Posts Tagged ‘Hydropower’

h1

Micro-hydropower potential in man-made waterways

April 19, 2012

Michael Giberson

Earth Techling reports on the release of the latest report in the U.S. Department of Interior’s efforts to identify opportunities to develop small-scale hydropower projects within the DOI’s current water delivery systems in the Western United States. The goal of DOI’s project was to inventory potentially valuable locations and then invite developers to consider investing in projects. The most recent report indicates an annual potential for as much as 1.5 million MWh of energy to be generated.

Details from the Earth Techling summary:

These are all micro hydro sites, ranging in potential capacity from 125 kW to about 26 MW installed capacity. Fish would not be endangered because they are largely municipal water conduits.

The total clean energy produced would be equivalent to replacing one 260 -300 MW coal power station.

Since the hydropower projects probably would generate less power than the waterway itself uses, it might be more economical to consume the power ‘behind the meter’ rather than producing power for sale elsewhere. Possibly, however, the locations where the waterway uses power and the locations with good hydropower potential are distant from each other, so then sale off system could be more economic.

The DOI’s webpage for the project has several reports.

(The Earth Techling post ends with an odd political slam at Republicans, seemingly wistful for the good ol’ days of grand projects like the Hoover Dam. Apparently the inability to ram project’s down a region’s throat from the halls of government can be a bit constraining to people with big dreams.)

h1

Bonneville Power Administration says no to negative prices again

May 20, 2011

Michael Giberson

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Administrator has adopted interim Environmental Redispatch and Negative Pricing Policies to deal with potential overgeneration conditions on the BPA power system. In brief, BPA plans to employ “Environmental Dispatch” rules for operating the power system in a manner conducive to BPA meeting various legal and regulatory constraints; the BPA Negative Pricing Policy is “we won’t allow it.”

Excepts from pages 10-12 of “BPA’s Interim Environmental Redispatch and Negative Pricing Policies: Administrator’s Final Record of Decision,” May 2011, below. I haven’t yet read the 68-page long section “Negative Pricing Policy,” but am adding it to my summer reading plans.

Related:

From the BPA report:

The events of early June 2010 illustrate how the increase in wind generation has influenced the ability to manage high flows on the Columbia River. … In early June, however, a strong Pacific jet stream brought storm systems with heavy precipitation and runoff. Snake River streamflows nearly tripled, and Columbia River streamflows nearly doubled. The resulting flows exceeded those needed to meet flow and spill objectives for fish passage. Federal water management staff focus shifted to developing strategies and modifying operations to reduce excess spill and minimize excessive TDG production to the extent practicable.…

During this time, most Northwest thermal generation shut down or reduced to minimum operating levels. These generation owners obtained low-cost or free Federal hydropower to replace thermal generation. Thermal generation normally finds it economical to displace their fuel with lower-cost hydropower since they can store or conserve their fuel while they receive hydropower.

However, due to differing economic considerations, the roughly 3,000 megawatts of wind power projects located in BPA’s Balancing Authority Area did not respond to the availability of free Federal hydropower. Wind power projects cannot store their fuel and are generally eligible to receive Federal Production Tax Credits (PTC) and/or state Renewable Energy Credits (REC). Wind power output ranged from zero to nearly full output, depending on wind conditions….

Unlike thermal operators, wind operators have an economic incentive to operate as much as possible, regardless of system conditions. The PTC is currently $21 per megawatt-hour (“MWh”) and state RECs are generally in the $8 to $20 per MWh range, so this incentive is significant. While all wind power projects are eligible to receive RECs for production, most new wind power projects have opted not to take the PTC and instead opted for the Investment Tax Credit (“ITC”) or other grants that provide up-front financial benefits tied to the cost of the project and not actual production. Wind power projects that opt for the ITC or other grants receive the full financial benefit of these incentives regardless of project output (pp. 11-12).

BPA believes that its statutory responsibilities and the objectives of the Northwest Power Act would be frustrated if BPA were required to pay negative prices in order to ensure compliance with BPA’s environmental responsibilities.

