Climate Challenge - Climate Challenge Options Workbook

Windpower

Electricity generated by wind turbines produces zero emissions. Installed system and energy costs have decreased significantly and become competitive with other sources in the past decade for high-quality wind regimes. A new wind project can be installed in 12 months, and the modularity of wind turbines allows utilities to rapidly match changing load projections. Utility deployment of advanced wind generating systems is planned to be facilitated through tax credits, the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, the DOE/EPRI Turbine Verification Program, and the Market Mobilization Collaborative for Wind Energy. Electric utility installations of wind turbines or power purchases from independent power projects have occurred or been announced in California, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, the Midwest, New York, and New England.

DOE, EEI, APPA, EPRI, NRECA, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and other stakeholders are in the process of forming a market mobilization collaborative to accelerate the deployment of wind energy where appropriate. DOE funding may be available to assist utilities contemplating installing wind capacity. Interested utilities should contact collaborative members for information or assistance. In addition, a DOE/Utility Resource Assessment program is being initiated to assist utilities in assessing the wind resource in their service territory.

The EPRI/DOE Utility Wind Interest Group (UWIG) is a utility organization that can help other utilities evaluate the potential of wind generation. One UWIG activity is the publication of a series of brochures with information on: (1) wind energy system technology evolution; (2) costs; (3) grid integration; (4) environmental issues; (5) wind resources; and (6) other topics of interest to utilities. Another UWIG activity is a utility/DOE program for a multi-year resource monitoring program.

Go to Windpower start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

Utility load centers may not be close to good wind resources, and new transmission may be required.
Wind turbines may present some environmental concerns, i.e., noise and aesthetics.
Avian impacts are a concern in some regions of the country.
Wind generation is intermittent and does not meet requirements for dispatchability without backup generation such as gas turbines or some form of energy storage. This also has the effect of increasing windpower costs per kWh in comparison with higher capacity factor sources of generation.
Lack of utility experience with windpower technologies and knowledge of windpower resources within a utility's service territory.
Regional and site-specific issues may need to be addressed when obtaining windpower licenses.

Go to Windpower start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

Participate in the Wind Collaborative through NREL competitive solicitation for cost-shared wind projects to obtain wind capacity.
Participate in the DOE/EPRI Turbine Verification Program to acquire the latest technology wind equipment while developing quantified cost/performance data for new turbines.
Participate in the DOE/Utility Resource Assessment Program to identify good wind resources within a service territory.
Use existing financial and tax incentives where applicable. The Energy Policy Act contains a $0.015/kWh production tax credit for investor-owned electric utilities and a $0.015/kWh production incentive for municipal and cooperative utilities.
Support research directed at next generation wind turbines.

Go to Windpower start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

DOE, Wind, Hydro, Ocean Technology Division, Ron Loose, Director, (202) 586-5348.
NREL, Wind Division, Robert Thresher, Director, (303) 231-7199.
American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Randall Swisher, Executive Director, (202) 383-2500.
EEI, EPRI, APPA, NRECA, AWEA, DOE, and other stakeholders are supporting a market mobilization collaborative that will undertake a range of cost-shared activities with utilities in wind energy deployment.

Case Studies:

The Bonneville Power Administration, through its "Regional Supply Expansion Program," has signed a power purchase agreement with a group of municipal utilities for a 25 MW wind farm. R. Lynette and FloWind, in conjunction with Kaiser Aerospace, manufacture the 275 kW AWT-26 turbine selected for the project.
Green Mountain Power and Central and Southwest Services will purchase 6 MW each of advanced turbines through the DOE/EPRI Turbine Verification Program.
New England Electric System project (part of its "Green RFP" solicitation) at Boundary Mountains in Maine, with U. S. Windpower. This is the largest windpower project east of the Mississippi River.
Contracts and letters of intent with Kenetech/Windpower from utilities such as PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, Puget Power, Northern States Power, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, TransAlta Power Co., and Lower Colorado River Authority for windplants total nearly 500 MW.
In 1992, the city of Marshall, Minnesota initiated a municipal wind project that supplies one million kWh annually to Marshall Municipal Utilities. The project, under contract with Minnesota Windpower, Inc., consists of five 120-kW Windworld turbines.
The Lower Colorado River Authority is developing a 150-turbine, 50-MW wind power project in west Texas. The plant will be expanded to 750 turbines and 250 MW by 2002. The turbines are expected to produce electricity for about 15,000 homes at a cost of less than five cents per kWh.
The Waverly Municipal Electric Utility, Waverly, Iowa, and the University of Northern Iowa have formed a partnership to create the Midwest Wind Energy Center. The Center will focus on independent evaluation of wind energy technologies, demonstration of wind energy technology, and dissemination of information about wind machines and wind energy.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District is developing a 50-MW wind farm. The project, located in Solano County, CA, will consist of 167 wind machines.
Central and South West Corporation (CSW) is building a 6 MW demonstration wind farm in west Texas, at least 2 MW of which will be operational by the summer of 1995. CSW will receive $2 million toward the construction of the wind farm from the DOE/EPRI wind turbine verification program.
Texas Utilities (TU) installed three Carter CWT Model 300 wind turbines totaling 900 kW at TU's renewable research and demonstration center near the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in late 1993.

