Economic feasibility of weather modification technology application (GBG towers) on hydropower Larona River

Abstract

Weather Modification Process to increase the amount of rainfall can be done continuously if weather conditions are favorable and can be used to maintain the lake water level especially during the dry season. By keeping the lake water level with Weather Modification Technology the environmental balance between supply and demand will be maintained. Towuti Lake located on the upper of the Larona River is the main water supply for 3 Hydropower, therefore optimizing the water resources in the Larona Basin as a whole is necessary to reduce production costs. The reduced supply of electricity from the 3 hydropower will certainly affect the disruption of nickel production and electrical energy sources for the community. This feasibility evaluation aims to calculate the losses if not implemented Weather Modification Technology (TMC), especially the use of ground clouds in the form of Tower Ground Based Generator (GBG). The influential parameters to calculate this evaluation include the required production capacity, the cost of nickel per pound production, the nickel price, the production cost of each power plant is Hydropower Plant, Diesel Power Plant, Steam Power Plant and MBDG, so that the losses for each plant can be compared with the unavailability of water. In particular, this feasibility evaluation aims to calculate the economic value of the application of Weather Modification Technology (GBG Towers) in all of the hydropower located along the Larona River with Towuti Lake condition only has a minimum elevation of 317,45 meters above sea level, where there is a rather long drought. The results of data collection and analysis show that the average operation of water from the lake to the hydropower is 130.1 m3/sec, whereas if the dry season is only 100 m3/sec, therefore the additional amount of TMC activity water required is approximately 30 m3/sec with total volume of water equal to 946.118,37 m3. In addition, the water can generate 40 MWh of electrical energy and if calculated on the basis of nickel and other generating costs, the savings derived from nickel loss of $3.549.915,92/month and other plant operating costs of $7.583.342,44/ month, the total of both costs $11.133.258,36 /month. The conclusion of the total cost and some parameters above when compared with TMC cost of $122.685/month, the result of the economic analysis of the ratio of costs incurred for TMC financing compared to using thermal with fuel consumption without TMC is $122.685/$11.133.258,36 or 1/90,75. The advantage of using TMC that only cost $122.685/month can save fuel costs by $11.133.258,36/month.