1 

2014 WATER POWER PROGRAM PEER REVIEW

Compiled Presentations

February 25-28, 2014

Hydropower Technologies
2 

Contents

Existing Hydropower 

Existing Hydropower— Michael Reed, U.S. Department of Energy

National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program (NHAAP): Existing Hydro Fleet Database and Analyses—Shih-Chieh Kao, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory

9505 Water Use Analysis—Shih-Chieh Kao, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Recovery Act: Hydroelectric Facility Modernization: Funding Opportunity Announcement Number: DE-FOA-0000120—Brian Hunter, U.S. 

Department of Energy

1.6.1.1 Water Use Optimization Toolset—John Gasper, Argonne National Laboratory 

1.6.1.1 Water Use Optimization Toolset—Mark Wigmosta, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Seasonal Hydrosystems Analysis and Optimization—Thomas S. Lowry, Sandia National Laboratories

1.6.1.1 Water Use Optimization Toolset—John W. Hayse, Argonne National Laboratory

1.6.1.1 Water Use Optimization Toolset—Thomas Veselka, Argonne National Laboratory

Hydropower Advancement Project—Brennan T. Smith, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The 45 Mile Hydroelectric Power Project (formerly the 51 Mile Hydroelectric Project)—J. Gordon, Earth By Design, Inc.

International Collaboration—Brennan T. Smith, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Hydropower International Collaboration: IAHTP Annex XIII on Fish Passage Issues— Daniel Deng, Rich Brown, and Simon Geerlofs, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

6.2.1 Collaboration with the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Annex IX: Hydropower Services—Vladimir Koritarov, Argonne National 

Laboratory

Quantification of Reliability and Cost Impacts for Hydropower Assets—Brennan T. Smith, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Hydropower Flow Measurement: A joint ORNL/PNNL effort supporting the DOE/DOI/DOD Hydropower MOU—Brennan T. Smith, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory

Hydropower Flow Measurement: A joint ORNL/PNNL effort supporting the DOE/DOI/DOD Hydropower MOU—Marshall Richmond, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory
3 

Contents (continued)

New Hydropower 

New Hydropower—Michael Reed, U.S. Department of Energy

National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program (NHAAP): New Hydro Assessment—Shih-Chieh Kao, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory

Slab Creek Powerhouse Project—David Hanson, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

Harnessing the Hydroelectric Potential of Engineered Drops—Sharon Atkin, Percheron Power, LLC

Hydropower Energy Resource (HyPER) Harvester—Nadipuram (Ram) R. Prasad and Satish J. Ranade, New Mexico State 

University

SLH100 Demonstration Project—Abe Schneider, Natel Energy, Inc.

SLH Timing Belt Powertrain—Abe Schneider, Natel Energy, Inc.

Scale-Up of Low-Head SLH HydroEngine—Abe Schneider, Natel Energy, Inc.

W4e Hydropower Turbine Generator System Validation—Brian Hunter (for Walker Wellington), U.S. Department of Energy

Small Hydropower Research and Development Technology Project—Mo Blackmore, Near Space Systems

Laboratory Demonstration of a New American Low-Head Hydropower Turbine—Wayne Krouse, Hydro Green Energy

Demonstration of Variable Speed Permanent Magnet Generator at Small, Low-Head Hydro Site—David Brown Kinloch, 

Weisenberger Mills

Cost Data Collection and Modeling for Hydropower—Qin Fen (Katherine) Zhang and Patrick O’Connor, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory

New Hydropower Innovation Collaborative—Brennan T. Smith, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Market Acceleration 

Hydropower Market Acceleration and Deployment—Hoyt Battey, U.S. Department of Energy

Sensor Fish—Z. Daniel Deng, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Turbine Aeration Design Software for Mitigating Adverse Environmental Impacts Resulting from Conventional Hydropower Turbines—

Roger Arndt, Regents of the University of Minnesota

Water Quality Modeling Improvements at Columbia and Cumberland River Basins—Boualem Hadjerioua, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Biological Design Criteria for New Hydropower Turbines—Gary Johnson, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
4 

Contents (continued)

Biological Design Criteria for New Hydropower Turbines—Mark Bevelhimer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The Basin-Scale Opportunity Assessment (BSOA) Initiative—Simon Geerlofs and Gary Johnson, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

The Basin-Scale Opportunity Assessment (BSOA) Initiative—Mark Bevelhimer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Hydro Fellowship Program—Deborah Linke, Hydro Research Foundation

Hydropower Workforce and Education/Training Needs Assessment—Jay Paidipati, Navigant

New Project: Annual Hydropower Market and Trends Report—Rocío Uría-Martínez, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Pumped Storage Hydro

Pumped Storage Hydro and Grid Integration—Charlton Clark, U.S. Department of Energy

Modeling and Analysis of Value of Advanced Pumped Storage Hydropower in the U.S. —Vladimir Koritarov, Argonne National Laboratory

Modeling and Analysis of Value of Advanced Pumped Storage Hydropower in the U.S.—Erik Ela, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Iowa Hill Pumped-Storage Project—Scott Flake, Sacramento Municipal Utility District

8.1.2 Optimization of Pumped Storage Hydro Operation in Real Time Markets—Vladimir Koritarov, Argonne National Laboratory

Real-Time Market Analysis—Erik Ela, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

2014 Water Power Program Peer Review 
 

Michael Reed 

Program Manager - Water Power 

Existing Hydropower Wind and Water Power 

Technologies Office 

February 25, 2014 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic Objectives of the

Hydropower Program Element 

•	 Support a resurgence in hydropower research, manufacturing and 

development in the U.S. 

•	 Analyze opportunities to develop new hydropower capacity in the U.S., 

and facilitate the development and demonstration of environmentallyfriendly technologies to harness these resources 

•	 Improve performance / flexibility of hydropower systems and evaluate 

major risks to the existing hydropower fleet 

•	 Develop tools and information that will drive the development and 

utilization of Pumped-Storage Hydropower (PSH) and hydropower 

systems to increase grid flexibility and integrate variable renewables 

•	 Address a wide range of environmental and market barriers to facilitate 

significant deployment, and develop a vibrant U.S. hydropower 

workforce and research community 

2 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

Water Power Program
 

Team – comp 

DOE Hydropower Activities 

Existing Hydropower Integration and Pumped 

Storage Hydropower New Hydropower 

Hydropower Market 

Acceleration and 

Deployment 

Key Counterparts and Collaborators:
 

ORNL 

Industry 

ANL PNNL

INL NREL SNL 

3 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Water Power Program 

Portfolio Priorities – Hydropower
 

The 2014 Water Program Peer Review Agenda has sessions that will cover projects and activities 

in these priority areas. 

Existing Hydropower: 

Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operations 

• Tuesday, 2/25 

New Hydropower: 

Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for 

demonstration or deployment 

• Wednesday, 2/26 

Market Acceleration: 

Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 

• Thursday, 2/27 

Pumped Storage Hydro: 

Enable next-generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate 

renewable integration 

• Thursday, 2/27 

4 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Focus on Existing Hydropower?
 

As the nation’s dominant RE option, it benefits the Nation to maintain, improve 

and expand the nation’s existing hydropower infrastructure 

New tools are needed to measure and analyze efficiency of hydropower plants, and optimize generation 

and flexibility across hydro systems. Better information is also needed on the state of the hydropower 

fleet, and on the risks posed by changing climate and other water use pressures 

Consider: 

1.	 Opportunities exist to improve hydro fleet optimizations in key areas (see next slide) 

 Capacity weighted average age of a hydro plant in the U.S. is in the range of 35-45 years. 

 Estimates show 5-8%% generation gains can be made through optimization, but more importantly, the fleet will have tools to 

better adapt to changing conditions 

 Resources ($) for the federal fleet are particularly limited to make improvements 

2.	 Competing water-use issues and climate change concerns continue to pressure the 

goals of increased hydropower generation:
  Hydropower is only one of many water uses, need to better predict effects of changes to other uses on hydropower 

 Need to coordinate analyses of potential climate change impacts 

3.	 New technologies, practices + standards can be more rapidly disseminated and 

adopted
  There are some codes and standards but not adequate sharing of best practices 

5 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Drivers for a Focus on 

Modernization 

Case Studies and Assessments Prove Value of Modernization Efforts: 

TVA’s Hydropower Modernization (HMOD) Initiative 

•	 TVA’s HMOD program began in 1992 to address the reliability issues of an aging fleet and to 

increase TVA’s hydroelectric capacity and efficiency over the long term. 

•	 HMOD Achievements: 

• Ensured continued reliability and performance of TVA’s existing hydropower assets (totaling 5,905 MW of capacity). 

• Increased hydro capacity by 560 MW (9.48% increase) with an average efficiency gain of 4.8% 

Corps’ Hydropower Modernization Initiative (HMI) 

•	 In Phase I of this initiative, completed in 2010, the Corps concluded that modernization of six 

“critical needs” projects (identified as “requiring rehabilitation”) could produce 341 GWH in 

additional electricity (avg. 8% per plant) @ a cost of approximately $600 million. 

•	 Phase II looked at facilities outside the Federal Columbia River Power System (i.e., projects 

not eligible for funding by BPA) and concluded that if the Corps took no action to modernize 

the 54 units not financed by BPA, it would forego potential revenues of approximately $7 billion 

over a 20 year horizon. Costs for the upgrades necessary to avoid the aforementioned losses 

were estimated at $3.7 billion. 

US DOE Hydropower Advancement Project (HAP) 

•	 Initial assessments at 8 hydropower facilities show a 7.1% average increase in generation for 

surveyed facilities 

6 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Program’s Perspective:
 

Critical Need: Support Modernization of the existing hydropower fleet 

•	 Major equipment @ over 1⁄2 of US hydropower plants was designed and installed 50+ years ago. 

•	 The efficiency and capacity of aging equipment has declined as its physical condition deteriorates over time. 

• Many hydropower plants are routinely operated outside original design specs in order to meet grid demands. 

• Unscheduled down time and maintenance/replacement costs are on the rise...jeopardizing the availability of 

these valuable assets 

50% of turbines 

are 50+ years old 

10% of Non-Fed 

turbines 

are over 100 years old 

The Opportunity 

•	 Increase the capacity, generation and value of hydropower at existing U.S. hydropower facilities 

through fleet modernization by applying the advances that have been made in materials and 

hydro-mechanical designs that improve efficiency and performance of turbines, generators, and 

other hydropower components of hydropower systems. 

7 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Water Power Program 

Overview – Existing Hydropower 

Goal: 

•	 Maximize sustainable generation and performance from existing hydropower 

infrastructure. 

Priorities: 

•	 Understand the challenges faced by today’s industry 

•	 Maintain/improve generation and flexibility of the existing hydropower fleet 

DOE Unique Role: 

•	 Assess and report on the state of the industry and water resource issues 

(resource availability, climate change impacts, etc.) 

•	 Make available critical information, and develop tools and methodologies to 

improve performance. 

8 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

Existing Hydropower
 

FY12 / FY 13 Project Portfolio
 

9 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

DOE Activities in Existing Hydropower 

(FY12-FY13) 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
 

Hydro Modernization Program (FY10 – FY13)
 

Observed Generation Increase at ARRA Projects 

7 Competitive Awards 40% 37% 

34% DOE Funding: $29.8M 35%

Private Funding: $117.7M 30%

25% Average Generation Increase: 23% 21%

20% 

15% 12% 13%

10% 

5% 

TBD (in progress) 

0% 

Installing new turbine runner at 

Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project 

10 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOE Activities in Existing Hydropower
 

(FY12-FY13)
 

Hydropower Advancement Project (HAP) 

Objective: to accelerate increases in U.S. hydropower asset performance and value by: (a) providing a fact-based quantitative 

estimate of additional energy available through improvements and expansions of all U.S. hydropower assets; (b) identify barriers to 

implementation of hydropower asset improvement and expansions; (c) prioritize research that would accelerated increases in 

hydropower asset performance and value, and (d) develop and disseminate Best Practices, Assessment, and Analysis Tools to 

stimulate and accelerate increases in hydropower asset performance and value 

HAP Assessment Results 

Plant 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Design 

Head 

(feet) 

Turbine 

Type 

Year of initial 

Commissionin 

g / upgrade 

Current 

Annual 

Average 

Generation 

(MWh) 

Potential 

Annual 

Generation 

Increase 

(MWh) 

Potential 

Generation 

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/F 

rancis 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% 

•	 Advances have been made 

in materials and hydromechanical designs that 

improve efficiency and 

performance of turbines, 

generators, and other 

hydropower components of 

hydropower systems since 

these aging plants and 

equipment were 

commissioned. 

•	 There is significant 

opportunity to increase the 

capacity, generation and 

value of hydropower at 

existing U.S. hydropower 

facilities through the fleet 

modernization. 

11 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

DOE Activities in Existing Hydropower 

(FY12-FY13) 

Water Use Optimization Toolset 

Objective: Develop and demonstrate an advanced analytical tool set that links water, power and environmental performance to 

facilitate optimization of hydropower planning and operations. 

12 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

DOE Activities in Existing Hydropower 

(FY12-FY13) 

National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program 

Objective: Provide tools for strategic planning and decision making to assess the current value of the 

nation’s hydroelectric infrastructure, quantify amount of energy that can be feasibly extracted, and provide 

environmental attribution resource for the DOE Water Power Program 

13 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

       

Water Power Peer Review

National Hydropower AssetAssessment Program (NHAAP)

– Existing Hydro Fleet– Database and Analyses

Shih-Chieh Ka

Oak Ridge National Lab

kaos@ornl.gov ; (865) February 25th, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement •	 A nationally comprehensive hydropower databa

not available 

–	 scattered regulatory responsibilities and ownership am

various agencies (FERC, USACE, Reclamation, and T

•	 No standard format for hydropower-related data 

–	 challenge to integrate various types of existing data 

•	 A complete and integrated US hydropower data

required to support various R&D efforts 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

The main objectives of National Hydropower Asset Assessment Program (NHAAP) are to: •	 provide an up-to-date US hydropower database 

includes information of existing hydropower faciinfrastructures, future resources, hydrography, wavailability, and environmental attributes 

•	 perform update and expansion of the NHAAP da

content to ensure the accuracy and timeliness ohydropower statistics 

•	 provide publicly-accessible hydropower data thr

NHAAP Public Portal to promote the hydropoweacceleration and deployment. 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and priorities •	 Advance new hydropower systems and/or comp

for demonstration or deployment 

–	 NHAAP provides various types of hydropower data (e

fleet information and future development potential) for research needs 

–	 NHAAP provides market analysis for the applicability o

technologies across the U.S. fleet. 

•	 Reduce deployment barriers and environmental 

of hydropower 

–	 NHAAP captures both hydropower and environmental 

information (e.g., endangered fish species and water ujoint assessment 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Three main components in NHAAP • Existing Fleet Database • Hydropower Resource Potential • Environmental Attributes 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

The NHAAP Existing Fleet Data integrates and coupdates hydropower information from credible sou

Integrated NHAAP Hydropower Information 

• For each data entry, the data source and sensitivity are marked. • Most of the information are displayed and shared through http://nhaap.ornl.gov

• Facility and unit-level hydropower configuration/performance data treated as p

confidential commercial information. 

Public Available Data Sets 

• EIA Form 860 (1990-2011) • EIA Form 906/920/923 (1970-2011) • USACE National Inventory of Dams • FERC Licenses and Exemptions • National Hydrography Dataset Plus • Other national geo-spatial data 

Proprietary Information 

• Non-public databases (e.g., F

DAMS and BPA HydroAMP) 

• Hydropower information prov

by projects owners (e.g., Reclamation, TVA) 

• Other data acquired through 

Quarterly Data Update/Expansion 

• Cross-referencing projects across various data sets • Dynamical data update • Quality assurance and quality control 

Dam / Reservoir 

Layer 

Power Plant 

Layer 

Generator / 

Turbine Layer 

Hist

Gener

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

DOE Hydropower Resource Potential findings and supporting data layers are housed within NHAAP •	 FY10-11 Non-powered dam (NPD) 

resource assessment 

•	 FY11 Pumped-storage assessment •	 FY12-13 New stream-reach 

development (NSD) resource assessment 

•	 The NHAAP team provides support and 

advice to the hydropower community that uses these results. 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

NHAAP labels Environmental Attributes to existing and potential sites to support analyses of potential environmental concerns •	 Environmental issues are defined as any 

ecological, geopolitical, socio-economic, or landscape development concerns arising with regard to hydropower construction or operation. 

•	 Geospatial environmental data layers are 

obtained from multiple sources. Datasets are either provided "as-is" or summarized into new derived forms to characterize potential environmental concerns. 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

A comprehensive US hydropower database for DOE Water Power Program •	 Extensive time was 

devoted for project-byproject data integration and quality control. 

•	 Constantly updated with 

the latest hydropower developments 

•	 Provides maps, summary 

tables, and visualizations to support various program activities. 

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

All publicly accessible data are shared through NHAAP Public Portal (http://nhaap.ornl.gov

/). 

•	 NHAAP Team provides supports 

for further data inquires. 

•	 Users may register for web-based 

HydroGIS system to view most of the geo-spatial layers. 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

Comments • NHAAP was initiated in FY2010. • The baseline supporting activities were quarterly summarized and reported to H• Other specific tool development projects were tracked by separate milestones a

1.6.2.1 Existing Hydropower Fleet Database Work completed 

and Analyses - NHAAP Active Task 

Milestones & Delivera

Agreement 24516 and 24547 Milestone / Deliverable Release Assessmetn of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in 

the United States 

Quarterly summary of the major data updates, website site usage statistics, enhancement of the user interface, and public support 

activities Hydropower Asset and Resource Maps FY13 U. S. Hydropower Factsheets 

Database Methodlogy Document to DOE Current work and future research 

Stream Classification - dataset of fish trait response to hydro Database updates - Quarterly Memo reports Stream Classification - prediction of hydrologic response Mitigation Prediction - white paper on FERC data mining Mitigation Prediction - model to predict mitigation requirement 

Stream Classification - predicted stream class dataset 

Summary Legend 

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & Delivera

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

FY2012 FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

$650K $0 $300K $0 $600K 

•	 NHAAP activities began in FY2010. •	 ~$400K per year has supported annual baseline acti

including (1) coordination and outreach, (2) data updexpansions, and (3) IT operation and maintenance. 

•	 Specific analysis projects were initiated in FY2013 to 

enhance NHAAP capabilities: 

– Stream Classification Tool – Predictive Mitigation Model 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

• Collaborating agencies 

– Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) – US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

• Summary of major data support during FY12-13 

– Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

• Location of existing fleet 

– US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

• Existing fleet information for Hydropower and Dams World A

– US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

• Provide information on national non-powered dam resources 

– National Hydropower Association (NHA) 

• Provide existing fleet information for supply chain analysis 

– National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

• Existing fleet and resource information for ReEDS paramete

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

•	 In FY2014, the ORNL NHAAP team will focus on: 

–	 Data coordination and outreach activities –	 Data update and expansion activities –	 IT operation and maintenance –	 Development of stream classification tool –	 Development of predictive mitigation model 

•	 The NHAAP data are used to support multiple on-going 

completed Wind and Water Power Program research p

–	 Wind and water power strategic planning –	 Cost Data Collection and Modeling for Hydropower –	 Annual Hydropower Market and Trends report –	 Basin Scale Opportunity Assessment –	 Hydropower Advancement Project –	 Quantification of Reliability and Cost Impacts for Hydropowe–	 Biological Design Criteria for New Hydropower Turbines 

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Summary 

•	 A comprehensive US hydropower database has 

created for DOE Water Power Program to suppovarious R&D efforts. 

•	 A dynamical data integration framework has bee

created for constant database update and expan

•	 The NHAAP Team will continue to focus on colla

and research integration to promote the US hydmarket acceleration and deployment. 

15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Additional Slides

BACKUP SLIDES

16 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
17 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Summary of NHAAP Products 

Hydropower Resource Category/Project Name 

NHAAP Data Layer Shapefile 

Geometry 

Geospatial Coverage 

Existing Fleet (EF) EF_Dam Point Existing main hydropower dams for the Un

EF_Plant Point Existing hydropower plants for the United EF_Generator Point Existing hydropower generators and attrib

States. 

New Stream-reach Development (NSD) 

NSD_SR_Dam Point Estimated potential locations for new hydr

within stream-reaches. 

NSD_SR_Inundation Polygon Inundated areas where estimated potentia

hydropower development within stream-r

NSD_EA_Dam Point Environmental concerns summarized per NNSD_EA_Inundation Polygon Environmental concerns summarized per i

estimated potential for new hydropower d

NSD_EA_Tailwater Line Environmental concerns summarized per t

estimated potential for new hydropower d

Non-powered Dam NPD Point Non-powered dams in the United States. Pumped Storage PS Point Pumped storage facilities in the United StaEnvironmental Attribution(EA) 

EA_FishTraits Polygon Fish trait distribution in the United States (EA_ListedFishSpecies Polygon Federally listed fish species of concern in t

sub-basin). 

EA_WaterUse Polygon Water use in the United States (by sub-basEA_HydrologicClass Polygon Hydrologic classes in the United States (by EA_ProtectedLands Polygon Protected areas of the United States (by su
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

      

Water Power Peer Review

9505 Water Use Analysis

Shih-Chieh Ka

Oak Ridge National Lab

kaos@ornl.gov ; (865) 5February 25th, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement •	 How may climate change affect US hydropower 

generation? 

–	 Need methods beyond statistical extrapolation. –	 Need to translate scientific understanding into enginee

feasible solution. 

•	 Section 9505 of the SECURE Water Act require 

report to Congress on climate change effects at hydropower facilities 

–	 Report should be submitted every 5 years until 2023. –	 The 2nd report is due March 2016. 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

SECURE Water Act 9505 Assessment: •	 Analyze the climate change effects on water sup

hydropower and power sales from DOE Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs). 

•	 DOE to lead, in consultation with PMAs, USGS, 

and states, as well as USACE and Reclamation 

•	 Include recommendations from PMA administrat•	 The 9505 Assessment will enable better underst

of the future of the federal portion of the US hydportfolio; it will also build working relations with Phydropower issues. 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and priorities •	 Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexib

and/or operations 

– The 9505 assessment analyzes water usage and ope

the US federal hydropower system (132 plants nationw

•	 Reduce deployment barriers and environmental 

of hydropower 

–	 The 9505 assessment evaluates how climate change 

hydropower generation. 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

18 study areas in 4 PMA regions, defined by watershed boundary and power system 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Region 

Hydropower 

plants 

Installed 

capacity 

(GW) 

Number of 

wholesale 

customers 

Av

An

Gen

(billio

Bonneville 31 20.5 276 7

Western 55 10.2 682 2

Southwestern 24 2.2 102 

Southeastern 22 4.1 489 

TOTAL 132 37.0 1,549 1
Technical Approach 

Consistent approach for use in all parts of US •	 Energy-water data from “best 

available” sources: 

–	 observed runoff from USGS 

WaterWatch Program 

–	 hydropower systems data from 

DOE/ORNL NHAAP database 

–	 generation data from EIA and PMAs 

•	 A series of hydro-climate models 

is linked to project future hydrometeorological conditions for: 

–	 projection of federal hydropower 

generation 

–	 analysis of future energy-water 

usage 

–	 in-stream ecological impact analysis –	 energy demand and market analysis 

Hydrologic Model (

Outputs: evaporation, runoff, etc. @ 

General Circulation Mod

Outputs: T, P, wind, etc. @ resolu

Projection of 

Hydro-generation 

Green House Gas (G

Concentrations and Emission

Dynamical Downscalin

Outputs: T, P, wind, etc. @ resolu

In-stream Ecological 

Impact Analysis 

Ener

M

Ener

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Projections of Climate and Power •	 Results for near-term and mid-term 

periods, and for 18 areas, annual and seasonal basis 

•	 Air temperature, precipitation, and 

runoff 

• Frequency of water year types • Intensity of critical low-flow periods •	 Change in annual hydropower 

generation 10-year low runoff (inches/season), 196

Spring (Mar–May) Summer (Jun–Aug) F

BPA-1 5.05 5.29 BPA-2 2.30 1.54 BPA-3 3.48 3.01 BPA-4 6.58 4.56 

10-year low runoff (inches/season), 2010-2024 future pr

Spring (Mar–May) Summer (Jun–Aug) F

BPA-1 4.05 (-20%) 3.61 (-32%) BPA-2 2.01 (-13%) 1.22 (-21%) BPA-3 2.91 (-16%) 2.27 (-25%) BPA-4 5.06 (-23%) 2.50 (-45%) 

10-year low runoff (inches/season), 2025-2039 future pr

Spring (Mar–May) Summer (Jun–Aug) F

BPA-1 4.26 (-16%) 3.32 (-37%) BPA-2 2.05 (-11%) 1.00 (-35%) BPA-3 2.78 (-20%) 1.87 (-38%) BPA-4 5.22 (-21%) 2.43 (-47%) 

a The percentage indicates the relative change compared to baseline. 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Two products for the 1st assessment 

•	 9505 Assessment Report 

–	 ORNL technical manual with details on 

assessment methods and results, publicly available at http://nhaap.ornl.gov/content/climate-change

­

impact-assessment 

–	 Peer-reviewed by a group of technical reviewers 

(>18), including water and power resource managers, climate scientists, academia, and federal/state water agency staffs 

•	 9505 Report to Congress 

–	 Short (~20 pages) summary of the assessment, 

including recommendations from Power Marketing Administration administrators 

–	 Concurrence reviewed by DOE, submitted to 

Congress on September 2013 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Summary of major findings from the 1st assessment • Changes can be expected in temperature (+) and water ava

(+/-), especially in extreme water years and some seasons regions 

• Current PMA contracting mechanisms are sufficient to deal 

expected climate variability 

• Water management and investments in new equipment sho

on maintaining operational flexibility to preserve current gen

• Continued monitoring of climate data and scientific advance

needed to determine when and if current practices need to changed 

• Policy analyses should be conducted to integrate multiple w

with climate variability to prepare for future adaptations 

• Continual learning and adaptive management should be pr

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

Comments • The 1st 9505 assessment was initiated in FY2011 and completed in ea• The 2nd 9505 assessment was initiated in late FY2013 and will be com

early FY2016. 

• The ORNL Team will work closely with HQ to ensure that the assessm

completed on time for DOE concurrence review. 

1.6.2.4 9505 Water Use Analysis Work complete

Active Task Milestones & D

Agreement 21967 and 26523 Milestone / Deliverable 

Produce Regional factsheets Submit final 9505 assessment report to HQ 

Project Management Plan for 9505-2 Current work and future research 

I dentify Climate Model Projections to be utilized Develop Suitable Assessment EndPoints Refine Assessment Methods Methodology Report defining approach 

Summary Legen

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & D

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

FY2012 FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

$0 $0 $1,000K $0 $0 

•	 The second 9505 assessment budget for FY201

is estimated to be around $1,600K. 

•	 11% of the FY2013 funding ($1,000K) has been 

expended. 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

•	 Partners and subcontractor 

–	 DOE Power Marketing Administrations (Bonneville Powe

Administration, Western Power Administration, SouthwesAdministration, and Southeastern Power Administration) 

–	 Dr. Michael Sale (BCS Incorporated) 

•	 Other collaborating agencies 

–	 US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), US Army Corp

Engineers (USACE), US Geological Survey (USGS), NatOceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) 

•	 Communications and technology transfer 

–	 Conference presentations at HydroVision, American Geo

Union (AGU), and American Society of Civil Engineers (AEnvironmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI) me

–	 Agency and organization briefing at Federal Energy Reg

Commission (FERC), Climate Change Collaboration (C3the Pacific Northwest, Federal Caucus in the Pacific NortNational Hydropower Association (NHA), and Federal ClChange and Water Working Group (CCAWWG) 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

•	 Data collection, monitoring, data management and a

–	 Develop new methods and data to resolve seasonal gen

patterns, effects of water storage and use, etc. 

–	 Develop indicators of “stress events” for power marketing 

•	 Better modeling of water power systems 

–	 Provide more complete water balances within regions/riv

to account for interactions with multiple-use water manag

–	 Evaluate the risks from extreme events and link to predic

variables 

•	 Communication between hydropower industry and c

science communities 

–	 Work to ensure science products are relevant to end use–	 Participate in Federal Climate Change and Water Workin

•	 Develop additional assessment end points that are r

PMAs, Corps, and Reclamation asset management makers 

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

• Address indirect effects, including: 

– Water temperature and water quality – Evaporative losses and GHG emissions – Flow requirements for fish passage and habitat protection 

wildlife 

– Climate-induced changes in electricity demand and altern

supplies (wind) 

• Consider case studies linked to on-going/previous stu

explain what improvements we can make with new a

– Connection to DOE’s Water use optimization research? – How can the second 9505 assessment add value to local 

going) operational studies/planning processes? 

• Develop screening criteria and ranking methods to id

areas where the next assessment will provide greates

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Summary 

•	 An assessment framework has been established 

evaluate the potential climate change impacts ohydropower generation. 

•	 The 1st 9505 report has been submitted to Cong

September 2013. The 2nd 9505 report is due M2016. 

•	 Intensive collaboration among PMAs, USACE, 

Reclamation, NOAA, USGS, and other agencies key to the 2nd 9505 assessment. 

15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Additional Slides

BACKUP SLIDES

16 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
SECURE Water Act of 2009 

Section 9505. Hydroelectric Power Assessment 

(a) Duty of Secretary of Energy- The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Administrator of eac

Marketing Administration, shall assess each effect of, and risk resulting from, global climate change water supplies that are required for the generation of hydroelectric power at each Federal water proapplicable to a Federal Power Marketing Administration. 

(b) Access to Appropriate Data­

(1) IN GENERAL- In carrying out each assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy sthe United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the proappropriate State water resource agency, to ensure that the Secretary of Energy has access to the scientific information with respect to presently observed impacts and projected future impacts of gloon water supplies that are used to produce hydroelectric power. (2) ACCESS TO DATA FOR CERTAIN ASSESSMENTS- In carrying out each assessment under surespect to the Bonneville Power Administration and the Western Area Power Administration, the Seshall consult with the Commissioner to access data and other information that-­

(A) is collected by the Commissioner; and (B) the Secretary of Energy determines to be necessary for the conduct of the assessment. 

(c) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, 

Energy shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that describes-­(1) each effect of, and risk resulting from, global climate change with respect to-­

(A) water supplies used for hydroelectric power generation; and (B) power supplies marketed by each Federal Power Marketing Administration, pursuant to-­

(i) long-term power contracts; (ii) contingent capacity contracts; and (iii) short-term sales; and 

(2) each recommendation of the Administrator of each Federal Power Marketing Administration relin any operation or contracting practice of each Federal Power Marketing Administration to addresrisk described in paragraph (1), including the use of purchased power to meet long-term commitmeFederal Power Marketing Administration. 

17 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Database 

A wide range of data types and sources where in

Subject Data Source	 Reference 

Hydropower Project • National Hydropower Asset Assessment Project Hadjerioua et al., 2011 Characteristics (NHAAP), ORNL 

•	 Form 860 Database, EIA •	 National Inventory of Dams (NID), USACE •	 Hydropower Asset Management Partnership 

(HydroAMP), Reclamation/Hydro-Québec/ USACE/Bonneville 

Hydropower Generation •	 From 906, 920, and 923 Database, EIA 

•	 Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) •	 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) •	 DOE Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) 

Observed Runoff and • WaterWatch Program, USGS Brakebill et al., 2011 

Streamflow • HYDAT Database, Environment Canada 

Observed Temperature •	 PRISM Research Group, Oregon State University Daly et al., 2002; and Precipitation •	 University of Delaware Air Temperature & Willmott and Matsuura, 

Precipitation 1995 

Watershed Boundary • 

• 

Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD), NRCS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), USGS/EPA 

USGS and USDA-NRCS (2009) 

Topography • Global 30 Arc Second Elevation Data (GTOPO30), 

USGS 

Land Cover • Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer 

(MODIS), NASA 

General Circulation Model (GCM) 

• Community Climate System Model version 3 

(CCSM3) 

Collins et al., 2006 

Regional Climate Model (RCM) 

• Abdues Salam Institute for Theoretical Physics 

Regional Climate Model version 3 (RegCM3) 

Pal et al., 2007 

Hydrologic Model • Variability Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model Maurer et al., 2002 CMIP3 Projected Monthly Temperature and Precipitation (used in SWA9503) 

• Bias Corrected and Spatial Downscaled (BCSD) 

dataset, Reclamation/Santa Clara University/LLNL, http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip3_ projections/ 

Maurer et al, 2007 

18 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
USGS WaterWatch Runoff 

•	 A monthly time-series of flow per unit area, 

assimilated from > 6,000 USGS NWIS gauge observations. 

•	 In the same unit with 

precipitation 

•	 Available for each 

HUC8 subregions 

•	 Available from 1901 

till present 

•	 A good estimate of 

local runoff 

January, 2012 

19 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Hydrologic Sensitivity 

•	 Hydropower generation is highly 

variable year-to-year 

•	 Annual runoff is a good predictor of 

annual generation 

•	 In some areas, multi-year runoff is a 

better predictor of generation 

•	 Will be extended to monthly runoffgeneration relationship in the 2nd 

assessment 

20 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments of the 1st 

assessment 

•	 Assembled a comprehensive 

database describing federal projects, power outputs, and climate variables 

•	 Quantified for the first time the 

sensitivity of federal hydropower generation to water availability (runoff from upstream watersheds) on a nationwide basis 

•	 Assembled state-of-the-art models to 

project hydropower-relevant climate variables into the future 

•	 Estimated future climate change 

impacts to federal hydropower and completed an rigorous technical review to ensure the quality and defensibility of the assessment 

21 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
CMIP5 Dynamical Downscaling 

Global Climate 

Models Regional Climate 

Models (18 km) 

Statistical Correction 

02468

101214

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.9

non­exceedance probability

Obs Model

22 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Selected CMIP5 Models 

•	 RegCM 

–	 7 GCMs completed: CCSM4, GFDL-ESM2M, NorESM

FGOALS-g2, bcc-csm1-1, MIROC5, CanESM2 

–	 6 GCMs in preparation: MPI-ESM-MR, IPSL-CM5A-LR

CM, CSIRO-Mk3.6.0, CNRM-CM5, MRI-CGCM3 

•	 WRF 

– 3 GCMs completed: GFDL-ESM2M, NorESM1-M, CC– 3 GCMs in preparation: MPI-ESM-MR, MIROC5, CMC

23 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) 

Model 

•	 Semi-distributed 

hydrologic modea set of surface meteorological d

•	 Represents vege

has three soil layvariable infiltratiolinear base flow 

•	 Simulated hydro

each grid cell for steps 

•	 Widely applied in 

number of large basins over the cUS and the glob

24 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Refined Hydrologic Simulation 

• Organize various key hydrologic model input

1/24 degree (~4 km) grid for the conterminous 

–	 Topography –	 Soil characteristics –	 Vegetation –	 Land surface classification –	 Meteorological forcing –	 Runoff observation 

•	 Perform model calibration using high perform

computing for 2017 US HUC8 subbasins 

•	 Provide an improved foundation for the 9505-

assessment 

Oubeidillah, A. A., S.-C. Kao, M. Ashfaq, B. S. Naz, and G. Tootle (2014), A Large-Scale, High-Resolution Model Parameter Data Set for Climate Change Impact Assessment for the Conterminous US, Hydrology aSystem Sciences, 18, 67–84, doi:10.5194/hess-18-67-2014. 

25 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

- -

- 

Water Power Peer Review 

Recovery Act: Hydroelectric Facility Modernization Project 

Recovery Act: Hydroelectric Facility Modernization 

Funding Opportunity Announcement Number: DE FOA 

0000120 

Brian Hunter 

U.S. Department of Energy, Wind and Water Power 

Technologies Office 

brian.hunter@go.doe.gov, (720) 356 1590 

Feb. 25, 2014 
 

Hydroelectric Facility 

Modernization Project 

•		 The objective of the Hydroelectric Facility Modernization 

Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) was to 

develop, deploy, and test hydropower projects that would 

modernize the existing hydropower infrastructure in the 

U.S. and increase both the quantity and value of 

hydropower generation, including environmental 

performance. 

•		 The program’s focus was to support the deployment of 

turbines and control technologies to increase and 

maximize system generation at existing non-Federal 

hydroelectric facilities through cost-shared partnerships. 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hydroelectric Facility 

Modernization Project 

FOA Summary: 

–		FOA issued 6/30/2009 (closed 8/20/2009) 

–		Funding appropriated by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5)
 

•		The Recovery Act’s purposes were to stimulate the economy and to 

create and retain jobs. 

–		$32 million available for new awards under this announcement 

–		Two topic areas: 

•		 Deployment of Hydropower Upgrades at Projects >50 MW (up to 

$25M, 80% cost share required): 3 projects selected 

•		 Deployment of Hydropower Upgrades at Projects < 50 MW (up to 

$7M, 50% cost share required): 4 projects selected 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 - -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOA Recipients 

FOA Sub Topic Project Recipient Project Title Recovery 

Act Funding 

Non Federal 

Cost Share 

Project 

Location 

Upgrades at Large 

Projects (> 50MW)
 

* 80% Non-Federal Cost 

Share Required 

Upgrades at Small
 

Projects (< 50MW)
 

* 50% Non-Federal Cost 

Share Required 

Alabama Power 

Company 

Upgrades to Alabama Power 

Hydroelectric Developments $6,000,000 $24,000,000 Alabama 

North Alcoa, Inc. Tapoco Project: Cheoah Upgrade $12,174,956 $57,001,147 Carolina 

North Fork Skokomish 

City of Tacoma Powerhouse at Cushman No. 2 $4,671,304 $22,082,626 Washington 

Dam 

Modernization of the Boulder City of Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project $1,180,000 $4,682,858 Colorado 

City of North Little 

Rock 

Replacement of Current 

Mechanical Seal System with $450,000 $536,245 Arkansas 

Rope Packing System 

Los Alamos
 

County
 

Minnesota Power
 

Installation of a Low-Flow Unit at New 

the Abiquiu Hydroelectric Facility $4,558,344 $4,675,763 Mexico 

Fond du Lac Hydroelectric Facility 

Modernization $815,995 $4,783,061 Minnesota 

Total: $29,850,599 $117,761,700 

(20.2%) (79.8%) 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Act: Upgrades to Alabama Power Hydroelectric 

Developments 

– Alabama Power Company 

Purpose & Objectives 

•		 Upgrades to four units at three hydropower facilities (Lay Dam, Jordan Dam, and Bouldin Dam) located on the 

Coosa River System. The four-unit upgrades include the installation of high-efficiency turbines to increase the 

efficiency and reliability of the individual units and the Coosa River System as a whole. 

Impact of the Project 

•		The Coosa upgrades will provide additional low-cost renewable energy generation to meet demand and are 

expected to increase annual generation by 7.3%. 

•		In addition, the new units will reduce fish injury and turbine mortality, while increasing reliability and reducing 

maintenance costs. 

Technical Approach 

•		Vendor selection / Fabrication of New Turbine 

•		Vendor mobilization, Turbine Installation and Commissioning 

•		Performance Testing - verify power output, flow, and efficiency 

Partners: 

•		 Southern Company Services, Inc. 

•		 Andritz Hydro Corporation 

•		 Weir American Hydro Corporation 

Accomplishments & Progress: 

•		 Planned for completion in 2014, the 

upgrades are expected to increase annual 

generation by 7.3%, enough to power over 

3,000 more homes. 

•		 In addition, the modern turbine and 

generators will be more reliable and let fish 

pass with less chance for injury or damage 

to the turbine. 

•		 Job creation: Estimate 156 quarterly jobs 

created (39 FTE) 

Project Plan & Schedule: 

1/1/2010 - 3/1/2014 (4.25 year Project Period) 

Project Budget: 

DOE Funding: $6,000,000 (20%) 

Non-Federal Cost Share: $24,000,000 (80%) 

Total Project Funding: $30,000,000 

Location: Coosa, Chilton, and Elmore 

Counties in east central Alabama 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Act: Tapoco Project: Cheoah Upgrade 

– Alcoa, Inc. 

Purpose & Objectives 

•		 Upgrades include installation of two new high-efficiency turbines, generators, and transformers, as well as 

improvements to the balance of plant equipment and preparation work for the installation of two additional 

units 

•		 Replaced or rehabilitated equipment with an average age of 90 years (4-5 decades beyond typical unit life) 

•		 The facility includes 5 Francis turbine units with a generation capacity of 110MW. Rehabilitation efforts 

increased plant capacity to an estimated 162 MW, a 40% increase. 

Impact of the Project 

•		Rehabilitation of 1920’s technology with new state-of-the-art stainless steel runners increased facility efficiency 

by 40% and extended usable life of equipment by another half century 

•		Increased generation capacity from 22MW to 33MW per turbine, 4 units in total. 

•		Four new high-efficiency turbines, generators, transformers, and balance of plant equipment will be 

rehabilitated 

Technical Approach 

•		Completed detailed engineering documentation, mobilization, preoutage construction, demolition, substation outage, turbine installation, 

and unit commissioning 

Partners: 

•		 Fluor Global Corp. 

