution. In the case that the project succeeds, the opening of a purpose-built
abundant renewable energy source to solely supply the project (such wind and solar) could
be proposed to reduce the reliance on these external sources. However, this is highly
dependent on the response the project receives from investors and other sources of funding.
11. Environmental assessment
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is the process of evaluating the likely
environmental impacts of a proposed project or development, considering inter-related socio-
economic, cultural and human health impacts, both beneficial and adverse[21]. However, a Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) is defined as a technique that addresses the environmental aspects
and potential environmental impacts (e.g., use of resources and environmental consequences
of releases) through a product’s life cycle from raw material acquisition through production,
use, recycling and final disposal (i.e., cradle-to-grave)[22]. Both the LCA and EIA consider a
systematic approach to identify, assess and mitigate environmental impacts, and both
techniques utilise data analysis. However, there are also some key differences between an
EIA and LCA. In terms of purpose, an EIA is primarily created to assess the potential impacts
of a specific project during its construction and operation, but an LCA is used to evaluate the
environmental impacts of a system throughout its entire life-cycle. Hence, EIAs are used more
often by local governing bodies and regulators (and are often legal requirements), whereas
LCA reports are applied by companies looking to improve the environmental performance of
their systems[22].
Therefore, LCAs can be carried out at any time in a system’s lifecycle (retrospective and
prospective), but EIAs are carried out before the opening of a project (prospective only). Due
to its boundaries being limited to a specific project on a local scale, a limitation of an EIA is
that regional and global effects cannot be addressed easily, and that there is no set
methodology to assess impacts[22]. A limitation of an LCA is that it does not address the
economic or social aspects of a project[22]. Also, Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data must be used
cautiously since production processes differ by region[22]. Furthermore, preserving the
confidentiality of some commercially sensitive LCI data without reducing the credibility of the
LCA can be a problem[22]. Figure 6 provides an illustration of the inputs, outputs and processes
occurring in both options for the project throughout its lifespan based on a cradle-to-grave LCA
with the system boundary provided. The functional unit is [per MWh of electricity produced] for
the Google data centre.
10
Inputs
Processes
Raw material and equipment

acquisition
Site preparation Water filter retentate
Specialised equipment: turbines, safety valves,

electrical equipment, etc.
Manufacturing and construction
Operation and maintenance
Decommissioning, recycling, waste

management
System boundary:
Power plants and Outputs
transmission lines
Electricity (to
data centre)
Option 1 only (RheEnergise s H-D Hydropower system)
Option 2 only (Green Hydrogen Ltd. s electrolysis and fuel

