Characteristics of Existing and Potential Hydropower Resources in the U.S.

presented by

Brennan T. Smith, PhD, PEWater Power Program ManagerGroup Leader, Energy-Water Ecosystem EngineeringEnvironmental Sciences DivisionEnergy and Environmental Sciences DirectorateOak Ridge National Laboratory

March 20, 2013

2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Energy-Water Assessment & DevelopmentSc

ale

&C

ompl

exity

Use

rs &

U

ses

Policy AnalysisResearch ProgrammingTransmission Planning

Environmental PlanningGeneration PlanningProject Developers Site-Specific Feasibility

Technology DeploymentProject Developers

Increasing DetailDecreasing Uncertainty

Roles

Modeling &Remote Sensing

Site-SpecificAssessmentC

larit

y &

R

esol

utio

n

Government Industry

3 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Electrons and water molecules do not stop at the border!

U.S. hydropower exists within multiple climatic, legal, and systemic contexts:• Wet / dry• Snowpack / non-snowpack• Water rights• Variable renewables

potential• Non-hydropower baseload

and asset mix• Federal, state, municipal,

and investor-owned assets• Project and basin-scale

authorities and roles• State and federal

environmental resource management

4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Turbine Types

1 10 100 1000 10000 1000001

10

100

1000

10000

Turbine Hydraulic Capacity (cfs)

Turb

ine

Rate

d He

ad (ft

)

Francis

Pelton

Kaplan

Francis51 GW2,565 Units

Kaplan19 GW720 Units

Other26 GW1,501 Units

Pelton2.6 GW330 Units

629819 801

608774

383597

328 340189

54

5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Turbine/Generator Age

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60Non-fedUSACEReclamationTVA

Turbine/Generator Age (years)

Cum

ulati

ve N

amep

late

Cap

acity

(GW

)

What are the existing and future costs of aging hydropower infrastructure?

6 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Plant Installed Capacity

(MW)

Design Head (feet)

Turbine Type

Year of initial Commissioning

/ upgrade

Current Annual Average

Generation(MWh)

Potential Annual

GenerationIncrease (MWh)

PotentialGeneration

Increase(%)

Preliminary Cost Est. for

Recommended Upgrades *

(106 $)

28.2 59 Francis 1925 / 2006 46,900 4,600 9.8% 3.6

135 160 Francis 1951 / 1990 342,900 14,400 4.2% 28.1

152 400 Francis 1964 / 2007 436,400 9,600 2.2% 1

38 53.5 Propeller/Francis 1962 /1993 77,300 8,500 11% 13

31 54 Kaplan 1919 / 1990 85,900 24,740 28.8% 20.4

57.6 216 Francis 1949 / 1997 108,100 7565 7% 18

50 273 Francis 1945 / 2005 230,000 27,603 12% 19.2

64 403 Francis 1912 / 2006 365,900 23,417 6.4% 13.8

Total 1,693,400 120,425 7.1%

More Energy from Existing U.S. HydropowerSignificant new energy can be obtained through upgrades and improved efficiency if constraints can be addressed.

7.1% average increase in generation for surveyed facilities (very site-specific)

Results from the DOE Hydropower Advancement Project: http://hydropower.ornl.gov/HAP

Challenges/Issues• Max energy <> max

revenue• Licensing amendment

risks• Competing water uses• Reliability concerns• Intensifying market

dynamics• Competition for capital

7 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

• Non-Powered Dam (NPD) potential exists in areas with less than ideal wind and solar resources

• Water availability, particularly for regulated rivers, is NOT correlated with wind and solar availability (combined firming of capacity)

• Primarily run-of-river rather than storage

• 12.1 GW NPD potential nationwide

• 8.3 GW at the Top 100 NPDs

• Majority of environmental impact has already incurred with dam construction and operation for water control

New Energy from New Powerhouses and Existing Dams

8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

New Energy from New Development

Status Map for US-DOE New Stream-reach Development AssessmentFebruary 2013

Where is the potential? Where is it feasible?What are its attributes?

Nationwide results available October 2013 nhaap.ornl.gov

9 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Resource Attributes Example: Characteristics of Upper Colorado Basin Hydropower Potential

Computed geophysical attributes are used to assess approximate cost and technology needs under multiple development scenarios

10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Environmental Attributes of Hydropower Potential

“not all sites are good, not all sites are bad”

Based on provisional data

11 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

• Gigawatts of undeveloped hydropower potential exist in the U.S.– Significant incremental increases at existing assets ( ~7%)– 12.1 GW at non-powered dams– More at new development sites--results in 2013

• Less than previous assessments, but realistic for deployment scenario planning

• New hydropower development is realistic– Not all sites are “bad” and not all sites are “good.”– Many impacts/feasibility metrics scoped with advanced geospatial processing & data– Multiple scenarios and metrics can inform sustainable development and policy

• Resource assessments are the first step– Additional effort on new cost models is underway– Does not replace site-specific measurement and due diligence– Non-energy (ancillary) value of hydropower assets should not be ignored

Key Points

12 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

Acknowledgments and Credits

National Hydropower Asset AssessmentProgram TeamOak Ridge National LaboratoryBoualem Hadjerioua, Ph.D., Hydropower Engineer

Shih-Chieh Kao, Ph.D., Statistical Hydrologist

Yaxing Wei, Ph.D., Geospatial Analyst

Suresh K. SanthanaVannan, Informatics Specialist

Harold A. Shanafield III, Database Management

Maria G. Martinez, GIS Analyst

Rocio Martinez, Ph.D., Resource Economist

Henriette Jager, Ph.D., Fisheries Biologist

Mark S. Bevelhimer, Ph.D., Fisheries Biologist

Michael Starke, Ph.D., Power Systems Engineer

Shelaine Hetrick, PMP, Operations Manager

Support for this effort is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Program:

Jose Zayas, Wind and Water Power Program ManagerMichael Reed, Water Power Team LeaderHoyt Battey, Market Acceleration LeaderRajesh Dham, P.E., Technology Development Leader