•		 Voith Hydro Inc. 

Accomplishments & Progress: 

•		 Completed installation and commissioning of 

2 units under DOE period of performance 

•		 Initial estimates predicted increased 

generation capacity from 22 to 27.5MW per 

turbine. Testing has shown actual increases 

to be ~33MW per turbine representing a 

nearly 50% increase in generating capacity 

per unit and 40% for the 5 unit facility. 

•		 Job creation: 153 FTEs + 700 jobs retained 

by project 

Project Plan & Schedule: 

1/1/2010 - 12/31/2012 (3 Year Project Period) 

Project Budget: 

DOE Funding: $12,174,956 (17.6%) 

Non-Federal Cost Share: $57,001,147 (82.4%) 

Total Project Funding: $69,176,103 

Location: Robbinsville, NC 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Act: North Fork Skokomish Powerhouse at 

Cushman No. 2 Dam 

– City of Tacoma 

Purpose & Objectives 

•		 The City of Tacoma Department of Public Utilities in Washington installed two Francis turbine/generator units 

adding approximately 3.6 MW of annual electrical generation, increasing annual generation by 14%. The 

project is located at an existing dam, Cushman No. 2, which is part of the Cushman Hydroelectric Project 

owned by Tacoma Power. 

Impact of the Project 

•		 The installation of the new powerhouse will generate 3.6 megawatts (MW) of additional clean, renewable 

energy using previously diverted/discharged, but unutilized water flow. 

•		 Fish passage has been blocked since the construction of the two Cushman dams in the late 1920s. This 

project developed an innovative fish collection and passage system (fish collection structure attached to the 

draft tubes of the hydroelectric units) that supports the reintroduction of Washington’s endangered steelhead 

and salmon populations upstream of the Cushman Hydroelectric Project. 

Technical Approach 

• Turbine/Generator Procurement and Installation 

• Powerhouse General Construction Contract 

• Transmission Design and Construction 

• Fish Facilities Design and Construction 

Partners: 

•		 Tacoma Power, Northwest Hydraulic 

Consultants, Golder Associates, Skokomish 

Tribe 

Accomplishments & Progress: 

•		 Project completed 6/30/2013 

•		 The new powerhouse will generate an 

estimated 21,950 MWh adding to the current 

generation of 173,000 MWh annually, a 13% 

increase in generation for the Cushman No. 

2 Project. 

•		 Job creation: The project produced 67 Full 

Time Equivalent jobs during the course of 

design and construction. Significant other 

jobs were produced when considering the 

manufacture of associated equipment and 

materials. 

Project Plan & Schedule: 

1/1/2010 - 6/30/2013 (3.5 year Project Period) 

Project Budget: 

DOE Funding: $4,671,304 (17.5%) 

Non-Federal Cost Share: $22,082,626 (82.5%) 

Total Project Funding: $26,753,930 

Location: Tacoma, WA 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Act: Modernization of the Boulder Canyon 

Hydroelectric Project –City of Boulder 

Purpose & Objectives 

•		 Modernization of the 100-year-old Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Project, originally constructed in 1910 

•		 Replace two 1920’s 10MW Pelton turbines with a single state of the art 5MW Pelton turbine 

•		 Historic water flow has been significantly redirected to meet the city’s current municipal needs and 

minimum instream flow negatively impacting plant performance 

•		 One of the units suffered catastrophic failure in 2000 

•		 Increase annual generation by as much as 30% over existing by installing a unit appropriately sized 

for the available water flow. 

Impact of the Project 

• Improved safety for personnel and equipment 

• Improved protection of the Boulder Creek environment 

• Modernization and integration of control equipment into Boulder’s municipal water supply system 

• Preservation of significant historical engineering information prior to modernization 

Technical Approach 

• Procure appropriately sized equipment 

• Complete engineering design services 

• Complete final permitting activities – FERC conduit exemption 

• Preserve historically significant features, equipment, and information 

• Project construction 

Partners: 

•		 Canyon Industries (turbine/generator 

manufacture), AECOM (design/engineering), 

Gracon Corporation (general construction 

contractor) 

Accomplishments & Progress: 

•		 Project completed 12/31/2012 

•		 Turbine efficiency has increased 18 to 48% 

depending on flow 

•		 Historically significant features, equipment, 

and engineering data have been 

documented, photographed, and archived 

•		 Improved safety for personnel and 

equipment 

•		 Better environmental protection: Removed 2 

1940’s oil cooled transformers from river 

bank 

•		 Job creation: 40,000 hours billed to project 

(19 FTE) 

Project Plan & Schedule: 

1/1/2010 – 12/31/2012 (3 year Project Period) 

Project Budget: 

DOE Funding: $1,180,000 (20.1%) 

Non-Federal Cost Share: $4,682,858 (79.9%) 

Total Project Funding: $5,862,858 

Location: Boulder, CO 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 | Wind and Water Power Technologi Office 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Act: Hydroelectric Facility Improvement Project, 

Replacement of Current Mechanical Seal System with 

Rope Packing System – City of North Little Rock, AR 

Purpose & Objectives 

•		 The project replaced the turbine shaft seal system to increase the production of electricity and reduce 

maintenance outages. 

•		 Tub grinder purchased under this award will be used to mulch debris (tree trunks, branches, etc.) cleared from 

the facility intake area, which was previously burned 

Impact of the Project 

•		Replacing the shaft seal system will improve the 

reliability and running efficiency of the turbine unit by 

significantly decreasing maintenance downtime over 

standard mechanical shaft seal systems. 

•		Maintenance downtime will be decreased significantly 

(approx. 1300 hours per year) and the City hopes to 

regain approximately $1.4 million in annual lost 

generation due to current mechanical seal maintenance 

downtime 

Technical Approach 

•		Rope packing creates a seal around the rotating shaft where it exits the draft tube and enters the speed 

increaser and generator to prevent water from entering. Rope packing prevents water from entering the 

generator pit inside the plant while still allowing the propeller shaft to turn 

es 

Partners: 

•		 Hydro Consulting & Maintenance Services, 

Garver Engineers and Consultants, Inc. 

Accomplishments & Progress: 

•		 Project re-scoped in 2012 

•		 Vendor selected to engineer, fabricate, and 

install rope packing system – Oct 2012 

•		 Seal conversion was completed in February 

2013 with turbine generator unit back online 

•		 Further testing and adjusting was done 

throughout the first two weeks of March 

2013 

•		 The replacement of the packing will only be 

necessary every 3-5 years at 24 hours of 

outage per replacement. (previous outage 

time was 7-14 days every four months). 

Project Plan & Schedule: 

1/1/2010 – 2/28/2013 (3 year Project Period) 

Project Budget: 

DOE Funding: $450,000 (45.6%) 

Non-Federal Cost Share: $536,245 (54.4%) 

Total Project Funding: $986,245 

Location: North Little Rock, AR 

9 eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Act: Installation of a Low Flow unit at the 

Abiquiu Hydroelectric Facility 

-Incorporated County of Los Alamos 

Purpose & Objectives 

•		 Construct a new powerhouse addition to the existing Abquiu Hydroelectric Facility to house a 3.1MW low 

flow turbine-generator 

•		 Original powerhouse has 2 identical 6.9MW Francis style turbine-generators 

• New powerhouse increased capacity 22% to 16.9MW 

•		 Increase operational flexibility 

• Provides for energy capture during periods of low flow (winter months) 

• Provides for more efficient operation equipment 

• Extends usable flow range for power production 

•		 Capture energy from bypass flows 

Impact of the Project 

• Increased generation capacity 

• Uses bypass flows to produce additional energy 

• Increased annual generation 

• Provides for year round generation 

• Improved flexibility and more efficient operation of facility 

• Improved dissolved oxygen content 

• Bypassed flows now run through low flow unit 

Technical Approach 

• Design-build contract 

• Procurement of long lead time equipment 

• Coffer dam construction 

• Temporary and permanent coffer dam construction 

• Construction of powerhouse addition 

• Connection of penstock to existing stub out 

• Installation of turbine-generator 

• Integration with original powerhouse 

Partners: 

•		 RMCI, Andritz Hydro 

Accomplishments & Progress: 

•		 Project completed 3/31/12 

•		 Actual capacity increased by 3.15MW 

•		 Flow range extended from 250cfs – 1300cfs 

to 75cfs – 1550cfs 

•		 Plant efficiency increased due to the 

flexibility to mix and match flows through any 

combination of the units 

•		 Job creation: 50 FTE in the field construction 

jobs were created during the course of the 

project 

•		 Dissolved oxygen can now be added to the 

river during low flow periods 

•		 All power produced by low flow unit qualifies 

for RECs 

Project Plan & Schedule: 

11/1/2010 – 3/31/2012 (1.5 year Project Period) 

Project Budget: 

DOE Funding: $4,558,344 (49.4%) 

Non-Federal Cost Share: $4,675,763 (50.6%) 

Total Project Funding: $9,234,107 

Location: Abiquiu, NM 

10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recovery Act: Fond Du Lac Hydroelectric Project 

–Minnesota Power Company 

Purpose & Objectives 

•		 Rehabilitate a 12MW Francis turbine at the Fond Du Lac hydroelectric project constructed in 1924. 

•		 Performance of the 12MW turbine had degraded over time and was due for overhaul including 

•		 Wear item replacement including bushings, bearings, and seals 

•		 Repair of a crack in the head cover limiting gate opening to 78% 

•		 ARRA funding expanded overhaul plans to include: 

•		 Replacement of the original cast iron runner with a state of the art stainless steel runner 

•		 Rewinding of the generator, both stator and rotor 

Impact of the Project 

• Rehabilitated equipment and extend usable life of equipment 

• Expanded overhaul could completed during planned outage 

• Improved facility efficiency 

• Planned overhaul would increase annual generation by 3,000 MWh annually 

• Expanded overhaul would increase annual generation by and additional 6,000 MWh annually 

Technical Approach 

• Replaced cast iron runner with new stainless steel runner 

• Rewound generator 

• Improved turbine bearing cooling system 

• Generator excitation system upgraded 

• Replaced head gate 

• Automated overhead crane 

Partners: 

•		 American Hydro, National Electric Coil, GE 

Energy 

Accomplishments & Progress: 

•		 Project completed 9/1/2013 

•		 Project challenges include unplanned repair 

of penstock resulting in significant delays 

(inspection of unit water ways indicated the 

penstock was in poor condition) and 500yr 

flood breached the forebay at the upstream 

Thompson station 

•		 Equipment returned to service June 2013 

•		 Pond level reduced by 5ft until 

repairs complete at Thompson 

•		 Under low flow and low pond, unit 

was able to achieve 12MW 

generating capacity 

•		 Job Creation: Employed 32 trades people for 

20,000 hours (9.6 FTE) 

Project Plan & Schedule: 

9/1/2010 – 9/1/2013 (3 year Project Period) 

Project Budget: 

DOE Funding: $815,995 (14.7%) 

Non-Federal Cost Share: $4,783,061 (85.3%) 

Total Project Funding: $5,559,056 

Location: Duluth, MN 

11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Project Management 

Accomplishments & Challenges 

•		 Buy American Requirements 

•		 Davis-Bacon Act requirements (prevailing wage, 

reporting, etc.) 

•		 FederalReporting.gov requirements 

•		 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) / 

Environmental Permitting 

•		 Active Project Management: 

–		One project redirected/re-scoped – City of North Little Rock 

–		One project canceled - Energy Northwest 

–		Alternate project selected – Minnesota Power 

12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

•		 Projects demonstrated impressive power generation 

improvements from upgrading existing facilities with 

modern turbine technologies. 

•		 The increased generation resulting from the Recovery Act 

projects is estimated to exceed 135,000 MWh annually; 

enough to meet the annual electric usage of more than 

10,000 average U.S. homes 

•		 Effective use of private / public partnerships to increase 

power generation/capacity at existing hydroelectric 

facilities 

•		 Contributed to local and national economic recovery by 

creating skilled jobs in the manufacturing and construction 

industries (created over 337 FTE direct jobs) 

13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Hydroelectric Facility Modernization 

Project 

“Upgrading America’s hydroelectric facilities presents one 

of the best opportunities to increase our supply of clean, 

renewable energy and provide consumers with affordable, 

reliable power. By partnering with local communities and 

utilities, we can take steady, responsible steps that protect 

the environment and deploy every source of American 

energy.” 

- David Danielson, Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

- - 

Water Power Peer Review 

Water Use Optimization Toolset 

Project Overview 

Project Team: 

1.6.1.1 Water Use Optimization 

Toolset 

John Gasper 

Argonne National Laborator 

jgasper@anl.gov, 202 488 2420 

February 25, 2014 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: An increasingly water-constrained environment is limiting 

hydropower planning and operational flexibility to meet water, power and 

environmental requirements 

Project Objective: Develop, demonstrate and transfer an advanced analytical 

toolset that links water, power and environmental performance to facilitate 

optimization of hydropower planning and operations 

Impact of Project: 

Increased energy and grid services from available water 

Enhanced environmental benefits from improved hydropower 

operations and planning. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and priorities 

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for demonstration or deployment 

• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operations - Primary Alignment 

• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate renewable integration 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach Overview 

Phase 1. Toolset Development and Demonstration (FY 10-13) 

Development: Creation of advanced, integrated software for analysis 

of the economic and environmental implications from hydropower dispatch 

scheduling and operations options. 

Demonstration: Demonstration of the potential water, power, ancillary 

services and environmental benefits from application of WUOT in real world 

environments 

Phase 2. Toolset Refinement, Technology Transfer (FY13 +) 

Refinement: Revise software based on input from tech review team, 

demonstration site users 

Technology Transfer: Facilitate application of the toolset by the hydropower 

industry (e.g., toolset demonstrations and training, stakeholder outreach, support 

material development, institutional and intellectual property process facilitation) 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Technical Approach: Development 

Water Use Optimization Toolset Conceptual Design
 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Technical Approach: Development 

Water Use Optimization Toolset Conceptual Design (continued)
 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Technical Approach: Development 

Toolset Nerve Center: Graphical User 

Interface (GUI) 

•	 Used to describe system as 

a network of objects 

–	 Boundary nodes (Inflows) 

–	 Storage nodes (Reservoir) 

–	 Conversion nodes 

(Turbine/Generator) 

–	 Junction nodes 

(Confluence) 

–	 Links (River, Canal, Power 

Transport) 

•	 Add, view, configure network 

components 

•	 Execute tools 

•	 Explore results 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach: Demonstration 

Objectives: 

•	 Demonstrate potential water, power, ancillary services 

and environmental benefits from application of WUOT 

in multiple environments 

•	 Prove WUOT useful, useable, used 

Approach: 

Proof of Concept: retrospective analysis 

Application: use of WUOT by site operational 

systems 

5 Demonstrations ongoing: 

•	 Aspinall Unit – Western Area Power, Bureau of 

Reclamation (FY 10) 

•	 Oroville-Thermalito Complex – California Department 

of Water Resources (FY10) 

•	 Conowingo Dam /Muddy Run PSH – Exelon (FY12) 

•	 Skagit/ Pend-Oreille Rivers, Seattle City Light (FY 13) 

•	 Upper American River System - Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District (FY13) 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach: Refinement, 

Technology Transfer 

•	 Refinement: develop and carry out plan to enhance 

functionality and operational efficiency based on 

comments received from the technical review team and 

demonstration partners 

–	 User input/output features 

–	 Analytical capability 

•	 Technology Transfer: develop and carry out plan to 

facilitate transfer and use by the hydropower community 

–	 Hydropower community outreach: Workshops, presentations, 

publications, additional demonstrations 

–	 Development, presentation of technology transfer materials and 

training 

–	 Assistance in institutional and intellectual property issues 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

FY 10-13: Phase 1. Toolset Development and Demonstration 

Software Development: completed Alpha, Beta versions of software 

Toolset Demonstration: completed retrospective analyses at two sites, 

initial software application and training at two sites 

FY13+: Phase 2. Toolset Refinement and Transfer 

Toolset Refinement: Preparation/implementation of Toolset Refinement Plan, 

completed Beta 1 version of software
 

Toolset Transfer: Preparation/implementation of Technology Transfer Plan, 

initiated 3 additional demonstrations, Bureau of Reclamation PSH system 

analysis, 2 DOE PSH analysis, 2 unsolicited expressions of interest to use
 

WUOT in small hydro and unpowered dam applications
 

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number 1.6.1.1 Work completed

Project Number 1.6.1.1 Active Task

Agreement Number 20079 Milestones & Deliverables (Original Plan)

Project Name: Water Use Optimization Toolset

Q1 Milestone: Complete initial version of GUI interface 

Q3 Milestone: Initiate Aspinall Cascade demonstration anallysis.

Q4 Milestone: draft WUOT DevelopmentTechnical Report 

Q1 Milestone: WUOT Beta version

Q2 Milestone: Develop technolgy transfer plan

Q3 Milestone: Develop toolset refinement plan, Beta 1 version of software 

Q 4 Milestone: Complete final development and demonstration phase report

Current work and future research

Q 1. Milestone: Install upgraded software at Aspinall Cascade

Q 2 Milestone: Complete retrospective analysis of Conowingo Dam Complex

Q 4 Milestone: Conduct Eastern Outreach Workshop

Q 4 Milestone: Beta 2 version of software Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Summary Legend Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual)

Comments 

• Development and Demonstration: Planned: FY10-12 Actual: FY10 -13, 

• Tech Transfer/Refinement FY13+ 

• Challenges - scope expansion, development and testing realities, Non-Disclosure Agreements, data acquisition and quality 

10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Argonne: 560K FY13 carryover, 400K FY14 funding FY14 total 960K 

 

 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History ($) 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

ANL 1,486K 0 1,166K 0 842K 0 

PNNL 638K 0 770K 0 666K 0 

SNL 587K 0 724K 0 601K 0 

11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: 

Project Partners: 

Argonne National Laboratory: John Gasper, John Hayse, Matt Mahalik, Sam Saha, Tom Veselka
 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Andre Coleman, Kenneth Hamm, Nathalie Voisin, Mark Wigmosta 

Sandia National Laboratories Asmeret Bier, Janet Barco, Tom Lowry, Marissa Reno, Dirk Vanwestrienen
 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Yetta Jager, Brennan Smith
 

Subcontractors: University of Washington: Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier 

Technical Review Team: 25 staff representing 12 industry organizations (California Department of Water Resources, 

Western Area Power Administration, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Southern Company, Brookfield Energy, Puget Sound Energy, 

Alabama Power, New York City Dept of Environment, Avista Corporation, Exelon Generation, Seattle City Light, Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District, PJM Interconnection LLC 

Demonstration Site Partners: California Department of Water Resources, Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power 

Administration, Exelon, PJM Interconnection LLC, Seattle City Light, Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Communications and Technology Transfer: 

Presentations: over 30 at forums including: NHA Annual Meeting, NHA Operators Committee, NHA Research Committee, 

HydroVision, HydroVision International, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association, World Bank, National 

Wildlife Service 

Workshops: NHA, HydroVision 

National Laboratory and Professional Journal Publications: 6 

Code applications: Bureau of Reclamation, California Department of Natural Resources, Western Area Power 

Administration, DOE PSH R&D 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: Phase 2: Refinement and Technology Transfer 

Refinement : 

Review, modification of Refinement Plan: 12/31/13, 

Beta 2 version of software: 9/30/14 

Technology Transfer 

Review and modification of Technology Transfer Plan: 6/30/14 , 

Additional retrospective analyses: Conowingo – 3/31/12, Seattle City Light - 9/30/14, 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District – 12/31/13, 

Additional/enhanced toolset applications – as appropriate, 

Conduct of two regional workshops : 6/30/14, 9/30/14 

Proposed future research: Phase 2: Refinement and Technology Transfer 

Refinement: Continued development of WUOT capability and functionality based on 

user and reviewer feedback including enhanced user interface, and web-enablement, 

Technology Transfer: Continued activities to facilitate toolset awareness and 

deployment in the hydropower community including stakeholder outreach, toolset 

applications (sponsored, cost shared, user-funded), and training 

13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Water Use Optimization Toolset 

Hydrologic Forecasting 

Mark Wigmosta, Andre Coleman, Nathalie Voisin, Cindy Ra

Richard Skaggs,
 

PNNL
 

Dennis Lettenmaier and Bart Nijssen
 

University of Washington
 

1.6.1.1 Water Use OptimizationToolset

Presenter: MOrganization: PNNLContact Info: mark.wiDate: 2/25/2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Lack of reliable inflow forecasts to the nation’s system may result in overly conservative operational constraints to multiple water use objectives and mitigate the impacts of hydrologic (flood, drought). Objectives: Develop an Enhanced Hydrologic Forecast System to pnational multi-scale ensemble streamflow forecasting system for the • Meteorological and streamflow forecasts at multiple user-defined 

and temporal and spatial scales 

• Longer lead times with reduced forecast uncertainty • An increased opportunity for plant to system optimization Impact of Project: Opportunity to optimize water use efficiency for e

generation and environmental performance while meeting operaobjectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and p• Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for demonstration or • Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operations ­ Prim• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate renewable • Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Background

Current Forecasting Approaches/Products used in Demonstration Basin• Persistence • NOAA-NWS • Commercial providers (3TIER Inc.) • Internal – typically regression-based against snowpack or measured str• Some combination of those listed above Project team has collaborated with multiple agencies on all the above No single source for all end users • “Multi-model” Need for rapid customization to suit individual plant/system requiremen• Hydroclimatic conditions • Spatial scale and domain • Required forecast locations • Required forecast temporal scale • Required forecast lead times 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Build on Existing Capabilities: Integrate and enhance PNNL and University Washington/Princeton University ensemble forecast systems •	 Address principle components of forecast uncertainty 

–	 Automatically update model estimates of snow and soil water storage usi

assimilation of remotely-sensed snow cover, observed snow water equivastreamflow 

–	 Use an ensemble of meteorological forecasts to drive an advanced, spat

hydrologic model 

•	 Generate an ensemble of streamflow forecasts that capture the uncertain

forecasts 

•	 Value added custom forecasts at user-specified locations This Project Delivers to DOE and the Forecast Community: •	 DOE & hydropower industry forecast requirements in the face of increas

for water and more uncertainty in available water supply 

–	 Traditional objectives (power, flood control, irrigation/water supply) –	 Emerging needs for renewable integration and environmental requireme–	 Non-stationarity impacts from climate variability, land use change and in

population 

•	 Physics-based, distributed hydrologic model •	 Consistent, national approach for multi-scale ensemble streamflow forec•	 Automated assimilation of spatial and temporal data 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Seasonal Climate Forcing: •	 1/8th degree* gridded hourly meteorological ensemble 

•	 49 plausible climates (plus mean) Seasonal Streamflow Forecast: •	 Issued every 7 days •	 49 ensemble traces (plus mean) Medium Range Meteorological Forecast: •	 1/8th degree* gridded, 13-day, 15-member, hourly meteorological ensemble Medium Range Hydrological Forecast: •	 Issued daily out to 13 days for 15 ensemble members 

* moving to finer resolution of 1/16th degree 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

• Completed Forecast System Design Document (FY10) • Completed evaluation of remote sensing and alternative ensemble forecast methodolo• Installation of UW/PU forecast system on PNNL compute cluster (FY10) 

– Ongoing modernization and optimization of core software – More flexible and generic approach 

• Prototype Enhanced Hydrologic Forecast System (EHFS) (FY11) • Complete development of Enhanced Hydrologic Forecast System (EHFS) (FY12) • Completed application in two demonstration basins (FY12-13): 

– Feather River, CA, Oroville-Thermalito Complex – California Department of Water Res– Gunnison River, CO, Aspinall Unit – Western Area Power Authority, Bureau of Reclam

• Calibration • Seasonal forecasts • Medium-range forecasts • Retrospective evaluation 

• Applications in three additional demonstration basins are underway (FY13-14) 

– Completed model setup and calibration for Susquehanna River – Conowingo Dam - Ex– Model setup for Skagit River - Seattle City Light – Preliminary discussions - Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

• 16 - Publications & presentations 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Blue Mesa: 2009 1­Day Lead Forecast Ensemble

Forecast without data 

assimilation or postprocessing 

Forecast with data 

assimilation 

Forecast with data 

assimilation and postprocessing 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Seasonal forecast issued April 1, 2009

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number 1.6.1.1 Work compleProject Number 1.6.1.1 Active Task Agreement Number 20081 Milestones & Task / Event Complete Enhanced Hydrologic Forecast System (EHFS) CRSP EHFS setup and calibration CRSP Retrospective Analysis CDWR EHFS setup and calibration CDWR Retrospective Analysis 

Current work and future research 

Conowingo Retrospective Analysis Seattle City Light Retrospective Analysis Additional Software Enhance ments 

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep) 

Summary 

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

FY2012 FY2013 

Milestones & 

Comments • Development and Demonstration: Planned: FY10-12 Actual: • Tech Transfer/Refinement FY13+ • Challenges - development and testing realities, data availability 
Project Budget 

Budget History* 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

$500K + $138K FY11 carryover 

$580K + $190K FY12 carryover 

$400K + $266K FY13 carryover 

* Total funding for 3 year project = $1,480K 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: Project Partners: Argonne National Laboratory: John Gasper, John Hayse, Matt Mahalik, Sam Saha, Tom Veselka Sandia National Laboratories: Asmeret Bier, Janet Barco, Tom Lowry, Marissa Reno, Dirk Vanwestrienen Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Yetta Jager, Brennan Smith Subcontractors: University of Washington: Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier Informal Collaborators: 3TIER Inc. (Renewable Energy Assessment and Forecasting Services) recently acqui

Corporation, National Center for Atmospheric Research - Research Applications Laboratory, NOAA-NWS 

Demonstration Site Partners: California Department of Water Resources, Bureau of Reclamation, Western A

Administration, Exelon, PJM Interconnection LLC, Seattle City Light, Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

Communications and Technology Transfer: Presentations: 14 including: NHA Annual Meeting, HydroVision, American Geophysical Union, Hydrological EnseEXperiment (HEPEX) monthly webinar, AGU Chapman Conference, National Weather Service - Office of Hydroloseminar Workshops: NHA, HydroVision National Laboratory and Professional Journal Publications: 2 
Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: • Additional retrospective analyses: 

• Exelon • Seattle City Light • Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

• Two regional workshops Proposed future research: • Continued development of EHFS capability and functionality base

and reviewer feedback 

• Integration of 3TIER hydrologic forecasts (Seattle City Light) • Integration of NWS forecasts (Seattle City Light, SMUD) • Particle filter data assimilation 

• Continued activities to increase toolset visibility and promote tech

transfer to the hydropower community including stakeholder outreapplications (sponsored, cost shared, user-funded), and training 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

­ ­  

Water Power Peer Review

Presenter: ThomSandia National Labo

505 284 9735, tslowrFebruary 25, 2014

Seasonal Hydrosystems Analysis andOptimizationWater Use Optimization Toolset

Laboratory Team:Thomas Lowry (Hydrological Modeling & Model Development)

Dirk Vanwestrienen (Integration Programming, GUI development)Asmeret Bier (Optimization & Mathematics)

Marissa Reno­Trujillo (Model Simulation & Data Processing)

William Peplinski (Data Collection, Processing, & QA)

HydroSCOPE: Hydropower Seasonal Concurrent Optimization for Power and the Environmen
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: There are gaps between day-ahead operations and 

objectives and planning that result in lost revenue, lower efficiencies, and increaseand operational risk by limiting the ability of hydro-power operators, managers, and optimize operations across multiple scales of space and time. 

This task provides operators with this ability by creating a systems-level simulation 

optimization tool that integrates with an advanced hydrologic forecasting tool, an eperformance assessment tool, and a day-ahead optimization tool to inform and guoperations in the context of longer-term objectives and considerations. 

Impact of Project: In combination with the other tools being developed as 

project, the successful completion and implementation of this work will allow operasystem efficiency and performance while simultaneously reducing risk from forecasoperational uncertainty. Small gains in any of these areas can result in significant hydropower operators, downstream water users, and the environment. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities 

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for demonstration or deploy• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operations - Primary Al• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate renewable integr• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
 

Technical Approach 

Technical Approach – System Dynamics and Optimization • Object oriented design within a system dynamics framework (nodes and 

• Easier to maintain • Extensibility as needed Solar radiation 

Cloud Cover Wind speed Air temperature Humidity / Dew PRainfall 

Internal mixing 

Surface m

Outflow mixing 

Inflow ForecastsT, Q Withdrawals Q Discharges T, Q 

River Simulation

Longitudinal 1­d

Temperature, flow, depth

Reservoir Sim

Vertical 1­d temp

Inflmix

Surface Heat Exchange Optimized Reservoir Operations

EnvironmentalConstraints T, Q

T, Q, h

Items in red calculated in this sub­task. Items in blue are from the other sub­tasks. Items in black are 

Coupled object­oriented 1­d reservoir and river routing model for flow and tem

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Technical Approach – System Dynamics and Optimization • Object oriented design within a system dynamics framework (nodes and 

• Easier to maintain • Extensibility as needed 

• Focus is on the dynamic relationships – i.e. ‘causal relationships’ 

• Lowers data requirements • Reduces execution time • Maintains accuracy where needed 

System 

‘A’ System ‘B’ 

Schematic of a causal loop where the state of system

‘A’ is dependent on the state of system ‘B’, which in

turn is dependent on the state of system ‘A’

The goal is to simulate the flow and temperature dynamics at key points in the 

BAtzyxf 

,,,,,( t A = ∂ ∂ 

BAtzyxf 

,,,,,( t B = ∂ ∂ 

Mathematically, a set of causal loops can 

represented as a system of equations sim

evaluated at each timestep.

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Technical Approach – System Dynamics and Optimization • Object oriented design within a system dynamics framework (nodes and 

• Easier to maintain • Extensibility as needed 

• Focus is on the dynamic relationships – i.e. ‘causal relationships’ 

• Lowers data requirements • Reduces execution time • Maintains accuracy where needed 

• DAKOTA optimization software (dakota.sandia.gov) 

• Multi-objective genetic algorithm approach • Tradeoff analysis – Pareto front • Uncertainty analysis 

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 DAKOTA provides a suite of tool0.2 performing optimization and dealin0.1 0.0 

0 1000 2000 3000 

Millions Release Volume [m3] 

Probability 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Key Technical Issues 

• Uncertainty, hydrological and operational 

Robust methods for addressing uncertainty can be computationally expensive and diffic

While these issue are not unique to this project, we have begun to explore methods of using input u

reduce operational risk and increase system resiliency. In addition, DAKOTA provides capabilities f

uncertainty quantification, parameter estimation (i.e., calibration), and sensitivity/variance analysis teasy to implement at the user level.

• Technology Transfer 

Creating a distributable, easy to use tool is a time­consuming, incremental process.

Decisions have been made regarding the balance of complexity and the ease of use in the develop

HydroSCOPE. This process has involved three steps in succession, 1. creating a scientifically robu

tool, 2. integrating the tool within the architecture of the WUOT, and 3. making the tool easy to use.

• Computational Overhead 

Optimization is computationally expensive.

The technical approach of this task was carefully considered to try and keep the computational requminimum, with the goal of keeping a single, six­month simulation to 30 seconds or less. In addition

options to speed up the optimization process, including the use of surrogate­based optimization anmodel. This will also help us better address the issues regarding uncertainty.

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Uniqueness of Approach 

•	 HydroSCOPE 

•	 System dynamics approach with object oriented design •	 Fast execution (e.g., 6-mo basin simulation w/ 3 reservoirs < 30 se•	 Extensible to simulate other systems (e.g., agricultural water dema

integrated thermoelectric power production, etc.) 

•	 Can be used as a stand alone tool to conduct strategic planning, sc

analysis, uncertainty analysis, and the like 

•	 Leverages the DAKOTA optimization software developed at Sandia 

a suite of tools that allow for optimization with gradient and non-gramethods, uncertainty quantification, parameter estimation, sensitivianalysis, surrogate-based optimization, mixed integer non-linear pror optimization under uncertainty. 

•	 General 

•	 Enables optimization across multiple scales of time and space •	 Provides a common data repository where data only need to be pro

but can be used by several of the tools 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Schematic and sample output from the Aspinall Cascade, Gunnison River retrospective analysis

• Two retrospective analyses completed
 

Release fr

Gunnison River 

Blue Mesa Un-named 

Side Flow 

Morrow Point 

Cimarron Creek 

Crystal Gunnison 

Reach 1 Tunnel (0 mi) (zero-length) 

USGS 

Reach 4 Reach 2 9128000 (0 mi) N. Fk. Gunnison River (29 mi) 

Reach 3 Inflows River Ungauged Uncompahgre 

(47 mi) (47 mi) 

USGS 9152500 (90 mi) 

Models are successfully producing the needed results.

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

• Analyses show potential improvement in environ

score and total revenue 

Site Name Environmental Score Total Revenue 

Aspinall Cascade 0.80% 3.45% Oroville Complex 0.61% 2.95% 

•	 Developing methods for addressing uncertainty 

–	 Lowry, Thomas S., Mark Wigmosta, Asmeret Bier, Nathalie Voisin, Janet Barco, Andre Coleman, a

Skaggs, 2012, “An Integrated Risk Approach for Assessing the Use of Ensemble Streamflow ForeHydroelectric Reservoir Operations”, American Geophysical Union Annual Conference, Dec. 2012

–	 Lowry, Thomas S., Mark Wigmosta, Nathalie Voisin, “Using Multi-Temporal Scale Uncertainty Info

Forecast Skill to Improve Reservoir Operations”, accepted for presentation at the International ConHydroInformatics, Aug. 2014, New York, NY 

•	 Simulation engine for flow and temperature calc

are “fully” debugged and completed 

The retrospective analyses have provided important lessons that help strengthen code de

identified areas to expand functionality (e.g. addressing uncertainty).

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work compleProject Number - 1.6.1.1 Active Task Agreement Number - 20082 Milestones & Task / Event 

Project Name: Water Use Optimiz ation Toolkit Seasonal Model 

Q1 Milestone: Produce working beta version of simulation engine Q2 Milestone: Produce summary report of testing and verification activities Q3 Milestone: Continue model development for second beta version Q4 Milestone: Produce report describing model capabilities and performance Q1 Milestone: Complete software development and version 1.0 of model Q1 Milestone: Submit a draft list of toolset refinements Q1 Milestone: Conduct kickoff meeting with Exelon energy Q2 Milestone: Revise and complete toolset refinement plan 

Milestones & 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 

Summary 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

FY2012 FY2013 

Comments • Project start date: Oct, 2010 • Beta 2 version of toolset scheduled to be delivered at end of FY14 • Schedule slips can be attributed to 

– Loss of key team member at end of CY12 – Unanticipated problems and delays with client-supplied data – Client schedule (for BoR workshop) 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

$587k $0 $724k $0k $601k 

•	 Loss of a key project member resulted in underspend

first half of FY13 resulting in a $201k carryover to FYNew team members have been added and work taskbeen more evenly distributed to avoid this situation in future. 

•	 Q1 FY14 spending was $137k, or 23% of the availab

budget 

Project Management 

–	 This project has successfully delivered all milestones and performed within 20% of the allocated budget with the ex

the FY13-14 carryover as indicated above 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

There are no additions for this sub-task for the integcollaboration, and technology transfer efforts over tdescribed in the Water Use Optimization Toolset prsummary presentation. 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: 1. Provide options for users to turn features on or off (e.g., t

simulation) 

2. Expand user input/out features and functions 3. Enhance code to speed up database integration 4. Develop documentation materials to support technology t

activities 

Proposed future research: 1. Create additional simulation modules for DO, sediment tr

etc. 

2. Create additional system objects to simulate external wat

CO2/GHG emissions, other economic valuations, etc. 

3. Develop linearized code to speed optimization 4. Address issues concerning changes in: the energy portfo

energy & water demand, and the like 

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

  ­ 

Water Power Peer Review

Water Use Optimization Toolset
 

Environmental Performance Tool 

Index of River Functionality
 

(IRF) Model
 

1.6.1.1 Water Use OptimizationToolset

John W. Hay

Argonne National LabHayse@anl.gov, 630 February 25th, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem and Objective: Address the need to improve consideration of environme

performance of hydropower operations by developing evaluating environmental performance and integrating capability with other hydropower planning tools 

Impact of Project: - Helps regulators, schedulers and operators consider e

alternate operational regimes on environmental perfor

- Allows explicit evaluation and optimization of tradeoffs 

power generation/economic value and environmental performance 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities 

- Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibi

and/or operations - Primary Alignment 

- Reduce deployment barriers and environmental 

of hydropower 

- Enable next generation pumped storage techno

facilitate renewable integration 

- Advance new hydropower systems and/or comp

for demonstration or deployment 
Technical Approach 

IRF Tool is integrated with other WUOT compo

- Interacted with Seasonal Analysis Tool to 

conduct optimization by providing environmental performance scores for alternate release patterns 

- IRF tool provides guidance to Day 

Ahead Scheduling Tool regarding operational limits to protect environmental performance 

IRF Tool can also be used standalone 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

- Produces a single overall environmental performance s

entire network being modeled 

- Based on ecosystem approach that considers various aspects o- Evaluates degree to which objectives are accomplished by a flo- Multiple (and potentially conflicting) objectives can be addresse

simultaneously 

- Can also evaluate reach-specific or objective-specific scores 

- Site-specific environmental
 

objectives are defined and
 considered
 

- Water-quality objectives (e.g., water
 

temperature, dissolved oxygen) can
 be considered
 

- Can accommodate objectives for
 

multiple species and life-stages
 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

•	 Uses relationships between 1.0 

downstream conditions and 0.8 

suitability for defined objectives to calculate environmental
 performance for operational
 regimes
 

Suitability
 0.6
� 0.4
� 0.2
� •	 Considers ranges of potentially 

suitable conditions 

–	 maintains flexibility and avoids 

imposition of preconceived operational limits 

•	 Allows site-specific environmental 

data to be considered 

•	 Provides opportunity for stakeholder 

involvement 

0.0 

0 10000 20000 

Discharg

Minimum Daily Discharge at the and Suitability for Fish Larval EnFloodplain Areas in the Lower G

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Development: - Database and mathematical formulation have been 

and successfully implemented 

- Successfully implemented a methodology for integr

Hydroscope to allow optimization between hydropogeneration/value and environmental performance 

Demonstration: - Completed two retrospective analyses 

- Aspinall Unit (Gunnison River, Colorado) - Oroville-Thermolito Complex (Feather River, California) 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Comparison of Environmental Performance for Gunnison 

(Optimized Hydroscope Output vs. Actual Operation during 2009)
 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number 1.6.1.1 Work comple ted Project Number 1.6.1.1 Active Task Agreement Number 20079 Milestones & Delive 

Project Name: Water Use Optimiz ation Toolset 

Q1 Milestone: Identified preliminary env. pe rf. criteria for CRSP and Oroville Demos Q2 Milestone: Preliminary working ve rsion of IRF Tool completed. Q4 Milestone: Devleop preliminary data exchange protocol for IRF-Hydroscope Q2 Milestone: Develop technolgy transfer plan Q3 Milestone: Develop toolset refineme nt plan, Beta 1 version of IRF software Q 4 Milestone: Complete final development and demonstration phase report 

Current work and future research 

Q 2 Milestone: Complete retrospective analysis of Conowingo Dam Complex Q 4 Milestone: Conduct Eastern Outreach Workshop Q 4 Milestone: Beta 2 version of software 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Summary Legen

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

FY2012 FY2013 

Milestones & Delive 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Comments • Development and Demonstration: Planned: FY10-12 Actual: FY10 -13, • Tech Transfer/Refinement FY13+ • Challenges - scope expansion, development and testing realities, Non-Disclosure Agreements, data acquisit
FY 12, 13 Project Plan & Schedule 

Phase 1: Development and Demonstration Planned: FY10-

Actual: FY10 -13 

Development : Software architecture development, coding, anDemonstration: Apply IRF Tool to demonstrate proof of concep

Challenges - data availability and quality 

Phase 2: Refinement and Technology Transfer Refinement: •	 Preparation/implementation of Toolset Refinement Plan – comple

6/30/13 

•	 Development of beta+ version of software – planned and comple

9/30/13 

Technology Transfer: •	 Work with CDWR and BOR staff regarding application and impro

of IRF methodology 

•	 Presentations and publications 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research • Retrospective Analyses for Conowingo (Susquehanna River), Skagit (Ska

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Upper American River) Projects 

Proposed future research Refinement: Continued development of IRF capability and functionality basereviewer feedback • Enhancements for data management, input specification, and user interfaTechnology Transfer: Continued application of toolset (sponsored, cost shafunded), training, publications and presentations 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

  

Water Power Peer Review

1.6.1.1Water Use Optimization Toolset

Thomas Ves

Argonne National Labtdveselka@anl.gov, 6

February 25th, 2014

Water Use Optimization Toolset 

Day-ahead Scheduling and Real-time Operations Tool 

Conventional Hydroelectric and 

Environmental Resource Systems 

(CHEERS) Model 
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem and Objective: Address the need to improve the performance of hydroeenvironmental resources through the development and aof an enhanced day-ahead scheduling and real-time ope

Impact of Project: • Helps schedulers and operators improve hydropower 

generating more power with the same amount of watecomplying with environmental operating criteria 

• Improves the economic value of both hydropower gen

ancillary services 

• Supports power grid operations, including more efficie

and solar integration 

• Provides organizations access to a cost-free tool 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and priorities: • Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexib

and/or operations 

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or components fo

demonstration or deployment 

• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to f

renewable integration 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts o

hydropower 
Technical Approach 

CHEERS is integrated with each of the other WU

•	 Forecasting tool provides system
 

inflows and sideflows
 

•	 Seasonal tool provides reservoir
 

conditions and temporal release
 volumes
 

•	 Environmental tool provides 


operational guidance to achieve
 environmental objectives
 

CHEERS can also be run in stand-alone mode 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

•	 CHEERS is a network-based optimization model •	 Helps operators manage water and power by prod

ahead and real-time schedules 

- Incorporates dispatcher goals and guidelines
 - Integrated into an organization’s business proces

automated

information

transfer

Western’s existing CHEERS networ

tool Colorado River S

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Schedules produced by CHEERS guide when, where, • Release water from storage • Produce energy and ancillary services • Serve customer loads • Buy and/or sell energy and ancillary services on the • Manage other resources such as energy exchanges 

Historical Real-time and pre-schedule Forecast Exte

Model results provide temporal values for all netwocomponents (water flow past gauges, transmission infrastructure loading, turbine head levels, etc.) 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
CHEERS DA

CHEERS HA

Technical Approach 

CHEERS Run Sequencing Mimics Standard Operating 

Applied toDemo Site

Retrospective

Analyses

Will be

Applied to the

Advanced

PSH Project

Day-ahead (DA) 

Scheduling 

Hour-ahead (HA) 

Scheduling 

15-minute 

Scheduling 

5-minute 

RT Dispatch 

Projected inflows, 

releases, & loads 

Updated inflows, releases & loads Updated inflows, releases & loads 

“Actual” 

releases & loads 

Op

rese

CHEERS DA 

transactions 

& schedules 

CHEERS HA 

transactions 

& revisions 

15-min unit 

commitment 

U

rese

res

res

CHEERS schedules include unit commitments, output levels, and ancillar

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

CHEERS Key and Unique Features: 

•	 Flexible definition and use of modeled time •	 Customizable model runs and iterations •	 Model components are generic, not specific •	 Modeled commodities (water, electricity, services, 

and attributes are extendable 

•	 System representation can range from simple to c•	 Operational relationships and constraints not pred•	 Used for actual scheduling or/and for research 

ADAPTABILITY
 

Users can model resources and situations not ant

the developers, without requiring source code mo

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Development: •	 User interface, database, mathematical formulation

integration have been designed and successfully im

Demonstrations and Research Application: •	 Completed two retrospective analyses •	 Results are scheduler approved and meet rules and 

Generation Increase Economics 

CRSP: 1 - 2% net cost reductioCDWR (same spills): 0% revenue increasCDWR (lower spills): 14% revenue increasCDWR (ancillary sales): -5%	 revenue increas

•	 Used for DOE Project: Modeling and Analysis of the 

Advanced Pumped Storage Hydropower in the U.S

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
       

Accomplishments and Progress 

Actual Operation CHEERS Suggestion

•••

Blue Mesa Plant Morrow Point Plant

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

Work comple tActive Task Milestones & 

Task / Event Develop first functioning version of CHEERS with interface, database, formulation Complete development of advance d software features CRSP Re trospective Analysis Develop Buisness Site Integration Features CDWR Re trospective Analysis 

Current work and future research 

Conowingo Retrospective Analysis Se attle City Light Retrospective Analysis Additional Software Enhancements 

Q1 ( Oct-De c)

Q2 ( Jan-M ar) 

FY2012 FY2013 

Summary L

Q2 ( Jan-M ar)

Q3 ( Apr-Jun )

Q4 ( Jul-Se p)

Milestones & 

Q3 ( Apr-Jun )

Q4 ( Jul-Se p)

Q1 ( Oct-De c) 

Comments • Development and Demonstration: Planned: FY10-12 Actual: FY10 -1• Tech Transfer/Refinement FY13+ • Challenges - development and testing realities, data quality, “curse of 
FY 12, 13 Project Plan & Schedule 

Phase 1: Development and Demonstration Planned: FY10-12 Actual: FY10 -13 Development : Software architecture development, coding and testDemonstration: Apply toolset to demonstrate proof of concept and site business systems Awards: •	 HydroVision – 1st place paper for Project Management and Oper

•	 MORS Symposium – best in the Operational Energy Focus Sess

Phase 2: Refinement and Technology Transfer Refinement: •	 Preparation/implementation of Toolset Refinement Plan – planne

completed 6/30/13, 

•	 Development of Beta 1 version of software – planned and complTechnology Transfer: •	 Software installed at CDWR and Western •	 Worked on-site with CDWR and Western staff developing busine

integration procedures and flexible data transfer routines 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research • Retrospective Analysis for Conowingo, Skagit, and SMUD systems Additional CHEERS-Specific Technology Applications and Technol• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Pumped Storage Site Evaluations, FY• DOE Pumped Storage Hydropower Real Time Market Analysis, FY14 • CHEERS tech transfer to BOR, FY14 • Potential application to power existing dam sites for Northern Illinois 

and American Municipal Power, FY14 & FY15 

Proposed future research Refinement: Continued development of CHEERS capability and functioon user and reviewer feedback • Enhancements for data management, input specification, and user in• DC power flow and locational marginal price calculations • Incorporation of stochastic market prices and real-time contingency e

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

  

Water Power Peer Review

Hydropower Advancement Project Brennan T. S

Oak Ridge National L

smithbt@ornl.gov, (86
2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

Purpose: Accelerate improvement and expans

existing U.S. hydropower facilities to increaannual generation and value 

Objectives and Impact: • Provide a fact-based quantitative estimate 

additional energy available through improveexpansions of U.S. hydropower assets, 

• identify barriers to implementation of hydro

asset improvements and expansions, 

• prioritize research that would accelerate inc

hydropower asset performance, and 

• develop and disseminate Best Practices, A

Manual, and Analysis Tools to stimulate and accelerate increases in hydropower asset performance and value. 

The HAP captures institutional and expert knowis steadily disappearing from the hydropower i
Purpose & Objectives 

Program Alignment: The HAP scope was conceived and adjusted under an evolvWater Power Program objectives over the 2010-2012 life of tThe HAP aligns with a current Program objective to: • Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, a

operations 

The HAP documented and demonstrated best practices amethodologies to assess and improve the condition and performance of existing hydropower facilities. 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

HAP Performance Levels & Assessment 

Installed performance level (IPL) – achievable by the facilitdesign conditions and constraints that existed immediately afcommissioning (installed name-plate capacity performance in cases). Current performance level (CPL) – usually lower than the inperformance level (IPL) due to wear and tear, or due to the opchanges in the constraints placed on a facility that prevent it foperating as originally designed. Potential performance level (PPL) – achieved under currenconstraints through upgrading or expanding to the best availatechnology and implementation of best practices for operationmaintenance. 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Performance

HAP Performance Levels & Assessment 

Turbine Component Example from Plant X Unit Y 

Computationally engineered Installed Performance Level (IPL) auto-aerating turbine 

1940’s Francis 85% < η0 < 92% Technology 

80% < η0 < 88%	 Current

PerformanceLevel (CPL)

Retrofit with hub baffle aeration 

75% < η0 < 85% 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
-------------------

Technical Approach
 

HAP Process & Baseline Development

Best

Practices
 

Phase 1

HAP StandardAssessments

Phase 2Phase 3

Standardized For each facility

Asset Condition 

Assessment 

Standardized 

Performance 

Assessment 

•	 Component, Unit, and 

Plant Condition Ratings

•	 Unit and Plant 

Performance Ratings

•	 Wide range of upgrade 

opportunities

Identify Asset

Upgrades
 

Identify Process

Improvements
 

QA/QC into HAP Condition and Performance Databases 

x 10 Assessmena validated, documemethodology for qucorrelating conditioand improvement o

•	 Extrapolation to US h

yields fact-based estiMW and MWh

•	 Prioritization of upgra

applicability to US inv

•	 Documentation of bar

Feasibility Studies and Upgrade Demonstrations

6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office	 
Technical Approach
 

Hydropower Technology Taxonomy

Standardization of physical hierarchy is key to meaningful analyses and trending

•	 Provides physical and functional hierarchy for 

Best Practices, Ratings, and Component Condition Database 

•	 Provides consistent nomenclature for facility 

characterization, reporting and team/assessor communication

•	 Enables detailed component level queries of 

component conditions across multiple projects

•	 A reference and basis for future asset 

management research

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office	 
Technical Approach 

Best Practices Catalog (BPC)• Concepts

� Functional requirements � Typical configurations for components � Efficiency role of components � Reliability role of components � Concise history of technological evolution � Summary of State-of-the-art technology � Typical O&M requirements � References to testing protocols 

• Components covered

� Turbines (Francis, Propeller, Pelton) � Generators � Water Conveyances � Main Transformers � Trash Racks & Intakes � Instrumentation and controls for condition 

monitoring 

� Instrumentation and controls for automation 

• Special topics

� Uncontrolled water leakage � Flow releases � Operational impacts of environmental
 mitigation systems
 

Condition Rating Workbo• Excel Workbook files

� User (assessor) fields to enter � Predefined rating scales for ea

and consistency among differe

� Providing additional guidance 

fields 

• Components covered

� Turbines (Francis, Propeller, P� Generators � Water Conveyances � Main Transformers � Trash Racks & Intakes � Instrumentation and Controls f

Automation and Condition Mo

� Instrumentation for Unit Perfor

Measurement
 

• Rating structure

� Component specific weighting 

parts (e.g. wicket gates, runne

� Weighted scores for Age, Phys

Condition, Technology Level, OImpact, Maintenance Demandother specific metrics 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
-    

-   

U P MW

 

 

0

0

Technical Approach 

Overview of Performance Assessment

Optimization 

Engine 

Computation 

Engine 

Operation Efficienc

Analyses

Long Term Stream Po

Long Term Producti

Potential

Average Energy Produ

Correlation Analyse

Avoidable Loss Analy

Scheduling Analyse

Unit Characteristics Data:1. Installed Performance Level (IPL)2. Current Performance Level (CPL)3. Potential Performance Level (PPL)

Rhodhiss Unit 1 and Unit 3 

0 

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 

100 

0 5 10 15 

n it ow er ( ) 

Unit Gross Head E fficien cy (%) Gross Head = 54 f t Gross Head = 59 f t Gross Head = 65 f t Gross Head = 70 f t Gross Head = 75 f t Pow er v s Flow , Rh odhi ss Uni ts 1 a nd 3 

0 

500 

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

0 5 10 15 

U nit Powe r ( MW) 

U nit Flow ( cfs ) 

Gr oss Head = 54 ft Gr oss Head = 59 ft Gr oss Head = 65 ft Gr oss Head = 70 ft Gr oss Head = 75 ft Poly. (Gr oss H ead = 54 ft) Poly. (Gr oss H ead = 59 ft) Poly. (Gr oss H ead = 65 ft) Poly. (Gr oss H ead = 70 ft) Poly. (Gr oss H ead = 75 ft) 

Facility Operational Data

Facility Hydrological Data

2 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

Oct 

Dec 

Feb 

Apr 

Jun 

122 

245 

489 

979 1392 none 

Optim

al 

fl

ow 

(h

m3) 

Flow limit (hm3/y) 

Timestamp (Five 

minute intervals) 

Station Total 

Output (MW) 

Station Total 

Flow (CFS, 

computed) 

Forebay Water 

Level (elev., ft) 

Tailrace 

Water Level 

(elev., ft) 

Unit 1 

(MW) 

Unit 2 

(MW) 

Unit 3 

(MW) 

Unit 1 (Gate 

Position) 

Unit 2 (Gate 

Position) 

Unit 3 (Gate 

Position) 

10/1/2004 0:00 23.7 950 996.5 934 7.9 7.9 7.9 76.2 71.5 68.9 10/1/2004 0:05 24 950 996.6 934 8.1 8.1 7.8 73.4 71.4 62.7 10/1/2004 0:10 23.8 950 996.7 934 7.9 8.2 7.7 75.1 76.8 62.7 

10/1/2004 0:15 23.7 950 996.6 934 7.8 8.1 7.8 79.7 77.6 68.9 

10/1/2004 0:20 23.4 950 996.8 934 7.7 7.9 7.8 74.3 74.3 71.5 10/1/2004 0:25 23.3 950 996.7 934 7.8 7.8 7.7 71.8 71.8 71.4 10/1/2004 0:30 23.6 950 996.5 934 7.7 7.7 8.2 70.8 70.8 76.8 

10/1/2004 0:35 24.6 950 996.6 934 8.2 8.2 8.2 72.9 68.9 77.6 

10/1/2004 0:40 24.1 950 996.7 934 7.9 8.1 8.1 76.2 71.8 76.2 

10/1/2004 0:45 23.6 950 996.6 934 7.8 7.9 7.9 73.4 70.8 74.9 10/1/2004 0:50 23.3 950 996.8 934 7.7 7.8 7.8 75.1 68.9 72.9 

10/1/2004 0:55 23.2 950 996.7 934 7.8 7.7 7.7 79.7 71.5 72.9 

10/1/2004 1:00 23.4 950 996.8 934 7.8 7.8 7.8 72.9 68.9 77.6 

DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS PERFORMANCE ANAL

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Methodology 

Opt. Plant Gross Head Efficiency vs Plant Power (GH 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Technical Methodology

Typical Results from Scheduling Analyses (2009; GH 

2009 Actual Generation vs Optimized Generation (GH = 60 ft) 

4,000 3,500 

Plant Generation (MWh) 3,000 

2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 

500 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Plant Power (MW) 

Scroll Data ' X­Axis Scale ' Select Series '

11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Online documentation and tools to support the Assessment Ma

assessment process: • Process Guidance

Hydropower Best • Component Rating 

Technology Practices • Component Rating 

Taxonomy Catalog • Plant Performance 

Reports provide insight into the state of existingU.S. hydropower assets• Non-Public Business-Sensitive Assessments

• Protected by Non-Disclosure Agreements• Individual Project Performance and Condition Ratings

• QA/QC of selected flow and generation data

• Public reports with overall findings

� Center Hill (USACE-Nashville)

� Tuckertown and Falls (APGI)

� Rhodhiss (Duke Energy)

� Nisqually (Alder/LaGrande; Tacoma)

� Flaming Gorge (Reclamation) • Rock Creek and Caribou I (PG&E) - suspended� Watauga (TVA)

ReGo

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Significant new energy can be obtained through upgrades and 

improved efficiency, but there are challenges to be addressed. 

Accomplishments and Progress 

Plant 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Design 

Head 

(feet) 

Turbine 

Type 

Year of 

initial 

Commission 

ing / 

upgrade 

Current 

Annual 

Average 

Generation 

(MWh) 

Potential 

Annual 

Generatio 

n 

Increase 

(MWh) 

Potential 

Generatio 

n 

Increase 

(%) 

Preliminary 

Cost Est. for 

Recommend 

ed 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% 

Challeng•	 Licens

risks 

•	 Comp•	 Reliab•	 Increa

dynam

•	 Comp

7.1% averageneration facilities (v

TVA’s 

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Methodolo

Report

Project Plan & Schedule 

Project Forming 

Best Practices 

Initial 3 Demos 

FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

gy 

Assessment 

Methodology 

5 Additional 

Demos 

Final 

Report 

Closeout 

RFI

FOA FOA

NoGo

Fleet-wide Assessments 

(Deferred) 

RFI: Request for Information – issued by DOEto gather input from R&D stakeholders

FOA: Funding Opportunity Announcement –

solicitation for DOE­funded R&D by applicants

Basis for August 2012 FOA No­Go decision:

• FY2013 budgets did not evolve as expected

• Less than enthusiastic industry response to FOA

• Shift in programmatic focus towards new hydropower R&D

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2010-2012 FY2013 FY201

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

$4,477K $80K* 0 0 0 

*Expenses for hydropower facility staff participation are estimated at 8 sites, 100 hours per site, and $100 per hour labor expenses. 

Total Cost of HAP

$4.477M
16 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: • Mesa and Associates 

• Hydropower Design, Asset Management, and 

Operations Expertise 

• Equipment best practices drafting, assessme

methodology, execution of condition assessm

• Hydro Performance Processes, Inc. 

• Optimization best practices, performance ass

methodology and execution 

• Facility Owners 

• Corps of Engineers, Reclamation, Duke Ener

Alcoa Power Generation, Tacoma Power, PG
17 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

HAP Communications and Technology Transfer: • Hydrovision 2012 pre-conference workshop on asset assessment • Technical presentations: 

• March, P., P. Wolff, B.T. Smith, Q. Zhang, R. Dham. Data-Based 

Performance Assessments for the DOE Hydropower AdvancemenProject, Hydrovision 2012, Lousiville, KY. 

• Zhang, Q., B. T. Smith, M. Cones, P. March, R. Dham, M. Spray, 

Methodology and Process for Condition Assessment at Existing Hydropower Plants, Hydrovision 2012, Lousiville, KY. 

• Smith, B.T., Q. Zhang, M. Cones, P. March, R. Dham, and M. Spra

Practices Implementation for Hydropower Efficiency and Utilization Improvement, Hydrovision 2012, Lousiville, KY. 

• Smith, B.T. Hydropower R&D at ORNL. 3rd Annual Hydro Plant 

Maintenance & Reliability Workshop, November 6-7, 2013, Denve

• Journal Paper 

• Zhang, Q. and B. T. Smith. 2013. Developing a Quantitative Meth

Assessing Plant Conditions. Hydro Review, December 2103. 
18 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments 

Outcomes: • DOE will use the results of the HAP to inform its R&D investments for 

hydropower facilities. 

• The HAP captured and documented industry best practices for 20 pow

component systems. Those best practices are available to all as refer

• NHA-HPC Operational Excellence Subcommittee interested in ste

Best Practices documents. 

• Nomenclature and hierarchy of hydropower technology establishe

is being used in multiple Program efforts 

• Leveraged decades of practitioner experience into public docume

inform next generation of hydropower engineers 

• The HAP showed that there is significant potential for increases in ann

from existing hydropower assets (7.1% average for assessed facilities

• Lesson learned: responses to advertised HAP opportunities revealed 

focus on best practices for operating and improving small and mid-sizfacilities more so than large facilities 
19 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research 

Proposed future research: The HAP is concluded, but experience and results gained provide insights into the scope, objectives, and technical approach for multiple neprojects and inquiries: • New Projects 

� Hydropower Flow Measurement � Hydropower Cost Modeling � New Hydropower Innovation Collaborative � Quantification of Reliability and Cost Impacts for 

Hydropower Assets 

• DOE/DOI/DOD Hydropower MOU items 

� Data collection and archiving best practices for 

hydropower systems 

• Hydropower Benchmarking as a management driver f

best practices and capital investments 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

- - 

[Principal Investigators: please use this template for your project 

presentation at the Peer Review Meeting in February 2014. 

Water Power Peer Review 

The 45 Mile Hydroelectric Power 

Project (formerly the 51 Mile 

Hydroelectric Project) 

J Gordon 

Earth By Design, Inc. 

jgrenewables@hotmail.com, 541 385 1135 

February 20, 2014 
 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Demonstrate developing low-head hydro sites 

utilizing innovative technologies and advanced methodologies to lower 

Levelized Costs of Energy (LCOE) 

Impact of Project: Provide demonstrated evidence of the ability to 

develop low-head hydropower across the U.S. at an affordable rate, 

expanding the potential for more low-head hydro sites to be developed1 . 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and 

priorities: Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for 

demonstration or deployment 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

Project Goals are achieved through: 

Innovative solutions to construction of hydroelectric power in confined spaces, in a 

mature, open access, control area governed by State and Federal PURPA laws. 

Integration of unique, innovative hydroelectric turbine technology with a lower cost 

providing long-term, reliable energy production. 

This project is addressing the key issues of: 

Traditionally high costs associated with the construction of hydroelectric power and 

technology. 

Streamlining the process of working with stakeholders and regulatory agencies to more 

rapidly construct projects. 

Demonstrate a high-efficiency, high baseload project that provides significant power for 

the grid. 

Unique aspects of the project include: 

Innovative construction and manufacturing methodologies. 

Innovative technology with strong performance results. 

Effective planning and management utilizing advanced expertise in the hydroelectric 

industry coordinated with Stakeholder support. 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

The most important technical accomplishments between 2012 – 2013 were the 

identification of an innovative technology solution, meeting regulatory deadlines 

and proceeding with construction.1 

Beyond the original scope of this project, multiple technologies were identified and evaluated with 

the ability to meet the goals of this grant (within the LCOE goals). 

Additionally, a new project site was identified and secured for improving overall performance of 

this project. 

This project is on target with its initial goals for identifying and testing the right 

technology and is well underway to putting that technology into place for 

demonstrated performance.
 

This project has received strong support for its clean methodologies and strategies 

for site selection and reduced footprint by multiple stakeholders.2 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completed

Project Number Active Task

EE00005430 Milestones & Deliverables (Original Plan)

Task / Event

Project Name: 45 Mile Hydroelectric Project: Developing Low Head Hydro at a reduced LCOE

Task 1: Permitting and Interconnection Activities

Task 2: Engineering Design Services

Task 3: Technology Demonstration, Testing and Reporting

Task 4: Construction

Task 7: Plant Operations

Task 6: Final Site Equipment Testing & Reporting

Current work and future research

Task 5: Equipment Testing Q1 (Oct-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun)

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Oct-Dec) Q1 (Oct-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Summary Legend Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual)

Comments: 

Project planned completion date and testing period on schedule. A full, 3.0 MW hydroelectric facility will be constructed 2.5 years1 . 

Changes from site relocation, additional technology evaluation, engineering work, and working through the permitting and lice nsing 

process to better identify mitigation opportunities delayed initial milestones, setting back some of the start dates for othe r tasks 

(without affecting the availability of a demonstration & testing period). 

Key points in 2013: Completion of pre-construction activities; including interconnection and transmission, permitting and licensing, 

vendor services, technology evaluation and identification, and financing. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$ 898,600 $ 649,048 $ 125,000 $ 344,790 $ 176,400 $ 4,495,649 

Budget has changed due to: 

A change in project site location 

Additional technology evaluation (not in original scope) 

Minor, additional regulatory work 

40% of the budget has been expended to date with an accelerated 

expenditure by EBD anticipated through construction, 

demonstration of technology and project completion. 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: 

The primary group that EBD is working with includes: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tennessee 

DOE Golden Field Office, Colorado, 

Knight Piésold & Co. Denver, Colorado 

Communications and Technology Transfer: 

Two Technical Papers were presented at1: 

Hydrovision International Conference, July, 2012 

Hydrovision International Conference, July, 2013 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: In 2014, construction that is already underway will 

be completed, followed by a report with findings about the performance, 

readiness, capability, strengths and weaknesses, limitations, and potential fullscale deployment and application in the United States. 

The upcoming milestones for this project are: 

April, 2014: Installation of turbines 

September, 2014: Demonstration and evaluation of technology 

Proposed future research: This project will provide readily quantifiable data 

for realizing the potential from low-head hydro sites nation-wide, expanding on 

assessments of hydropower development opportunities. 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 

- 

Water Power Peer Review 

International Collaboration Brennan T. Smith 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

smithbt@ornl.gov, (865) 241 5160 
 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

•	 Purposes 

–	 International collaboration enhances the breadth and depth of 

scientific and technical research for the Water Power Program 

–	 DOE-funded hydropower research outcomes are shared with 

and vetted by an international community of researchers and 

practitioners. 

–	 DOE Water Power Program participants gain access to research 

and practices from the international hydropower community. 

•	 Program alignment 

–	 Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or 

operations 

–	 Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of 

hydropower 

–	 Some technology and new development R&D 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

International Collaboration occurs in three major forum: 

•	 International Energy Agency, Implementing Agreement for 

Hydropower Technologies and Programs 

–	 Executive Committee 

–	 Annex II – Small Scale Hydropower 

–	 Annex IX – Hydropower Services 

–	 Annex XI – Hydropower Rehabilitation 

–	 Annex XII – Hydropower and the Environment 

•	 Task 1: Managing the Carbon Balance in Freshwater Reservoirs 

•	 Task 2: Update of Phase 1 Recommendations on Hydropower and the 

Environment 

–	 Annex XIII – Hydropower and Fish 

•	 CEATI Interest Groups 

–	 Hydraulic Plant Life, Hydropower Operations, Dam Safety 

•	 Electric Utility Cost Group, Hydroelectric Productivity Committee 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

ORNL efforts in FY2014 are focused on ensuring that forum participation is highly 

leveraged: 

•	 Requiring research targets for IEA Annexes and mapping to Programmatic 

activities: 

–	 Annex II Small Scale Hydro: Technology Database, Policy Analysis  DOE New 

Hydropower Innovation Collaborative 

–	 Annex XII Task 1: GHG modeling  DOE WQ Optimization, Reservoir GHG Modeling 

Workshop 

–	 Annex IX Task 2: Hydro non-energy services – DOE cost modeling and market reporting 

–	 Annex IX Task1 by ANL, Annex XIII by PNNL 

•	 CEATI 

–	 Hydropower Flow Measurement Research with ASME PTC-18 

–	 Quantification of Reliability and Cost impacts for Hydropower Assets 

•	 Electric Utility Cost Group, Hydroelectric Productivity Committee 

–	 Active collaboration on DOE Hydropower Cost Model, Hydropower Market Report 

–	 Adjustment of cost and productivity metrics for hydrologic and regional labor cost variation 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

•	 Annex II – Small-Scale Hydro 

–	 Subtask A1/B2: Website and Innovative Technologies Catalog 

• http://www.small-hydro.com 

–	 Subtask A3: Policy and Programs – draft report with country submissions at 

Hydro 2014, October 2014 

–	 Subtask A5: Sustainable Small-Scale Hydropower in Local Community 

•	 Annex XII Task 1 - Managing the Carbon Balance in Freshwater 

Reservoirs 

–	 ORNL/PNNL/DOE GHG measurements and analysis included in Volume 1: 

Guidelines for the Quantitative Analysis of Net GHG Emissions from 

Reservoirs 

–	 ORNL will host April 2014 workshop to prepare draft Vol. 2, Guidelines and 

Best Practices for the Modeling of GHG Emissions 

• Cost-hosted with CEPEL/Brazil 

• Participation from International Hydropower Association 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Plan & Schedule 

•	 IEA participation: 

–	 USA participation in October 2013 ExCo/Annex meetings cancelled 

during federal shutdown 

–	 April 2014 Annex XII GHG modeling workshop at ORNL 

–	 May 2014 Annex II, Small Hydro Policy & Experience Workshop, 

Hydroenergia 2014, Istanbul (tentative) 

–	 June 2014 IEA ExCo, Rovaniemi, Finland 

•	 CEATI Spring Workshop, March 17-21, 2014, Palm Desert, CA 

–	 ORNL and HQ staff to establish scope of participation 

•	 EUCG Hydroelectric Productivity Committee 

–	 CRADA finalized, data sharing begins February 2014 

–	 Data assimilation and initial hydrologic, labor adjustments March 2014 

–	 Annual Report draft and Analyses Plan firmed at April 2014 meeting 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

0 0 $150K 0 
 

 

 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Communications and Technology Transfer
 •	 ORNL issues quarterly activity reports to disseminate international activities to 

Water Power Program participants. 

•	 HQ and Golden Field Office staff 

•	 Other national laboratories 

•	 Regular reports of IEA and CEATI engagement with ORNL and program 

participants are made to Program partners. 

•	 Hydropower MOU partners (Corps and Reclamation) 

•	 Federal Inland Hydropower Working Group 

•	 National Hydropower Association 

•	 Specific issue-based international collaborations are included in outreach for 

funded program activities. 

•	 New Hydro Innovation Collaborative 

•	 Hydropower Flow Measurement 

•	 Quantification of Reliability and Cost Impacts 

•	 Hydropower Cost Modeling 

•	 Hydropower Market Report 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Next Steps 

•	 IEA Hydropower 

–	 Prepare matrix to map Program activities to IEA activities 

–	 Harmonize Annex II Small-Scale Hydro activities with New 

Hydropower Innovation Collaborative 

•	 CEATI 

–	 Assimilate Interest Group priorities and activities 

•	 EUCG-HPC 

–	 Finalize CRADA 

–	 Proceed with data assimilation and analysis 

–	 Year 1 CRADA review in March 2015 

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Hydropower International Collaboration—IAHTP Annex XIII on Fish Passage Issues

Daniel DengSimon GeerlPacific Northwest NatSimon.geerlofs@pnnFebruary 25, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Rapid development of interna

hydropower resources requires state of the art son fish passage issues; U.S hydropower growth require advanced and proven approaches. 

Impact of Project: leverage learning on fish passag

associated with rapid international hydropower development to the U.S. context 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities Reduce deployment barenvironmental impacts of hydropower 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

•	 Support the WWPTO and partners through parti

in the IEA Implementing Agreement on HydropoTechnology Program’s (IEA-IAHTP) Annex XIII oPassage. 

•	 Attend and present at Annex XIII meetings, enga

annex partners, and contribute expertise in fish biological issues, instrumentation, field researchdata analysis. 

•	 Submit quarterly reports to ORNL and the WWP

annex activities in quarters where activity occurs

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

•	 DOE Funding was received in late Q4 of FY 13. •	 Dr. Daniel Deng and Dr. Rich Brown attended the Annex X

meeting in Laos in August, 2013 (before receipt of DOE fudelivered a presentation on 

–	 US experience with fish passage issues –	 Monitoring technologies related to fish and hydropower 

•	 Annex VIII is still in formative period—Leadership is being 

by Norway. 

•	 A second annex meeting was held in Trondheim Norway i

December; PNNL was unable to attend but participated in planning. 

•	 Following the Trondheim meeting, Annex XIII lead Niels N

with PNNL in Richland, WA to discuss meeting outcomes. 

•	 Progress report provided to ORNL and WWPTO 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

Comments • Funded in Q4, 2013. Planned completion in FY 2016 • On schedule • Next meeting is tentatively planned to be held in Australia in 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

75k 10k 

74k (carryover only, no additional funding) 

•	 No budget variances •	 Approximately 15% of funds have been expende•	 Dr. Deng and Dr. Brown utilized a combination o

DOE funds and an honorarium from the UniversLaos to participation in Annex XIII initial meetingconversations before arrival of DOE funds. 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: Partninclude ORNL, ANL, and participating Annex XIII na

Communications and Technology Transfer: Annex Xactivities are still in the formative phase—project rehave not been communicated beyond Annex partici

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: In FY 14, PNNL will partneORNL and ANL to support the WWPTO in IAHTP aFY 14 work focuses on participation in Annex XIII opassage. PNNL will participate in Annex meetings aback to partner labs and the WWPTO. Proposed future research: Annex XIII work planning underway. Future research is unclear. 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

­ ­

  ­  

Water Power Peer Review

International Collaboration
 

6.2.1 Collaboration with theInternational Energy Agency (IEA) on

Annex IX: Hydropower Services

Vladimir Kor

Argonne National Labkoritarov@anl.gov630 252 6711February 24 28, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Purpose: International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Implementing Agreem

Hydropower Technologies and Programmes includes several Anndeal with various topics of interest to IEA member states. Annex IX Hydropower Services and includes two tasks: Task 1 – Energy Management Services Task 2 – Water Management Services and other Socio-Economic 

Argonne has been designated by DOE to lead Task 1 activities for Un

Main Objectives: To develop an understanding of key issues asso

the expedited large-scale provision of hydropower management sespecially those that facilitate integration of variable renewable resuch as wind energy and solar energy. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objec

priorities: 

• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operat• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate 

integration 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Annex IX - Project Impact 

• Inform and enable better understanding of variouprovided by hydropower and how these services are different regions of the world •	 Annex IX Statement of Objectives envisions for T

•	 Several case studies to be conducted in different 

countries/regions (e.g., United States, Norway, Japetc.) to investigate how the provision of ancillary sevalued and rewarded in different regions. 

•	 The objectives of the U.S. study include analyzing t

coordination of hydropower services with wind and generation in U.S. regional markets, non-markets, balancing authorities.
 

IEA Operating Agent for Annex IX is Ms. Karin Seelo

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

•	 Most of Task 1 activities in the U.S. are conducte

the framework of the study “Modeling and AnalysValue of Advanced Pumped Storage HydropoweUnited States” 

•	 Study is sponsored by DOE/WWPTO and carrie

project team led by Argonne 

•	 In addition to Argonne, the project team member

Energy Exemplar, LLC, MWH Americas, Inc., NRSiemens Energy, Inc. 

•	 Study goal is to develop detailed dynamic simula

models of PSH plants, analyze technical capabilPSH plants to provide various grid services, and the value of these services under different markestructures and for different levels of RE in the sy

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Technical approach has two main components: (1) Advanced Technology Modeling: Develop an

vendor-neutral dynamic simulation models of adPSH plants, including adjustable speed and tertechnologies 

(2) Production Cost and Revenue Modeling: Sim

Western Interconnection and different balancing authorities within the region to assess potential revenues of PSH plants and the economic valuvarious contributions and services that they prothe power system. 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress (1/3) 

� Developed and tested prototype vendor-neutral m

advanced PSH technologies, including adjustable and ternary units 

� Integrated dynamic models into PSS

®E software a

performed testing by simulating actual utility systethe Western Interconnection (WI) 

� Published and made available vendor-neutral mod

(block diagrams and transfer functions) for integraother software packages 

� Improved modeling representations of advanced P

plants in other software tools (PLEXOS, CHEERS

•	 Developed a matrix of different services and contr

that PSH plants provide to the power system 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress (2/3) 

� Performed production cost and revenue simulatio

address a wide range of control issues and timefr

� Studies were carried out for different geographica

including WI, state of California, and for the SMUD balancing authority 

� Simulations were performed for different levels of 

penetration of RE resources: 

� Baseline (RPS-mandated) RE scenario � High Wind RE scenario from WWSIS-2 study 

� Analyses were performed utilizing both cost-base

approach to determine the economic value of PSH (WI and SMUD) and market-based approach to dpotential PSH revenues in competitive markets (C

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress (3/3) 

� The work on various Annexes of the IEA’s Implem

Agreement is overseen and coordinated by the ExCommittee (ExCo). 

� ExCo conducts regular meetings at which the pro

work on different Annexes is reviewed. Last three meetings were held in Washington DC (May 2012(Feb 2013), and Austria (Oct 2013). 

� In addition to ExCo meetings, Annex IX organizes 

workshops at large international hydro conference(HYDRO and HydroVision) to inform the public abresearch and to coordinate the work on different cstudies. 

� Argonne/DOE representatives were actively partic

these activities. 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Project Plan & Schedule 

As defined by the ExCo, the target dates for key mileevents of Annex IX are as follows: � Collection of country case studies 2013/2014 � Synthesis Report 2014/2015 � Communication Material/Strategy 2015 � Dissemination 2015 � Annex IX completion 2015 

Comments • Project start date (Argonne): May 2012 • Project end date: Dec 2015 

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

0K 0K 0K 0K 75K 

• Expended to date (Dec 31, 2013): $9.1K (12%

Comments • Project number: 6.2.1 • Agreement number: 26506 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) – Project Lead Siemens PTI, Inc. Energy Exemplar, LLC. MWH Americas, Inc. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) In addition, collaborating with Statkraft (Norway), EdF (France), ToshHM-Hydro (Japan), and other organizations involved in Annex IX actCommunications and Technology Transfer: • Presented at special IEA Annex IX workshops organized in 

with the HydroVision and HYDRO international conferences 

• Organized and conducted a panel session at IEEE 2013 PE

Meeting 

• Published article about the project in Hydro Review magaz• Presented at several DOE workshops 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: • Complete the analysis of simulation runs perform

during the project and compile key findings into tstudy report for the United States 

• Review case studies prepared for Annex IX by o

countries and their key findings related to the vagrid services in other regions 

Proposed future research: • Collaborate with Norway and other Annex IX par

countries on preparing the Synthesis Report 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

  

Water Power Peer Review

Quantification of Reliability andCost Impacts for Hydropower

Assets

Brennan T. SOak Ridge National L

smithbt@ornl.gov (86February 25, 2014
2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: How can current or future condition monitoring, cost tracking, and data archiving enable robuquantification of reliability and cost impacts experienced hydropower assets? • The asset reliability and cost risks of transitioning hydropow

from an energy-production role to a power system flexibility role are unconfirmed or undetermined. 

• The asset reliability and cost impacts (+/-) of adopting new 

technology and new O&M practices are not well understoo

• The asset reliability and cost impacts of implementing new 

environmental, and operating constraints are not well unde

Asset Change Impac

Are asset data management practices capable of detecting impacts and determining 
3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

Impact of Project: • Informed decision-making by asset managers 

• Allocation of flexible dispatch and impacts across multipl

and units 

• Risk-based value decisions on adoption of new technolo

practices 

• Right-sizing of condition and cost tracking data effort

• Asset managers can focus limited reporting resources o

value data 

• Informed regional and national policy-making 

• Quantification of hydropower flexibility risks and costs (n

assignment) 

• Value-based decisions of hydropower technology RDD&

investments 
4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program obje

and priorities: 

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or components fo

demonstration or deployment 

The project will enable asset managers and DOE prograto consider full costs and risks of new technology in priorinvestments. 

• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/o

operations 

Optimization and allocation of flexibility, capacity, and prorequires individual unit and facility data-based cost and rcharacteristics. 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts o

hydropower 

Full accounting of risks and costs addresses perceived ridentifies externalities 
Technical Approach 

The project plan includes three major phases: 1.	 Scoping process with (a) federal and (b) non-federal fleet and 

asset managers, 

2.	 Retrospective study of selected facilities based on hypothesis 

existing data enterprises are sufficient to quantify change impa

3.	 Development, refinement, and demonstration (pilot) of an Impa

Detection Framework to guide future data collection and deciinvestments. 

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 and beyond

Scoping 

Retrospective 

Study 

FY15 and beyond effort and outcomes

contingent on program funding and prioritie

Detection Framework Development, Refinement, & 

Demonstration (Pilot Study) 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach 

Initial Telecon 

for Federal 

Sponsors Draft 

Retrospective 

Study 

Outline 

Engagement 

Plan 

Development ORNL and Federal Staff 

Engineering/Production 

Working Group Meeting 

Select Federal 

Hydropower 

Facilities 

ORNL and 

Non-Fed Staff 

Engineering 

Working Group 

Meeting 

Define 

Additional 

Non-Fed 

Issues and 

Data 

Requirements 

Visit Federal 

Hydropower 

Facilities to 

Gather Data 

Visit NonFederal 

Hydropower 

Facilities to 

Gather Data 

Analysis of 

O&M Costs, 

Dispatch, 

Flexibility & 

Efficiency Data 

Phase 1 ­ Scoping

Define Issues 

and Data 

Requirements 

Phase 2

Retrospective

Study
Technical Approach 

•	 Impacts Detection Framework Development 

–	 Examples of hypothesized impact pathways 

•	 Generator thermal cycling •	 Rough zone cavitation •	 Reservoir drawdown/recovery effects •	 TDG exceedence 

–	 Dispatch metrics – can we discern using unit characteristics and

[hourly/minute/change] archived data analyses?
 

•	 Mode of operation – storage, run-of-river, or in between and to wha•	 Baseline efficiency optimization practices •	 Intensity of operations – starts/stops, rough zone excursions, inc/de

temperature cycling – is condition monitoring data adequate? 

•	 Invocation of constraints – can we determine when regulatory or en

constraints control generation? 

•	 Volume of ancillary services 

–	 Cost data 

•	 Alignment with ORNL/DOE HCM and industry cost breakdown stru•	 Preventive maintenance, repairs, staffing •	 Differentiation of costs by unit or component 

–	 Reliability and forced outage data 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Key Issues Addressed: •	 Realistic consideration of how federal and non-federal a

management decisions are made – emphasis on up-front 

•	 Change metrics – the scoping process will define metrics 

flexibility and other operating outcomes so as to quantify c

•	 Adequacy of data – we will test the hypothesis that curre

practices are adequate to answer management and reseaquestions 

•	 Complexity of data – we will consider granularity of cond

monitoring and cost data and the feasibility of capturing fin

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

Comments • Project was initiated in September 2013 • Release of prospectus to MOU partners delayed by two weeks – no long-term • Milestones and deliverables will be modified to incorporate federal hydro mana

technical input/meetings earlier in the scoping – engagement plan in Q2 FY14, in Q3 FY14, Retrospective Study Report delivery will be shifted to FY15. 

