Pumped Storage Hydro Under Study in Blair County

[UncleShorty]

http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2017/06/power-facilities-planned-for-blair/

Tail waters might not be feasible. But for me it's an open question until it's answered.

Also, the projects will be introducing a lot of water into the Little J. What's that impact.

I'm all for renewable energy. But cutting down the forest might be worse for the environment than building reservoirs. I wanna hear both sides of the story. We need to be informed so we can make the right decision for our kids and grandkids,

The below is my response to the article.


I have two questions:

What is the proposed discharge temperature of water flowing into local streams and rivers?
Will these reservoirs be bottom discharge?

If the reservoirs are top discharge, like those along old Rt. 22 the water will be warm and could adversely impact the local fishery, including the Little J.

However, if they are designed for bottom discharge the water will be colder. If cold enough, a wild, sustainable trout fishery could develop in the reservoir tail waters. That would bring year round economic benefits to the area.

There are a lot of questions and concerns to be addressed and no concrete has yet been poured.

As project development continues I hope that all ideas and concerns will get a fair and thoughtful hearing.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

LJRA, blair conservation district and other entities are following closely. A few thoughts.
The construction of the wind farm necessitated creation of crude switchback roads and much deforestation. During heavy rains sediment is generated and warmer water flows into tribs of the J. I can image such a large project would increase the amount already present.

Discharge. This is a "closed" system. It would not result in releases other than if the upper reservoir capacity is exceeded. I don't foresee a tailwater fishery. However, here is the problem. It really isn't a closed system. unknown (millions?) of gallons are lost to seepage and evaporation. Guess when this would be greatest? Of course during the summer and dry spells. So, they will be taking critical water from the watershed when the J needs it most.

Here's another question. So what happens if in 5-10 years the company goes bankrupt or decides its no longer profitable? A scarred hillside is left behind. With no or little maintenance what will be the impact? Sort of like the way mines are abandoned. We are wiser to this now, but we are still vulnerable to this.

These types of systems has been in place for years, i believe more so in europe. The problem is the differences in geography make it difficult to predict what will happen here.

Its complicated. We need energy. What we need to do is reduce the impact of its generation on the environment.

 

[UncleShorty]

We are in total agreement. There's a long way to go before important questions have answers.. And there ate a lot of issues to be settled.

Your point about bankruptcy needs an extra special look. About 15 years ago the company I worked for looked at pumped storage. We worked concepts off and on for five years.

We couldn't make it pay.

So I wonder what's changed to make it attractive now.

There will always be discharge from the lower reservoir. The original stream/river flow causes that. But would that flow be cold enough and of sufficient volume to create a tail water? That remains to be seen.

You don't get something for nothing. These projects are in the early feasibility stage. The people of PA are a long way from having enough answers to make an informed decision.

It's time to start asking for answers to the important issues you and others raise.

 

[WILDBROOKIE]

this project is on top of a mountain and on the side hollow very steep terain

 

[nymphingmaniac]

looks like there are more under development affecting other areas of PA

http://www.paenvironmentdigest.com/newsletter/?NewsletterArticleID=39751

 

[troutbert]

Why do they not do pumped storage using the 3 huge existing impoundments on the lower Susquehanna?

Is there some technical reason why that would not work?

 

[evw659]

Why do they not do pumped storage using the 3 huge existing impoundments on the lower Susquehanna?

Is there some technical reason why that would not work?

Just speculation, but I would guess there is nowhere near enough elevation drop from a proposed upper reservoir to proposed lower one around where those reservoirs are on the lower susky. I don't know exactly how much elevation drop is necessary (it probably varies from location to location), but I know they need to be able to generate a lot of power quickly and on demand and the more hydraulic head you have, the better. It's no surprise they are looking at the Allegheny front though, steep elevations changes of 600' or more are common all along it.

 

[troutbert]

evw659 wrote:

Why do they not do pumped storage using the 3 huge existing impoundments on the lower Susquehanna?

Is there some technical reason why that would not work?

Just speculation, but I would guess there is nowhere near enough elevation drop from a proposed upper reservoir to proposed lower one around where those reservoirs are on the lower susky. I don't know exactly how much elevation drop is necessary (it probably varies from location to location), but I know they need to be able to generate a lot of power quickly and on demand and the more hydraulic head you have, the better. It's no surprise they are looking at the Allegheny front though, steep elevations changes of 600' or more are common all along it.

The elevation drop is less at Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo but it's enough that they generate a lot of electricity there now. And the volumes of water are orders of magnitude larger than they would have building reservoirs in these small drainages.

And the dams and reservoirs are already there. All that would be required is the pumps and some pipe. No land acquisition cost, and no dam building, and not even generators purchase. And no devastation of the landscape.

There must be some reason why this wouldn't work, but I can't figure out what it is. They built the Muddy Run pumped storage project many years ago. Why did they do that rather than simply pumping water from the lower impoundments on the river back up to the upper impoundments?

 

[salmonoid]

troutbert wrote:

evw659 wrote:

Why do they not do pumped storage using the 3 huge existing impoundments on the lower Susquehanna?

Is there some technical reason why that would not work?

Just speculation, but I would guess there is nowhere near enough elevation drop from a proposed upper reservoir to proposed lower one around where those reservoirs are on the lower susky. I don't know exactly how much elevation drop is necessary (it probably varies from location to location), but I know they need to be able to generate a lot of power quickly and on demand and the more hydraulic head you have, the better. It's no surprise they are looking at the Allegheny front though, steep elevations changes of 600' or more are common all along it.

The elevation drop is less at Safe Harbor, Holtwood, and Conowingo but it's enough that they generate a lot of electricity there now. And the volumes of water are orders of magnitude larger than they would have building reservoirs in these small drainages.

And the dams and reservoirs are already there. All that would be required is the pumps and some pipe. No land acquisition cost, and no dam building, and not even generators purchase. And no devastation of the landscape.

There must be some reason why this wouldn't work, but I can't figure out what it is. They built the Muddy Run pumped storage project many years ago. Why did they do that rather than simply pumping water from the lower impoundments on the river back up to the upper impoundments?

They generate electricity at the lower Susky dams, but it's not a "burstable" generation. With pumped storage, you get a quick, on-demand generation capability, that can supplement your background generation capabilities, and you need the steep elevation to do that. You also have no control over the flow rates in the river itself, whereas you have full control over a small pumped storage reservoir.

Conowingo generates 573MW at peak production. Pumping more water upstream into Conowingo Pond won't help you generate a single more MW if the river is already flowing at 85,000cfs. Muddy Run can kick in and create an additional 1000MW when it is needed.

Finally, look at the times when peak generation is needed (usually demand is in the summer time). Look at the flow rate of the Susky during the summer. Median over the summer is between 10,000 and 20,000 cfs, so you're already generating at well below peak capacity. Even if you were able to capture all the water below the dam and pump it back upstream, you can't stop generating electricity during the summer (people don't like brownouts) and it's too expensive to be constantly pumping the water back upstream. So you need an external reservoir to make money.

 

[UncleShorty]

A major problem with pumped storage is making it pay.

The difference between the peak and off peak wholesale price of electricity must be great enough to cover plant Operation & Maintenance costs and make a profit.

Fifteen years ago the company I worked for looked at developing pumped storage projects all over the US. We fiddled with it, off & on, for about 5 years.

We couldn't find a single project that could jump the profit hurdle.

The power price delta is worse today. I would expect the economics to be even more challenging.

It's a good idea when applied to suitable terrain. But you gots to satisfy the money boys first and foremost.

I guess we'll see...