ct hydroelectric power generation assessment - miguel a. camelo rosas

7/26/2019 CT Hydroelectric Power Generation Assessment - Miguel a. Camelo Rosas

1/16

Brief Assessment of the Hydroelectric Power Generation Potential of the Stateof Connecticut using a Matlab Based Model

Miguel A. Camelo Rosas

MAN !"!#H#$

Mathematical Modeling of nergy and n%ironmental Systems

&all '#$(

Hydroelectric power is being utilized in Connecticut today as a clean and renewablesource of energy. By harnessing the gravitational force of flowing water to turn a generator,


2/16

electrical power can be produced. Many different designs of turbines exist to extract the energyfrom the flowing water and readily depends on the flow conditions and geography of the land.

Not only is hydroelectric power being utilized in the nited !tates, but worldwide as well. "sfossil fuels diminish, the need for clean renewable energy will increase, leading nations acrossthe globe to consider power generation alternatives which have future generations in mind and

were previously thought too expensive.

Connecticut has three ma#or rivers flowing through it, all three of which empty into $ong%sland !ound. &hese three rivers are called the Connecticut 'iver, the Housatonic 'iver, and the&hames 'iver. Many other smaller rivers and tributaries help form these ma#or rivers inConnecticut such as the (armington 'iver, !hepaug 'iver, and !hetuc)et 'iver. Many riverstoday are already being used to create clean renewable energy through Hydroelectric *lants inConnecticut. &here are + active Hydroelectric *ower plants in Connecticut designated by bluecircles in (igure below. -nly of these plants have name plate capacities over M/ andsome date bac) to as early as 01+ 2Hydro3%!4.

Figure 1: Active Hydroelectric Dams in Connecticut (HydroGIS)

&otal name plate capacity of conventional hydroelectric power in Connecticut is +1M/and + M/ of pump storage, though hydroelectric power plants rarely operate to thehypothetical maximum power possible for a number of reasons such as water availability and

electricity demand 2Had#erioua, 04. "ctual hydroelectric generation in Connecticut for the monthof 5uly was 673/h 28%"4. "t the current rate of production in 5uly, the net generation in the C&for Conventional Hydroelectric !ector would be + 6 3/h. (igure 6 compares the pro#ected netgeneration of 61 9 to the past 9 years actual hydroelectric generation. &he difference between

the actual power generated and the name plate capacity is called the Capacity (actor 2 C f .C f is the ratio of the actual amount of energy produced to the maximum power possible. %n a

1


3/16

recent :-8 study the capacity factor for Connecticut is 96.+;, and 6.6; for the North 8ast asa whole 2Had#erioua, 04. (igure 6 also displays an estimated 3/h based upon the :-8s capacityfactor for Connecticut.

20102013

250

350

450

550

650Net Generation - CT Hydropower Sector

Actual GWh

Estimated GWh

Year

CT Hydroelectric Generation (GWh)

Figure 2: Net Hydroelectric Generation in C !rom 2"1" to 2"1# (D$%)

Hydroelectricity is not Connecticut


4/16

and . 0; respectively. 'enewable resources only account for 6. 7; of the total electricity produced in 5uly, only 1.> ; of that can be attributed to hydroelectric production. &he remaining

.>9; of renewable electricity generated is attributed to Municipal !olid /aste management andsolar generation.

/hen evaluating Connecticut for additional hydroelectric power generation, one must notonly consider the hydropower producing facilities but also the dams surrounding them orupstream used to control flooding or to create storage capacity. Connecticut has over =11 damsregistered with the National %nventory of :ams 2N%:4 ranging from small ponds for farmingirrigation to the !aville :am, which holds the Bar)hamsted 'eservoir 2N%:4. -f those =11 dams,9= are either associated with or house hydroelectric generation e@uipment and are available in"ppendix (igure " 2NH""*4. " recent study was conducted in 61 + by the .!. :epartmentof 8nergy 2:-84 -a) 'idge National $aboratory 2-'N$4 to better characterize potential newlocations for hydroelectric generation, specifically loo)ing at non powered dams 2N*:4. N*:shave theoretically already incurred many of the costs and environmental impacts of constructinga dam and are prime candidates to be developed for energy purposes. 8xcluding the 9= damsalready associated with generating hydroelectric power, the -'N$ narrowed down the list of

N*:s loo)ing for potential hydroelectric candidates capable of producing over M/ of power.By ma)ing a series of assumptions based on available stream flow data, dam location andgeometry, National Hydropower "sset "ssessment *rogram 2NH""*4 Baseline :atabase,

National Hydrography :ataset, and many others, -'N$ was able to narrow the search down tothe top five potential N*:s shown below circled in red in (igure 9.