1.6.1.2 Flexible Operations O and M and Lifetime Work completed 

I mpact Study Active Task 

Milestones & Deliverab

Agreement 26522 Milestone / Deliverable Draft Hydropower MOU Section for Reliability-Flexibility Sub-task publication of FY2014-2016 DOE-ORNL-I ndustry Work Plan Current work and future research 

Publication of Prospectus for Hydropower Flexibility Collaborative 

Technical Scoping workshop with MOU (Corps, Reclamation) and 

non-federal partners 

Publication of Hydropower Flexibility-Reliability Correlation and 

Cost I mpacts Detection Framework Report 

Publication of initial quarterly report. 

FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Oct-Dec) 

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Q2 (JM) 

Summary Legend 

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & Deliverab

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

FY2012 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$300,000 0 0 0 

•	 No significant budget variances •	 20% of funds expended through Q1 FY2014 •	 There is potential for funding and in-kind contrib

from industry consortia in FY2015—discussions ongoing. 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

ORNL Execution Team • Research Staff: 

–	 Energy analyst –	 Hydro-mechanical engineer –	 Sensors and controls engineer 

• Signal Hydropower Consultants 

–	 Jim Miller, principal consultant –	 Hydropower Asset Management and Cost Benchmarking 

• Hydro Performance Processes 

–	 Patrick March, principal consultant –	 Hydropower Dispatch Analysis 

• UTK/ORNL Bredesen Center 

–	 Stephen Signore, Energy Science & Engineering Ph.D. student –	 Hydropower O&M impacts thesis 

Federal & Industry Pa• MOU Partners 

–	 Corps of Engineers 

•	 Hydroelectric Desi

Portland (OR) 

–	 Reclamation 

•	 Power Resources •	 Research & Devel•	 Technical Service 

–	 BPA Asset Managem

• Non-Federal Asset O

–	 Preliminary discussio

• Industry Consortia 

–	 Ongoing and planne

with CEATI, EPRI, ENERC about collaboopportunities 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Communications and Technology Transfer • Initial outreach and scoping is limited to federal partners • Non-federal partners will be identified in FY2014 through indu

consortia: NHA, CEATI, EPRI, EUCG 

• FY14 products are internal: 

• Federal hydropower engagement plan • Retrospective study outline and draft • Internal presentations to technical committees of CEATI, E

Hydraulic Power Committee 

• External publications are anticipated in FY15: 

• Technical report and peer-reviewed journal pub on Retros

Study 

• Hydro Review / HRW advocacy article for new framework 

implementation 

• Technical presentation at Hydrovision 2015 
13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: • Prospectus transmitted to federal partners in Jan

2014, initial management meeting in February, engagement plan and engineering meeting in M

• Select facilities for retrospective analysis in Marc

visits and data collection in April, analysis complFY2014 

• Develop scope of work and prospectus for FY20

demonstration of Impacts Detection Framework data acquisition and cost tracking) at multiple fac
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Hydropower Flow Measurement

February 24, 2014

A joint ORNL/PNNL effort supporting the DOE/DOI/DOD Hydropower MOU

Brennan SmOak Ridge National L

smithbt@ornl.gov

Marshall RicPacific Northwest Namarshall.richmond@p
2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statements: • Accurate turbine flow rate measurement underp

practices for hydropower operations, water management, and sustainability. 

• The value of turbine flow rate measurement acc

not well-quantified across the U.S. hydropower f

• Accurate and cost-effective flow measurement i

converging turbine intakes is a long-standing tecchallenge not yet overcome by industry or reseacommunities. 

• Innovations in flow sensor systems technology, 

simulation, and deployment will be required for sconverging turbine intakes. 
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Impact of Project: 

Purpose & Objectives 

HFM Accuracy Annual Value Calculator 

Conventional Feasibility and Cost Factor Catalog 

Cost-benefit decision

tool for asset managers

Cost-benefit decision 

tool for asset managers 

Fleet-wide applicability statistics with NHAAP HFM Innovation Targets HFM Innovation Targets 

Value Analysis

Vf 

Reference Geometry and Flow Field Structure 

HFM Sensor System Simulation Protocols 

Realistic Flowfields for

Testing Proposed

Sensor Systems

Realistic Flowfields for 

Testing Proposed 

Sensor Systems 

Physical Model Data for Validation 

Sensor Performance

Specifications

Sensor Performance 

Specifications 

Technology Development

HFM Benchmarking

and Best Practices

HFM Benchmarking 

and Best Practices 

• Incr

depof H

• Incr

Pro

• Dec

LCO

• Incr

HydValu

Virtual Laboratory for HFM Technology Development
Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program obje

and priorities: 

•	 Advance new hydropower systems and/or componen

demonstration or deployment 

� Cost and accuracy targets for advanced sensor s� Computational simulation of sensor system perfo

accelerates sensor technology development 

•	 Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, a

operation 

� Provide asset managers with tools for estimating 

measurement upgrade return-on-investment and benefit analysis 

� More accurate flow � more accurate performanc

optimal dispatch � more energy from available w

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach - ORNL 

Value Analysis Depends on Intake and Turbine Des• Accuracy: Flow separation, turbulence, efficiency shape • Benefit: Efficiency shape, dispatch history • Cost: Access to flow path, installation pathway 

Low­HeadShort Intake

Kaplan vs. Francis Perform

Internal Penstock

Very Long Div

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
     

Technical Approach - ORNL 

Value AnalysisMethodology

N years of hourly unit

dispatch data

Baseline Unit

Performance

Characteristics

Installed and

Upgraded

Measurement

Bias

Perturbed Unit

Performance

Characteristics

ORNL Maximum Value Model

BPPP

Flow Measurement

Upgrade Costs

Intake and Unit Design C

Feasible Technologies

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach - PNNL 

Reference Geometry and Flow Field Struct

•	 Develop detailed geometry model of single LHSI 

–	 In collaboration with Corps, Reclamation, utility partners 

•	 Simulate flow field with 3D computational fluid dynamics (

model 

–	 Utilize DOE high performance computing (HPC) resources 

•	 Transient turbulent flow considerations: 

–	 large scale: forebay –	 small scale: within intake 

•	 Virtual sensor simulation 

–	 Use realistic CFD simulated flow fields to test proposed inst

systems 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach - PNNL: Geometry Model 
9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach - PNNL: Computational Fluid Dynamics 
Technical Approach - PNNL: 

Non-uniform Approach Flow 

Transient-flow Considerations
 

Large Scale – Forebay Approach Flow
 

t = 0 s 

t = 30 s 

t = 60 s 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach - PNNL: 

Intake Turbulence 

Transient-flow Considerations
 

Small Scale – Eddy Resolving Simulations
 

t = 0 s 

t = 4 s 

t = 2 s 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
 

Project Plan & Schedule - PNNL 

Q4 Milestone: Project kickoff Q1 Milestone: Develop internal draft of HFM Master Plan document Q2 Milestone: Conduct initial technical workshops with hydropower engineering staffs Q3 Milestone: Conduct workshop with formal technical committees Q4 Milestone: ORNL publishes HFM Value Analysis Tool online Q4 Milestone: PNNL publishes Preliminary Reference Flow Field Report Q4 Milestone: ORNL and PNNL finalize initial versions of HFM Master Plan Q4 Milestone: PNNL finalizes initial version of Intake Reference Flow Field Research Plan Task / Event 

Summary 

WBS Number or Agreement Number 1.6.1.2 Project Number Agreement Number 26494 

Project Name: Flow Measurement Tech for Converging Intake Turbines 

Q4 (Jul - Sep)

FY2013 

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

Work completed Active Task Milestones & DelivMilestones & Deliv

FY2014 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Comments • HFM project at PNNL initiated in September 2013 
 

Project Plan & Schedule - ORNL 

Q4 Milestone: Project kickoff Q1 Milestone: Develop internal draft of HFM Master Plan document Q2 Milestone: Conduct initial technical workshops with hydropower engineering staffs Q3 Milestone: Conduct workshop with formal technical committees Q4 Milestone: ORNL publishes HFM Value Analysis Tool online Q4 Milestone: ORNL publishes HFM Technology Deployment Status Report for US Fleet Q4 Milestone: ORNL and PNNL finalize initial versions of HFM Master Plan Task / Event 

Summary 

WBS Number or Agreement Number 1.6.1.2 Project Number Agreement Number 26494 

Project Name: Flow Measurement Tech for Converging Intake Turbines 

Q4 (Jul - Sep) 

FY2013 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Work completed Active Task Milestones & DeliveMilestones & Delive

FY2014 

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Comments • HFM project at ORNL initiated in September 2013 
Project Budget - PNNL 

PNNL - Budget History 

FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$300K n/a $0K n/a 

• Initial funding received in September 2013 (end • Approximately 10% spent to date 

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Project Budget - ORNL 

ORNL - Budget History 

FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$300K 0 0 0 

• Initial funding received in September 2013 (end • Approximately 10% spent to date 

15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
16 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators – HFM • Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

• Hydro Performance Processes (Max Value M• Principia Research Corp. (Chief of Test exper

• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory • MOU Agency Partners 

• US Army Corps of Engineers • Bureau of Reclamation 

• Public and Private Utilities • Hydro Industry 

• ASME PTC-18, CEATI • Hydro Research Foundation Graduate Fellow

Program 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Communications and Technology Transfer: • Topical project reports will be available on contrib

team members websites and selected project resbe presented at national and international confer

• Nonproprietary test data will made available via w• Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journa

17 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
18 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PNNL Next Steps in FY2014 

1. PNNL and ORNL develop annotated HFM maste

document 

2. PNNL initiates discussion with partner organizat

selection of turbine(s) for intake reference flow fsimulations 

3. PNNL and ORNL conduct technical workshop w

federal and non-federal partners to scope HFM 

4. PNNL conducts CFD simulations for initial refere

intake geometry and operating conditions 

5. PNNL and ORNL conduct workshop with technic

committees (ASME PTC-18; IEC TC-4) 

6. PNNL delivers reference flow field and research 

reports 
1

234567

19 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

ORNL Next Steps in FY2014 

. PNNL and ORNL develop annotated HFM mast

document 

. ORNL continues cataloging of flow measureme

technologies with cost and feasibility factors. 

. ORNL prepares matrix of intake designs and flo

measurement technology applicability 

. PNNL and ORNL conduct technical workshop w

federal and non-federal partners to scope HFM 

. PNNL and ORNL conduct workshop with techni

committees (ASME PTC-18; IEC TC-4) 

. ORNL delivers Hydropower Flow Measurement 

Technology Deployment Status Report 

. ORNL publishes online flow measurement value 

calculator 
20 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY2015 – FY2016: Out-year goals for this subtask include sumajor DOE Water Power HFM field demonstration activity in and support of technology transfer activities in FY2015-16. • FY2015 

• Reference Flow Field simulation and measurement • Technical Reports/manuscripts documenting Referenc

Field Research 

• HFM Sensor Systems Technology Needs Report • Site-Specific Case Studies of HFM Upgrade Analysis 

• FY2016 

• ORNL and PNNL technical support of HFM Field Dem

Activity 

[ 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Hydropower Flow Measurement Marshall Ric

Pacific Northwest Namarshall.richmond@p

February 24, 2014

A joint ORNL/PNNL effort supporting the DOE/DOI/DOD Hydropower MOU
2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives 

• Accurate turbine flow rate measurement underp

practices for hydropower operations, water management, and sustainability. 

• The value of turbine flow rate measurement acc

not well-quantified across the U.S. hydropower f

• Accurate and cost-effective flow measurement i

converging turbine intakes is a long-standing tecchallenge not yet overcome by industry or reseacommunities. 

• Innovations in flow sensor systems technology, 

simulation, and deployment will be required for sconverging turbine intakes. 
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Impact of Project: 

Purpose & Objectives 

HFM Accuracy Annual Value Calculator 

Conventional Feasibility and Cost Factor Catalog 

Cost-benefit decision

tool for asset managers

Cost-benefit decision 

tool for asset managers 

Fleet-wide applicability statistics with NHAAP HFM Innovation Targets HFM Innovation Targets 

Value Analysis

Vf 

Reference Geometry and Flow Field Structure 

HFM Sensor System Simulation Protocols 

Realistic Flowfields for

Testing Proposed

Sensor Systems

Realistic Flowfields for 

Testing Proposed 

Sensor Systems Physical Model Data for 

Validation 

Sensor Performance

Specifications

Sensor Performance 

Specifications 

Technology Development

HFM Benchmarking

and Best Practices

HFM Benchmarking 

and Best Practices 

• Incr

depof H

• Incr

Pro

• Dec

LCO

• Incr

HydValu

Virtual Laboratory for HFM Technology Development
Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program obje

and priorities: 

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or componen

demonstration or deployment 

� New absolute flow measurement technologies � Advanced computational tools for engineering de

• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, a

operation 

� Development of absolute flow measurement syst

allow for turbine unit and powerhouse optimizatio

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach - PNNL 

Reference Geometry and Flow Field Structu

•	 Develop detailed geometry model of single LHSI 

–	 In collaboration with Corps, Reclamation, utility partners 

•	 Simulate flow field with 3D computational fluid dynamics (CF

–	 Utilize DOE high performance computing (HPC) resources 

•	 Transient turbulent flow considerations: 

–	 large scale: forebay –	 small scale: within intake 

•	 Virtual sensor simulation 

–	 Use realistic CFD simulated flow fields to test proposed instrum

systems 

•	 Physical model and/or field data for model validation 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach - PNNL: Geometry Model 
7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach - PNNL: Computational Fluid Dynamics 
Technical Approach - PNNL: 

Non-uniform Approach Flow 

Transient-flow Considerations
 

Large Scale – Forebay Approach Flow
 

t = 0 s 

t = 30 s 

t = 60 s 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach - PNNL: 

Intake Turbulence 

Transient-flow Considerations
 

Small Scale – Eddy Resolving Simulations
 

t = 0 s 

t = 4 s 

t = 2 s 

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
 

Project Plan & Schedule - PNNL 

Q4 Milestone: Project kickoff Q1 Milestone: Develop internal draft of HFM Master Plan document Q2 Milestone: Conduct initial technical workshops with hydropower engineering staffs Q3 Milestone: Conduct workshop with formal technical committees Q4 Milestone: ORNL publishes HFM Value Analysis Tool online Q4 Milestone: PNNL publishes Preliminary Reference Flow Field Report Q4 Milestone: ORNL and PNNL finalize initial versions of HFM Master Plan Q4 Milestone: PNNL finalizes initial version of Intake Reference Flow Field Research Plan Task / Event 

Summary 

WBS Number or Agreement Number 1.6.1.2 Project Number Agreement Number 26494 

Project Name: Flow Measurement Tech for Converging Intake Turbines 

Q4 (Jul - Sep)

FY2013 

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

Work completed Active Task Milestones & DelivMilestones & Deliv

FY2014 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Comments • HFM project at PNNL initiated in September 2013 
Project Budget - PNNL 

PNNL - Budget History 

FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$300K n/a $295K (carryover) n/a 

• Initial funding received in September 2013 (end • Approximately 10% spent to date 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators – HFM • Oak Ridge National Laboratory • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory • MOU Agency Partners 

• US Army Corps of Engineers • Bureau of Reclamation 

• Public and Private Utilities • Hydro Industry 

• ASME PTC-18 • IEC TC-4 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Communications and Technology Transfer: • Topical project reports will be available on contrib

team members websites and selected project resbe presented at national and international confer

• Nonproprietary test data will made available via w• Results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journa

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PNNL Next Steps in FY2014 

1. PNNL and ORNL develop annotated HFM maste

document 

2. PNNL initiates discussion with partner organizat

selection of turbine(s) for intake reference flow fsimulations 

3. PNNL and ORNL conduct technical workshop w

federal and non-federal partners to scope HFM 

4. PNNL conducts CFD simulations for initial refere

intake geometry and operating conditions 

5. PNNL and ORNL conduct workshop with technic

committees (ASME PTC-18; IEC TC-4) 

6. PNNL delivers reference flow field and research 

reports 
15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY2015 – FY2016: Out-year goals for this subtask include sumajor DOE Water Power HFM field demonstration activity in and support of technology transfer activities in FY2015-16. • FY2015 

• Reference Flow Field simulation and measurement • Technical Reports/manuscripts documenting Referenc

Field Research 

• HFM Sensor Systems Technology Needs Report • Site-Specific Case Studies of HFM Upgrade Analysis 

• FY2016 

• ORNL and PNNL technical support of HFM Field Dem

Activity 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

New Hydropower 

Michael Reed 

Program Manager, Water Power 

Wind and Water Power 

Technologies Office 

February 26, 2014 

2014 Water Power Program Peer Review 
 

 

 

 

Strategic Objectives of the 

Hydropower Program Element 

•	 Support a resurgence in hydropower research, manufacturing and 

development in the U.S. 

•	 Analyze opportunities to develop new hydropower capacity in the 

U.S., and facilitate the development and demonstration of 

environmentally-friendly technologies to harness these resources 

•	 Improve performance / flexibility of hydropower systems and 

evaluate major risks to the existing hydropower fleet 

•	 Develop tools and information that will drive the development and 

utilization of Pumped-Storage Hydropower (PSH) and hydropower 

systems to increase grid flexibility and integrate variable 

renewables 

•	 Address a wide range of environmental and market barriers to 

facilitate significant deployment, and develop a vibrant U.S. 

hydropower workforce and research community 

2 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

New Hydropower -

Team Composition 

DOE Hydropower Activities 

New Hydropower Integration and Pumped 

Storage Hydropower Existing Hydropower 

Hydropower Market 

Acceleration and 

Deployment 

Key Counterparts and Collaborators:
 

ORNL 

Industry 

ANL PNNL

INL NREL SNL 

3 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

4 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Water Power Program 

Portfolio Priorities – Hydropower 

The 2014 Water Program Peer Review Agenda has sessions that will cover projects and activities 

in these priority areas. 

Existing Hydropower: 

Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operations 

• Tuesday, 2/25 

New Hydropower: 

Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for 

demonstration or deployment 

• Wednesday, 2/26 

Market Acceleration: 

Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 

• Thursday, 2/27 

Pumped Storage Hydro: 

Enable next-generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate 

renewable integration 

• Thursday, 2/27 
 

 

 

 

 

Why Focus on New Hydropower? 

New Hydropower is the single largest potential contributor to the
 

vision to double hydropower generation in the United States.
 

Consider: 

1. New Hydropower is deployable in the near-term at non-powered dams and long-term at 

new sites with substantial solvable LCOE reduction challenges. 

2. Hydropower technologies and design philosophies for the types of sites still available in the 

U.S. can dramatically reduce environmental impacts, but remain expensive. Innovation 

and cost-reduction is a natural role of the DOE. 

3.	 Industry prioritizes “Large Hydro” R&D, and is not pursuing the innovations necessary to 

make the sustainable development of hydropower at typical U.S. sites economical. 

4. Developers need incentives to take risks and some initial technology successes in order to 

deploy new technologies or pursue substantial new site development. 

5 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Program’s Perspective:

Hydropower is seeing a resurgence of interest in the United States:
 

•	 March 24, 2010: DOE, DOI and the USACE sign an interagency MOU to strengthen the 

long-term relationship between the agencies, committing to prioritize the generation 

and development of sustainable hydropower at federal hydropower facilities. 

•	 Resource assessments completed if FY2012 show that a doubling of hydropower is 

feasible. 

–	 NPDs: 12 GW 

–	 Canals & Conduits: 1-2 GW 

–	 New Hydro: 68 GW 

•	 The "Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013," (aka., HR 267) modifies the 

Federal Power Act and the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act to promote and 

facilitate the development of hydroelectric power capacity. 

•	 The ureau of Reclamation “Small onduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs 

!ct” (aka;, HR 678) authorizes hydropower development, streamlines the regulatory 

process, and reduces administrative costs for small canal and pipeline hydropower 

development projects. 

•	 FY 14 appropriations provides funding for incentive payments for hydropower 

generation (Section 242 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005). 

6 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water Power Program 

Overview – New Hydropower 

Goal: 

•	 Reduce costs and impacts of sustainable new hydropower development 

Priorities: 

•	 Understanding the technical, economic and environmental challenges faced by today’s 

industry 

•	 Developing a wide range modular systems that can take advantage of new hydro resources 

at 

•	 Non-Powered Dams (NPDs), 

•	 Water conveyance systems (e.g., canals and conduits) 

•	 New Stream-reach Development (NSD) 

DOE Unique Role: 

•	 Significant leadership required for both technology development (COE reduction) and 

deployment barrier reduction 

–	 Undertake the necessary assessments, and make information available to inform decision makers 

and identify priorities 

–	 Leverage investments in related Programs and industries to the benefit of new hydro developers 

7 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

Existing Hydropower 

FY12 / FY 13 Project Portfolio
 

8 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

- -

 

 

 

 

 

9 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

DOE Activities in New Hydropower 

(FY11-FY13) 

Assessing Potential of New Hydropower 

Stream reach 

(>1MW) 

Stream reach (<1MW) 

Potential 

Capacity 

56.3 GW 28.4 GW 

Potential 

Energy* 

302 TWh 157 TWh 

Mean Capacity 

Factor* 

67 % 63 % 

Systems and Components R&D 

Project Highlight: Develop & test a reliable 

powertrain for the SLH hydroEngineTM . 

Shear fatigue test rig, 500 kW-scale belt 

attachment system 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

DOE Activities in Existing Hydropower 

(FY11-FY13) 

Cost Data Collection and Modeling 

Objective: Identify and evaluate cost reduction 

opportunities for new hydropower development, and 

evaluate best practices of plant O&M and technology 

upgrades to improve efficiencies and generation 

Capital 

Expenditures 

Generating 

Plant 

Site 

Preparation 

Dams and 

Reservoirs 

Water 

Conveyance 

Powerhouse 

Structures 

Powertrain 

Equipment 

Main Power 

Transformers Generators Switchgears Speed Increasers Turbines Governors 

Ancillary 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Ancillary 

Mechanical 

Equipment 

Balance of 

Station 

Financial 

Costs 

Advanced Hydropower Demonstrations 

Project Highlight: Demonstration of Variable 

Speed Permanent Magnet Generator at Small, 

Low-Head Hydro Site 

Turbine Efficiency

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0 5 10 15 20

Head (feet)

Efficiency (Percent)

Constant Speed

Variable Speed

Project Highlight: Demonstration SLH, with 

potential to reduce the LCOE of low-head 

hydropower projects. 
 

So What Happened? 

•	 Industry vocalizes a goal to double hydropower 

•	 DOE undertook resource assessments to determine if the goal was 

credible, and if the Program could support it. 

•	 Resource Assessments indicate that the most significant 

opportunity for increased hydropower generation is at new 

hydropower sites (NPDs, C&Cs, NSDs) 

•	 DOE states its support for industry’s goal to double hydropower; 

•	 As funding was limited, the Program pivoted to New Hydropower 

Development. 

11 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Hydropower Budget 

(FY 2012 – FY 2014) 

Hydro Budget by Thrust Area
 

(FY 2012- FY 2014)
 

$18,000,000 

$16,000,000 Hydropower Integration & $14,000,000 Pumped Storage $12,000,000 Hydropower: New $10,000,000 

$8,000,000 

$6,000,000 Hydropower: Existing 

$4,000,000
 

$2,000,000
 Hydropower Market Acceleration 

$0 and Deployment 

FY12 FY13 FY14 

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
 

34% 

11% 43% 

18% 12%

37% 

33% 

12% 29% 

12% 

25% 

34% 

12 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Technical Area Priorities or Changes in Portfolio 

(FY11 vs FY14) 

Key 

Collaborators 

Upcoming 

Milestones 

Modeling & 

Analysis 

• NHAAP – New Hydro Assessment 

• Assemble credible cost data and 

develop LCOE estimating tools to 

inform R&D priorities 

• NEW: Launch of New Hydropower 

Innovation Collaborative (NHIC), 

highlighting opportunities for new, 

low-impact development in U.S 

ORNL 

Industry, ORNL 

ORNL 

Baseline Cost Model 

and Integrated 

Design/Assessment 

Model due Q3 FY14 

Draft NHIC report due 

03/31/2014 

Systems and 

Components R&D 

• NEW: Launch of Incubator Program 

to introduce off-roadmap tech 

innovations 

• NEW: Launch CEMI to integrate 

advanced materials & manufacturing 

techniques into clean energy 

technologies 

Industry Under development 

Demonstrations 

• Hydro Projects funded in FY 2011 

FOAs are now nearing construction 

phase – performance testing will 

follow to demonstrate improvements 

in technology 

Industry, ORNL Project Specific 

Performance Testing 

New Hydropower -

Portfolio Adjustments (FY11 – FY14) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Hydropower Investments - FY 14 

Technical Area Key Projects/Activities 

Modeling & Analysis
 

Systems and 

Components R&D 

Cost data collection and modeling: 

•	 evaluation of contemporary hydropower cost and performance to informing 

Program R&D priorities 

New Hydropower Innovation Collaborative : 

•	 Highlight prevalence of opportunities for new, low-impact development in 

U.S. 

•	 New hydropower development (2011 FOA) 

•	 Incubator: Off-roadmap technology development 

•	 Clean Energy Manufacturing Initiative 

•	 SBIR/STTR (See Poster Presentations) 

• Modular, drop-in hydropower system design 

•	 Nanoscale Coating System 

Advanced hydropower development (2011 FOA) 

•	 TA1: Sustainable Small Hydropower 

•	 TA2: Sustainable Pumped storage Hydropower 

Demonstrations •	 TA3: Environmental Mitigation Technologies for Conventional Hydropower 

•	 TA4: Advanced Conventional Hydropower system Testing at a Bureau of 

Reclamation Facility 

14 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

New Hydropower: 

Questions for Peer Reviewers 

•	 From an overall investment perspective, what hydro resources should be 

prioritized, and why? 

•	 What are the most pressing needs of today’s industry? Do the Program’s 

goals align with these needs? 

•	 !re the Program’s investments in line with its stated goals and priorities?

•	 Are there any gaps in the portfolio? In what else should the Program 

invest? 

•	 What is the next big thing we should be thinking about? 

•	 In what research areas do you believe DOE’s investments can make a 

significant impact towards increasing hydropower generation, 

development and deployment? 

15 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adding Generation at Non-Powered Dams 

3% of Existing Dams are Powered 

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 

Broad support from NGO community: 

“These types of projects are cheaper to 

build, easier to permit, and much less 

harmful to the environment than 

hydropower that involves new dam 

construction, so we’re doing all we can

to encourage developers to put their 

energy here” 

- American Rivers 

Ranking 24th in the Oak Ridge survey of 

potential hydropower sites is the nonpowered Montgomery Locks & Dam, 

spanning the Ohio River near Monaca, 

Pennsylvania. Built in the 1930s to increase 

the navigational depth of a shallow part of 

the river, this site has the potential to 

generate nearly 100 MW of electricity. 

16 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adding Generation at Canals and Conduits 

1.	 Canal and conduit projects are able to generate electricity 

from existing water flows, exploit synergies with 

infrastructure already in place and often requiring less of 

a capital investment (as the majority of civil construction 

costs have already been absorbed). 

2.	 HR 678 defines the term ‘conduit’ as any tunnel, canal, 

pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or similar manmade 

water conveyance that is operated for the distribution of 

water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption 

and not primarily for the generation of electricity. 

3.	 Expedited FERC Permitting Process 

Key Findings: 

 225MW of capacity and 1TWh of generation that could practically be produced 

annually from Bureau of Reclamation canal infrastructure. 

 This assessment noted that it could not assess all Reclamation canals (up to half 

may have been missed), and Reclamation canals only make up a portion of canal 

infrastructure in the U.S. (estimates are from 25-33% of irrigation canals). 

 Likely resource base is estimated to be relatively small (possibly 1-2GW with other 

very small additions for municipal water systems) 

17 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

      

Water Power Peer Review

National Hydropower Asset

Assessment Program (NHAAP)

– New Hydro Assessment

Shih-Chieh Ka

Oak Ridge National Lab

kaos@ornl.gov ; (865) 5February 26th, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement •	 Multiple new US data sets allow the refinement of hy

resource estimates from undeveloped stream-reache

•	 The previous national hydropower resource assessm

not designed specifically for undeveloped stream-rea

–	 The total resource estimates cannot be easily broken dow

different resource categories (upgrade/expansion, non-pdam, and undeveloped stream-reaches). 

•	 New resource assessment is needed for the improve

future hydro energy projection. 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

New Stream-reach Development (NSD) resource assesdesigned to identify new hydropower potential from ~ 3 undeveloped US stream-reaches •	 specifically for new run-of-river projects •	 focus on opportunities > 1MW capacity •	 estimate potential capacity (MW), monthly energy (M

inundated area (acre), and reservoir storage (acre-ft

•	 provide comprehensive environmental attributes •	 will be used to update hydropower supply curve for e

deployment projections and to support other hydropomarket acceleration studies 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objeand priorities •	 Advance new hydropower systems and/or compone

demonstration or deployment 

–	 NSD identifies regions with high undeveloped hydropowe

for more in-depth future deployment analysis. 

•	 Reduce deployment barriers and environmental imp

hydropower 

–	 All potential hydropower stream-reaches are labeled with 

environmental attributes (e.g., critical habitat and endangspecies) to support further deployment barrier and enviroimpact analysis. 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Multiple new national geospatial data sets are used 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Data Type Data Source Note Watershed Boundary Watershed Boundary Dataset, NRCS River Geometry, Mean Annual Flow, Existing Water Bodies 

National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus), EPA/USGS 

3 million flo(NHDPlus 

Existing Dams National Inventory of Dams (NID), 

USACE 

84,000 dam

Existing Hydropower Plants National Hydropower Asset Assessment 

Program (NHAAP), ORNL 

Topography National Elevation Dataset (NED), USGS 10-meter reDaily Flow Time Series National Water Information System 

(NWIS), USGS 

22,000 sta

Monthly Runoff Time Series WaterWatch Runoff, USGS Unit runoff Flood Zone Flood Insurance Study (FIS), FEMA 100-year fl

used as th

Environmental Attributes Critical Habitats, Wild and Scenic River, 

Conservation Lands, Water Use, Federally Listed Fish, and Fish Traits 
Technical Approach 

Note: Given the data limitations and different needs, AK and HI are analyzed through different approaches. 

Geospatial Data Processing 

Calculation of 

Hydraulic Head 

Calculation of 

Flow Statistics 

Stream-reach Selection 

Calculation of 

Storage and 

Inundation 

Calculation of 

Capacity and 

Energy 

Environ

Attrib

Quality Control 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Within each US Hydrologic Subregion (HUC04), streaches are selected based on head * flow * slope 

Pasha, M. F. K., D. Yeasmin, S.-C. Kao, B. Hadjerioua, Y. Wei, and B. T. Smith (2014), Identification for New Run-of-River Hydropower Development through a Merit Matrix–BAlgorithm, ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, in press. 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Results 

New hydropower stream-reaches are identifiewith comprehensive attributes. 

Federally Listed Fish Endangered Threatened Candidate Species of Concern Proposed Endangered Proposed Threatened Population Endangered Population Threatened Population Candidate IUCN Critically Endangered IUCN Endangered IUCN Vulnerable IUCN Near Threatened 

Critical Habitats Endangered Threatened Species of Concern Fish Bird Plant Amphibian Reptile Mammal Snail Crustacean Fern Arachnid Insect 

WateAquaDomIndusIrrigaLivesMininPubliTherSurfaGrouTotal 

Fish Traits Anadromous SpeSpawners SeasonRestricted SpawnSpecialists Lotic S

Basic Attributes Coordinates State County Hydrologic unit Site elevation (ft) River name Channel Slope Head (ft) Flow (cfs) Capacity (MW) Energy (MWh/year) Reservoir storage Inundated area Residence time GREY: Environmental 

attributes 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Results 

Potential Capacity 56.3 GW 28.4 GW Potential Energy* 302 TWh 157 TWMean Capacity Factor* 67 % 63 % 

Ohio 

6% Missouri 14% 

Mid 

Atlantic 

5% 

ArkansasWhite-Red 

7% 

Pacific 

Northwest 

30% Alaska 

6% 

California 

8% 

All Other 

Regions 

24% 

Note: Given the different approach, potential energy and mean capacity factor were not computed 

Summary of national findings 

Stream-reach (>1MW) Stream-reach 

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Results 

•	 Two peer-review methodology workshops were orga

December 2011 for resource characterization and in 2012 for environmental attribution. 

•	 The national assessment was completed in 2013. 

–	 It found a total of 84.7 GW capacity and 460 TWh energy –	 After national parks, wild/scenic rivers, and wilderness ar

excluded, the remaining capacity was reduced to 67.7 G

•	 A detailed comparison with a previous resource asse

was conducted and included in the final report. 

•	 Two ORNL technical manuals (Hadjerioua et al. 201

Kao et al. 2014) and one peer-reviewed journal articet al., 2014; JWRPM) have been published or are in 

•	 Detailed information, reports, data, and maps were p

disseminated through http://nhaap.ornl.gov/nsd 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

Comments • The FY2012 focus was on methodology development, review, • The FY2013 focus was on assessment across the entire US. • The final report will be published in early 2014. 

1.6.2.1 New Hydropower Assessment - NHAAP Work completed 

Active Task Milestones & Deliverab

Agreement 24516 and 24547 Milestone / Deliverable Resource Class Methodoloy External Review 

Complete first six HUC regions and remainder regions 

Develop and apply DEM methdology to regions 

Environmental data attribution 

I nteractive webinar with Environmental Community 

Publication of DEM methodology for New Stream Reach Compelte draft assessment 100 HUC04 subregions Complete 180 assessmetns for 180 HUC 04 subregions All HUC04 subregions compeleted 

Submit methodology and summary results Current work and future research Publication of New Stream Reach final report 

Summary Legend 

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & Deliverab

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

FY2012 FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

() 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

$1,231K $0 $315 $0 $0 

•	 The main assessment work was completed with

given budget. 

•	 The remaining funding (5%) will be utilized for th

follow-up report revision and outreach activities. 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

•	 Subcontractors for geospatial data preparation and tool mai

–	 Fayzul Pasha (CSU Fresno), Dilruba Yeasmin (Xcel Engineering) 

•	 Collaborating agencies 

–	 US Army Corps of Engineers (Kyle Jones, William D. Proctor, Cra

Debbie Solis), US Bureau of Reclamation (Michael Pulskamp), US Wildlife Service (Frankie Green), US Geological Survey (Eric EveRies, Kristine Verdin), US National Park Service (Joan Harn), NOAMarine Fisheries Service (Timothy McCune), Alaska Energy AuthoAudrey Alstrom), Bonneville Power Administration (Mark Jones), CDepartment of Water Resources (Mark Anderson), North Carolina Resources Commission (Chris Goudreau), Hawaii Department of Economic Development and Tourism (Andrea T. Gill) 

•	 External reviewers and commenters 

–	 Norman Bishop (Knight Piesold), Linda Church-Ciocci (NHA), Dav

(HDR|DTA), Don Erpenbeck (MWH), John Gasper (ANL), Ron GraPaul Jacobson (EPRI), Kurt Johnson (Telluride Energy), Jeff LeahAndrew Munro (NHA/GCPUD), Rick Miller (HDR|DTA), Jonathan Nature Conservancy), James Parham (Parham & Associates), Sc(Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership), John Seeback (AmerEric Van Deuren (Mead & Hunt), Dave Youlen (ECRE) 

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

•	 The NSD resource data are currently used by multip

and Water Power Program research projects: 

–	 Wind and water power strategic planning –	 Cost Data Collection and Modeling for New Hydropower –	 Basin Scale Opportunity Assessment 

•	 Potential future research 

–	 Development of an unified U.S. hydropower resource cat

documents the hydropower potentials across NSD, non-pdam (NPD), constructed waterways, and upgrade/expanexisting plants. 

–	 Provide constant update/maintenance using the latest ge

datasets (e.g., NID 2013 and NHDPlus version 2). 

–	 Further collaboration with EIA for the National Energy Mo

System (NEMS) projection. 

–	 Enhancement of the stream-reach selection methodology 

consideration of different development approaches (i.e., among dam, diversion, or in-stream MHK). 

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Summary 

•	 The national new stream-reach development res

assessment is now completed. 

•	 Using the latest geospatial data and improved 

methodology, a total of 84.7 GW capacity and 46energy was found in the US. 

•	 The NSD findings will be used to update hydrop

supply curve for energy deployment projections support other hydropower market acceleration s

15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Additional Slides

BACKUP SLIDES

16 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Calculation of Capacity and Energy 







∗

γ

∗

η

∗

	


∗




•	 P: capacity (W) •	 

η: efficiency, assumed to be 0.85 

•	 

Href: head (ft), 100-year FEMA flood elevation 

•	 

Q30: flow (cfs), 30% exceedance quantile 

•	 The assessment is designed for the dam-develop

model 

•	 Diversion model equivalent is also provided: 

–	 The outlet of penstock placed at the location of dam –	 The penstock is placed along the river reach for the ent

length. 

–	 Based on the assumed penstock characteristics, reduce 

account for head loss. 

•	 Numerically integrate energy from flow-duration c

(synthesized from the USGS WaterWatch Runoff 

17 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Calculation of Storage and Inundation 

• Estimate the relationships between height, storage, 

inundated area

– Automated algorithm for national­scale assessment.

18 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Environmental Attribution 

“New potential is not all bad, not all good” 

Existing and potential development locations are tagged with an ever-expanding set of ecological and socio-economic attributes that can be used to model developmental difficulty. 

Fish Traits 

Federally Listed 

Fish 

Critical Habitats 

Land Ownership 

Water Use 

Landscape Disturbance 

Water Quality 

Recreation 

Environmental 

Data Layers 

Critical Habitats 

Federally Listed Fish 

Federal Lands 

LandscapeDisturbanceLandscape Disturbance 

Surface Water Use 

19 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Summary of Differences between 

INL(2004, 2006) and ORNL(2014) 

• Hydropower Resource Class 

– INL: Total hydropower potential (NPD + new hydro + ex– ORNL: New run-of-river projects 

• Treatment of Existing Hydropower Plants 

– INL: Subtracting total raw power by total existing capac– ORNL: Excluding developed stream-reaches directly 

• Estimation of Capacity and Energy 

– 85% efficiency, Q30 and spill are considered in ORNL (20

• Identification of Stream-reaches 

– Fixed length versus optimization 

• New Geo-spatial Datasets 

– River geometry, elevation, flow, and existing facilities 

• Environmental Attribution versus Exclusion 

20 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Stream-reach Selection based on

Head * Flow * Slope
 

Existing Lake 

Main stem SR 3: 4t

Aerial View

SR 3*: 3rd highest H*Q*S 

Impact Existing Tailwater 

NHDPlus Flow line 

Stream-reach 1: 

Highest H*Q*S 

1

SR 4*: Cap.<1MW 2

FEMA 100-year Flood Lines SR 4: Cap.>1MW 3

Stream-reach 2: 4

2nd highest H*Q*S 5

Vertical Profile

Main stem 

21 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Slab Creek Powerhouse Project David Hanso

Sacramento Municipa

david.hanson@smud

February 26, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Incremental additions to gene

existing hydroelectric projects face challenges associated with siting difficulties and cost limitat

Impact of Project: Demonstration of circumstances 

the addition of small hydro to existing projects, frelicensing process, adds to renewable generati

Aligns with DOE Program objectives and priorities: • Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexib

and/or operations 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmenta

of hydropower 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Objectives 

•	 Demonstrate how power tunnels can be used in 

construction of small hydro plants to take advanminimum flows when placing the plant at the badam is not feasible or economical. 

•	 Demonstrate the value of a 2.7 MW Francis tur

generates an average annual 10.5 GWh of enerhighly variable minimum releases discharged frohydroelectric dam, thereby achieving a small-hyLevelized Cost of Energy of $0.074/kWh. 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Slab Creek Dam on South Fork American River 
Terms of New License for Upper 

American River Project (expected) 

•	 Minimum Flow releases from Slab Creek Dam th

from 63 to 415 cfs, depending on water year and 

•	 Whitewater Boating Flow releases from Slab Cre

that range from 850 to 1,500 cfs, depending on the focus is kayaking or rafting 

•	 Three years from date of license issuance to ma

facility modifications to accommodate new minimboating flows. 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Facility Modification Challenges 

•	 Releasing up to 415 cfs through the existing 36-

penstock through Slab Creek Dam creates unachigh water velocities 

•	 Spilling up to 1,500 cfs over the top of the dam l

operations and presents safety issues if downstpowerhouse trips off line. 

•	 Steepness of canyon, cost of new penetration th

dam, and presence of uncontrolled spills over daconstruction of new release facilities at base of d

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Use of Existing Tunnel/Adit 
8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Conceptual Design of new release facilities (powerhouse & boat valve) 
9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

New Slab Creek Powerhouse Rendering 
Overview of Delays in performing 

DOE Grant work 

• 2005 UARP License Application • 2008 FERC Final EIS completed • 2008 SMUD Final EIR completed • 2013 Water Quality Certification completed • 2014 Expected FERC release of New UARP lic

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
SMUD Progress leading to 

performing DOE Grant work 

•	 2010 Performed baseline environmental studies and dev

preliminary design concepts 

•	 2011 Released Initial Consultation Document / Held publ

meetings 

•	 2012 Performed additional environmental studies and rea

comprehensive agreement with resources agencies regarconceptual design and mitigation measures 

•	 2013 Released draft License Amendment Application for 

comment 

•	 2013 State Water Resources Control Board releases 401 

Quality Certification 

•	 2014 Incorporated comments to generated final License 

Amendment Application 

•	 Q2 FY2014 Expected release of new license for Upper Am

River Project 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Revised Schedule 

Task Number 

Task Description Task Compl

1.0 Project Administration December 202.0 FERC Licensing and Permitting July 2015 3.1 Final Design Contractor Selection July 2014 3.2 10% Design October 2014 3.3 50% Design February 2013.4 90% Design May 2015 3.5 100% Design July 2015 4.0 Construction and System Testing December 20

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: • Contractors have not been determined at this daCommunications and Technology Transfer: • Industry Conferences NHA, NWHA, HydroVision 

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Harnessing the Hydroelectric

Potential of Engineered Drops

Sharon Atkin Percheron Power, LLsda@percheronpoweFebruary 26, 2014
Purpose and Objectives 

Problem Statement 

Significant unrealized hydroelectric potential exists in loengineered drops in canals and conduits across the U.S 

Reliable, cost-effective hydroelectric plants to harness thneed to be developed and successfully demonstrated 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose and Objectives 

Percheron Power is developing an innovative, lohydroelectric plant on a large irrigation canal 

•	 Permit/License, Design, Develop, Construct, Operate •	 First Archimedes Hydrodynamic Screw Hydroelectric P•	 One of Largest (nameplate capacity) AHS Plants in Wo

Impact of Project 

•	 Demonstrates to federal agencies, irrigation districts, a

irrigation system owners and operators that the AHS tesimple, robust, economical, and does not negatively imoperations 

•	 Supports development of new small hydropower projec

making previously marginal low-head sites viable 

•	 Potential for broad applicability of this lower cost techno

system to man-made and natural low head drops acros

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Archimedes Hydrodynamic Screw 

Turbine 

• Simple, robust design and operation 

• Well understood - used for centuries to "lift" wa• Rotates at much slower speed than Kaplan tur• Extremely fish friendly (>99.99 % survival) • Can tolerate large debris so less trash screenin

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and prio• Hydropower • Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for demonstration o• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operations • Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Key Issues and Potential Barriers to Success 

•	 Support of canal owners and operators is critical to succ

deployment of technology 

•	 Canal owners and operators require “proof” and guarantees of no impact to 

operations/deliveries 

•	 All work impacting the canal must be performed during non-irrigation seaso•	 Potential revenue to them from “green” power sales is secondary to irrigatio

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

South Canal Drop 2 of the Uncompahgre Valley Pselected and approved for the AHS Demonstratio

•	 100 Year Old Canal in SE Colorado •	 Utilize 15.9 feet of head and 1000 

cfs design flow 

•	 1 MW plant will produce ~4,000 

MWhrs annually 

•	 New interconnection infrastructure 

in place and NEPA recently completed for adjacent plants 

We involve the canal operators, Reclamation and local utility ththe process to ensure their input, comfort level, and approval 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

FY 2013 Actions
 •	 Site Survey of Canal area and Water Level Measurements •	 Preliminary Design and Engineering Cost Estimates Comp

Design Variations 

•	 Reviews with Stakeholders resulted in selection of “in-c

option with new concrete bypass 

•	 Historical Flows Analyzed and flow duration curves Develo•	 Request for Proposals for supply of Turbine System Develo

Submitted -- needed turbine(s) selected before design of p

•	 3 Competitive Responses Received •	 Questions/Clarifications/Negotiations with Vendors Con•	 Vendor Selection Made •	 Contracts Prepared and Under Negotiation 

•	 Detailed Design for Balance of Plant (civil works) now focu

design layout using specific turbine system selected throug

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Selected Rehart GmbH for Turbine System Manuf

•	 Located in Ehingen, Germany •	 59 AHS Plants Operating with 7
 

Under Construction
 

•	 37 Germany •	 11 United Kingdom •	 9 Austria •	 9 Other (Belgium, France,
 

Luxemburg, Turkey, Bulgaria,
 India)
 

•	 None yet in US •	 Recently formed Rehart USA 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Rehart AHS Plant Operating in Hausen, German(Black Forest Region) 

2 ea 250 KW/19 ft head/210 cfs/11.2 ft dia scre

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Rehart Plant Operating in Hausen, Ger

Generator End of AHS Turbine Control Room 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Turbine System Overview 

Rehart to provide complete “water to wire” syste

•	 Three Turbines in Parallel •	 Three Generators/Gearboxes •	 Three Sluice Gates •	 Trash Rack •	 Low Voltage Control System •	 Emergency Brakes •	 Frequency Converter 

•	 Rehart will supervise installation and 

perform field testing/commissioning on site 

•	 Performance Bond and Performance 

Guarantee Part of Contract 

•	 Complete System under Warranty for 

Minimum of 2 Years 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

Plant Design Integrated with Turbine System •	 Balance of Plant civil design by J-U-B Engineers, •	 HEC-RAS Models benchmarked against field wat

to set design elevations for turbines 

•	 Utilized Reclamation Standards (Basin Type III S•	 Ability to bypass any/all flows not going through t•	 Selected Obermeyer Gate in Bypass for flow con•	 Geotechnical Survey and Design Overview by Bu

Geotech 

•	 Design Reviewed/Approved by Reclamation and 

in December 2013 

•	 Detailed Structural Design Underway 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Drop 2 Site Plan 
Obermeyer Gate Selection 

• Over 450 gates in operation • Made by Obermeyer Hydro Inc. in Fort Collins CO for 25 yea• Steel Gate Panel height controlled with air bladder and PLC • Controls water level to within 1-2 inches, even with loss of po

Open Position in Canal Closed/Flat Position 

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

0 0 403.3 K (289K actual) 403.5K (317K actual) 1,137.6K 

• Project budget was originally planned with the expectation of performi

the onsite canal work Nov 2013 to Mar 2014 

• Grant Agreement signing and initial approvals of other work were • Turbine selection needed to be performed before detailed plant d• New Reclamation Law in August 2013 allows for new LOPP proc• Increased risk of impacting irrigation operations if canal work not 

by November 2013 

• Decision of all (especially irrigation operators) was to wait until n

season to excavate canal/construct plant 

• Results in 6 month shift of startup/commissioning of Plant 

• No budget 6-month extension approved by DOE in Oct 2013 to reflec

16 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators/ Communications and Technology Transfer 

•	 J-U-B Engineers, Inc. for Balance of Plant Design (Kennew•	 Buckhorn Geotech for Site and Geotech Survey/Design (Mo•	 Rehart GmbH for Turbine System Design/Manufacture (Ge•	 3Helix Power for Turbine Technology Integration (Arlington, •	 Dr. Dirk-Michael Nuernbergk, a Drexel University visiting sc

current professor at Ernst Abbe University in Jena, Germanperformance analysis (Germany) 

•	 Reclamation and Water Users for design review and approv•	 DMEA for Interconnection (Montrose, CO) •	 Several Water/Utility/Contracts Attorneys and Experts regar

international turbine procurement, interconnection, power pagreements, etc. (WA,ID, CO) 

•	 Rehart U.S.A. for potential future manufacture of AHS turbin

(Salisbury, NC) 

17 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

• FY14/Current research:
 

•	 Complete all agreements and approvals with Reclamatio

construction of plant
 

•	 Select power purchaser for project output and execute ag•	 Complete interconnection applications, studies, and appr•	 Provide Notice to Proceed for Turbine Manufacture •	 Prepare and issue bid documents for Balance of Plant/Se

Contractor
 

•	 FY15/Planned research to complete project: 

•	 All plans, approvals, contracts, and agreements are expe

place prior to shutdown of the irrigation canal in October 

•	 On-site work will begin as soon as the canal is “dry” in FY

2014) to ensure completion by March 2015 when irrigatioresumes 

•	 Testing and commissioning of the AHS Plant will occur in 

18 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

•	 Proposed Future Research: 

•	 Transfer/License AHS technology of European manufa•	 Select and qualify U.S. manufacturer for AHS Turbines •	 Perform assessments and develop “pipeline” of follow

head sites for future AHS plants 

•	 Design prototype modular AHS turbine installations to 

civil works cost 

19 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 

 - - 

 

 

Water Power Peer Review 

Elephant Butte Irrigation District Drop 8 structure Modular and self-supporting 10 kW harvester
 

Historic low-head drop structure built in 1900’s Easy to fabricate, assemble and deploy
 

Hydropower Energy Resource 

(HyPER) Harvester 

Nadipuram (Ram) R. Prasad 

Satish J. Ranade 

New Mexico State University 

naprasad@nmsu.edu 575 646 3623 

February 2014 
 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

 Conduct CFD studies of a Venturi turbine 

with a submarine enclosing a generator and 

impeller assembly, and derive preliminary 

design parameters 

 Design, fabricate, assemble, deploy and test 

two, revolutionary 10,000 Watt prototypes as 

conventional hydropower generators, at the 

Elephant Butte Irrigation District Drop 8 

structure 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Challenge and Impact of Project 

Challenge: Develop a harvester with minimal 

impact on the historic structure and meet all 

NEPA environmental requirements to build a 

micro-hydropower plant. 

Impact of Project: Demonstrate efficient 

hydropower generation from low-head 

resources and pave the way to generate 

sufficient power from over 100,000 low-head 

drop sites across the U.S. to meet DOE’s 

Year 2030 vision. 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

DOE Program objectives & priorities 

This project aligns with the following DOE 

Program objectives and priorities 

1. Advance new hydropower systems and/or 

components for demonstration or 

deployment 

2. Reduce deployment barriers and 

environmental impacts of hydropower 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Alignment with DOE Objective 1 

Harvester has a modular architecture 

comprising : 

 Venturi-turbine with generator and impeller 

assembly module 

 Discharge elbow module 

 Draft tube module 

Modularity makes it easy for deployment as a 

plug-and-play system for hydropower 

generation. 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Alignment with DOE Objective 2 

Harvester is designed to be self-supporting 

with no impact on the load-bearing capacity of 

the drop structure. 

This self-supporting feature makes the 

harvester less intrusive while meeting NEPA 

requirements for an environmentally friendly 

technology and reducing deployment barriers. 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Technical Approach 

Drop 8 Boundary Constraints 

Modeling 

Design 

CFD Simulation 

Impeller 

Dynamics 

HyPER 

prototype 

Venturi 

turbinegenerator 

Discharge 

elbow 

Draft tube 

Integration of 

Research and 

Systems Engineering
 
 

 

 

 

Technical Highlights 

There are three unique and significant aspects of the 

hydropower technology: 

1) it is an easily manufactured miniaturization of the 

Kaplan turbine concept making it the most 

efficient means for power generation; 

2) the plug-and-play modular architecture makes it 

easy to transport and deploy; 

3) the self-supporting feature minimizes the loadbearing impact on existing structures. 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Ideal discharge through each drop 

For the pressure head h = 2.22 m, the ideal velocity at 

the drop 

Videal gh .9*2=2= 81 .2* 22 m sec6.6=

The diameter of drop orifice is 1.3208m (R = 0.6604m)
 

2 2

Area of A π .0(=c/s 6604 .1=) 3701m

Ideal discharge through each drop orifice 

.1== 3701 .9=)6.6(× 042 sec 3 Qideal AVideal m

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

CFD simulation: G3 Open 

High Flow Medium Flow Low Flow
 

10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Discharge Q, 

(m^3/s) 

Inlet 14.16 

Drop D1 -4.81 

Drop D2 -4.81 

Gate G3 -4.54 

Discharge Q, 

(m^3/s) 

Inlet 8.48 

Drop D1 -2.84 

Drop D2 -2.85 

Gate G3 -2.79 

Discharge Q, 

(m^3/s) 

Inlet 3.27 

Drop D1 -1.29 

Drop D2 -1.23 

Gate G3 -0.75 

G3 G3 G3 

D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 

Inlet Inlet Inlet 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CFD simulation: G3 Closed 

High Flow Medium Flow Low Flow
 

11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Discharge Q, 

(m^3/s) 

Inlet 14.16 

Drop D1 -4.95 

Drop D2 -4.95 

Overflow -4.26 

Discharge Q, 

(m^3/s) 

Inlet 8.68 

Drop D1 -4.34 

Drop D2 -4.34 

Overflow 0.00 

Discharge Q, 

(m^3/s) 

Inlet 3.28 

Drop D1 -1.64 

Drop D2 -1.64 

Overflow 0.00 

G3 G3 G3 

D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 

Inlet Inlet Inlet 
 

 

 

 

12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Maximum discharge through orifice 

Overflow 

Maximum 

discharge, 

Q=4.95 m^3/s 

per drop 

Tailrace 

2.22 m 

1.5 m 
 

 

 

Estimate of power potential at Drop 8 

Actual discharge through the orifice is less than the ideal 

discharge due to losses caused by friction 

Coefficient of discharge 

.0= 547 .9 042

.4 95

==

Ideal

Actual

D Q

Q

C

With an effective head 

.2= 22mh

 and efficiency 

η 8.0=

 the 

potential power at each drop
 

Joules or kW

e hgQP

= 86,242 sec ≈ 86.24

*8.0= 1000 .4* 95 .9* 81 .2* 22

= ρη

Estimate of hydropower from 2 drops is approx. 172.5 kW
 

13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Shaft Speed 

For a pressure head of 2.22 meters, the specific speed is 

computed as: 

.1= 557

.2 22

.2 294

=

.2 294

= .0 486 .0 486 H

N sp

(Schweiger & Gregory) 

With 86.24 kW of available power, the shaft speed 

.7= 888 sec/

86.24

.1 557 .9(× 81 .2× 22)

=

)(

=

.1 2 5 .1 2 5

rev P

N gH

N

avail

s p 473 3. RPM or 49.5611rads sec/

14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Specific speed 

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.5

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

Effective Head H, meters

Specific Speed Nsp

USBR

2.716

2.294

Schweiger

and

Gregory

5.0 N sp

.2= 716 H

.0 486 N sp

.2= 294 H

15 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
16 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Shaft speed, Torque and Blade angle 
 

 

17 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Alternator selection 

http://www.alxion.com/ 
 

Venturi-turbine parameters 

DSub DHub DRunner DThroat DGen DOrifice

For the off-the-shelf alternator 

selected, the Venturi 

parameters are based on the 

diameter of the alternator and 

the impeller hub-tip ratio. 

Hub

= DD Sub

Hub DD Runner

.0= 42 Throat = DD Runner +δD

Sub

> DD Gen

Gap between runner tip and 

turbine is less than 5mm 

18 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Impeller design 

Comparison of flat blade 29 degree blade angle
 

with and without 15 degree tip
 

Flat blade 29 degree 15 degree tip up 15 degree tip down
 

19 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Low-cost impeller design 

20 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Carbon fiber 

nose cone 
 

 

21 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Fluid dynamics inside the harvester 

Blade 

Face 

Blade 

Back 

≈ 37 droppsi
 

Venturi turbine Stress analysis 

Stress 

Displacement
 

22 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Impeller blade stress analysis 

Stress 

Displacement
 

Static Mode-1 371 Hz Mode-2 516 Hz
 23 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

24 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Alternator cooling system 
 

 

25 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Modular harvester components 

Venturi turbine 

Submarine with 

generator 

Guidevane Ring 

Fixed-pitch 

impeller 

Discharge elbow 

Draft tube 

Modular design 
 

 

26 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Harvester configuration 

North-South view of HyPER harvester prototypes at 

EBID Drop 8 structure showing structural symmetry 

and symmetrical configuration 
 

 

 

Carbon composite moldings 

Venturi 

Discharge Elbow 

Submarine 

Left half Right half 

Reusable half-section molds 

made of Styrofoam and 

wood are used to fabricate 

Carbon composite moldings 

of the Venturi turbine, 

discharge elbow, submarine 

enclosure, and impeller 

nose cone 

Nose cone 

27 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Cavitation 

Due to irregular flows at Drop 8, it is more than 

likely that cavitation will occur when the effective 

head decreases and the impeller is not fully 

submerged in the tailrace. 

Anodizing the impeller helps to increase corrosion 

resistance and lessen the wear and tear due to silt 

and other unavoidable debris that pass through 

trash guards placed at the inlet to the drop 

structure. 

28 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Principal design attributes 

Modularity brings a plug-and-play architecture to the 

hydropower harvester 

Light weight Carbon composite moldings minimize 

the tooling needs and time required to fabricate 

critical harvester components 

Welded blades fixed-pitch impeller provides costbenefit at low power output levels 

Light weight and modularity increase portability 

Shape and form offer scalability 

29 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

The most important technical accomplishment 

is the modular design which permits a nonintrusive means for deployment at the site. 

This capability enables the deployment of 

harvesters at other historic sites across the 

U.S. where NEPA rules restrict the 

modification of existing structures for the 

purpose of hydropower generation. 

30 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Accomplishments and Progress 

Research and harvester design have been 

completed and manufacturing drawings have 

been produced on schedule. 

Although progress was delayed by nearly 5 

months due to NEPA evaluation and budget 

period 2 approvals, prototype manufacturing 

has begun and every effort is being made to 

keep the project on schedule. 

31 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
32 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completed

Project Number Active Task

Agreement Number Milestones & Deliverables (Original Plan)

Task / Event

Project Name: Hydropower Energy Resource (HyPER) Harvester

Q1 Milestone: CFD simulations provide estimated potential at Drop 8

Q2 Milestone: Optimized Venturi-thurbine parameters computed

Q3 Milestone:Three-blade and Four-blade impellers examined

Q4 Milestone: Design Review meeting -- Detailed design report to DOE

Q5 Milestone: Manufacturing drawings produced: Approved by DOE & NEPA

Q6 Milestone: Fabrication started

Current work and future research

Complete fabrication of composite material moldings

Complete assembly of turbine generator and integrate sensor-based instrumentation

Deploy two, 10 kW HyPER harvesters at EBID Drop 8 structure

Test and demonstrate harvester performance Q1 (Apr-Jun) Q2 (Jul-Sept) Q3 (Oct-Dec) Q4 (Jan-Mar) Q5 (Apr-Jun) Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Summary Legend Q6 (Jul-Sept)

FY2012 FY2013 Q3 (Apr-Jun)

DE-EE0005411

FY2014

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual) Q7 (Oct-Dec) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q4 (Jul-Sep)
 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

BP1 (June 2012- May 2013) BP2 (June 2013- May 2014) Total Budget 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$106,650 $26,662 $192,662 $48,166 $299,312 $74,828 

•		 Original budget was split in two equal parts for BP1 and 

BP2, with BP2 subject to a go/no-go decision in June 

2013 

•		 BP1 focused on simulations and design with no 

expenditures for prototype building 

•		 Funds remaining from BP1 were shifted to BP2 

33 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners and Collaborators: 

 EBID is a cost-sharing partner and collaborator 

 The vast network of canals provide a real-World 

laboratory for developing practical approaches to lowhead energy harvesting. 

 Canals with existing structures allow the development and 

testing of novel harvesting technologies. 

 The diversity in low-head flow-rates during an irrigation 

season allow the design of efficient low-cost impellers. 

 EBID’s contributions, therefore, are significant. 

34 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Communications and Technology 

Transfer 

Conference Papers 

•“Hydropower Energy Recovery (HyPER) from water-flow 

systems in Vietnam”, 10th IPEC, HCM City, Vietnam, 

Dec. 12-14, 2012. 

•“Exploring Low-head Hydropower Energy Resource 

5th (HyPER) in waterways of Vietnam”, 2013 AUN/SEED –

Regional Conference on Advances in Systems and 

Information, Thailand, July 2013. 

35 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Communications and Technology 

Transfer 

Journal and Magazine Publications 

“Hydropower recovery from irrigation canal 

systems: Fluid dynamic simulations”, Final draft 

under preparation for submission to IEEE (Jan. ‘14) 

“Micro-hydropower reaction turbine design” Final 

draft under preparation for submission to Electric 

Power Systems Research Journal (Feb. ‘14) 

“Micro-hydropower in the 21st century and beyond” 

Draft under preparation for submission to Water 

Power & Dam Construction Magazine (Mar. ‘14)
	

36 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communications and Technology 

Transfer 

•Poster won First Place at the 2012 Annual University 

Research Council Poster Competition Fair 

http://www.research.nmsu.edu/urc/12/. 

•Poster and a 1/5th size scaled cut-out model of the 

HyPER prototype displayed at the Leyendecker Plant 

Science Center Centennial Field Day on Aug. 25th 

, 

2012, Las Cruces, NM. 

•Telephone interview with USDA Radio News regarding 

HyPER harvester technology on January 18, 2013. 

37 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
38 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Outreach and student engagement 

Senior Capstone Team 

design and fabricate a 

Venturi turbine-generator 

system and successfully 

demonstrate a bench top 

prototype simulating the 

shaft speed characteristics 

expected at an irrigation site 

using a off-the-shelf 300 W 

DC generator. 

Funded entirely by: Klipsch School 

of Electrical & Computer 

Engineering 

New Mexico State University 

Las Cruces, NM 88003 
 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: Two 10 kW prototypes of the 

HyPER harvester are presently being manufactured. This 

includes the fabrication of Carbon composite moldings of the 

turbine and discharge tube, custom fabrication of impellers, 

and the assembly of all off-the-shelf electromechanical 

components 

Proposed future research: Trash guard protection is critical 

to the longevity of the harvester. Silt and other fine particles 

will pass through the impeller. However, small rocks will 

have an impact on the impeller blades and settle inside the 

discharge tube. Methods to mitigate the debris build-up need 

to be investigated. 

39 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 - 

Water Power Peer Review 

SLH100 Demonstration Project Abe Schneider 

Natel Energy, Inc. 

abe@natelenergy.com 510 342 5269 x1002 

February 27, 2014 

Monroe Drop, Oregon 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: 

Deploy one SLH hydroEngineTM in an irrigation drop to demonstrate 

operation and cost, addressing a primary barrier to new low-head 

hydropower development. 

Impact of Project: 

Demonstrate operation of the SLH, which has the potential to reduce 

the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of low-head hydropower 

projects. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities: 

•	 Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for 

demonstration or deployment 

•	 Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of 

hydropower 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

Technical approach 

1. Complete full plant design utilizing one SLH100 unit 

2. Obtain necessary permits, licenses 

3. Negotiate interconnection and power sales agreements 

4. Construct plant and gather operational data 

Key issues 

•	 Project design to result in an overall economic project 

•	 Permitting was more complicated for this project due to federal lands 

Unique aspects of approach 

•	 Close partnership with the irrigation district 

•	 Selected site that is representative of many irrigation sites from a 

civil works perspective 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Technical Approach 

Final Plant Layout
 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

• Project Selection 

A site representative of many irrigation sites was selected and a 

close partnership with the irrigation district defined. 

•	 Project Design 

Plant design is 100% complete and the design process 

incorporated significant feedback from a civil construction firm 

which identified design changes that saved over $250,000 on the 

civil construction. 

• Permitting 

The project has worked with the USBR, USFS, Oregon agencies 

and FERC to obtain the necessary permits. 

• Contracts 

The project has negotiated interconnection and power offtake 

agreements with PacifiCorp. 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Project Plan & Schedule 

DE-EE0005420 Work completed

SLH100 Demonstration at Monroe Drop Active Task

Milestones & Deliverables (Original Plan)

Task / Event

Project Name: SLH100 Demonstration at Monroe Drop

Milestone: Preliminary Plant Design

Milestone: Obtain Interconnection and Power Purchase Agreements

Milestone: Final Plant Design 

Milestone: Obtain necessary permits

Milestone: Install and commission SLH100 

Milestone: Operational monitoring and final report complete

Current work and future research

Manufacture SLH100 for installation

Site preparation for install (civil and interconnect)

SLH100 installation

Plant monitoring and final report

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual)

Summary Legend

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep)

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$32k $32k $217k $217k $496k $750k 

•	 The project schedule has been extended due to delays 

in permitting 

•	 The company’s investors provided the cost-share funds. 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators:
 

JAL Construction (Civil) 

TOMCO (Electrical) 

Communications and Technology Transfer:
 

No technical presentations have made. 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: 

This project is ongoing. 

Proposed future research: 

Plant design, with a focus on intakes, trash racks and draft 

tubes would yield additional cost savings. 

Continued monitoring of the plant in operation will yield 

valuable data on reliability and ways in which ongoing 

maintenance costs evolve and can be reduced. 

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 - 

Water Power Peer Review 

SLH Timing Belt Powertrain Abe Schneider 

Natel Energy, Inc. 

abe@natelenergy.com 

510 342 5269 x1004 

February 27, 2014 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: 

Develop & test a reliable powertrain for the SLH hydroEngineTM . 

Impact of Project: 

Enable development of new low-head hydropower capacity by 

reducing capital costs, maintenance costs, and LCOE, while 

improving reliability. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities: 

Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for 

demonstration or deployment.
 

The project integrates with the recipient’s other DOE-funded projects 

by enabling SLH scale-up to 500kW size (DE-SC0003343) and 

demonstration in a field setting (DE-EE0005420).
 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Technical Approach 

Unique problem: 

Because of the unique racetrack-like path of the blades in the SLH, a 

flexible powertrain is required. Is it possible to engineer a powertrain 

that can enable low LCOE for the SLH? 

Unique solution: 

• Carbon-fiber reinforced drive belts 

• Novel blade-to-belt attachment system 

• Ultra high cycle fatigue testing 

Technical approach: 

1. Identify requirements: loads, DOF’s, UI, life 

2. Design conceptualization & down-select 

3. Endurance testing 

4. Design-for-manufacture 

5. Determine LCOE 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

(Step 1) Powertrain technical requirements (spec) definition
 

•		 Long life 

15,000 hours between belt replacements
 

load reversal (fatigue): 77 million cycles
 

3.4 years service interval at 50% capacity factor 

•		 Low maintenance 

Maintenance-free attachment
 

Easy dis/assembly of individual blades from belt
 

•		 Loads (lift, drag, moment from CFD & hydraulic scale model test) 

500kW scale lift load: + 5.8/-2.5 kN (+1300/-560 lb) 

•		 Motions (from belt articulation & blade loading) 

6 DOF attachment; strains computed with FEA, loads from CFD 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Technical Accomplishments/Progress 

Following recommendations of IEC-60193, PTC 18-2002, and in 

consultation with Alden, Natel designed, built and commissioned an onsite 

1:6.4 scale model hydraulic test facility to confirm CFD-derived loads. 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Accomplishments & Progress 

Shear fatigue test rig, 500 kWscale belt attachment system 

Runs 24/7/365 

Load: +1/-0.5 ton (1.5x actual) 

(same as weight of VW Bug) 

On track to meet life 

goal: 77 million cycles 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Accomplishments & Progress 

Articulation fatigue test rig, 500 kW. 

Simulates actual attachment system: 

- Loads: shear, moment (1.1-1.3x load factor) 

- Motions: bending, articulation 

Steady progress, over many design 

iterations, to attain life goal. 

Best design: 

21 million cycles, ongoing...
 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accomplishments & Progress 

(Step 4) Design for Manufacture
 

Every component in the powertrain optimized for: 

• Symmetry 

Left-hand and right-hand parts same. 

• Off-the-shelf components where possible 

• Multifunctional parts 

Combined function of multiple components into fewer parts. 

• Multi-use design 

Powertrain system can allow SLH’s of different size, as well as broader industrial use. 

• Modular design 

Versatility in production, mitigation of change risk. 

• Reduction of processing steps 

Stainless steel, optimization of order of heat treat, passivation, and machining. 

• Near net shape 

Investment castings drive out machining cost. 

• Tolerance optimization 

• Development of assembly aids 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Accomplishments & Progress 

(Step 5) Optimize LCOE impact of powertrain
 

* at production volumes of 100 SLH/year
 

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Accomplishments & Progress 

CONCLUSIONS: 

•		 Carbon reinforced drive belts can withstand SLH 

loads for power ratings at 50kW and 500kW scales. 

•		 SLH blades can be mounted to these drive belts with a 

connection that can withstand expected operating loads. 

•		 SLH drive belts, with blade attachments, can live 

through the required cyclic fatigue loading. 

•		 SLH100 500kW-scale powertrain can be implemented 

with LCOE impact of between $4-6/MWh. 

10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Project Plan & Schedule 

11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$87K $30K $213K $162K - -

•		 Workplan was modified to substitute development of onsite 

hydraulic test facility instead of endurance testing of 50kW scale 

prototype at Alden Research Laboratory. 

•		 More effort was expended on bench level component fatigue 

testing at full 500 kW scale, than initially planned. 

•		 Project has been completed; 100% of the budget used. 

•		 The company’s investors provided the cost-share funds. 

12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: 

Alden Research Laboratory 

• Preliminary tests on 50 kW scale hydroEngine using belt powertrain. 

• Consulted on design of 1:6.4 scale model hydraulic test facility. 

Communications and Technology Transfer: 

No public presentations have made, pending patent filing.
 

Disclosure of invention: DOE “S” Number 135,519 

13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: 

This project has been completed. 

Proposed future research: 

Continued fatigue testing, including: 

•		 more statistical certainty (replicates) 

•		 environmental conditions (corrosion fatigue, abrasive particles, 

temperature fluctuations, etc) 

•		 larger system scope (belt-to-sprocket interactions, full scale system 

testing) 

• alternate designs and materials 

Scale-up to MW-class machines 

•		 requires development of new belt carcass (no commercially 

available belts at larger size) 

14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 - 

Water Power Peer Review 

Scale-Up of Low-Head SLH 

HydroEngine—TM 

Abe Schneider 

Natel Energy, Inc. 

abe@natelenergy.com 

510 342 5269 x1004 

February 27, 2014 
 

 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: 

Design and manufacture a 200 500 kW scale SLH hydroEngineTM . 

Impact of Project:
 

Scale-up of SLH technology to utility-relevant size; help reduce high 

capital cost and resulting high levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), 

which are major barriers to low-head hydropower projects.
 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities: 

Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for 

demonstration or deployment.
 

The project integrates with the recipient’s other DOE-funded projects 

utilizing belt powertrain innovations (DE-EE0005412) and enabling 

demonstration in a field setting (DE-EE0005420).
 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

Unique problem: 

The hydroEngineTM has been demonstrated at small scale (<50 kW). 

Is it possible to scale up the SLH to a utility-relevant size? 

Such a machine must be capable of withstanding large loads with very 

high fatigue cycles, and be cost-effective to produce. 

Unique solution & innovations: 

• Carbon-fiber components (blades, guidevanes, belts, axles) 

• Novel blade-to-endplate attachment system, blade shape 

• Ultra high cycle fatigue testing 

Technical approach: 

1. Scale model testing & CFD; design refinement 

2. Full scale blade and powertrain design & endurance testing 

3. Balance of machine design 

4. Further scale-up feasibility assessment 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 Comparison of 

• Expected 

Efficiency (from 

CFD) vs. 

• Measured at 

Alden Labs with 

SLH10 small 

scale prototype 

(0.1 m2 Intake)

 

 

Accomplishments & Progress 

Objective: Construct and evaluate performance of small-scale prototype 

machine (SLH10, 0.1m2 intake) at Alden Research Laboratory 

• Efficiency ~0.75, matching CFD predictions 

• First demonstration of timing-belt powertrain 

• Peak power ~30 kW 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Accomplishments & Progress 

Objective: Design and construct full-scale 

Span = 1.1 m 

(Load = ) 

Full blade fatigue test rig, 500 kW. 

CFRP >25 million fatigue cycles, ongoing... 

SLH100 prototype blades and 

powertrain. 

Increased design goal 

200 kW -> 500 kW 

Simulates blade + endplate + clamp + belt attachment system:
 

- Loads: reversing force, bending moment (+1.2/-0.25 tons; 1.1x load factor)
 

- Motions: bending, attachment articulation
 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

Objective: Construct full-scale SLH100 prototype for commercial demonstration. 

SLH100mk1: 

Rated 500 kW at 6 m 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

Objective: 

Design and feasibility assessment for 1 MW+ machine. 

– 1 MW-scale SLH blades and powertrain are technically feasible 

•		 Design alternatives: 

–		higher head (narrow body): could use same powertrain as SLH100 

–		higher flow at same head (larger throat): would require new, larger 

belt carcass 

–		Further study is recommended. 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Project Schedule 

Extended timeframe enabled use of carbon fiber for key components to 

increase rated capacity and reliability of the SLH. 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$438K $101K $457K $107K $56K $62K 

• Project has been completed; 100% of the budget used.
 

• Company’s investors provided the cost-share funds. 

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: 

Alden Research Laboratory, Holden, Massachusetts 

Communications and Technology Transfer: 

No technical presentations have made, pending filing of 

selected patents. 

10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: 

This project has been closed. 

Proposed future research: 

Field testing of SLH100mk1 prototype 

Continued fatigue testing, including: 

• more statistical certainty (replicates) 

• environmental conditions (corrosion fatigue, abrasive particles, temperature fluctuations, etc) 

• larger system scope (belt-to-sprocket interactions, full scale system testing) 

• alternate designs and materials 

Scale-up to MW-class machines 

• may require development of new belt carcass (no commercially available belts at larger size) 

Optimization of civil works (cost vs function) 

Draft tube optimization (efficiency, cost) 

Low maintenance axles 

• Innovative options include water-tolerant antifriction bearings, hydrostatic bearings, seals 

11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 

- 

Water Power Peer Review 

W4e Hydropower Turbine Generator 

System Validation 

Brian Hunter (for Walker Wellington) 

U.S. Department of Energy, Wind and Water Power 

Technologies Office 

brian.hunter@go.doe.gov, (720) 356 1590 

Feb. 26, 2014 
 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: The objective of the project was to 

validate the design predictions/intention for the W4e 

hydropower direct drive in-line turbine generator 

Impact of Project: W4e is a direct drive, modular turbine / 

generator designed specifically for low-head conduit 

applications. This project characterized W4e hydro turbine 

generator over a range of head and flow conditions. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities [select best fits & delete others]: 

To be provided at a later date. Please leave this section blank until further 

guidance is provided 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Technical Approach 

•	 Laboratory testing program developed for a prototype 

version of the turbine 

•	 An existing W4e hydro turbine generator was modified 

for installation in the testing facility. 

•	 Hydraulic performance testing was conducted, 

measuring power generated at flow rates from 3 to 12 

cubic feet per second (cfs) with head conditions from 9 

to 34 feet. 

•	 Data generated by the testing program was collected, 

validated, and analyzed by an Independent Engineering 

firm. 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

•	 Laboratory testing completed in May 2013 

•	 Turbine testing was performed at Alden 

Laboratories. Thirty one successful test runs were 

completed during the test period. 

•	 This testing demonstrated that the design is capable of 

generating electricity over a wide range of heads (9-30 

ft.) and flows (3-12 cfs) which are appropriate for 

relatively low head/low flow conditions. 

•	 However, the power output and the efficiencies were 

lower than anticipated. 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Accomplishments and Progress 
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Accomplishments and Progress 
 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completed

Project Number Active Task

Agreement Number Milestones & Deliverables (Original Plan)

Task / Event

Project Name: W4e Hydropower Turbine Generator System Validation

Task 1.0 Project Kickoff Meeting

Task 2.0 W4e System Prepared for Testing

Task 3.0 Installation of W4e Hydro Turbine Generator

Task 3.1 W4e Hydro Turbine Generator Performance Testing

Task 4.0 Project Completion & Reporting Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Legend

24928

Summary Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep)

DE-EE0005425 Q3 (Apr-Jun)

20325 Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar)

•	 Period of Performance: 9/30/2011 – 9/30/2013 (2 years) 

•	 Project was delayed but was completed within the original 

Period of Performance and under budget. 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$ 0 $ 0 $ 89,772.15 $ 23,250.00 $ 0 $ 0 

WALKER WELLINGTON, LLC - DOE Funding
 

$0 

$10,000 

$20,000 

$30,000 

$40,000 

$50,000 

$60,000 

$70,000 

$80,000 

$90,000 

$100,000 

Projected 

Cumulative Costs 

Actual Cumulative 

Cost 

Aug-11Sep-11

Oct-12

Nov-12Dec-12

Jan-12

Feb-12

Mar-12

Apr-12

May-12

Jun-12

Jul-12

Aug-12Sep-12

Oct-13

Nov-13Dec-13

Jan-13

Feb-13

Mar-13

Apr-13

May-13

Jun-13

Jul-13

Aug-13Sep-13 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: 

Walker Wellington, LLC – Turbine Developer 

Blue Water, LLC – Turbine designer and manufacturer 

Alden Research Labs – Testing facility 

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. – Independent Engineer 

Communications and Technology Transfer: 

Full testing report is publically available at DOE Office of 

Scientific and Technical Information website (OSTI.gov) 

under OSTI ID 1096577 

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: Project Completed 9/30/2013. 

Proposed future research: Further vetting of the equipment 

after additional modifications may result in the equipment 

performing at improved efficiencies 

10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 

 

Water Power Peer Review 

Small Hydropower Research and 

Development Technology Project
 

February 26, 2014
 

Near Space Systems, Inc.
 

Small Hydropower Research and 

Development Technology Project 

Mo Blackmore 

Near Space Systems, 

mblackmore@globalnearspace.com 

719.685.8107 

February 26,2014 
 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Research and develop the next generation of 

small hydroturbine designs to significantly reduce costs, production 

time, installation time, and maintenance in order to significantly 

expand the use of U.S. hydropower resources 

Impact of Project: Hydroturbine design that maximizes the energy 

transfer from flowing water to electrical power generation and is 

simple to produce, install and operate, with forecasted reductions in 

systems cost and LCOE 

This Project Aligns with the Following DOE Program 

Objectives and Priorities: 

• Advance new hydropower systems/components for demonstration and 

deployment 

• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operations 

• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate 

renewable integration 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

Technical Approach Employ a clean sheet approach to maximize all 

aspects of small hydroturbine design and performance 

•	 Identify candidate technologies and develop requirements 

• Baseline current technologies, literature search, develop requirements 

•	 Analyze and prioritize candidate technologies for enhanced/improved 

small hydroturbines 

•	 Develop criteria, conduct trade studies, prioritize technologies 

•	 Investigate new small hydropower technologies for application to nearterm candidate hydro sources 

• Develop list of sources, characterize sources factors, develop site plans 

•	 Produce a prototypical design for a next generation small hydroturbine 

generator 

•	 Use integrated systems plan for prioritized technologies; validate result 

•	 Project computational tool provided multi-factor LCOE-based analysis of 

prototypical design/site installation 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

Accomplishments: Project yielded a prototypical design that mitigates 

the shortfalls of conventional hydroturbines 

•	 No mechanical transfer mechanisms between the turbine and the generator 

•	 Hydroturbine operates without lubrication; long-life, maintenance-free bearings 

•	 Designed to be environmentally inert: Does not introduce foreign chemicals / 

particulate matter into the hydro ecology 

•	 Axial flux generator optimizes power production and manufacturing efficiency 

•	 Rotor design optimizes magnetic flux into generator field coils 

•	 Turbine blades are optimized for head and flow of particular hydro flows 

•	 Turbine rotor design facilitates blade stability and ease of manufacture 

•	 Modular design enables numerous production/application/installation factors 

•	 Housing is made of lightweight, low cost, long-life materials for reliability 

•	 Design is scalable for particular water flow and power requirements 

•	 System requires little or no maintenance - extremely rugged, reliable design 

•	 Project computational tool provides evaluation of hydropower installations 

•	 Project’s new fish protective device promises marked increase in fish survival 

•	 Design forecasts decreased system costs and LCOE 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completed

Project Number DE-EE0005427/001 Active Task

Agreement Number Milestones & Deliverables (Original Plan)

Task / Event

Project Name: Small Hydropower Research and Development Technology Project

Milestone 1: Identify Candidate Technologies and Develop Requirements 

Milestone 2: Analyze and Prioritize Candidate Technologies

Milestone 3: Investigate Small HydropowerTech for Source Applications

Milestone 4 Produce a Prototype Design for Next Gen Hydroturbine

Summary Legend Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual) Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep) Q1 (Octt-Dec) Q2 (Jan-Mar) Q3 (Apr-Jun) Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Comments 

• Project original initiation date: Sep 30, 2011 

• Project planned completion date: Sep 30, 2013 

• Project completed on Sep 30, 2013 

• No slipped milestones or slips in schedule 

• Project current status: Project complete. In Close-out 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$51.594K $45.557K $248.406K $253.365K $0K $0K 

•	 Variances: Recipient contributed more than required cost 

share in FY2013. No modification to project plan required. 

•	 Project is complete and in close-out. No project budget funds 

remaining. 

•	 No other funding sources. 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: Not Applicable
 

Communications and Technology Transfer: Not Applicable. 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: N/A - Project complete.
 

Proposed future research: 

•	 Construct prototype next generation small hydroturbine 

•	 Evolve prototype hydroturbine to production model 

•	 Deploy a production-level new small hydroturbine to an actual hydro 

site for installation and initial commercial operation 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 

 

Water Power Peer Review 

Laboratory Demonstration of a
 

New American Low-Head Hydropower Turbine
 

Wayne Krouse 

Hydro Green Energy 

wayne@hgenergy.com; 877-556-6566 x709 

27FEB14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: There are currently no utility scale, low 

cost, American made, low head hydropower turbines in 

the marketplace. 

Impact of Project: Demonstrate ways to lower the LCOE for 

the U.S. low-head hydropower resource to enable many 

utility scale hydropower projects to become economically 

viable in todays marketplace. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities: 

Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for demonstration or 

deployment 

2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

Hydro Green Energy, LLC (HGE), in partnership with HDR 

Engineering, Mechanical Solutions and Alden Laboratory 

used two different CFD source codes to validate 

numerical modeling. After rotor dynamics and FEA were 

complete, 2D drawings were prepared and components 

for the subscale machine were fabricated. 

Fabrication is 80% complete. Assembly and hydraulic 

testing of the subscale machine in a closed loop system 

will occur throughout the remainder of 1Q14. 

This subscale model test will adhere to the PTC-18 test 

code for hydraulic turbines. 

3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

Technical accomplishments – 

•	 Validation of power output and efficiency using 2 different 

CFD codes 

•	 Completion of high level rotor dynamics and FEA for both 

full scale and sub scale units. 

•	 Completion of high level rotor dynamics and FEA for the 

sub scale unit. 

• Initiation of fabrication of sub scale unit. 

Our target was met in CFD in obtaining power output of 750 

kW and greater than 81.0% efficiency from 10 feet of 

gross head that would fit in HGE’s patented modular 

hydropower systems constrained space. 

4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number or Agreement$Number 0 Work completed

Project$Number 0 Active Task

Award Number 0 DE0EE0005426 Milestones & Deliverables (Original Plan)

Task / Event

Project Name: Wind Energy Forecasting Methods and Validation for Tall Turbine Resource Assessment 

Study Plan development

Initial 3D CAD model of turbine

FEA simulations of layout$for full scale model

CFD simulations of hydraulic pathway for full and sub scale model

Rotor dynamics for full and sub scale model

2D for construction drawings and fabrication

Current work and future research 

Sub scale turbine assembly and shipment$t lab

Integration of sub scale unit$into$test$loop at$lab

Sub scale turbine shakeout$runs

Data collection from$test$runs, analysis and final report

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual)

Q3 (Apr2Jun)Q4 (Jul2Sep)Q1 (Octt2Dec)

Summary Legend

Q2 (Jan2Mar)Q3 (Apr2Jun)Q4 (Jul2Sep)Q3 (Apr2Jun)Q1 (Octt2Dec)Q2 (Jan2Mar) FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Q1 (Octt2Dec)Q2 (Jan2Mar)Q4 (Jul2Sep)

Comments 

• Initiation date - December 2011; Original completion date – February 2013 

• Significant time was lost during equipment layout due to estimated loads; significant time was lost during 

• CFD optimization to hit the performance targets for the project. 

• High level FEA in 2012 and high level CFD in 2013 were go/no-go decisions 

5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$104,347 $24,340 $98,225 $6,326 $97,428 

(projected) 

$533,400+ 

(projected) 

•	 The project is significantly over budget. 

•	 Costs for engineering design for subscale fabrication 

are slightly higher than originally estimated. Fabrication 

costs are significantly higher than originally estimated. 

•	 HGE is paying the difference in funding requirements. 

6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: Mechanical 

Solutions, HDR Engineering and Alden Labs. 

Communications and Technology Transfer: Detailed 

information of development program has only been
 

presented to DOE and at DOE conferences to date.
 

7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: We expect fabrication and assembly 

to be completed by the end of February. Shipment will occur 

at the beginning of March. Integration into test stand and 

commencement of testing will occur in March. 

Proposed future research: A full scale turbine will be 

fabricated and installed at our 5.25 MW project at the US 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Braddock Locks & Dam 

on the Monongahela River outside of Pittsburgh, PA. We 

expect construction to begin in 2015 on that project pending 

a FERC license and USACE permit approvals. 

8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

DEMONSTRATION OF VARIABLE SPEED PERMANENT MAGNET GENERATOR AT SMALL, LOW-HEAD HYDRO SITE 

David Brown 

Weisenberger Msoftenergy@jun(502) 589­0975February 26, 20
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Small Low-head hydro sites tend to hav

overall efficiencies due to fixed blade turbines and fixed speed not being able to respond to significant head variations as the schanges. Efficiencies are lower unless the flow and head are apoint, resulting in many sites not being viable for development. 

Impact of Project: Variable-speed Permanent Magnet Gener

have been suggested as a new option for small, low-head sites offer higher efficiencies and simpler installations. This project adetermine if PMG technology can meet the goals suggested by using an apples-to-apples comparison of the old and new technnew PMG technology could make development of thousands ohead site feasible. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities: Advance new hydropower sy

components for demonstration or deployment 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
The Small Hydro Dilemma 

• Induction Generators 

- Simple and Lower Cost - Higher Speed requiring Speed Increaser - Lower Efficiency / Poor Power Factor 

• Synchronous Generators 

- High Cost / Higher Efficiency - Complex and Expensive Controls / Switchgear - Too complicated for many small developers 

• Synchronous or Induction: 

- Fixed Speed cannot match the turbine’s need for varyi

to be most efficient over the entire range of net head

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Head affects Optimal Speed 

Optimum Speed at Different Net Hea

Leffel Improved Vertical Sampson "

0 

50 

100 150 200 250 300 

Speed (RPM) 

0 5 10 15 20 2

De sign He a d (fe e t) 

Leffel Sampson “30” Performance Curve 

– Source: Leffel Bulletin 38
 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Fixed Blade Turbine Efficiency 

Turbine Efficiency
 C

V

0% 

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 

Efficiency (Percent) 

0 5 10 15 

Head (feet) 

Comparison of Constant Speed and Variable Speed Turbine Efficiencies at var

Source: Leffel Bulletin 38; and Hydromechanics of Variable Speed Turbines, Cesar Farell, Javiar Arroyave, Nicholas 

Gulliver, St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, August 1983. 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

SOLUTION: 

Apply PMG technology developed for the Wind Industry 

•	 PMG Developed and used by Wind Industry for constantly changing wind speeds •	 Allows generator to run at the varying optimum turbine speeds •	 Provides high efficiency over a full range of turbine speeds DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: 

- Weisenberger Mill offers an ideal demonstration site with an existing low-efficiency ind

system. This allows for an “Apples-to-Apples” comparison by collecting performance existing system, changing to a PM generator, then collecting and comparing data with system. 

Unique Approach for Hydro: •	 Wind Industry controls speed with a turbine power curve programmed into inverter to 

changes in wind speed 

•	 Many small hydro sites use old rebuilt turbines that either don’t have existing power c

perform to original power curves 

•	 Hydro net head changes very slowly, unlike wind speeds. A PLC can be programmed 

optimum speeds at regular intervals to ensure maximum output at all times. 

•	 A self-calibrating PMG system will allow less technically sophisticated developers to g

operational without expensive assistance – lowering development costs 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

PROJECT PROGRESS (As of December 31, 2013• Pre-installation data collection is complete • Existing generating system has been dismantled • PM Generator has been built • Testing complete on PM Generator with Inverter • Generator mounting frame is built and partially i• New controls are being built and nearly complet• All system components at job site or to be delive• Solution is being implemented for Mill floor prob

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Project Delays 

•	 Drought delayed collection of Pre-installation da•	 Inverter design – problems with inverter built for 

- eventually changed to “off the shelf” ABB variaspeed motor drive for inverter 

•	 With inverter change, controls and switchgear h

redesigned for 480 Volt instead of 240 Volt 

•	 Generator weight – originally planned to strengt

weight concerns caused a redesign to build a geframe supported from concrete walls 

•	 100 year-old Mill floor had dropped – turbine thr

bearing frame needed to be supported from abo

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work complet

Project Number Active Task 

Agreement Number Mi l es tones & Del i vTask / Event Project Name: Demonstration of Variable Speed Permanent Magnet Generator at Small Low-HT ask 1.0: Set-up Data Collection T ask 2.0: Order Major Components T ask 3.0: Mounting Frame and Supports T ask 4.0: New Control System T ask 5.0: New Generator and Inverter T ask 6.0: Post-Installation Data Collection T ask 7.0: Data Analysis T ask 8.0: Project Management & Reporting 

Q2(Jan-Mar) 

Q1(Octt-Dec) 

Q2(Jan-Mar) 

Q3(Apr-Jun) 

Q4(Jul-Sep) 

FY2012 FY2013 

Q1(Octt-Dec) 

Q3(Apr-Jun) 

Q4(Jul-Sep) 

Summary Lege

Milestones & Del

DE-EE0005429 

Comments: • Project Delays have caused equipment installation to be moved back • Project may go on beyond original completion date depending on time nee

sufficient Post-installation data 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 (Q1FY

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

$22,029 $15,731 $14,197 $11,522 $9,030 

As of December 31, 2013 (end of Q1FY14) •	 80.8% of DOE Funding spent ($45,256 of $56,000) •	 70.3% of Cost Sharing provided ($39,399 of $56,078) •	 4 of 5 Cost Share contributors have nearly met obligation 

(all but $2,869 for all 4 combined) 

•	 Center for Applied Energy Research cost share at end of p

($13,810) 

•	 Project will go over budget – all additional costs will be bo

Cost Share – increasing Cost Share percent of project 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: Project Team: 

- Shaker Landing Hydro – 30 years in small hydro - Weisenberger Mill – existing project site - Potencia Industrial – leader in PMG technology - Center for Applied Energy Research – 

Kentucky’s energy research facility 

- Kentucky Utilities Co. - local utility – independent data col

Communications and Technology Transfer: 

- Initial Paper presented at HydroVision 2012 

by David Brown Kinloch 

- Final Paper to be prepared by the Center for Ap

Energy Research and Shaker Landing Hydro 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: - Installation of PMG system to be completed - Post-Installation Data Collection - Process Data and Comparison with Pre-Installati

Proposed future research: 

- Plans to ramp up technology from 50 KW site to 

2 new hydro projects that are 2.64 MW each. 

- FERC licenses have been filed on these project

are currently being processed by the FERC. 

- Discussions with manufacturer of “Turbinator” 

turbine/generator – add variable speed PMG c

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

   

Water Power Peer Review

Cost Data Collection and Modelingfor Hydropower

Qin Fen (KathePatrick O’Conn

Oak Ridge National LZhangq1@ornl.gov 

February 26, 2014

http://www.microhydropower.net/casestudies/ 
Purpose & Objective 

Problem Statement •	 Significant effort has been spent to improve the estimati

remaining U.S. hydropower resources, but it is not yet cmuch could be developed with competitive economic reCost data needed 

•	 No recent, comprehensive, public cost model is availab

reconnaissance-level evaluation of hydropower opportuU.S. – Data gaps identified 

•	 No tools exist to systematically and quantitatively evalua

reduction opportunities or estimate the impacts of new ton hydropower lifecycle costs – Modeling capability nee

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
strategic planning by 

Purpose & Objective 

High-quality data on hydropower costs, and expandmodeling capabilities to predict and analyze those cessential for improved strategic planning by many stakeholder groups 

DOE Water Power 

Program: 

Validated research 

priorities and cost 

reduction and 

deployment targets 

Utilities: 

More accurate 

evaluation of 

hydropower 

options in IRPs 

Develo

Fin

comm

Confiden

evaluation 

feasibility 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objective 

Primary objectives
 

To Support DOE R&D agenda via:
 

1.	 Improved estimation of the cost of hydropower in 

the current U.S. regulatory environment 

2.	 Quantification of the cost drivers and barriers to 

new deployment at different types of sites 

3.	 Evaluation of the cost reduction potential from 

new technologies and potential R&D pathways 

Intake 

Structu

12.0% 

Powerhouse 

Equipment & 

Construction, 

40% 

Robust data collection is the foundation for modeling and ana

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objective 

Alignment with DOE Program Objectives and Pr•	 Advance new hydropower systems and/or components 

demonstration or deployment 

Analyzing capital and lifecycle cost distributions to identify c

evaluating impacts of new technologies to inform cost redu

•	 Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, an

operations 

Evaluating effects of the best practices of plant O&M and teupgrades to improve plant efficiencies and generations 

•	 Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impact

hydropower 

Analyzing regulatory and environmental mitigation cost tren

evaluating lifecycle impacts of new, sustainable mitigation t

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Technical Approach Overview: 

1.	 Data Structure and Collection 

•	 Data sharing agreements with facility owners and industry gro•	 Framework to collect, manage project costs and design param•	 Two-pronged data collection effort 2. New Modeling Capabilities •	 Baseline Cost Model: collection of statistical tools for predicti

costs of developing hydropower 

•	 Integrated Model: characterization of new technology impacts 

specific project design and operational simulation to account technology selection 

3. Targeted Analyses •	 Validate the developed models •	 Extract useful insights to inform R&D decision making 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Data Collection 

•	 Formalized “Cost Breakdown Structure” (CBS) and quality controll

ensure completeness and consistency of collected data (v.1 comp

Capital 

Expenditures 

Generating 

Plant 

Site 

Preparation 

Dams and 

Reservoirs 

Water 

Conveyance 

Powerhouse 

Structures 

Powertrain Equipment 

Generators Switchgears Speed Increasers Turbines Governors 

Ancillary 

Electrical 

Equipment 

Balance of 

Station 

Financial 

Costs 

•	 Development of key partnerships with industry consortia, commerc

aggregators, developers, OEMs, suppliers for project total costs anpriority component costs 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach
 

Baseline Cost Model •	 Leverage 100 years of industry expertise and recently const

data to validate, update, or improve existing statistical cost m

- Caution needed for

extrapolating existing models 


•	 Derive new models as necessary through rigorous regressio

7,000 6,000 

$/kW 

5,000 4,000 3,000 

Production

Expenses ($)
 

2,000 1,000 

0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

Net Head (m) 

90 100 110 120 130 140 150 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office	 
Technical Approach 

Source: HPPi, MESA, and OR

Integrated Model Manual, Oak Ridge, Tenness

Laboratory, Revision 2, June 2

•	 Incorporating technology choice, 

plant layout and design to costbenefit analysis 

•	 Optimizing plant operations to 

maximize generation under multiple technical and market constraints 

•	 Combining statistical- and 

engineering- based cost estimates 

•	 Focusing on small, low-head 

NPD and ROR sites initially 

Image adapted from European 

Community's 'Layman's Guidebook (on 

how to develop a small hydro site)' 

Source: USBR, Reconnaissance Head Hydraulic Installations, Tu1980. 

(FY2014) 

•	 Validating against recent project 

data 

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Case Study Analyses Models will be used to evaluate complicated R&D questions, aAlden “Fish Friendly Turbine” is a planned case study analysis Fish Friendliness has high positive and negative cost implicat•	 Improved minimum pressures at design points, reduced cavitatio

setting, reducing excavation costs) 

•	 Slower speed (increased generator cost) •	 Increased turbine diameter (increased costs) •	 Increased efficiency (increased generation) •	 Fish spill unnecessary (increased generation) •	 Downstream passage unnecessary (lower costs) ...and requires a lifecycle analytical approach to evaluate whole-plant impacts across potential sites and marke

Cutaway View 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule 

Comments: - This project was initiated later September 2013. - Maximum Value Model is a component of the Integrated Mo

it is shared across other projects 

1.7.1.1 Cost Data Collection and Modeling for Hydropower Work comple

Active Task Milestones & 

Agreement 26552 Milestone / Deliverable Current work and future research 

1. Detailed Work Scope Plan 

2. Refined Version of Cost Breakdown Structure with Definitions 

and Data Quality Confidence for Major Cost Categories 3. Prioritized List of Data Providers and Collaborators 4. Hydropower Maximum Value Model 

5. Hydropower Baseline Cost Model and I ntegrated Design and 

Assessment Model (I nitial Version) 

FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 

Summary Le

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

FY2012 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$1,500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 

•	 Congressional budget negotiations delayed project 

until the end of Q4 FY 2013 — data collection, modedevelopment, and subcontracts have been initiated. 

•	 To date (1st Quarter FY14), $200K (10%) spent on in

efforts. 

12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators •	 Hydro Power Performance Inc. (HPPi) for Maximum Value •	 Industry Info Resources (IIR) for capital cost data •	 ARRA and FOA hydropower projects funded by DOE for ga

detailed breakdown cost data 

•	 Development of partnerships with industry consortia •	 Individual utilities, developers and vendors 

13 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Communications and Technology Transfer •	 Hydropower Maximum Value Model and Integrated Mode

publically available via website (FY14). 

•	 Baseline Cost Estimating Tools will be publically available 

published ORNL TM report (FY14) 

•	 Journal papers for dissemination of major findings (FY14- 

- Baseline Cost Model components - Integrated Model optimization framework - Select advanced technology case studies 

•	 Technical presentations in HydroVision Conference 2014 •	 Review panel engaged for comment on preliminary result

14 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/40431236/

Next Steps and Future Research 

Cost data collection is an on-going, long-term effort additional model extensions and analyses to be dewith DOE WWPTO for FY 2015 •	 Follow-on detailed data collection 

for components with strong cost reduction potential 

•	 Update and validate cost estimating 

tools with new data inputs 

•	 Refine and expand the Integrated 

Model to incorporate more detailed engineering process 

•	 Journal articles to validate modeling 

approach 

15 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Summary 

•	 Current hydro cost data are fragmented and estimates 

–	 different sources –	 different project development stages 

•	 ORNL is engaged in collecting, interpreting 

and analyzing cost data to extract 

–	 representative historic trends –	 insights regarding key cost drivers etc. –	 useful cost equations and economic assessment mode

•	 The purpose of this project is to improve the quality of 

related information and modeling capability 

–	 at the national/regional strategic planning level for polic

other industry stakeholders 

–	 at a site-specific level to evaluate new technology impa

16 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Backup Slides
 

17 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
18 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach – Overview 
Input Data Process 

Flow Duration Curve Net Head Duration Curve 

Plant Capacity Design, 

Power and Energy Calculations 

Power 

Duration Curve 

Start with 

Data Input 

End with Results 

Summary 

GHG 

Emissions 

Estimate LCOE Analysis 

Project Cost Estimates 
Technical Approach 

- Data Quality Control 

Identifying project development stage associated with 

- Planning? Engineering? Construction? Or Actuals? 

Understanding cost scope and granularity of the cost 

- Financing cost included in the total capital? 

Data availability of design parameters? 

- Installed capacity, hydraulic head, dam height, length of water conveya

Applying escalation factors to make cost data from diyears comparable - Is escalation enough to explain large gap in c

past and present? 

Checking sample sizes – to make regression analyses statisticaSearching for outliers - Outliers often reflect special site-specific Disaggregating by resource class, size and hydraulic 

- Small - Medium - Large 

Non-Powered-Dams (NPD) Existing Conduits New Site Development (NSD) Pump-Storage Hydropower (PSH) 

LowMeHig

20 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
 

Technical Approach – Data Fitting & Validation 

Regression Analysis - Using the least squares method to determine in the hypothesized relationship models. One example of empirical fodeveloped by Gordon: Parameters to be estimated 

a b H c ICC
 ($ / kW )
 =
 * *
 S
 *
P

INITIAL SITE HYDRAULIC PLANT 

CAPITAL COST FACTOR HEAD CAPACITY 

(Dependent variables) (Independent variables) 

Regression Model Validation:
 (1) Examining the in-sample fit of
 

the estimate equation – providing confidence intervals, R2 comparison etc. 

(2) Out-of-sample validation ­

Reserving some data points for testing the equation’s predictive ability 

Production Expenses

($) 

21 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

  

Water Power Peer Review

Source: CleanPower AS, Norway

New Hydropower InnovationCollaborative

Brennan T. SOak Ridge National L

smithbt@ornl.gov, (86February 25, 2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statements:

•	 Hydropower development opportunities exist, but at what 

cost? 

–	 DOE resource assessments indicate that new hydropower facil

kilowatt and megawatt scale, not gigawatt scale. 

–	 Traditional economies of scale favor large hydropower; tradition

mechanisms do not. 

•	 Innovation is more than just technology advancement 

–	 New hydropower must be innovated from “Concept to Commiss

Beyond.” 

–	 Technology innovation can and should affect policy evolution. –	 Don’t forget the non-energy value streams 

•	 Renewables must compete. 

–	 Innovative hydropower must be qualified hydropower –	 Clean, green energy incentives are not enough. –	 Natural gas generation parity is a moving target. –	 New hydropower will have lower LCOE and CAPEX than existin

hydropower. 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

Objectives:

•	 Target audience: 

–	 Primary: Congress, Financiers, Utilities, Developers –	 Secondary: DOE and Lab Program Planning –	 Not guidebooks—idea books! 

•	 Distinguish project innovation from policy innovation with 

efforts: 

–	 New Pathways to Hydropower Feasibility will address conce

commissioning innovative design, technology, installation, and o

–	 A New Agenda for Hydropower Transformation will address 

incentives for pathways. 

–	 Innovate, then advocate! 

•	 Characterize risks and rewards of innovation pathways 

–	 Identify phases of development and innovations in each. –	 Identify factors affecting applicability of innovation pathways. –	 Cost reductions must be qualified; might not be immediately qu–	 Consider how government and industry can accommodate failu

learning. 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

Impacts:

•	 Decision-makers and energy stakeholders..... 

–	 believe that innovation can increase and accelerate new 

hydropower development. 

–	 move beyond the myth that hydropower development wil

damaging, difficult, and expensive. 

•	 DOE gets a coherent, bona fide assessment of innov

potential and impact to use in program planning. 

•	 Industry forums and participants leverage governme

research resources to .....
 

–	 discuss, plan, and execute projects that are explicitly and 

specifically innovative 

–	 embrace intelligent, first-adopter risk-taking –	 disseminate lessons learned, successful innovations, an

state-of-the-art � Innovative Technology Catalog 

4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Purpose & Objectives 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities: 

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or comp

for demonstration or deployment 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental 

of hydropower 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

•	 New Pathways to Hydropower Feasibility Report 

document innovative ideas from industry thought in every aspect of project development: 

–	 Power System Flexibility Needs, Site Hydrology and W

Management, Turbine Technology, Generator and PowConversion Technology, Electrical Interconnection, CivTechnology, Asset Ownership and Operation, Project Development Phasing, Project Financing, EnvironmentAssessment and Mitigation, and Licensing and Regula

–	 Not intended to be a developer’s handbook –	 Intended to provoke and focus discussion among deve

vendors, researchers, regulators, and other stakeholdehow to reduce the costs of small hydropower developmenergy production. 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

•	 An Agenda for Small Hydropower Transformation 

with targeted recommendations for specific incentive programs and policy evolution to overcome first-adopbarriers: 

–	 appropriate criteria to classify specific small hydropower 

development efforts and sites as demonstrative of transfoideas, 

–	 appropriate incentives for demonstration of transformative 

hydropower designs and technology 

–	 identification of gaps in state and federal incentive progra

small hydropower development 

–	 overall funding levels that would be required to incentivize 

significant deployment of innovative small hydropower te

–	 Not a DOE or ORNL report, published by HRF and indust

collaborators. 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

1.	 Engage hydropower development experts as New Pathways Report authors 2.	 Confirm structure of project development phases and New Pathways Report 

2014), assign authors 

3.	 Convene equipment vendor panel to advise on and initially populate technol

(Dec 2013) 

–	 Voith, Mavel, Alden, Alstom, Andritz participating –	 Other providers encouraged via email and direct contact to submit technologies sp

HRF/CSU for inclusion in database. 

–	 Technology catalog structure added to ORNL NHAAP data model to ensure cross-

existing and future hydropower development sites 

4.	 HRF receives authored sections; editor drafts New Pathways Report. 5.	 ORNL reviews and publishes New Pathways Report in conjunction with HRF6.	 HRF proposes additional policy authors to participate in Agenda for Hydropo

Transformation Report draft. 

–	 Author meeting details TBD 

7.	 HRF makes authors assignments, edits, obtains review, and publishes Agen

Hydropower Transformation Report. 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Project Plan & Schedule 

Summary 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completed Project Number Active Task Agreement Number Milestones & Deliverables Task / Event 

Project Name: Wind Energy Forecasting Methods and Validation for Tall Turbine Resource Assessment 

Q1 Milestone: Subcontract to HRF Q2 Milestone: New pathways Report Draft to DOE Q3 Milestone: Agenda Report to DOE Q4 Milestone: Final Agenda for Hydro Transformation Report published 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Milestones & Deliverables 

Q1 (Octt-Dec) 

Legend 

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

FY2013 

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

• Initiated September 2013 • Completion of all products in FY2014 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share 

$315K 0 0 0 

•	 $295K sub-contract to the Hydro Research Foun

–	 Approximately 10% invoiced through Q1 FY2014 

•	 $10K in ORNL expenses through Q1 FY2014 •	 Additional funding will be required at ORNL in Q

FY2014 to complete publication of reports and Innovation Portal integration with NHAAP. 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: • ORNL has sub-contracted most of the work scope to the Hydro R

Foundation 

• Colorado State University engaged by HRF to support Hydro Inn

Portal and Technology Database 

• Industry authors and contributing though leaders 

Communications and Technology Transfer • New Pathways to Hydropower Feasibility Report published by OR

HRF 

• New PathwaysReport available and disseminated at 2014 NHA A

Meeting 

• Small Hydropower Innovation Portal with Technology Database, a

via DOE Water Power, HRF, and ORNL NHAAP websites 

• Agenda for Hydropower Transformation – Policy report published 

11 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
12 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: • Author’s kickoff workshop in Denver December 

• Convened by HRF Exec Dir. (D. Linke) and Report ed

Vansant 

• HRF/CSU/ORNL Technology Portal Kickoff mee

December 2013 

• Technology vendor panel webinar in December • Remaining Work 

• HRF to finalize outline with ORNL, finalize author ass• CSU/HRF to finalize technology database structure • New Pathways Report draft in March, Final in June • Transformation Agenda Report draft in June, final in S

2014 
1 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov Pr ram Name or Ancill Text 

 

| og ary 

Hydropower Market Acceleration 

and Deployment 

Wind and Water Power 

Technologies Office 

Hoyt Battey 

2/27/14 

2014 Water Power Program Peer Review 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview - Market Acceleration & Deployment 

Goals: Catalyze the reduction of market barriers to increase the certainty of development 

outcomes and spur deployment. The MA&D thrust aims to minimize key risks to deployment to 

reduce the cost and time associated with permitting hydropower projects. This includes 

undertaking research and developing tools to evaluate and mitigate environmental impacts; 

providing data to accelerate permitting timeframes and drive down costs; increasing 

opportunities for workforce development. Better understanding of barriers and effective 

regulatory and stakeholder engagement will help to preserve and expand the nation’s 

hydropower resources. 

Priorities: 

•	 Environmental Research and New Technology Validation: new research and the development of technologies to 

assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of hydropower development, and performance testing of new 

technologies for environmental compatibility 

•	 Address regulatory barriers collaboratively with other federal agencies involved in permitting and licensing of 

hydropower and identify new opportunities 

•	 Share information about the hydropower market and help to develop a qualified, next-generation workforce by 

re-engaging U.S. universities to pursue hydropower R&D 

FY 14 Budget: ≈$5 million 

DOE Unique Role: As a science-based agency, DOE is uniquely situated to support novel 

environmental research, develop new tools, and synthesize and distribute credible, unbiased information. 

2 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

3 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Hydropower Organizational Structure: 

Market Acceleration and Deployment 

Key Counterparts and Collaborators 

Market 

Acceleration and 

Deployment 

Environmental 

Research and New 

Technology 

Validation 

Regulatory 

Initiatives 

Information 

Sharing and 

Workforce 

Development 

Pacific 

Northwest 

National 

Laboratory 

Oak Ridge 

National 

Laboratory 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hydropower Key Objectives 

The 2014 Water Program Peer Review Agenda has sessions that will cover projects and activities in 

these priority areas: 

Optimize existing hydropower technology, 

flexibility, and/or operations • Tuesday, 2/25 

Advance new hydropower systems and/or 

components for demonstration or deployment • Wednesday, 2/26 

Enable next-generation pumped storage 

technologies to facilitate renewable integration • Thursday, 2/27 

Reduce deployment barriers and environmental 

impacts of hydropower • Thursday, 2/27 

4 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Hydropower Budget 

(FY 2012 – FY 2014) 

Hydro Budget by Thrust Area 

(FY 2012- FY 2014)
 

$18,000,000 

$16,000,000 

$14,000,000 

$12,000,000 

$10,000,000 

$8,000,000 

$6,000,000 

$4,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$0 

Hydropower Integration & 

Pumped Storage 

Hydropower: New 

Hydropower: Existing 

Hydropower Market Acceleration 

and Deployment 

FY12 FY13 FY14 

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 

34% 

11% 43% 

18% 12%

37% 

33% 

12% 29% 

12% 

25% 

34% 

5 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main Elements of the MA&D Portfolio 

Technical Area Key Projects/Activities FY14 Funding 

Environmental Research • Water Quality Modeling $3.8M 

& New Technology 

Validation •

Improvements 

Biological Design Criteria 

($1.9M FY14 AOP funds + $1.9M 

in prior year carryover) 

for New Hydropower 

• Basin Scale Opportunity 

Assessment 

• Lab Call (posters) 

• Traits-based criteria 

for Fish Passage 

• Instream Flows 

• GHG Emissions 

Monitoring 

• Sensor Fish Re-Design 

Information Sharing and • University Research $1.4M 

Workforce Development Awards ($0 FY14 AOP funds + $1.4M in 

prior year carryover) •	 Workforce Development 

Needs Assessment 

•	 Hydropower Market Report 

6 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market Acceleration and Deployment 

Priorities in FY12 and Beyond 

Technical Area Priorities or Changes in 

Portfolio FY11 vs FY14 

Partners Upcoming 

milestones 

Environmental 

Research & New 

Technology 

Validation 

Information 

Sharing and 

Workforce 

Development 

The MA&D program completes lab call 

activities initiated in FY 2009 and shifts 

focus on developing advanced 

environmental modeling and measurement 

tools, such as the “sensor fish” and 

biological design criteria for new turbines. 

Targeted activities advancing water-quality 

modeling will enhance hydropower systems 

optimization and operation—increasing 

energy generation, system flexibility, and 

environmental benefits. Future work will 

focus on environmental evaluation of newly 

developed technologies 

University Research Awards and Workforce 

Development Needs Analysis are fully 

funded in FY 2012 and FY 2013. In FY 

2014, DOE will work with other federal 

agencies to provide input into the 

development and implementation of 

administration-wide STEM activities, which 

will reach more students and address 

national workforce needs. 

• ORNL 

• PNNL 

•	 Hydro 

Research 

Foundation 

•	 Navigant 

Consulting 

•	 ORNL 

•	 Demonstrate 

new Sensorfish 

design 

•	 Demonstrate 

improved water 

quality 

operational 

models 

•	 Publish multiple 

papers and peerreviewed articles 

on FY10-FY13 

research results 

•	 Make new 

university 

research awards 

•	 Complete 

national 

workforce needs 

assessment 

•	 Publish first-ever 

hydro market 

report 

7 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

Market Acceleration and Deployment 

Technology Transfer 

• All project leads are highly encouraged or required to submit 

papers to peer-reviewed publications and make in-person 

presentations at major industry meetings and conferences
 

•		 For new technologies or tools (Sensorfish, advanced water 

quality models, biological design criteria) industry end-users 

are involved throughout the development process and 

multiple operational demonstrations are pursued. 

8 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
 

Questions for the Peer Review Panel 

•		Market / Environmental Barriers faced by the hydropower 

industry are large and, to date, our resources to address these 

barriers have been relatively small. Where will we get the 

biggest return for our investments moving forward? 

•		 Licensing processes and regulatory uncertainties are often 

identified as one of the most significant barriers to the further 

development of hydropower in the U.S., but DOE does not 

have much direct influence. What is an appropriate role for 

DOE to play in helping to catalyze change and address these 

issues? 

9 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 
10 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Market Acceleration and Deployment 

Agenda Overview 

Subject Area Time Topic Presenter 

Market Acceleration: 

Environmental 

Studies and New 

Technology 

Validation 

9:30 AM Sensor Fish Z. Daniel Deng, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory 

9:50 AM 

Turbine aeration design software for 

mitigating adverse environmental 

impacts resulting from conventional 

hydropower turbines 

Roger Arndt, Regents of the 

University of Minnesota 

10:15 AM Water Quality Modeling Improvements at 

Columbia and Cumberland River Basins 

Boualem Hadjerioua, Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory 

10:40 AM BREAK 

10:55 AM 

Biological Design Criteria for New 

Hydropower Turbines NEW 

Gary Johnson, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory 

11:05 AM Mark Bevelhimer, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory 
11 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Market Acceleration and Deployment 

Agenda Overview 

Subject Area Time Topic Presenter 

Market Acceleration: 

Regulatory Initiatives 11:25 AM 

Basin Scale Opportunity Assessment 

Simon Geerlofs, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory 

(Lead) 

11:40 AM Mark Bevelhimer, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory 

12:05 PM Lunch 

Market Acceleration: 

Information Sharing 

and Workforce 

Development 

1:05 PM Hydropower Fellowship Program Deborah Linke, Hydro Research 

Foundation 

1:25 PM 

Hydropower Workforce and 

Education/Training Needs 

Assessment NEW 

Hoyt Battey, DOE 

1:45 PM Annual Hydropower Market and 

Trends Report NEW 

Rocío Uría-Martínez, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Sensor Fish Z. Daniel De

PNNLzhiqun.deng@pnnl.go

02/27/2014
Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: For both development of new hydro technolog

operation of existing assets, it is critical to understand the nature conditions to which fish are exposed when they pass through hyand to identify the locations and operations where conditions are enough to injure or kill fish. 

Impact of Project: The redesigned sensor fish is a tool to accelerate 

conventional hydro development by shortening schedules and decosts for validation of performance claims to regulators and provfeedback to design engineers. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and p

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for 

demonstration or deployment 

• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or o• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to fac

renewable integration 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of 

2 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Technical Approach 

Sensor Fish Redesign: Identify range of planned applications [ORNL] Derive design specifications Review Design specifications 

–	 This step is the feedback loop to those that contributed to applicatio

definition and is also a “one-over” technical review of the approach specifications for the new Sensor Fish. At this step alternatives for that are available for sensor construction are identified. The availabspecialized components typically influences final design specificatio

Construct Prototype 

–	 A two step process of benchtop layout and assessment of circuit de

components, and housing alternatives followed by manufacture of emechanical parts and assembly into a testable prototype. 

Prototype testing 

–	 Using benchtop tools, specialized jigs and fixtures, and a water fille

and flume 

3 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
4 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach (Application space by ORNL) 
Accomplishments and Progress 

(Application space by ORNL) 

Project results summarized in white paper Evaluation of ApSpace Expansion for the Sensor Fish (ORNL, 2014) Key deliverables: 

Overlay of geographic distribution of turbine Tabular summaries of turbin

threat and key migratory species presence key migratory species 

5 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Accomplishments and Progress 

(Design) 

Completed design, built functional prototypes, wit

capabilities at 2 kHz sampling rate 

• 3D Accelerations • 3D Rotation velocity • Orientation • Temperature • Pressure • Recovery • Significant cost reduction 

Evaluated them in the laboratory and simulated tu

passage environment. 

Design features met the original technical targets. 

6 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Project Plan & Schedule 

7 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completed

Project Number Active Task

Agreement Number Milestones & DeliTask / EventProject Name: Sensor Fish Re-design to Support Advance Hydropower Development Identify the planned range of applications

Design specification reviewComplete construction and testing of breadboard designModify design and complete construction of prototype

Testing of prototypesDocumentation/reporting

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

4.1.1.4

20688

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2012 FY2013 

Milestones & Deli

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Le

20084

Summary

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Comments • 2011 WWPTO FOA Award—Initiated in FY 12 • Project on schedule and completed—Sensor Fish undergoin

with Corps of Engineers at Ice Harbor Dam in FY 14 
Project Budget 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

125000 0 125000 25000 0 0 

8 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: EPRI (Doug Dixon, Paul Jacobson) ORNL (Mark Bevelhimer, Glenn Cada) USACE Turbine Survival Program Grant County PUD 

Communications and Technology Transfer: Poster/Conference paper in HydroVision 2013. Reference Design Documentation (PNNL internal) PNNL Invention report (in progress) Journal article (in preparation, planned for submission in 2014Prepare for technology transfer to commercial vendor after firsmanufacturing. 

9 | W ind and W ater Power Technologies Office 
Next Steps and Future Research 

� The new Sensor Fish is being planned for various application

• Kaplan turbines • Francis turbines • Spillways • Pumping stations • Small hydros • Gravitation water vortex turbine • Irrigation structures 

� In different countries 

• USA • Brazil • Laos • Netherlands • Australia • China • Canada • Austria 

10 | W ind and Water Power Technologies Office 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

 

 

Water Power Peer Review 

Turbine aeration design software for 

mitigating adverse environmental impacts 

resulting from conventional hydropower 

turbines 

Roger Arndt, Acting PI 

arndt001@umn.edu 

Fotis Sotiropoulos, co PI 

fotis@umn.edu 
 

 

 

 

 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Develop aeration technology for hydroturbines to minimize 

environmental impact due to low dissolved oxygen 

Objectives: 

1. Develop aerating test bed to verify computational codes – available to all 

2. Develop aeration computation model to solve important aspects of bubbly flow 

– verify with test bed measurements – available to all 

3. Run test bed on Alstom aerating blade design – Proprietary 

4. Improve performance of Alstom aerating blade design with computational model 

Impact of Project: The project will provide the necessary technology base for design of 

cost-effective aerating turbines. The techniques developed during this portion of the 

project will be directly applicable to numerous aerating turbine designs 

2 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Approach 

Physical Model Experiments: test bed to verify software 

Wake Studies 

Bubble size and distribution determined using shadow image velocimetry 

Determine impact of flow field on entrainment 

Mass/Oxygen Transfer 

Determination of mass transfer relation by comparison of models to test bed 

results 

Computational simulation of test bed results 

Two phase LES developed and validated with proposed experiments. 

Once validated for the standard NACA0015 blade geometry, the code will be 

implemented to guide design of advanced aerating turbine runner. 

Industrial Collaboration: 

Alstom Hydro Global Technology Center, Montreal, Canada 

3 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Our Team 

• Roger Arndt, Acting PI 

• John Gulliver, PI (on medical leave) 

• Fotis Sotiropoulos, co PI 

• Jerry Hong, ME Professor, Unpaid consultant 

• Can Kang, Visiting Professor, Jiangsu University 

• Chris Ellis, Senior Research Associate 

• Garrett Monson, Graduate Student (Now at Houston Engineering) 

• Ashish Karn (Graduate Student) 

Previous Contributions From 

• Seung Jae Lee (Research Associate, Now at Seoul University) 

• Ellison Kawakami (Research Fellow, Now at 3M) 

4 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Bubbly Wake Studies 

Objectives 

•	 Determine quantity of air entrained 

•	 Bubble size of entrained air at given location 

after entrainment 

•	 Oxygen transfer across bubbles 

– Bubble size, turbulence, liquid film coefficient
 

•	 Development of SIV technique 

5 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFL High-speed Water Tunnel 

Gas collector dome upstream of 

test section allows for extended 

run time with no visible effects on 

operating conditions 

Advantages: 

 Special degassing system allows for 

continuous operation with ventilation 

 Flexibility allows for quick 

transition between models and 

experiments 

 Ability to generate periodic unsteady 

flows to replicate sea states 

Amply equipped with: 

TRPIV, PIV, LDA/PDA, High-speed 

shadowgraph, high-speed cameras, force 

balance and pressure sensors, DO 

sensors, high-speed digital photography 

Disadvantages: 

 Small size introduces blockage 

effects 

6 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

NACA 0015 Modified for air injection 

Ventilated Foil 

=0.96c

C=81mm

D=3.5mm

Slith width 0.5mm, roughly 45 degrees at Zero degs AoA

Ventilation Flow Increasing

Ref: Kjeldsen and Arndt 

The 12th International Symposium on Transport 

Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery 

ISROMAC12-2008-20115 

Honolulu, Hawaii, February 17-22, 2008 

7 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Optical Setup for SIV 

• High Speed Camera: Photron APX RS 

• Light Source: Pulsed LED array (capable of 10 kHz with a 5 microsecond pulse width) 

• Light shaping diffuser is placed to ensure uniform back-lighting in the images. 

8 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

Recognition of individual bubbles 

Image Source 

Detected Bubbles 

Edges 

Subtraction of Edge Detection Finding 

reference image With Canny Algorithm Perimeter 

Reference : Canny (1986) 

Perimeter 

Connecting Points 

Calculation of connecting Curvature peaks curvature points 

Reference : Pla (1996), Shen et al (2000), Berg et al (2002), Honkanen (2003, 2005) 

Select two Recognition of Fitting ellipses points a bubble 

9 | Wind and W ater Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Preliminary tunnel results 

Water tunnel 

LED Back-Lighting 

NACA0015 

AoA = -8 deg. 