Go to Windpower start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies

Geothermal

Geothermal energy refers to use of the heat energy stored within the earth's crust. It offers several competitive advantages in localities where the resource is available. Geothermal electric power plants can be tailored to individual supply needs. Current geothermal power generation technologies enable economic use of many moderate temperature (<150 C) geothermal resources, which will be the predominant source for near-term geothermal development in the U.S. Geothermal resources can also furnish inexpensive direct heat to consumers. In addition, geothermal energy is relatively benign to the environment as technologies to abate problematic emissions are well developed. In the U.S., there are currently over 2,100 MW of geothermal generating capacity at 45 baseload power plants operating at high availability factors in four western states.

Go to Geothermal start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

Regional availability, limited primarily to the West, and uneven distribution of suitable geothermal sites.
High initial capital and resource development costs. The cost per kWh of geothermal power is competitive with coal and nuclear power, but not with natural gas combined cycle generation at today's low natural gas prices.
Geothermal resources may be susceptible to pressure and/or temperature degradation if production from the reservoir is not carefully managed. Experience at The Geysers in California, where there are stranded generating assets, demonstrates the criticality of reservoir management.
Gases such as H2S may be emitted from geothermal wells unless they are collected and reinjected.
Lack of utility experience with geothermal energy technologies inhibits adoption.
Corrosivity/erosiveness of water/steam at some sites requires special materials and construction techniques.

Go to Geothermal start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

Cost-shared government and industry exploration to locate promising new geothermal sites by applying scientifically advanced methods to the search.
Reducing geothermal drilling expenses via cost-shared R&D on both evolutionary and revolutionary drilling technology.
Reservoir technology field experiments and demonstrations, cost-shared with industry. Current initiatives include the DOE-funded drilling of reservoir confirmation wells in coordination with industry partners selected competitively to bring more geothermal resources on line.
Pilot and demonstration power plant activities, planned and executed between geothermal resource developers and DOE.
Directional drilling systems which reduce the quantity of raw land needed for drill pads and hot water piping.
Use of pro-rationing or field unitization practices to avoid over-production of the resource. This would assist geothermal producers in consummating power sales agreements.

Go to Geothermal start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

To help commercialize new geothermal technology, DOE has instituted GT 4000, a market mobilization initiative with the goal of having 4,000 MW of geothermal capacity on line by the year 2000, and 11,000 MW by 2010. DOE also has undertaken GEOHEAT 1000, a program with the goal of displacing 1,000 MW of generating capacity with direct applications of low-grade geothermal energy, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. A collaborative group of geothermal energy stakeholders has been formed to focus on market mobilization aspects of geothermal energy development in response to the President's Climate Change initiative.
DOE, EPRI, EEI, APPA, National Association of State Energy Offices (NASEO), NARUC, NREL and other national laboratories, universities, utilities, and equipment manufacturers.

DOE contact: Dr. John E. Mock, Director, Geothermal Division
(202) 586-5340, (202) 586-5124 (fax).

Geothermal Energy Association contact: Dr. Phillip Michael Wright, Co-Chair
(801) 584-4439, (801) 584-4453 (fax).