Figure #: Non o ered Dams Hydroelectric otential Greater t*an 1 +, (HydroGIS)

&he potential capacity of these dams can be estimated by the following e@uation 2 42Had#erioua, 14.

(1 ) Potential HydropowerGeneration ( MW h)= Q H T / 11800

3


5/16

H 2ft4 is the gross head available for power generation, A 2cfs4 is average flow

during the generation period, is efficiency assumed to be 1.> , and & is time 2hours4

2Had#erioua, 04. /ith the provided data from the sources above one can calculate the potentialannual generation. *otential Name *late Capacity can be estimated using e@uation 264 below.

(2 ) PotentialCapacity ( MW )= Potential PowerGeneration ( MW h) /(C f Days Hours )

sing the value found in e@uation 2 4 and plugging into e@uation 264 using the previously

mentioned C f factor one can compute the potential name plate capacity of a desired location.

"pplying the above two e@uations to estimate the potential capacity of the N*:s results in&able . " Matlab program was used to retrieve the data from an excel file and model these twohydroelectric power generation e@uations for each month of the year. &he data was obtained fromthe government study and the only modification was the removal of the N*:s that were not inConnecticut. &he results were then output by the Matlab program and both the raw data plusthese results were used to build this table. %t should be noted that the difference in the resultsfrom the study and the Matlab program was very small. &he code for the Matlab *rogram and itsoutput can be seen on "ppendix C.

)am Name City *ater Source+earBuil

t

stimated Head

,ft-

A%gAnnual &low,cfs-

PotentialAnnual

Generation ,M*h-

NHAAPRegionalCa acity &actor

,/-

Potential

Ca acity ,M*-

Potential

0urbine)esign

8N(%8$::"M 8N(%8$:

C-NN8C&%C& '% 8' >6 6 7>=0 6>+61 6.6; 6>. aplan

*H8$*! :"M? N8*" 3

'8!8' -%'

N%-N %$$8 ("'M%N3&-N'% 8' 0 7 97 =6+ 610>7 6.6; 9. aplan

&H-M"!&- N :"M

&H-M"!&- N

N" 3"& C '% 8' 071 +6 > 9+1 6.6; +.9 (rancis

/8!&&H-M*!-N

:"M* &N"M A %N8B" 3'% 8' 07 7 + = +11 6.6; 6.> aplan

!" %$$8:"M

N8/H"'&(-':

("'M%N3&-N'% 8' 091 09 10 797== 6.6; .9 aplan

a-le 1: Non. o ered Dam /ocations in C suita-le !or otential Hydroelectric Develo0ment(Had erioua Data in A00endi3 4)

-ut of these locations, the 8nfield :am on the Connecticut 'iver holds the most

potential for power generation at 6>. M/. &his can also be seen on the figure below, where a plot for the hydropower energy DM/hE per Month was calculated for each of the N*: damsand output by the Matlab *rogram. /ith high average annual flow rates, nearly doubling in thespring 2Hydo3%!4, this N*: is ideal for a hydroelectric installation. &he highest hydropowergeneration was in the month of "pril for all of them. /ith its high average annual flows and lowestimated head the turbine selected for the 8nfield :am would be of a aplan :esign, withvariable pitch blades to accommodate for the seasonal change in flow. *otential turbine designwas selected using (igure "6 in the appendix 2HydroN%4. " aplan turbine was also selected for

4


6/16

the *helps :am, /est &hompson :am, and !aville :am based on "ppendix (igure "6.&homaston :am would most li)ely be fitted with a (rancis turbine due to the large estimatedhead available and would be on the extreme of a aplan design.

Figure 5: Hydroelectric o er %nergy vs +ont* !or eac* o! t*e 5 N Ds in C as calculated -y t*e +atla- rogram

%f all five of these N*:s were developed they potentially would add (#.1 M* to the C&total name plate capacity and could theoretically generate an additional $2(.$( G*h of cleanrenewable energy with a relatively low ris), low impact to the environment, shorter time framethan new construction. "dditional fish ladders may be added to aid migratory fish a safe passagearound the newly developed hydro dams if they do not already exist.