… While one purpose of the Northwest Power Act is to encourage the development of renewable power in the Pacific Northwest through BPA’s acquisition authority, that is one purpose among many that BPA must meet, including assuring the Northwest has an economical power supply, providing environmental quality, continuing to repay the U.S. Treasury on a current basis, and protecting, mitigating and enhancing fish and wildlife of the Columbia River and its tributaries. …

[P]aying negative prices to displace renewable generation to ensure BPA’s environmental responsibilities are met is neither socially optimal nor consistent with traditional principles of cost causation. BPA’s statutory preference customers would end up paying the costs of displacing renewable generation that is currently almost entirely serving the loads of utilities outside of the BPA Balancing Authority Area. The costs of Federal and state production incentives should be borne by a broad group of taxpayers and ratepayers receiving the wind power, not concentrated on smaller subsets of consumers with limited economic interest or benefits from the renewable generation.

Note that about 750 MW of wind capacity has been added to the BPA Balancing Authority Area since June 2010, to a current total of 3522 MW, and “as much as 3,000 MW of additional wind generation expected to come on line in the next few years” according to the report.

h1

BPA continues not to have a new plan for handling excess renewable power production

April 19, 2011

Michael Giberson

From The Oregonian, “BPA, wind developers argue over looming problem of too much power from renewables.”

In sum: “The BPA has backed away from formally implementing the wind-curtailment plan, a move that renewables advocates applauded. But it hasn’t come up with an alternative. “

The looming problem involves moments on the Bonneville Power System in which the combination of hydropower production and wind power production (along with a little nuclear power) is well in excess of consumer load and the ability to ship power out. BPA wants to tell wind operators to shut down in exchange for essentially free BPA power, and wind operators – who face the loss of production tax credit subsidies and other renewable energy payments say free isn’t enough. Wind operators want to be paid to back off of the system to compensate for the loss of these other income streams.

In short, the wind operators need a market-price system to ration the moments of excess supply in order to preserve at least some of the benefits of the non-energy price side payments they earn through production tax credits and renewable energy credits. A market-price system for coordinating supply would let the wholesale energy price go negative, essentially requiring generators to pay to deliver power to the system. BPA resists the idea of paying people to take its power, particularly when they must run the system to meet environmental or other requirements.

By the way, much of the boom in wind power development in Washington and Oregon is fostered by demand from California utilities seeking to comply with their state renewable portfolio standard obligation.

Related, from bloggers at Forbes.com:

We’ve discussed this issue a few times in the past, try this search of the KP archives: Bonneville + wind
h1

Too much dam water?

July 7, 2010

Michael Giberson

Matthew Wald at the New York Times Green blog reports on the Bonneville Power Administration’s problem of having too much water and wind power at the same time.  For about 5 days in early June, storms producing wind and rainwater led to a lot of wind power and too much water in the reservoirs.  As much power as possible was sold to other areas, fossil-fueled generators were cut to essentially zero and even the area nuclear power plants, normally operating at near 100 percent of capacity, were asked to cut back to 22 percent.

h1

On Hoover Dam

July 6, 2010

Michael Giberson

From Michael Hiltzik, in the Los Angeles Times,  “The false promise of Hoover Dam.” Hiltzik provides a good summary of the political promises and pretenses that allowed the dam to be built in the first place.  He then examines the competing demands for the current and future use of the dam.  I liked this bit:

This year, as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s dedication of “the greatest dam in the world” on September 30, 1935, we should also recognize the dam’s equivocal legacy to the West, and to the nation.

Connoisseurs of irony will note that on that day, under a blistering sun and before 10,000 spectators and 20 million radio listeners, FDR claimed as a symbol of the New Deal a public work conceived, designed and launched by his Republican predecessors.

Indeed, during the 1932 presidential campaign, candidate Roosevelt had savagely attacked Hoover, his GOP opponent, for excessive deficit spending on projects like the dam. Once ensconced in the White House, however, he quickly came to appreciate the totemic power of great public works and their effectiveness at representing the benefits that could be bestowed on the citizens by a visionary administration.

Near the end of the article Hiltzik concludes:

The truth is that conflict on the [Colorado] river will never be stilled, because there will always be more demand for the water than there is water.

Excess demand? The price must be too low.  Sounds like a job for the Aguanomist!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 50 other followers