INL Assessment of Natural Stream Sites for Hydroelectric Dams in the Pacific NW Regio

Intense

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2009
44,907
6,786
48
Assessment of Natural Stream Sites for Hydroelectric Dams in the Pacific Northwest Region
Douglas G. Hall, INL Kristine L. Verdin, USGS Randy D. Lee, INL
March 2012


SUMMARY
Resource assessments of United States natural streams to determine the magnitude of the resource and identify opportunities for conventional hydropower development have been conducted most recently over the past 20 years and were conducted even prior to this period. During the 1990’s the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) conducted a nationwide assessment of hydropower development opportunities based primarily on sites for which a preliminary permit had been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, but were undeveloped at the time of the assessment. During the first decade of the 21st century, INL conducted a comprehensive assessment of the gross power potential of all U.S. streams, and a subsequent assessment of feasible development sites and the developable power than could be produced at those sites assuming a damless small hydropower development model.
The more recent assessments have benefitted from several technological advancements:
• Digital elevation models with 30 m resolution provided by the National Elevation Dataset (NED)
• Derivatives of the NED, Elevation Derivatives for National Applications (EDNA) that produced three dimensional hydrography with associated stream reach catchments
• Hydrologic modeling that provides the means to estimate the annual average flow rate on any stream in the 50 states
• Geographic information systems (GIS) tools that provide the means to combine geospatial data to produce new attributes while retaining the attributes of the original data.
• Development of geographic coordinates for dams listed in the Army Corps of Engineer’s National Inventory of Dams (NID) that placed each dam on its stream of residence in the high resolution hydrography provided by the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
• Addition of flow rate estimates and other attributes to the medium resolution NHD hydrography issued as the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHD Plus).
While recent assessments have provided estimates of the gross power potential of all U.S. natural streams on a reach by reach basis, and even estimates of the developable power potential of feasibly developable reaches (development sites), they did not provide basic physical project characteristics that would be required and result if a greenfield site was developed using a conventional stream obstructing dam. The Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and individual developers have taken site evaluation to this level for specific sites. The objective of the present study was to develop and demonstrate a methodology capable of comprehensively modeling sites in a large region using a stream obstructing dam development model that provides basic project characteristics including power potential, dimensions of the principal dam, the need for any auxiliary dams, the total length of the impoundment constructed boundary, and the size of the inundation area (reservoir).
vi
The individual stream reaches in Hydrologic Region 17 as defined by the medium resolution NHD as provided by NHD Plus were used as the site population to be modeled. Hydrologic Region 17 encompasses most of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The power potential of each site was estimated by combining the elevation difference between the upstream and downstream end of the reach with the unit runoff model predicted flow rate provided by NHD Plus. To obtain project physical characteristics, the modeling approach identified all points in a raster digital elevation model (DEM) having the same elevation as the upstream end of a stream reach thus defining the inundation area (reservoir) that would result from placing a stream obstructing dam at the downstream end of the reach. The height of the dam was that necessary to impound water up to the upstream end of the reach and therefore was equal to the difference in elevation between the upstream and downstream ends of the reach plus an assumed freeboard percentage. The length of the dam was determined by where its ends encountered places on the catchment boundary where the topography is of sufficient elevation to complete the impoundment boundary. Gaps in the impoundment boundary where the elevation of the topography was insufficient to contain the water in the reservoir were considered places requiring an auxiliary dam. In this pilot study, the potential project site population was limited to single stream reaches. Sites where multiple reaches could be ganged together to form larger projects is the subject of a subsequent study.
Basic project characteristics were produced for the nearly 232,000 stream reaches in Hydrologic Region 17. As an illustration of how these data can be used to define a population of candidate sites having technically reasonable characteristics, the full population was decomposed into subsets having progressively greater value for further assessment. The datasets from the successive decompositions, the number of reaches (sites) and their total capacity potential in each are shown in the following table:

http://hydropower.inel.gov/resourceassessment/pdfs/hydro-assessment2012.pdf
 
Well, as a resident of the Pacific Northwest, you know where you can put your dams. Looked through the paper. Saw several sites that had already been investigated for a dam, and found to be geologically unsuitable. Most citizens of this region prefer to have our fisheries. And we can get electricity in other ways that do not damage the fisheries. Such as wind, solar, and geothermal.
 