"nother study was conducted in 61 9 by :-8 and -'$N to characterize the nation


7/16

use. sing complex computer software, layers of data were created, combining environmentaldata and locations with topographical and hydrological data maps. >111m to >11m buffer zoneswere created around these locations as to minimize the environmental impact 2 ao, 64. Manydifferent layers of data were used to select these locations and a sample can be seen in &able 6.6in "ppendix B. !ome stream reaches even had multiple potential development locations as seen

in &able 6 Below. !ites, li)e in the N*: evaluation above, capable of producing less than M/were excluded from this evaluation. &he results from the N*: evaluation are summarized below.

*atershed NameNumber of

3$M* NS)Reaches

HydraulicHead ,ft-

A%g Annual&lows cfs

stimatedSurface

4nundation,ac-

PotentialCa acity

,M*-

PotentialAnnual

Generation,M*h-

Potential0urbine)esign

/est Branch(armington 'iver 6 +7.+7> 19.+ + >= +16.06 7 6.7+=060 71 +.06

aplan

Headwaters(armington 'iver + ++.7 19>6 ==7.+0 9=7 6 7.=>66 .709>= +9 = . 9

-utlet (armington'iver 6 +7.619170 6>=.>7=++= 61.0=>=0 7.=1997+ 91=11.+0

Middle Auinebaug'iver 7.9196 19 .79 11. 090 .6++669 7= +.0>>

$ower Auinebaug'iver + .99 >6 +>. 7= 07 9.0+ 7+ . 1++6 6==>+.=>

on)apot 'iver?Housatonic 'iver 7 =. 7+9+ 909.09=+=0 17.+6 9 .++97 7 6 . >

Macedonia Broo)?Housatonic 'iver 7 >.+1=1>= 7 .== +> >. 6 +.17=> = 6++.0

Candlewood $a)e?Housatonic 'iver + . 697=6 669 .00 07= .9=7 =.++1+++ 96616.1+

!hepaug 'iver 6 >.7==>6+ + 6.6 11 0 99.0> + 6.76>66 + . 98ightmile Broo)?Housatonic 'iver 0.17 7> +919.6+>> 9 .6 6> 9.77 +70 67> 0.+7

a-le 2: Ne Stream Develo0ment /ocations Statistics and otential Generation (6ao A00endi3 42)!ome stream reaches contain multiple N!: potential dam locations and during the

selection process tail water and inundated surface area were considered before adding additionalhydroelectric locations. :eveloping all 60 potential plants on the 1 new stream reaches has atotal annual potential of 15#.5 G*h of clean renewable energy and adds !#.( M* to the totalhydroelectric name plate capacity of Connecticut. *otential capacity and generation weregenerated from the above head and flow data while utilizing the above e@uations 2 4 and 264. "n

updated C f value ranging from 70?7 ; was used to calculate N!: potential energy

generationG assuming new and efficient technology would be installed at those locations. &heresults from this study that were relevant to Connecticut are show here in table 6. %t is notsurprising that all potential turbine designs selected for these potential hydroelectric locations areall of the aplan design. :ue to the nature of the evaluation, the streams were @uantified in an

as isI condition to create the least environmental impact and inundated surface area resulting in

relatively low hydraulic heads and moderate flow rates best suited for aplan turbines.Hydroelectric power is being utilized in Connecticut today as a clean and renewable

source of energy but not every potential hydro location is being utilized. /ith sophisticatedcomputer software and logged data, the :-8 with the help of -'N$ was able to compile a listof untapped hydroelectric potential in untapped streams and existing dams. 8nvironmentaleffects were ta)en into consideration by the :-8 during their research for both N*: and N!:

pro#ects. (avorable locations to begin with N*:s, as most of the cost and environmental impact

6


8/16

as already were associated with these existing dams. By retrofitting them with hydroelectricturbines, we would be able to boost our capacity to create clean and renewable energy with theleast amount of environmental impact. N!: plants utilize untapped stream potential inConnecticut yielding much more power but are more intrusive but efforts were made whenselecting these locations to minimize environmental effects. By utilizing the few N*: and N!:

locations above, Connecticut could add $#$ M* to the name plate capacity of the stateincreasing it to '1$M* . "dditionally these locations could produce an estimated 515G*h annually increasing the hydroelectric generation total to 2(6G*h . &his increase would allowConnecticut to increase its renewable energy produced, reduce its dependency on fossil fuels,and help reach its goal of being a net exporter of energy by 6161 28%"4.

