Bureau of Reclamation Small Hydropower and Hydrokinetic ... · PDF fileBureau of Reclamation...

Preview:

Citation preview

Bureau of Reclamation Small

Hydropower and Hydrokinetic

Development and Research

Success Stories

Small Hydro Canada 2014

Reclamation Overview

• Largest water

wholesaler in US

• 187 Water Resource

Projects

– 337 Reservoirs

– 476 Dams

– 8,116 Miles of

Irrigation Canals

• Second largest

producer of

hydroelectric power

in U.S.

– 53 Hydroelectric

Power Plants

– Capacity: 14.6

million kW

– Annual Generation:

Over 40 billion kWh

Reclamation Owned and Operated

Hydropower Plants

Initial Driver - New Energy Economy

• Administration Goal –80%

of America’s Electricity

from clean sources by

2035

• 31 States with Renewable

Energy Portfolios – Most

include Hydropower

• New Energy Economy –

Reclamation Needs to

Lead in Integrating Energy

& Water Policies

4

Memorandum of Understanding

• Implemented to support the development of

sustainable hydropower

• Signed March 24, 2010

• Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy,

Department of the Interior

Hydropower Permitting and Licensing

on Reclamation Facilities

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC)

or

Lease of Power Privilege

(LOPP)

FERC Development

• Non-federal development on Federal dams/conduits

• Licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

• Reclamation involvement limited

• 50 Online

• 9 In Development

• 27 Preliminary Permits

Lease of Power Privilege

• Reclamation’s Hydro Permitting

Program (Non-federal development

on Federal dams/canals

• Where Reclamation was authorized

development

• 9 Online

• 5 Preliminary Leases

• 9 In preliminary stages

• Guidelines available at:

– www.usbr.gov/recman

Hydropower Plants

Existing FERC or Lease of Power Privilege Projects

Hydropower Plants (In Development)

FERC Permits/Licenses or Lease of Power Privilege

Hydropower Plants

Combined

Lease of Power Privilege

PL 113-24 (HR 678)

• BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT

HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL JOBS

ACT (PL 113-24) Signed into law August 9, 2013

PL 113-24 (HR 678)

• Jurisdiction for canal development moved from

FERC to Reclamation

• Preference given to Irrigation Districts

• Codification of NEPA Categorical Exclusion Process

• RECENT DEVELOPMENT

Jordanelle

• Online 2008

• 13,000 kW

• 57 GWH

16

Upper and Lower Turnbull

• Online 2011

• 2 Plants

• 7800 kW and 5300 kW

• 14.7 and 10.6 GWH

Klamath C Drop Canal

• Online 2012

• 900 kW

• 2.9 GWH

Carter Lake

• Online 2012

• 2600 kW

• 10 GWH

Uncompahgre South Canal

• Online 2013

• 2 Plants

• 4,000 kW and 3,500 kW

• 14.3 and 12.6 GWH

Ridgway

• Online 2014

• 7000 kW

• 22 GWH

21

Others

• Arrowrock

– Online 2010

– 15000 kW

– 75.9 GWH

• Arena Drop

– Online 2012

– 385 kW

– 1.6 GWH

22

• Esquatzel

– Online 2012

– 900 kW

– 5.14 GWH

• Fargo Drop

– Online 2013

– 1100 kW

– 3.17 GWH

WaterSmart Grant Development

WaterSmart Grants

• Three Sister’s Irrigation District

- 950 kW

• Pershing County Water

Conservancy District - 750 kW

• Boise Board of Control – 839 kW

• Consolidated Irrigation Company –

500 kW

• Sacramento Suburban Water

District – 200 kW

• Fremont Irrigation District – 2500

kW

• Cub River Irrigation District – 456

kW

MOU Technology Development &

Deployment

Technology Development & Deployment

• DOE and Reclamation announced

funding opportunity for research

and development projects to

advance hydropower technology on

April 5, 2011.

• Designed to support innovative

technologies that can produce

power more efficiently, reduce costs

and increase sustainable

hydropower generation at sites not

previously considered practical.

• Grant Award topics include:

• Advanced Small Hydropower

• Advanced Pump Storage

• Environmental Mitigation

Technology Development &

Deployment • Awarded ~$17 million for 16 projects in 11

states on 9-6-2011

• Includes three projects on Reclamation

facilities (two projects jointly funded by

DOE/Reclamation)

– Natel Hydroengine

– Turbinator

– Archimedes Screw

Hydrokinetic Testing

Hydrokinetics

– Hydrokinetic projects generate power from the flow of

rivers, canals, ocean currents or waves.

– Many new hydrokinetic technologies and vendors for

river and canal deployment

– Opportunity to demonstrate viability and determine

impacts

Hydrokinetics

– Hydrokinetic Technology Testing at Roza Canal

• Working with technology developers, R&D and DOE

• Evaluate impacts to canal operations

• Evaluate operating characteristics of the technology

Background – Hydrokinetics

• Hydraulic impacts to canals are unknown

– Irregular water surface (flow measurement structures,

diversions, deliveries)

– Free-board limitations

– Increased pumping costs

– Decreased hydropower

production

31

Research Objectives

• Roza Main Canal near Yakima, WA (2013 – 2015)

– Manufacturer: Characterize performance

– Sandia National Laboratories: Characterize near field

hydraulics

– Reclamation (Yakima Field Office & Hydraulics Group):

Quantify operational impacts

32

• Overall Team

Objective: Develop a

predictive modeling

tool to determine where

and how hydrokinetics

can be used.

Roza Main Canal

• Located near Yakima, WA

• Supply for Roza Irrigation District

(72,000 acres)

• 11 miles from diversion to power

plant

33

Shakedown Monitoring & Test Plan -

2013 • Monitoring

– Water Surface Elevation at key locations

• Measure changes with hydrokinetic in flow

• Calibrate numerical model of canal system

– Canal Flow

• Hydrokinetic vs. Baseline Testing

– Water Surface Elevation up and downstream of

Hydrokinetic unit

– Velocity up and downstream of Hydrokinetic unit

– Canal Flow

– Power plant efficiency testing

34

2013 - Water Surface Test Results

Top of Lining

Free-Board

35

Power Plant Measurements

36

Lessons Learned & Future Work

• Lessons Learned

– Velocity: Larger boat and more efficient tagline system

– Water Surface: Hobos worked well; need to secure

logger within angle; consistent sampling interval

– Power Plant: no impact - performance testing not

necessary; will monitor throughout 2014 test season

• Future Work (through 2015)

– Test 1 unit at multiple load settings and canal flow.

– Test additional HK units in series

– Refine numerical model to use as a predictive tool

37

Thank You!

Kerry McCalman

kmccalman@usbr.gov

Power Website:

http://www.usbr.gov/power

LOPP Website:

http://www.usbr.gov/power

/lopp

Recommended