cell system)
Figure 6: Life-cycle inventory analysis of both options
To ensure high environmental performance in the acquisition phase for both options, obtaining
materials from renewable sources (i.e., recycled or from carbon-neutral companies) is
recommended. Owing to the complexity of the system, option 2 provides a higher
environmental risk with regard to obtaining materials sustainably for the system. Additionally,
due to the unfamiliarity and modernity of hydrogen fuel cells, similar projects of the same scale
are likely to be scarce in comparison with RheEnergise’s system, which has been
implemented in multiple other locations[11]. This is likely to impact the likelihood of a smooth
construction process. Looking at the materials’ delivery towards the sites, using hybrid or
electric vehicles is also certain to reduce the environmental impact of the process. As the
components for option 2 are sourced separately and externally, delivery procedures are likely
unmanageable. As RheEnergise is the developer of their technologies this is more likely to be
controllable. In terms of the disposal and recycling of the systems, once the data centre ceases
operation both systems have distinct characteristics that set them apart. Structures such as
turbines and the sea wall involved in RheEnergise’s system are large, individual structures
that can be expensive to decommission and dismantle. However, once this process has
occurred, the materials used in their construction (including concrete, aluminium, steel, iron,
and plastic) are highly recyclable[14].
With data from the Honolulu governing body confirming that 25% of the total waste from
construction and demolition in 2021 was recycled[15], the knowledge of an established system
for this process illustrates that recycling the material after decommissioning is a viable
strategy. However, most hydrogen fuel cell systems contain precious metals such as platinum,
which can be complicated to extract and recycle. The main current fuel cell recycling method
is pyrometallurgical and is not environmentally safe – the process results in the emission of
fluorine and hydrogen fluoride. The pollution is highly corrosive and may degrade ecosystems.
Hence, new recycling methods are being researched which are likely to come into operation
around the time of the decommissioning of the proposed plant and can be implemented to
11
prevent this risk[20]. Some methods to improve the environmental performance of both options
include energy-efficient design such as insulation, multiple-glazed windows and efficient
lighting in reducing operational costs. Also, constructing and linking bus stops for the
employees, managers and personnel is likely to reduce emissions from daily car use to and
from the sites.
Due to the nature of the hydropower system being built on a hill, there is an inherent risk of
erosion, increased surface run-off and downstream sediment deposition due to vegetation loss
as a result of excavations and land clearance. To mitigate this impact, it is strongly
recommended that excavation work should be undertaken in the dry season and the disturbed
ground restored as soon as possible[23]. Found from literature, a typical RheEnergise system
is known to occupy approximately 10,000 m2[11], in comparison with Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s
system sized in Appendix A at 1412.07 m2. The greater footprint would be more disruptive to
biodiversity, existing natural ecosystems and wildlife habitats. The Hawaiian landscape is
home to a large variety of faunae, and construction projects such as these can reduce grazing
land and displace these creatures. Although RheEnergise’s system is estimated to occupy a
greater land area, as the project is to be constructed on an inactive volcano composed of
igneous rock there is a lower likelihood of a major existing animal population than for option
2. To mitigate these issues, land area should be treated valuably, and while accounting for
safety, the smallest required amount of land should be cleared and occupied, especially in the
road construction process, to reduce car emissions. In conclusion, although Green Hydrogen
Ltd.’s option is less environmentally secure due to its complex, mostly third-party derived set-
up, resulting in greater opportunities for component failure and replacements and a less
environmentally-friendly parts delivery process, RheEnergise’s setup occupies a greater land-
area, resulting in greater issues towards the environment in the long-term.
12. Societal aspects and impact assessment
Sonic impacts can be a major negative impact on the surrounding community, even before
the operation of the project. The allowable level of noise in Honoka’a is highly dependent on
the proximity of both options’ sites to residential areas. Road construction, the construction of
the plants themselves and site visits/regulatory checks can increase noise disturbance. During
the operation of option 1, sonic impacts are likely to principally arise from the power-house
and are expected to hit averages of 90 dBA[23]. The noise would mainly come from the turbines
and speed increasers. To limit noise levels, the Fiskeby power plant in Norrköping, Sweden
adopted the following measures: very small tolerances in gear manufacturing, sound-
insulating blankets over the turbine casing, vibration insulation and careful design of ancillary
components. Consequently, the attained level of noise varied between 66 dBA and 74 dBA[23].
Adopting methodologies such as these are likely to present similar results for RheEnergise.
During the operation of option 2, the majority of noise pollution would arise from the pumps,
compressors and expanders but these are generally not known to produce enough sound to
disturb residents. As these components are proposed to be placed indoors, the impact would
be reduced further. However, noise generated by auxiliary equipment such as generators and
transformers (used in both options) is likely to disrupt the general public, and appropriate
measures should be taken to reduce the impacts. These effects can be diagnosed effectively
by introducing decibel meters and sound measurement systems to monitor impacts.
The visual quality of the surrounding landscape is an important factor that must be preserved
to the greatest extent. Typically, there tends to be a public dislike in changes to natural
scenery, as the perceived attractiveness of the living environment is one of the most important
factors affecting residential satisfaction[24]. Each of the components in a hydropower system
and the construction of a hydrogen fuel cell power plant have the potential to make a negative
12
visual impact on the surroundings. Hence, the appearance and design of the option put
forward must be carefully decided as it may be the determining factor for the public’s
acceptance of the project. Painting in non-contrasting colours and textures to complement the
characteristic landscape could aid in this. Constructing the power-house/indoor plant with
similar architectural techniques to the surrounding structures in the area is also likely to return
better public feedback[23]. If possible, for option 1 the storage tanks should be strategically
placed, painted and shrouded with rocks, soil or vegetation to mask them from the
surroundings or ideally buried. In this case, the need for concrete thrust blocks is removed[23].
Above-ground transmission lines can also have a negative impact on the scenery, influencing
natural beauty. Adapting or burying the lines to conceal them from public view is a good
solution but is an expensive one and should only be put forward if the scheme is profitable
enough[23].
The introduction of a power plant can also bring positive impacts. The construction and
maintenance requirement of the project is certain to attract locals searching for employment.
The increase in local income can stimulate economic growth in the region, generating money
for residents of Honoka’a to aid with taxes and other expenses. The new road links may also
bring connections to isolated homes and recreational areas such as hiking paths, which can
enhance and interconnect the community. Furthermore, a new power station can provide
educational prospects for students in the area, and in the case of a successful project, the
plant could provide as a research centre for scientists exploring the future possibilities of green
hydrogen or hydropower. The derivation of abundant renewable energy to power these plants
from local sources is also a benefit to the community. For example, deriving biomass
feedstocks locally can support local agricultural businesses.
13. Cost estimate, economics and business case
The operating costs (OPEX) of the project are to include the maintenance and operation of
the proposed plant, alongside electricity costs from renewable energy to power the plants. In
terms of the power required from the grid to supply the systems, the efficiency of the hydrogen
fuel cell system was measured at 53.5%[6], and the electrolyser is assumed to be 70%
electrically efficient, providing an overall average efficiency of 37.45%. Therefore, assuming
negligible electrical efficiency losses with the rest of the components, a power input of
approximately 350 MWh is required, while accounting for the power requirements of the other
components. For RheEnergise’s system, the 83% efficiency[11] expresses that 144.58 MWh is
necessary to power the hydropower system. A key assumption is that both systems are
operating for 6 hours a day. Assuming operation 365 days a year, the hydropower system and
green hydrogen system would require 52,771.7 MWh and 127,750 MWh respectively.
According to an article by Sophie Cocke, the average cost of grid power in Hawaii is £130 per
MWh[26] and is the source of energy utilised by the proposed project, assuming low energy
demand. Therefore, the estimated power costs of the hydropower and green hydrogen
systems are £6,860,321 and £16,607,500 respectively. In comparison with the power supplied
from the interconnector, values of £12,137,491 and £29,382,500 are returned respectively,
confirming the monetary benefit of using renewable sources/grid power, with the power
purchased being 43.5% cheaper than the interconnector power.
The electricity produced should be priced lower than the cost of power available from the
interconnector, formerly provided as £230 per MWh. Assuming that the produced energy is
sold at £220 per MWh, the annual revenue for each option is £9,636,000. It is also provided
in the business model that 4% of the revenue for option 1 covers operating, maintenance and
utilisation fees (hence, including employee salaries), measured at £385,440 per annum.
Therefore, the overall annual operating cost of RheEnergise’s system is the sum of the cost
13
of power and the maintenance and operation fees, reaching a total of £7,245,761. A table is
provided below with estimations of the number of positions required to run a green hydrogen
plant, the frequency and typical salaries in line with average Hawaiian incomes. The table also
includes external technicians and their corresponding fees, including maintenance, repair and
replacement costs.
Table 2: Projected position and employee list of proposed Green Hydrogen Ltd. plant and
their estimated salaries
Position Frequency Salary, (£)*