Case Studies:

Pacific Gas & Electric generation projects at The Geysers.
Imperial Valley and Coso geothermal projects in California.
DOE/Exergy Project on a Geothermal Kalina Cycle in Nevada.
Mammoth, California closed loop binary cycle geothermal plant.
In 1993, the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) celebrated ten years of reliable geothermal generation. NCPA's Geothermal Plants 1 and 2 provide 221 MW net power to municipal utility members. The plants have established a decade-long record of availability approaching 94 percent.
In 1991, the Imperial Irrigation District in California signed a contract with Magma Power Company to purchase 18 MW of geothermal energy.

Go to Geothermal start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies

Biomass

Biomass combustion currently accounts for slightly over 3 percent of the total energy consumption in the U.S. Biomass electric generating capacity has grown from 200 MW in the early 1980s to 1,500 MW today, with an additional 4,500 MW of equivalent thermal capacity and can compete as a baseload option in geographically favorable locations. As a result, it could be the largest near-term renewable energy contributor to net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by offsetting CO2 from new fossil generation. Biomass fuel resource development also sequesters CO2. Over 50 million acres of land are available to grow biomass.

The current method of using biomass for power generation is in biomass-fired boilers and Rankine steam turbines. However, R&D is currently being undertaken in high-pressure supercritical steam cycles and in the conversion of biomass to a low or medium Btu gas that can be fired in combustion turbine cycles, resulting in efficiencies one-and-a-half times that of a simple steam turbine. In addition, co-firing at suitable existing boiler plants with biomass feedstocks can displace fossil fuel usage, making it an attractive near-term option. Research is also progressing to develop sustainable and economically attractive biomass feedstock supply systems.

Commercialization of technologies using various forms of biomass will assist in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Testing and demonstration of both dedicated biomass supply systems and biomass conversion technologies will be supported by DOE to provide the electric industry with appropriate performance data. This testing will also provide utilities with demonstrated experience with the technologies.

Go to Biomass start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

There are no dedicated biomass fuel resources developed and ready for use on the scale that is required for power generation.
Land suitable for biomass development is under competition for other uses, such as wildlife habitat or crop production.
Public groups have opposed harvesting existing forests for fuel.
Current biomass generation is small scale (largest facility is about 50 MW), which makes competition with 500 MW coal plants difficult due to economies of scale.
Biomass production rates required to produce biomass fuel at a competitive price have not been demonstrated.
Utilities have limited experience with biomass technologies.
Cost per kWh is often higher than with competing technologies, due to low efficiencies of existing biomass technologies and high fuel costs.
EPAct production tax credit in-service requirement by the year 2000 and closed-loop requirements limit market impact because of the long lead time needed to permit and construct commercial biomass generation.

Go to Biomass start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

Participate in DOE-supported biomass generation demonstrations of increased efficiency or size. Larger, more efficient technologies such as whole-tree energy or combined-cycle gasification units need to be demonstrated and refined.
Develop commercial-scale energy crop demonstrations and undertake environmental monitoring/testing to document environmental performance of dedicated biomass feedstock supply systems.
Make full use of DOE Design Assistance Offices and the Regional Biomass Energy Programs supported by DOE: Northeast; Great Lakes; Southwest; and Western.
Develop repowering opportunities leading to near-term co-firing of coal with biomass fuels in a utility environment by cooperating with local biomass fuel suppliers.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

Technical correction to EPAct to allow non-dedicated biomass fuel usage during transition to a dedicated biomass feedstock supply system.
Legislative appropriations for federal cost share for commercial-scale demonstration projects.
Include provisions in the 1995 Farm Bill which renew or extend existing agricultural incentives for energy crop development.
Provide adequate funding under [[section]] 1212 of EPAct, which provides payment of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, adjusted for inflation, to owners and operators for electricity generated by a qualified renewable energy facility as defined under the Act.

Go to Biomass start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

DOE, EPRI, USDA, NREL Rich Bain, (303) 231-7346, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, other DOE National Laboratories, independent power producers, universities, utilities (through EPRI and the utility Biomass Energy Commercialization Association), and equipment manufacturers. NBIA - Scott Sklar, (202) 383-2600.

