Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Open energy system models wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Long-Term Solutions to the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem in the Columbia River Basin JISAO Climate Impacts Group and the Department of Civil Engineering University of Washington December, 2000 Alan F. Hamlet Jeffrey Payne Dennis P. Lettenmaier Richard Palmer Hydrological Characteristics of the Columbia Basin Avg Naturalized Flow 600000 Flow (cfs) 500000 400000 300000 200000 Flows Originating in Canada The Dalles Elevation (m) Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Oct 0 Nov 100000 Columbia River Basin and System of Dams and Reservoirs Included in ColSim Model Storage Reservoirs Run-of-River Dams A Brief Overview of the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem Effects of Channel Development on Streamflow •Small X-sec area •High flow velocity •Short travel time •Cold temperature Natural River Channel •Large X-sec area •Low flow velocity •Long travel time •Warmer temperature Reservoir Pool Trends in Regulated Peak Flow at The Dalles Completion of Major Dams (Columbia River Treaty 1964) 2001 Natural Variability Compared to Effects of Regulation 1990 Level Regulated Flow Effects of Climate Variability and Operating System Design Effects of Natural Variability for Status Quo 100 95 Reliability (%) 90 All Years Warm PDO/El Niño Warm PDO/Neutral Warm PDO/La Niña Cool PDO/El Niño Cool PDO/Neutral Cool PDO/La Niña 85 80 75 70 Firm Energy Non-Firm Energy McNary Flow Snake Irrigation LakeRoosevelt Recreation System Objective Effects of Natural Variability for Fish Flow Alternative 100 95 Reliability (%) 90 All Years Warm PDO/El Niño Warm PDO/Neutral Warm PDO/La Niña Cool PDO/El Niño Cool PDO/Neutral Cool PDO/La Niña 85 80 75 70 Firm Energy Non-Firm Energy McNary Flow Snake Irrigation System Objective LakeRoosevelt Recreation Potential Effects of Climate Change Potential Long-Term Effects of Climate Change April 1 Snow Extent Estimated Range of Natural Flow With 2040’s Warming Current 20th Century Natural Flows ~2045 Why Doesn’t the Status Quo Provide a Very Good Balance Between Fish Flows and Hydro? •The flow needed to provide sufficient velocity is frequently higher than natural flow, particularly in late summer (I.e. use of storage is required). •Currently very little storage is allocated to fish in comparison with hydropower. Hydro storage 40000 System Storage (kAF) 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 Fish flow storage 5000 0 1 •In a conflict between hydro and fish, the operating system is designed to protect hydro (fish allocation is at the top of pool and same storage is available to hydro system) •The Columbia River Treaty does not provide explicitly for summer flow in the U.S. (transboundary issues). Compare with guaranteed winter releases associated with flood control. Exploring Some Alternatives to the Status Quo Typical Energy Load Shape Prior to Wholesale Deregulation and Proposed Changes to Benefit Fish 12000 More Here 10000 Average MW 8000 Non-Firm Firm 6000 Total 4000 Less Here 2000 Align Spot Sales with Fish Flows 0 oct nov dec jan feb mar apr Month may jun jul aug sep Design of Experimental Reservoir Operating Rule •Continue to provide a portion of current “firm” energy resources to help meet local energy demand (a range of values), but shift significant energy production to summer by allocating more storage to fish flows. •Permit non-firm energy production only when conjunctive with summer fish flow needs or other local system objectives. •Fish and hydro have same storage allocation and share the same resources. Energy Marketing Assumptions Firm energy assumed to be marketed at = $25.0 per MW-hr Spot Market Prices and Cost of Buyback: Month Average Energy Price ($ per MW-hr) Aug 39.7 Sep 32.5 Oct 26.2 Nov 32.6 Dec 33.2 Jan 28.3 Feb 27.2 Mar 25.8 Apr 18.3 May 16.8 Jun 21.0 July 29.0 Simulated Performance of Alternatives for Historic Flows (100% Active Storage Available for Fish Flows) Change in Firm + Spot Market Revenues Relative to Status Quo Change in Energy Revenue (million $/yr) 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target 0.6 * Firm Additional Cost Assuming PNW Energy Shortfalls Must be Bought Back at Spot Market Prices Cost of Replacement Energy (million $/yr) 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target 0.6 Estimated Replacement Capacity (MW) Estimate of Maximum Capacity Requirement for Replacement Energy Source (Highest Hydro Capacity Shortfall) 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target Reliability of Hydro and McNary Fish Flows 102.00 Reliability of Objective (%) 100.00 98.00 96.00 94.00 92.00 90.00 Firm Reliability 88.00 Mcnary Reliability 86.00 84.00 1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target 0.6 * Firm Simulated Performance Under Climate Change Average Monthly Deficit for McNary Instream Target (cfs) Reductions in Supportable Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming) 120,000.00 Control 100,000.00 Status Quo 3.30 Increasing storage allocation for fish flows 4.30 80,000.00 60,000.00 6.00 8.30 33.30 40,000.00 20,000.00 April May June July August Change in Average Annual Hydropower Revenue -$4,000,000.00 Increasing storage allocation for fish flows 200,000 -$14,000,000.00 -$24,000,000.00 160,000 -$34,000,000.00 120,000 -$44,000,000.00 80,000 -$54,000,000.00 40,000 -$64,000,000.00 -$74,000,000.00 Status Quo 3.3 4.3 6 8.3 33.3 Storage allocation for fish flows (MAF) Average Seasonal Deficit at McNary (volume, cfs*month) 240,000 Conclusions •Allocating more storage for fish flows and aligning energy production in summer with fish flow targets is shown to strongly increase the reliability of McNary fish flows to almost 100% for the observed climate. •Energy revenues would be essentially unaltered (modest increases) despite reductions in “firm” energy production. •Significant reductions in energy capacity are likely to accompany reallocation of hydro storage to fish flows (Need to assess current and future sources of alternate capacity). •Replacement capacity requirements are lowered when firm energy targets are decreased. •Increasing storage allocation for fish over time may help reduce vulnerability of fish to reductions in summer flow that may accompany climate change. Supportable Firm Energy (% of Control Climate Firm Energy) Reductions in Firm Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming) Increasing storage allocation for fish flows PCM Control 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% PCM [2070-98] Status Quo Instream Allocation (2.30) 3.30 4.32 6.00 8.34 Allocation for Instream Targets (MAF) Total Upper Columbia Storage (33.30)