"s can be seen by the numbers presented, Connecticut does not currently have a largecomponent of its electricity generation coming from hydroelectric energy and the undeveloped

potential examined in this paper of around 11 M/ would not greatly affect the big picture. &hestateJs 'enewable *ortfolio !tandard 2'*!4 calls for 6=; of electricity sold in the state to comefrom renewable energy sources by 6161. Most of that electricity is expected to come fromsources such as onshore or offshore wind, solar power, sustainable biomass, and fuel cells.(urthermore, the '*! re@uires that 9; must come from commercial and industrial waste heatrecovery or conservation. Connecticut electricity providers are meeting their '*! obligations inlarge part by purchasing 'enewable 8nergy Credits from other New 8ngland states. %n thefuture, more renewable power may need to be imported from New Kor) and Canada2Connecticut !tate 8nergy *rofile4. %n order to meet the aggressive targets set by these aggressiverenewable energy targets, the most feasible option for expanding the component thathydroelectric plays in the overall generation of electricity is to import them from nearby Auebec,or even neighboring states with more potential. "s this brief study showed, there is not very largeundeveloped potential, and even if the few sites that show some feasibility were developed, they

would not contribute a large amount of electricity. &he challenges that come with importingrenewable energy from elsewhere are not to be dismissed. &ransportation is an area where a lotof losses occur and there are other factors, li)e dependence and political issues. Hopefully,Connecticut will find the right mix and meet the aggressive goals it has set for itself.

(


9/16

/or)s Cited

:-8. L .!. 8nergy %nformation "dministration ? 8%" ? %ndependent !tatistics and "nalysis.L

%lectricity Data 4ro ser . :epartment of 8nergy, :ec. 61 +. /eb. 69 -ct. 61 9.

8%". LConnecticut !tate 8nergy *rofile.L Connecticut ro!ile . ! :epartment of 8nergy, 5uly

61 9. /eb. 69 -ct. 61 9.

Had#erioua, Boualem. L"n "ssessment of 8nergy *otential at Non?*owered :amns in the nited

!tates.L ,ind 7 ,ater o er rogram 261 64 n. pag. "pr. 61 6. /eb. 69 -ct. 61 9.

Hydro3%!. LHydro3%! iewer.L NHAA . NH""*F:-8F-'N$, (eb.?Mar. 61 6. /eb. 69 -ct.

61 9.

HydroN%. L&urbine "pplication Chart ? *re (easibility.L Hydro NI . N.p., 611>. /eb. 69 -ct.

61 9.

"-, !hih?Chieh. LNew !tream?reach :evelopment " Comprehensive "ssessment of

Hydropower 8nergy *otential in the nited !tates.L ,ind 7 ,ater o er

ec*nologies $!!ice 261 94 n. pag. "pr. 61 9. /eb. 69 -ct. 61 9.

NH""*. LNH""* National Hydropower "sset "ssessment *rogram.L NHAA 8 National

Hydro0o er Asset Assessment rogram . :epartment of 8nergyF-a) 'idge National

$aboratory, 5an. 61 9. /eb. 69 -ct. 61 9.

N%:. LCorpsMap &he National %nventory of :ams 2N%:4.L Cor0s+a0: *e National Inventory

o! Dams (NID) . "rmy Corps of 8ngineers, May 61 +. /eb. 69 -ct. 61 9.

Connecticut !tate 8nergy *rofile. 261 9, March 6=4. /eb. :ecember , 61 9, from !

8nergy %nformation "dministration http FFwww.eia.govFstateFprint.cfmOsidPC&

)


10/16

A endi7 A

Figure A1: %ssential Dams in C Associated it* Hydroelectric Generation (HydroGIS)

Figure A2: ur-ine A00lication C*art (HydroNI)

*


11/16

A endi7 B

6A$ S*i*.C*ie*9 Ne Stream.reac* Develo0ment: A Com0re*ensive Assessment o! Hydro0o er %nergy otential in t*e ;nited States9 0g 1"9

Raw )ata 8 Non owered )ams ,NP)s-

!ee :ata on (iles NHAA


12/16

A endi7 C

Matlab Code

%Power Generation Simple Model for Non-Powered Dams (greated than 1MW) in CT% ses data in an !"#el $ile to #al# late Potential &nn al ' dropower !nerg%and Potential &nn al Capa#it #lear all#l# % np t data from !"#el $ile #ontaining information on Potential PowerGenerating Dams%$low *#fs+%Defined as the flow rate lea,ing a h dra li# str #t re!nfield . / "lsread( 0N'&&P NPD $ 11 1MW M G !2 !D T3"ls0 4 0NPD0 4 0567&C60 )8Phelps . / "lsread( 0N'&&P NPD $ 11 1MW M G !2 !D T3"ls0 4 0NPD0 4 0597&C90 )8Thomaston . / "lsread( 0N'&&P NPD $ 11 1MW M G !2 !D T3"ls0 4 0NPD0 4 05:7&C:0 )8WestThompson . / "lsread( 0N'&&P NPD $ 11 1MW M G !2 !D T3"ls0 4 0NPD0 405;7&C;0 )8Sa,ille . / "lsread( 0N'&&P NPD $ 11 1MW M G !2 !D T3"ls0 4 0NPD0 4 05


