BETTER TURBINES FOR THE ECONOMY AND

FISH ALIKE

Norman Perkins

Doug Dixon

Brian Murtha

Workshop on Rehabilitation of Hydropower

October 12th and 13th, 2011

FISH-FRIENDLY HYDRO TURBINES

Background Turbine design/development Potential Application Relative costs Summary

Alden Turbine

BACKGROUND
Environmental mitigation dominant theme in U.S. and increasing interest throughout world

Projects built without appreciation of impacts Mortality of fish passing through turbines Restoration of migratory and endangered species Requires fish passage facilities and/or modifications and restrictions to operation Overall reduction in energy output Energy reductions offset by fossil projects

About 5 to 30 percent of fish passing through hydro turbines are killed

Puget Sound Energys $53 million gulper for protecting downstream migrating salmon

TURBINE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

1995 DOE Advanced Hydro Turbine Systems Program

Two turbine designs emerged: Kaplan minimum gap runner (MGR) and the Alden Turbine
MGR installed & tested in Pacific NW Alden turbine only tested at pilot-scale level

DOE Program canceled 2005

EPRI took over Alden turbines development New DOE waterpower program provided funding for Voith model testing and final design

ALDEN TURBINE DESIGN

What makes it fish friendly?

Large diameter Slow rotational speed Few blades (3) No gaps Thick leading edges on Blades Thick leading edges on vanes and gates Biological design criteria eliminated damaging shear and pressure

ALDEN TURBINE DEVELOPMENT

Biological Evaluations

Fish Length=250 mm; Blade thickness=10 mm; Velocity=7.3 m/s

Two heads (12 and 24 m) 6 species of fish (36-425 mm)

Fish Length=150 mm; Blade thickness=150 mm; Velocity=7.3 m/s

With and without wicket gates

BEP and 5 off-BEP gate settings >40,000 fish were tested

PREDICTED SURVIVAL RATES

PREDICTED FULL-SCALE SURVIVAL

97 100 %
FLOW SEPARATION VELOCITY (FT/S) UNITS 1-3

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

FLOW SEPARATION

(based on pilot scale survival data)

ALDEN TURBINE DEVELOPMENT Final Development and Model Testing

U.S. Department of Energy awarded grant to EPRI team to conduct final development and model testing
Objective: Develop a robust design for commercial application
Turbine runner refinement Stay ring and stay vanes Wicket gates Ready for Purchase, Deployment Head cover and Field Testing Shafting, bearings, and seals Peak model efficiency = 92.25% Model construction (prototype and testing = 93.88%) Ready for fabrication and installation at selected site

Turbine Features
Normalized Efficiency

1.00 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.84 0.80 0.2

Mechanical design review indicates it is readily implementable for a range of applications Performance exceeded expectations Thrust, runaway speed, and Alden Turbine pressure pulsations were Conventional Francis within anticipated ranges Conventional MGR Kaplan No cavitation for the operating conditions 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 corresponding to design Normalized Power point

WHERE CAN THIS TURBINE BE USED?

New development Added capacity at existing dams Powering existing dams without power

Minimum flow releases and other bypass systems

Not planned as modernization turbine, but could be unit replacement or upgrade

Alden Turbine Applicability to Other Hydro Sites

Rated Flow, [cms] 325 Practical Sizing Limits

Modified Current Application 50 Practical Application Limits 28 17 Current

Application

Future Development

Practical Fish Friendly Limits

Rated Head, [m] 10 22 30 40

POTENTIAL APPLICATION School Street Hydroelectric Project

98.4%

83.5% for a comparable Kaplan unit < 50% for a comparable Francis unit

Head: Flow: Diameter: Speed:

> 90% of fish entrained at hydro 28 m in U.S. are < 200 mm projects 42.5 m3/s 3.9 m 120 rpm

POTENTIAL APPLICATION
Pbernat Hydroelectric Project
Head: Flow: Diameter: Speed: 20 m 36 m3/s 3.2 m 101 rpm

POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS Energy Gains

Scenario 1 Current Conditions 2 Average Annual Energy Generation (MWHRS) 168,569 Scenario 2 Alden Turbine

189,607

Scenario 1 Current Conditions 2 Average Annual Energy Generation (MWHRS) 49,248

Scenario 2 Keep Existing

Scenario 3 Alden Turbine

43,107

46,225

RELATIVE COSTS

Diameter (mm) Power (MW) Turbine Generator Installation and Comm. Automation/ BoP Relative Costs Premium for Alden

Alden Turbine SIZING 3900 11 COSTING 1 0.8 0.25 0.25 2.3

Conventional Francis 2510 11 0.5 0.65 0.25 0.25 1.65 39%

Conventional Kaplan 2650 11 0.55 0.65 0.25 0.25 1.7 35%

RELATIVE COSTS
Offsetting benefits

Less powerhouse excavation (higher turbine setting) Generating with bypass flow (previously wasted/spilled) Avoid O&M and capital costs for downstream fish bypass systems True costs comparison of project components may be less for a Alden unit than conventional Francis or Kaplan units
True Cost Comparison
ALDEN < Conv. Turbine + Fish Bypass + Lost Energy

SUMMARY

High survival estimates: > 98%

Comparable performance: ~ 94% efficiency

Provides downstream passage while generating power

Reduces need for costly fish passage facilities Next step field demonstration site Verify field performance and gain industry and resource agency acceptance

EPRI, DOE, Funding Partners, and R&D Team

QUESTIONS?
CONTACT: Norman Perkins, Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. nperkins@aldenlab.com, 508.829.6000 ext. 6469

TURBINE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

Bonneville Project (Corps of Engineers) fish survival increased from 94 to 97% Wanapum Project (Grant County PUD) new turbine increased capacity by 14% and slightly increased survival (>97%)

Turbine Unit Sizing

Alden Turbine Power, [MW] Reference Diameter, [mm] Rotational Speed, [rpm] Number of Runner Blades Number of Wicket Gates Intake Type Outlet Type Pmax Dref Nnom Z2 Z0 hs 13.6 3900 120 3 14 Concrete Lined Modified Full Spiral Elbow Draft Tube ++1.5 4.9 Conventional Francis 13.6 2510 189.5 13 20 Concrete Lined Full Spiral Elbow Draft Tube Conventional MGR Kaplan 13.6 2650 276.9 5 24 Concrete Lined Full Spiral Elbow Draft Tube

[m] Turbine Setting*, [ft]

+0.5 + 1.6

-5 -16.4

* A negative setting implies that the runner centerline elevation is below rated tailwater

Fish Passage Survival Comparison

Alden Turbine

Conventional Francis

Conventional MGR Kaplan

Power, [MW]

13.6

13.6

13.6

Survival rate for an 8 Fish (considering strike)

98%

< 50%

86%

Existing turbine gatehouse

Future turbine intake

Fish bypass
Fish guidance louver Dewatered School Street Project forebay

Alden Turbine Hydraulic Design

Turbine runner Larger to meet fish passage criteria Slower rotational speed and reduced number of turbine blades to minimize strike

Distributor Optimized stay vane to wicket gate alignment to minimize gap Reduced number of stay vanes and wicket gates to minimize strike