Case Studies:

Burlington Electric Department, Green Mountain Power, Central Vermont Public Service, Vermont Public Power Supply Agency:
- McNeil Station, wood-fired 50 MW
- Biomass gasification demonstration project.
King Plant, Minnesota (Northern States Power).
Tennessee Valley Authority co-firing study.
Minnesota Power/Wisconsin Power & Light whole-tree energy study.
Biomass Gasifier Facility, Hawaii.
Hot-Gas Cleanup System studies at Westinghouse and IGT.
Georgia Power co-firing of wood wastes at existing coal-fired stations.
Washington Water Power's Kettle Falls plant, which relies on waste tree products.
Tacoma City Light's biomass retrofit.
Mesquite Lake Resource Recovery Project in El Centro California burns up to 40 tons of cattle manure per hour.
Northern States Power (NSP) has signed a letter of agreement to begin a study with EPRI and NREL regarding the feasibility of alfalfa as an energy source. The study will provide the information project partners need to make a longer-term decision about generating electricity from alfalfa. Other participants in the study include the University of Minnesota (with participation of other federal and state government units), the Institute of Gas Technology, Tampella Power Corp., and Westinghouse Electric Corp.
A biomass scale-up project, involving 1,000 acres of short rotation woody crops, was initiated in 1994. The purpose of the project is to demonstrate and evaluate production economics and environmental impacts associated with large-scale wood energy production. Financial sponsors include NSP, USDA, EPRI, and DOE.

Go to Biomass start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies

Solar Thermal

Solar thermal electric generation systems provide a wide spectrum of environmentally clean, modular, distributed, and short construction time options to utilities. Nine parabolic trough Solar Electric Generation Systems (SEGS) with over 350 MW of capacity were brought on-line during the 1980s, saving the energy equivalent of 2.3 million barrels of oil per year.

Power Tower (formerly known as central receiver) solar technology offers the potential of electric generation in the Southwest with no emissions of greenhouse gases and minimal water requirements. It also offers dispatchability and high levels of availability including nighttime hours because of molten salt storage technology. Scheduled operation (1995-1998) of the 10 MW Solar Two molten salt storage power tower effort will verify and document the technical and economic performance of the technology.

Field test results indicate parabolic dish/engine systems will be cost-competitive during the last half of the 1990s for distributed applications; DOE is developing 25 kW systems for grid-connected applications and 7.5 kW systems for off-grid/remote sites.

Go to Solar Thermal start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

Technology readiness -- the technology is considered mature for solar thermal trough designs but is only entering or approaching the demonstration stage for power tower molten salt storage and dish/engine systems.
Regional nature of insolation suitable for solar thermal applications (some regions are not favored with good solar opportunities).
Lack of utility experience with solar thermal technology.
Reliability problems with high temperature requirements and corrosive effects on solar mirrors.
Seasonal and diurnal variations. Storage or back-up power source is needed to insure dispatchability.
Costs per kWh produced by stand-alone solar thermal sources are currently higher than with conventional sources.
Production tax credits and other buy-down mechanisms to reduce first costs are not available to all parties.

Go to Solar Thermal start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

Utility participation in cost-share programs such as the Solar Two molten salt power tower and utility-scale dish/engine projects.
Use design and technical assistance offered by DOE's Sandia National Laboratories Design Assistance Center.

Partnerships:

DOE, EPRI, NREL Tom Williams (303) 231-7122, Sandia National Laboratories Craig Tyner (505) 844-3340 and other National Laboratories, universities, utilities, and equipment manufacturers, Solar Two Commercialization Advisory Board (Larry Papay, Solar Two CAB Chairman), Solar Dish Utility Collaborative (SDUC) contact Don Osborn at (916) 732-6679, SEIA - Mac Moore, (202) 383-2600.

Case Studies:

Solar Two molten salt power tower consortium of utilities and DOE.
LUZ technology 355 MW parabolic trough installations in California.
DOE-sponsored Utility Scale and Remote Scale Joint Venture Programs for 25 kW and 7.5 kW dish/engine systems.
LUZ; Solar Trough Technology contact Greg Kolb, Sandia, (505) 844-1887.
Dish/Stirling Demonstration Program; SAIC/Cummins.
West Texas Utilities' installation of Dish Stirling technology at Fort Davis, Texas.

Go to Solar Thermalstart.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies

Waste Fuels

The nation's municipal solid waste (MSW) - the garbage and refuse from households, commercial buildings, and institutions, (e.g., schools and hospitals) - is a renewable source of energy that could provide over two quadrillion Btus (Quads) of low-carbon energy per year, potentially replacing fossil fuels.