Plant manager 1 153,774.35
Electrical engineer 5 64,847.59
Mechanical engineer 4 63,574.93
Technician 6 38,903.07
Operator 3 58,338.81
Safety professional 2 41,563.11
Human resources (HR) 2 53,735.28
Maintenance 8 34,081.75
*For the position ‘maintenance’, the fees of repair and replacement are included in the salary
column, along with labour fees and the price of components and materials.
The frequency column illustrates an estimated number of jobs performed. Average salaries of
Honoka’a are referenced for all other positions[27]. This results in a total of £1,603,997.65 per
year. Therefore, including the power consumption costs, the total operation cost of the green
hydrogen plant is estimated at £18,211,497.65 per year. When carrying out the cash flow
method to assess the economics, the following assumptions were made. The capital tax
allowance on equipment is 25% on reducing balance, tax on buildings is 4%, federal corporate
income tax is 21%[28], state corporate income tax is 5.4%[29] and interest rates are at 6%. It is
also assumed that the value of the plots of land in both options are equal. This is due to the
lack of attractiveness of the idea of constructing on a hill, reducing the value of the land for
RheEnergise. It was also assumed that the plant and equipment for both options were sold at
scrap value 25 years after operation, at a value 20% of the Net Book Value (NBV). Additionally,
the project’s parts with no value were assumed to be disposed with a corresponding fee of
£85,000 in both cases. As it was also mentioned in the given business model that RheEnergise
is given approximately 2% of any project’s CAPEX, this was subtracted in the extra income
section in the spreadsheet used, provided in the appendix at B.F1.
The estimated total CAPEX of both projects are provided in appendix B at B.T1 and B.T2,
accounting for construction and engineering costs, contractor fees, plant CAPEX and DEVEX.
The CAPEX costs of the plant for the hydrogen system were estimated and verified via
extensive market research and resulted in a total value of £35,658,207.26. The sum of CAPEX
and DEVEX for options 1 and 2 are £25,404,903 and £36,352,651.26 respectively, illustrating
that the initial costs of RheEnergise’s system are 30% cheaper than those of Green Hydrogen
Ltd.’s system. A cumulative cash flow diagram is presented below highlighting the cumulative
cash inflows and outflows over a period of 25 years, showing the net change in cash every
year (theoretically).
14
Figure 7: Cumulative discounted cash flow diagram of both options
projecting results 25 years into the future
Upon analysis, the figure illustrates that RheEnergise is the most economically viable solution
of the two, due to the cumulative discounted cash flow achieving a positive value after 19
years. This implies that the project begins to make a profit overall after this date, a highly
beneficial result given that the average lifespan of one of RheEnergise’s systems is 60
years[11]. Additionally, the lower CAPEX and DEVEX imply lower start-up costs (approximately
£18.6 million less). The projected decreasing cumulative discounted cash flow (increase in
loss) in Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s case is highly undesirable and is unlikely to attract external
investors to provide funds. However, both datasets may not be wholly accurate due to the
estimates of operating costs, and equipment and personnel expenses in the case of option 2.
These costs are destined to fluctuate based on the demand for electricity, availability of people
searching for the estimated roles in Hawaii, and in the case of any major changes to the
proposed project (such as staffing changes, decisions to implement new structures and
extensions) upon delivery. The cash flow diagram may not consider other factors that could
affect the economic performance of the companies. For example, the promising nature of fuel
cells and rapid development rate could result in higher efficiencies and upon part replacement,
result in greater profits for Green Hydrogen Ltd. in the long term. Also, any potential fluid
leakage or turbine failure in RheEnergise’s case is likely to cause delays and impact the profits
made.
To assess the financial trustworthiness and associated risks that arise from these companies,
several methods can be utilised, such as analysing credit ratings – these can be acquired from
banks and agencies for a small fee. The company with the higher credit rating is likely to be
more financially secure. Also, financial statements can be evaluated by reviewing components
such as balance sheets and income statements, and this cash flow diagram. Low amounts of
debt and acceptable liquidity levels are also signs of a financially stable company. To
strengthen these observations, carrying out a general industry analysis against other
companies of similar reputations is likely to provide a more holistic view, and protect against
risks such as failed investments, legal liabilities and the potential to fall under fraud.
14. Project execution strategy
To successfully deliver both options within the provided schedule, several considerations are
required to be checked. The safety of all individuals involved in the plant’s construction,
operation and maintenance is of high priority. This can be ensured by implementing strict
15
safety regulations, frequently training staff and using PPE where necessary. The power plant
must also be constructed to the highest quality - this is critical for its dependability and overall
performance during operation. Some strategies to accomplish this include strictly hiring
construction workers, stringent quality control methods and extensive testing prior to opening.
Additionally, effective contract management with the material suppliers and
RheEnergise/Green Hydrogen Ltd. is essential – this can be achieved by negotiating and
signing clear, approved contracts and a streamlined and strong establishment of the roles and
responsibilities required. A method to ensure that the project is met on time could involve the
use of project management software, with log-ins provided to all personnel involved to check
project progress/milestones and required jobs to complete. This is likely to decrease confusion
and introduce a more motivated workforce. Similar software could also be used by project
executives to ensure that the project remains within the given budgets; technology can project
extra expenses and could be considered to develop more realistic estimates. It is also critical
for the plant’s long-term viability that it is commissioned and turned over smoothly; this can be
realised by producing a commissioning plan.
Approaches that can be utilised for design, change and risk management are as follows. To
ensure strong design management, the use of high-quality software is essential. As well as
streamlining the process, it is also likely to drastically increase the possibility of approval from
building regulators and HEPA. Explicit standards must be created to review and
approve/decline any changes as to dispel the possibility of any disagreements in the
workplace. To safeguard risk management procedures, strong guidelines should be created
and followed to identify, assess and mitigate all risks in the construction sites. All personnel
must be trained on these. The smooth, safe processing of risks on-site is crucial to ensure the
timely delivery of the project.
Conclusions
Based on a triple-bottom-line assessment, it can be concluded that RheEnergise’s H-D Hydro
system is the stronger option for this renewable energy solution. From a financial perspective,
the company can achieve substantially lower start-up and running costs. Additionally, the
proposal reaches profitability after 19 years (upon the conclusion of a cumulative cash flow
calculation), a highly desirable result for the key stakeholders in the process. In comparison,
the increased losses projected to be suffered by Green Hydrogen Ltd. combined with 43%
higher CAPEX and DEVEX costs is an unfavourable set of results that is not likely to promote
external stakeholders’ interest, especially investors. The cost build-up alongside the rapid
global developments of hydrogen fuel-cell technology is likely to render the project obsolete
within 25 years. Therefore, unless the project can keep up with the technological
advancements arising in the industry, it is unlikely to provide success in the long term.