13/16

%Thomaston Potential ' dropower !nerg *MWh+for i/171Thomaston P'!(i) / Thomaston .(i) '(B) T effECon,8endThomaston P'!8 %WestThompson Potential ' dropower !nerg *MWh+for i/171WestThompson P'!(i) / WestThompson .(i) '(6) T effECon,8endWestThompson P'!8 %Sa,ille Potential ' dropower !nerg *MWh+for i/171Sa,ille P'!(i) / Sa,ille .(i) '(9) T effECon,8endSa,ille P'!8 %!nfield Total Potential earl ' dropower !nerg *MWh+

5 !nfield P'!/F8for i/171

5 !nfield P'!/ 5 !nfield P'! !nfield P'!(i)8end

5 !nfield P'! %Phelps Total Potential earl ' dropower !nerg *MWh+

5 Phelps P'!/F8for i/171

5 Phelps P'!/ 5 Phelps P'! Phelps P'!(i)8end

5 Phelps P'! %Thomaston Total Potential earl ' dropower !nerg *MWh+

5 Thomaston P'!/F8for i/171

5 Thomaston P'!/ 5 Thomaston P'! Thomaston P'!(i)8end

5 Thomaston P'! %WestThompson Total Potential earl ' dropower !nerg *MWh+

5 WestThompson P'!/F8for i/171

5 WestThompson P'!/ 5 WestThompson P'! WestThompson P'!(i)8end

5 WestThompson P'!

%Sa,ille Total Potential earl ' dropower !nerg *MWh+5 Sa,ille P'!/F8for i/171

5 Sa,ille P'!/ 5 Sa,ille P'! Sa,ille P'!(i)8end

5 Sa,ille P'! %Total Potential earl ' dropower !nerg (all of the sites added p) *MWh+

12


14/16

Total P'! /5 !nfield P'! 5 Phelps P'! 5 Thomaston P'! 5 WestThompson P'! 5 Sa,ille P

'! Months / (17171 )8plot(Months4!nfield P'!4Months4Phelps P'!4Months4Thomaston P'!4Months4WestThompson P'!4Months4Sa,ille P'!)title( 0' droele#tri# Power !nerg ,s Month0 )"la=el( 0Months0 )

la=el( 0Power !nerg *MWh+0 )legend( 0!nfield Dam0 40Phelps Dam0 40Thomaston Dam0 4 0West Thompson Dam0 40Sa,illeDam0) %Capa#it $a#tor *no nits+%Defined as the ratio of the a#t al amo nt of energ prod #ed to the ma"im mpower possi=le%Defined to =e 9 3 % in D?! St d ('ad@ero ia4 pg A)Cf / F39 8 %!nfield Potential &nn al Capa#it *MW+!nfield P&C / 5 !nfield P'!E(Cf 6 B:9)8!nfield P&C %!nfield Potential &nn al Capa#it *MW+Phelps P&C / 5 Phelps P'!E(Cf 6 B:9)8Phelps P&C %!nfield Potential &nn al Capa#it *MW+Thomaston P&C / 5 Thomaston P'!E(Cf 6 B:9)8Thomaston P&C %!nfield Potential &nn al Capa#it *MW+WestThompson P&C / 5 WestThompson P'!E(Cf 6 B:9)8WestThompson P&C %!nfield Potential &nn al Capa#it *MW+Sa,ille P&C / 5 Sa,ille P'!E(Cf 6 B:9)8Sa,ille P&C %Total Potential &nn al Capa#it (all of the sites added p) *MW+Total P&C / !nfield P&C Phelps P&C Thomaston P&C WestThompson P&C Sa,ille P&C %Con,ert the h dra li# head from *ft+ to *m+' ft/' F3BF6< %Con,ert the earl mean flow from *#fs+ to *#ms+. r #ms/. r F3F


15/16

Matlab 9ut uts

5 !nfield P'! /

13


16/16

. r #ms /

6;A3:AFA

F36:9;

93 6BF

ct hydroelectric power generation assessment - miguel a. camelo rosas

Documents