7.0 m/s 

• High Speed Camera : Photron APX RS (capable of 3000 frames per second at full resolution) 

• Light Source : Pulsed LED array (capable of 10 kHz with a 5 microsecond pulse width) 

• Light shaping diffuser is placed to ensure uniform back-lighting in the images. 

10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Initial Bubble Shape and Size 

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Flow 

Bubble shadow image 

Eccentricity, e Bubble radius, rB 

rB[mm]

Probability Density

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0

2

4

6

data

normal distribution

e [-]

Probability Density

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0

2

4

6

Circle, e=1 

11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

O 

 

 

 

New Analysis 

Our dramatically improved analysis 

allowed us to fully account for all 

bubbles in the wake, significantly 

Improving our bubble size data base 

Preliminary calculations based on the current analysis gave a predicted volume 

flow rate of 0.47 – 0.49 LPM which compares favorably with the 0.5 LPM injected.
 

12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Bubble Size Distribution 

Compares favorably with previous results
 

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Histogram of area-eqvt Radius (mm):-AoA0-V10p0-Air0p5-X109-1

Bubble Radius(mm)

13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Mass Transfer: Experimental Setup 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residence Time 

WT t r scaling 

•	 Test section – beginning of draft tube 

 tr ~ 0.12 s 

•	 Diffuser, right, bottom, and left legs –

draft tube 

 tr ~ 21.07 s 

•	 Settling Chamber – tail-water 

 tr ~ 29.21 s 

•	 Total tr ~ 50.4 s 

Field model Scales nicely with tunnel tr 

Field t r scaling 

•	 Typical draft tube: tr ~ 7-9 s 

Sheppard, A. R., & Miller, D. E. (1982) 

•	 Typical tail-water depth: 7 m, 

Rise velocity: 0.25 m/s 

 tr ~ 28 s 

•	 Total tr ~ 40 s 

of ~50 s 

15 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
16 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Comparison with Experiments 
 

6 DOF rigid body motion driven by instantaneous 

turbulence-induced forces and moments 

 

 

SAFL Computational Research for 

Environmentally Friendly Hydropower 

High-fidelity unsteady modeling of turbulence in 

real-life draft tubes
 17 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

6 DOF rigid body motion driven by instantaneous 

turbulence-induced forces and moments 

 

 

 

SAFL Computational Research for 

Environmentally Friendly Hydropower 

The Virtual Sensor Fish Model
 

6 degree of freedom tracking of 3D rigid fish-like 

bodies in simulated unsteady turbulent 

flowfields – Sotiropoulos et al (1999) 

18 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

SAFL Computational Research for 

Environmentally Friendly Hydropower 

The Virtual Bubble 

Model for Aerating 

Turbines
 

One-way coupling Lagrangian 

tracking of air bubbles with mass 

transfer 

The TVA Norris draft tube 

Sotiropoulos et al. (1998)
 

19 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Fully-coupled 2-phase flow 

large-eddy simulation model 

Governing equations
 

 Models for interfacial forces, including Drag, lift, virtual mass and turbulent 

dispersion 

 Subgrid scale models for liquid/gas shear and bubble induced turbulence 

20 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Fully-coupled 2-phase flow 

large-eddy simulation model 

Numerical implementation
 

21 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Validation of the 2-phase flow 

LES solver 

Gas-liquid flow in a bubble 

column*
 

• Column size: 15✕15✕100 cm3 

•	 Sparger plate: 

38.5✕38.5 mm2 

49 holes of 1mm diameter 

• Liquid filled up to 45 cm 

• Bubble jet superficial velocity: 5 mm/s 

• Bubble jet release velocity: 7.85 cm/s 

* N.G. Deen, B.H. Hjertager, T. Solberg, Comparison of PIV and LDA measurement methods applied 

to the gas-liquid flow in a bubble column, 10th international symposium on applications of laser 

techniques to fluid mechanics, 2000] 

22 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Validation of the 2-phase 

flow LES solver 

Liquid velocity vectors (left) and iso-surface of gas volume fraction (right) at 2 

instants in time
 

23 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Validation of the 2-phase 

flow LES solver 

Comparison of time-averaged liquid and gas velocity profiles*
 

1) M.T. Dhotre, Niceno, B.L. Smith, Large eddy simulation of a bubble column using dynamic sub-grid scale model, Chem. Eng. J., 2008 

2) N. G. Deen, T. Solberg, B. H. Hjertager, Large eddy simulation of the Gas–Liquid flow in a square cross-sectioned bubble column, 

Chem. Eng. Sci., 2001 

24 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Ongoing Work 

Extending the computational code to simulate 

flow around the NACA0015 & NACA0012 

hydrofoils 

Contours of vorticity at 20 degrees angle of attack
 

25 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

Future development of the 

LES code 

 Implement a bubble population balance equation to enable 

the calculation of bubble size distribution. 

 Implement a mass transfer model to enable dissolvedoxygen simulations. 

26 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Accomplishments and Progress 

•Our bubble measurement technique has been improved: 

•reduced background fluctuations generated by out-of-focus bubbles 

•reduced computational time (time went from 20 minutes per image to 

3-7 seconds per image, allowing a much larger data set to be collected) 

•45,000 images have been analyzed, providing a significant bubble size 

data base 

•Significant progress made in developing the numerical code: 

• Developed a new fully-coupled 2-phase flow LES model for gas/liquid 

flows 

• Validated the 2-phase flow model for a rising bubble plume case 

• Extended the code to simulate turbulent flow past hydrofoils 

27 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

• Alstom Hydro Global Technology Center, Montreal, 

Canada is providing substantial cost-share (50% of the 

total project cost) to this work and acting as a key 

industrial partner. Their engineers have already visited 

three times for extended periods, getting ready for the 

research on the Alstom hydrofoil. 

• Presentations and Publications: 

 Conference in Montreal to present the proposed research 

 Lee, Seung-Jae, Kawakami, E and Arndt, REA Proc.8th Int. 

Symposium on Cavitation August, 2012, Singapore 

 Lee, Seung-Jae, Kawakami, E and Arndt, REA Proc. ASME 

FEDSM 2013 July 7-11, 2013, Incline Village, Nevada, USA 

 ﻿Arndt, REA, Presentation at American Physical Society 66th 

Annual Meeting Division of Fluid Dynamics 24 – 26 November 

2013 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

28 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

 

Project Budget 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 

DOE 

Costshare DOE Costshare DOE Costshare 

[$145K] [$24K] [$76K] [$103K] [$11K] [$12K] 

29 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
 

 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: 

• Investigation of Alstom design 

• Further investigation of bubbly wake 

 fitting bubble size distribution to theory (Bubble 

breakup model) 

• Computations: 

 Consider the bubble size distribution by solving the 

bubble population balance equation. 

 Solve for mass transfer across the phases 

 Validate the code with ventilated foil data 

Questions?
 

30 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy 

Program Name or Ancillary Text

  ­

  ­ 

CORDELL HULL 

LOCK & DAM

D HICKORY 

CK & DAM

GALLATIN FOSSIL 

PLANT

Water Power Peer Review 

Water Quality Scheduling Research

• Boualem Ha

• ORNL• hadjeriouab@o• (865) 574 5191

• February 26 28

OL 

LO 

CUMBERLAND 

FOSSIL PLANT 

Water Quality Modeling Improvements atColumbia and Cumberland River Basins
2 Wind and Water Power Program 

Problem Statement:

The complexity of water quality dynamic cannocurrently represented in real-time hydropower systemsWater quality scheduling research is to enable hydropower operators to integrate water qualitdynamics into their optimization dispatch tools

Alignment with DOE Program Objectives:

Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexiand/or standards.

Purpose & Objectives
3 Wind and Water Power Program 

Purpose of ORNL Water Quality Modeling work is to advance mathematicalmodeling science so as to be generalizable for implementation in various Decision Support Systems (DSS)

Reduction in model complexity to 

allow use in real-time decision makingDevelopment of physics-based and mass-transfer models

IMPACT: Eliminate or minimize the need to “leave some on the table” as buffer when scheduling the system to meet water quality targets. 

Purpose & Objectives

Complex 

Hydro

Water 

Mass 

Reduce C

Mathematic

Ready 

Real-time 
4 Wind and Water Power Program 

Collaboration with Academia and Federal Hydropower MOU develop, implement, and demonstrate the use of advanced wmodels in systems optimization

Reclamation, the Army Corps, and TVA all manage compconstrained multi-purpose systems with significant modelPartnerships with universities to generate and/or implemethe-art mathematical modeling techniques

Efforts thus far under the MOU:

Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) modeling (CumRiver)Total Dissolved Gas (TDG) modeling (Columbia River

Technical Approach
5 Wind and Water Power Program 

Technical Approach – Methodology

N linked, calibrated W2 models

Water quality & hydrodynamics

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

MN

W2 Model Outputs 

(time series)

Model Inputs

Database

Model orderreduction tool -Assumptions -Limitations -Methodology -Water elevations -Temperature -DO -Calibration parameters -Meteorological data 

m

Too

Calibrated reservoir models can be used to “train” the new model once.

Op

Fr

Decision makers can quickly modeobtain accurate outputs, and optim
6 Wind and Water Power Program 

Technical ApproachMathematical Formulation and Analysis

Method of Lines Model Outline

Cordell Hull Reservoir Model Redu

POU: Partition of Unity interpolation surrogate model

Model reduction methods:

Considering the system in the form (E, A, B, C, D) WT EV dx/dt = WT AVz(t) +WTBu(t) x + Rq, u + Rmy(t) = CVz(t) + Du(t) y ε RlThis results in the state-space system (Er, Ar, Br, Cr, D), whereEr = WTEV, Ar = WTAV, Br = WTB, Cr= CWTV(r : reduced model). If the initial system was in state-space form (A,B,C,D) then E=I (n×q identity matrix), and matrices W and V are 

enforced to be biorthogonal, that is, WTV = I.
7 Wind and Water Power Program 

Surrogate Model Dev

Temperature at Turbine Discharge Old Hickory: Temperature 

Dissolved Oxygen at Turbine 

Accomplishments and Progress Results to Date

W2: original water quality modelPOU: Partition of Unity interpolation surr

Uniqueness: Development of the first multiple reservoirs system high fidelity model reduction than can be used in operational scheduling, planning, and decision making by hydropower operators. 
8 Wind and Water Power Program 

Accomplishments and ProgressResults to Date

Delivered to USACE Updated and Calibrated CE-models for Cordell Hull and Old Hickory reservoir

Completed 1/27/12

Developed surrogate models for 2 reservoirs

Cordell Hull completed 6/30/13Old Hickory completed 7/15/13

Defined optimization model constraints for 2 reseconjunction with USACE

Completed 12/15/13
9 Wind and Water Power Program 

TDG Concentration 

Technical ApproachMathematical Formulation and Analysis

Approach Uniqueness 

No known prior predictive TDG derivation methods have employed such mathematical derivation techniques to include all physical processes governing TDG production and mixing analysis to develop a fully mechanistic approach to derive predictive TDG equations. 

TDG Model OverviewTDG representative equations are developedbased on the main physical processes in TDG

production and mixing:

Air entrainment in the spillway face and 

during the plunging of spill water in the tailrace

Bubble dissolutionEntrainment of powerhouse water into the

spillway region

The independent variables 

Tailwater elevation

Dam heightPowerhouse flowrateSpillway flowrateUnit spill per bay 

Atmospheric pressure and temperature
10 Wind and Water Power Program 

Accomplishments and Progress Results to Date

Grand Coulee Tailwater, Measured Vs. Modeled, 2

Hourly data for seven dam on the Mid-Columbia and Dworshak

2004-2012 

Grand Coulee Dam

Derivation Resu
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

1.9.1.1 Water Quality Modeling Improvements Columbia Work completed Cumberland River Basins Active Task

Milestones & Delive

Agreement 26881Milestone / Deliverable

Cumberland - model bathymetry for two reservoirsCumberland - Water blance calibration CE-QUAL-W2Cumberland - Water quality calibrationCumberland - coupled ODEs for one reservoir completedTDG - Literature ReviewTDG - parameterization and data collectionTDG - revised white paper with proposed methodologyTDG-Kick off with USACE and ReclamationSoft and hard contstraint database developmentSummarize TDG approach, water operational model Document TDG module approachCertify Completion of differential equation Model order reduction of Old Hickory Lake

Collection of input from reservoir stakeholdersExectuion/demonstration of Cordell Hull/Old Hickory modelCurrent work and future research

Cumberland River Cordell Hull Reservior ojective functionsValidation of the Cordell Hull Reservoir modelLinking cumberland Models

Validate two linked models

FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Summary Legend

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & Delive

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2012
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

FY2013 Budget supporting activities include:

FY2013-FY2014 funding for Cumberland River WQuality project and Columbia River TDG Project

Budget History

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

$0K $0 $583,555K $0 $50K 
13 Wind and Water Power Program 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Collaboration:

Cumberland River System:

1. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN2. David Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN3. USCOE Nashville District

Columbia River System:

1. University of Iowa, Iowa2. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado3. USCOE, Portland, Oregon4. CADWES, University of Colorado (In progress)

Communications and Technology Transfer:

Cumberland River System:• Technical paper and Poster presentation, Hydro Vision Confer• Two Journal publications (in Progress)• Two Ph.Ds dissertations (in Progress)Columbia River System:• Poster presentation and Technical paper, Hydro Vision Confer

and 2013
14 Wind and Water Power Program 

Next Steps and Future Research

Next Steps end of FY2014•The results of this project will produce a linked, two-reservoir, high-fidelity ohydropower generation simulation system for a portion of the Cumberland R• Provide representative TDG equations to be implemented in an operationatool for the Mid-Columbia hydropower projects

Future Proposed Research

• Fine-tuning the optimization approach to further address stakeholder nbe identified following initial model implementation.• As envisioned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville District, the two-reservoir system to an entire, Cumberland River system-wide licapable of local and global (system-wide) optimization, further enabling application to additional river systems. •Test and validate the TDG equations to other river systems.
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Biological Design Criteria for New Hydropower Turbines

Gary JohnsoPNNLgary.johnson@pnnlFebruary 27, 2014
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose

Problem Statement: Comprehensive, standardized, quantita

to assess potential biological impacts of new or refurbisheturbines during design and evaluation phases are lacking

Impact of Project: Incorporating biological performance base

applications of advanced technologies to establish dose/rerelationships between physical conditions and fish injury wdesign costs and accelerate permitting processes.

Alignment with DOE Program: This project aligns with the Hy

Market Acceleration and Deployment Program goal to reddeployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydrop
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Overall Objective

Define and predict the response of a variety of fish to turbine passage to inform the design of new turbachieve improved biological performance and makevaluation of existing turbines more efficient and lecostly.
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Specific Objectives

1. Retrospection: Using PNNL’s sensor fish database, perform a re

analysis of biological quality of flow through hydro turbines (presturbulence) incorporating a traits-based approach to include nonspecies and assess consequences to fish of exposure (collision

2. SF Utilities: Develop new software utilities for Gen 2 sensor fish 

map SF data to exposure events, and estimate of biological resp

3. Biological Performance Assessment (BioPA) Tools: Incorporate 

CFD hydraulic simulations (e.g., turbulence, shear, machine mosimulation of fish into BioPA tools.

4. Small Hydro-Turbines: Apply BioPA and SF tools to small hydro 5. Technology Transfer: Conduct workshops with industry and reg

gain feedback on the project and encourage broad use of the Biand SF evaluation tools. Provide software for BioPA tools and Sindustry. Publish articles and reports.
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Background

• Build on previous DOE- and 

USACE-funded work:

o DOE Advanced 

Hydropower Turbine Systems Program (1995-2006)

o USACE Turbine Survival 

Program (~1995 to present)

o DOE FOAs (2009 and 

2011) (From 2004 AHTS annua
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Overall Technical Approach
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

BioPA SF

BioPA and SF Components
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

• Key Issue:

o

D

ata gaps and 

extrapolation of data for salmonids to infer the response of other species of concern (see ORNL’s traits-based approach)

o Unique aspects:

o Advanced CFD modeling 

and computing capability

o Generation 2 SF 

technology

o State-of-art dose/response 

data
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule FY14

Note: Scoped as a 3-yr project – started Sept 2013.

Milestone/ Deliverable Q1 Q2 Q3 BioPA application setBioPA species of concern50% draft specifications for SF utilities95% spec’sUpdated SF databasePrototype SF utilitiesRetrospective analysis (updated dose/response relationships)Industry working group and outreach
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• Budget variances: None• Initial funding Sept 2013.• Project budget expended to date: ~15%• Other funding sources: None

FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-sha

$800K $0K $700K $0K
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Mark Bevelhime• University of Washington (John Skalski)• Corps of Engineers, Grant County OUD, and oth

operators TBD

Communications and Technology Transfer: • Hydrovision and AFS conferences, special works

with industry user groups, technical reports, and articles. 
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: • Complete the retrospection and update dose/response relationsh

with ORNL to apply the traits-based approach.

• Continue development of BioPA tools and SF utilities.• Work with ORNL to develop a fish effects model that will use time 

stressor exposure as predicted by CFD modeling and SF observamodel will predict probability of injury and mortality for a variety oconditions and designs.

Proposed future research: For the second year of the projepropose to further refine the BioPA tools and SF utilities based on feindustry. We will also work with DOE WWPTO to identify additional address information deficiencies revealed in the 2014 analysis that hdefine the relationships between turbine conditions and biological refish.
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Biological Design Criteria for New Hydropower Turbines

Mark BevelhOak Ridge National Lbevelhimerms@ornl.g865-576-0266February 2014

Biological Design 

Criteria for New 

Hydropower 

Turbines: 

Biological Response 

Relationships
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives

Problem Statement: Comprehensive, standardized, quantita

to assess potential biological impacts of new or refurbisheturbines during design and evaluation phases are lacking

Impact of Project: Incorporating biological performance base

applications of advanced technologies to establish dose/rerelationships between physical conditions and fish injury wdesign costs and accelerate permitting processes.

Alignment with DOE Program: This project aligns with the Hy

Market Acceleration and Deployment Program goal to reddeployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydrop
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives

Objectives: Overall objective is to define and predict the response of a fish species to turbine passage in order to make the evaluation of existing tuefficient and less costly and to inform the design of new turbines to achieve passage. Specific objectives are to provide: 1. A national assessment of the nature of fish passage issues in the U.S. (

geographic distribution and species of concern) that can be used to direresearch and development, and 

2. An interpretation of physical characteristics of new turbines (as revealed 

fish data and CFD model predictions) in terms of the biological criteria fopassage survival. 
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

• Update biological design criteria and develop methods for broader ap

– new turbines types and wider variety of species 

• Employ traits-based approach (TBA) to expand inference space

• Use relevant biological characteristics (e.g., size, swim bladder type, and integumen

sensitivity to turbine passage stressors. 

• Conduct a “spatial analysis” on the status of fish passage issues in th

– FERC hydropower licensing database (data from NHAAP subtask)– contact with regulatory and resource agencies

• Use fish trait information to provide a broader interpretation of biologi

based on measured (SF) and modeled (CFD) physical conditions. (In cowith PNNL) 

• Develop a fish effects model that will use time series of stressor expos

predicted by CFD modeling and SF observations to predict probability omortality for a variety of turbine conditions and designs. (In collaboration 
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Q1 : Updated literature review on biological performance standards for turbin
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

List of fish/turbine traits included in vulnerability assessment(Frimpong and Angermeier; McManamay; DeRolph) 

Fish Susceptibility to Entrainment

• Migratory habits• Feeding habits• Swim speed• Habitat preference

Fish Sensitivity to Passage

• Swim bladder morphology (barotrauma)• Size (strike)• Integument (shear)

Turbine Threats to Entrained Fish

• Pressure change/Strike potential

Fish Population Sustainability

• Federal T&E Status• NatureServe Conservation Status• IUCN Categories• Life history group

usfws.gov

American shad

Pallid sturgeon

usfws.gov

Americ

eel
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

Comments• Project original initiation date – Oct 1, 2013 • Currently funded through – Sept 30, 2015

1.9.1.2 Biological Design Criteria for Work complet New Hydropower Turbines Active Task

Milestones & 

Agreement 26883Milestone / Deliverable

Current work and future research

Update literature review and data needs analysisNational spatial analysis of fish passage issuesComplete model framework for fish passage

Summarize year 1 results in technical report

FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Summary Le

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2012
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• Budget variances: None• Initial funding Sept 2013.• Project budget expended to date: ~5%• Other funding sources: None

Budget History

FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share

$300K $0 $300K $0
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Marshall Richmond) is the leproject. ORNL’s biological analysis is designed to complement PNNengineering/technology analysis of internal turbine conditions. 

Communications and Technology Transfer:• Hydrovision and AFS conferences, special workshop(s) with indu

groups, technical reports, and journal articles. 
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: • Continued development of traits based analysis.• Continue “spatial analysis” on the status of fish passage issues in the U.

• incorporate FERC license information from data mining task

• Work with PNNL to develop a fish effects model that will use time series oexposure as predicted by CFD modeling and SF observations. This model wprobability of injury and mortality for a variety of turbine conditions and desigProposed future research: For the second year of the project wadditional studies to address information deficiencies revealed in the 2014 ahelp to better define the relationships between turbine conditions and biologifish.
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

The Basin-Scale Opportunity Assessment (BSOA) Initiative

Simon GeerlGary JohnsoPacific NorthwFebruary 27, 
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Introduction

Problem: Hydropower and environmental protection/restoration 

often at odds with one another—particularly at the site scale

Impact: Identification of opportunities to increase hydropower a

environmental conditions at the basin scale can reveal pathwdeployment of low impact or sustainable technologies.

Goal: From 2010 Sustainable Hydropower MOU: “Identify ecos

river basins where hydropower generation could be increasesimultaneously improving biodiversity and taking into accoon stream flows, water quality, fish, and other aquatic resour

Endpoint: Opportunity assessment approach, tools, and inform

can be used to inform collaborative hydropower and environplanning processes.
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Alignment

DOE Program objectives and priorities: Reduce debarriers and environmental impacts of hydropowerSpecifically, the project aligns with the 2010 HydroMOU:

• Signed in March 2010, Sustainable Hydropower MOU hig

key areas for interagency collaboration, including:

– “Exploring opportunities for collaboration acro

river basins to increase generation and improenvironmental conditions.”
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

1A) Develop and export a multi-phase technical approach to basin scale hydropower assessment within the context of basin-wide environmental protection/restoration (FY11&12).1B) Test approach through a pilot study in the Deschutes basin (FY12&13).2A) Develop a specialized methodology for high-level Rapid Scoping Assessments (FY13).2B) Apply Rapid Scoping Assessment methodology in the Connecticut and Roanoke basins (FY13) and the Big Horn basin (FY14).3) Package and export methodology and approach through peer-reviewed products (FY14).

Objectives
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach—Pilot Study

ID Issues

Opportunities

Scenarios

Evaluate

High level scoping fed by stakeholders and literature

Hydro opportunities as well as opportunities to address environmental issues at site and basin scale

Determine common factors underlying hydro and environmental issues—define potential management scenarios to test integration of opportunities

Leverage existing data, develop operational models to evaluate scenarios—collaborative data visualization
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

• Through pilot study—ORNL and PNNL developed a three

technical approach for Basin Scale Opportunity Assessme

• Each phase is intended to provide stand alone products a

information useful to specific audiences.

• Each phase serves as a stage gate for subsequent stepsPhase 1—Rapid Scoping Assessments (~120 day duration)Phase 2—Stakeholder Engagement (3-6 months)Phase 3—Full Technical Analysis (1-2 years)Note: Much of the rest of the presentation will focus on RapiAssessments in the Connecticut and Roanoke basins.

Distilled Technical Approach
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach—Rapid Scoping Assessments

The intent of a Phase 1 R

apid Scoping 

Assessment for a given basin is to identify the stakeholder and hydrologic context, list and map possible hydropower opportunities and environmental issues in the basin, and perform geospatial analysis to identify potential combined hydropowerenvironmental opportunities.
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach: Phase 1 Combined Hydropower-Environmental Opportunities

We developed a geospatially driven data model to examine spatially explicit interactions between hydropower opportunities and environmental issues to identify, combined hydropowerenvironmental opportunities. 
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach: Phase 1 Combined Hydropower-Environmental Opportunities

sequential process for identifying combined hydropowerenvironmental opportunities. 
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress: Overall Technical Approach and the Deschutes Pilot Study

In FY12&13 for the Deschutes, the project team completed:• a pilot assessment in Oregon’s Deschutes Ba• a unique and flexible geospatial data model to 

highlight the association between hydropoweand environmental response;

• extensive stakeholder outreach activities to id

research needs and develop integrated scenasystem-scale analysis;

• a daily hydrologic model that allows for explor

hydropower development scenarios and conceffects on surface water flows.
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress: Phase 1 Scoping Assessment and the Connecticut Basin

• In collaboration with ORNL, we developed a 

methodology for rapid scoping assessment and successfully applied it to the Connecticut (PNNLRoanoke (ORNL) basins.

• Connecticut results summary (ORNL to present 

results):

Environmental Opportunity

Non-Powered Dams New Site D

Number MW Number 

Total number and megawatts of sites that have at least one potential environmental opportunity**

17 20.7 20 
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Non-Powered Dams New Site Develo

Accomplishments and Progress: Phase 1 Scoping Assessment and the Connecticut Basin
13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule FY14

The project started in FY11 and will end in FY14.Delays in FY 12 and into FY13 due to very late receipt of fuFY 12 (Received in March, 2012 due to continuing resolutio

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completed

Project Number Active Task

Agreement Number Milestones & Deliverables (Original PlaTask / EventProject Name: Basin Scale Opportunity AssessmentQ1 Milestone: Complete integrated opportunity scenarios and initiate modeling tasksQ2 Milestone: Conduct environmental and system analyses in the Deschutes BasinQ4 Milestone: Complete initial model runsQ1 Milestone: Present results of Deschutes pilot study to basin stakeholders

Q2 Milestone: : Selection of three additional basins for phase 1 strategic assessments

Q4 Milestone: Complete initial phase 1 assessments in two basns

Current work and future researchRefine phase 1 assessments following outreach to stakeholders

Q 1 (O c tt -D e c )

Q 2 (Ja n -M a r )

FY2012 FY2013 FY2

Q 1 (O c tt -D e c )

Q 2 (Ja n -M a r )

Legend

23456

Summary

Q 2 (Ja n -M a r )

Q 3 (A p r -Ju n )

Q 4 (Ju l-S e p )

1.9.1.2

60782

Milestones & Deliverables (Actual)

Q 3 (A p r -Ju n )

Q 4 (Ju l-S e p )

Q 1 (O c tt -D e c )
14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan FY14 Detail

Milestone/ Deliverable Q1 Q2 Q3 Phase 1 methodology refinementsOutreach to CT and RO basins on preliminary FY13 Scoping AssessmentsFinalized CT and RO Scoping AssessmentsScoping Assessment for Big Horn basinPackaging and dissemination
15 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• The project is ~80% spent to date.• Spending has tracked budgets in all years• There are no other funding sources. 
16 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators:

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Deschutes Pilot Study 

1 Rapid Scoping Assessments)

o Mark Bevelhimer, Chris Derolph, Ryan McManam

Saulsbury, Brennan Smith

• Argonne National Laboratory (Deschutes Pilot Study)

o Tom Veselka

Communications and Technology Transfer:

• The results of the Deschutes Basin Pilot Study and the 

tools developed for the study have been presented on occasions to Deschutes basin stakeholders—RiverWaserves as a flexible planning tool for the basin.

• Preliminary results of the rapid scoping assessment fo

were presented in a webinar (January 2014).

• Journal articles on methods and results are being form
17 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research:

• Refine Phase 1 methodology and apply to Co

(PNNL lead) and Roanoke (ORNL lead) 

• Package and disseminate the BSOA method• Complete an additional Phase 1 assessment 

basin)

Proposed future research: 

• The project is scheduled to end in FY14 (Sep

2014). 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

The Basin-Scale Opportunity Assessment (BSOA) Initiative

Philpott Dam

Roanoke Basin

Mark BevelhOak Ridge Nationabevelhimerms@ornl.g

February 2014
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Introduction

Problem: Hydropower and environmental protection/restoratio

often at odds with one another—particularly at the site scale

Impact: Identification of opportunities to increase hydropower a

environmental conditions at the basin scale can reveal pathdeployment of low impact or sustainable technologies.

Goal: From 2010 Sustainable Hydropower MOU: “Identify ecos

river basins where hydropower generation could be increassimultaneously improving biodiversity and taking into accoon stream flows, water quality, fish, and other aquatic resou

Endpoint: Opportunity assessment approach, tools, and inform

can be used to inform collaborative hydropower and environplanning processes.
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Alignment

DOE Program objectives and priorities: Reduce debarriers and environmental impacts of hydropowerSpecifically, the project aligns with the 2010 HydroMOU:

• Signed in March 2010, Sustainable Hydropower MOU hig

key areas for interagency collaboration, including:

– “Exploring opportunities for collaboration acro

river basins to increase generation and improenvironmental conditions.”
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Objectives

1A) Develop and export a multi-phase technical approach to basin scale hydropower assessment within the context of basin-wide environmental protection/restoration (FY11&12).1B) Test approach through a pilot study in the Deschutes basin (FY12&13).2A) Develop a specialized methodology for high-level Rapid Scoping Assessments (FY13).2B) Apply Scoping Assessment methodology in the Connecticut and Roanoke basins (FY13) and the Big Horn basin (FY14).3) Package and export methodology and approach through peer reviewed products (FY 14).

John Kerr da

the R
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach—Pilot Study

ID Issues

Opportunities

Scenarios

Evaluate

High level scoping fed by stakeholders and literature

Hydro opportunities as well as opportunities to address environmental issues at site and basin scale

Determine common factors underlying hydro and environmental issues—define potential management scenarios to test integration of opportunities

Leverage existing data, develop operational models to evaluate scenarios—collaborative data visualization
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Distilled Technical Approach

• Through pilot study—ORNL and PNNL developed a a thr

technical approach for Basin Scale Opportunity Assessm

• Each phase intended to provide stand alone products and 

information useful to specific audiences.

• Each phase serves as a stage gate for subsequent stepsPhase 1—Rapid Scoping Assessments (~120 day duration)Phase 2—Stakeholder engagement (3-6 months)Phase 3—Full Technical Analysis (1-2 years)Note: Much of the rest of the presentation will focus on RapiAssessments in the Connecticut and Roanoke basins.
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach—Rapid Scoping Assessments

The intent of a Phase 1 R

apid Scoping 

Assessment for a given basin is to identify the stakeholder and hydrologic context, list and map possible hydropower opportunities and environmental issues in the basin, and perform geospatial analysis to identify potential combined hydropowerenvironmental opportunities.
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

ORNL-Specific Accomplishments• Contributed to Deschutes Basin final report• Created tool for assessing and selecting U.S. basins as candidate

assessment demonstration (Step 3)

• Contacted Roanoke stakeholders and collected basin information • Compiled hydropower opportunity data from NHAAP database for 

and Connecticut basins (Step 5)

• Compiled environmental opportunity data from NHAAP database 

and Connecticut basins (Step 6)

• Completed complementary hydro-enviro opportunities assessmen

basin (Step 7)

• Collaborated with PNNL to complete Phase 1 Methodology Repor• Presented preliminary results to USACOE staff during site visits to 

USACOE projects in the Roanoke Basin (Sept 2013)
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Roanoke Basin Hydr

Increased Production at Existing Powered Dams

Powering Non-Powered Dams (NPD)

Developing New Site

◄Generation capacity and pot
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Roanoke Basin Environmental Opportunities (Step 6)
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Complementary Opportunities (Step 7)
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Complementary 

9 NPD an

opportunitie

Non-Powered Dams

New Site Developm
13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

Comments• The project started in FY11 and will end in FY14.

1.9.1.3 Basin Scale Opportunity Assessment Work completed

Active TaskMilestones & Deli

Agreement 23466Milestone / DeliverableSecond Deschutes Basin Stakeholder WorkshopDeschutes post-project reportRoanoke Basin Strategic Analysis ReportRoanoke Supplemental basin report

Current work and future research

Refine Phase 1 to enable rapid identification of opportunitiesPhase 1 scoping for Roanoke BasinInteractive panel at Hydrovision

Report summarizing revised methodology and lessons learned

Summary Legen

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & Deli

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2012 FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Q1 (OtD)
14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• There have been no significant variances from th

project budget

• To date 45% of the project budget has been exp

Budget History

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

$325K $325K $350K
15 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: • PNNL (project lead; Simon Geerlofs, Gary Johnson, Jerry 

Kyle Larson)

Communications and Technology Transfer:• Presented preliminary results to USACOE staff during site v

USACOE projects in the Roanoke Basin (Sept 2013)

• Webinar for Roanoke Basin stakeholders (Jan 2014)• Basin Scale Approach Symposium at national fisheries con

(Aug 2014)

• Planned publications on techniques and results
16 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: • Refine Phase 1 assessment• Validate Phase 1 approach through stakeholder feedback• Incorporate unaffiliated mitigation and connectivity opportu• Results and methods dissemination (publications and con

symposium)

Proposed future research: • The project is scheduled to end in FY14 (September 2014
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Hydro Fellowship Program

Deborah Lin

Hydro Research FounContact Info: Deborah

720-722-0473February 27, 2014
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives

Problem Statement: Recognizing the need to stimu

academic interest in hydropower and the large nof opportunities for employment due to aging wo

Impact of Project: Funding 43 researchers to cond

cutting edge research with 18 of 24 graduates ethe workforce and viable research findings for in

This project aligns with the following DOE Program 

objectives and priorities

Hydropower· Advance new hydropower systems and/or components for demdeployment· Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or oper· Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to facilitatintegration· Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydr
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

• Twelve person Steering Group from a broad arra

industry and academic organizations.

• Nationwide recruitment of applicants from 1,200 

at 125 universities.

• On-line application process.• Input on research topics coordinated with indust• Fellowship includes tuition & health insurance 

allowances, living stipend, advisor discretionary and attendance at Fellows Roundtable & HydroV

• Fellows are provided a Steering Group and indu

mentor relevant to research area.

• Program is widely publicized and has received s

from five industry partners not envisioned in gra
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

• This nationwide program has funded a diverse g

43 Fellows. In 2012-2013, 20 new Fellows joineprogram. Of those, 24 have completed their wothe Foundation and their results are published o

• Two research roundtables were held where Fell

presented findings and updates and were exposindustry opportunities. 

• Five partnerships were created with Avista Foun

Knight Piesold, Weir American Hydro, US Army Engineers, and PennWell Corporation.

• Each Fellow has been paired with a mentor from 

ensuring a ready-made personal hydropower ne
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Year 2010 2011 2012 201# of applications

51 31 45 58

# of universities

34 20 19 29

# of Fellowships

9 14 10 10

# of participating universities

8 11 8 9

% Master’s students

45 50 60 20

% Doctoral Students

55 50 40 80

# of graduates 5 6 5 8# graduates working/seekingemployment

4 5 4 5
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

Comments• Initiation date: January 1, 2010• Milestones for 2012-2013

– Award of third and fourth round of Fellowships-complete

and to 20 students which doubles the original proposed 

– Conduct Hydro Fellows Roundtable July or each year- C

time with unique learning opportunities and facility tours.

– Publish findings to HRF Website- underway and progres

smoothly.

– Cost/Time extension awarded to Foundation to continue 

$750,000.

• No slipped milestones or scheduling and no Go/no

decision points for FY12 and FY13.
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• Addition of cost/time extension and cost-share 

contributions from industry partners. 

• 77% of program budget has been expended to d• Receiving in-kind and cash contributions from fiv

industry partners. 

Budget History

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

$1,028,136 $0 $1,004,115 $31,072 $689,970 $44,
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators:Each Fellow has an academic advisor and universiwhom they are working. The University are as follo

• Alaska Pacific University• Carnegie Mellon University• Colorado School of Mines• Colorado State University• Cornell University• Georgia Institute of Technology• Lehigh University• Montana State University• Oregon State University• The Pennsylvania State University• University of California - Berkeley• University of Colorado - Boulder• University of Idaho

• University of Iowa• University of Massachusett

Amherst

• University of Minnesota• University of New Mexico• University of North Carolina 

Chapel Hill

• University of Tennessee -

Knoxville

• University of Washington• Virginia Tech• Washington State Universit• Worcester Polytechnic Univ
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach cont. 

• Alaska Energy Authority• Alden Laboratory• Alstom• US Army Corps of Engineers • Avista Foundation• Avista Corporation• Bonneville Power 

Administration

• US Bureau of Reclamation• Duke Energy• Flow Science• Golder and Associates• Grant County PUD

• Hatch• HDR Inc.• Hydrologics• Idaho Power• Knight Piésold and C• Oak Ridge National • PennWell Corporatio• San Francisco Wate• Sandia National Lab• Weir American Hydro

The Foundation has created partnerships/mentors
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Communications and Technology Transfer:• Five Fellows presented at HydroVision 2012 in Lo

KY, one presented on the highest rated panel durievent, and one received an award for his paper. 

• Additionally, the program made 15 presentations d

2012.

• In 2013, seven Fellows presented at HydroVision 

Denver, CO. The Program Director moderated thorganizational update session in front of 3,000 de

• The program has published all findings at 

www.hydrofoundation.org and received high publithrough industry publications such as USSD Dam HydroReview, and NHA Today. 
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: Working to finish Fellowshcurrent Fellows in program and explore paths to coprograming through additional funding and broadenscope of educational opportunities. By December this grant will be complete and final results submitteProposed future research: Work to expand programefforts to under-graduates, continue focus on graduresearch, and continue to foster relationships within to keep this vibrant program growing. 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

Hydropower MA&D: Workforce and 

Education/Training Needs Assessment

Wind and Water Power 

Technologies Office 

Hoyt Battey 

2/27/14 

2014 Water Power Program Peer Review 
2 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: 

• It is important to have a skilled and thoroughly educated workforce for the domestic hydropower industry 

that will support current infrastructure and potential future growth. U.S. hydropower workforce needs are 

varied and include positions in research, development, maintenance, education, operations, and siting. 

• In recent years, there has been no comprehensive nation-wide assessment of the current workforce, the 

types of training, workforce development or educational opportunities available, or potential gaps that may 

exist given different scenarios for growth or development of the industry 

Impact of Project: 

• This project will help the hydropower industry to make well-informed decisions about potential strategies or 

investments in education, training and workforce development. U.S. universities and other federal 

government agencies that invest in developing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and 

Mathematics) curriculum are also particularly interested in overlap with the clean-energy sector. 

This Project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and priorities 

Hydropower 

• Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of hydropower 
3 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Navigant Consulting

Workforce Development for Hydropower 

Project Summary: 

• Estimate size of current hydropower workforce 

• Catalog skills, training and educational needs of 

hydropower workforce and how those are met 

• Project potential size of hydropower workforce 

in 20 years (given different growth scenarios) 

and where skillset gaps may exist relative to 

today’s workforce

• Determine if additional training/educational 

programs are needed to meet hydropower 

workforce needs for the next 20 years 

• Ensure that the methodology of this study is 

well-aligned with similar projects for other U.S. 

clean-energy industries 

DOE 

Funding

CostShareTotal 

Project

Cost

$349,000 

(+$100,000

to NREL) 

$0 $449,000

Partners:

NREL
4 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

General Timeline 

• Months 1-2 

• Define and assess employment at existing hydropower plants 

• Define and assess other hydropower employment 

• Catalog current skillsets and educational / training requirements 

• Months 3-5 

• Survey and develop database of current training programs and 

education centers 

• Project potential hydropower industry growth scenarios to 2035 

• Months 6-7 

• Estimate growth scenarios in workforce and changes in skills 

• Months 8-10

• Evaluate potential gaps in training / educational capacity 

• Months 11-15

• Finalize conclusions, deliver draft report, complete DOE concurrence 

and publish final report 
5 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Communications and Technology 

Transfer Plans 

Communications and Technology Transfer Plans: 

• Goal of this project is to produce a joint Navigant / NREL / DOE 

report, with the intention of reaching more audiences 

• Results will be presented at relevant industry conferences in 

2015

• All projects are highly encouraged to submit research articles to 

peer reviewed journals for publication. 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

New Project: 

Annual Hydropower Market and 

Trends Report

Rocío Uría-MOak Ridge National Lrocio.uria@gmail.com(865) 574-591302/27/2014
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives: Problem Statement

Lack of an open-access, periodic report that commUS hydropower market trends: development activchain evolution, fleet performance.

 Scattered information needs to be analyzed in bro

context and processed into useful metrics Successful market reports exist for other electric generation (e.g., wind). Why not for hydropower?