I spent most of the winter in that part of the country and here is my observation:
If the greedy pot growers would turn of all those thousand watt lights and move to outdoor grows a lot less power would be required.

Somebidy needs to educate those idiots about that big bright thing in the sky.

I find that entire situation hypocritical as well as environmentally insustainable.

If those indoor pot farms moved outside maybe we wouldn't need more hydrodams, windmills, solar panels or coal fired plants.

The real secret of true environmentalism is to reduce consumption.

Just my two cents.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk
 
I spent most of the winter in that part of the country and here is my observation:
If the greedy pot growers would turn of all those thousand watt lights and move to outdoor grows a lot less power would be required.

Somebidy needs to educate those idiots about that big bright thing in the sky.

I find that entire situation hypocritical as well as environmentally insustainable.

If those indoor pot farms moved outside maybe we wouldn't need more hydrodams, windmills, solar panels or coal fired plants.

The real secret of true environmentalism is to reduce consumption.

Just my two cents.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

It's about Satellite Detection and Fly Overs, silly. ;)
 
And another thing, I personally would rather have the fisheries. Salmon is grwat on the grill and doesn't bother me to eat it in the dark.
 
Well, if they would just legalize pot, you wouldn't have that problem, now, would you? Of course, when California tried that, the money from the pot growers and alcohol industry shut that down. LOL
 
So why is the Idaho National Laboratory assessing stream sites far from Idaho in the Pacific Northwest?

Because the environuts don't want BIG HYDRO.. They want cute and cuddly LITTLE HYDRO. And they're gonna march thru our virgin woodlands looking for small streams to throw electrical crap into and wired that back ---- ALLL THE WAY THRU THE WOODLANDS --- so it can power a chickenhouse...

If you or I had proposed doing this --- we'd be institutionalized by now...

But YOUR TAX DOLLARS are at work finding those sustainable, renewable sources that Obama plans on using to run our 21st Century factories...
:mad:
 
It would be okay if they made a narrow run off a river close to a waterfall where they could put in an overshot turbine. It wouldn't hurt the fishies at all. Surely there are hills in the NW where this is possible?
 
It would be okay if they made a narrow run off a river close to a waterfall where they could put in an overshot turbine. It wouldn't hurt the fishies at all. Surely there are hills in the NW where this is possible?

People who live "off the grid" have been doing this since Edison. We don't need to pretend that this is an ALTERNATIVE to a coal, or nat gas plant in the neighboring city.. And we certainly don't need HUNDREDS of these "mini-hydro" sites littering up the ecology with wires and installations in pristine streams..

IT DOES have a very negative impact on the environment compared to the recovered energy. And we certainly don't need the FEDS mapping out potential "installations" for this NEGLIBLE source of power..

Projects like this ONLY EXIST so that the Sierra Club can tell folks "they are all for expanded hydro power", as long as it's not bigger than a mailbox.. It's sad -- we're so desparate as to cooperate with destruction of the environment in this way.
 
Last edited:
Why do they call them "streams"? Nobody builds a hydroelectric dam on a freaking stream. Are they afraid to use the term river? FDR (and Hoover) got away with damming up the Colorado river because nobody gave a damn back then (no pun intended). They would never get away with it today.
 
It would be okay if they made a narrow run off a river close to a waterfall where they could put in an overshot turbine. It wouldn't hurt the fishies at all. Surely there are hills in the NW where this is possible?

People who live "off the grid" have been doing this since Edison. We don't need to pretend that this is an ALTERNATIVE to a coal, or nat gas plant in the neighboring city.. And we certainly don't need HUNDREDS of these "mini-hydro" sites littering up the ecology with wires and installations in pristine streams..

IT DOES have a very negative impact on the environment compared to the recovered energy. And we certainly don't need the FEDS mapping out potential "installations" for this NEGLIBLE source of power..

Projects like this ONLY EXIST so that the Sierra Club can tell folks "they are all for expanded hydro power", as long as it's not bigger than a mailbox.. It's sad -- we're so desparate as to cooperate with destruction of the environment in this way.


The wires can be put underground, in conduit.

Sluicing off part of a river/stream/creek would have less impact than damming it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top