Water Power Peer Review

1. Water Power Peer Review Brennan T. Smith Oak Ridge National Laboratory smithbt@ornl.gov November 3, 2011 Hydropower Advancement Project CH 3.1.1.1

2. 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

3. 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!

4. 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

5. 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 Under revision 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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% Upgrade Wear & Tear WQ Mitigation Retrofit with hub baffle aeration 75% < h0 < 85% What about performance in terms of reliability?

9. 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.

10. Plan, Schedule, & Budget Schedule • 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

11. 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.

12. Accomplishments and Results Center Hill Assessment Demonstration • FINDINGS: • 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

13. Accomplishments and Results Rhodhiss Assessment Demonstration • FINDINGS: • 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

14. 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

15. 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