Upload
jeffrey-small
View
230
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Alan F. HamletJeffrey Payne
Dennis P. LettenmaierRichard Palmer
JISAO Climate Impacts Group and the Department of Civil Engineering
University of WashingtonDecember, 2000
Long-Term Solutions to the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem in the Columbia River
Basin
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
Oct
No
v
De
c
Jan
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Jun
Jul
Au
g
Se
p
Flo
w (
cfs
)
Hydrological Characteristics of the Columbia Basin
Elevation (m)
Avg Naturalized Flow
The Dalles
Flows Originating in Canada
Columbia River Basinand System of Dams and Reservoirs Included in ColSim Model
Storage Reservoirs
Run-of-River Dams
A Brief Overview of the Salmon vs. Hydro Problem
Natural River Channel Reservoir Pool
•Small X-sec area•High flow velocity•Short travel time•Cold temperature
•Large X-sec area•Low flow velocity•Long travel time•Warmer temperature
Effects of Channel Development on Streamflow
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
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Firm Energy Non-FirmEnergy
McNary Flow Snake Irrigation LakeRooseveltRecreation
System Objective
Re
lia
bil
ity
(%)
All Years Warm PDO/El Niño Warm PDO/Neutral Warm PDO/La Niña Cool PDO/El Niño Cool PDO/Neutral Cool PDO/La Niña
Effects of Natural Variability for Status Quo
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Firm Energy Non-Firm Energy McNary Flow Snake Irrigation LakeRooseveltRecreation
System Objective
Rel
iab
ilit
y (%
) All Years
Warm PDO/El Niño
Warm PDO/Neutral
Warm PDO/La Niña
Cool PDO/El Niño
Cool PDO/Neutral
Cool PDO/La Niña
Effects of Natural Variability for Fish Flow Alternative
Potential Effects of Climate Change
Potential Long-Term Effects of Climate Change
Current
~2045
April 1 Snow Extent
20th CenturyNatural Flows
Estimated Range of Natural FlowWith 2040’s Warming
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.
•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.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
1
Sys
tem
Sto
rag
e (
kAF
) Hydro storage
Fish flow storage
Exploring Some Alternatives to the Status Quo
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep
Month
Ave
rag
e M
W Non-Firm
Firm
Total
Typical Energy Load Shape Prior to Wholesale Deregulationand Proposed Changes to Benefit Fish
Less Here
More Here
Align Spot Sales with Fish Flows
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
Month Average Energy Price ($ per MW-hr)Aug 39.7Sep 32.5Oct 26.2Nov 32.6Dec 33.2Jan 28.3Feb 27.2Mar 25.8Apr 18.3May 16.8Jun 21.0July 29.0
Firm energy assumed to be marketed at = $25.0 per MW-hr
Spot Market Prices and Cost of Buyback:
Simulated Performance of Alternatives for Historic Flows
(100% Active Storage Available for Fish Flows)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
Ch
ang
e in
En
erg
y R
ev
en
ue
(m
illio
n $
/yr)
Change in Firm + Spot Market Revenues Relative to Status Quo
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
Co
st o
f R
epla
cem
ent
En
erg
y (m
illio
n $
/yr)
Additional Cost Assuming PNW Energy Shortfalls Must be Bought Back at Spot Market Prices
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
Est
imat
ed R
epla
cem
ent
Cap
acit
y
(MW
)
Estimate of Maximum Capacity Requirement for Replacement Energy Source (Highest Hydro Capacity Shortfall)
84.00
86.00
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
1.0 * Firm 0.9 * Firm 0.8 * Firm 0.7 * Firm 0.6 * Firm
Fraction of Current Firm Energy Target
Re
lia
bil
ity
of
Ob
jec
tiv
e (
%)
Firm Reliability
Mcnary Reliability
Reliability of Hydro and McNary Fish Flows
Simulated Performance Under Climate Change
-
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
April May June July August
Av
era
ge
Mo
nth
ly D
efi
cit
fo
r M
cN
ary
Ins
tre
am
T
arg
et
(cfs
)
Control
Status Quo
3.30
4.30
6.00
8.30
33.30
Increasing storage allocationfor fish flows
Reductions in Supportable Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming)
-$74,000,000.00
-$64,000,000.00
-$54,000,000.00
-$44,000,000.00
-$34,000,000.00
-$24,000,000.00
-$14,000,000.00
-$4,000,000.00
Status Quo 3.3 4.3 6 8.3 33.3
Ch
ang
e in
Av
erag
e A
nn
ual
Hyd
rop
ow
er R
even
ue
-
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
200,000
240,000
Av
era
ge
Se
as
on
al
De
fic
it a
t M
cN
ary
(v
olu
me
, c
fs*m
on
th)
Increasing storage allocationfor fish flows
Storage allocation for fish flows (MAF)
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.
50%55%
60%65%70%75%
80%85%90%
95%100%
Status QuoInstreamAllocation
(2.30)
3.30 4.32 6.00 8.34 Total UpperColumbiaStorage(33.30)
Allocation for Instream Targets (MAF)
Su
pp
ort
able
Fir
m E
ner
gy
(% o
f C
on
tro
l C
lim
ate
Fir
m E
ner
gy)
PCM Control
PCM [2070-98]
Reductions in Firm Energy Production Under Climate Change (~2.5 C warming)
Increasing storage allocationfor fish flows