• Hydropower’s complexities (e.g., federal/non-federal divide 

multipurpose nature of projects) complicate unified reporting

• Perception of lack of activity 
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

00.10.20.30.40.50.6

0

20406080

100120

1949

1956

1963

1970

1977

1984

1991

1998

2005

Utilization Factor

Installed Capacity (GW)

Purpose & Objectives: Provide Context and Detail to Interpret Trends

-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

1999 2003 

MW

Hydropower

new plantsupgrade/adretirement/r

How should we interpret recent flat capacity level and overall decreasingtrend in utilization factor?Zooming in is necessary to provideuseful answers but costly in terms ofdata gathering and analysis
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purposes & Objectives: Topics to be Covered

FLEET DESCRIPTION-Capacity-Project type & purpose-Age-Ownership

DEVELOPMENTACTIVITY-2003-2013 capacity changes-Snapshot of active projects

FLEET PERFORMAN-Energy production & utiliz-Generation profiles-Plant availability/outage ra-O&M costs

SUPPLY CHAIN-Source and % of imported components-Maps of industry participants POLICY & MARKET D

-Legislation and incentives-Cheap natural gas, renewa
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives: Project Impact

1. Comprehensive updates on project portfolio and supply cdevelopments 

 Focus on aspects that are important for DOE’s Water Po

strategic goals (e.g., - technology choices in new projects 

- degree of dependence on imported components - attributes of successful vs. abandoned projects)

2. Metrics/indicators that reveal hydropower utilization patte

 Identify knowledge gaps and propose ways to address th

Medium-term objective: Becoming a reference publication for thindustry 
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives: Alignment with DOE Program

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives - Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility and/or o- Reduce deployment barriers and environmental impacts of 

By tracking the development pipeline and investigatincommunicating the reasons why potentially sound profrom it 

By improving understanding of current hydropower utipatterns and uncovering opportunities for improvemen
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach: Methods

• Construct robust databases that can be easily updated an

analysis

- Leverage synergies with other ORNL-Water Power Pr

projects (NHAAP, Cost Modeling, Strategic Planning) 

• Seek consistency with other Water Power Program projec

breakdown structure, development categories)

• Create effective, information-dense visualizations to displa

and trends 

• Ensure replicability by providing documentation/metadata
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach: Classifications for Development Activity and Supply Chain 

PROJECT STATUS

Pre-permit application

License application

Project development: 

engineering

PPA, financing, permits, 

interconnection agreements, 

Construction/Installation

Refurbishment

Decommissioning/dam removal

Greenf

projec

Projects using p

existing 

infrastructure

(non-powered 

dams, conduit

capacity 

additions/upgrad

on existing flee

PROJECT CAT

Which project development steps create most obstacles to new hydropower projects?

How many companies service the 

hydropower industry/fleet at each of these 

stages and where are they located?
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach: Performance Analysis

- Regression analysis of plant-level annual utilization 

(1998-2012) to identify the effect of various attribute

- Utilization factor is an incomplete measure of hydro

value to the electricity system (e.g., PSH (pumped storage hydro) often have low utilization factors as “jewels” in the system)

SCARCE AVAILABINFORMA

-HUC region (as a proxy for hydrology) -Size-Project type (storage vs. run of river) -Ownership (federal, cooperative, municipality, industrial, private utiutility) -Market structure (ISO vs. non-ISO) -Natural gas prices

-Hourly generation data better reveals how flexibly a plant/fleet is being operated-Hydropower also provides valuable ancillary services when is not generating
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

Comments• Start date: September 1, 2013 • Planned completion date: FY15Q4 but, ideally, the Market Report w

on subsequent years

• Draft of fleet description section delayed because detailed outline w

discussion by the end of FY13Q4

1.6.2.2 Annual Hydropower Market and Trends Report Work complete

Active TaskMilestones & D

Agreement 22647Milestone / DeliverableCurrent work and future research

Summary of U.S. Hydropower Fleet Draft Hydropower Market and Trends Report OutlineDraft Installation Trends SectionDraft Industry Trends SectionDraft Hydropower Market and Trends ReportMetadata companion to Hydropower Market and Trends Report

FY2013 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Summary Lege

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Milestones & D

Q1 (Oct-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2012
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• Funding arrived late in September 2013. • Portion of the project budget that has been expe

date: ~ 10%

Budget History

FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share

$1,091,000 $0 $0 $0
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators:• ORAU (Oak Ridge Associated Universities)

• Post-masters student to work on data collection and analys

• BCS, Inc. 

• Organization of external review workshop 

• HRF (Hydropower Research Foundation)

• Participation in review process 

• IIR (Industrial Info Resources)

• Purchase of data on development activity and existing fleet o

• Industry Consortium 

• Collaborative agreements to leverage O & M data

Communications and Technology Transfer:• 1st Hydropower Market Report (December 2014)• External review workshop (pre-publication)• HydroVision/NHA Annual Conference (post-publication)• Journal article on utilization factor analysis (FY15)
13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: - Complete the 1st Hydropower Market Report- Incorporate feedback from workshop participants report reviewers- Identify questions to be addressed in subsequent editions or through other research projects
14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Summary

The Hydropower Market Report aims to improve knabout hydropower’s present to help DOE and the inshape hydropower’s future.Outreach: Comprehensive picture of hydropower’s development and performance trends put in the conpolicy and market drivers and with attention also to chain configurationAnalysis: Understand

- driving factors of successful projects - attributes of projects with highest utilization facmore operational flexibility - information gaps on hydropower utilization
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

Pumped Storage Hydro and Grid 

Integration 

Wind and Water Power 

Technologies Office 

Charlton Clark 

February 27, 2014 

2014 Water Power Program Peer Review 
2 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Goals – Define and demonstrate the benefits of new technologies in 

PSH 

Priorities – Develop models of adjustable speed PSH for use by 

system planners, show the grid services provided by adjustable speed 

PSH, and provide information on the economic impact of adjustable 

speed PSH. 

FY 14 Budget: $2M 

DOE Unique Role – Provide unbiased technical information to 

support the deployment of PSH. 

Overview – Pumped Storage Hydro and Grid 

Integration 
3 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Team – PSH and Grid Integration 

PSH/Grid Integration 

Charlton Clark 

Jim Reilly

Key Counterparts and Collaborators 

NREL 

ORNL 

ANL INL 
4 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Portfolio Priorities – Hydropower 

The 2014 Water Program Peer Review Agenda has sessions that will cover projects and activities in 

these priority areas.

Advance new hydropower systems and/or 

components for demonstration or deployment • Wednesday, 2/26

Optimize existing hydropower technology, 

flexibility, and/or operations • Tuesday, 2/25

Enable next-generation pumped storage 

technologies • Thursday, 2/27

Reduce deployment barriers and environmental 

impacts of hydropower • Thursday, 2/27
5 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Hydro Budget 

(FY 2012 – FY 2014) 

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

FY12 FY13 FY14

Hydro Budget by Thrust Area 

(FY 2012- FY 2014)

Hydropower Integration &

Pumped Storage

Hydropower: New

Hydropower: Existing

Hydropower Market Acceleration

and Deployment

34%

11% 43%

12%

FY 2014

18%

37%

33%

12%

FY 2013

29%

12%

25%

34%

FY 2012
6 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Technical Area Key Projects/Activities FY14 Funding

8.1 Modeling Advanced 

Technologies

PSH Transient Simulation Modeling $900k

8.2 Maximizing Existing 

Fleet Flexibility

N/A in FY’14 $0

8.3 Advanced Technology 

RD&D

Modular PSH Feasibility and 

Economic Analysis

$750k

Main Elements of the PSH/Grid 

Integration Portfolio 
7 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Technical Area Priorities or 

Changes in 

Portfolio FY11 vs 

FY14 

Include key 

collaborators

Upcoming 

milestones 

8.1 Modeling 

Advanced 

Technologies

New Focus Area Since

FY’11

ANL, NREL, INL Complete: Modeling 

and Analysis of Value 

of Advanced Pumped 

Storage Hydropower 

in the U.S.

8.2 Maximizing 

Existing Fleet 

Flexibility

Activities being defined 

for possible launch in 

FY’15

TBD

8.3 Advanced 

Technology RD&D

New Focus Area:

Exploration of the 

development of Modular 

PSH system

ORNL Case Study on: 

Evaluation of feasibility 

and viability of MPSH

Priorities in FY14 and Beyond 
8 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

The Program is working to increase the understanding of

how adjustable speed PSH, MPSH, and other advanced 

technologies can be utilized to better ensure a reliable 

and economic power system: 

• Technical Analysis 

• Model Development 

• Economic Analysis 

• Information Sharing 

Evolution of the PSH/Grid Integration 

Portfolio 
9 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

PSH Agenda Overview 

Subject Area Time Topic Presenter 

Pumped 

Storage Hydro

2:25 PM

Modeling and Analysis of Value of 

Advanced 

PSH in the US 

Vladimir Koritarov, Argonne 

National Laboratory (Lead)

2:40 PM Erik Ela, National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory

2:50 PM Question & Answer

3:00 PM BREAK

3:15 PM Iowa Hill Pumped-Storage Project Scott Flake, Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District

3:35 PM

Real Time Market Analysis 

Vladimir Koritarov, Argonne 

National Laboratory (Lead)

3:50 PM Erik Ela, National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory

4:00 PM Question & Answer
10 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

ANL Lead Project: “Modeling and Analysis of Value of Advanced 

Pumped Storage Hydropower in the U.S.” had developed nonproprietary vendor neutral models of Adjustable Speed PSH and 

has installed these models in two commonly used power system 

software packages (PSLF, PSEE)

Technology Transfer 
11 | Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

Are these the right types of investments for DOE to be making 

in PSH? 

What additional areas, if any, should we be working on? 

Questions for the Peer Review Panel 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

8.1.1 Modeling and Analysis of Value of Advanced Pumped Storage Hydropower in the U.S.

Vladimir Kor

Argonne National Lab

koritarov@anl.gov630-252-6711February 24-28, 2014

Modeling and Analysis of Value of Advanced PSH in Project Team: Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Exemplar, LLCAmericas, Inc., National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Siemens P
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives

Problem Statement: Develop detailed models of advanced PS

analyze their technical capabilities to provide various grid seto assess the value of these services under different market 

Main Objectives: • Improve modeling representation of advanced PSH plants in 

system and electricity market simulation models

• Quantify their technical capabilities to provide various grid se• Analyze the value of these services under different market c

and levels of variable renewable generation (wind & solar) in 

• Provide information on full range of benefits and value of PSThis project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives an• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or o• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to fac

renewable integration 
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Impact

• Provided hydro industry with cost-free dynamic models of a

PSH technologies (adjustable speed and ternary PSH unitsmodels were previously not available in the U.S. 

• Enabled modeling of dynamic responses of advanced PSH 

technologies, necessary for preparation of feasibility and trainterconnection studies of new PSH projects

• Integrated new dynamic models into the PSS®E software to 

distributed as part of standard PSS®E library of models. 

• Published vendor-neutral dynamic models and made them 

block diagrams and transfer functions) for integration into otpackages.

• Improved modeling representation of PSH plants in other po

and electricity market simulation tools (PLEXOS, FESTIV, C

• Provided information to hydro industry and other stakeholde

range of benefits and value of PSH plants in the system. 
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Integrate models and 

improve PSH modeling 

in software tools

WECC, SMUD, etc.

Future Year: 2022, low & high REFuture Year: 2022, low & high RE

CHEERS

FESTIV

PLEXOS

Technical Approach – Schematic Flowchart of Project Tasks

PSS®E

Develop 

prototype 

models of 

advanced 

PSH plants

Test 

prototype 

models

Test models 

on a real 

system

Quantify market 

revenues of PSH 

(market-based anal.)

Quantify economic 

value of PSH projects 

(cost-based analysis)

Analyze 

relevant 

market 

issues 

Publish 

vendor-neutral 

PSH and CH 

models

REGULATED MARKET

COMPETITIVE MARKET

DATADATA

DATA

DATA

DATA
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Organization of Project Team and Task Force Groups
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Advisory Working Group Members 

Michael Reed, DOE/EERE Zheng Zhou, MISO Jiri Koutnik, VRajesh Dham, DOE/EERE Matt Hunsaker, WECC Rick Miller, HDCharlton Clark, DOE/EERE Tuan Bui, CDWR Rick Jones, HDRob Hovsapian, DOE/EERE David Harpman, BOR Christophe NicRachna Handa, DOE/OE Kyle L. Jones, USACE Peter McLarenRahim Amerkhail, FERC Scott Flake, SMUD Landis KannbMichael Manwaring, NHA Greg Brownell, SMUD Klaus Engels, Douglas Divine, NHA Paul Jacobson, EPRI Kim Johnson, Mark Jones, BPA Alan Soneda, PG&E Steve Aubert, Elliot Mainzer, BPA Osamu Nagura, HM-Hydro Le Tang, ABBXiaobo Wang, CAISO Teruyuki Ishizuki, Toshiba Ali Nourai, DNDebbie Mursch, Alstom
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Analysis aimed to capture PSH dynamic responses and operational cacross different timescales, from a fraction of a second to days/weeks

Analysis Addressed Wide Range of Control Issues & Timeframes
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Advanced Technology Modeling

• Technology Modeling TFG has developed 

vendor-neutral dynamic models for advanced PSH technologies and described them in three reports:

 Review of existing CH and PSH models in use in 

the United States

 Dynamic simulation models for adjustable speed 

PSH

 Dynamic simulation models for ternary PSH units

• Draft models and reports were reviewed by the 

AWG members

• Reports have been cleared for unlimited 

distribution and are now publicly available on project website: www.dis.anl.gov/psh

Model Development
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Integration and Testing of Dynamic Models

• Dynamic models for adjustable speed PSH 

and ternary units were coded and integrated into the PSS®E model

• Testing of these models for both generating 

and pumping mode of operation was performed using PSS®E test cases and dynamic cases for WI

• Additional AGC studies have been 

performed for SMUD balancing authority

• Published a report on frequency regulation 

capabilities of advanced PSH technologies

Model Integration and Testing
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Production Cost and Revenue Simulations

• Project Team first developed a 

matrix of various PSH contributions and services provided to the power system

• A suite of computer models 

(PLEXOS, FESTIV, and CHEERS) was utilized to simulate system operation and analyze various control issues occurring at different timescales

• Production cost and revenue 

simulations were performed to analyze the operation of PSH and the value of their services and contributions to the power system
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PLEXOS Modeling

• Focus on western U.S. (several levels of 

g

eographical scope, including entire WI, 

CAISO/California, and individual balancing authority - SMUD)

• A “future year” (FY) representation of the 

WI system is largely based on WECC’s long-term projections for 2022

• Simulation Period:

– DA simulations (hourly time step) for entire year to determine maintenance schedule of thermal units and annual-level PSH 

economics

– DA-HA-RT sequential simulations (hourly and 5-minute time step) for typical weeks (third week in January, April, July, and October) to analyze PSH operation under conditions of variability and uncertainty of renewable resources
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PLEXOS Inputs were Based on TEPPC 2022 Common Case

• WECC’s TEPPC 2022 case 

served as foundation for building FY cases (certain case parameters and data varied depending on scenario assumptions)

• Both cost-based and marketbased approaches were used 

in analysis

• Two levels of variable energy 

resources were analyzed:

– Base RE scenario (RPS 

mandate)

– High RE scenario (High 

Wind from WWSIS-2)

39 load regions in WI 

8 spinning reserve shari20 flexibility & regulation 

sharing groups 
13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PLEXOS Modeling Representations of Simulated Areas

• Simulation cases: – Without PSH plants 

– With existing conventional (fixed-speed) PSH plants– With existing fixed-speed PSH and new adjustable spe
14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Representation of Renewable Resources within WI

• Wind and solar generation profiles from WWSIS-2 s• To provide for most realistic representation of system op

PLEXOS simulations utilized two sets of RE generation forecasted and actual

– Hourly wind/solar generation forecasts for each wind or so

in DA and 4-HA simulations

– 5-min “actual” wind/solar generation profiles for each wind

generator in real-time simulations

Scenario Number of Wind 

Plants

Number of Sol

Plants

Base 79 High Wind 151 
15 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Annual reduction in operating costs due 

Sample PLEXOS Modeling Results 

02468

10

No PSH With FS PS

Annual System 

Production Cost 

Savings (%)

Western Intercon

Base RE Scenario High 

02468

10

No PSH With FS PS

Annual System 

Production Cost 

Savings (%)

Californi

Base RE Scenario Hi

• Detailed PLEXOS 

modeling results are provided in a project report published by Energy Exemplar. 

• A summary of PLEXOS 

modeling results is also included in the Final Project Report
16 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

FESTIV Modeling

• NREL’s Flexible Energy Scheduling 

Tool for Integration of Variable Generation (FESTIV)

• Models DASCUC, RTSCUC, RTSCED, 

and AGC

• All models interconnected• Temporal Flexibility

– Can model in 4 second intervals

• Focus on short-term reliability• Metrics:

– Reliability: 

• AACEE (Absolute ACE in Energy, MWh)• Number of CPS2 violations and CPS2 

score

• σACE (standard deviation of ACE for the study period, MW)

– Costs: 

• Total production costs• LMPs • Unit Utilization• PSH Utilization
17 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Sample FESTIV Modeling Results

• FESTIV simulation results for a week in July show a 

significant ACE regulation by adjustable PSH in pum

Fixed-Speed PSHAdjustableSpeed PSH
18 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

CHEERS Modeling of Fixed- and Adjustable-Speed PSH Operations

• The 

Conventional Hydropower Energy and 

Environmental Systems (CHEERS) tool optimizes day-ahead scheduling and realtime operations 

CHEERS is a component of the Water Use 

Optimization Toolset (WUOT) that is funded by the DOE Water Power Program

Simultaneously optimizes power & 

environmental objectives

Maximize economic value of generation and 

ancillary services

Incorporates guidance for improving river 

habitat functionality
19 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Key Project Outputs

• Developed vendor-neutral dynamic models for advanced PS

technologies:

– Adjustable speed PSH employing doubly-fed induction generat– Ternary PSH units

• Models tested and integrated into PSS®E software

• Vendor-neutral models published and made available for int

into other software packages

• Performed production cost and revenue runs to evaluate the 

PSH plants in cost-based and market-based environments adifferent levels of variable resources in the system

• A total of 7 technical reports produced during the study (5 re

already available on the project website: www.dis.anl.gov/ps

• Published several journal and conference papers (IEEE, Hy

Hydro, NHA, etc.)

• Organized and conducted a panel session dedicated to dyn

models during the 2013 IEEE PES General Meeting 

• Conducted four Advisory Working Group Meetings 
20 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

WBS Number or Agreement Number: 25055 Work compleProject Number: 8.1.1 Active TaskAgreement Number: 25055 Milestones & Task / Event

Project Name: Modeling and Analysis of Value of Advanced PSH in the US

Q3 Milestone: Begin project, set up subcontracts, Advisory Working Group, etc.Q4 Milestone: Develop and test initial prototype dynamic PSH modelsQ1 Milestone: Integrate dynamic PSH models into PSSE software and perform testingQ2 Milestone: Perform preliminary production cost and revenue runs for WIQ3 Milestone: Analyze the economic value and market revenues of PSH plants in WIQ4 Milestone: Analysis of market issues and financial modeling of new PSH projectsQ1 Milestone: Complete the analysis and compile the results into a Final Project ReportQ2 Milestone: Review the draft Final Project Report with AWG and DOE

Current work and future research

Participate at the CPUC Technical Workshop on PSHConduct a workshop at the NHA 2014 Annual MeetingPrepare and submit conference paper for HydroVision 2014 (abstract was acepted)Conduct analysis on optimization of PSH operation in real time markets

Summary 

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

FY2012 FY2013 

Milestones & 

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Comments• Project initiation date: March 12, 2012• Project end date: March 31, 2014
21 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• There were no budget variances• Expended to date (Dec 31, 2013): 1,355K (92.5

Budget History

FY2012 FY2013 FY20

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

1,465K 0K 0K 0K 0K 
22 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators:Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) – Project LeadSiemens PTI, Inc.Energy Exemplar, LLC.MWH Americas, Inc.National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)Communications and Technology Transfer:• Conducted 4 Advisory Working Group meetings (one as 2-day wo• Organized and conducted a panel session at IEEE 2013 PES Gen• Presented at NHA 2013 Annual Conference, 2013 HydroVision, 2

etc.

• Published article about the project in Hydro Review magazine• Presented at three IEA Hydro Annex IX workshops • Presented at several DOE workshops• Project technical reports (7 total) publicly available at: www.dis.an• Vendor-neutral dynamic models of advanced PSH technologies p

made available for integration into other software tools
23 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: Q1: Complete the analysis of simulation runs performed durinproject and compile key findings into the final project report. Q2: Perform review of the draft report by the AWG and DOE. comments received and submit final report to DOE.Proposed future research: Analyze the value and econoof small-scale PSH plants, such as modular PSH and facilitieutilize existing quarries or mines as lower reservoirs, etc. Invwhich PSH concepts may be potentially promising options for development in current and future electricity markets. Analyze impacts of small and modular PSH facilities on transient stabreliability of system operation. 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Modeling and Analysis of Value of Pumped Storage Hydro in the United States

Erik ElaNRELerik.ela@nrel.gov 2/27/2014
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives

Problem Statement: There is little understanding of the opera

characteristics and value that conventional and advanced storage hydro resources provide to the electric power sys

Impact of Project: This project will inform the utility industry a

pumped storage provides greatest value, where market deinhibit further flexibility, and the models needed to appropinvestigate the value and power system characteristics of storage hydro.

This project aligns with the following DOE Program objective

priorities:• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or • Enable next-generation pumped storage technologies to fa

renewable integration
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

1. Review of wholesale electricity market 

designs and relationship to PSH

a) Survey to ISOs and other grid operators on 

advisory working group about PSH operation.

b) Detailed review of market design in the United 

States and how it relates to PSH.

c) Table representing 10 market design topics and 

suggestions that should be further explored.

57 58 59 60 

-140-130-120-110-100

-90-80

MW

2. Utilization of the advanced FESTIV model to understand th

impacts and improvements of PSH on both system reliabilisystem efficiency

a) Model enhancements to incorporate PSH operations at multiple time

(daily, hourly, five-minute, four-second operation).

b) Multiple 1-week simulations on Sacramento Municipal Utility District c) With and without high penetration of variable renewable generation.d) Impact of forecast accuracy, impact of fast frequency control.

Pumping output of Adjustable-speed P
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Role of PSH in market design and system operations – Determined list of 10 market design topics and suggestions t

be evaluated further.

– Full optimization in day-ahead and real-time markets, inter-te

opportunity costs, make-whole payments for lost revenue

– Ancillary service markets that value fast response when fast 

needed

Using the FESTIV tool to simulate operations of PSH

– Simulated multiple weeks with variable renewable generatio

variable renewables, with large forecast error, and with fast fregulation service.

– Evaluate efficiency (production costs), and reliability criteria 

control error – ACE, control performance standards – CPS2)

– Conventional PSH generally improves reliability and reduces – Adjustable-speed PSH improves reliability and reduces cost
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

Evaluate efficiency (production costs), and reliability criteria (arerror – ACE, control performance standards – CPS2)

(1) Base Case

(2) Conventional 

PSH

(3) A

Sp

Total Production Cost $5.394M $5.101M Number of CPS2 Violations 40 16 CPS2 Score 96.0% 98.4% Absolute ACE in Energy [AACEE] 3201 2736 σσACE [MW] 29.3 21.3 

1-week simulation of SMUD system, (1) as normal, (2) with 3 units convention(3) with 3 units adjustable-speed PSH

{ Reliability Metrics

Efficiency
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

WBS Number or Agreement Number 1.8.1.2 Work completedProject Number Active TaskAgreement Number 26509 Milestones & Deliverables (OTask / Event

Project Name: Modeling and Analysis of pumped storage hydro

Q3 Milestone: Develop project roles and structure with project teamQ4 Milestone: Using PSH models developed by project partners, integrate PSH representation in FESTIV

Q1 Milestone: Validate FESTIV model using test system data - draft a report on changes

Q2 Milestone: Complete first set of simulation runs using system dataQ2 Milestone: Complete chapter on market design topics and role of PSH in wholesale markets

Q3 Milestone: Complete analysis of results from FESTIV model, and a comparison of systems Q4 Milestone: Complete NREL inputs to final Pumped Storage Hydro Modeling and Analysis Project Report

Q1 (Oct-Dec 2012)

Q2 (Jan-Mar 2013)

Summary

Q3 (Apr-Jun 2012)

Q4 (Jul-Sep 2012)

FY2012 FY2013

Milestones & Deliverables (A

Comments• 1.5-year project: April 2012 – September 2013
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• Project received funding midway through FY12, 

mostly in FY13.

• Project has ended in FY13.

Budget History (Funding)

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE 

$230k n/a $196k n/a n/a n/a

Project Spending

Budget Actuals and Future Spend Plan

Funds spent by 

end of FY 2012

Funds spent by 

end of FY 2013

Spend Plan 

FY14 

$34k $192k $0k

Project Funding History
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: ArgonNational Laboratory (Project Lead), Siemens PTI, MGlobal, Energy Exemplar, Brendan Kirby (subcontrindustry advisory working group, SMUD project tea

Communications and Technology Transfer: • Paper and poster presentation: HydroVision (July • Presentation: IEEE PES General Meeting 2013 p

pumped storage modeling (July 2013)

• Paper and presentation: IEEE PES General Mee

(forthcoming July 2014)

• Advisory Working Group Presentations (April 201• Final report (2014)
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: Project closed out at the eFY13. However, real-time market analysis and tranmodeling continue as follow-on projects inspired by project.Proposed future research: • Further research on how PSH and advanced PS

used for integrating variable renewables. 

• How PSH can provide various forms of operating • Better optimization algorithms for ISO/RTO to ut
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov 

Water Power Peer Review 

Iowa Hill Pumped-Storage Project Scott Flake 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

 scott.flake@smud.org, 916 732 6741 

February 27, 2014 
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Purpose & Objectives 

Problem Statement: Increasing the use of pumped-storage 

technology in the U.S. to better integrate variable 

renewable generation such as wind and solar. 

Impact of Project: Aid SMUD in evaluating the need to for 

the Iowa Hill Pumped-storage 

Aligns with DOE Program objectives and priorities: 

• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to 

facilitate renewable integration 

• Advance new hydropower systems and/or components 

for demonstration or deployment 

 
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Geotechnical Investigation 

Objectives 

• Identify Geotechnical defects in subsurface that may 

results in delays and costly remedial measures 

• Determine depth of weathered zone, landslides, and 

toppled rock in project area 

• Develop detailed information through the powerhouse 

cavern, tunnels, and shafts on geological structures, 

contacts and shears as well as on minimum in-situ 

stresses 

• Evaluate the extent and impact of water bearing geologic 

structures 
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Geotechnical Investigation 

Technical Approach 

Four core drilling operations at Iowa Hill project site 

• Two horizontal bores from lower reservoir 

• Two vertical bores from on top of Iowa Hill 

Horizontal test drift from lower reservoir with additional 

bores into powerhouse cavern area 

Field and laboratory testing of core samples 
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Geotechnical Investigation 

Progress 
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Geotechnical Investigation 

Progress 
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Phyllite 

Approx. Collar El. 1964 

First 

Water Sheared 

Zone 

BH-2 BH-1 

Projected Geologic Profile 

(based on interpretive geology from Boreholes BH-1 and BH-3)

Interbedded MetaQuartzite & Phyllite 

Interbedded MetaQuartzite & Phyllite 

? BH-3 ? ? 

BH-4 

(2015) 

Iowa Hill PSD Hydraulic Profile

Geotechnical Investigation 

Progress 
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Value Stream Modeling Analysis 

Technical Approach 

• Regional Study using renewable resource data from West 

Wind and Solar Integration Study (WWSIS 2) 

• Studied Iowa Hill inside SMUD BA, along with CA & NWPP 

• Simulation with and without Iowa Hill to study impact on 

cost and performance. Recip Engine option also simulated 

• Examined study area with future RPS scenarios from base 

to very high penetration, including realistic modeling of 

solar and wind. 

• Used Plexos market simulation software to forecast value 

of flexible resources and storage in these scenarios 
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Value Stream Modeling Analysis 

Model Scenarios 

Renewable Scenario Renewable Penetration Levels 

SMUD BA, and CA NW and Rest of WI 

Base Base from WWSIS 2 Study (20% for CA and WI)

High-wind High-wind (33% mix from WWSIS2 Study) 

CA High-wind High-wind (33%) Base

CA High-mix High-wind (50%) Base

CA High-mix, WI high wind High-wind (50%) High-wind (33%) 

High Solar High-mix solar portion 

(30 %)

High-mix solar portion 

(33%)
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Value Stream Modeling Results 

Comparison IH to Recip. Engines 

Production Cost Savings

($ Million) 

Production Cost Savings

($/kw-year) 

IH

w AS 

trading

IH

wo AS 

trading

Recip

w AS 

trading

IH

w AS

trading 

IH

wo AS

trading

Recip

w AS

trading

TEPPC-Base 12 11 3 30 28 11

CA High-Wind & 

WI Base

12 11 2 30 28 7 

CA High-Mix & 

WI Base 

19 18 3 48 45 8 

WI High-Wind 43 47 10 108 118 36

CA High-Mix & 

WI High-Wind 

52 53 17 130 133 48
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Value Stream Modeling Results 

• Adjustable-speed turbines provide more benefits 

than fixed-speed turbines (65% more saving in High-Wind) 

• Reduction in variable generation curtailment 

(valued up to $1.5M/year in SMUD BA and $35M/year in study area) 

• Reduce reserve shortfall and increasing reliability 

• Reduce starts and ramping of thermal units 

• Improve UARP operating efficiency 

• Avoidance of new generation capacity 

• Significantly greater operational savings in dry water 

years 
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Iowa Hill Pumped-storage Project 

Overall Schedule 

Summary Legend 

Iowa Hill Pumped-Storage Project 

 

 Work Completed

DE-EE0005414 Active Task

 ◊ Milestone

 FY 2012 FY2013 FY2014 

 

Q1 (Oct-Dec)Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep) 

Q1 (Oct-Dec)Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep) 

Q1 (Oct-Dec)Q2 (Jan-Mar) 

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep) 

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa Hill Pumped-Storage Project 

Milestones

Q1 FY2014: Select Geotechnical Drilling Contractor ◊ 

Q2 FY2014: Phase 1 Geotech: Initial 3 bore holes ◊ 

Q4 FY2013: Develop Plexos Model ◊ 

Q1FY2014: Value stream model runs ◊ 

Q3 FY2014: Value stream modeling tech. report ◊ 

Current and Future Work

Phase 2 Geotech (Test Drift and Coring) 
13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Project Budget 

• Approximately 5% of budget has been used to date 

• Significant increase in budget expenditures will occur in 

FY2014 and FY2015, as the geotechnical investigation 

core drilling and tunnel takes place 

Budget History 

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share

$0 $0 $211,614 $352,586 $1,465,318 est. $2,340,437 est. 
14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Research Integration & Collaboration 

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: 

• Geotechnical Investigation Contractors 

 Jacobs Associates, Crux Subsurface, Foxfire 

• Value Stream Modeling Contractors 

 EPRI, Energy Exemplar 

Communications and Technology Transfer: 

• DOE Technical Reports 

• Workshops -- CPUC (January 2014) 

• Industry Conferences – EUCI (January 2014), NHA, 

NWHA, HydroVision 

• IEEE or trade journal publications 
15 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office eere.energy.gov 

Next Steps and Future Research 

FY14/Current research: 

• Completion of Value Stream Modeling Report (Q2 FY2014) 

• Second Phase of Geotech Investigations (FY2015) 

• Final geotechnical report (Q3 FY2015) 

Proposed future research: 

• Further evaluation of variable-speed turbines 

• Model thermal plant retirements in 50% RPS cases 

• Three-stage simulation (add HA and RT) 

• Evaluate Hydro Condition (dry and/or wet year) 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

8.1.2 Optimization of Pumped Storage Hydro Operation in Real Time Markets

Vladimir Kor

Argonne National Lab

koritarov@anl.gov630-252-6711February 27, 2014

PSH Real Time Market Analysis
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose & Objectives

Problem Statement: In most electricity markets in the U.S

operation of PSH plants is not fully optimized and their fleoperational characteristics are not fully utilized. Utilizing thof PSH operation is especially important with larger penetvariable RE resources. 

This project aligns with the following DOE Program obje

and priorities:

• Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/o

operations

• Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to f

renewable integration 

Project Impact: Project will provide information to market op

and PSH plant owners on potential cost savings and increefficiency that can be achieved with better optimization of operations. 
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PSH Provide Flexibility to Power System Operation

• PSH plants typically have a large capacity that c

dispatched on a short notice and quickly ramped down

• They can also quickly change their mode of ope

from generating to pumping and vice versa, pracdoubling the dispatchable capacity they provide system. 

• In most markets, PSH plants have to submit sep

bids for generation and pumping, which may resacceptance of bids in some hours and not in oth

• Also, the flexible operational characteristics of P

plants are not fully utilized (e.g., mode changes the hour are typically not allowed).
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PSH Capabilities Are Not Fully Utilized in Current Electricity Markets

• PSH plants typically bid their generation and pu

loads into day-ahead (DA) market.

• Bids are normally based on projections of marke• Except for PJM, the operation of PSH plants is t

not optimized over the 24 hour DA period

• In RT markets, electricity prices and many other 

variables may change from their projected DA v

• While PSH plants can make some adjustments 

schedule in RT, they are typically not allowed to their mode of operation within the hour (e.g., frogeneration to pumping) 
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Real-Time Prices can be Very Different from Projected DA Values

• A large-scale PSH, if available in the system, cou

an excellent resource to stabilize the prices in rea

Predicted hourly price: 31.6 cents
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

PSH Can Switch Its Mode of Operation within Minutes

Mode change times for various PSH technologies
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Modeling of PSH in Existing Electricity Markets Is Sub-Optimal

• MISO example for Ludington PSH (1,872 MW):

Source: Darrell Newcomer (Consumers Energy), Ludington Pumped Storage Overview, presented at 2011 Ene

Disconnect between generation and pumping
8 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

• Compare two scenarios:

1. Current market operation of PSH plants in DA and RT 2. Optimal PSH operation in DA and RT markets

• Scenario 2 will optimize the PSH operation in DA 

and then re-optimize its operation again during tmarket

• Optimizations will be performed from the system 

operator’s point of view, to minimize total system operating costs

• Production cost model (CHEERS) with different 

steps will be utilized (4-stage DA-HA-15min-RT simulation)

• Differences in overall system production cost wil

information on potential cost savings that could b

achieved with the optimized operation of PSH pl
9 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

4-stage CHEERS sequential simulation approach fro

Day-ahead (DA) 

Scheduling

Hour-ahead (HA) 

Scheduling

15-minute 

Scheduling

5-minute 

RT Dispatch

DA Projected 

Load/Wind/Solar 

Updated 

Load/Wind/Solar 

Updated 

Load/Wind/Solar 

“Actual” 

Load/Wind/Solar 

Operating criteria & 

reserves requiremen

Updated criteria & 

reserves requiremen

Updated criteria & 

reserves requiremen

Updated criteria & 

reserves requiremen

2424-Hour UC -Hour UC 

for LongStarts

Hourly UC 

for QuickStarts

1515-min UC -min UC 

for QuickStarts
10 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Accomplishments and Progress

• New project: Activities started in November 2013 

joint ANL-NREL kickoff meeting 

• Argonne’s modeling team reviewed potential uti

systems that could be used as test bed for the a

• CSU (Colorado Springs Utilities) was selected a

case for CHEERS simulations

• CSU has a diverse plant mix and also plans on 

PSH plant in the future

• Data for CSU modeling have been collected• In process of developing a CHEERS modeling c

CSU
11 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan & Schedule

WBS Number or Agreement Number: 26508 Work completedProject Number: 8.1.2 Active TaskAgreement Number: 26508 Milestones & DeTask / Event

Project Name: PSH Real Time Market Analysis

Q1 Milestone: Decide on the test system and assemble data for analysisQ2 Milestone: Set up the modeling case and perform baseline simulationsQ3 Milestone: Review baseline modeling results and perform additional casesQ4 Milestone: Document results and submit for publication in peer-reviewed journal

Current work and future research

Submit journal article for publicationUpdate model with new capabilities

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

FY2012 FY2013 

Milestones & De

Q3 (Apr-Jun)

Q4 (Jul-Sep)

Q1 (Octt-Dec)

Summary Le

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Comments:• Project start date: October 31, 2013• Project end date: September 30, 2014
12 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• No budget variances• Expended up to date (Dec 31, 2013): $43.8K (18

Budget History

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share DOE C

$0K $0K $0K $0K $250K 
13 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration & Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: • Project partner: NREL (Erik Ela, Ibrahim Krad, et• Planned collaborators: CSU, Arizona State Unive

Wichita State University

Communications and Technology Transfer:• Dissemination of analytical results and computer 

through:

• IEEE• PSERC• NHA and other industry organizations• Journal articles and conference papers
14 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Next Steps and Future Research

FY14/Current research: Current project activities and key milestones:• Q2 Milestone: Set up CHEERS modeling case and perform 

simulations (March 31, 2014)

• Q3 Milestone: Review baseline modeling results and perfo

additional cases (June 30, 2014)

• Q4 Milestone: Document results and submit for publication 

reviewed journal (September 30, 2014)

Proposed future research: Working with market operators and PSH plant owners on impthe PSH optimization approach developed during the study fooperations. 
1 | Program Name or Ancillary Text 

Water Power Peer Review

Real-Time Market Analysis Erik Ela NREL

Erik.ela@nrel.gov February 27, 201
2 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Purpose and Objectives

Problem statement: In U.S. wholesale electricity marketstypically up to the Pumped Storage Hydro (PSH) operator, nomarket operator, to determine the operation mode of the planPSH plant owners do not have the information required to mamost efficient decisions to reduce costs and maintain reliabilimarket operator to perform the optimization, however, is a chmodeling task.Impact of project: By fully optimizing PSH in both day-ahereal-time markets, we would be utilizing PSH to its full potentcreating significant reliability and efficiency benefits. The benalso be seen by increased revenues of the PSH plant ownersThis project aligns with the following DOE Program objectives and priorities:•Optimize existing hydropower technology, flexibility, and/or operatio•Enable next generation pumped storage technologies to facilitate rintegration.
3 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

• These topics appeared as critical issues in mark

topics for PSH from 2012-2013 project: (1) full optimization in day-ahead markets and (2) full optimization in real-time markets.

• Evaluate the difference over using different time • Develop proxy algorithms in real-time markets u

PSH output compared to net load with and withou

primal and dual values from the dayahead market.

• Incorporate the 

uncertainty in load and variable generation into proxy algorithms.

PSH Output with Perfect Knowledge

PSH Output Without Perfect Knowledge
4 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Technical Approach

• Compare new proxy algorithms with base case – PSH based on historical PSH operation, pump at night, 

during peak

– Real-time mode fixed from day-ahead solution regardles

changing conditions

• Objective: Improve 

operation of PSH with limited impact on computation time of real-time market

• Objective: Ability to fully 

model PSH at multiple timescales with variable and uncertain power systems.

PSH operation with different models at different time hourly, fifteen minute real-time, five-minute dispatch, 

----Day-ahead unit commitme----Real-time unit commitme----Real-time economic dispa----Actual output (4 second)
5 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Plan and Schedule

Summary

WBS Number or Agreement Number Work completedProject Number Active TaskAgreement Number Milestones & Deliverables (OrTask / Event

Project Name: Real-time Market Analysis

Q1 Milestone: Project Team will assemble the data and develop scenarios including 

defining the power system to be modeled.

Q2 Milestone: Project Team will develop necessary models and/or update the 

analytical tools used for real-time optimization

Q3 Milestone: Project team will implement the modeling changes needed to the 

appropriate power system model and run initial results

Q4 Milestone: Prepare a draft technical paper summarizing results of real-tiem 

market analysis

F

Q1 (Octt-Dec 2014)

Q2 (Jan-Mar)

Milestones & Deliverables (Ac

Q1 (Octt-Dec 2013)

Legend

Q2 (Jan-Mar 2014)

Q3 (Apr-Jun 2014)

Q4 (Jul-Sep 2014)

FY2014

Comments• Original plan for NREL to perform modeling work. However, increased 

to NREL subcontracting Power Systems Engineering Center (PSERC)

• Change to subcontract will delay project (1 quarter). Subcontract proce

underway.
6 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Project Budget

• $150k was received at the end of FY13; no spen

until FY14

• Plan to preserve 25% carry over per DOE guidan• FY14 project costs as of December 31st: $9k

Budget History

FY2013 FY2014

DOE Cost-share DOE Cost-share

$150k n/a $150k n/a

Budget Actuals and Future Spend Plan

Funds spent by end of FY 

2013 Spend Plan FY14 

$0K $115k

Project SpendingProject Funding History
7 | Wind and Water Power Technologies Office 

Research Integration and Collaboration

Partners, Subcontractors, and Collaborators: NREL with PSERC, in particular Arizona State University Wichita State University. NREL will leverage the PSIndustry Advisory community which contains numerISO/RTO members. Collaborate closely with ANL owork.

Communications and Technology Transfer: Continucollaboration with IEEE PES community and ISO ancommunities. At least one journal paper planned at completion of project.