In addition, the billions of tons of wastes currently buried in municipal landfills is biologically decaying and releasing large quantities of greenhouse active methane. The Argonne National Laboratory has estimated that 0.5 Quads of this methane could be practicably recovered and converted into electricity.

MSW may be processed to yield a higher Btu, lower ash, refuse-derived fuel (RDF) which can be used in variety of boilers.

For other options related to waste fuels, see the "Coal Mine Methane Recovery," "Landfill Methane Energy Recovery," and "Waste Heat Utilization" options.

Go to Waste Fuels start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Barriers:

The public resists siting of MSW generators ("not-in-my-backyard" concerns).
Proximity to a major, long-term source of MSW is necessary.
Conventional technologies require high tipping fees.
Liability issues regarding potential toxicity of air emissions and waste by-products.
For RDF, higher cost of fuel compared to conventional fossil fuels, such as coal.
State MSW regulations may limit generator capacity and impose restrictive siting criteria.

Go to Waste Fuels start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

Cooperative efforts between utilities, waste disposal firms/landfill operators, and municipal governments.
Involvement of regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and the public in the siting, design, and permitting of facilities.
Research into waste gasification and other RDF technologies.
Demonstration of drying, pelletizing, and gasification of municipal sewage sludge.
Petitioning regulators for treatment of high-quality RDF as equivalent to coal for licensing.

Go to Waste Fuels start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

DOE, utilities, waste disposal firms/landfill operators, and municipalities.

Case Studies:

Northern States Power MSW processing and RDF-firing systems (3,400 TPD).
SEMASS Project, Rochester, MA waste to energy.
Hennepin Energy Resource Center, Minneapolis (1,000 TPD).
New England Power (NEES) "Total Solid Waste Management" project in Shirley, Massachusetts. This is a project selected via NEES' "Green RFP" solicitation.
NEES/Noell potential biogasification demonstration project with South Essex Sewage District.

HYDROPOWER

Hydroelectric plants convert the potential energy of stored (or impounded) water into electric energy. During operation, they do not generate greenhouse gas emissions. Typically, at conventional hydroelectric plants, water is released from a reservoir (created by a dam on a river) through hydraulic turbines and discharged to the river downstream. To the extent a hydroelectric plant's reservoir is sufficiently large relative to the flow of the river, that plant can be operated as a peaking plant by controlling the release of water to concentrate generation in peak load periods.

A special type of hydroelectric plant, called pumped storage, recycles the water used for power generation between an upper and a lower reservoir. Typically, low-cost off-peak electricity is used to pump water to an upper reservoir where it is stored as potential energy; the water is returned during peak load periods to produce high-value electric energy. Pumped storage projects are net consumers of energy in that for every one kWh of energy generated during peak periods, more than one kWh of off-peak energy is required for pumping. However, a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can be realized with pumped storage when the fuel providing electricity for pumping has a lower carbon content (or no carbon content as in the case of wind energy or nuclear power) than the fuel being displaced by the pumped storage generation.

Hydropower is currently the primary source for electricity produced by renewable energy in the U.S., providing more than 95 percent of the nation's renewable energy, and is the most mature, well-developed such technology. It also accounts for a little over 10 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. Hydropower, including pumped storage, represents about 12 percent of the U.S. electrical capacity (approximately 92,000 MW). On a national average basis, to replace the electricity generated by hydropower would result in an annual emissions increase of approximately 38 MMt of carbon.

There is potential to add clean, domestically-produced hydroelectric capacity to the U.S. energy mix through:

maintaining or increasing hydropower generation at existing generating plants;

increasing hydropower capacity at existing impoundments;

developing new hydropower sites; and

improving pumped storage efficiency.

Go to Waste Fuels start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies Hydropower

Maintain or Increase Hydropower Generation at Existing Generating Plants

This option is to maintain or increase hydropower generation of electricity at existing generating plants can be accomplished by modernizing and upgrading turbines and generators to increase their efficiency and/or electrical output. Increasing the energy production from hydro generating plants can result in a reduction in the operation of fossil-fired plants and therefore a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Increases in environmental and natural resource legislation and regulations in the past thirty years have reduced the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) ability to effectively manage the licensing process.

