2A 2 Perkins Alden Better Turbines Economy and Fish

8/22/2019 2A 2 Perkins Alden Better Turbines Economy and Fish

1/24

BETTER TURBINES FOR THE ECONOMY AND

FISH ALIKE

Norman Perkins Brian MurthaDoug Dixon

Workshop on Rehabilitation of HydropowerOctober 12th and 13th, 2011


2/24

Background

Turbine design/development

Potential Application

Relative costs

Summary

FISH-FRIENDLY HYDRO TURBINES

Alden Turbine


3/24

Environmental mitigation

dominanttheme 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

BACKGROUND

About 5 to 30 percent offish passing throughhydro turbines are killed

Puget Sound Energys$53 million gulper for

protecting downstreammigrating salmon


4/24

TURBINE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

1995 DOE Advanced Hydro Turbine SystemsProgram

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 fundingfor Voith model testing and final design


5/24

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 DESIGN


6/24

ALDEN TURBINE DEVELOPMENT

Biological Evaluations

Two heads (12 and 24 m)

6 species of fish (36-425 mm)

With and without wicket gates

BEP and 5 off-BEP gate settings

>40,000 fish were tested

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

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


7/24

U NITS1-32.01.51.00.50.0

VELO CITY(FT/S)FLOWSEPAR ATION

FLOWSEPAR ATION

PREDICTED FULL-SCALE

SURVIVAL

97 100 %(based on pilot scale survival data)

PREDICTED SURVIVAL RATES


8/24

Turbine runner refinement

Stay ring and stay vanes

Wicket gates

Head cover

Shafting, bearings, and seals

Model construction and testing

Ready for fabrication and installation

at selected site

Objective: Develop a robust design for

commercial application

U.S. Department of Energy awarded grant to EPRIteam to conduct final development and model testing

ALDEN TURBINE DEVELOPMENT

Final Development and Model Testing

Ready for Purchase, Deploymentand Field TestingPeak model efficiency = 92.25%

(prototype = 93.88%)


9/24

Turbine Features

Mechanical design review

indicates it is readily

implementable for a range

of applications

Performance exceeded

expectations

Thrust, runaway speed, and

pressure pulsations were

within anticipated ranges

No cavitation for the

operating conditionscorresponding to design

point

0.80

0.84

0.88

0.92

0.96

1.00

0.2 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7

Alden Turbine

Conventional Francis

Conventional MGR Kaplan

Normalized Efficiency

Normalized Power


10/24

WHERE CAN THIS TURBINE BE USED?

New development

Added capacity at existing dams

Powering existing dams withoutpower

Minimum flow releases and other

bypass systems

Not planned as modernization

turbine, but could be unit

replacement or upgrade


11/24

Alden Turbine

Applicability to Other Hydro Sites

Practical Fish Friendly Limits

Practical Sizing Limits

22 30

Current

Application

28

50

Rated Flow, [cms]

Rated Head, [m]

Practical

Application

Limits

Future

Development

Modified Current Application

325

4010

17


12/24

POTENTIAL APPLICATIONSchool Street Hydroelectric Project

Head: 28 m

Flow: 42.5 m3/s

Diameter: 3.9 m

Speed: 120 rpm

> 90% of fish entrained at hydroprojects in U.S. are < 200 mm

98.4%

83.5% for a comparable

Kaplan unit

< 50% for a comparable

Francis unit


13/24

POTENTIAL APPLICATIONPbernat Hydroelectric Project

Head: 20 mFlow: 36 m3/s

Diameter: 3.2 m

Speed: 101 rpm


14/24

POTENTIAL APPLICATIONSEnergy Gains

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Current

Conditions

Keep Existing Alden Turbine

Average AnnualEnergy

GenerationMWHRS

49,248 43,107 46,225

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

CurrentConditions

Alden Turbine

Average AnnualEnergy

GenerationMWHRS

168,569 189,607


15/24

RELATIVE COSTS

Alden Turbine

Conventional

Francis

Conventional

Kaplan

Diameter (mm) 3900 2510 2650

Power (MW) 11 11 11

Turbine 1 0.5 0.55

Generator 0.8 0.65 0.65

Installation and Comm. 0.25 0.25 0.25

Automation/ BoP 0.25 0.25 0.25

Relative Costs 2.3 1.65 1.7

Premium for Alden 39% 35%

SIZING

COSTING


16/24

RELATIVE COSTS

Offsett ing benef i ts

Less powerhouse excavation (higher turbine setting)

Generating with bypass flow (previously wasted/spilled)

Avoid O&M and capital costs for downstream fishbypass systems

True costs comparison of project components may be

less for a Alden unit than conventional Francis or

Kaplan units

ALDEN < Conv. Turbine + Fish Bypass + Lost Energy

True Cost Comparison


17/24

SUMMARY

High survival estimates: > 98%

Comparable performance: ~ 94% efficiency

Provides downstream passage while generatingpower

Reduces need for costly fish passage facilities

Next step field demonstration site

Verify field performance and gain industry and

resource agency acceptance


18/24

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


19/24

QUESTIONS?

CONTACT: Norman Perkins, Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.

[email protected], 508.829.6000 ext. 6469


20/24

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%)


21/24

Turbine Unit Sizing

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

Alden Turbine Conventional FrancisConventional MGR

Kaplan

Power, [MW] Pmax 13.6 13.6 13.6

Reference Diameter, [mm] Dref 3900 2510 2650

Rotational Speed, [rpm] Nnom 120 189.5 276.9

Number of Runner Blades Z2 3 13 5

Number of Wicket Gates Z0 14 20 24

Intake Type -Concrete Lined

Modified Full Spiral

Concrete Lined Full

Spiral

Concrete Lined Full

Spiral

Outlet Type - Elbow Draft Tube Elbow Draft Tube Elbow Draft Tube

Turbine Setting*, [ft] hs + 4.9 + 1.6 -16.4[m] +1.5 +0.5 -5


22/24

Fish Passage Survival Comparison

Alden TurbineConventional

Francis

Conventional

MGR Kaplan

Power, [MW] 13.6 13.6 13.6

Survival rate for an 8 Fish

(considering strike)98% < 50% 86%


23/24

Dewatered School Street Project forebay

Futureturbineintake

Fish guidance louver

Fish bypass

Existing turbine gatehouse


24/24

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

2A 2 Perkins Alden Better Turbines Economy and Fish

Documents

Transcript of 2A 2 Perkins Alden Better Turbines Economy and Fish