However, it is also important to consider the social and environmental aspects of both options.
RheEnergise’s project requires a significantly larger footprint, with the construction of a sea
wall and 10,000 m2 of land to operate the system. Hence, it is likely to have a greater impact
on the surrounding landscape, ecosystem and community. Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s solution
occupies seven times less land and is thus expected to have a smaller impact in this situation.
It is also considerably quieter. Due to its modular nature, parts can be replaced easily, and the
scale of the project can be modified to reflect energy demand and other external variable
changes more efficiently, making it more adaptable. Although Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s project
may outweigh RheEnergise with regard to its environmental and social benefits, the
fundamental purpose of the project was to assess its suitability for the data centre, making
RheEnergise the stronger option due to its greater economic viability and lifespan.
16
References
1. Lin, Y., 2022. 10 Internet Statistics Every Marketer Should Know In 2024 [Infographic]
[Online]. Available from: https://www.oberlo.co.uk/blog/internet-statistics [Accessed 8
December 2022].
2. Google, 2021. 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy by 2030 [Online]. Available from:
https://www.google.co.uk/about/datacenters/cleanenergy/ [Accessed 8 December 2022].
3. RheEnergise, 2022. How it works [Online]. Available from:
https://www.rheenergise.com/how-it-works [Accessed 8 December 2022].
4. Nave, R., 2000. Electrolysis of Water [Online]. Available form: http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html [Accessed 9 December 2022].
5. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 2022. Comparison of Fuel Cell
Technologies [Online]. Available from: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/comparison-
fuel-cell-technologies [Accessed 10 December 2022].
6. Ballard, 2022. Marine Modules [Online]. Available from: https://www.ballard.com/fuel-cell-
solutions/fuel-cell-power-products/marine-modules [Accessed 10 December 2022].
7. Plug power, 2022. Plug EX-4250D Electrolyzer [Online]. Available from:
resources.plugpower.com/electrolyzers/ex-4250d-f041122 [Accessed 12 December 2022].
8. Vehicle Technologies Office, 2022. Volumetric Energy Density of Lithium-ion Batteries
Increased by More than Eight Times Between 2008 and 2020 [Online]. Available from:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1234-april-18-2022-volumetric-energy-
density-lithium-
ionbatteries#:~:text=Volumetric%20energy%20density%20refers%20to,size%20of%20the%
20battery%20pack [Accessed 10 December 2022].
9. Demaco Cryogenics, 2022. The energy density of hydrogen: a unique property [Online].
Available from: https://demaco-cryogenics.com/blog/energy-density-of-hydrogen/ [Accessed
10 December 2022].
10. ILJIN HYSOLUS, 2022. Hydrogen Type 4 Cylinder 700 bar 185L [Online]. Available
from: https://hyfindr.com/marketplace/components/hydrogen-tanks/hydrogen-type-4-cylinder-
700-bar-185l/ [Accessed 10 December 2022].
11. Crosher, S., 2022. Introducing High-Density Hydro™ [Online]. Available from:
https://cdn.website-
editor.net/374e9fe639d34fd4aeecf2b1950a69de/files/uploaded/RheEnergise%2520Introduct
ion%2520brochure_V2.3.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2022].
12. iha, 2022. A brief history of hydropower [Online]. Available from:
https://www.hydropower.org/iha/discover-history-of-
hydropower#:~:text=The%20world's%20first%20hydroelectric%20project,Northumberland%
2C%20England%2C%20in%201878. [Accessed 19 December 2022].
13. Jonas, J., 2009. THE HISTORY OF HYDROGEN [Online]. Available from:
https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2009/04/the-history-of-hydrogen/555/ [Accessed 19
December 2022].
14. The Concrete Centre, 2022. End of life recycling [Online]. Available from:
https://www.concretecentre.com/Performance-Sustainability/Circular-economy/End-of-life-
recycling.aspx [Accessed 19 December 2022].
15. City and County of Honolulu, 2022. Rates and Data [Online]. Available from:
https://www.honolulu.gov/opala/resources/rates-and-
data.html#:~:text=The%20total%20waste%20for%20year%202021%20was%201%2C692%
17
2C840%20tons.&text=Construction%20and%20Demolition%20Recycling%3A%20255%2C1
35,4%25%20of%20the%20total%20waste [Accessed 19 December 2022].
16. Pro Crew Software, 2020. Tips on Preventing Reinforced Concrete Corrosion in Coastal
Zone [Online]. Available from: https://procrewschedule.com/tips-on-preventing-reinforced-
concrete-corrosion-in-coastal-zone/ [Accessed 19 December 2022].
17. Rooflock, 2018. Combatting metal corrosion in Coastal Environments – an explanation
for Building Owners and Surveyors [Online]. Available from:
https://www.rooflock.com/combatting-metal-corrosion-in-coastal-environments-an-
explanation-for-building-owners-and-surveyors/ [Accessed 19 December 2022].
18. Quaranta, E., Bahreini, A., Riasi, A. and Revelli, R., 2022. The Very Low Head Turbine
for hydropower generation in existing hydraulic infrastructures: State of the art and future
challenges. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments [Online], 51(101924).
Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213138821009383
[Accessed 19 December 2022].
19. Liu, Y. and Akinyemi, O., 2015. CFD modeling and simulation of a hydropower system in
generating clean electricity from water flow. International Journal of Energy and
Environmental Engineering [Online], 6(4). Available from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40095-015-0180-2 [Accessed 19 December 2022].
20. FuelCellsWorks, 2022. What’s the Future of Fuel Cell Recycling? [Online]. Available
from: https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/whats-the-future-of-fuel-cell-recycling/ [Accessed from
19 December 2022].
21. CBD Secretariat, 2022. What is Impact Assessment? [Online]. Available from:
https://www.cbd.int/impact/whatis.shtml [Accessed 19 December 2022].
22. Wilson, M., Suebsiri, J. an Manuilova, A., 2009. Should Life Cycle Assessment be part of
the Environmental Impact Assessment? Case study: EIA of CO2 capture and storage in
Canada. Energy Procedia [Online]. Available from:
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277910/1-s2.0-S1876610209X00020/1-s2.0-
S1876610209009126/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-
Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEC4aCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIGSG8RWFW%2FF7iQJM%2
FTDPW6plDSdnnwGnt0tOlfhxjudWAiBrXn%2Ftiws9HQmRdpR%2BXnr7ebTkzC0uONdteYI
UVYww0irMBAhnEAUaDDA1OTAwMzU0Njg2NSIMPOvdpBYMLlZecMpuKqkEwzyvSeUIRc
Dyc9IXv%2FJbhBolyzgPskCXvwHEXD%2BhFqlOFNPl3UdW%2BheNsFfMSJT9y53zDoJjH
AqJ0%2B3HPYlbeIYolBkF6VSlWtERoAwJNspvdHtFYF07JbJbjAt6frrodCAsw9cEM9PO6M
OggrXt83CaeOdyT%2F6vybK2oSBL7IZ9Hy8lEwdyolzoR4Gmy2TKJYmITJaQmKsNm2YB9
cUFFuNFG2hR%2BjFC1uo%2BSf9aWoU68Wbx7lqj1Q%2Fp8ZnI1sBILaUS934gzzbcocrftdl
7BOburvK2rrwn%2FwCf8rTeSlgKlopnFAE6di72TUfatGvCCA6HfcFfm1hSjEjHhMGFvXhQXy
NgjYLKBWBtErF7xXRNurUWMYVqry8G5bm0T9xfDdrX3BaEOqQz8JgKiWfy7tdL1xJoy7T2j
zfDLsUT%2F0XcA3TA1wyfmqSydLNOaKUH5HGXv2LuPNxjZY2O8ololx3ckxwPJbAXzNRm
IcL7ETZsBIi3IFypUCaljoLGt4Y8Wj2BxVJ8xHLaEUjO9bc011nRS%2BCNQlCU%2FLncPkl7
DtPN7gSdn%2BmUnzXi4862of7m4i%2FUgS0TQCuC%2FpOp9SEwR%2BGchW2%2BrKL
TQLq6%2B%2F%2Bwqb8gk6TotlUV4Y5vs0GOPZ1yBoTUjQ6fcAKBzVGOnpcvzL0ubUh%2
FhUdiszHrx9CN0J5g2nAJQP0B4ZWoIpkolBHb75rGxugF%2B15zW5CtL54BQ2k31YkPFcF
cmzCKs4OdBjqqAaB2KdgHMY9QOR%2B39n7aWdgEg3A1ijx%2BRhIZQadNFkWOpA8GL
H9vhYMk%2FoVz%2FES8dqBEHE3og%2F%2FkRqd5efKmgJcH8bcu9r%2B84RvCj16%2B
FWzRRFr4uVKSvjII%2F3hLsGnKbRkuzF6v7705J9gxaPXT6z8%2FBoFH6XhOGKF54gZd4
18Sbuhv4UC2KHhl1lHQKbPvqDe6dCdKCNETT9wbTLuO0Vh6Jr8Ih8YPPddf&X-Amz-
Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20221219T222117Z&X-Amz-
SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-
18
Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTZTOQOLC5%2F20221219%2Fus-east-
1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-
Signature=2dbb7fa41e998e9be2c157170db51b2f0a13ad0c55f3b05975f3f1d78ceeed30&ha
sh=97d8bbf1548e909dffc591787876f7f0918cadba2bad79795666ef68aa021f83&host=6804
2c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S18766102090
09126&tid=spdf-39d723d4-c56d-4810-a035-
b505a287db24&sid=94341035389e78419a18c0e6bcc85d7c690dgxrqb&type=client&ua=575
1025c5b580d5103&rr=77c387c7df3a2406 [Accessed 19 December 2022].