Concern by various state agencies and environmental groups which may consider the impact on river and stream ecology from dam and reservoir operations to be problematic. Pressure on FERC by these agencies, groups, and court decisions to increase non-power flows.

Electric Consumers Protection Act of 1986 provisions indicate that both power and non-power aspects must receive equal consideration in determining the best use of the water resource. Non-power aspects can be ambiguous and difficult to quantify, and resolution could delay development.

Reopeners If FERC reopens existing licenses and imposes environmental, recreational, historical, or other conditions during the license term, the facilities are exposed to reduced capacity or increased costs at any time during the license period. This causes the economic projections for projects to be highly uncertain and jeopardizes financing of efficiency or capacity improvement projects at existing hydroelectric facilities.

Changes in generating equipment at FERC-licensed projects involve amending the license. Obtaining an amendment can be a costly and time-consuming process if non-generation issues must be addressed in the amendment.

Small incremental gains in capacity, efficiency, and energy production through modernization and upgrading of turbines and generators may not be enough to justify the cost of facility upgrades.

Go to Hydropower start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Solutions:

Engage in information exchange and consumer education which highlight the energy, environmental, and recreational benefits of hydro, the reasons for retaining hydro generation, and the implications of new operating conditions or restrictions.
Work with DOE Hydropower Program, National Hydropower Association, and others, to develop "environmentally friendly" hydro turbines.
Use results of DOE environmental mitigation studies.
Non-capacity license amendments.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

Simplify and moderate rules and regulations affecting the hydropower industry (both existing and potential new initiatives such as the upcoming Federal Clean Water Act Reauthorization).
Establish alternatives to run-of-river requirements so that hydro can support peaking power requirements.
Provide economic incentives for hydro development similar to those available for other renewable resources.

Go to Hydropower start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Partnerships:

DOE Paul Carrier, Office of Electricity and Generating Fuels Policy for Hydropower Policy and Regulation, (202) 586-5659; Ron Loose, Director, Wind, Hydro, Ocean Technology Division for Hydropower R&D, (202) 586-8086.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: Peggy Brookshire, (208) 526-1403.
National Hydro Association: Linda Church Ciocci, (202) 383-2530.

Case Studies:

Tennessee Valley Authority hydro modernization program.
American Electric Power hydro modernization program:
The pump-turbine upgrade program being undertaken at the jointly owned (Jersey Central Power & Light/Public Service Electric & Gas) Yards Creek Station consists of replacement of the runners, wicket gates, and associated components, along with other modifications, to improve efficiency, capacity, performance, regulating capability, and longevity. The upgrade of the first unit completed in 1993 increased the unit's capacity by 20 MW and its cycle efficiency by 9 percent. Similar results are expected for the upgrades of the other two units planned for completion in 1995 and 1996.
The Seneca pump-turbines owned by Pennsylvania Electric and Cleveland Electric Illuminating were upgraded in 1991-92 to improve efficiency, capacity, performance, and longevity. The capacity rating increases totaled 49 MW and cycle efficiency improved by approximately 10 percent for each of the two units.
The proposed York Haven Units 7 and 8 replacement project being undertaken by Metropolitan Edison involves installation of a single modern unit in the place of two 1905-vintage machines. A combined capacity increase of nearly 65 percent and an efficiency increase on the order of 20 percent are expected. Application has been made to FERC for a non-capacity license amendment.

Go to Hydropower start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies Hydropower

Increase Hydropower Capacity at Existing Impoundments

This option is to increase generation of electricity by building new hydro generating units at existing impoundments that have not been fully developed. Increasing energy production from existing impoundments can result in decreased operation of fossil fuel generation.

Increases in environmental and natural resource legislation and regulations in the past thirty years have reduced FERC's ability to effectively manage the licensing process.

Concern by various state agencies and environmental groups who consider the impact on river and stream ecology from dam and reservoir operations to be problematic.

Incremental gains in capacity and energy production may not be enough to justify the cost of increasing capacity at existing impoundments.

The high cost for installing fish protection devices that may be required if capacity is added.

Complex and time-consuming licensing process.

Rising and falling reservoir levels for peaking plants.

