water power peer review n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Water Power Peer Review PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Water Power Peer Review

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 15

Water Power Peer Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated on

Water Power Peer Review. Brennan T. Smith. Oak Ridge National Laboratory smithbt@ornl.gov November 3, 2011. Hydropower Advancement Project CH Purpose, Objectives, & Integration. HAP Vision Accelerated Improvement of U.S. Hydropower Asset Performance and Value

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Water Power Peer Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
water power peer review

Water Power Peer Review

Brennan T. Smith

Oak Ridge National Laboratory


November 3, 2011

Hydropower Advancement Project


purpose objectives integration
Purpose, Objectives, & Integration
  • HAP Vision
    • Accelerated Improvement of U.S. Hydropower Asset Performance and Value
  • Prioritized DOE Objectives for the HAP
    • Improved Estimate of Increased Energy Availability from US Hydropower Assets
    • Identification of barriers to increased energy availability
    • Identification of DOE Hydropower Technology Research Priorities for Improved Asset Performance and Value
    • Development and Dissemination of Best Practices, Assessment, and Analysis Tools to Maximize US Hydropower Asset Performance and Value
technical approach
Technical Approach
  • High-Level Requirements for the HAP
    • Metrics and Targetsfor Hydropower Asset Condition and Performance
    • Standardized Assessment Methodology and Tools used by experienced hydropower professionals
    • Analyses and Trending of sampled facility results to characterize the state of the U.S. hydropower inventory
    • Stakeholder Acceptance of Targets, Metrics, and Methods
  • Key Concepts
    • Asset owners/operators are primary sources of quantitative and qualitative information used in the assessments.
    • Anonymous Aggregated Reporting enables individual facilities to compare their results to the collection of assessed facilities
    • No ranking of hydropower facilities!
technical approach roles
Technical Approach – Roles

Best Practices Catalog Drafts (Components)

Assessment Manual Draft

Component Condition Rating Workbooks

Demonstration Assessments (Condition)

Best Practices Catalog Drafts (Special)

Performance Assessment Process Draft

Plant UC/Load Allocation Calculator

Demonstration Assessments (Performance)

Request for Information to Hydropower Industry & Stakeholders

Solicitation/Awards for Hydropower Facility Assessments

Contract & Deliverable Management for Awardees

technical approach products
Technical Approach - Products

. . . Phase II will produce reports that provide insight into the state of existing U.S. hydropower assets

Phase I of the HAP will produce online documentation and tools to support the assessment process . . .

Public Report of more than 50 Nationwide Assessments

  • Project configuration and assessment summaries
  • Overall and component-level trends in condition across many projects
  • Trends in water-use efficiency, constraints across many projects
  • Correlations between efficiency, condition, and production
  • Summary of opportunities for and barriers to upgrade/improvement

Hydropower Technology Taxonomy

Best Practices Catalog



Non-Public Business-Sensitive Assessment Report Archive

  • Controlled by Non-Disclosure Agreements
  • Individual Project Performance and Condition Ratings
  • Project and Component Condition Database
  • Project Performance Database
  • Flow and Generation Data

Assessment Manual

  • Process Guidance
  • Component Rating Workbooks
  • Performance Calculator

Phase I Demonstration Assessment Reports

  • Center Hill
  • Rhodhiss
  • Flaming Gorge
technical approach1
Technical Approach

Hydropower Technology Taxonomy

  • Provides physical and functional hierarchy for Best Practices, Ratings, and Component Condition Database
  • Standardization of scoring is key to meaningful analyses and trending
  • Provides consistent nomenclature for facility characterization, reporting and team/assessor communication
  • Color-coded to indicate HAP coverage and Corps/Reclamation HydroAMP alignment
technical approach2
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
    • State-of-the-art for components
    • Brief summary of component material and manufacturing constraints
    • Typical O&M requirements
    • References to testing protocols
  • Components covered
    • Turbines (Francis, Propeller, Pelton)
    • Generators
    • Conveyances
    • Main Transformers
    • Trash Racks
    • 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 Workbooks

  • Excel Workbook files
    • User (assessor) fields to enter component scoring
    • Predefined rating scales for ease of use and consistency among different assessors
    • Automated roll-up with weighting factors from partscomponentsunitsfacility aggregate scores
    • Help files and field provide additional guidance
  • Components covered
    • Turbines (Francis, Propeller, Pelton)
    • Generators
    • Conveyances
    • Main Transformers
    • Trash Racks
    • Instrumentation and controls (condition monitoring and Automation)
  • Rating structure
    • Component specific weighting factors for parts (e.g. wicket gates, head cover, shaft, …)
    • Weighted scores for Age, Physical Condition, Technology Level, Operating Impact, and Maintenance Demands
technical approach3
Technical Approach

HAP Performance Levels & Assessment

Potential Performance Level (PPL)

Turbine Component Example from Plant X Unit Y

Installed Performance Level (IPL)

Computationally engineered auto-aerating turbine

85% < h0 < 92%

1940’s Francis Technology

Current Performance Level (CPL)

80% < h0 < 88%


Wear & Tear

WQ Mitigation

Retrofit with

hub baffle aeration

75% < h0 < 85%

What about performance in terms of reliability?

technical approach4
Technical Approach

Performance Assessment

Plant Performance Calculator

Used to establish long-term (M>>8760) production potential baseline under assumption of flexible unit commitment, perfect dispatch, and scenarios of (installed, current, potential) unit efficiencies

Currently Excel-based solver implementation, but will leverage Optimization Toolbox solver in the future.

plan schedule budget
Plan, Schedule, & Budget


  • Initiation date: March 2010
  • Planned completion dates:
    • Phase I – Process Development – Dec 2011
    • Phase II – Nationwide Assessments – Dec 2012
    • Phase III – Upgrade Feasibility Studies – TBD, contingent on funding
  • Milestones:
    • Draft BPC and Assessment Manual – Sep 2011 (delayed, but near complete)
    • Demo Assessments at Center Hill and Rhodhiss - Field Reports Complete Sep 2011
    • Flaming Gorge Demo Assessment delayed pending Reclamation approvals
    • Request for Info to Industry with BPC & Manual Publication – November 2011
    • Assessment Team solicitation issued – February 2012
    • Assessment Awards – April 2012
    • Training Workshop – May 2012
    • Assessments Completed – Sep 2012
    • Analysis and Reporting – Dec 2012
plan schedule budget1
Plan, Schedule, & Budget

Phase I Phase I Phase II

FY10-11 FY12 FY12

Expenditures Estimate Estimate

ORNL $820K $125K $960K

--Mesa $450K $500K* $220K

--HPPi $125K $50K $130K

--Sentech $404K $50K $50K

Assessment Awards  $2,500K

TOTALS $1,799K $725K $3,860K

TOTAL PHASE I & II FY10-FY12 $6,384K

*includes Flaming Gorge Demo Estimate

**USACE-Nashville and Duke Energy provided in-kind support to host Center Hill and Rhodhiss demos, respectively, and provided historical operations data.

accomplishments and results
Accomplishments and Results

Center Hill Assessment Demonstration

  • Turbine Runners are candidates for rehabilitation or replacement. A more modern hydraulic design and improved methods of delivering aeration through the runner will provide significant efficiency improvements.
  • Wicket Gates, Stay Vanes, Spiral Case may yield efficiency improvements via surface rehabilitation and re-profiling.
  • Draft Tube may yield efficiency improvements from surfacing, shaping, and slot fillers.
  • Aging generator may see efficiency gain via air cooler and ventilation upgrades.
  • Improved shaft vibration sensing could improve bearing performance, reliability
  • 60 years of service through a personnel efforts to maintain the plant. 1950’s technology in general could be improved for better efficiency and reliability.
  • Awaiting hourly data from Corps for Performance Analysis
  • Condition Rating in Progress with updated HAP Tables
accomplishments and results1
Accomplishments and Results

Rhodhiss Assessment Demonstration

  • Improved hydraulic design and aeration through the turbine runner may provide significant efficiency improvements.
  • 86 year-old cast iron runners (Units 1 and 3) are expected to be at the end of their service life, and are candidates for replacement.
  • Stay vanes may see efficiency improvement via surface rehabilitation and re-profiling.
  • Some efficiency improvements from draft tube modifications, but slot fillers are not applicable (no gates)
  • 1920’s technology (e.g. cast iron runners) still in use--opportunities at Rhodhiss to use updated technology to not only improve unit efficiency and performance but also reliability.
  • Performance Analysis in progress
  • Condition Rating in Progress with updated HAP Tables
challenges to date
Challenges to Date
  • Industry Priorities:
    • Asset managers are focused on reliability. Separating efficiency from reliability is not credible. What is appropriate DOE role?
    • Industry focuses on licensing challenges—upgrades are always controlled by licensing risk management more than efficiency cost-benefit
    • Capital allocation—incremental hydropower does not compete well with large chunks of baseload capacity expansion or quick-payback flexible gas-fired generation.
  • Lessons learned
    • HAP will need to address absence of monitoring data and estimate value of monitoring
    • Asset management and operations staff are aware of conditions and upgrade opportunities—HAP focus should allow for interview/cataloging as much as direct inspection.
    • Hydropower operations data for performance assessment may have longer lead time than anticipated
next steps
Next Steps

FY12 Next Steps

  • RFI issue Nov 2011 to gather feedback on proposed assessment—consider alternative procurement methods
  • Technical Expert Review of BPC and Manuals
    • Enhanced collaboration of Corps and Reclamation to leverage HydroAMP and HMI experience for non-federal assets
  • Resolve process for performance assessment on many assets—individual assessments or core team assessments?

Additional Opportunities

  • Apply performance and condition assessment to FY10 ARRA-funded upgrade projects
  • Apply performance and condition assessment to multiple projects in Optimization Toolset Demos
  • Interface with industry initiatives for operational excellence
  • Long-term program for collaborative benchmarking based on HAP database