23. Penche, C., 1998. Layman’s Guidebook on how to develop a small hydro site. Available
from: https://workingthetweed.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/updated-guide-to-small-
hydro.pdf [Accessed 20 December 2022].
24. Mellander, C. and Florida, R., 2010. Beautiful Places: The Role of Perceived Aesthetic
Beauty in Community Satisfaction [Online]. Available from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00343404.2010.486784 [Accessed 21
December 2022].
25. Cocke, S., 2015. The High Price of Wind Energy in Breezy Hawaii [Online]. Available
from: https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/01/the-high-price-of-wind-energy-in-breezy-
hawaii/#:~:text=The%20average%20pricing%20for%20the,kwh%2C%20according%20to%2
0PUC%20filings. [Accessed 21 December 2022].
26. Carmo, M., Miranda, R., Blanco, H. and Tiabi, E., 2021. Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction
[Online]. Available from: https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Dec/IRENA_Green_hydrogen_cost_2020.pdf
27. salary.com, 2022. Median salaries in Honoka’a [Online]. Available from:
https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/plant-general-manager-salary [Accessed
21 December 2022].
28. Gray-Blakely, R., 2022. What is the Corporate Tax Rate? [Federal & State Guide]
[Online]. Available from: https://www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/accounting/corporate-tax-
rate/#:~:text=Federal%20corporate%20income%20tax%20rate&text=The%20current%20cor
porate%20tax%20rate,there%20were%20taxable%20income%20brackets. [Accessed 22
December 2022].
29. Tax Foundation, 2022. Hawaii Tax Rates, Collections and Burdens [Online]. Available
from:
https://taxfoundation.org/state/hawaii/#:~:text=Hawaii%20also%20has%20a%204.40,tax%20
rate%20of%204.44%20percent. [Accessed 22 December 2022].
30. Cotterill civils, 2022. 75,100 litre Galvanised Steel Water Tank [Online]. Available from:
https://www.cotterillcivils.co.uk/products/75-100-litre-galvanised-steel-water-
tank?variant=40712329789485 [Accessed 22 December 2022].
31. Despard, M., 2018. How Much Can I Expect to Pay for Utilities on the Big Island?
[Online]. Available from: https://www.hawaiilife.com/blog/utility-costs-big-island/ [Accessed
22 December 2022].
32. sumpsandpumpsdirect, 2022. C10000 Commercial Sewage Pumping Station (10,000ltr)
[Online]. Available from: https://www.sumpsandpumpsdirect.co.uk/acatalog/Commercial-
Sewage-Pump-Systems.html?gclid=CjwKCAiAnZCdBhBmEiwA8nDQxaxfi0GkN-
6qhf6q_T8K3GD1hhH5TVivlZWvrytpBuT_DmnzbNmaBxoCf4oQAvD_BwE [Accessed 22
December 2022].
19
33. UKWaerFilters, 2022. Industrial Water Filter 60 L / minute [Online]. Available from:
https://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/industrial-water-filter-60-l-minute.html [Accessed 22
December 2022].
34. pureenergycentre, 2022. PureH2 Hydrogen Electrolyser [Online]. Available from:
https://pureenergycentre.com/hydrogen-products-pure-energy-centre/hydrogen-electrolyser/
35. pureenergycentre, 2022. PureH2 Hydrogen Compressors [Online]. Available from:
https://pureenergycentre.com/hydrogen-products-pure-energy-centre/hydrogen-electrolyser/
36. Made-in-China, 2022. Custom 500kw Hydrogen Fuel Cell Power Plant. Available from:
https://huadehydrogen.en.made-in-china.com/product/mdnGieMrqqYx/China-Custom-
500kw-Hydrogen-Fuel-Cell-Power-Plant.html [Accessed 22 December 2022].
20
Appendix A: Sizing and set-up of the green hydrogen system
The theory behind sizing the system begins with the underlying chemical equation outlining
the reaction taking place in the electrolyser, with the objective of obtaining the mass of
hydrogen and corresponding mass of water required to meet the power requirements. Water
is split in the endothermic reaction to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The reaction is provided
below:
1
𝐻2 𝑂(𝑙) → 𝐻2 (𝑔) + 𝑂2 (𝑔) Equation 1
2
The heat of reaction, ∆𝐻𝑟𝑥𝑛 is equal to 285.83 kJ/mol[4]. This describes the change in energy
as a result of the reaction. As provided, the system should be capable of producing 120 MWh
of power at a time – equivalent to 4.32 × 108 kJ. Therefore, the moles of hydrogen required to
satisfy the needs of the centre is calculated by dividing the power requirement by the heat of
reaction:
4.32 × 108 𝑘𝐽
= 1511387.89 𝑚𝑜𝑙
285.83 𝑘𝐽/𝑚𝑜𝑙
The equation illustrating the reaction within the fuel cells is given below.
1
𝐻2 (𝑔) + 𝑂2 (𝑔) → 𝐻2 𝑂(𝑔) + 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 Equation 2
2
With the use of a typical alkaline fuel cell with a maximum stack size of 100kW and a potassium
hydroxide catalyst[5], typical efficiencies of 60% are achieved after carrying out a general
market survey. Upon further research, a hydrogen fuel cell system by Ballard Power Systems©
offers a strong performance output of 200kW per unit with a 53.5% fuel efficiency. With this
system, 100 structures are required to meet the power requirement of 20MWe, with a total
ground area of 91.67m2[6]. Taking the efficiency into consideration, a calculation below
illustrates the method taken to achieve the required total mass of hydrogen:
1511387.89 𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 2.00 𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
= 5650048.19 𝑔 ≈ 5650 𝑘𝑔
0.535
Upon concluding a market survey, a PEM-based electrolyser from Plug Power named Plug
EX-4250D provides 1062.5 kg of hydrogen in six hours. Therefore, to match the required
amount of hydrogen, six systems are required, taking up a ground area of 703.2 m2[7]. As
shown in the chemical reactions, the molar ratio between the hydrogen and water molecule is
1:1. Therefore, the moles of hydrogen are equal to the moles of water required, and the
theoretical required mass can be estimated, while also accounting for efficiency losses:
1511387.89 𝑚𝑜𝑙 × 18.01𝑔/𝑚𝑜𝑙
= 50878683.92 𝑔 = 50878.69 𝑘𝑔
0.535
However, the actual mass of water required (according to the specification sheet) is 74143.55
kg[7], an expected, higher result due to energy losses elsewhere in the system. Once the
hydrogen is produced, it is stored in hydrogen vessels. To size these tanks, the volumetric
energy density of hydrogen is required. This refers to the amount of energy that can be
contained within a given volume[8]. Hydrogen is typically stored at pressures of 350 or 700 bar.
To obtain the lowest volume of hydrogen tanks, a pressure of 700 bar is used, with a
corresponding volumetric energy density of hydrogen of 42 kg/m3[9]. Therefore, the calculation
for the total number of hydrogen cylinders is provided below:
21
5650 𝑘𝑔
= 134.52 𝑚3
42.00 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
Carrying out a second market survey revealed that vessels of 185 L (0.185 m3) are
commercially available by ILJIN HYSOLUS, a renewables company based in South Korea[10].
According to the above calculation, upon dividing the volume held by one vessel by the total
volume of hydrogen required to be stored, theoretically 727 tanks could be used. However,
according to the provided specification sheet no more than 7.4 kg of hydrogen can be safely
stored in each tank, consequently raising the required number to 764. A simplified process
flow diagram of the set-up is presented in figure 2. As the number of moles of oxygen remain
constant in the first and second reactions, with oxygen as a product and reactant respectively
in each, a pipeline transfers the gas between sections in the system.
Figure A.F1: Process flow diagram of Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s system
Due to the gas vessels containing high-pressure hydrogen, several other safety
considerations also need to be respected. A significant risk of explosion is present if the
vessels are not safely handled and stored. Therefore, the tanks must be stored securely in a
sufficiently ventilated, purpose-built structure with minimal impacts from the geographical and
geological features of the area with clear fire exits. The floor of the building should be
constructed from a non-combustible and non-porous material with an adequate capacity to
support the weight of the vessels. Sufficient training should be provided to employees working
on the site.
22
Figure A.F2: Approximate site footprint
23
Appendix B: Calculations, cost estimates and additional figures
Table B.T1: All estimated costs for RheEnergise’s H-D Hydro System
Construction and engineering (RheEnergise) Cost (£)

Investigations 60,000
Excavations & Filling 2,110,501
Piling & Retaining 1,221,086
Concrete 2,381,697
Sundry Brick/Block/Stonework 41,442
Steel 870,725
Tanking/waterproofing 204,854
Simple roofing 555,206
Misc. works in connection with 67,636
Access roads 486,245
Electrical works 63,208
Specialist data and security 20,000
Total construction and engineering CAPEX 8,082,600
CAPEX (Plant) (RheEnergise) Cost (£)
Pipework, Valves and Penstocks 670,394
Tanks and Manifolds 232,500
Electrical (main) 500,000
Pump Turbine Supply 5,000,000
Transformers/Grid 500,000
Balance of Plant 1,250,000
CAPEX (HDF) 5,240,700
Total plant CAPEX 13,393,594
Contractor (RheEnergise) Cost (£)
Contingency (7.5%) 1,610,715
Overhead contractor (10%) 1,623,549
Total Contractor 3,234,264
Total CAPEX 24,710,459
DEVEX (RheEnergise) Cost (£)
Initial DEVEX 122,222
DEVEX (Fees and Consents) 572,222
Total CAPEX and DEVEX 25,404,903
24
Table B.T2: All estimated costs for Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s hydrogen fuel cell system
Construction and engineering (Green Hydrogen Ltd.) Cost (£)
Investigations 40,000
Excavations & Filling 1,441,212
Piling & Retaining 1,100,542
Concrete 1,233,991
Sundry Brick/Block/Stonework 61,249
Steel 471,214
Tanking/waterproofing 391,766
Simple roofing 612,299
Misc. works in connection with 45,133
Access roads 400,100
Electrical works 51,201
Specialist data and security 20,000
Total construction and engineering CAPEX 5,868,707
CAPEX (Plant) (Green
Cost (£) Reference
Hydrogen Ltd.)
Pipework and valves 23,000 -
Water storage tanks and
8207.99 [30]
waterproofing
Water 75.08 [31]
Electrical (main) 500,000 -
Pumps 33076.38 [32]
Transformers/Grid 500,000 -
Water filter system 6216 [33]
Vessel (for KOH) 8207.99 [30]
Electrolysis module
1,500,000 [34]
(including heat exchangers)
Compressors 360,000 [35]
Expander 112,000 -
Hydrogen storage
1,375,200 -
(cylinders)
Condenser 96,000 -
Fuel cell system 19,956,720 [36]
Total plant CAPEX 24,478,703.44
Contractor (Green Hydrogen Ltd.) Cost (£)
Contingency (7.5%) 2,276,055.78
Overhead contractor (10%) 3,034,741.04
Total Contractor 5,310,796.82
Total CAPEX 35,658,207.26
DEVEX (Green Hydrogen Ltd.) Cost (£)
Initial DEVEX 122,222
DEVEX (Fees and Consents) 572,222
Total CAPEX and DEVEX 36,352,651.26
25
STEP 1: Calculate Capital Tax Allowances
End of Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Rate% £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k
(a) Plant & Equipment 25 15010.726
Start NBV reducing 15010.73 11258.04 8443.53 6332.65 4749.49 3562.12 2671.59 2003.69 1502.77 1127.08 845.31 633.98 475.49 356.61 267.46 200.60 150.45 112.83 84.63 63.47 47.60 35.70 26.78 20.08 15.06
Tax allowance 3752.68 2814.51 2110.88 1583.16 1187.37 890.53 667.90 500.92 375.69 281.77 211.33 158.50 118.87 89.15 66.87 50.15 37.61 28.21 21.16 15.87 11.90 8.93 6.69 5.02 3.77
Value at end 3.01
Balancing allowance 11258.04 8443.53 6332.65 4749.49 3562.12 2671.59 2003.69 1502.77 1127.08 845.31 633.98 475.49 356.61 267.46 200.60 150.45 112.83 84.63 63.47 47.60 35.70 26.78 20.08 15.06 8.28
(b) Buildings 4 9699.73
Start NBV straight line 9699.73 9311.74 8923.75 8535.76 8147.77 7759.79 7371.80 6983.81 6595.82 6207.83 5819.84 5431.85 5043.86 4655.87 4267.88 3879.89 3491.90 3103.91 2715.92 2327.94 1939.95 1551.96 1163.97 775.98 387.99
Tax allowance 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99 387.99
Value at end 0.00
(c) Land 0 694.44
Start NBV 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44
Tax allowance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Value at end 0.00
STEP 1: Total tax allowances 4140.67 3202.50 2498.87 1971.15 1575.36 1278.52 1055.89 888.91 763.68 669.76 599.32 546.48 506.86 477.14 454.85 438.14 425.60 416.20 409.15 403.86 399.89 396.91 394.68 393.01 391.75
Income stream and operating costs

End of Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
£k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k
Income Sales 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636
Extra income -660.06
Operating costs Normal 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761 7245.761
Disposal of Plant & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
Step 2: Calculate trading profits

Trading profit 1730.18 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2305.24
Tax rate (%) 26.4
Tax allowances (from STEP 1) 4140.67 3202.50 2498.87 1971.15 1575.36 1278.52 1055.89 888.91 763.68 669.76 599.32 546.48 506.86 477.14 454.85 438.14 425.60 416.20 409.15 403.86 399.89 396.91 394.68 393.01 391.75
Step 3: Calculate taxable profits

Taxable profit -2410.49 -812.26 -108.63 419.09 814.88 1111.72 1334.35 1501.33 1626.56 1720.48 1790.92 1843.75 1883.38 1913.10 1935.38 1952.10 1964.64 1974.04 1981.09 1986.38 1990.35 1993.32 1995.56 1997.23 1913.48
Step 4: Calculate tax receivable or payable

Tax receivable or payable -636.37 -214.44 -28.68 110.64 215.13 293.49 352.27 396.35 429.41 454.21 472.80 486.75 497.21 505.06 510.94 515.35 518.66 521.15 523.01 524.40 525.45 526.24 526.83 527.27 505.16
CALCULATION OF DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW

Investment (from Step 1) -25404.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sale of land, building, Plant & Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.01
Profit in the year (from Step 2 = Trading profit) 1730.18 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2390.24 2305.24
Tax in the year (from Step 4) 636.37 214.44 28.68 -110.64 -215.13 -293.49 -352.27 -396.35 -429.41 -454.21 -472.80 -486.75 -497.21 -505.06 -510.94 -515.35 -518.66 -521.15 -523.01 -524.40 -525.45 -526.24 -526.83 -527.27
Step 5: Calculate net cash flow after tax

Net cash flow after tax -23674.72 3026.61 2604.68 2418.92 2279.60 2175.11 2096.74 2037.97 1993.89 1960.83 1936.03 1917.44 1903.49 1893.03 1885.18 1879.30 1874.88 1871.57 1869.09 1867.23 1865.83 1864.79 1864.00 1863.41 1780.98
Step 6: Apply discount factor (for the time value of money)

i= 6 %
Apply discount factor 1 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.665057114 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.442300964 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470
Step 7: Calculate present value of net cash flow

Net present value -23674.72 2855.29 2318.15 2030.97 1805.66 1625.37 1478.12 1355.37 1250.99 1160.61 1081.07 1010.08 945.98 887.52 833.82 784.17 738.04 695.04 654.82 617.14 581.78 548.54 517.27 487.84 439.86
Step 8: Apply chosen method of economic evaluation

Net Present Value (NPV) -18501.28 -16470.31 -14664.65 -13039.28 -11561.16 13468.93 11864.63 10707.09 9757.19 8961.61 8282.22 7691.62 7170.07 6703.24 6280.68 5894.64 5539.39 5210.55 4904.80 4619.52 4352.63 4102.42 3847.25
Cumulative NPV -23674.72 -20819.43 -18501.28 -16470.31 -14664.65 -13039.28 -11561.16 -10205.79 -8954.80 -7794.19 -6713.12 -5703.04 -4757.07 -3869.54 -3035.72 -2251.56 -1513.52 -818.48 -163.66 453.49 1035.26 1583.80 2101.07 2588.91 3028.77
Figure B.F1: Standard project calculations (cumulative cash flow method) - RheEnergise’s H-D Hydro System
26
STEP 1: Calculate Capital Tax Allowances
End of Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Rate% £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k
(a) Plant & Equipment 25 27134.101
Start NBV reducing 27134.10 20350.58 15262.93 11447.20 8585.40 6439.05 4829.29 3621.97 2716.47 2037.36 1528.02 1146.01 859.51 644.63 483.47 362.61 271.95 203.97 152.97 114.73 86.05 64.54 48.40 36.30 27.23
Tax allowance 6783.53 5087.64 3815.73 2861.80 2146.35 1609.76 1207.32 905.49 679.12 509.34 382.00 286.50 214.88 161.16 120.87 90.65 67.99 50.99 38.24 28.68 21.51 16.13 12.10 9.08 6.81
Value at end 5.45
(b) Buildings 4 5868.71
Start NBV straight line 5868.71 5633.96 5399.21 5164.46 4929.71 4694.97 4460.22 4225.47 3990.72 3755.97 3521.22 3286.48 3051.73 2816.98 2582.23 2347.48 2112.73 1877.99 1643.24 1408.49 1173.74 938.99 704.24 469.50 234.75
Tax allowance 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75 234.75
Value at end 0.00
(c) Land 0 694.44
Start NBV 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44 694.44
Tax allowance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Value at end 0.00
STEP 1: Total tax allowances 7018.27 5322.39 4050.48 3096.55 2381.10 1844.51 1442.07 1140.24 913.87 744.09 616.75 521.25 449.63 395.91 355.62 325.40 302.74 285.74 272.99 263.43 256.26 250.88 246.85 243.82 241.55
Income stream and operating costs

End of Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
£k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k
Income Sales 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636 9636
Extra income
Operating costs Normal 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497 18211.497
Disposal of Plant & Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
Step 2: Calculate trading profits

Trading profit -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8660.50
Tax rate (%) 26.4
Tax allowances (from STEP 1) 7018.27 5322.39 4050.48 3096.55 2381.10 1844.51 1442.07 1140.24 913.87 744.09 616.75 521.25 449.63 395.91 355.62 325.40 302.74 285.74 272.99 263.43 256.26 250.88 246.85 243.82 241.55
Step 3: Calculate taxable profits

Taxable profit -15593.77 -13897.89 -12625.98 -11672.04 -10956.60 -10420.01 -10017.57 -9715.74 -9489.36 -9319.58 -9192.25 -9096.75 -9025.12 -8971.40 -8931.11 -8900.90 -8878.23 -8861.24 -8848.49 -8838.93 -8831.76 -8826.38 -8822.35 -8819.32 -8902.05
Step 4: Calculate tax receivable or payable

Tax receivable or payable -4116.76 -3669.04 -3333.26 -3081.42 -2892.54 -2750.88 -2644.64 -2564.95 -2505.19 -2460.37 -2426.75 -2401.54 -2382.63 -2368.45 -2357.81 -2349.84 -2343.85 -2339.37 -2336.00 -2333.48 -2331.58 -2330.16 -2329.10 -2328.30 -2350.14
CALCULATION OF DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW

Investment (from Step 1) -33697.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sale of land, building, Plant & Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.45
Profit in the year (from Step 2 = Trading profit) -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8575.50 -8660.50
Tax in the year (from Step 4) 4116.76 3669.04 3333.26 3081.42 2892.54 2750.88 2644.64 2564.95 2505.19 2460.37 2426.75 2401.54 2382.63 2368.45 2357.81 2349.84 2343.85 2339.37 2336.00 2333.48 2331.58 2330.16 2329.10 2328.30
Step 5: Calculate net cash flow after tax

Net cash flow after tax -42272.75 -4458.74 -4906.45 -5242.24 -5494.08 -5682.96 -5824.61 -5930.86 -6010.54 -6070.30 -6115.13 -6148.74 -6173.96 -6192.86 -6207.05 -6217.68 -6225.66 -6231.64 -6236.13 -6239.50 -6242.02 -6243.91 -6245.33 -6246.40 -6326.75
Step 6: Apply discount factor (for the time value of money)

i= 6 %
Apply discount factor 1 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.665057114 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.442300964 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470
Step 7: Calculate present value of net cash flow

Net present value -42272.75 -4206.36 -4366.73 -4401.48 -4351.82 -4246.64 -4106.12 -3944.36 -3771.09 -3593.00 -3414.65 -3239.08 -3068.27 -2903.46 -2745.38 -2594.42 -2450.71 -2314.21 -2184.79 -2062.23 -1946.29 -1836.68 -1733.11 -1635.29 -1562.57
Step 8: Apply chosen method of economic evaluation

Net Present Value (NPV) 0.00 -55247.32 -59599.14 -63845.78 -67951.90 -29623.51 -29188.24 -28414.52 -27427.69 -26314.95 -25136.58 -23933.91 -22734.93 -21558.27 -20415.97 -19315.53 -18261.24 -17255.20 -16298.04 -15389.34 -14528.03 -13712.61 -12960.97
Cumulative NPV -42272.75 -46479.11 -50845.84 -55247.32 -59599.14 -63845.78 -67951.90 -71896.26 -75667.35 -79260.36 -82675.01 -85914.09 -88982.36 -91885.82 -94631.20 -97225.62 -99676.33 -101990.54 -104175.33 -106237.56 -108183.85 -110020.54 -111753.65 -113388.94 -114951.51
Figure B.F2: Standard project calculations (cumulative cash flow method) – Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s electrolysis and hydrogen fuel cell system
27

Ce30241 CW2 Ay2022-23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ce30241 CW2 Ay2022-23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ce30241 CW2 Ay2022-23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE30241 Coursework Assessment 2 – AY2022-23

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bath

Assessment of high-density hydropower and hydrogen fuel-cell

Project goals and objectives.................................................................................................. 1

Figure 1: Labelled map of Honoka'a and its locational benefits

• To have a power generation capacity of 20MWe of up to six hours at a time (120MWh)

Figure 2: Work breakdown structure - Option 1: RheEnergise's High-Density Hydropower

RheEnergise's High- 4.2a. Upper & lower storage tanks

Figure 4: Gantt chart of both projects including dependencies

Figure 5: General risk matrix

Table 1: Risk register of both projects

Raw material and equipment

Site preparation Water filter retentate

Specialised equipment: turbines, safety valves,

Operation and maintenance

Decommissioning, recycling, waste

Option 1 only (RheEnergise s H-D Hydropower system)

Option 2 only (Green Hydrogen Ltd. s electrolysis and fuel

Figure 6: Life-cycle inventory analysis of both options

Position Frequency Salary, (£)*

Figure A.F1: Process flow diagram of Green Hydrogen Ltd.’s system

Construction and engineering (RheEnergise) Cost (£)

Income stream and operating costs

Step 2: Calculate trading profits

Step 3: Calculate taxable profits

Step 4: Calculate tax receivable or payable

CALCULATION OF DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW

Step 5: Calculate net cash flow after tax

Step 6: Apply discount factor (for the time value of money)

Step 7: Calculate present value of net cash flow

Step 8: Apply chosen method of economic evaluation

Income stream and operating costs

Step 2: Calculate trading profits

Step 3: Calculate taxable profits

Step 4: Calculate tax receivable or payable

CALCULATION OF DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW

Step 5: Calculate net cash flow after tax

Step 6: Apply discount factor (for the time value of money)

Step 7: Calculate present value of net cash flow

Step 8: Apply chosen method of economic evaluation

You might also like