Solutions:

Engage in information exchange and consumer education which highlights the energy, environmental, and recreational benefits of hydro, the reasons for retaining hydro generation and the implications of new operating conditions or restrictions.
Work with DOE Hydropower Program, National Hydropower Association, and others, to develop "environmentally friendly" hydro turbines.
Use results of DOE environmental mitigation studies.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

Simplify and moderate rules and regulations affecting the hydropower industry (both existing and potential new initiatives such as the Federal Clean Water Act Reauthorization).
Reduce relicensing uncertainty by facilitating greater local, state, and Federal coordination in the relicensing process so that a cooperative resolution of issues can be accomplished.
Provide economic incentives for hydro development similar to those available for other renewable resource projects.

Partnerships:

DOE Paul Carrier, Office of Electricity and Generating Fuels Policy for Hydropower Policy and Regulation, (202) 586-5659; Ron Loose, Director, Wind, Hydro, Ocean Technology Division for Hydropower R&D, (202) 586-8086.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: Peggy Brookshire, (208) 526-1403.
National Hydro Association: Linda Church Ciocci, (202) 383-2530.

Case Studies:

New York Power Authority Robert Moses Plant.
Tennessee Valley Authority capacity addition at Chickamauga and Nickajack reservoirs.

Go to Increase Hydropower Capacity start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies Hydropower

Develop New Hydropower Sites

Increase generation of electricity by building new hydro capacity at new sites. Although the majority of large conventional hydropower sites have been developed, the FERC reports that the estimated conventional undeveloped hydroelectric power resource in the U.S. is over 73,000 MW. However, there are many legal, regulatory, and social barriers, as well as economic disincentives, which have to be addressed in order to develop these resources.

Increases in environmental and natural resource legislation and regulations in the past thirty years have reduced FERC's ability to effectively manage the licensing process.

Construction of a new hydroelectric facility and associated impoundment structures requires a license from FERC and sometimes permits from other regulatory agencies. Obtaining a license is costly and time-consuming and requires addressing many non-generation issues.

Concern by various state agencies and environmental groups which consider the effect on river and stream ecology from dam and reservoir operations to be problematic.

Run-of-river flow requirements.

Classification of rivers as unsuitable for development.

The high cost of installing fish protection devices that may be required for licensing.

Flooding of land alters the eco-system.

Scattered authority among various Federal and state agencies to issue authorizations and conduct environmental reviews of each hydro proposal.

Mercury uptake.

Rising and falling reservoir levels for peaking plants.

New hydro development is capital-intensive and would likely have difficulty competing with less costly energy production alternatives (e.g., gas turbines).

Solutions:

Information exchange and consumer education which highlights the energy, environmental, and recreational benefits of hydro, the reasons for retaining hydro generation, and the implications of new operating conditions or restrictions.
Support development of new, environmentally friendly turbines and environmental mitigation techniques.

Industry-proposed solutions requiring legislative, policy, or regulatory action.

Simplify and moderate rules and regulations affecting the hydropower industry (both existing and potential new initiatives such as the Federal Clean Water Act Reauthorization).
Establish alternatives to run-of-river requirements so that hydro can support peaking power requirements.
Provide economic incentives for hydro development similar to those available for other renewable resource projects.
Reduce licensing uncertainty by facilitating greater local, state, and Federal coordination in the relicensing process so that a cooperative resolution of issues can be accomplished.

Partnerships:

DOE Paul Carrier, Office of Electricity and Generating Fuels Policy for Hydropower Policy and Regulation, (202) 586-5659; Ron Loose, Director, Wind, Hydro, Ocean Technology Division for Hydropower R&D, (202) 586-8086.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: Peggy Brookshire, (208) 526-1403.
National Hydro Association: Linda Church Ciocci, (202) 383-2530.

Case Studies:

Pennsylvania Electric Company has entered into contracts for the purchase of 25 MW of hydroelectric power at two non-utility generator hydroelectric facilities.

Go to Develop New Hydropower Sites start.
Return to Table of Contents.

Option Category:

Renewable Energy Generation Technologies Hydropower

Improve Pumped-Storage Efficiency

Upgrading equipment and changes in operation and maintenance practices can be used to increase the output of pumped-storage plants, allowing them to be more productive. Increased efficiency means that less electricity will be needed for the pumping mode or more will be produced in the generating mode or both. To the extent that these actions displace or reduce fossil-fired generation, there can be a net reduction in emissions of both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases.